60 likes | 158 Views
The role of human in ATM automation: a key issue Alain Printemps head of DNA/CENA. Automating ATM processes. Complete automation is not anticipated. The controller is there, so we should: take the best of human and machine capabilities provide a working environment that should be
E N D
The role of human in ATM automation: a key issueAlain Printemps head of DNA/CENA
Automating ATM processes • Complete automation is not anticipated. • The controller is there, so we should: • take the best of human and machine capabilities • provide a working environment that should be • fault tolerant, reliable, flexible and efficient • providing a clear sharing of role of each actor • This constitutes in ATM 2000+ the “human centered approach”
The human centred approach • Man better • strategy • flexibility / adaptability • creativity • global view / good sense • Machine better • stress • limited resources • errors / vigilance • real time computation Some recommendations (Dr. Erzberger, NASA) • DO NOT automate unique skills or enjoyable tasks • DO NOT automate complex or poorly understood tasks • DO automate to increase situation awareness (and not the contrary) • DO automate to enrich controller’s work environment and complement controller skills
The PHARE approach Data link technology offers new possibilities: • how to take them into account to offer a better service and a better assistance to the controller? • The controller as a supervisor of an automated system. Not recommended: loss of situation awareness. • Cognitive approach (automation based on typical controller heuristics). Not retained as considered more appropriate for optimisation of existing concept. • From these two extremes an intermediate solution was selected.
Role of the controller in PHARE • Planning controller: global traffic management • Negotiates the conflict free aircraft trajectory. • Updates the planning of trajectories in case of unexpected events. • Tactical controller: traffic monitoring • Little initiative except when something does not go as planned. • Introduction of “co-operative tools” in PD/3 as an attempt to improve situation awareness and communication between the two controllers.
A challenge for the future • Today: increase number of controllers • Tomorrow (2005) : increase sector capacity with a cognitive approach to automation • 2010 and beyond? The PHARE scenario: a quite significant step. Issues to be resolved: • Training: is such a change acceptable for today controllers? • Liability: increased role of ground and airborne computers, new pilot responsibilities. • Transition: intermediate steps are necessary.