Advertisement

Predicting Perceived Situation Awareness of Low Altitude Aircraft in Terminal Airspace Using Probe Questions

  • Thomas Z. Strybel
  • Kim-Phuong L. Vu
  • John P. Dwyer
  • Jerome Kraft
  • Thuan K. Ngo
  • Vanessa Chambers
  • Fredrick P. Garcia
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4550)

Abstract

The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the effectiveness of subjective and objective probe questions in predicting situation awareness as measured by the Situation Awareness Rating Technique (SART). The data for this evaluation were taken from a previous investigation in which instrument- rated pilots flew automated ILS approaches into the Dallas-Fort Worth (DFW) Airport while monitoring the status of patrol vehicles proximal to their approach path. At three points during a simulation run, pilots were administered a questionnaire containing seven questions designed to probe situation awareness. At the end of the run, SART was administered. We found that certain probe questions can predict SART scores. However, the usefulness of these probes requires that the questions be designed in conjunction with scenario development to ensure that operationally critical variables are being probed, and that sufficient variability in the responses allow assessments of relations with sufficient statistical power.

Keywords

situation awareness aviation simulation 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Endsley, M.R., Farley, T.C., Jones, W.M., Midkiff, A.H., Hansman, J.R.: Situation Awareness Information Requirements for Commercial Airline Pilots (ICAT-98-1). Mass. Inst. Tech. Intern. Cent. Air Trans. (1998)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    European Air Traffic Management Programme: The Development of Situation Awareness Measures in ATM Systems. HRS/HSP-005-REP-01 (2003)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Endsley, M.R: Toward a theory of situation awareness in dynamic systems. Human Factors 37, 32–64 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Durso, F.T., Bleckley, M.K., Dattel, A.R.: Does Situation Awareness Add to the Validity of Cognitive Tests? Human Factors 13, 721–733 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Endsley, M.R., Jones, D.G.: Situation awareness requirements analysis for TRACON air traffic control (TTU-IE-95-01). Texas Tech Univ, Lubbock, TX (1995)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rodgers, M.D., Mogford, R.H., Mogford, L.S.: The relationship of sector characteristics to operational errors, Air Traf. Cont. Quart. 5, 241–263 (1997)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gosling, G.D.: Analysis of factors affecting the occurrence and severity of air traffic control operational errors. ITS Online (2002)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Durso, F.T., Truitt, T.R., Hackworth, C.A., Crutchfield, J.M., Manning, C.A.: En route operational errors and situation awareness. Int. J. of Aviat. Psych. 8(2), 177–194 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kaber, D.B., Endsley, M.R.: The effects of level of automation and adaptive automation on human performance, situation awareness and workload in a dynamic control task. Theor. Iss. Ergon. Sci. 5, 113–153 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wickens, C.D.: Automation in air traffic control: the human performance issues. In: Scerbo, M., Mouloua (eds.) Automation technology and Human Performance: Current Research and Trends (1998)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Amalberti, R.R.: Automation in aviation: A human factors perspective. In: Garland, D.J., Wise, J.A., Hopkin, V.D. (eds.) Handbook of Aviation Human Factors, pp. 173–192. Erlbaum, New Jersey (1999)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kerns, K.: Human factors in air traffic control/flight deck integration: Implications of data-link simulation research. In: Garland, D.J., Wise, J.A., Hopkin, V.D. (eds.) Handbook of Aviation Human Factors, pp. 519–546. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah (1999)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Salmon, P., Stanton, N., Walker, G., Green, D.: Situation awareness measurement: A review of applicability for C4i environments. App. Ergon. 37, 225–238 (2006)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hallbert, B.P.: Situation awareness and operator performance: results from simulator-based studies. In: Proc. IEEE Sixth Ann. Hum. Fact. Mtg, Orlando, Florida (1997)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Taylor, R.M.: Situational awareness rating technique (SART): The development of a tool for aircrew systems design. Situational Awareness in Aerospace Operations, AGARD-CP 478, 3-1 - 3-37 (1990)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Shvaneveldt, R., Beringer, D.B., Lamonica, J., Tucker, R., Nance, C.: Priorities, Organization, and Sources of Information Accessed by Pilots in Various Phases of Flight. DOT/FAA/AM-00/26, Federal Aviation Administration (2000)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Dwyer, J.D., Strybel, T.Z., Vu, K.L.: Simulation of Multiple Uninhabited Aerial Vehicles Operating in an Airport Terminal Area. RTO-MP-HFM-135 24, 2–17 (2006)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Prevot, T.: Exploring the many perspectives of distributed air traffic management: The multi aircraft control system MACS. HCI-Aero 2002. MIT, Cambridge, MA (2002)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Canton, R., Refai, M., Johnson, W.W., Battiste, V.: Development and Integration of Human-Centered Conflict Detection and Resolution Tools for Airborne Autonomous Operations. In: Proc. 15th Intern. Symp. Aviat. Psych. Oklahoma State University (2005)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Thomas Z. Strybel
    • 1
  • Kim-Phuong L. Vu
    • 1
  • John P. Dwyer
    • 1
  • Jerome Kraft
    • 1
  • Thuan K. Ngo
    • 1
  • Vanessa Chambers
    • 1
  • Fredrick P. Garcia
    • 1
  1. 1.Center for the Study of Advanced Aeronautic Technologies, Department of Psychology, California State University, Long Beach, 1250 N. Bellflower Blvd. Long Beach, CA 90840USA

Personalised recommendations