The Benefits of Task and Cognitive Workload Support for Operators in Ground Handling

Conference paper
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 726)

Abstract

The scope of the present work is to report an action research project applied to the relationship of task and cognitive workload support on one of the most important aspects of an airport: ground handling. At the beginning of the project workload management was not in the scope of work but as the project progressed and preliminary results and feedback were gained the researcher came to realize that some form of workload management support was also achieved as a by-product. The present paper is an attempt to account for what was achieved and how. Safe and efficient ground handling during departure and arrival of an aircraft requires coordinated responsibilities amongst qualified operators collaborating together simultaneously in a time constrained environment. The context is one of medium-high workload due to the number of activities covered in a short time, such as: passenger, baggage and cargo handling, aircraft loading, the provision and use of ground support equipment, etc. This paper presents the introduction of a tool aimed at performance monitoring and task support and discusses how the use of it can play a key role in the adequate management of workload by operators in Ground Handling. The core elements of the tool under analysis are electronic checklist and digitized shift handover, and it aims at highlighting how they have impacted performance, reducing operational and human related issues.

Keywords

Performance management Safety management Cognitive workload Task support Electronic checklist Shift handover Aviation 

References

  1. 1.
    Irish Aviation Authority.: Ground Operations. (2017). https://www.iaa.ie/commercial-aviation/ground-operations. Accessed 13 Jan 2017
  2. 2.
    Stanton, N., Salmon, P., Walker, G., Baber, C., Jenkins, D.: Human Factors Methods: a Practical Guide for Engineering Design. Ashgate, Burlington, Farnham (2010)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bommer, S.C., Fendely, M.: A theoretical framework for evaluating mental workload resources in human systems design for manufacturing operations. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. (2016)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    DiDomenico, A., Nussbaum, M.: Effects of different physical workload parameters on mental workload and performance. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 41(3), 255–260 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Embrey, D., Blackett, C., Marsden, P., Peachey, J.: Development of a human cognitive workload assessment tool. Dalt. Hum. Reliab. Assoc. (2006)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Meyer, D., Kieras, D.: A computational theory of executive cognitive processes and multiple-task performance: part 1. Basic Mech. Psychol. Rev. 104, 3–65 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ackerman, P.L.: Determinants of individual differences during skill acquisition: cognitive abilities and information processing. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 117, 288–318 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Borkowski, J.G., Burke, J.E.: Theories, models, and measurements of executive functioning: an information processing perspective. In: Lyon, G.R., Krasnegor, N.A. (eds.). Attention, Memory, and Executive Function, pp. 235–261 (1996)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Leva, M.C., Kay, A.M., Mattei, F., Kontogiannis, T., Ambroggi, M., Cromie, S.: A dynamic task representation method for a virtual reality application. In: Harris, D. (ed.) EPCE 2009. LNCS, vol. 5639, pp. 32–42. Springer, Heidelberg (2009). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-02728-4_4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    National Transportation Safety Board.: Aircraft accident report, NTSB/AAR-88/05. Washington, DC (1988) https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Pages/AAR8805.aspx. Accessed 2 Feb 2017
  11. 11.
    Degani, A., Wiener, E.L.: The Human Factors of Flight-Deck Checklists: The Normal Checklist (NASA contractor report 177549). NASA Ames Research Center, Mountain (1990). ViewMoffett Field, CAGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    British Petroleum.: Fatal Accident Investigation report – Isomerization Unit Explosion Final Report –Texas City, Texas, USA (2005)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    The Health and Safety Executive.: Reducing Error and Influencing Behaviour. (2003). http://antarisconsulting.com/docs/guides/unit_a/A7_HSG48_Reducing_Error_and_Influencing_Behaviour.pdf. Accessed 19 Jan 2017
  14. 14.
    Aviation Safety Reporting System.: NASA. Callback, a checklist, issue 428. (2017). https://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/publications/callback.html. Accessed 17 Jan 2017
  15. 15.
    Longo, L.: Designing medical interactive systems via assessment of human mental workload. In: Proceedings of the 2015 IEEE 28th International Symposium on Computer Based Medical Systems, CBMS 2015, pp. 364–365. (2015) doi. 10.1109/CBMS.2015.67
  16. 16.
    Leva, M.C., Naghdali F., Balfe, N., Gerbec, M., Demichela, M.: Remote risk assessment: a case study using SCOPE software. Chem. Eng. Trans. (43) (2015)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Leva, M.C., Sordo, D., Mattei, F.: Performance management in a small regional airport: the role of change in the day to day task support for an integrated SMS. J. Cogn. Technol. Work Arch. 17(2), 237–248 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    ICAO.: Safety Management Manual (SMM) Doc 9859 AN/474. (2017) http://www.icao.int/safety/SafetyManagement/Documents/Doc.9859.3rd%20Edition.alltext.en.pdf. Accessed 31 Jan 2017
  19. 19.
    Airport Council International Airport Benchmarking To Maximise Efficiency. Published By ACI World Headquarters Geneva – Switzerland (2006)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Pransky, G., Snyder, T., Dembe, A., Himmelstein, J.: Under-reporting of work-related disorders in the workplace: a case study and review of the literature. Ergonomics 42, 171–182 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Clancy, P., Leva, M.C.: Hrymak, V., Sherlock, M.: Safety and or hazard near miss reporting in an international energy company. In: Proceedings of the Irish Ergonomics Society Annual Conference 2011 Edited by Leonard W. O’Sullivan and Chiara Leva (2011). ISSN: 1649-210 2011Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Leva, M.C., Cahill, J., Kay, A., Losa, G.: Mc Donald, N.: The advancement of a new human factors report – ‘the unique report’ - facilitating flight crew auditing of performance/operations, as part of an airline’s safety management system. Ergonomics 53(2), 164–183 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kotter, J.P.: Leading change: why transformation efforts fail. Harvard Bus. Rev. 73(2), 59–67 (1995)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hart, S.G., Staveland, L.E.: Development of NASA-TLX (task load index): results of empirical and theoretical research. In: Hancock, P.A., Najmedin, M. (eds.) Human Mental Workload (PDF), pp. 139–183. Advances in Psychology. North Holland, Amsterdam (1988). doi: 10.1016/S0166-4115(08)62386-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Longo, L.: A defeasible reasoning framework for human mental workload representation and assessment. Behav. Inf. Technol. 34(8), 758–786 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Rizzo, L., Dondio, P., Delany, S.J., Longo, L.: Modeling mental workload via rule-based expert system: a comparison with NASA-TLX and workload profile. In: Iliadis, L., Maglogiannis, I. (eds.) AIAI 2016. IAICT, vol. 475, pp. 215–229. Springer, Cham (2016). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-44944-9_19 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Environmental ScienceDublin Institute of TechnologyDublinIreland
  2. 2.Tosca Solutions Ltd.DublinIreland

Personalised recommendations