An Approach to Modeling Error in Air-Midas Using Contextual Control Model

Abstract

Predictability of the possible avenues of human error is important for designing error recovery mechanisms in systems' interfaces. Our approach for modeling errors during the taxiing and pre-flight phase, involves using Hollnagel's (1993) Contextual Control Model (CoCoM). Hollnagel postulates that changes in the human's operational context make her switch control modes or cognitive strategies. Previously, Verma & Corker (2002) encoded rules to implement CoCoM for Air Traffic Controllers (ATCo) in the Air-MIDAS (Man-Machine Integrated Design and Analysis System) architecture. They defined the operational context as the number of simultaneous goals and the event horizon time required to successfully complete those goals, and also encoded behavior associated with three types of cognitive strategies- unplanned, tactical, and strategic. In this study, new sets of rules are being coded for the pilots, such mat changes in the context will cause the simulated operator to change cognitive strategies. The dependent variables of interest are cognitive strategies used by pilot-agents, workload, status of tasks (completed, aborted, working), and consequences of errors performed.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Aldrich

T. B.

Craddock

McCracken

J. H.

(1984). A computer analysis to predict crew workload during LHX-scout-attack missions: Vol. 1 (MDA903-81-C-0501/ASI479-054-I-84(B)). Fort Rucker, AL: U. S. Army Research Institute Field Unit.

Banks

(1998). Handbook of Simulation Principles, Methodology, Advances, Applications, and Practice. John Wiley & Sons.

Corker

(2000). Cognitive Models & Control: Human & System Dynamics in Advanced Airspace Operations, in Sarter

Amalberti

(Eds.) Cognitive Engineering in the Aviation Domain. Lawrence Earlbaum Associates, New Jersey.

Gore

Verma

Jadhav

Corker

Delnegro

(2001). Human Performance Modeling Predictions: Surface Operations behavior using Air-MIDAS. NASA Contract Task Order #: NCC2–1095, NASA Ames Research Center. Moffett Field, CA.

Hollnagel

(1993). Human Reliability Analysis — Context and Control. Academic Press.

Hollnagel

(1995). Cognitive Reliability and error analysis method (CREAM). Elseiver Science Offices, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Keiras

(1997). A guide to GOMS model usability evaluation using NGOMSL. In Helander

Landauer

Prabhu

(Eds.) Handbook of Human-Computer Interaction (2nd ed). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Norman

D. A.

(1981). Categorization of action slips. Psychological Review, 88, 1–15.

Rasmussen

(1986). Information Processing and Human-Machine Interaction. Amsterdam: North Holland.

10.

Reason

(1990). Human Error. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

11.

Verma

S. A.

Corker

K. M.

(2001). Introduction of Context in a Human Performance modeling to predict performance for new air traffic management initiatives. 2002 Advanced Simulation Technologies Conference. San Diego, CA.

12.

Verma

Corker

(2001). Introduction of Context in aHuman Performance modeling to predict performance for new air traffic management initiatives. 2002 Advanced Simulation technologies Conference. San Diego, CA.

13.

Verma

(2001). Context in human performance models as applied to dynamic resectorization. M. Sc. thesis, SJSUF, San José, CA.

14.

Wiegmann

D. A.

Shappell

S. A.

(2001). Human Error Perspectives in Aviation. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 11(4), 341–357.

15.

Woods

D. D.

(1988) Commentary: Cognitive engineering in complex and dynamic worlds, In Hollnagel

Mancini

Woods

D. D.

(eds.) Cognitive Engineering in complex and dynamic worlds (pp. 115–129). Academy Press.