Human Error and Technology in ATC
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Loughborough
Age: 36
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Human Error and Technology in ATC
Hi
Not sure if this is the right place to put this but...
I'm a final year student at Loughborough University and for my dissertation I'm looking at human error and technology in air traffic control.
I have made a quick on-line survey, and would be grateful if you could spare a few minutes to fill it in.
I'm not after personal details and all the information will remain completely confidential.
Technology, Contextual and Human Factors
Thanks for your time
Chris
Not sure if this is the right place to put this but...
I'm a final year student at Loughborough University and for my dissertation I'm looking at human error and technology in air traffic control.
I have made a quick on-line survey, and would be grateful if you could spare a few minutes to fill it in.
I'm not after personal details and all the information will remain completely confidential.
Technology, Contextual and Human Factors
Thanks for your time
Chris
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: In Denial
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Lboro
I've just completed your survey and in my opinion you can possibly make it a little more indepth. ATC and aviation is incredibly complex and Human Factors play an enormous roll. To the point where IATA have designed courses purely to highlight human factors.
The kind of questions I think you could add are:
At what period do we feel most inclined to be negatively affected by human factors?
Looking at the human factors model, is there anything we see that could result in human factors contributing to an accident or incident?
You know? That typical kind of stuff...
Just my bit, good lukc, hope you ge a tonne of responses
I've just completed your survey and in my opinion you can possibly make it a little more indepth. ATC and aviation is incredibly complex and Human Factors play an enormous roll. To the point where IATA have designed courses purely to highlight human factors.
The kind of questions I think you could add are:
At what period do we feel most inclined to be negatively affected by human factors?
Looking at the human factors model, is there anything we see that could result in human factors contributing to an accident or incident?
You know? That typical kind of stuff...
Just my bit, good lukc, hope you ge a tonne of responses
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Age: 79
Posts: 8,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I completed the "survey", but it is so small and meaningless that I don't know how you can use the information to any benefit. I was expecting something about 10 pages long.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Loughborough
Age: 36
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry maybe I should have explained a bit more
Thanks for those of you who have completed the survey and given me feedback
I should have probably explained a bit better in the first post.
I do realise that the subject of human error is very very complex, through all my research I keep discovering how much more it covers than I originally thought.
However because I'm an undergraduate I have been told to take a far simpler view, in fact I realise that at most I will only scratch the surface.
The aim of the questionnaire really is to find out about what people feel are key pieces of technology, both at the current time and in the future. I can then use these results to justify case studies in the dissertation.
This survey forms a small part of my research, and that's why its not 10 pages long or in-depth, I just wanted to make something that would only take people a few minutes tops to complete
Thanks again
Chris
I should have probably explained a bit better in the first post.
I do realise that the subject of human error is very very complex, through all my research I keep discovering how much more it covers than I originally thought.
However because I'm an undergraduate I have been told to take a far simpler view, in fact I realise that at most I will only scratch the surface.
The aim of the questionnaire really is to find out about what people feel are key pieces of technology, both at the current time and in the future. I can then use these results to justify case studies in the dissertation.
This survey forms a small part of my research, and that's why its not 10 pages long or in-depth, I just wanted to make something that would only take people a few minutes tops to complete
Thanks again
Chris
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Age: 79
Posts: 8,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We had a University student at Heathrow once decision-making in ATC. He was with us for a few weeks, sat in with us, chatted with us in the rest room, etc., and it really was an most interesting experience for both sides. At the end we saw the results of his work and the decisions which controllers made without thinking about filled a good few pages.
Technology is a serious matter in ATC because very few machines have been devised which can undertake the decision making aspect of the job and the majority simply provide information for the controller to use in his decision making processes. I guess ATCOs will be replaced by computer chips eventually, but it ain't about to happen.
Hope you get a 1:1!
Technology is a serious matter in ATC because very few machines have been devised which can undertake the decision making aspect of the job and the majority simply provide information for the controller to use in his decision making processes. I guess ATCOs will be replaced by computer chips eventually, but it ain't about to happen.
Hope you get a 1:1!
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Well I know where I'm not....
Posts: 127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chris,
Have you approached Nats about getting their view point on this? There's been a big drive within the company geared around Human Factors and there are quite a few people employed who deal with this very subject.
Maybe they might be able to help or you may get a better understanding how we (nats) are approaching the job in light of HF?
The chap who is (or maybe was) in charge could talk all day about the subject! (Jason, I forget the surname!) I could try better if you haven't already!
Regards
SE
Have you approached Nats about getting their view point on this? There's been a big drive within the company geared around Human Factors and there are quite a few people employed who deal with this very subject.
Maybe they might be able to help or you may get a better understanding how we (nats) are approaching the job in light of HF?
The chap who is (or maybe was) in charge could talk all day about the subject! (Jason, I forget the surname!) I could try better if you haven't already!
Regards
SE
There's been a big drive within the company geared around Human Factors and there are quite a few people employed who deal with this very subject.
At the end we saw the results of his work and the decisions which controllers made without thinking about filled a good few pages.
2 s
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: On a rolling stone
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2 s
You could always ask any of them for more info - try via Liz.
But a few things include:
You could always ask any of them for more info - try via Liz.
But a few things include:
- help design and evaluate systems to meet user needs (e.g. Mode S);
- help investigate incidents to understand the things that contribute to them (technology, procedures, organisation, "human error", i.e. normal human variability) and identify and help implement measures to reduce risk;
- help implement major new projects (e.g. Heathrow tower, EFPS) to ensure user input and needs are represented properly;
- help assess risk asociated with new procedures and systems;
- help design training to ensure better learning;
- help implement the critical incident stress management programme;
- help evaluate major policy changes (e.g. reduced separation outide controlled airspace);
- help design and evaluate simulations for new airspace design proposal.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Age: 79
Posts: 8,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Problem is, a lot of these people, through no fault of their own, don't have a clue about operational matters. During my 31 years in NATS (and its predecessors) I had some experience of non-techies who were there to "help". Unfortunately their ideas were usually accepted ahead of ours and we ended up with things we didn't want, were unsuitable or added to our workload.
I don't know how the system works now but I hope that the HR people spend a lot of time at the front-end taking note of what the coal-face workers really want.
I don't know how the system works now but I hope that the HR people spend a lot of time at the front-end taking note of what the coal-face workers really want.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: On a rolling stone
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HD
I think you might be confusing HR and HF - a common mistake, sadly.
HF can get shot for being a messenger or a go-between, or something it is not (e.g. HR). Human factors/ergonomics is all about the context, and all about the users. But it is not just about asking users what they want, because believe me you can ask 10 controllers (or anyone - pilots, train drivers, power plant operators) and get 10 different answers. A compromise is nearly always necessary that doesn't suit anyone anywhere near 100%, and at other times it suits half the people and not the other half. Of course much of the time this is not really appreciated, neither is the fact that specialists may not have real power to make decisions (in light of cost, etc), only recommendations. What is actually implemented may be very different to what was recommended, but again guilt is sometimes assumed by reason of sheer involvement.
It used to be far more R&D-based years ago so has changed a lot on the last 10 years - assuming you are thinking of HF and not HR.
I think you might be confusing HR and HF - a common mistake, sadly.
HF can get shot for being a messenger or a go-between, or something it is not (e.g. HR). Human factors/ergonomics is all about the context, and all about the users. But it is not just about asking users what they want, because believe me you can ask 10 controllers (or anyone - pilots, train drivers, power plant operators) and get 10 different answers. A compromise is nearly always necessary that doesn't suit anyone anywhere near 100%, and at other times it suits half the people and not the other half. Of course much of the time this is not really appreciated, neither is the fact that specialists may not have real power to make decisions (in light of cost, etc), only recommendations. What is actually implemented may be very different to what was recommended, but again guilt is sometimes assumed by reason of sheer involvement.
It used to be far more R&D-based years ago so has changed a lot on the last 10 years - assuming you are thinking of HF and not HR.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Age: 79
Posts: 8,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HigherSights. Sorry if I confused the issue. I based my comments on your previous post. I do appeciate that it's a difficult task to satisfy everyone, especially controllers!
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not sure where I saw it, but just recently (the past 2 weeks), I saw an article from a very prominent psychologist (or psy something), who did a study and claimed that computers make critical mistakes more often than trained ATCOs...
sorry it's a bit woolly as I cannot remeber where I saw that article - someone might be able to point you in the correct direction?
sorry it's a bit woolly as I cannot remeber where I saw that article - someone might be able to point you in the correct direction?
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: On a rolling stone
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi anotherthing
Automation only does what it is told, i.e. what it is programmed to do. Its errors are only those of the designers (e.g. programmers). The problems arise especially when automation is designed to do the 'meat' of the work, e.g. the judgement/decision making. ATC is one of the few safety-critical jobs of its kind that is still extremely human centred and the controller has not been reduced to a monitor. Of all the safety-critical roles I have studied, it is still the most interesting. But as you know, there is only so much traffic that a person can take, and you can redesign airspace without reducing workload. Ultimately it's either more automation (of the right kind - and that's the hard part) or a slowdown in traffic growth.
Automation only does what it is told, i.e. what it is programmed to do. Its errors are only those of the designers (e.g. programmers). The problems arise especially when automation is designed to do the 'meat' of the work, e.g. the judgement/decision making. ATC is one of the few safety-critical jobs of its kind that is still extremely human centred and the controller has not been reduced to a monitor. Of all the safety-critical roles I have studied, it is still the most interesting. But as you know, there is only so much traffic that a person can take, and you can redesign airspace without reducing workload. Ultimately it's either more automation (of the right kind - and that's the hard part) or a slowdown in traffic growth.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HS
I'm not against automation - anything to assist ATCOs is welcome. However I think we are a long way off having computers replacing ATCOs... not this century!
Assist yes, replace, no. As long as NATS et al listen to the customers e.g. ATCOs before bringing in new technology just for the sake of it. EFPS at TC springs to mind - I reckon it will come in, but that it will actually have an impact on capacity because of its shortcomings. This impact will not improve as it is the physical interaction between ATCO and system, not the intuitiveness or otherwise of the system.
Technology can be wonderful, if used correctly. Unfortunately some people (many within NATS) see shiny bits of kit and hollow promises and think that because it's new and automated, it must be better than what is already in place - not always true!!
I'm not against automation - anything to assist ATCOs is welcome. However I think we are a long way off having computers replacing ATCOs... not this century!
Assist yes, replace, no. As long as NATS et al listen to the customers e.g. ATCOs before bringing in new technology just for the sake of it. EFPS at TC springs to mind - I reckon it will come in, but that it will actually have an impact on capacity because of its shortcomings. This impact will not improve as it is the physical interaction between ATCO and system, not the intuitiveness or otherwise of the system.
Technology can be wonderful, if used correctly. Unfortunately some people (many within NATS) see shiny bits of kit and hollow promises and think that because it's new and automated, it must be better than what is already in place - not always true!!
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: On a rolling stone
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
anotherthing
We are in complete agreement on every point you make. I guess one of the points I am trying to make is that human factors specialists sometimes carry the can for organisational decisions. Technology choices are nearly always organisational decisions at a higher level, often based on cost. HF specialists are usually called in (very) late to try to optimise a system that actually had no professional HF input in its specification or design. Then there are hundreds of constraints about what adaptations are even possible because of the architechure (e.g. Windows in the case of the NavCanada system) and some of its fundamental limitations, or the enornous cost of change requests to bespoke systems. But as HF specialists are the ones who actually talk to the ATCOs, they take the stick, and by sheer involvement in a process - where they did not choose the technology and were hamstrung in its adaptation - they sometimes carry the take the rap for its shortcomings when faced with angry end users. Still, after talking for long enough with enough controllers this point is usually understood - but without this 'debriefing' HF specialists sometimes get unfairly tarnished.
We are in complete agreement on every point you make. I guess one of the points I am trying to make is that human factors specialists sometimes carry the can for organisational decisions. Technology choices are nearly always organisational decisions at a higher level, often based on cost. HF specialists are usually called in (very) late to try to optimise a system that actually had no professional HF input in its specification or design. Then there are hundreds of constraints about what adaptations are even possible because of the architechure (e.g. Windows in the case of the NavCanada system) and some of its fundamental limitations, or the enornous cost of change requests to bespoke systems. But as HF specialists are the ones who actually talk to the ATCOs, they take the stick, and by sheer involvement in a process - where they did not choose the technology and were hamstrung in its adaptation - they sometimes carry the take the rap for its shortcomings when faced with angry end users. Still, after talking for long enough with enough controllers this point is usually understood - but without this 'debriefing' HF specialists sometimes get unfairly tarnished.
