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

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’.

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

A PD1 example: the Highly Interactive Problem Solver

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

PD-2: apply PD1 HMI to ETMA

A PD-2 example: the AMD

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

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

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

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

A PD3 example: departures

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……..?

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!

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…..

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