A St
Studyd on Di
Distributedt ib t d C
Cognition
iti fforTeam Cognitive Process Modeling in ATC
Satoru InoueInoue, Hisae Aoyama,Aoyama
ATM Department, ENRI, JAPANYusuke SorajiSoraji,, Taro Kanno
Kanno,, Kazuo Furuta,
School of Engineering, The University of Tokyo, JAPANKeiichi Nakata,
Informatics Research Centre, University of Reading, UK
EIWAC, 5th‐6th March 2009,2009, Tokyo, Japan
Independent Administrative Institution

El tElectronici NNavigation
i tiResearchRh Institute
I tit tBackgroundg• Problem of current situation in ATC- Increasing air traffic demands- Need to increase traffic efficiency,
to fulfill
f lfill variousirequests- Prevention of Human errors forkeeping air traffic safety-Supporting for training systems,
Real time job
job, revise rules- Development design method,
Evaluation index
Independent Administrative Institution

Electronic Navigation Research InstitutePurpose of Research
Development method forteam cognitive processmodeling by using distributed
cognition in En‐
En‐route ATC

User Oriented, Higher Usability systems
for Controllers

Need to understand details of basic
functions of air traffic controller'stasks in the systems, in order todesign more reliable interfaces ortraining programs for the controllers

Realization for more efficiency andhigher safety of air traffic
Independent Administrative Institution

Electronic Navigation Research InstituteMotivation• Ethnographic approach
Ethnomethodology is a method of sociology to find out some implicit
orders, rules, or norms behind human activities through observation in
the actual work environment

Design of advanced ATC
systems for the future

Assure system safety
Enhance usabilityy
Support human reliability

Understanding of Cooperative Work(ATC is a cooperative work in between controllers & systems）
systems）• Analysis method of Ethnographical approach ⇒ Distributed Cognition
Independent Administrative Institution

Electronic Navigation Research InstituteThe Concept of Routine<Routine>
ターゲッ ト確 認
現在位置， AL T， GS

Ｈ／Ｏ作業
レーダ業務終了作業

H/O？
レーダ業務終了？

イメージ と一 致？

戦術変更？

調整席との調整自セクター内でのフライトイメージ作成

戦術決定

誘導/経路変更

高度変更

速度変更

高度指示要？

誘導 or 経路変更指示要？

速度指示要？

高度指示のタイミング？

誘導/経路変更指示のタイミング？

速度指示のタイミング？

ＨＯＬＤ
中？

ＨＯＬＤ
解除？

ＨＯＬＤ
予定？
ＡＰＰＲＯＡＣＨ
ＯＫ？

高 度指示作成

誘導/ 経路変 更指示作成

作成さ れた
指示発出

速度調整
指示作成

入力

Ｈ ＯＬＤ
ＣＬＥＡＲ ＡＮ ＣＥ（ ＥＡＴ ） 作 成

Ｈ ＯＬＤ
ＣＬＥＡＲ ＡＮ ＣＥ（ ＥＡＴ ） 発出

STP

STP

復唱確認

ＡＰＰＲＯＡＣＨ
ＣＬＥＡＲ ＡＮ ＣＥ
作成

ＡＰＰＲ ＯＡＣＨＣ ＬＥＡＲ ＡＮＣ Ｅ
発出

復唱確認

他機の管制処理

STP

復唱確認
レーダ業務終了？

レーダ業務終了作業

Situation
Awareness<Controller><Routines for Targets>* Relationship between others* Kinds of Task and Cognitive Process* Implement Timing* Contents of Strategy / Tactics
Independent Administrative Institution

Electronic Navigation Research InstituteModel of Cooperative Work• Coordination Controller’s work is a critical factor forJudgment
doff Radard Controller’sll ’ Strategy

Individual Model

Team Model
Independent Administrative Institution

Electronic Navigation Research InstituteFindings from Observation• Characteristics of Cooperative work
Good cooperative work as a team

Sharingcommon strategy,
situation awareness• Needd to understanddd whath isi a notioni“distribution”
distribution , “Sharedness”
Sharedness , “Overlapping”
Overlapping... as a team cognition• Team Situation Awareness (TSA)
Defined based on “Mutual Belief”

Independent Administrative Institution

Electronic Navigation Research InstituteMutual Beliefs
Team intension =Individual intension+ Mutual
M t l beliefsb li fSelf Intention

Collaboration

partner

What dothe members
aim at?

Do themembers
are aware of
my intention?

Independent Administrative Institution

Electronic Navigation Research InstituteTSA based on Mutual Beliefs
A’s Mind

B’s Mind

1st layer

A’s Cognition

B’s Cognition

2nd layer

A’s Beliefs on
B’s Cognition

B’s Beliefs on
A’s Cognition

3rd layer

A’s Beliefs on
B’s Beliefs on
A’ C
A’sCognition
iti

B’s Beliefs on
A’s Beliefs on
B’ Cognition
B’sC
iti

Independent Administrative Institution

Electronic Navigation Research InstituteTeam Interaction Related to TSA• Four schemes of interaction– Verbal communication– Mental simulation (inference)– Complementing (assumption)– Verification (consistency checking)• Four strategies of TSA maintenance– Complement one
one’ss own cognitive substance– Complement one’s own mental simulation– Verification to keep consistency– Support partner’s mental simulation
Independent Administrative Institution

Electronic Navigation Research InstituteCase Study• T 03 Sectorin Tokyo Area Control Centre,
Japan Civil Aviation Bureau.

T03 Sector• Characteristics

RJSF

Two Main Airport((NaritaIntl,l Tokyok Intl)l)Two AFB(Yokota, Hyakuri)
Various Type of TrafficGOCHyakuri• Data Set
Recorded on May 7th 2007
Radio Communication ,Coordination Communication,
View of Radar screen&Control room

YokotaTokyo Intl

Narita Intl

Independent Administrative Institution

Electronic Navigation Research InstituteCase Study
AAL167

ANA210

JAL402
ANA206

ANA210, JAL402,
ANA206, AAL167
DDescending
di totNarita airport
simultaneously

Kanto‐north
H k i
to Hyakuri

to Narita
KUDOS51

KUDOS51
Descending toHyakuri Air Baseto Narita

Independent Administrative Institution

Electronic Navigation Research InstituteCollaboration Process (Case study)
RadarCoordinatorChecked aircraft positions

Inferred partner’s action on the traffics
arriving at Narita [mental simulation] andasked question [complement one’s own
mental simulation]

14:07:40

Interpreted the intention of query [mentalsimulation] and replied
14:08:22

Kept monitoring aircraft positions

Agreed on the proposal and proposed
altitude of descent [support partner’s mentalsimulation]

14:10:01

Asked partner’s idea [complement one’s own
mental simulation]

Recognized partner’s action [mentalsimulation] and proposed strategy forordering descending traffics [supportpartner’s’ mentall simulation]i l i ]
14:08:57

Made coordination as preparation forinstruction and informed of the result[verification to keep consistency]
Replied one’s own idea

14:10:55

Made decision and informed of the decision[support partner’s mental simulation]

Recognition
Conversation

Independent Administrative Institution

Electronic Navigation Research InstituteFindings from Case Studies• Three schemes of interaction– Verbal communication– Mental simulation (inference)– Verification (consistency checking)• All of the four TSA maintenance strategies• All of the three layers of mutual beliefs• A notion of TSA based on mutual beliefs is applicableto ATC collaboration
collaboration.

Independent Administrative Institution

Electronic Navigation Research InstituteCharacteristics of Team Collaboration in En‐En‐Route ATC• Establishment and maintenance of TSA with andwithout verbal communication– Shared expert knowledge (routines)– Information available in the environment– TSA maintenance strategies• Implicit task allocation and execution– Recognition‐primedgp
decision‐makingg– Shared routines (including role assignment)
Independent Administrative Institution

Electronic Navigation Research InstituteConclusion
Introduced a technique for analysing tasks of En‐routeATC byb theh fframeworkk off ddistributed
b d Cognition.
High performance team work: each partner needs toproactively interact to share their cognitive process
TSA is based on mutual beliefs in the model.
Interactions of TSA are explained as update ofindividual cognitionon the situation and mutualgbeliefs.
‐Future work‐
work‐
 Continue the data analysis to enhance our understandingof detailed features controller’s cognitive process model
as a team
Independent Administrative Institution

Electronic Navigation Research InstituteThank you for your attention...

Independent Administrative Institution

Electronic Navigation Research InstituteAcknowledgement
The authors appreciates to the Japan Railway
CConstruction,
iTTransport TTechnology
h lA
Agency whohsupported this research program under theffoundationd i ffor promoting
i fundamental
f dl transporttechnology research

Independent Administrative Institution

Electronic Navigation Research Institute