Presentation on theme: "Ground Human Machine Interface (GHMI): trends and the future"— Presentation transcript:
1Ground Human Machine Interface (GHMI): trends and the future byP. Jorna, GHMI Project LeaderNLR
2Role of man in ATM: the past Designers perspective: human is a nuisance factorHuman sciences ok in knowledge, but no products!Software: ‘use it or perish’, no rights for the ‘user’Second (international) thoughts:‘Human bypass’ strategy proves impossible!!Humans and HF knowledge, needs to be exploitedApproach: break the borders, cross the bridges..PHARE tasking: deliver a harmonised HMI with usable ‘tools’.
3Human and Machine ‘teaming’ Goal: bottleneck reduction for controllers, more efficient use of human capabilitiesPossible strategies Automation philosophyremove tasks ‘Automatic’tailor tasks ‘Adaptable’workload dependent ‘Adaptive’change tasks ‘Advanced’PHARE tools approach, controller in charge
4Project structure of GHMI: General HMI automation principlesHMI for Advanced Tools (PATS)Specific Controller Working Positions (CWP)PHARE DEMONSTRATIONS
5Defining the controller human machine interface Operational concept & Human task analysisInitial HMI design & dialogue(s)Part task(s) prototypingEvaluation & experimentsIterationsSpecifications & implementationsTrainingValidation: did it work?, benefits?, risks? etc.
6Machine assistance helpful? Datalink HMI prototypes KLM123s= up linked (green)153120100= no response > 30s. (red)sLabel version402×2802504= acknowledged (green)B7470450106= unable (red)plot symbolTable version
8Machine assistance helpful? Improved detection times Detection of non-confirmed clearances
9Machine assistance helpful? Still subjective uncertainty! ( NASA TLX subjective workload ratings
10PD-1: mastering the implementation process Plan view displayHIPS speed viewSelected aircraftADFLTrack Data BlockHIPS altitude viewHIPS horizontal view
11A PD1 example: the Highly Interactive Problem Solver
12The work and experiences of the design teams An international, multi-disciplinary groupHMI & automation design proved very complexConceptual (im)maturity hampered task analysisAfter en-route design (PD1) complexity increased as well as the time constraintsDesign teams split up in PD2, PD3 and Training team to allow for PD ‘overlaps’, experiments Cut!Pressure: produce deliverable within project scope
20Where we are with HMI standardisation for ATM. GHMI followed a ‘generic’, common approachController acceptance gradually increased through participation & familiarisation (training)Direct object manipulation ok, but trajectory handling needs to simplified‘What if’ tools helpful, various CWP design optionsGHMI software: still ‘a need for speed’Co-ordination between controllers needs attentionGHMI a starting point for the next century……..?
21A life time opportunity for improvements! And the future…...The work was completed, but it is not finished!Experiments are in need to learn about impact on controller behaviour, traffic awareness and ASASNon nominal conditions need validationTraining issues need to be explored furtherThe road ahead needs good transportationLets travel that road together: EEC, RE’s, FAA etc.A life time opportunity for improvements!
22Many thanks to the team and….Until we meet again! Continue the collaborationGo for a PHARE NEXTIt is tough, but it works!Also for US…..
23Ground Human Machine Interface (GHMI): trends and the future byP. Jorna, GHMI Project LeaderNLRnext