1. Fredrik Barchéus, KTH Lena Mårtensson, KTH Anthony Smoker, IFATCA
A Joint Cognitive Systems perspective – Consequences for an ASAS Human Factors research agenda
Fredrik Barchéus, KTH
Lena Mårtensson, KTH
Anthony Smoker, IFATCA
A Joint Cognitive Systems perspective - Consequences for an ASAS Human Factors research agenda

2. The information processing view
Feedback
Human
Perception
Situation
awareness
Decision
making
Action
The term “cognitive perspective” usually refers to some want to model internal functions of the human mind.
A Joint Cognitive Systems perspective - Consequences for an ASAS Human Factors research agenda

3. Process model of interaction
Actor A
Interactions
In a process model, the most important entity is not either of the actors but that there are interactions.
Actor B
A Joint Cognitive Systems perspective - Consequences for an ASAS Human Factors research agenda

4. The Joint Cognitive Systems view
Operator
Sensors and
displays
Automation
Controls
This is a more general view of a Joint Cognitive System. Important to realise is that it is not only one operator. The “system” box may contain more human actors, or human actors may act in parallel to the depicted operator.
System
(process)
A Joint Cognitive Systems perspective - Consequences for an ASAS Human Factors research agenda

5. Joint Cognitive Systems The controller perspective
Controllers
Display
Mouse
Voice R/T
ATC-system
Voice R/T
Data link
ADS-B
Data link
From the controllers view, the system may look like this. There is the controller who interacts with traffic, indirectly through the ATC-system and directly through R/T. Of course this is an aggregate view since a/c may interact within the “traffic” box. Also the controller is not alone but has human resources available (planning controller, supervisor etc).
Traffic
A Joint Cognitive Systems perspective - Consequences for an ASAS Human Factors research agenda

6. Joint Cognitive Systems The pilot perspective
Pilots
Knobs
& dials
Displays
AP, FMS
e.g. vibrations
Levers
Voice R/T
Voice R/T
The situation is similar for the pilot except that the automation not necessarily is regarded an integral piece of the aircraft.
Aircraft
Data link
ADS-B
Data link
ADS-B
ATC-system
other aircraft
A Joint Cognitive Systems perspective - Consequences for an ASAS Human Factors research agenda

7. Joint Cognitive Systems
Controllers
Aviation
A very high level aggregation based on human actors may look like this. The “aviation” box in between may contain both ground systems as well as the “airborne” traffic system.
Pilots
A Joint Cognitive Systems perspective - Consequences for an ASAS Human Factors research agenda

8. Joint Cognitive Systems
Controllers
ATC-system
Aircraft
Aircraft
AP, FMS
AP, FMS
An expanded view reveals that the number of interactions is not trivial, although they may not have to be addressed equally from all perspectives. EXAMPLE: The distinction between a/c automation and the actual aircraft may not be important for the controller, but the direct communication to the aircraft rather than the pilot may affect the communication loop.
Pilots
Pilots
A Joint Cognitive Systems perspective - Consequences for an ASAS Human Factors research agenda

9. Joint Cognitive Systems
Unit of analysis is the whole system rather than separate components
Problem driven approach rather than technology driven
Focus on use of tools rather than the tools per se
Cooperation rather than delegation
A summary of main points of the JCS view may look like this.
A Joint Cognitive Systems perspective - Consequences for an ASAS Human Factors research agenda

10. Present ATC control process
( )
Pilots
Executive
Planning
ATC-system
From the executive controller’s position the control process may be described like this. The pilot may sometimes function as an extra information provider (mainly regarding a/c performance). The planning controller interacts with the ATC-system, but has less authority over the actual input.
Note the double arrows.
Traffic
A Joint Cognitive Systems perspective - Consequences for an ASAS Human Factors research agenda

11. ASAS package I control process
( )
Pilots
Executive
Planning
ATC-system 
Many applications do not necessarily have a great impact on procedures (ADS-B-ACC, ADS-B-TMA, ADS-B-NRA, ADS-B-APT).
(Anim. 1) However with ADS-B-APT the amount of traffic information will increase with ground vehicle equipage.
(Anim. 2) Others will inevitably change issues like communication (ADS-B-ADD). With ADD controllers do not need to ask for some parameters. IMPORTANT: What parameters are being asked for? Is it interesting for a controller to know the weight of an a/c or the possibility to climb a certain pace?
(anim. 3) Procedures to support communication based on ATSA-AIRB and ATSA-SURF must be based on user behaviour. May the pilot become more of an “extra” planning controller?
(anim. 4) ATSA-S&A may increase pilot involvement but occurs in UMAS and so is of no concern to the controller.
(anim. 5) ATSA-SVA and ASPA-S&M may be initial points to delegation of tasks to the pilot. OBSERVATION: Visual approaches are considered good service by pilots.
(anim. 6) ASPA-ITP will be coordinated by a controller (?) and may increase communication.
Traffic 
UMAS
A Joint Cognitive Systems perspective - Consequences for an ASAS Human Factors research agenda

12. ASAS package II control process
Pilots
Pilots
Executive
Planning
ATC-system 
(anim. 1) Airborne separation applications will direct separation responsibility to the pilot.
(anim. 2) Self-separation in low-density airspace may introduce interactions between pilots.
Traffic 
UMAS
A Joint Cognitive Systems perspective - Consequences for an ASAS Human Factors research agenda

13. Level of analysis Increasing abstraction Organisation Task Interface
technology
Task
(anim. 1) Usually the approach taken is to focus on a certain level.
The interface level a very detailed analysis.
(anim. 2) On the task level more the analysis is more aggregated.
(anim. 3) On the organisation level we have issues like “safety culture”.
(anim. 4) On higher levels we have increasing abstraction.
(anim. 5) On lower levels it seems the technology focus increases.
(anim. 6) The Joint Cognitive Systems view states that to the largest possible extent all levels should be analysed.
Issues may not transfer well between levels; e.g. phraseology on the lowest level (i.e. what words to be used to include all necessary information) may create excess workload (i.e. too much talk)
(anim. 7-8) An interface may be analysed for a certain purpose in a certain context. The same interface may be used for a similar purpose in a different context. CONTEXT BASED!
Interface
A Joint Cognitive Systems perspective - Consequences for an ASAS Human Factors research agenda

14. Mode awareness problems may be stated as an example of this.
(anim. 1) In the upper picture (v/s) the unit of climb is feet/min.
(anim. 2) In the lower (fpa) it is the angle of the flight path.
(Sarter & Woods, 1995)
A Joint Cognitive Systems perspective - Consequences for an ASAS Human Factors research agenda

15. How much does current research cover?
Aggregation
In an aggregation-application space, what is the status of present research?
(anim. 1) Some studies span across aggregation levels with firm boundaries.
(anim. 2) Some studies have loose borders.
(anim. 3) Some are small.
(anim. 4) Others are large.
(anim. 5) They may be partly overlapping.
(anim. 6) Have limited scope and leave some things out.
(anim. 7) Focus on certain issues in different applications.
Some of these issues are covered by the ASAS application maturity assessment.
(anim. 9) How may the gaps be addressed so as to ensure safe operation on a system level? To explicitly analyse every possibility is not realistic.
(anim. 10) Is there a need for further coordination on a more aggregate level?
Application
A Joint Cognitive Systems perspective - Consequences for an ASAS Human Factors research agenda

16. To what extent is ASAS research coordinated?
ASAS-TN2
Dissemination between projects
Co-operation and partnerships
Informal knowledge-sharing
...
Is that enough?
A Joint Cognitive Systems perspective - Consequences for an ASAS Human Factors research agenda

17. Consequences for ASAS HF research
Investigate interactions between realistic actors
See what technology is needed to solve problems, not what problems can be found to fit the technology
Focus on the way pilots and controllers use the availability of tools, rather than prescribing fix procedures based on the capability of technology
Perform analysis on a meaningful level of detail with sufficient aggregation
 Early user involvement
Some consequences of the JCS view may be...
A Joint Cognitive Systems perspective - Consequences for an ASAS Human Factors research agenda

18. Thank you for listening!
A Joint Cognitive Systems perspective - Consequences for an ASAS Human Factors research agenda