Between Game and Reality: Using Serious Games to Analyze Complex Interaction Processes in Air Traffic Management

Conference paper
Part of the Translational Systems Sciences book series (TSS, volume 9)

Abstract

In 2010 the eruption of the Icelandic volcano Eyjafjallajökull paralyzed a large part of the European air traffic. Results were massive restrictions in the European and intercontinental air traffic. Even after canceling the aircraft grounding, airport operators, airlines, air traffic controllers, and ground handlers had to deal with the situation that the aircraft and crews were not in the places where they should have been for the correct execution of the flight plan. To be able to guarantee the most efficient air traffic, the relevant stakeholders had to cooperate. Divergent goals and interests can significantly affect a solution. Therefore this cooperative coordination is difficult. It is visible that the process of decision-making, especially in the context of air traffic management (ATM), must be investigated. Human interactions during negotiations and human performance in planning activities should be analyzed. These aspects are difficult to measure with conventional methods of real- or fast-time simulations. Serious gaming is a new method in this research field to validate complex operational concepts in the ATM field. For this a paper-based multiplayer serious game, called Total Airport Management Simulation, was developed. The aim of this paper is to illustrate the further development of this paper-based version. In the first section, the paper-based serious game with its main ideas is presented. Based on conducted tests of the serious game, requirements for the digital prototype were deduced. In the later part of this paper, the digital prototype with some new elements will be introduced. In summary using serious games is one possibility to analyze complex interaction processes in ATM.

Keywords

Air traffic management Decision-making Serious games 

References

  1. Abt, C. (1970). Serious games. New York: Viking.Google Scholar
  2. Bornstein, G. (2003). Intergroup conflict: Individual, group and collective interests. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7(2), 129–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bundesministerium für Verkehr, Bau und Stadtentwicklung (BMVBS). (2010). Flughafenkonzept der Bundesregierung 2009. http://www.bmvi.de/SharedDocs/DE/Anlage/VerkehrUndMobilitaet/Luft/flughafenkonzept-2009-der-bundesregierung.pdf?__blob=publicationFile. 27 Mar 2015.
  4. Djaouti, D., Alvarez, J., Jessel, J.-P., & Rampnoux, O. (2011). Origins in serious games. In M.Google Scholar
  5. Dunwell, I., & de Freitas, S. (2011). Four-dimensional consideration of feedback in serious games. In S. de Freitas, & P. Maharg (Eds.), Digital games and learning (pp. 42–62, continuum publishing.). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  6. Erev, I., Bornstein, G., & Galili, R. (1993). Constructive intergroup competition as a solution to the free rider problem: A field experiment. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 29, 463–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. EUROCONTROL. (2006). Airport CDM operational concept document. URL http://www.euro-cdm.org/library/cdm_ocd.pdf. 27 Mar 2015.
  8. EUROCONTROL. (2008). Long-term forecast: IFR flight movements 2008–2030. URL https://www.eurocontrol.int/sites/default/files/field_tabs/content/documents/official-documents/forecasts/long-term-forecast-2008-2030.pdf. 27 Mar 2015.
  9. Günther, Y., Inard, A., Werther, B., Bonnier, M., Spies, G., Marsden, A., … Niederstrasser, H. (2006). Total airport management. Verfügbar unter http://www.bs.dlr.de/tam/Dokuments/TAM-OCD-public.pdf. 27 Mar 2015.
  10. Jipp, M., Depenbrock, Suikat, R., Schaper, M., Papenfuß, A., Kaltenhäuser, S., & Weber, B. (2011). Validation of multi-objective optimization for total airport management. Proceedings of the 8th Asian Control Conference (ASCC), Kaohsiung (Taiwan).Google Scholar
  11. Meinecke, M. (2011). Bewertung von total airport management Konzepten mit Hilfe eines Spiel-basierten Ansatzes. Unpublished Bachelor-thesis, German Aerospace Center (DLR), Braunschweig.Google Scholar
  12. Meinecke, M., & Suikat, R. (2012) Evaluation of total airport management concepts via a game-based approach. 30th European annual conference on human decision-making and manual control (EAM), Baunschweig.Google Scholar
  13. Mensen, H. (2013). Handbuch der Luftfahrt (2nd ed.). Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Prensky, M. (2001). Digital game-based learning. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  15. Roberts, E. B. (2001). Benchmarking global strategic management of technology. Research-Technology Management, 44(2), 25–36.Google Scholar
  16. Romero, M., Usart, M., Ott, M., Earp, J., & de Freitas, S. (2012). Learning through playing for or against each other? Promoting collaborative learning in digital game based learning. Proceedings of the European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS). URL http://aisel.aisnet.org/ecis2012/93. 27 Mar 2015.
  17. Sauvé, L., Renaud, L., Kaufman, D., & Marquis, J. S. (2007). Distinguishing between games and simulations: A systematic review. Educational Technology & Society, 10(3), 247–256.Google Scholar
  18. Suikat, R., Weber, B., & de Jonge, H. (2009). EPISODE3 – simulation report on collaborative airport planning. URL http://www.episode3.aero/library/wp3/wp33_validation/wp3.3.4-collaborative-airport-planning/d3.3.4-02-simulation-report-on-collaborative/E3-WP3-D3.3.4-02-REP-V1.00-simulation-report.pdf. 27 Mar 2015.
  19. TAMS Partners. (2012). TAMS operational concept. http://www.tams.aero/documents/konzeptdokumente/TAMS_OCD_v-1-0-1_public.pdf. 27 Mar 2015.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Singapore 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.German Aerospace Center (DLR)Institute of Flight GuidanceBraunschweigGermany
  2. 2.HTW BerlinUniversity of Applied ScienceBerlinGermany
  3. 3.OSTIA-Spiele GbRLengedeGermany

Personalised recommendations