1. Ground Human Machine Interface (GHMI): trends and the futureby
P. Jorna, GHMI Project Leader
NLR

2. Role of man in ATM: the past
Designers perspective: human is a nuisance factor
Human 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 exploited
Approach: break the borders, cross the bridges..
PHARE tasking: deliver a harmonised HMI with usable ‘tools’.

3. Human and Machine ‘teaming’
Goal: bottleneck reduction for controllers, more efficient use of human capabilities
Possible strategies Automation philosophy
remove tasks ‘Automatic’
tailor tasks ‘Adaptable’
workload dependent ‘Adaptive’
change tasks ‘Advanced’
PHARE tools approach, controller in charge

4. Project structure of GHMI:
General HMI automation principles
HMI for Advanced Tools (PATS)
Specific Controller Working Positions (CWP)
PHARE DEMONSTRATIONS

5. Defining the controller human machine interface
Operational concept & Human task analysis
Initial HMI design & dialogue(s)
Part task(s) prototyping
Evaluation & experiments
Iterations
Specifications & implementations
Training
Validation: did it work?, benefits?, risks? etc.

6. Machine assistance helpful? Datalink HMI prototypes
KLM123 s
= up linked (green)
153
120
100
= no response > 30s. (red) s
Label version
402 ×
280
250 4
= acknowledged (green)
B747
045
010 6
= unable (red)
plot symbol
Table version

7. Machine assistance helpful? Workload reduced
Pupil size decrease with lower workload

8. Machine assistance helpful? Improved detection times
Detection of non-confirmed clearances

9. Machine assistance helpful? Still subjective uncertainty! (
NASA TLX subjective workload ratings

10. PD-1: mastering the implementation process
Plan view display
HIPS speed view
Selected aircraft
ADFL
Track Data Block
HIPS altitude view
HIPS horizontal view

11. A PD1 example: the Highly Interactive Problem Solver

12. The work and experiences of the design teams
An international, multi-disciplinary group
HMI & automation design proved very complex
Conceptual (im)maturity hampered task analysis
After en-route design (PD1) complexity increased as well as the time constraints
Design teams split up in PD2, PD3 and Training team to allow for PD ‘overlaps’, experiments Cut!
Pressure: produce deliverable within project scope

13. PD-2: apply PD1 HMI to ETMA

14. A PD-2 example: the AMD

15. An unresolved AMD issue…..
Eye scanning under various traffic conditions

16. An unresolved AMD issue…..
Eye scanning under low traffic conditions

17. An unresolved AMD issue…..
Eye scanning under high traffic conditions

18. PD3: when the going gets tough, the tough get going...
Many CWP’s!
‘Gate to Gate’

19. A PD3 example: departures

20. Where we are with HMI standardisation for ATM.
GHMI followed a ‘generic’, common approach
Controller acceptance gradually increased through participation & familiarisation (training)
Direct object manipulation ok, but trajectory handling needs to simplified
‘What if’ tools helpful, various CWP design options
GHMI software: still ‘a need for speed’
Co-ordination between controllers needs attention
GHMI a starting point for the next century……..?

21. A 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 ASAS
Non nominal conditions need validation
Training issues need to be explored further
The road ahead needs good transportation
Lets travel that road together: EEC, RE’s, FAA etc.
A life time opportunity for improvements!

22. Many thanks to the team and….Until we meet again!
Continue the collaboration
Go for a PHARE NEXT
It is tough, but it works!
Also for US…..

23. Ground Human Machine Interface (GHMI): trends and the futureby
P. Jorna, GHMI Project Leader
NLR
next