This Article Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: 0018720809344720v1 51/4/446    most recent References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map 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 Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Wickens, C. D. Articles by Clayton, K. PubMed Articles by Wickens, C. D. Articles by Clayton, K. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

False Alerts in Air Traffic Control Conflict Alerting System: Is There a "Cry Wolf" Effect?

Alion Science Corporation, Boulder, Colorado, cwickens{at}alionscience.com

Stephen Rice

New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, New Mexico

David Keller

New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, New Mexico

Shaun Hutchins

Alion Science Corporation

Jamie Hughes

New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, New Mexico

Krisstal Clayton

New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, New Mexico

Objective: The aim is to establish the extent to which the high false-alarm rate of air traffic control midair conflict alerts is responsible for a "cry wolf" effect—where true alerts are not responded to and all alerts are delayed in their response. Background: Some aircraft collisions have been partly attributed to the cry wolf effect, and in other domains (health care and systems monitoring), there is a causal connection between false-alarm rate and cry wolf behavior. We hypothesized that a corresponding relationship exists in air traffic control (ATC). Method: Aircraft track and alert system behavior data surrounding 495 conflict alerts were analyzed to identify true and false alerts, trajectory type, and controller behavior. Forty-five percent of the alerts were false, ranging from 0.28 to 0.58. Results: Although centers with more false alerts contributed to more nonresponses, there was no evidence that these were nonresponses to true alerts or that response times were delayed in those centers. Instead, controllers showed desirable anticipatory behavior by issuing trajectory changes prior to the alert. Those trajectory pairs whose conflicts were more difficult to visualize induced more reliance on, and less compliance with, the alerting system. Conclusion: The high false-alarm rate does not appear to induce cry wolf behavior in the context of en route ATC conflict alerts. Application: There is no need to substantially modify conflict alert algorithms, but the conflict alert system may be modified to address difficult-to-visualize conflicts.

This version was published on August 1, 2009

Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, Vol. 51, No. 4, 446-462 (2009)
DOI: 10.1177/0018720809344720


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