This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Nikolic, M. I. Articles by Sarter, N. B. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Nikolic, M. I. Articles by Sarter, N. B. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Flight Deck Disturbance Management: A Simulator Study of Diagnosis and Recovery From Breakdowns in Pilot-Automation Coordination

The Boeing Company, Seattle, Washington, mark.i.nikolic{at}boeing.com

Nadine B. Sarter

University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan

Objective: To examine operator strategies for diagnosing and recovering from errors and disturbances as well as the impact of automation design and time pressure on these processes. Background: Considerable efforts have been directed at error prevention through training and design. However, because errors cannot be eliminated completely, their detection, diagnosis, and recovery must also be supported. Research has focused almost exclusively on error detection. Little is known about error diagnosis and recovery, especially in the context of event-driven tasks and domains. Method: With a confederate pilot, 12 airline pilots flew a 1-hr simulator scenario that involved three challenging automation-related tasks and events that were likely to produce erroneous actions or assessments. Behavioral data were compared with a canonical path to examine pilots' error and disturbance management strategies. Debriefings were conducted to probe pilots' system knowledge. Results: Pilots seldom followed the canonical path to cope with the scenario events. Detection of a disturbance was often delayed. Diagnostic episodes were rare because of pilots' knowledge gaps and time criticality. In many cases, generic inefficient recovery strategies were observed, and pilots relied on high levels of automation to manage the consequences of an error. Conclusion. Our findings describe and explain the nature and shortcomings of pilots' error management activities. They highlight the need for improved automation training and design to achieve more timely detection, accurate explanation, and effective recovery from errors and disturbances. Application: Our findings can inform the design of tools and techniques that support disturbance management in various complex, event-driven environments.

Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, Vol. 49, No. 4, 553-563 (2007)
DOI: 10.1518/001872007X215647


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?