Maj Paola VERDE MD PhD FORLì ENAV Academy 19 th sept 2012

1. HUMAN-MACHINE INTERFACES IN FLIGHT: THE HUMAN SIDE Maj Paola VERDE MD PhD FORLì ENAV Academy 19th sept 2012

2. SITUATIONAL AWARENESSDEFINITION THE PERCEPTION OF THE ELEMENTS IN THE ENVIRONMENT WITHIN A FRAME OF TIME AND SPACE, THE COMPREHENSION OF THEIR MEANING, AND THE PROJECTION OF THEIR STATUS IN THE NEAR FUTURE. Endsley, 1993

3. HUMAN INFORMATION PROCESSING MODEL(Wickens, 1984) Decision and Response Selection Response Selection STSS Perception Long-Term Memory Working Memory Memory Attention Stimuli Response Feedback

4. ATTENTION PERCEPTION MEMORY SA PREDICTION EXPERIENCE TRAINING EXECUTION DECISION- MAKING RISK ASSESSMENT PRIORITIZATION HUMAN PERFORMANCE

5. SITUATIONAL AWARENESS AND ATTENTION THREATS • TEMPORAL DISTORTION • CHANNELIZED ATTENTION • DISTRACTION • TASK SATURATION • INATTENTION • HABITUATION • NEGATIVE TRANSFER • JUDGMENT • INAPPROPRIATE MOTIVATION • HAZARDOUS ATTITUDES • LACK OF ASSERTIVENESS

6. TEMPORAL DISTORTION • PROBLEM: • INABILITY TO ACCURATELY JUDGE PASSAGE OF TIME • NORMAL RESPONSE TO HIGH WORKLOAD OR STRESS • MAGNIFIES ALL OTHER ATTENTION MANAGEMENT PROBLEMS • PREVENTION: • RECOGNIZE PROBLEM EXISTS • YOU HAVE LESS TIME THAN YOU THINK YOU DO!

7. CHANNELIZED ATTENTION • CONTRIBUTING FACTORS • EXCESSIVE MOTIVATION (PRESSING) • EMERGENCY OR ABNORMAL SITUATION • TEMPORAL DISTORTION • FATIGUE • SUPERVISION

8. DISTRACTION INTERRUPTION OF CONSCIOUS ATTENTION TO A TASK BY NON-TASK RELATED ENVIRONMENTAL CUES

9. TASK SATURATION

10. TASK SATURATION • PROBLEM: • TOO MUCH TO ATTEND TO AT ONE TIME • MISSING IMPORTANT INFORMATION • LEADS TO CHANNELIZED ATTENTION • CONTRIBUTING FACTORS: • EXPERIENCED OR INEXPERIENCED • DEMANDING TASKS • AIRCRAFT SYSTEM DESIGN • EMERGENCY SITUATION

11. INATTENTION • PROBLEM: • NOT ENOUGH ATTENTION DEVOTED TO THE TASK • CONTRIBUTING FACTORS: • LACK OF A CHALLENGE • BOREDOM • COMPLACENCY

12. HABITUATION • PROBLEM: • BECOMING SO USED TO A CUE AFTER PROLONGED EXPOSURE THAT IT IS NO LONGER ATTENDED • CONTRIBUTING FACTORS: • FAMILIAR ROUTINES • COMPLACENCY • SOMETHING IS DIFFERENT

13. NEGATIVE TRANSFER • PROBLEM: • WELL LEARNED RESPONSE TO A GIVEN TASK MAY NOT BE APPROPRIATE IN NEW OR DIFFERENT SITUATION • CONTRIBUTING FACTORS: • NEW ENVIRONMENT • HIGH EXPERIENCE • HIGH WORKLOAD • EMERGENCY

14. NEGATIVE TRANSFER: T-6 MISHAP

15. CAUSES OF LOSS OF SA • PERCEPTUAL PROBLEMS • SPATIAL DISORIENTATION • VISUAL ILLUSIONS • AIRCRAFT FEEDBACK • FLIGHT FEEDBACK • POOR JUDGMENT/DECISION MAKING • CRM • ATTENTION MANAGEMENT

16. PRE-FLIGHT CONSIDERATIONS M – MISSION E – ENVIRONMENT J/A – JET/AIRCRAFT S – SITUATION A – AIRCREW

17. DEBRIEFING • EMPHASIZE GOOD AND BAD • DETERMINE SOURCE OF HUMAN PERFORMANCE BREAKDOWNS • INPUT ERRORS • DECISION ERRORS • OUTPUT ERRORS

18. SITUATIONAL AWARENESS AND DECISION MAKING • SA IS THE MAIN PRECURSOR TO DECISION MAKING • VARIOUS FACTORS TURN “GOOD” SA INTO POOR PERFORMANCE • SELECTING A POOR STRATEGY • LIMITED DECISION CHOICES DUE TO ORGANIZATIONAL OR TECHNICAL CONSTRAINTS • INDIVIDUAL PERSONALITY FACTORS

19. INFORMATION NEEDED DATA PRODUCED SORT FIND INTEGRATE PROCESS THE INFORMATION GAP IS IT A LACK OF INFORMATION? OR FINDING WHAT IS NEEDED WHEN IT IS NEEDED?

20. HUMAN FACTOR IN UNMANNED SYSTEM • SENSORY ISOLATION • DELAY IN DATA TRANSMISSION COLOUR DISCRIMINATION, FIELD OF VIEW • SATURATION-BOREDOM-WORKLOAD • VIRTUAL REALITY SICKNESS

21. UAV: What kind of Human Computer Interface? • HCI Goal: Safe, efficient, effective control of the air vehicle • Ergonomic Issues : Minimize Physical Fatigue • Form and fit to the human body • Comfortable environment (temp and lighting) • Cognitive Issues : Minimize Mental Fatigue • Digital versus analog displays • Placement and font of text • Appropriate symbol shapes and colors • Aircraft Control Issues : Minimize UAV Response time • Rapid response while preventing over control • Stick and Rudder vs. Point and Click ERAU Oct 2005

22. Some HCI Design Principles • Does display or control always operate as documented? • Principle: It should operate in accordance with the documentation and in a way that represents an operator's "intuitive" understanding. • Is this control/display like others in the operator’s previous experience? • Principle: Standardization facilitates learning and transfer of operational skill between various systems. Possible "negative learning transfer" can result if controls are non-standard. • Is this display/control likely to be confused for any other? • Principle: Controls and displays that have different functions but similar arrangements are potentially hazardous. Display formats must be distinguishable from one another to clearly assess flight status data. • Are instruments and controls with related functions grouped together in a logical arrangement? • Principle: logical grouping of controls/displays helps reduce instrument scan time and lowers operator workload. Adapted From: “Cockpit Control and Display Design Hazard Analysis” Author: Anthony Ciavarelli, Ed. D. ERAU Oct 2005

23. UAS Cognitive Example: Instrument Panel Anything unusual? • Manned Aircraft: • ±180° of roll • This UAV: • ±30° of roll • But scale is off • 30° ≠ 60° • Manned Aircraft: • Fixed horizon line • Rotating sphere • This UAV: • Fixed sphere • Rotating horizon line ERAU Oct 2005

24. UAS Cognitive Example: Moving “Map” • Manned Aircraft • Map moves • Acft static • Most UAS • Map static • Acft Moves Anything unusual? ERAU Oct 2005

25. QUESTIONS?