Abstract
Air traffic management is organized into filters in order to prevent tactical controllers from dealing with complex conflicting situations. In this article, we describe an experiment showing that a dynamic conflict display could improve human performance on complex conflict situations. Specifically, we designed a display tool that represents the conflicting portions of aircraft trajectories and the evolution of the conflict zone when the user adds a maneuver to an aircraft. The tool allows the user to dynamically check the potential conflicting zones with the computer mouse before making a maneuver decision. We tested its utility on a population of forty students: twenty air traffic controller (ATC) students at the end of their initial training and twenty engineering students with the same background but no ATC training. They had to solve conflicts involving 2–5 aircraft with a basic display and with the dynamic visualization tool. Results show that in easy situations (2 aircraft), performance is similar with both displays. However, as the complexity of the situations grows (from 3 to 5 aircraft), the dynamic visualization tool enables users to solve the conflicts more efficiently. Using the tool leads to fewer unsolved conflicts and shorter delays. No significant differences are found between the two test groups except for delays: ATC students give maneuvers that generate less delays than engineering students. These results suggest that humans are better able to manage complex situations with the help of our conflict visualization tool.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Alaeddini A, Erzberger H, Dunbar W (2011) Distributed logic-based conflict resolution of multiple aircraft in planar en-route flight. In: AIAA guidance, navigation and control conference and exhibit
Allignol C, Barnier N, Durand N, Alliot JM (2013) A new framework for solving en-routes conflicts. In: 10th USA/Europe air traffic management research and development seminar
Arthur WC, McLaughlin MP (1998) User request evaluation tool (URET) interfacility conflict probe performance assessment. In: Proceedings of the 2nd USA/Europe ATM R&D seminar
Baddeley AD, Logie RH (1999) Working memory: the multiple-component model. In: Miyake A, Shah P (eds) Models of working memory. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 28–61. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9781139174909.005
Bakker G, Blom H (2000) Wp1: comparative analysis of probabilistic conflict prediction approaches in ATM. Technical report, NLR contract report
Borst C, Bijsterbosch VA, van Paassen MM, Mulder M (2017) Ecological interface design: supporting fault diagnosis of automated advice in a supervisory air traffic control task. Cogn Technol Work 19(4):545–560. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-017-0438-y
Christodoulou MA, Kontogeorgou C (2008) Collision avoidance in commercial aircraft free flight via neural networks and non-linear programming. Int J Neural Syst 18(5):371–387
Corver S, Grote G (2016) Uncertainty management in enroute air traffic control: a field study exploring controller strategies and requirements for automation. Cogn Technol Work 18(3):541–565. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-016-0373-3
Dean G, Fron X, Miller W, Nicolaon J (1995) Arc 2000: an investigation into the feasibility of automatic conflict. Technical report, Centre Exprimental Eurocontrol
Duong VN, Hoffman E, Nicolaon JP (1997) Initial results of investigation into autonomous aircraft concept (freer-1). In: Proceedings of the 1st USA/Europe ATM R&D seminar
Durand N (1996) Optimisation de trajectoires pour la résolution de conflits en route. Ph.D. thesis, INPT
Durand N, Granger G (2003) A traffic complexity approach through cluster analysis. In: 5th ATM R&D seminar
Durand N, Alliot JM, Noailles J (1996) Automatic aircraft conflict resolution using genetic algorithms. In: Proceedings of the symposium on applied computing, Philadelphia, ACM
Edwards T, Homola J, Mercer J, Claudatos L (2017) Multifactor interactions and the air traffic controller: the interaction of situation awareness and workload in association with automation. Cogn Technol Work 19(4):687–698. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-017-0445-z
Erzberger H (1997) Conflict probing and resolution in the presence of errors. In: Procceedings of the 1st USA/Europe ATM R&D seminar
Frazzoli E, Mao ZH, Oh JH, Feron E (2001) Resolution of conflicts involving many aircraft via semidefinite programming. AIAA J Guid Control Dyn 24(1):79–86
Gariel M, Feron E (2009) 3D conflict avoidance under uncertainties. In: Digital avionics systems conference, 2009. DASC ’09. IEEE/AIAA 28th, pp 4.E.3-1–4.E.3-8. https://doi.org/10.1109/DASC.2009.5347480
Karikawa D, Aoyama H, Takahashi M, Furuta K, Wakabayashi T, Kitamura M (2013) A visualization tool of en route air traffic control tasks for describing controller’s proactive management of traffic situations. Cogn Technol Work 15(2):207–218. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-012-0222-y
Karikawa D, Aoyama H, Takahashi M, Furuta K, Ishibashi A, Kitamura M (2014) Analysis of the performance characteristics of controllers’ strategies in en route air traffic control tasks. Cogn Technol Work 16(3):389–403. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-013-0268-5
Keehner M, Hegarty M, Cohen C, Khooshabeh P, Montello D (2008) Spatial reasoning with external visualizations: what matters is what you see, not whether you interact. Cogn Sci Multidiscip J 32(7):1099–1132. https://doi.org/10.1080/03640210801898177
Meckiff DC, Gibbs DP (1994) PHARE: highly interactive problem solver. Technical report, Eurocontrol
Oh JH, Shewchun J, Feron E (1997) Design and analysis of conflict resolution algorithms via positive semidefinite programming [aircraft conflict resolution]. In: Proceedings of the 36th IEEE conference on decision and control, 1997, vol 5, pp 4179–4185. https://doi.org/10.1109/CDC.1997.649489
Pallottino L, Feron E, Bicchi A (2002) Conflict resolution problems for air traffic management systems solved with mixed integer programming. IEEE Trans Intell Transp Syst 3(1):3–11. https://doi.org/10.1109/6979.994791
Pallottino L, Bicchi A, Feron E (2001) Mixed integer programming for aircraft conflict resolution. In: AIAA guidance navigation and control conference and exhibit
Prevot T, Lee P, Smith N, Palmer E (2005) ATC technologies for controller-managed and autonomous flight operations. In: AIAA guidance, navigation and control conference and exhibit
Prevot T, Homola J, Mercer J (2008) Initial study of controller/automation integration for nextgen separation assurance. In: AIAA guidance, navigation and control conference and exhibit
Prevot T, Homola J, Martin L, Mercer J (2011) Automated air traffic control operations with weather and time-constraints. In: 9th ATM R&D seminar
Price A, Meckiff C (1997) Hips and its application to oceanic control. In: 1st ATM R&D seminar
Tabachneck-Schijf HJ, Leonardo AM, Simon HA (1997) CaMeRa: a computational model of multiple representations. Cogn Sci 21(3):305–350. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog2103_3
Tversky B (2005) Functional significance of visuospatial representations. In: Shah P, Miyake A (eds) The Cambridge handbook of visuospatial thinking. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 1–34. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511610448.002
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Durand, N., Gotteland, JB. & Matton, N. Visualizing complexities: the human limits of air traffic control. Cogn Tech Work 20, 233–244 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-018-0468-0
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-018-0468-0