Automation is commonly defined as “the use or introduction of automatic equipment in a manufacturing or other process or facility” (Oxford English Dictionary, 2011). The International Society of Automation (ISA) further defines this term as “the creation and application of technology to monitor and control the production and delivery of products and services” (International Society of Automation, 2017). This extended definition implies a range of benefits that automation may introduce to any given industry, but it does not highlight or suggest the potential risks that may be found or identified once automated technology is introduced.
The above definitions are generic and cater for all types of industries. This paper though, will focus on automation within 2 sub-sectors of the aviation sector – namely the Air Traffic Control (ATC) functionality and the pilot-flight crew operational side. Both these aspects require a high degree of human operations and also demand a reliable form of human-machine interface (HMI) – which is essentially the process or manner in how humans interact with the machinery or technology involved.
By first outlining the benefits associated with the planned development and phased implementation of various new Air Traffic Management (ATM) systems around the world (which include the introduction of advanced automated technologies), this paper will highlight a range of human factor related risks that will need to be managed when these new ATM systems (and associated automated technologies) are introduced into the aviation sector.
The aviation industry is one of the most complex industries in the world – this includes complexities at technical, logistical and managerial levels. Depending on the time of year, there are on average between 13,000 – 16,000 flights in global airspace at any particular time (Hugh Morris, 2017; Flightradar24, 2018). In the USA alone, there are an estimated 42,700 daily flights being managed by a selection of the 14,050 Air Traffic Controllers (ATC) that are employed by the FAA. These aircraft, and the subsequent ATC, are assisting the 2,587,000 passengers that fly each day using the estimated 19,601 airports located in the U.S.A. (FAA, 2017). From an Australian point of view, during 2016-17, it is estimated that 156 million passengers flew in Australian skies and this involved 4 million aircraft movements all being managed by staff operating from 2 air traffic service centres – and being further assisted by any of the 29 separate control towers that are located around Australia. (Airservices Australia, 2017).
While the above numbers may initially appear daunting, they do not represent the future growing trends of the aviation sector – that is, it is estimated that air traffic will grow by 4.4% annually in the lead-up to 2036. This growth includes a three-fold increase in air traffic in the Asian-Pacific region alone for the same time-period (with all other international regions also forecasted to experience continual growth) (Airbus, 2016).
With already high volumes of aircraft and passengers, combined with the forecasted growth in all global regions, it comes as no surprise that the major aviation regulatory or administrative bodies are currently researching, or already introducing various forms of automation that will assist in the management and operations of the respective air traffic.
Using the NextGen banner, the US based FAA is rolling out a collection of new automated systems that have the goal to increase the safety, efficiency, capacity, predictability, and resiliency of American aviation. (FAA, 2017). To modernize the European sector, a collaborative project called SESAR is focused on developing the new generation air traffic management system capable of ensuring the safety and fluidity of air transport worldwide over the next 30 years (SKYbrary, 2017). In parallel, Airservices Australia is in the process of progressively replacing their current air traffic management system – called TAAATS, with a new system – named OneSKY, which is designed to harmonise Australian civil and military air traffic and aims to deliver safe air traffic services; deliver more efficient air traffic services; manage future air traffic growth; and support national security (Airservices Australia, 2018).
The commonality with each of these new ATM systems is to introduce new technologies (and associated automated systems) that are designed to increase efficiency and safety while also preparing and catering for the recognised growth in air travel. Efficiency in aviation is measured by many variables with each aspect of the sector having their own variables. As an example, the ATC functionality may determine efficiency by determining the number of managed flights against labour hours in a set period of time (FAA, 2015); while pilots and flight crew may be managed on efficiency by the minimal usage of fuel in relation to adherence to schedules and flight times.
Either way, with the implementation of advanced automated technologies, the proposed new ATM systems will introduce benefits to ATC functionality and flight operations that are designed to increase efficiency and maximise safety by:
- increasing flight capacities (by decreasing aircraft separation with automated flight planning and monitoring);
- reducing fuel consumption, noise pollution and carbon emissions (through the management and automated calculation of flight trajectories and taxiing processes);
- having fewer flight delays and cancellations (with increased collaboration and automated operational predictability of current traffic), and
- maximising safety (by the management of all air vehicles in the current airspace by a central authority and reported by automated systems). (Airservices Australia, 2016) (SESAR, 2018) (FAA, 2018)
While the introduction of advanced automated technology in these new ATM systems may initially appear to be beneficial in terms of current and future aviation requirements, the risk of the broad introduction of such systems does present a number of key human factor related risks that need to be managed, and/or alleviated.
One such risk is associated to the trust and over-reliance that both ATC and pilots-flight crew operators may have in the new automated systems. Mirchi (2016) writes “when the people who operate automated tools aren’t properly informed about their equipment – including what exactly it can and cannot do – problems arise. When humans expect computerized systems to be more reliable than they are, tragedy can result”.
This risk relates to the education and complete understanding of the new systems by the operators of those systems as well as the perceived reliance and greater situational awareness that the new systems may generate. Kunii (2006) states “Since many pilots (operators) are not familiar with monitoring and controlling the multiple tasks presented in today’s complex automated flight systems, it could be difficult for them to maintain high-levels of situational awareness”.
Essentially, all operators of the new automated ATM systems will need to be completely aware of the limitations and functionality of the new systems. Operators need to be fully trained on the functionalities (and restrictions) of the new systems and learn how to read/operate the new systems in a manner so they are able to interpret, and also have the ability (and knowledge) to question the output of the new systems. Having the ability to be able to fully monitor, understand and question the new automated systems while also being able to reliably maintain situational awareness should be included as a training requirement for all operators of the new automated systems.
A further risk is related to the possible skill-degradation (or de-skilling) that may occur due to the new automated systems. Previous tasks which may have required manual input or processing may become fully automated in the new systems and this may result in the erosion of operator skills. The risk could lead to tragic consequences should the automated systems fail (or give questionable output) therefore requiring the operators to take manual control. Salas & Maurino (2010) suggest that deskilling may have been a reason for the American Airlines Flight 965 accident outside of Cali, Columbia in 1995. In this accident, the pilots heavily relied on the automated Flight Management System (FMS) for navigation however the FMS (in this incident) was unable to recognise the proximity to terrain and this resulted in the pilots being unable to determine whether they had passed a particular waypoint or not. The required information could’ve been easily ascertained had the pilots were better skilled in the traditional methods of reading flight charts.
While the introduction and use of advanced automated systems may appear to be beneficial to both ATC and pilots-flight crew operations in terms of satisfying current and future requirements, several human factors related risks do arise that need to be managed.
This issue of adequate training for all operators needs to be addressed and this includes the operators in being fully knowledgeable on the abilities and limitations of the new automated systems. These operators need to be able to question the output of the systems, ascertain the reliability and work with the automated processes while also maintaining complete situational awareness.
The second key risk is related to the possible deskilling of the operators. New and advanced systems may fail (or even provide questionable results) and the operators need to be able to revert to manual mode, or over-ride the systems and take control if need be. The operators need to sustain and maintain their existing skill sets in the event of system failure.
Finally, operators (and subsequent managers) need to be mindful that full and complete training, combined with sustaining of existing skills need to be managed so that all operators are able to reliably use, question, understand the limitations and possibly over-ride the new automated systems in a manner that maintains air traffic safety and efficiency.
References
Airbus, 2016. Global Market Forecast, Toulouse, France: Airbus.
Airservices Australia, 2016. Australia’s Aircraft Navigation Modernisation Program, Canberra, Australia: Airservices Australia.
Airservices Australia, 2017. 2016 – 17 Annual Report, Canberra, Australia: Airservices Australia.
Airservices Australia, 2018. About the OneSKY program. [Online]
Available at: http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/projects/onesky/about/
[Accessed 7 April 2017].
FAA, 2015. Efficiency of FAA’s Air Traffic Control Towers Ranges Widely, Washington D.C. United States of America: Department of Transportation, United States of America.
FAA, 2017. Air Traffic By The Numbers. [Online]
Available at: https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/by_the_numbers/
[Accessed 7 April 2018].
FAA, 2017. What is NextGen?. [Online]
Available at: https://www.faa.gov/nextgen/what_is_nextgen/
[Accessed 7 April 2018].
FAA, 2018. NextGen by the Numbers. [Online]
Available at: https://www.faa.gov/nextgen/by_the_numbers/
[Accessed 7 April 2018].
Flightradar24, 2018. How it works. [Online]
Available at: https://www.flightradar24.com/how-it-works
[Accessed 7 April 2018].
Hugh Morris, 2017. The Telegraph. [Online]
Available at: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/travel-truths/how-many-planes-are-there-in-the-world/
[Accessed 7 April 2018].
International Society of Automation, 2017. What Is Automation?. [Online]
Available at: https://www.isa.org/about-isa/what-is-automation/
[Accessed 7 April 2018].
Kunii, Y., 2006. Student Pilot Situational Awareness: The Effects of Trust in Technology, Daytona Beach, Florida: Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University.
Mirchi, T., 2016. The Conversation. [Online]
Available at: https://theconversation.com/how-much-should-air-traffic-controllers-trust-new-flight-management-systems-68199
[Accessed 8 April 2018].
Oxford English Dictionary, 2011. Concise Oxford English Dictionary. London: Oxford University Press.
Salas, E. & Maurino, D., 2010. Human Factors in Aviation. 2nd ed. London, England: Academic Press.
SESAR, 2018. About – Vision. [Online]
Available at: http://www.sesarju.eu/vision
[Accessed 7 April 2018].
SKYbrary, 2017. SESAR. [Online]
Available at: https://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/SESAR
[Accessed 7 April 2018].
