Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Sparring partners for human-in-the-loop simulations: the potential of virtual agents in air traffic simulations

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
CEAS Aeronautical Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A future challenge for the European air traffic system is an estimated rise in traffic load in combination with the occurrence of so-called disruptive events (e.g., thunderstorms, security alarms or union strikes). EUROCONTROL showed in their simulations that external events lead to instabilities in the whole European air traffic system with a weakened ability to recover [cf. (EUROCONTROL, Challenges of growth 2013—Task 6: the effect of air traffic network congestion 2035. EUROCONTROL, Brussels, 2013)]. Due to these events, EUROCONTROL estimates a strong increase of delay within the air traffic system, especially at the airports. Among various factors to keep the impact of these events minimized, a sufficient cooperation between the affected air traffic participants (pilots, controllers, airport staff, etc.) is necessary. Sharing information and aligning on a procedure to utilize the existing resources offers a way to efficiently keep up operations. A tool to train this cooperative behavior and to validate the benefits of new systems and procedures regarding the enforcement of cooperative behavior is a human-in-the-loop simulation (HITL). HITL simulations enable cooperative situations by facing the participants with disruptive events. These situations are commonly supported by so-called pseudo-actors, humans which take on one or multiple roles within the cooperation. Thereby the cooperation can be developed in a more or less challenging way. For instance, a delayed pilot reaction in dense traffic or an airline dispatcher not willing to cancel flights into a congested airport can be performed by a pseudo-actor. Currently, pseudo-actors with predefined instructions for their behavior are the only way to generate the above-mentioned challenges in HITL simulations. As human beings, the pseudo-actors show varying behavior. Therefore, reproducibility of the HITL simulation is limited, although being one of the key features. In contrast to field trials in a real environment all influencing factors of a HITL simulation are under control. Situations can be repeated multiple times. In terms of training simulation this is necessary to generate the intended learning effect. In terms of validation simulation the possibility to exactly repeat a situation is needed to compare a situation with the support of a new system (experimental condition) to one without the new system (baseline). This paper provides a contribution for assessing the potential of human pseudo-actor alternatives. Virtual agents are already used in other fields such as gaming and other types of simulation (e.g., virtual military training simulation). These virtual agents interact with the other human participants of the simulation. Moreover, as being computer applications, they strictly do follow their programmed behavior. Thus, they offer the benefit of reproducible behavior. The evaluation within this paper uses the airport management simulation of the German Aerospace Center to challenge four participants with multiple disruptive events. The role of the stand and gate allocation manager is either taken by a human pseudo-actor or a virtual agent. The results of the simulation runs with the human pseudo-actor are compared to the ones with the virtual agent. Analyzing the results a first conclusion on the potential of virtual agents in air traffic HITL simulations will be given.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

(source: [12], p. 3–1)

Fig. 6

(source: DLR)

Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11

(source: [23])

Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. EUROCONTROL: Challenges of growth 2013—Task 6: the effect of air traffic network congestion 2035. EUROCONTROL, Brussels (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Makins, N.: EUROPEAN Operational Concept Validation Methodology (EOCVM). EUROCONTROL, version 3.0. Brussels, Belgium (2005) [Online]. Available at: https://www.eurocontrol.int/sites/default/files/publication/files/e-ocvm3-vol-1-022010.pdf. Accessed 4 July 2017

  3. Dow, C., Histon, J.: An Air Traffic Control Simulation Fidelity Definition and Categorization System. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, pp. 92–96. SAGE Publications, Los Angeles, CA (2014)

  4. Valverde, H.H.: A review of flight simulator transfer of training studies. Human Fact. 15(6), 510–522 (1973)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Helmreich, R.L., Ashleigh, C.M., John, A.W.: The evolution of crew resource management training in commercial aviation. Int. J. Aviat. Psychol. 9(1), 19–32 (1999)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Suikat, R., Kaltenhäuser, S., Weber, B., Hampe, J., Timmermann, F.: ACCES—A Gaming and Simulation Platform for Advanced Airport Operations Concepts. AIAA Modeling and Simulation Technologies, Toronto (2010)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  7. Narayanan, S., Kidambi, P.: Interactive simulations: history, fetures, and trends. In: Rothrock, L., Narayanan, S. (eds.) Human-in-the-loop simulations: methods and practice, Springer Press, New York (2011) (ISBN: 978-0857298829)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Endsley, M.R.: Toward a theory of situation awareness in dynamic systems. Hum Factors 37(1), 32–64 (1995)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. VDI/VDE 2653: Multi agent systems in industrial automation—fundamentals, part 1, Verein Deutscher Ingenieure, ICS 35.240.50, June (2010)

  10. Vakarelov, O.: The cognitive agent: overcoming informational limits. Adapt Behav 19(2), 83–100 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Huet, D., Booth, D., Pickup, S.: A-CDM impact assessment. EUROCONTOL, Brussels, Belgium [Online] (2016). https://www.eurocontrol.int/sites/default/files/publication/files/a-cdm-impactassessment-2016.pdf. Accessed 4 July 2017

  12. EUROCONTROL: Airport CDM Implementation—The Manual, version 4.0. Brussels, Belgium [Online]. (2012). https://www.eurocontrol.int/sites/default/files/publication/files/2012-airport-cdm-manual-v4.pdf. Accessed 4 July 2017

  13. Papenfuss, A., Carstengerdes, C., Günther, Y.: “Konzept zur Kooperation in Flughafen-Leitständen.” In: 57. FAS DGLR L6.4 Anthropotechnik conference proceedings, 2015, Rostock

  14. Schier, S., Timmermann, F.: Pett, T.: Airport management in the box—a human in the loop simulation for ACDM and airport management, Deutscher Luft- und Raumfahrt Kongress. Braunschweig, Deutschland 2016, 13.-15. Sept. 2016, Braunschweig, Deutschland (2016)

  15. Schier, S., Pett, T., Mohr, O., Yeo, S.J.: Design and evaluation of user interfaces for an airport management simulation. AIAA Aviation Modelling and Simulation Conference, Washington D.C. (2016)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  16. Schier, S., Papenfuß, A., Carstengerdes, N.: “Modellierung komplexer Flughafen-Ereignisse für Human-In-The-Loop Simulationen”, Simulation technischer Systeme inklusive der Grundlagen und Methoden in Modellbildung und simulation. Ulm, Deutschland (2017) (09–10, Mar 2017)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Schier, S., Rosenau, L., Freese, M.: Trainieren mit CLAUDI—Das Potential kognitiver Agenten für Simulationen und Planspiele. 6. Interdisziplinärer Workshop Kognitive Systeme, München, Deutschland (27–29, Mar 2017)

  18. Charness, G., Gneezy, U., Kuhn, M.A.: Experimental methods: between-subject and within-subject design.. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 81(1), 1–8 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Brooke, J.: SUS-A quick and dirty usability scale. In: Jordan, P., Jordan, W. (eds.) Usability Evaluation in Industry, pp. 4–7. Taylor & Francis, London (1996)

    Google Scholar 

  20. Rothaug, J.: Age, experience and automation in european air traffic control-survey in the ECAC Area. EUROCONTROL (2004) [Online]. Available: https://www.eurocontrol.int/sites/default/files/field_tabs/content/documents/nm/safety/safety-survey-in-theecac-area.pdf. Accessed 4 July 2017

  21. Tielmann, M., Brinkmann, W., Neerincx, M.: 4TU. Center for Research Data. http://data4tu.nl/repository/uuid:30db1be5-5070-4c7f-87af-210e09bda1c4 (at 04.07.2017; 19.05.2017)

  22. Papenfuss, A., Carstengerdes, N., Schier, S., Günther, Y.: What to say when: Guidelines for Decision Making. An evaluation of a concept for cooperation in an APOC”, Twelfth USA/Europe Air Traffic Management Research and Development Seminar (ATM2017), 26–30, June 2017, Seatlle, USA (2017)

  23. Brooke, J.: SUS: a retrospective. J. Usability Stud. 8(2), 29–40 (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  24. Piekert, F., Schier, S., Marsden, A., Carstengerdes, N., Suikat, R.: A high-fidelity artificial airport environment for SESAR APOC validation experiments. J. Air Transp. Stud. 8(1), 31–50 (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  25. Turing, A.M.: Computing machinery and intelligence. Mind 49, 433–460 (1950)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  26. Saenz, A.: Cleverbot chat engine is learning from the internet to talk like a human. Singularity Hub (2010) [Online]. Available at: https://singularityhub.com/2010/01/13/cleverbot-chat-engine-is-learning-fromthe-internet-to-talk-like-a-human/. Accessed 4 July 2017

  27. Warwick, K., Shah, H.: Can machines think? A report on turing test experiments at the royal society. J. Exp. Theor. Artif. Intell. (2015) https://doi.org/10.1080/0952813X.2015.1055826

    Google Scholar 

  28. Doris, M.. Dehn: Assessing the impact of automation on the air traffic controller: the SHAPE Questionnaires. Air Traffic Control Q. 16(2), 127–146 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Deutsches Zentrum für Luft und Raumfahrt, Institut für Flugführung, Lilienthalplatz 7, 38108, Brunswick, Germany

    S. Schier, A. Duensing & S. Britze

Authors
  1. S. Schier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. A. Duensing
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. S. Britze
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to S. Schier.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Schier, S., Duensing, A. & Britze, S. Sparring partners for human-in-the-loop simulations: the potential of virtual agents in air traffic simulations. CEAS Aeronaut J 10, 553–564 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13272-018-0335-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13272-018-0335-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation