210 likes | 379 Views
Etiquette & Equity in Automated Aerospace Systems. Kevin M. Corker Human Automation Integration Laboratory (HAIL) San Jose State University 11/15/02. Acknowledgements. Sponsored by NASA Aviation Safety Program: Dr. Irving Statler technical monitor, FAA Office of ATM Architecture:
E N D
Etiquette & Equity in Automated Aerospace Systems Kevin M. Corker Human Automation Integration Laboratory (HAIL) San Jose State University 11/15/02
Acknowledgements • Sponsored by • NASA Aviation Safety Program: • Dr. Irving Statler technical monitor, • FAA Office of ATM Architecture: • Mr. Steve Bradford, Chief Scientist, technical monitor • FAA Office of Chief Scientist for Human Factors, • Drs. Mark Rodgers and Dr. Paul Krois, technical monitors
Automation Issues • Impact • Introduction of automation changes the role of the operators in the system & increases target capability • Workload and sources for error are distributed not eliminated • Common Sources of Error in use of automation • Decision bias • Mistrust & Distrust lead Over & Under-reliance • Monitoring errors • System authority, autonomy, trust and agent’s role • How is automation used, rather then how was it designed to be used ? • Any number of accidents and incidents determined to be associated with automated systems’ • Lack of feedback • Unidentified interrelations, side effects • Divergent priority and valuation processes
Evolution of an etiquette argument • Evolutionary Psychology: the development of a process of moralistic aggression whose purpose it is to educate individuals to the standards expected (Badcock, 2000) • Breaches in etiquette evoke a response that is disruptive, moralistic and (occasionally)aggressive • Social Psychology: Ability to monitor one’s own and others states of emotion and process to use that information to guide one’s thinking and actions (Salovey and Mayer, 1990) • Cognitive Psychology: Dedicated, functionally specialized interacting mechanisms (Cosmides and Tooby, 1992) • Guide behavior and thought w/to recurrent & adaptive problems posed by the social world
Etiquette and Automation • Human to Computer Courtesy: computer performance assessment experiments (Reeves & Nass, 1996) • Theory of mind: Cognitive entities experience mental states like our own (Premack & Woodruff, 1978) • Automated Autism: lack of awareness of mental & emotional embeddedness as symptomatic of autism: “mind-blind” (Baron-Cohen and Howlin, 1989) • Computer to Human Affect (Picard, 1997)
Etiquette In Aerospace • Theses: • One purpose for etiquette is to support secondary communication among interactive agents with reference to: • Conflict free access to scarce resources • Present process, goal state & priorities • In capacity constrained air traffic management, access to command & control processes is both necessary and limited • In automation aiding automation response dependence of system-operator state is essential
Joint Cognitive Systems Analysis • Apply cognitive engineering principles to the joint cognitive system • What role will the system provide the operator in nominal and off-nominal operation? • What behavioral data have we when the human is in that role? • What design augments or offsets that behavior? • What role will the system provide the automation in nominal and off-nominal operation? • What performance data have we when the automation is in that role? • What design augments or offsets that behavior?
Automation Analysis • High: Full Automation information selection analyses decision and implementation • Automation informs human/organization on the basis of rules • Executes actions automatically then informs human/organization • Allows human/organization override on a limited time schedule • Mid: Executes computer generated plan if human/organization approves • Automation provides best single alternative • Automation narrows the available field of alternatives • Automation provides a complete set of alternatives • Low: All information selection analyses decision and implementation performed by human/organization Parasuraman, Sheridan, and Wickens, 2000
Flight Deck ATC Dimensions of Automation Impact on Aero-transport Information Information Decision Action Acquisition Analysis Selection Implementation High Low
Automated Flight Deck Response to Off Nominal Conditions Weiner, 1985
5 Miles 2000 ft. Separation Standard Required
Data Link Vs. Voice Error % in Standard and Missed Communication Lozito et al., 1999
Data vs. VoiceCommunication Time In Clarification Lozito et al., 1999
Automation Aiding System • Present Flight Data in Digital Form • Provide an “exploration” capability for alternative flight paths • Provide conflict prediction based on trajectory synthesis (20 min look ahead) • Current flight path as filed and radar track • Planned Flight Path • Flight Deck Aiding System (60-40 sec look ahead)
Etiquette & Equity • Access can be decomposed into two elements • Internal Delay Costs: Cost incurred by user (x) in accessing and using a service • External Delay Costs: Cost incurred by all other users of that service as a function of user (x) occupancy of the resource • Strategy for Demand Management Cost Equity is to shift the external costs to internal costs • E.g. by the imposition of a “congestion fee” (Vickers, 1969, Daniel, 1995)
Etiquette& Equity(adapted from Andreatta & Odoni, 2002) • Behaviors that support “courtesy” impose a cost to the operator that engages in them • Total Cost to user (Xi) = DC + CF • Where DC is the direct cost for access to the command and control system (attention, bandwidth, SA, etc.) • And CF is a courtesy fee which is the added cost to participate through the etiquette of operation • Intended Result: • - Distribution of external costs equitably (cooperative queue management)
Pollaczek-Khintchine Expression Direct Cost Access Fee Courtesy Cost xi = ci Wqi (x) + {Sj=1 cjlj (xj)}dWq(xmean)/dli(xi) + Ki
Error Reduction Correlated to Number of Communication Types Mjos, 2001
Etiquette and Aerospace Systems • Current automated ATM systems do not support “etiquette functions” in human-human interaction • Communication is asynchronous, loop closure is delayed (e.g. digital data link) • Contract State Assurance is missing (“shot clock” and “flash & dash” procedures) • Queue Management Functions are missing • Mechanisms for mediation are “clumsy” (data link “stand-by” message) • Automation is blind to system-operator state • Hypothesized Result: Class of error & Response under load
Etiquette-based Automation Strategies • Shared Cost for Access to Scarce Executive Function • State-sensitive Intervention Strategies • Interruptive Signaling and Adaptive Response • Automation and Human Goal States as Scheduling Mechanism