Latest revision as of 16:45, 21 January 2021

Abstract

This study compared situation awareness across three flight deck decision aiding modes. Pilots resolved air traffic conflicts using a click and drag software tool. In the automated aiding condition, pilots executed all resolutions generated by the automation. In the interactive condition, automation suggested a maneuver, but pilots had the choice of accepting or modifying the provided resolution. In the manual condition pilots generated resolutions independently. A technique that combines both Situation Global Assessment Technique and Situation Present Awareness Method was used to assess situation awareness. Results showed that situation awareness was better in the Manual and Interactive conditions when compared to the Automated condition. The finding suggests that pilots are able to maintain greater situation awareness when they are actively engaged in the conflict resolution process.

Original document

The different versions of the original document can be found in:

• http://human-factors.arc.nasa.gov/publications/Dao_et_al_ImpactofAuto_HCII09.pdf

• http://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/978-3-642-02559-4_80,

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-02559-4_80 under the license http://www.springer.com/tdm

• https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-642-02559-4_80,

https://humansystems.arc.nasa.gov/publications/Dao_et_al_ImpactofAuto_HCII09.pdf,

https://humanfactors.arc.nasa.gov/publications/Dao_et_al_ImpactofAuto_HCII09.pdf,

https://dblp.uni-trier.de/db/conf/hci/hci2009-9.html#DaoBBVSJ09,

https://www.scipedia.com/public/Dao_et_al_2009a,

https://hsi.arc.nasa.gov/publications/Dao_et_al_ImpactofAuto_HCII09.pdf,

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-02559-4_80,

https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1610751,

http://humansystems.arc.nasa.gov/publications/Dao_et_al_ImpactofAuto_HCII09.pdf,

https://academic.microsoft.com/#/detail/1501648174