Human Factors Research Some OSU examples 1
Human Factors Research to Inform the Human-Machine Systems Engineering Process Needs, Problems, Opportunities Generalizable Research Question(s) Hypothesis Formulation Operation,Test Analysis & Evaluation Research Design HMS: Humans, Data Collection Users, Requirements Machines, Operators, Processes Data Analysis & Subject Matter HFE Principles (Model, Mockup, Hypothesis Testing Experts & Guidelines Prototype, Product) Interpretation & Application of Results Implementation Design Design Specifications 2
Human Factors Research: An Overview ● Experimental Methods ● Relationships studies – independent variables → dependent variables ● Comparative studies ● Descriptive Methods ● Literature Review ● Observation ● Surveys and Questionnaires ● Incident and Accident Analysis ● Modeling and Simulation ● Meta-Analysis ● Always involve human subjects/participants (directly or indirectly) 3
Human Factors and Aviation Safety Primary Causes of Aircraft Accidents Hull Loss Accidents – Worldwide Commercial Jet Fleet – 1994 Through 2005 Flight Crew 55% Airplane 17% Weather 13% Misc./Other 7% Airport/ATC 5% Maintenance 3% 10% 30% 50% 70% 90% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Source: Boeing Commercial Airplanes 4
Human Factors Research Methods In OSU's Cockpit Task Management (CTM) Research Lockheed L1011 CTM: Process by which pilots selectively attend to multiple, concurrent flight tasks to safely and effectively complete a flight. Boeing 777 5
Developing a Conceptual Framework For CTM: Literature Review, Analysis, and Modeling ● Literature Review Cockpit Resource Management (e.g., Lauber, 1986) ● Human error in aviation (e.g, Nagel, 1988; Wiener, 1987; Ruffel-Smith, 1979) ● Cognitive psychology (e.g., Navon & Gopher, 1979; Wickens, 1984) ● Systems theory (e.g., Padulo & Arbib, 1979) ● ● A Model of CTM initiate tasks to achieve goals ● assess status of all tasks ● terminate completed tasks ● prioritize remaining tasks based on ● importance: – 1. aviate 2. navigate 3. communicate 4. manage systems urgency – other factors (?) – allocate resources (attend) to tasks in order of priority ● Funk, K.H. (1991). Cockpit Task Management: Preliminary Definitions, Normative Theory, Error Taxonomy, and Design Recommendations, The International Journal of Aviation Psychology , Vol. 1, No. 4, pp. 271-285. 6
Determining the Significance of CTM: Accident Analysis CTM Error Taxonomy ● Task Initiation: early / late / incorrect / lacking ● Task Prioritization: incorrect ● Task Termination: early / late / incorrect / lacking ● Method: ● Reviewed 324 National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) Aircraft Accident Reports ● (1960 – 1989) Developed pre-impact timelines, classified CTM errors ● Findings: 80 CTM errors in 76 (23%) of the accidents ● % CTM % of All CTM CTM Error # Accidents Accidents # CTM Errors Errors Task Initiation 35 46 35 44 Task Prioritization 24 32 24 30 Task Termination 21 28 21 26 Chou, C.D., D. Madhavan, and K.H. Funk (1996). Studies of Cockpit Task Management Errors, International Journal of Aviation Psychology , Vol. 6, No. 4, pp. 307-320. 7
Determining the Significance of CTM: Incident Analysis Method: ● Reviewed 470 Aviation Safety Reporting System (ASRS) incident reports: ● Controlled Flight Toward Terrain incidents – In-flight engine emergency incidents – Terminal flight phase incidents – Identified concurrent tasks, classified CTM errors ● Findings: 231 (49%) of the incidents involved CTM errors ● % CTM % of All CTM CTM Error # Incidents Incidents # CTM Errors Errors Task Initiation 137 59 145 42 Task Prioritization 133 58 122 35 Task Termination 83 36 82 23 Chou, C.D., D. Madhavan, and K.H. Funk (1996). Studies of Cockpit Task Management Errors, International Journal of Aviation Psychology , Vol. 6, No. 4, pp. 307-320. Conclusion: CTM is a significant factor in flight safety. 8
Understanding CTM: Incident Analysis Does cockpit automation level ● Task Prioritization affect task performance? Error Frequency Method: Technology Technology ● Traditional Advanced Reviewed 420 NASA ASRS ● incident reports Total Errors by 210 advanced technology + – Submission Period Submission Period 210 conventional technology 1988-1989 13 7 20 large commercial transport ● aircraft 1990-1991 11 5 16 2 pilots ● 1992-1993 4 3 7 1988-89, 1990-91, 1992-93 ● Total Errors by Reviewed narratives 28 15 ● Aircraft Technology Constructed task models ● Classified errors ● Comparison with t-tests Wilson, J. and K. Funk (1998). The Effect of Automation on ● the Frequency of Task Prioritization Errors on Findings: ● Commercial Aircraft Flight Decks: An ASRS Incident Error rate higher for advanced ● Report Study, Proceedings of the Second Workshop on technology aircraft ( p = 0.036) Human Error, Safety, and System Development , Error rate decreasing ( p = 0.032) Seattle, WA, April 1-2, 1998, pp. 6-16. ● 9
Understanding CTM: Simulator Study What are the factors that affect task ● O A K V O R E 5 - L o c a l i z e r prioritization in the CTM process? ( S c e n a r i o E v e n t ) S F O 2 8 R I L S L o c a l i z e r N e e d l e " S w i n g s " D M E = 1 7 . 6 Method: simulator study ● S p e e d = 1 6 5 Professional pilot participants f l a p s = 2 5 ● E 6 - F i n a l F i n a l D e s c e n t c h e c k l i s t ( M a l f u n c t i o n E v e n t ) Difficult San Francisco approach scenarios ● B o o s t P u m p F a i l u r e ( M 5 ) 2 5 n m f r o m O A K D M E = 1 3 S p e e d = 1 9 0 Task prioritization Challenge Probe Points (CPPs) f l a p s = 5 3 2 5 ° ● Stop sim or record & replay for interviews on CPPs: M E N L O ● E 4 - V e c t o r 3 6 0 “Why did you ...?” ( A T C E v e n t ) 3 6 0 ° V e c t o r i n s t r u c t i o n Analysis with ANOVA ● D M E = 2 5 Findings: Prioritization Factors B O L D R ● E 3 - B O L D R 1. Procedural compliance ( M a l f u n c t i o n E v e n t ) S p e e d = 2 1 0 a lt = 6 0 0 0 B u s T i e C o n t a c t o r ( M 4 ) a lt = 8 0 0 0 f l a p s = 1 2. Task importance D M E = 3 4 a p p r o a c h / d e s c e n t c h e c k li s t 3. Task salience S K U N K 4. Task status E 1 - S c e n a r i o E v e n t E 2 - D M E 4 2 E 2 - A T C E v e n t ( A T C E v e n t ) 5. Time/Effort requirements E 3 - M a l f u n c t i o n E v e n t V e c t o r a n d A l t . I n s t r u c t i o n s E 4 - A T C E v e n t D M E = 4 2 6. Task urgency E 5 - S c e n a r i o E v e n t S p e e d = 3 0 0 a lt = 1 0 , 0 0 0 E 6 - M a l f u n c i t o n E v e n t A N J E E f r e q = 1 3 4 . 5 E 1 - C A R M E ( S c e n a r i o E v e n t ) Colvin, K., K. Funk, & R. Braune (2005). Task T u r n f r o m V 2 7 t o 3 3 1 R a d i a l D M E = 8 3 . 9 F l i g h t P a t h Prioritization Factors: Two Part-Task Simulator B i g S u r V O R Studies, International Journal of Aviation C A R M E Psychology , Vol. 15, No. 4, pp. 321–338. S t a r t t u r n a b o u t 8 3 . 9 f r o m O A K D i r e c t i o n o f F l i g h t 10
Improving CTM: Experimental Study (Training) Can task prioritization be trained? ● APE Mnemonic: Assess, Prioritize, Execute ● Simulator Experiment ● Licensed pilot participants ● Independent variable: training (Descriptive, ● Prescriptive, None/Control) Dependent Variables ● Task Prioritization Error Rate – Prospective Memory Recall – Flight – training / no training – flight ● ANOVA of results ● ● . f 1 – r e P – y 0.9 – r o Control m – 0.8 e M – e 0.7 v Descriptive i t c 0.6 e p Prescriptive s Bishara, S. and K. Funk (2002). Training Pilots to Prioritize Tasks, o 0.5 r Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society P Pre Training Post Training 46th Annual Meeting , Baltimore, MD, September 30-October 4, 2002, pp. 96-100. 11
Improving CTM: Experiment (System Comparison) Can CTM be facilitated by a cockpit aid? ● AgendaManager (CTM aid) vs. EICAS (conventional pilot warning/alerting system) ● Simulator Experiment ● Professional pilot participants ● Independent Variables: Alerting (AMgr vs. EICAS), Scenario ● Findings Dependent Variables: CTM metrics ● Flight 1 (EICAS/AMgr) – Flight 2 (Amgr/EICAS) ● sig. Dependent Variable AMgr EICAS ANOVA of results ● Within subs. correct prioritization 100% 100% NS Subs. fault correction time (sec) 19.5 19.6 NS A/F programming time (sec) 7.9 5.9 NS goal conflicts % corrected 100% 70% 0.10 goal conflict resolution time (sec) 34.7 53.6 0.10 Subs./Aviate correct prioritization 72% 46% 0.05 Mean # unsatisfactory tasks 0.64 0.85 0.05 % time all tasks satisfactory 65% 52% 0.05 Mean participant rating (-5 - +5) 4.8 2.5 0.05 Funk, K. and Braune, R. (1999). The AgendaManager: A Knowledge-Based System to Facilitate the Management of Flight Deck Activities, SAE 1999-01-5536. 1999 World Aviation Congress, 19-21 October 1999, San Francisco, CA. 12
Recommend
More recommend
