This paper describes Work Domain Analysis (WDA) applied to the domain of automated midair collision detection and avoidance as a first step in the design of improved ecological interfaces for automated traffic alerting displays. Three abstraction hierarchies (AH) modelling the aircraft, collision environment, and a traffic alerting system are presented, and the challenges of adapting the AH to enhanced displays will be examined. It will be shown that WDA is a feasible framework for establishing information requirements of flight and automated collision dynamics. Ecological Interface Design (EID) can then be applied to develop displays that invoke a greater trust in the automation.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BarhydtR.HansmanR. J. (1997). Experimental studies of intent information on cockpit traffic displays. 9 th International Symposium on Aviation Psychology..
2.
BlissJ-P. (1997). Alarm reaction patterns by pilots as a function of reaction modality. International journal of Aviation Psychology.Vol. 7(1), 1–14.
3.
BurnsC. M.BryantD. J.ChalmersB. A. (2000). A work domain model to support shipboard command and control. Proceedings of IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics.2228–2233.
4.
DinadisN.VicenteK. J. (1999). Designing functional visualizations for aircraft systems status displays. International Journal of Aviation Psychology.Vol. 9(3), 241–269.
5.
FAA (2000). Introduction to TCAS II Version 7. U. S. Dept. of Transport. Federal Aviation Administration. Nov. 2000.
6.
FulghamD. A. (2003). New collision warning system undergoes flight testing. Aviation Week & Space Technology.Vol. 158(3). 51.
7.
GemplerK. S.WickensC. D. (1998). Display of predictor reliability on a cockpit display of traffic information. (Technical Report ARL-98-6/ROCKWELL-98-1).Savoy, IL: University of Illinois, Institute of Aviation, Aviation Research Lab.
8.
HajdukiewiczJ. R.DoyleD. J.VicenteK. J.BurnsC. M. (1998). A work domain analysis of patient monitoring in the operating room. Proceedings of HFES 42nd Annual Meeting.1038–1042.
9.
KlassP. J. (1993). New TCAS software cuts conflict alerts. Aviation Week & Space Technology.Vol. 139 (12). 44.
10.
KlassP. J. (1996). In-trail TCAS descent approved by FAA. Aviation Week & Space Technology.Vol. 145 (23). p 32.
11.
KrishnanK.KerteszS.WiseJ. A. (2000). Putting four dimensions in “perspective” for the pilot. Proceedings of HFES 44th Annual Meeting.3-81–3-84.
12.
LadkinP. B. (2002). ACAS and the South German midair. (Technical Note RVS-Occ-02–02).Bielefeld, Germany: Universität Bielefeld, Networks and Distributed Systems Research Group.
13.
Moradi-NadimianR.GriffithsS.BurnsC. M. (2002). Ecological interface design in aviation domains: work domain analysis and instrumentation availability of the harvard aircraft. Proceedings of HFES 46th Annual Meeting;116–120.
14.
MosierK. L.KeyesJ.BernhardR. (2000). Dealing with conflicting information — will crews rely on automation?Proceedings of the Fifth Austrailian Aviation Psychology Symposium..
15.
ParasuramanR.RileyV. (1997). Humans and automation: Use, misuse, disuse, abuse. Human Factors39, 230–253.
16.
PritchettA. R.VandorB. (2001). Designing Situation Displays to Promote Confrormance to Automatic Alerts. Proceedings of HFES 45th Annual Meeting. 311–315.
17.
RasmussenJ. (1985). The role of hierarchical knowledge representation in decision-making and system management. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics15(2), 234–243.
18.
RasmussenJ. (1986). Information processing and human-machine interaction: an approach to cognitive engineering. New York: North-Holland.
19.
VicenteK. J. (1999). Cognitive work analysis: towards healthy computer-based work.Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
20.
WickensD. D.HollandsJ. G. (2000). Engineering psychology and human performance. (3rd. ed.). New Jersey: Prentice-Hall Inc.
