SAE ARD 50079-1998 Human Factors Issues in Free Flight.pdf

1、SAE Technical Standards Board Rules provide that: “This report is published by SAE to advance the state of technical and enginee ring sciences. The use of this report is entirelyvoluntary, and its applicability and suitability for any particular use, including any patent infringement arising therefr

2、om, is the sole responsibility of the user.”SAE reviews each technical report at least every five years at which time it may be reaffirmed, revised, or cancelled. SAE invit es your written comments and suggestions.Copyright 1998 Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc.All rights reserved. Printed in U.

3、S.A.QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS DOCUMENT: (724) 772-8510 FAX: (724) 776-0243TO PLACE A DOCUMENT ORDER: (724) 776-4970 FAX: (724) 776-0790SAE WEB ADDRESS: http:/www.sae.org400 Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, PA 15096-0001*NOTE: THIS DOCUMENT IS A NONCONCENSUS DRAFT REPORT MADE AVAILABLE BY AN SAE TECHNI

4、CAL COMMITTEE DURING THE PROCESS OF STANDARDS DEVELOPMENT. THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS REPORT IS BEING DISSEMINATED SOLELY FOR COMMENT PURPOSE AND SHOULD NOT BE RELIED UPON AT THIS TIME.AEROS PACE RESOURCE DOCUMENTSubmitted for recognition as an American National StandardARD50079Issued 1998-12

5、Human Factors Issues in Free FlightFOREWORDThe following members of the SAE G-10W Free Flight Subcommittee made significant contributions to the development of this document:Mr. John Donovan, Co-Chair FAA Buffalo AFSSMr. Kurt M. Joseph, Co-Chair and EditorFAA/CAMI Human Factors Research LaboratoryMr

6、. John Brown Boeing Commercial Airplane GroupCaptain Peter Foreman IFALPAMr. Dieter Jahns SynerTech AssociatesDr. Walter W. Johnson NASA Ames Research CenterDr. James Kuchar MIT Lincoln LaboratoryDr. Scott H. Mills FAA/CAMI Human Factors Research LaboratoryMr. William Pawlak Wyndemere, IncorporatedM

7、r. Jon RileyMr. Joe SantoroNATCA, DFW ATCTNATCA, LGB ATCTDr. Earl Stein FAA William J. Hughes Technical CenterMr. Scott Voigt NATCA, Fort Worth ARTCCMr. R. Ryan Wilkins Boeing Advanced Rotorcraft SystemsSAE ARD50079- 2 -FOREWORD (Continued)This document identifies current and projected human factors

8、 issues associated with Free Flight (FF), as determined by the SAE G-10 Aerospace Behavioral Engineering Technology Free Flight Subcommittee.This work will identify, track, and catalog emerging human factors issues related to FF. Certain issues cut across most, if not all, elements involved in the F

9、F concept, and therefore will be a consideration in all appropriate human factors initiatives related to FF. These issues include (1) the necessity of an evolutionary implementation schedule of FF concepts and principles as the required technologies and operational processes become available; (2) th

10、e need for the global application of FF concepts through international participation and coordination; and (3) the recognition of differing characteristics of human factors issues involved in tactical and strategic situations. This document will be valuable to parties working on various aspects of F

11、F, such as in strategic planning research activities and developing recommended concepts and procedures. It may also serve as a reference for those working on the various technologies that are currently foreseen as being part of the overall FF concept.This document will be updated regularly to refle

12、ct developments as they affect the issues. Issues will not be removed as they are resolved; rather, they will remain in order to document the work that has been accomplished. Thus far, this document contains issue papers for issues defined as “Critical“ in Section5. Completion of issue papers for is

13、sues defined as “Serious“ and “Desirable“ is forthcoming.1. SCOPE:This document focuses on human factors issues (e.g., see References 2.4, 2.9, 2.19, 2.22 and 2.30) related to emerging FF conceptual proposals. The subcommittee intends this document to encompass the concerns of the entire aviation co

14、mmunity (i.e., air transport, state aircraft, and general aviation, as well as the ground support infrastructure). These issues include, but are not limited to, the need for further study of such topics as:a. Information needed by pilot and controller(1) Traffic (identification, position, and intent

15、)(2) Weather(3) Hazards(4) Terrain(5) En route, Oceanic and Terminal specific(6) Special Use Airspace (SUA)b. Separation assurance - Responsibility for strategic and tactical measures(1) Normal procedures(2) Non-normal procedures(3) Emergency procedures(4) Shared responsibility in all modes (i.e., n

16、ormal, non-normal, and emergency)(5) Final arbitrationSAE ARD50079- 3 -1. (Continued):c. Impact on pilot, controller, and Aeronautical Operational Control (AOC) personnel tasks and resulting workloadd. Information transfer(1) Pilot(2) Controller(3) AOCe. Training 1(1) Personnel (pilot, controller, a

17、nd AOC)(2) International harmonizationf. Certification(1) Personnel (pilot, controller, and AOC)(2) Equipage (hardware and software)(3) Ground equipment (level of functionality)(4) International harmonization(5) End-to-end certification of the separation-assurance systemg. Human-centered automation

18、2(1) Airborne(2) Ground-based1 To be addressed by SAE G-10G Subcommittee on Realistic Training.2 To be addressed by SAE G-10B Subcommittee on Automation/Integration.1.1 Purpose:This document is a compilation of human factors issues concerning the impact of FF concepts on the pilots, controllers, and

19、 others within the Air Navigation System (ANS). The issues contained herein are interdependent and should be treated as such by the reader. The subcommittee is developing this document as an aid in identifying human factors research issues, for planning research activities, and for developing recomm

20、ended concepts and procedures. The aim is toward the incremental evolution and ultimate goal of an end-state FF concept.1.2 Background:The current ANS has been unable to keep pace with demands on the system and will continue to degrade as the volume of air traffic increases over the next several yea

21、rs. According to Reference 2.28, the system is plagued with insufficient capacity, limited access, and excessive operating restrictions that have escalated operating costs, increased delays, and generally decreased efficiency.SAE ARD50079- 4 -1.2 (Continued):RTCA (formerly Radio Technical Commission

22、 for Aeronautics) defines FF as “A safe and efficient flight operating capability under Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) in which the operators have the freedom to select their path and speed in real time. Air traffic restrictions are only imposed to ensure separation, to preclude exceeding airport cap

23、acity, to prevent unauthorized flight through Special Use Airspace (SUA), and to ensure safety of flight. Restrictions are limited in extent and duration to correct the identified problem. Any activity which removes restrictions represents a move toward free flight.“The assurance that aircraft separ

24、ation be maintained at all times, or the Separation Assurance Function (SAF), is the major functional requirement that must be filled irrespective of FF approach. Three scenarios requiring control during FF operations involve (1) tactical or short-term conflict resolution, (2) Traffic Flow Managemen

25、t (TFM), and (3) entry into or avoidance of SUA. The primary difference between the current system and FF concepts is that, under certain conditions, the pilot will be able to operate a flight without specific path and speed clearances.FF concepts will require reassessment of the roles, responsibili

26、ty and authority of pilots, controllers, and automated systems in maintaining aircraft separation. These roles are likely to be dynamic, changing during flight, with separation responsibility shifting between the primary system components. New rule-based procedures and guidelines that provide for sm

27、ooth and timely transitions of separation responsibility will be essential for successful operation of the FF system. The operational conditions and circumstances that characterize the system will drive these procedures and guidelines.FF in the general aviation (GA) environment will lack the dispatc

28、her or “company“ component prevalent in air-transport operations. This entity helps perform flight planning and flight-following functions. In the current system, automated flight service stations (AFSS), transcribed weather broadcasts (TWEBS) and pilot reports (PIREPS) partially accomplish those fu

29、nctions for the GA pilot. System concepts for GA FF must include methods to meet these functional requirements, particularly if AFSS are discontinued.2. REFERENCES:2.1 Ball, M., DeArmon, J.S., and Pyburn, J.O. (1995). Is free flight feasible? Results from initial simulations. Journal of ATC, January

30、-March, pp. 14-17.2.2 Billings, C.E. (1991). NASA Ames Technical Support Package ARC-13243 Human Factors in Aircraft Automation Technical Memo 103885. Ames Research Center, CA: NASA.2.3 Billings, C.E. (1997). Aviation Automation: The Search for a Human-Centered Approach. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,

31、 Publishers: Mahwah, NJ.2.4 Billings, C.E., and Woods, D. (1995). Coordination, coupling, and complexity in the future aviation system. Proceedings of the Eighth International Symposium on Aviation Psychology, pp. 432-437. Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University.SAE ARD50079- 5 -2.5 Carlson, L.S., R

32、hodes, L.R., and Cullen, M.G. (1996). Effects of Unstructured Routes on En Route Controllers Work Activities and Operational Environment. MITRE Technical Report No. 96W0000019. McLean, VA: The MITRE Corporation.2.6 Cotton, B., Baoxing, T., Vakhutinsky, A., and Zhang, Z. (1998). Flight planning in th

33、e National Route Program, Journal of ATC, January-March, pp. 22-24.2.7 Denning, R., Smith, P.J., McCoy, E., Orasanu, J., Billings, C., Van Horn, A., and Rodvold, M. (1996). Initial Experiences with the Expanded National Route Program. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 40th Annu

34、al Meeting, pp. 98-101. Santa Monica, CA: HFES.2.8 Endsley, M., Mogford, R., and Stein, E.S. (1997). Controller situation awareness in freeflight. Proceedings of the 41st Annual Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Meeting, pp. 4-8. Santa Monica, CA: HFES.2.9 FAA (1996). The Interfaces Between Fligh

35、tcrews and Modern Flight Deck Systems. Washington, DC: DOT/FAA.2.10 FAA (February, 1998). Air Traffic Control Handbook 7110.65L. Washington, DC: DOT/FAA.2.11 FAA/Industry Free Flight Implementation Group (April, 1996). Free Flight Action Plan, Draft Edition. Washington, DC: DOT/FAA.2.12 Foreman, P.M

36、. (1997). A Robust Air Navigation System for CNS/ATM. The Journal of Air Traffic Control, April-June, pp. 35-39.2.13 Henley, W. H., Adams, F. S., Gibbs, G. E., Ming, D. R., and Myers, K. J. (1991). Probabilistic Risk Assessment of Mounds Tritium Emissions Reduction Facility (TERF). Report No. MLM-37

37、27 (OP). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Energy.2.14 Idaszak, J.R. and Hulin, C. L. (1989). Active Participation in Highly Automated Systems: Turning the Wrong Stuff into the Right Stuff. ( Technical Report No. ARL-89-7/ONR-89-1). Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Aviation Research Lab. 2.15 Ioa

38、nnou, P.Kanaris, A., Xu, T., and Eckert, S. (1995). Precursor Systems Analyses of Automated Highway System. Final Report Volume 8: Vehicle Operational Analysis (FHWAA-RD-95-099). Washington, DC: Federal Highway Administration.2.16 Kerns, K., and Small D. W. (December, 1995). Opportunities for Rapid

39、Integration of Human Factors in Developing a Free-Flight Capability. Report MP 95W0000305. McLean, VA: The MITRE Corporation.2.17 Mogford, R. H., Murphy, E. D., and Guttman, J. A. (1994). Using knowledge exploration tools to study airspace complexity in air traffic control. The International Journal

40、 of Aviation Psychology, 4, 29-45.SAE ARD50079- 6 -2.18 Molloy, R. and Parasuraman, R. (1996). Monitoring an automated system for single failure: Vigilance and task complexity effects. Human Factors, 38(2), 311-322.2.19 National Research Council (1997). Flight to the Future: Human Factors in Air Tra

41、ffic Control. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. 2.20 Pawlak, W.S., Bowles, A., Goel, V, and Brinton, C.B. (1997). Initial evaluation of the dynamic resectorization and route coordination (DIRECT) system concept. NASA Final Report #NAS2-97057. Boulder, CO: Wyndemere, Inc.2.21 Pawlak, W.S., Brin

42、ton, C.B., Crouch, K., and Lancaster, K. M. (1996) A framework for the evaluation of Air Traffic control complexity. Proceedings of the AIAA Guidance Navigation and Control Conference, San Diego, CA.2.22 Planzer, N. R. and Hofmann, M. A. (August, 1995). Advancing Free Flight through Human Factors: W

43、orkshop Report. Washington, DC: DOT/FAA.2.23 Planzer, N. R. and Jenny, J. T. (1995). Managing the evolution to free flight. Journal of ATC, March, pp. 18-20.2.24 Reason, J. (1990). Human Error. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. 2.25 Rehmann, A., Neumeier, M., Mitman, R., and Reynolds,

44、M. (1995). Flightdeck automation issues: An aviation safety reporting system analysis. (DOT/FAA/CT-TN95/11). Wright Patterson AFB, OH: Crew Systems Ergonomics Information Analysis Center.2.26 RTCA, Inc. (1996). Free Flight Action Plan. Washington, DC: RTCA, Inc.2.27 RTCA, Inc. (1997). Government/Ind

45、ustry Operational Concept for the Evolution of Free Flight. Washington, DC: RTCA, Inc.2.28 RTCA, Inc. (1995). Report of the RTCA Board of Directors Select Committee on Free Flight. Washington, DC: RTCA, Inc.2.29 RTCA, Inc. (1995). Final Report of RTCA Task Force 3: Free Flight Implementation. Washin

46、gton, DC: RTCA, Inc.2.30 Small, D.W., Carlson, L.S., and Kerns, K. (June, 1995). Human Factors Issues in Free Flight. Report MP95W0000184. McLean, VA: The MITRE Corporation.SAE ARD50079- 7 -2.31 Society of Automotive Engineers (1991). Managing the Modern Cockpit: Third Human Error Avoidance Techniqu

47、es Conference Proceedings (P-239). Warrendale, PA: Society of Automotive Engineers.2.32 Wickens, C.D., Mavor, A.S., Parasuraman, R., and McGee, J. P. (Eds.) (1998). The Future of Air Traffic Control: Human Operators and Automation. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.3. DEFINITIONS:This section c

48、ontains a complete listing of acronyms and definition of terms used in this document.3.1 Acronyms:AATT Advanced Air Transportation TechnologyACARS Aircraft Communications Addressing and Reporting SystemACAS Airborne Collision Avoidance SystemADM Aeronautical Decision MakingADS-A Automatic Dependent

49、Surveillance-AddressableADS-B Automatic Dependent Surveillance-BroadcastAFSS Automated Flight Service StationANS Air Navigation SystemAOC Aeronautical Operational ControlAQP Advanced Qualification ProgramARTCC Air Route Traffic Control CenterASD Aircraft Situation DisplayASAS Airborne Separation Assurance SystemASRS Aviation Safety Reporting SystemATC Air Traffic ControlATIS Automated Terminal Information SystemATM Air Traffic ManagementCDM Collaborative Decision MakingCDTI Cockpit Display of Traffic InformationCNS Communication, Navigation, and SurveillanceCNS/ATM Communication, Navig