Adaptive Automation and the Third Pilot: Managing Teamwork and Workload in an Airline Cockpit

  • Joan Cahill
  • Tiziana C. Callari
  • Florian Fortmann
  • Stefan Suck
  • Denis Javaux
  • Andreas Hasselberg
  • Sybert H. Stoeve
  • Bas A. van Doorn
Conference paper
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 726)

Abstract

The objective of this paper is to present a new adaptive automation concept which offers an innovative ‘team’ centred approach to solving human factors/workload management problems. The A-PiMod concept/approach is defined by the concept of partnership – specifically, the “Third Pilot” and the crew and automation are in charge together. We are proposing partnership as opposed to dynamic changes in control function where changes can be controlled autonomously by the system. In support of this, a new multimodal concept is proposed which supports improved assessment of crew state/workload (i.e. information inputs re crew activity/interactions provides a means to communicate with the crew in relation to crew state and decision support, and allows for flexible crew/cockpit interaction).

Keywords

Adaptive automation Workload Crew state monitoring Pilot decision making Stakeholder evaluation Multimodal interaction and cockpit displays 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The research leading to these results/preliminary outcomes has received funding from the European Commission’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) under grant agreement N. 605141 - Applying Pilot Models for Safety Aircraft (A-PiMod) Project. We would like to thank member of the A-PiMod Project Team and our COP members – particularly, Paul Cullen, William Butler, Martin Duffy and Stephen Duffy.

References

  1. 1.
    Kaber, D.B., Prinzel, L.J.: Adaptive and Adaptable Automation Design: A Critical Review of the Literature and Recommendations for Future Research. NASA/TM-2006-214504 (2006)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hilburn, B.J., Byrne, E., Parasuraman, R.: The effect of adaptive air traffic control (ATC) decision aiding on controller mental workload. In: Mouloua, M., Koonce, J.M. (eds.) Human–Automation Interaction: Research and Practice, pp. 84–91. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc, Mahwah, NJ (1997)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kaber, D.B., Riley, J.M.: Adaptive automation of a dynamic control task based on secondary task workload measurement. Int. J. Cogn. Ergon. 3, 169–187 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Flight AF 447 Final Report on the accident on 1st June 2009 to the Airbus A330-203 registered F-GZCP operated by Air France flight AF 447 Rio de Janeiro (Published July 2012). Retrieved from Bureau d’Enquêtes et d’Analyses pour la sécurité de l’aviation civile (BEA), 1 June 2009. http://www.bea.aero/docspa/2009/f-cp090601.en/pdf/f-cp090601.en.pdf
  5. 5.
    Flight Spainair 5022. Final Report on the accident on 20th August 2008 involving a McDonnell Douglas DC-9-82 (MD-82) registration EC-HFP operated by Spainair at Madrid-Barajas Airport (Published 8 October 2008). Retrieved from Comisión Investigatión de Accidentes e Incidentes de Aviación Civil (CIAIAC), 20 August 2008. http://www.fomento.es/NR/rdonlyres/EC47A855-B098-409E-B4C8-9A6DD0D0969F/107087/2008_032_A_ENG.pdf
  6. 6.
    Flight Helios Airways HCY522. Final Report on the accident on 14th August 2005 involving a Boeing 737-31S registration 5B-DBY operated by Helios Airways at Grammatiko, Hellas (Published November 2006). Retrieved from Air Accident Investigation & Aviation Safety Board (AAIASB). 14 August 2005. http://www.moi.gov.cy/moi/pio/pio.nsf/All/F15FBD7320037284C2257204002B6243/$file/FINAL%20REPORT%205B-DBY.pdf
  7. 7.
    Flight China Airlines 140. Final Report on the accident on 26th April 1994 involving an Airbus Industrie A300B4-662R registration B1816 operated by China Airlines at Nagoya Airport (Published 19 July 1996). Retrieved from Aircraft Accident Investigation Commission. 26 April 1994. http://www.skybrary.aero/bookshelf/books/808.pdf
  8. 8.
    Flight Air Inter 148. Final Report on the accident on 20th January 1992 involving an Airbus A320 registration F-GGED operated by Air Inter Airlines in Vosges Mountains (near Mont Sainte-Odile). Retrieved from Bureau d’Enquêtes et d’Analyses pour la sécurité de l’aviation civile (BEA), 20 January 1992. http://www.bea.aero/docspa/1992/f-ed920120/htm/f-ed920120.html
  9. 9.
    Cahill, J., Callari, T.C.: A novel human machine interaction (HMI) design/evaluation approach supporting the advancement of improved automation concepts to enhance flight safety. In: de Waard, D., Sauer, J., Röttger, S., Kluge, A., Manzey, D., Weikert, C., Toffetti, A., Wiczorek, R., Brookhuis, K., Hoonhout, H. (Eds.). In: Proceeding of the Ergonomics Society Europe Chapter 2014 Annual Conference “Human Factors in high reliability industries”, Lisbon, Portugal. (2015a). http://www.hfes-europe.org/human-factors-high-reliability-industries-2/
  10. 10.
    Cahill, J., Callari, T.: Stakeholder involvement in evaluation: lessons learned in the A-PiMod Project. Presentation at the Annual Meeting of the Irish Ergonomics Society. Dublin, Ireland, May 2015 (2015b)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cahill, J, Callari, T. Javaux, D., Fortmann, F., Hasselberg, A. A-PiMod: a new approach to solving human factors problems with automation Paper presented at the HCI 2016 International Conference, Toronto Canada, July 2016Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Stroeve, S., Van Doorn, B.A., Cahill, J. A Safety impact quantification approach for early stage innovative aviation concepts: Application to a third pilot adaptive automation concept. Paper presented at SESAR Innovation Days, Delft, November 2016Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Wenger, E., McDermott, R.A., Snyder, W.: Cultivating Communities of Practice: A Guide to Managing Knowledge. Harvard Business Press, Boston (2002)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cousins, J.B., Whitmore, E., Shulha, L.: Arguments for a common set of principles for collaborative inquiry in evaluation. Am. J. Eval. 34(1), 7–22 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Javaux, D., Fortmann, F., Möhlenbrink, C.: Adaptive human-automation cooperation: a general architecture for the cockpit and its application in the A-PiMod project. In: Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Advanced Cognitive Technologies and Applications (COGNITIVE 2015). International Academy, Research, and Industry Association (IARIA) (2015). ISBN: 978-1-61208-390-2Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fortmann, F., Cahill, J, Callari, T. Javaux, D., Hasselberg, A. (2016). Developing a feedback system to augment pilots monitoring performance. Paper presented at 2016 IEEE International Multi-Disciplinary Conference on Cognitive Methods in Situation Awareness and Decision Support (CogSIMA), San Diego, US, 1–25 March 2016Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Joan Cahill
    • 1
  • Tiziana C. Callari
    • 1
  • Florian Fortmann
    • 2
  • Stefan Suck
    • 2
  • Denis Javaux
    • 3
  • Andreas Hasselberg
    • 4
  • Sybert H. Stoeve
    • 5
  • Bas A. van Doorn
    • 5
  1. 1.Centre for Innovative Human Systems, School of PsychologyTrinity College DublinDublin 2Ireland
  2. 2.R&D Division TransportationOFFIS – Institute for Information TechnologyOldenburgGermany
  3. 3.Symbio Concepts & Products S.P.R.LBassengeBelgium
  4. 4.Institut für FlugführungDeutsches Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt e.V. (DLR)BrunswickGermany
  5. 5.Aerospace Operations Safety InstituteNetherlands Aerospace Centre NLRAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations