October 15, 2009

AMT - Texas Tech Psychology Student Finds Less Automation Better for Air Traffic Controllers

With the nation’s air traffic expected to double by 2025, controllers will probably have to depend more and more on automation. But too much automation could lead to fatal mistakes when that automation fails, a former Texas Tech University psychology student discovered. The Joint Planning and Development Office, consisting of organizations such as NASA, the Federal Aviation Administration and the Department of Defense, is developing initiatives to help controllers handle increased air traffic that include more automation, said Arathi Sethumadhavan, who recently earned a doctorate degree from the Department of Psychology. “Fully automated systems are not always desirable because they tend to leave the controller out of the decision-making loop,” Sethumadhavan said. “The controllers tend to become overly reliant on the automation, so that when it fails, it’s hard for the operator to take back control. The key is to find the right level and type of automation that benefits the controller and still keeps the controller in the decision-making loop.” To help answer the question, Sethumadhavan trained 72 subjects to use a simple air traffic control simulator with four levels of automation. She found that controllers with more automation built into their systems were less able to detect collisions in their airspace when the systems failed than those who had less automation. Her work, titled Effects of Automation Types on Air Traffic Controller Situation Awareness, was published in the 2009 Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society. She will present her findings during the society’s annual meeting Oct. 19-23. Her research was funded by the American Psychological Foundation and the Council of Graduate Departments of Psychology. In one group, color-coded altitudes aided controllers, while a second group’s automated system highlighted possible collisions in the airspace. The third group’s automated system provided recommendations to avoid the possible collisions. The fourth group’s system automatically resolved potential collisions between aircraft.