Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

In our July 2013 article, “Flight Deck Automation: Invaluable Collaborator or Insidious Enabler?” we addressed the problems induced by flight deck automation. In this second of our two-article series, we propose design concepts intended to improve safety by modifying the interface between human operators and the automation they supervise. We provide examples illustrating our vision toward the implementation of a more context-aware system to enable effective communication of intent, goal progression, and limitations between machine functions and human operators.

Keywords

automation automation surprise context-aware computing crew resource management operator complacency threat and error management

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bass

E. J.

Feigh

K. M.

Gunter

E. L.

Rushby

J. M.

(2011, June). Formal modeling and analysis for interactive hybrid systems. Paper presented at the Fourth International Workshop on Formal Methods for Interactive Systems: FMIS 2011, Limerick, Ireland.

Bureau d’Enquêtes et d’Analyses. (2012). Final report, Air France Flight AF 447, Rio de Janeiro – Paris, June 1, 2009. Retrieved from http://www.bea.aero/en/enquetes/flight.af.447/rapport.final.en.php

Federal Aviation Administration. (2006). Approval of flight guidance systems (Advisory Circular 25.1329-1B). Washington, DC: Author.

Geiselman

Johnson

Buck

(2013). Flight deck automation: Invaluable collaborator or insidious enabler? Ergonomics in Design, 21(3), 22–26.

Miller

C. A.

(2002). Definitions and dimensions of etiquette (Tech. Rep. FS-02-02). Menlo Park, CA: AAAI.

National Transportation Safety Board. (2009). Operational Factors/Human Performance Group chairman’s factual report (DCA10IA001). Washington, DC: Author.

Norman

(1988). The design of everyday things. New York, NY: Basic Books.