Skip to main content
Log in

Supporting mixed-initiative emergency flight planning by portraying procedure context information

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Cognition, Technology & Work Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Determining a suitable airport and planning a trajectory in detail all the way down to landing is a difficult task to do well, especially in emergencies. While a variety of planning aids have been proposed to aid in this task, their evaluation with pilots has led to the question: How do we support a human in a task that is too hard for them to perform well in the time provided, but is too open-ended for automation to perform perfectly in every situation? This paper specifically focuses on whether procedure context information can help pilots evaluate an emergency descent trajectory provided by automation, building on prior studies finding that such information can encourage a more interpretative strategy for evaluating and appropriately following (or not exactly following) procedures. Here, pilots were asked to quickly evaluate emergency flight plans presented both spatially and as a procedure (list of discrete actions). The procedures were presented in a variety of formats, where some explicitly presented the rationale for critical actions and/or emphasized which actions need to be done in a particular sequence. The results indicate that including rationale with a suggested plan can improve some aspects of a human’s reasoning about an automatically generated plan. This finding has implications for both the design of plans and procedures, and the design of mixed-initiative planning aids: capturing the underlying rationale for key actions when generating a plan or procedure can then be beneficial when it can be portrayed to the human planner.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ai-Chang M, Bresina J, Charest L, Chase A, Cheng-jung Hsu J, Jonsson A, Kanefsky B, Morris P, Rajan K, Yglesias J, Chafin BG, Dias WC, Maldague PR (2004) MAPGEN: mixed-initative planning and scheduling for the mars exploration rover mission. IEEE Intell Syst Jan–Feb:8–12

  • Atkins EM, Portillo IA, Strube MJ (2006) Emergency flight planning applied to total loss of thrust. J Aircraft 43:1205–1216

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Biundo S, Bercher P, Geier T, Müller F, Schattenberg B (2011) Advanced user assistance based on AI planning. Cogn Syst Res 12:219–236

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • BresinaJL, Jonsson AK, Morris PH, Rajan K (2005) Mixed-initiative planning in MAPGEN: capabilities and shortcomings. In: ICAPS-05 workshop on mixed-initiative planning and scheduling, Monterey, CA

  • Chen TL, Pritchett AR (2001) Cockpit decision-aids for emergency flight planning. J Aircraft 38:935–943

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • deBrito G (1999) Human error in procedure following: a first classification. In: Proceedings of the human error, safety and systems development seminar

  • Dien Y, Montmayeul R, Beltranda G (1991) Allowing for human factors in computerized procedure design. In: Proceedings of the HFES 35th annual meeting, pp 639–642

  • Guerlain SA, Smith PJ, Obradovich JH, Rudmann S, Strohm P, Smith JW, Svirbely J, Sachs L (1999) Interactive critiquing as a form of decision support: an empirical evaluation. Hum Factors 41:72–89

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kontogiannis T (2010) Adapting plans in progress in distributed supervisory work: aspects of complexity, coupling, and control. Cogn Technol Work 12:103–118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Layton C, Smith PJ, McCoy CE (1994) Design of a cooperative problem-solving system for en-route flight planning: an empirical evaluation. Hum Factors 36:94–119

    Google Scholar 

  • Maldague P, Ko A, Page D, Starbird T (1998) APGEN: a multi-mission semi-automated planning tool. In: First international NASA workshop on planning and scheduling, pp 363–365

  • McCarthy JC, Wright PD, Monk AF, Watts LA (1998) Concerns at work: designing useful procedures. Human Comut Interact 13:433–457

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mosier KL, Skitka LJ (1999) Automation use and automation bias. In: Proceedings of the human factors and ergonomics society 43rd annual meeting, pp 344–348

  • Myers KL, Smith SF, Hildum DW, Jarvis PA, de Lacaze R (2013a) Integrating planning and scheduling through adaptation of resource intensity estimates. In: Proceedings of the 6th European conference on planning, pp 150–158

  • Myers KL, Jarvis PA, Lee TD (2013b) CODA: coordinating human planners. In: Proceedings of the 6th European conference on planning, pp 289–291

  • Norros L, Liinasua M, Savioja P (2011) Operators’ conceptions of procedure guidance in NPP process control. Cogn Technol Work 17:1–11

    Google Scholar 

  • Norros L, Liinasauo M, Savioja P (2014) Operators’ orientations to procedure guidance in NPP process control. Cogn Technol Work 16:487–499

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ockerman JJ, Pritchett AR (2000) A review and reappraisal of task guidance: aiding workers in procedure following. Int J Cogn Ergon 4:191–212

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ockerman JJ, Pritchett AR (2004) Improving performance on procedural tasks through presentation of locational procedure context: an empirical evaluation. Behav Inform Technol 23:11–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olson IJ, Harmsel AJT, Atkins EM (2014) Safe landing planning for an energy-constrained multicopter. In: Proceedings of the international conference on unmanned aircraft systems (UAS), pp 1225–1235

  • Pritchett AR, Nix DC, Ockerman JJ (2001) Empirical evaluations of pilot planning behavior in emergency situations. In: Proceedings of the 4th annual meeting of the human factors and ergonomics society

  • Smith EE, Goodman L (1984) Understanding written instructions: the role of an explanatory schema. Cogn Instruct 1:359–396

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith PJ, McCoy CE, Layton C (1997) Brittleness in the design of cooperative problem-solving systems: the effects on user performance. IEEE T Syst Man Cy A 27:360–371

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suchman L (1987) Plans and situated actions: the problem of human-machine communication. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Swezey RW (1987) Design of job aids and procedure writing. In: Salvendy G (ed) Handbook of human factors. Wiley, New York, pp 1039–1057

    Google Scholar 

  • Veloso MM, Mulvehill AM, Cox MT (1997) Rational-supported mixed-initiative case-based planning. In: AAAI/IAAI, pp 1072–1077

  • Vicente KJ (1999) Cognitive work analysis: toward safe, productive, and healthy computer-based work. Lawrence Earlbaum Associates, Mahwah

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang Z, Wang HW, Qi C, Wang J (2013) A resource enhanced THN planning approach for emergency decision-making. Appl Intell 38:226–238

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wright P, Pocock S, Fields B (1998) The prescription and practice of work on the flight deck. In: Proceedings of the 9th European conference on cognitive ergonomics, pp 37–42

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work was funded by NASA Langley under grant NAG1-01055, with Anna Trujillo as technical monitor. The authors also thank Ted Chen and Michael Hayes for their technical assistance, and all the pilots who participated in the study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Amy R. Pritchett.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Pritchett, A.R., Ockerman, J.J. Supporting mixed-initiative emergency flight planning by portraying procedure context information. Cogn Tech Work 18, 643–655 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-016-0387-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-016-0387-x

Keywords

Navigation