skip to main content
research-article

From Paper Flight Strips to Digital Strip Systems: Changes and Similarities in Air Traffic Control Work Practices

Published:29 May 2020Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

To increase capacity and safety in air traffic control, digital strip systems have superseded paper strips in lower airspace control centers in Europe. Previous ethnographic studies on paper strip systems anticipated a radical change in work practices with digital strip systems, but we are not aware of any studies that evaluated these predictions. We carried out contextual inquiries with controllers and focused on face-to-face and radio communication, interactions with the digital strip system and the workspace in general. In turn, we contribute (1) detailed descriptions of controllers' work practices, such as using tacit information from radio communication and 'standard advocates vs. tinkerers' operation modes, (2) respective implications for design and (3) discuss how the observed work practices are similar or different from the reported practices in the literature of the two preceding decades. Our key insights are, that documentation speed is faster with digital strips, although a high load in the case of radio frequency persists. Controllers retrieve tacit information from the radio communication and combine it with scattered cues from several displays to form empathic decisions that sometimes exceed the standard protocol. We conclude that the role of tacit information holds opportunities for future flight systems and should be considered in a holistic approach to individualized workspaces for controllers.

References

  1. National Air Traffic Services (Nats). 2018. Heathrow Implements World's First Fully Systemised Optimised Runway Delivery Tool with Enhanced Time Based Separation. Retrieved from https://www.nats.aero/news/heathrow-implements-worlds-first-fully-systemised-optimised-runway-delivery-tool-enhanced-time-based-separation/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Federal Aviation Administration. 2015. Performance Success Stories - Phoenix Air Traffic Controller look to the future with NextGen Technology. Retrieved 17 December from https://www.faa.gov/nextgen/snapshots/stories/'slide=37Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Federal Aviation Administration. 2019. TFDM Implementation Map and Timeline. Retrieved 17 December from https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/technology/tfdm/implementation/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Chris A Albright, Todd R Truitt, Ami L Barile, Ou Vortac, and Carol A Manning. 1994. Controlling traffic without flight progress strips: Compensation, workload, performance, and opinion. Air Traffic Control Quarterly 2, 4, 229--248.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Kelley M. Baker, Sara K. Dimare, Erik T. Nelson, and Deborah A. Boehm-Davis. 2012. Effect of Data Communications on Pilot Situation Awareness, Decision Making, and Workload. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting 56, 1 (September 2012), 1787--1788. DOI= http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1071181312561359.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Raïlane Benhacene, Christophe Hurter, Marion Anthony, Bruno Merlin, Marie-Pierre Rousselle, and Philippe Ribet. 2007. Tackling the problem of flight integration. In ATM 2007, 7th USA/ Europe Air Traffic Management Research and Developpment Seminar, Barcelona, Spain.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. R. Bentley, J. A. Hughes, D. Randall, T. Rodden, P. Sawyer, D. Shapiro, and I. Sommerville. 1992. Ethnographically-informed systems design for air traffic control. In Proceedings of the ACM conference on Computer-supported cooperative work, 1992, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. ACM, 143470. 123--129. DOI= http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/143457.143470.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Jörg Bergner and Oliver Hassa. 2012. Air Traffic Control. In Information Ergonomics, Springer, 197--225.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Randall Bone and Kevin Long. 2016. Air traffic controller utilization of voice and Data Link Communications during Interval Management. In 2016 Integrated Communications Navigation and Surveillance (ICNS) IEEE, 2D1--1--2D1--16.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Deirdre Bonini. 2001. ATC do I trust thee? referents of trust in air traffic control. In Proceedings of the CHI '01 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 2001, Seattle, Washington. Association for Computing Machinery. 449--450. DOI= http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/634067.634327.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Marie-Christine Bressolle, Bernard Pavard, and Marcel Leroux. 1995. The role of multimodal communication in cooperation and intention recognition: the case of air traffic control. In The International Conference on Cooperative and Multimodal Communication: Theory and Applications, MCM '95, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Marie-Christine Bressolle, Bernard Pavard, and Marcel Leroux. 1995. The role of multimodal communication in cooperation: The cases of air traffic control. In International Conference on Cooperative Multimodal Communication Springer, 326--343.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Kim Cardosi, Tracy Lennertz, and Alan Yost. 2017. Analysis of reportable events in Kansas City air route traffic control center. John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center (US).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Stéphane Chatty and Patrick Lecoanet. 1996. Pen computing for air traffic control. In SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 87--94.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Stéphane Conversy, Hélène Gaspard-Boulinc, Stéphane Chatty, Stéphane Valès, Carole Dupré, and Claire Ollagnon. 2011. Supporting air traffic control collaboration with a TableTop system. In Proceedings of the Proceedings of the ACM 2011 conference on Computer supported cooperative work, 2011, Hangzhou, China. ACM, 1958891. 425--434. DOI= http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1958824.1958891.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Victoria Dulchinos. 2019. Evaluation of Usability and Workload Associated with Paper Strips as Compared to Virtual Flight Strips Used for Ramp Operations. In Advances in Usability, User Experience and Assistive Technology, T.Z. AHRAM and C. FALCÃO Eds. Springer International Publishing, Cham, 603--614.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Francis T Durso, Carla A Hackworth, Todd R Truitt, Jerry Crutchfield, Danko Nikolic, and Carol A Manning. 1998. Situation awareness as a predictor of performance for en route air traffic controllers. Air Traffic Control Quarterly 6, 1, 1--20.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. Francis T Durso and Carol A Manning. 2002. Spinning paper into glass: transforming flight progress strips. Human Factors and Aerospace Safety 2, 1, 1--31.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Patrick C Dwyer. 2015. Gratitude as persuasion: Understanding when and why gratitude expressions facilitate and inhibit compliance. Ph.D. Dissertation. Retrieved from https://conservancy.umn.edu/handle/11299/175125Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Ge Fenimore. 1957. Real-time data processing for CAA air-traffic control. In Papers and discussions presented at the December 9--13, 1957, eastern joint computer conference: Computers with deadlines to meet ACM, 169--172.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Nanda Geelvink. 2018. Increased Capacity at Leipzig Halle Airport. Retrieved 08. Oct from https://www.dfs.de/dfs_homepage/en/Press/Press%20releases/2018/24.07.2018.-%20Increased%20capacity%20at%20Leipzig%20Halle%20Airport/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Tobias Grundgeiger, Jörn Hurtienne, and Oliver Happel. 2020. Why and How to Approach User Experience in Safety-Critical Domains: The example of healthcare. Human Factors. DOI= http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0018720819887575. .Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Tobias Grundgeiger, Penelope M Sanderson, and R Key Dismukes. 2014. Prospective memory in complex sociotechnical systems. Zeitschrift für Psychologie.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Hejar Gürlük, Malte-Levin Jauer, and Maria Uebbing-Rumke. 2014. Design and evaluation of a multi-touch interaction language for approach controllers. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction in Aerospace, 2014, Santa Clara, California Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY. 1--4. DOI= http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2669592.2669691.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Claudia Harss, Jitzchack Lichtenfeld, Michael Kastner, and Jan Goodrich. 1991. Air Traffic Controller Working Conditions and Organization: Suggestions for Analysis and Improvements from a Psychological Point of View. In Automation and Systems Issues in Air Traffic Control, Springer, 395--406.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Karen Holtzblatt and Hugh Beyer. 2016. Contextual Design: Design for Life. Morgan Kaufmann.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Karen Holtzblatt, Jessamyn Burns Wendell, and Shelley Wood. 2004. Rapid contextual design: a how-to guide to key techniques for user-centered design. Elsevier.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Michael P. Huerta. 2016. NextGen Implementation Plan 2016, F.A. ADMINISTRATION Ed.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. John A. Hughes, David Randall, and Dan Shapiro. 1992. Faltering from ethnography to design. Association for Computing Machinery, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Christophe Hurter, Paul Edouard, Vincent Gaits, Hasna Nadfaoui, Jérome Pailler, Catherine Letondal, and Stéphane Conversy. 2011. Etude exploratoire du stylo électronique pour le Contrôle Aérien [Exploring the Use of Electronic Pens for Air Traffic Control]. Association for Computing Machinery, Sophia Antipolis, France.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. William Kaczynski, Lawrence Leemis, and John Drew. 2010. Modeling and analyzing transient military air traffic control. Winter Simulation Conference, Baltimore, Maryland.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. Michael W Kraus. 2017. Voice-only communication enhances empathic accuracy. American Psychologist 72, 7, 644.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  33. Catherine Letondal, Christophe Hurter, Rémi Lesbordes, Jean-Luc Vinot, and Stéphane Conversy. 2013. Flights in my hands: coherence concerns in designing Strip'TIC, a tangible space for air traffic controllers. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems ACM, 2175--2184.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. Wendy E. Mackay. 1999. Is paper safer? The role of paper flight strips in air traffic control. ACM Transactions of Computer-Human Interaction 6, 4, 311--340. DOI= http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/331490.331491.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. Wendy E. Mackay, Anne-Laure Fayard, Laurent Frobert, and Lionel Médini. 1998. Reinventing the familiar: exploring an augmented reality design space for air traffic control. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1998, Los Angeles, California, USA,. ACM Press/Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., 274719. 558--565. DOI= http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/274644.274719.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. Robert Mauro. 2019. Confronting Functional Complexity Failures: The Case of a Runway Excursion in Munich. In Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 2019 Annual Meeting.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  37. Lindsey K. Mcintire, John P. Mcintire, R. Andy Mckinley, and Chuck Goodyear. 2014. Detection of vigilance performance with pupillometry. In Proceedings of the Symposium on Eye Tracking Research and Applications, 2014, Safety Harbor, Florida. Association for Computing Machinery. 167--174. DOI= http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2578153.2578177.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. Christophe Mertz, Stéphane Chatty, and Jean-Luc Vinot. 2000. Pushing the limits of ATC user interface design beyond S&M interaction: the DigiStrips experience. In Proceedings of the Air Traffic Management '2000 R&D Seminar.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. Kohei Nonose, Sifra Corver, Arnab Majumdar, Grote Gudela, Taro Kanno, and Kazuo Furuta. 2014. A behavioural observation method to assess team situation awareness of air traffic control teams. Association for Computing Machinery, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. Linda Pfeiffer, Georg Valtin, Nicholas Hugo Müller, and Paul Rosenthal. 2015. The mental organization of air traffic and its implications to an emotion sensitive assistance system. International Journal of Advanced Life Sciences 8, 164--174.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. François Richard-Bole. 2018. RECAT-EU at Paris-CDG, a first in Europe! [Press release] Direction des Services de la Navigation Aérienne.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. Frederic Rooseleer and Vincent Treve. 2015. RECAT-EU European Wake Turbulence Categorisation and Separation Minima on Approach and Departure. EUROCONTROL Headquarters, Brussels.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. Nallini Selvaraj and Bob Fields. 2012. Rethinking collaborative decision making across distributed work communities in complex work settings. In Proceedings of the 30th European Conference on Cognitive Ergonomics, 2012, Edinburgh, United Kingdom. Association for Computing Machinery. 8--14. DOI= http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2448136.2448139.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  44. Nallini Selvaraj, Bob Fields, and Paola Amaldi-Trillo. 2007. Decisions and collaborative work: a different perspective. In Proceedings of the 14th European conference on Cognitive ergonomics: invent! explore!, 2007, London, United Kingdom. Association for Computing Machinery. 243--246. DOI= http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1362550.1362599.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  45. Steven T Shorrock. 2005. Errors of memory in air traffic control. Safety science 43, 8, 571--588.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  46. Nelson Silva, Volker Settgast, Eva Eggeling, Florian Grill, Theodor Zeh, and Dieter Fellner. 2014. Sixth sense - air traffic control prediction scenario augmented by sensors. Association for Computing Machinery, Graz, Austria.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  47. Alex W. Stedmon, Sarah Sharples, Robert Littlewood, Gemma Cox, Harshada Patel, and John R. Wilson. 2007. Datalink in air traffic management: Human factors issues in communications. Applied ergonomics 38, 4 (2007/07/01/), 473--480. DOI= http://dx.doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2007.01.013.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  48. Monica Tavanti, Patrizia Marti, and Marc Bourgois. 2006. Tacit knowledge and frugal artifacts: a challenge for technology mediated collaboration. In Proceedings of the 13th Eurpoean conference on Cognitive ergonomics: trust and control in complex socio-technical systems, 2006, Zurich, Switzerland. Association for Computing Machinery. 105--108. DOI= http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1274892.1274909.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  49. Michael Traoré and Christophe Hurter. 2016. Exploratory study with eye tracking devices to build interactive systems for air traffic controllers. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction in Aerospace, 2016, Paris, France. ACM. 1--9. DOI= http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2950112.2964584.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  50. Martina Truschzinski, Alberto Betella, Guido Brunnett, and Paul F M J Verschure. 2018. Emotional and cognitive influences in air traffic controller tasks: An investigation using a virtual environment? Applied ergonomics 69, 1--9.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  51. Jean-Luc Vinot, Catherine Letondal, Rémi Lesbordes, Stéphane Chatty, Stéphane Conversy, and Christophe Hurter. 2014. Tangible augmented reality for air traffic control. interactions 21, 4, 54--57.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  52. Markus Vogel, Christoph Thiel, and Hartmut Fricke. 2012. Assessing the air traffic control safety impact of airline pilot induced latencies. IRIT Press, London, United Kingdom.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  53. Tzu-Yang Wang, Ikkaku Kawaguchi, Hideaki Kuzuoka, and Mai Otsuki. 2018. Effect of manipulated amplitude and frequency of human voice on dominance and persuasiveness in audio conferences 2, CSCW, Article 177. DOI= http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/3274446.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  54. Vernon I Weihe. 1953. Computer applications in air traffic control. In Eastern Joint Computer Conference IEEE, 18--22.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. From Paper Flight Strips to Digital Strip Systems: Changes and Similarities in Air Traffic Control Work Practices

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Login options

        Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

        Sign in

        Full Access

        • Published in

          cover image Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction
          Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction  Volume 4, Issue CSCW1
          CSCW
          May 2020
          1285 pages
          EISSN:2573-0142
          DOI:10.1145/3403424
          Issue’s Table of Contents

          Copyright © 2020 ACM

          Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

          Publisher

          Association for Computing Machinery

          New York, NY, United States

          Publication History

          • Published: 29 May 2020
          Published in pacmhci Volume 4, Issue CSCW1

          Permissions

          Request permissions about this article.

          Request Permissions

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • research-article

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader