1. Nationaal Lucht- en Ruimtevaartlaboratorium – National Aerospace Laboratory NLR Towards a paperless Air Traffic Control Tower Tanja Bos, National Aerospace Laboratory, the Netherlands 22 November 2011, MARIN

2. 2 Flight progress strips Functions: to present flight information to controllers to allow controller to administer instructions to build and maintain a mental picture of the traffic under control to support the hand-over of flights between controllers Why digitize: to centralize/share information –with other users –with other systems practical issues –handling –noise Is a digital system as safe as paper?

3. 3 Objectives of the research Objective to specify a system to replace paper flight strips in the Air Traffic Control Tower Tower positions at Schiphol Airport Start-up Control Ground Control (1 or 2) Runway Control (1 or 2) Assistant Controller(s) Combined positions Seamless transition

4. 4 Process followed Analyse working methods Definition of functions Prototyping Part-task evaluation Definition of concept Whole-task evaluation Multi-disciplinary team

5. 5 Prototype Per position: number of bays function of different bays hand-overs (incoming and outgoing traffic) disposal of strips (when a/c at the gate..) Generic working position consisting of 2 joint displays, electronic pen 6 strip bays 2 pending bays (left and right)

6. 6 Prototype

7. 7 EFS – Evaluation in NARSIM Tower Comparison of paper and EFS Two positions and two seatings: Ground Controller and Runway Controller Ground Controller and Ground Controller Two Crews: 4 Ground Controllers and 2 Runway Controller

8. 8 EFS - Evaluation Research Questions: Head-down time? Support building and retaining mental picture? Facilitate the hand-over of strips between: two ground controllers ground and runway controller Measurement: Video recordings Observations (e.g., response to events) Simulator loggings Questionnaires Debriefings

9. 9 EFS – Evaluation results Controller could work busy traffic sample after only 20 to 30 minutes familiarisation Head-down time EFS 79%, paper 74% (both very high!) –more visual attention for handling Building and maintaining mental picture adequate responses to events was more effortful with EFS –incoming strips were left unnoticed longer, no sound –limited familiarisation Hand-over support by EFS was rated higher strips were left unnoticed by the receiver longer (35 seconds to acceptation)

10. 10 EFS – Discussion Is EFS as safe as paper strips? Will head-up time increase after prolonged use? No unsafe effect of reduced head-up time found Responses to events were adequate Controllers can remain in their position Add a sound to incoming strips

11. 11 Towards a paperless Air Traffic Control Tower Contact: Tanja Bos tanja.bos@nlr.nl National Aerospace Laboratorytanja.bos@nlr.nl

12. 12