Title: Improving Cockpit Task Management Performance:
1Improving Cockpit Task Management Performance
- The AgendaManagerTraining Pilots to Prioritize
Tasks
2Observation Cockpit Task Management Errors
- Cockpit (flight deck) is a multitask environment
- aviate
- navigate
- communicate
- manage systems
- Results of distraction, preoccupation
- Everglades L-1011 accident
- many incidents
- Hypotheses
- flightcrew must manage as well as perform tasks
Cockpit Task Management (CTM) - CTM is a significant factor in flight safety
3Preliminary Normative Theory of CTM
- initiate tasks to achieve goals
- assess status of all tasks
- terminate completed and obsolete tasks
- prioritize remaining tasks based on
- importance
- aviate
- navigate
- communicate
- manage systems
- urgency
- other factors (?)
- allocate resources (attend) to tasks in order of
priority
4Cockpit Task Management Research
- CTM Errors in Aircraft Accidents (1991)
- 80 CTM errors in 76 (23) of 324 accidents
- CTM Errors in Critical, In-Flight Incidents
(1993) - 349 CTM errors in 231 (49) of 470 incident
reports - Part-Task Flight Simulator Study (1996)
- CTM error rate increases with workload
- ASRS Study of CTM and Automation (1998)
- Task prioritization error rate higher in advanced
technology reports - Findings
- CTM is a significant factor in flight safety
- CTM can potentially be improved
5Improving CTM Through Technology
6Statement of Needs and Requirements Definition
- CTM aid shall
- maintain a current model of aircraft state and
current cockpit tasks, - monitor task state and status,
- compute task priority,
- remind the flightcrew of all tasks that should be
in progress, and - suggest that the flightcrew attend to tasks that
do not show satisfactory progress. - leave the pilot in control
7System Analysis
- Generic, twin-engine transport aircraft
- major subsystems
- power plant
- fuel system
- electrical system
- hydraulic system
- adverse weather system
- autoflight system
- flight management system.
- state variables of importance to pilot
- ? specifications for simulator
8Basic and Detailed Design of The AgendaManager
- Object-Oriented Design
- things activities from IDEF0 models ? objects
- Multi-Agent Approach
- AMgt functions are complex, cognitive functions ?
AI - AMgt is complex interplay of many entities ? DAI
- System Agents
- Actor Agents
- Goal Agents
- Function Agents
- Agenda Agent
- Agenda Manager Interface
- Display Design
- general display design guidelines ? alternative
display designs - consistency with EICAS ? final display design
9AMgr Architecture and Function
10Simulator(with EICAS)
11AMgr Display(replaced EICAS)
12AMgr Operation
- simulator runs
- pilot declares goals via ATC acknowledgements
- System Actor Agents instantiate Goal Agents
- Goal Agents watch for goal conflicts
- Function Agents assess function status
- AgendaManager informs pilot via display
13AgendaManager Display Design
extinguish L engine fire not OK -gt continuing
descend to 7,000 ft A/F alt goal conflict
maintain 070 deg
slow to 240 kt fast -gt accelerating
correct fuel balance L heavy -gt increasing
14extremely important, urgent goals (highest
priority)
trend info
aviate goals (high priority)
extinguish L engine fire not OK -gt continuing
descend to 7,000 ft A/F alt goal conflict
system goals (lower priority)
maintain 070 deg
slow to 240 kt fast -gt accelerating
correct fuel balance L heavy -gt increasing
gray OK amber not OK red important/urgent
not OK
15Initial Conditions altitude 15,000
ft heading 120 deg speed 280 kt all
systems normal
maintain15,000 ft
maintain 120 deg
maintain 280 kt
16ATC ... descend and maintain 11,000 ft pilot
Roger, ... descend and maintain 11,000
ft sets A/F altitude to 11,000 ft descent
begins
descend to 11,000 ft high -gt descending
maintain 120 deg
maintain 280 kt
17ATC ... turn left heading 070 pilot Roger,
... turn left heading 070 begins
turn levels off at 11,000 ft
maintain 11,000 ft
turn L to 070 deg right of -gt turning L
maintain 280 kt
18pilot rolls out on 070 deg AMgr detects fuel
imbalance displays it
maintain 11,000 ft
maintain 070 deg
maintain 280 kt
correct fuel balance L heavy -gt unbalancing
19pilot begins fuel crossfeed ATC ... descend
and maintain 9,000 ft reduce speed to 240
kt pilot Roger ... descend and maintain 9,000
ft reduce speed to 240 kt sets altitude to
9,000 ft, descent begins reduces throttles,
aircraft slows
descend to 9,000 ft high -gt descending
maintain 070 deg
slow to 240 kt fast -gt slowing
correct fuel balance L heavy -gt balancing
20AMgr detects left engine fire pilot ... we
have a problem ... ATC ... descend and
maintain 7,000 ft pilot Roger ... descend and
maintain 7,000 ft mis-sets altitude to 6,000
ft speed increases
extinguish L engine fire not OK -gt continuing
descend to 7,000 ft A/F alt goal conflict
maintain 070 deg
slow to 240 kt fast -gt accelerating
correct fuel balance L heavy -gt balancing
21fire out speed controlled pilot sets A/F to
7,000 ft forgets to secure crossfeed when fuel
balanced
maintain 7,000 ft
maintain 070 deg
maintain 240 kt
correct fuel balance R heavy -gt unbalancing
22Test and Evaluation (1)
- Objective compare AMgt performance (AMgr vs
EICAS) - Apparatus
- flight simulator
- AMgr
- Subjects 8 line pilots
- Scenarios
- EUG to PDX
- PDX to Eugene
- Primary factor monitoring and alerting condition
- AMgr
- EICAS
23Test and Evaluation (2)
- General Procedure
- subject introduction
- automatic Speech Recognition system training
- flight training (using MCP)
- subsystem training (fault correction)
- EICAS/AMgr training
- Trials
- Scenario 1 (EICAS/AMgr)
- experimenter/ATC controller gives clearances,
induces faults, induces goal conflicts - subject acknowledges clearances, flies simulator,
corrects faults, detects and resolves goal
conflicts - Scenario 2 (AMgr/EICAS)
24Evaluation Results
25Conclusions
- CTM is a significant factor in flight safety.
- CTM can be facilitated (e.g., AMgr).
- Future success of knowledge-based avionics
depends on a systematic approach to development - systematic identification of problems, needs,
and opportunities - appropriate application of appropriate technology
- evaluation of systems based on operationally
relevant performance measures
26Improving CTM Through Training
- Training Pilots to Prioritize Tasks
27ResearchMotivation and Objective
- Is task prioritization trainable?
- Evidence suggests that voluntary control of
attention is a trainable skill - e.g., Gopher (1992)
- Objective
- Develop and evaluate a CTM training program to
improve task prioritization performance.
28Methodology
- Participants
- 12 General Aviation pilots, IFR rated, with at
least 100 hrs pilot-in-command total time. - Recruited through flyers and word of mouth
- Oregon State (Corvallis, Albany, Salem, Eugene,
Portland) - Apparatus Microsoft Flight Simulator 2000
- 3 monitors, Flight Yoke, Throttles, and Rudder
Pedals - IFR conditions
- Two flight scenarios
29Lab Setup
30Participant Display(C-182RG)
31Experimenters Display
32Experimental Groups
- Control Group No Training
- Descriptive Group CTM lecture
- Multi-tasking
- Attention
- CTM
- Task Prioritization errors
- Accident/Incident examples
- What to be aware of.
- Prescriptive Group
- CTM lecture
- APE procedure
33APEAssess Prioritize Execute
A P E
- Let the APE help you
- Assess the situation
- aircraft systems, environment, tasks, procedures
- Whats going on? What should I be doing?
- Prioritize your tasks
- Aviate Is my aircraft in control?
- Navigate Do I know where I am and where Im
going? - Communicate Have I communicated or received
important information? - Manage systems Are my systems okay?
- Execute the high priority tasks Now.
- Invoke the APE frequently.
- Think out loud.
-
34Experimental Procedure
- Initial briefing, informed consent
- Initial 30-minute simulator training
- Pre-training flight
- CTM training (break for control group)
- Additional 30-minute simulator training
- Post-training flight (different scenario)
- Post-experiment questionnaire
35Dependent Measures
- Task prioritization error rate
- 19 Task prioritization challenges, e.g.
- clearance near end of climb
- bust altitude? (/- 200 ft)
- Prospective memory recall rate
- 5 Memory recall challenges (prospective memory),
e.g., - report crossing SHONE intersection
- remember to report?
36Data Collection
- Flight Data Recorder
- Videotape
- Observation
- Data reduction to
- task prioritization error rate
- prospective memory recall rate
37Results ANOVA(task prioritization error rate)
38Interaction Plot(task prioritization error rate)
39Results ANOVA(prospective memory recall rate)
40Interaction Plot(prospective memory recall rate)
Control
Descriptive
Prescriptive
41Paired t-tests
- Prescriptive training group improved
- Task prioritization error rate
- Prospective memory recall rate
- Descriptive training group improved
- Task prioritization error rate
- Control group did not significantly improve
42Discussion
- Task Prioritization Error rate
- Reduced, perhaps, due to (Prescriptive) CTM
training. - Significant interaction and post-hoc tests
support that hypothesis. - Prospective Memory Recall rate
- Increased, perhaps, due to (Descriptive
Prescriptive) CTM training. - Significant interaction and post-hoc tests
support that hypothesis.
43Possible Interpretations
- Results may have two interpretations
- CTM training did improve task prioritization
performance. - CTM training did not improve task prioritization.
- Floor effect
- MSFS experience
- Age
- Research favors first interpretation
- ANOVA results
- t-tests
- Potential for better control group performance
was there. - Additional tests
44Final Comments
- CTM performance significant to flight safety
- Results are encouraging
- Evidence suggests that task prioritization is a
trainable skill - Follow-up experiment underway to resolve
ambiguities - If successful, would provide evidence that CTM
training can reduce risk of CTM errors and
subsequent accidents
45The Cockpit Task Management Website
- http//flightdeck.ie.orst.edu/CTM/