Separation Management (SepMan 2): Human Factors Evaluation of Conflict Probe Location and Format and Workstation Display Alternatives
Advanced Search
Select up to three search categories and corresponding keywords using the fields to the right. Refer to the Help section for more detailed instructions.

Search our Collections & Repository

For very narrow results

When looking for a specific result

Best used for discovery & interchangable words

Recommended to be used in conjunction with other fields

Dates

to

Document Data
Library
People
Clear All
Clear All

For additional assistance using the Custom Query please check out our Help Page

i

Separation Management (SepMan 2): Human Factors Evaluation of Conflict Probe Location and Format and Workstation Display Alternatives

Filetype[PDF-1.45 MB]


English
Details You May Also Like

Details:

  • Creators:
  • Corporate Creators:
    United States. Department of Transportation. Federal Aviation Administration. William J. Hughes Technical Center
  • Subject/TRT Terms:
  • Publication/ Report Number:
    DOT/FAA/TC-12/62
  • Resource Type:
    Tech Report
  • Geographical Coverage:
    United States
  • Corporate Publisher:
    United States. Department of Transportation. Federal Aviation Administration. William J. Hughes Technical Center
  • Abstract:
    Objective: The En Route Automation Modernization (ERAM) system will continue to integrate new capabilities and features to assist controllers in managing increasingly high levels of traffic in the National Airspace System (NAS). The Federal Aviation Administration Human Factors Branch conducted a study to examine potential modifications to the system. The study included an evaluation of (a) the location and format of conflict probe notifications, (b) the use of 30-inch displays, and (c) the use of different pointing devices at en route controller workstations. This report summarizes the evaluations of the conflict probe and display alternatives. Background: This is the second Separation Management simulation. The first simulation investigated the automation requirements needed to assist controllers in working en route sectors capable of accommodating 3-nmi (5.56 km) and 5-nmi (9.26 km) separation standards. Method: Eighteen (12 retired, 6 current) en route air traffic controllers participated in the study. All participants managed high-traffic level scenarios under test conditions that varied the location and format of the conflict probe notifications on controller displays and that compared controller management of traffic using current displays and 30-inch displays. We collected system and participant performance measures and ratings of workload and performance. Results: We did not find significant differences across test conditions for measures of performance, efficiency, and safety. We did find that radar (R)-side participants viewed a higher proportion of notifications when only the most imminent notifications were presented on their displays. When notifications were available on the R-side display, the participants tended to select them more often from the data block than from the Conflict Alert List. In the Display Evaluation, the 30-inch displays were rated more favorably by the data (D)-side participants than by the R-side participants. Conclusion: Providing conflict probe notifications for imminent notifications on the R-side display and providing a 30-inch display on the D-side appear useful.
  • Format:
    PDF
  • Collection(s):
  • Main Document Checksum:
  • Download URL:
  • File Type:

Supporting Files

  • No Additional Files
More +

You May Also Like

Checkout today's featured content at rosap.ntl.bts.gov