United States Department of Transportation
i
Reduced Flight Progress Strips in en Route ATC Mixed Environments
-
1998-10-01
-
[PDF-2.12 MB]
Details:
-
Creators:
-
Corporate Creators:
-
Corporate Contributors:
-
Subject/TRT Terms:
-
Publication/ Report Number:
-
Resource Type:
-
Geographical Coverage:
-
Edition:Final Report
-
Corporate Publisher:
-
Abstract:Currently, en route control of high altitude flights between airports uses computer-augmented radar information available on the Plan View Display (PVD), Computer Readout Device (CRD), and flight information printed on Flight Progress Strips (FPSs). The FPS contains thirty-one fields that supplement data available on the PVD. While an aircraft is in a controller's sector, control instructions, changes to the flight plan, and other contacts with the aircraft are written on the corresponding strip. This report describes an experiment that compared the effects of using a standard-sized (1 5/16" x 8") FPS and an FPS reduced both in size (1" x 5") and information on the performance and workload of controller teams. The teams, from Minneapolis ARTCC, controlled simulated air traffic in a mixed radar-nonradar environment. Overall, the 1" x 5" reduced strip yielded deficits in the control of nonradar flights but not radar flights. This was evidenced in subject matter experts' evaluation of nonradar separation, strip processing and board management, and, to a marginal extent, in the efficiency of traffic movement through the sector. The radar-side (R-side) controller's awareness was also rated lower when using the smaller strips. Interestingly, the controllers' evaluation of their own performance did not reflect a difference between smaller and normal-sized strips. This may help explain why controllers did not compensate for the smaller strips to any great extent. Only R-side controllers exhibited compensatory behaviors and reported increased workload. R-side controllers also pointed to the PVD more often. Although there was little compensatory activity, R-side Controllers thought workload was greater with smaller strips. R-side controllers also felt it was more effortful and more frustrating working with the 1" x 5" strips. Despite the self-reported heavier workload, controllers nevertheless were able to perform secondary tasks, such as granting pilot requests, as often and as quickly using smaller strips as they did using standard strips. This study also described specific air traffic activities likely to be affected by a reduction to a 1" x 5" FPS. Strip marking, speed of strip processing, and some aspects of board management seemed especially affected. Inferior strip marking was evidenced in the on-line expert evaluation and controllers often reported that the size of the 1" x 5" strip prevented writing. The ability to locate a particular strip and find the information on it seems to suffer with a reduction in size as tested in this study. On-line expert evaluations and controller opinions echoed this problem. Locating strips might have been especially difficult for the R-side, thus leading to large differences in self-reported frustration. Controllers also noted specific problems with the strip display, including the use of shading to replace information typically presented in red. Of board management responsibilities, considered by controllers as generally inferior with 1" x 5" strips, removal of deadwood seems less likely to be negatively affected by reduction in strip size. The on-line expert evaluation rated the 1" x 5" strips negatively and the subject matter experts recorded more negative comments about removal of deadwood under that condition. Overall, this study does not permit recommendation of the 1"x 5" reduced strip as designed for this study. Suggestions for improving a less than standard size FPS are provided.
-
Format:
-
Funding:
-
Collection(s):
-
Main Document Checksum:
-
Download URL:
-
File Type:
