This paper describes the development and implementation of the Automation Design Advisor Tool (ADAT). ADAT is being developed with NASA support to assist aviation designers throughout all phases of design in creating systems that ensure effective and efficient human-automation interaction on the modern flight deck. The tool can be applied to both new “blank slate” designs, and to improved versions of existing technologies. In particular, the current version of the tool evaluates proposed Flight Management System (FMS) designs in terms of their ability to support pilots in instructing and monitoring the automated system. ADAT identifies potential design deficiencies, provides specific (re)design recommendations, and offers access to summaries of empirical research on the underlying reasons for and the effectiveness of solutions to breakdowns in pilot-automation coordination.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BlackmonM.H.MandaliaD.R.PolsonP.G.KitajimaM. (2007). Automating Usability Evaluation: Cognitive Walkthrough for the Web Puts LSA to Work on Real World HCI Design Problems. In LandauerT.K.McNamaraD.S.DennisS.KintschW. (Eds.), Handbook of Latent Semantic Analysis. (pp. 345–375), Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
2.
BoormanD.J.MumawR.J. (2004). A new autoflight/FMS interface: Guiding design principles. Proceedings of the International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction in Aeronautics, Toulouse, France.
3.
DeganiA. (2004). Taming Hal: Designing Interfaces Beyond 2001. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
4.
Department of Defense (1999). Human Engineering Design Criteria Standard. MIL-STD-1472F.
5.
DornheimM.A. (1995). Dramatic incidents highlight mode problems in the cockpit. Aviation Week and Space Technology, pp. 57–59.
6.
European Aviation Safety Agency. (2007). Certification Specifications for Large Aeroplanes. CS-25. Book 2: Acceptable Means of Compliance.
7.
FennellK.SherryL.RobertsR.J.Jr.FearyM. (2006). Difficult Access: The Impact of Recall Steps on Flight Management System Errors. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 16, 175–196.
8.
FunkK.LyallB.WilsonJ.VintR.NiemczykM.SuroteguhC.OwenG. (1999). Flight Deck Automation Issues, International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 9, 109–123.
9.
Joint Planning and Development Office (JPDO). (2010). Concept of Operations for the Next Generation Air Transportation System. Version 3.1, 10 April 2010. Washington, DC: Federal Aviation Administration.
10.
LandauerT. K. (1995). The trouble with computers: Usefulness, usability, and productivity. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
11.
McCarleyJ.WickensC.SebokA.Steelman-AllenK.BzostekJ.KoeneckeC. (2009). Control of Attention: Modeling the Effects of Stimulus Characteristics, Task Demands, and Individual Differences. NASA Final Report. Contract No. NNX07AV97A, NASA Ames.
12.
NextGen Integration and Implementation Office. (2010). NextGen Implementation Plan. Washington, DC: Federal Aviation Administration.
13.
PradaL.R.MumawR.Boehm-DavisD.BoormanD. (2006). Testing Boeing's Flight Deck of the Future: An experimental comparison of prototype and current automated flight panels. Proceedings of the 50th Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, San Francisco, CA.
14.
SarterN.B.MumawR.J.WickensC.D. (2007). Pilots' monitoring strategies and performance on highly automated flight decks: An empirical study combining behavioral and eye tracking data. Human Factors, 49, 347–357.
15.
SarterN.B.WoodsD. D. (1994). Pilot Interaction With Cockpit Automation II: An Experimental Study of Pilots' Models and Awareness of the Flight Management System. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 4, 1–28.
16.
SarterN.B.WoodsD.D. (1992). Pilot Interaction with Cockpit Automation: Operational Experiences with the Flight Management System (FMS). International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 2(4), 303–321.
17.
SherryL.FennellK.FearyM.PolsonP. (2006a). Analysis of ease-of-use and ease-of-learning of a modern flight management system. AIAA Journal of Aerospace Computing, Information, and Communication. 3, pp.177–186.
18.
SherryL.FennellK.FearyM.PolsonP. (2006b) Analysis of flight management system messages. AIAA Journal of Aircraft.43, 1372–1376.
19.
SherryL.PolsonP. G. (1999). Shared Models Of FMS Vertical Guidance. International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 9, 139–154.
20.
TverskyA. (1977). Features of similarity. Psychological Review, 84, 327–352.
21.
VakilS.S.HansmanR.J.Jr. (2002). Approaches to mitigating complexity-driven issues in commercial autoflight systems. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 75, 133–145.
22.
WickensC.D. (2003). Aviation displays. In TsangP.VidulichM. (Eds.), Principles and practice of aviation psychology, (pp. 147–199) Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Publishers.
23.
WickensC.HooeyB.GoreB.SebokA.KoeneckeC. (2009). Identifying Black Swans in NextGen: Predicting Human Performance in Off-Nominal Conditions. Human Factors, 51, 638–651.
24.
WickensC. D.McCarleyJ. M. (2008). Applied Attention Theory. Boca-Raton, FL: CRC Press, Taylor & Francis.
25.
WickensC.D.VincowM.A.SchopperA.W.LincolnJ.E. (1997). Computational models of human performance in the design and layout of controls and displays (CSERIAC SOAR Report 97-22). Wright Patterson Air Force Base, OH: Crew System Ergonomics Information Analysis Center.
26.
WienerE.L. (1989). Cockpit Automation. In WienerE.L.NagelD.C. (Eds.) Human Factors in Aviation, (pp. 433–461) New York: Academic Press, Inc.
