Simulator-Based Investigations of Human Error Potential with Railroad Automation in the Locomotive Cab

Abstract

Automation is being developed and implemented in a variety of industries with the goals of improving overall system performance and reducing the probability and impact of human or operator error. However, as automation is introduced, it changes the role of the operator and creates new opportunities for different and unanticipated types of errors. In the rail industry, automated safety protection and optimization systems are being introduced into the locomotive cab. This paper describes a simulator-based investigation of human-automation interaction in the locomotive cab. Three scenarios were conducted in a dynamic and realistic rail simulator with three professional locomotive engineers. This preliminary study identified three distinct errors related to failing to appropriately monitor automation, and suggested potential opportunities for design improvements.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Association of American Railroads (n.d.). Positive train control. Retrieved Feb. 2, 2017, from https://www.aar.org/policy/positive-train-control

Casner

Geven

Recker

Schooler

(2014). The retention of manual flying skills in the automated cockpit. Human Factors. 56(8), 1506-1516.

Congress (2008). Rail safety improvement act (Public Law 110-432). Washington, DC: Congress.

Dornheim

M. A.

(1995). Dramatic incidents highlight mode problems in cockpits. Aviation Week and Space Technology, 142(5):57-59.

Hartong

Goel

Wijesekera

(2011). Positive Train Control (PTC) Failure Modes. Journal of King Saud University – Science. 23, 311-321.

Melnik

(2013). Mobile locomotive simulator for human factors research. TR News. 286, 49.

Mosier

Skitka

et al . (1998). Automation bias and errors. Proc of the HFS 42nd Annual Meeting, Chicago, IL.

National Transportation Safety Board (2008). Head-on collision of Metrolink commuter train No. 111 and UP freight train No. LOF65-12 (DCA-08-MR-009). Washington, DC: National Transportation Safety Board.

Office of the Inspector General (2016). Audit Report. Enhanced FAA Oversight Could Reduce Hazards Associated with Increased use of Flight Deck Automation. Report AV-2016-013.

10.

Onnasch

Wickens

Manzey

(2013). Human performance consequences of stages and levels of automation. Human Factors. 56(3):476-88.

11.

Parasuraman

Manzey

(2010). Complacency and bias in human use of automation: An attentional integration. Human Factors, 52, 381–410.

12.

Sebok

Wickens

Laux

Jones

(2015). Supporting human-automation interaction in the rail industry by applying lessons learned from aviation. Proc of the HFES 59th Annual Meeting. 1661-1665.

13.

Sebok

Wickens

C.D.

(2016). Implementing Lumberjacks and Black Swans Into Model-Based Tools to Support Human–Automation Interaction. Human Factors. DOI: 10.1177/0018720816665201.

14.

Wickens

Sebok

Sarter

Gacy

(2015). Using modeling and simulation to predict operator performance and automation-induced complacency with robotic automation. Human Factors, 57(6) 959-975.

15.

Wreathall

Roth

Bley

Multer

(2007). Human Factors Considerations in the Evaluation of Processor-Based Signal and Train Control Systems. Wash, DC: US DOT, FRA (DOT/FRA/ORD-07/07).

16.

Wreathall

Woods

Bing

Christoffersen

(2007). Relative Risk of Workload Transitions in Positive Train Control. Wash., DC: US DOT, FRA (DOT/FRA/ORD-07/12).