Controller Situation Awareness in Free Flight

Endsley, Mica R.; Mogford, Richard H.; Stein, Earl S.

doi:10.1177/107118139704100102

Cited by 19 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Other domain specific criticisms of SAGAT are also largely unsupported. Langan-Fox et al (2009) and Jeannot et al (2003), for example, claim that SAGAT for ATC (a) considers all aircraft equal, which is not the case (for example, see Endsley, Mogford, & Stein, 1997; Endsley, Sollenberger, & Stein, 1999), (b) requires expensive simulators (see also Salmon, Stanton, Walker, & Green, 2006), even though many studies use inexpensive microworlds or computer games, and (c) is not suited to multi-sector studies, which is not accurate as many studies involve multiple sectors (e.g., Endsley & Rodgers, 1998). Overall SAGAT had 94% sensitivity in ATC studies.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Direct Objective Measures of Situation Awareness: A Comparison of SAGAT and SPAM

2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To examine evidence of sensitivity, predictiveness, and methodological concerns regarding direct, objective measures of situation awareness (SA). Background: The ability to objectively measure SA is important to the evaluation of user interfaces and displays, training programs, and automation initiatives, as well as for studies that seek to better understand SA in both individuals and teams. A number of methodological criticisms have been raised creating significant confusion in the research field. Method: A meta-analysis of 243 studies was conducted to examine evidence of sensitivity and predictiveness, and to address methodological questions regarding Situation Awareness Global Assessment Technique (SAGAT), Situation Present Assessment Technique (SPAM), and their variants. Results: SAGAT and SPAM were found to be equally predictive of performance. SPAM (64%) and real-time probes (73%) were found to have significantly lower sensitivity in comparison to SAGAT (94%). While SAGAT was found not to be overly memory reliant nor intrusive into operator performance, SPAM resulted in problems with intrusiveness in 40% of the studies examined, as well as problems with speed-accuracy tradeoffs, sampling bias, and confounds with workload. Concerns about memory reliance, the utility of these measures for assessing Team SA, and other issues are also addressed. Conclusion: SAGAT was found to be a highly sensitive, reliable, and predictive measure of SA that is useful across a wide variety of domains and experimental settings. Application: Direct, objective SA measurement provides useful and diagnostic insights for research and design in a wide variety of domains and study objectives.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Direct Objective Measures of Situation Awareness: A Comparison of SAGAT and SPAM

2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Mitigation strategies begin with an understanding of SA requirements and range from better design to better training and selection. Farley et al, 2000;Endsley et al, 1997;Hormann et al, 2004Carretta et al, 1996 and flight/aviation Jennings et al, 2004;Remington et al, 2000Gopher, 1982O'Hare, Olmos et al, 2000Roscoe, 1997Driving Reagan et al, 2004Drews et al, 2004Fisher et al, 2004McCarley & Vais, 2004Strayer et al, 2004Infantry Strater et al, 2004 Groupware Gutwin & Greenberg, 2002 Medical and Gorman et al, 2000;Michels et al, 1997Guerlain et al, 2005 medical dispatch Wong & Blandford, 2004Robotics Casper & Murphy, 2003Scholtz et al, 2004…”

Section: So What?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This study, it should be pointed out, was based on a small number of participants and a part-task paradigm. Endsley, Mogford, Stein, and Hughes (1997) envisioned free flight in a slightly different way and tested the impact on controllers during 45-minute simulator sessions. The participant played the role of controller and interacted with simulated pilots.…”

Section: Caveat: Technology With the Potential To Impede Samentioning

confidence: 99%

Situation Awareness Catches On: What? So What? Now What?

Tenney¹,

Pew²

2006

Reviews of Human Factors and Ergonomics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Human factors/ergonomics professionals regularly study the situation awareness (SA) problems of pilots, air traffic controllers, automobile drivers, power plant workers, ambulance dispatchers, urban search and rescue professionals, and unmanned vehicle operators, to mention a few. The challenge has been to define SA operationally and devise measurement strategies that focus on attention and recall on the one hand and relevant actions on the other. Although there have been many successes, challenges remain. This review is organized in three parts. Under "What?" we discuss definitions of SA, their interpretations in terms of human information processing and ecological psychological theories, as well as techniques for measuring SA. Under "So what?" we introduce SA applications-information requirements, technological tools, and training systems-that support the way people work and live. Finally, under "Now what?" we discuss future directions for SA research. Table 1.1. Two Theoretical Views of Situation Awareness Aspect Information Processing Ecological Psychology Emphasis "What's inside your head" "What your head's inside of" (Mace, 1977) Key ideas for SA Mental representation, Direct perception, affordances of long-term working memory objects, events [and situations] Goal of research Diagnostics-what is noticed and Adaptation-how does organism remembered; what is overlooked learn to distinguish situations and their action implications? Nature of stimulation Sensation-based, elemental Rich, nested structure, invariants over time and space Meaning and action Derived from memory, knowledge, Perceived directly as affordances potential inference of objects and events Sources: Neisser (1967), Gibson (1979).

show abstract

“…EACAC targets near term applications -typically 2005 -taking place in current ATC organisations, while at the same time proposing long-term developments 1 . This principle goes in line with the Operational Concept Document of the European Air Traffic Management System [9] and the ATM2000+ Strategy [8] proposed by EUROCONTROL which envisage within managed airspace, the possibility of transferring from the ground, part of the separation assurance to aircraft fitted with appropriate avionics.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 56%

Initial Evaluation of Limited Delegation of Separation Assurance to the Cockpit

Zeghal

Hoffman

Nicolaon

et al. 1999

SAE Technical Paper Series

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper presents the initial evaluation of the EACAC study, which is investigating delegation by the controller to the pilot of some tasks related to separation assurance. The concept is applied in managed airspace for two classes of application: crossing and passing in en-route, and sequencing in Terminal Manoeuvring Area. The concept relies on two key points discussed in the paper: "limited delegation" and "flexible use of delegation". The initial evaluation using a simplified ATC environment has been set up to get "feedback" from both controllers and pilots, and to assess the operational feasibility and potential interest of the concept. The overall feeling about the method is "promising" with a "great potential", and could reduce workload. The notion of "flexible use of delegation" would enable the gradual growth of confidence and would also provide flexibility to use the method under different conditions (traffic, airspace, practice level). It has been highlighted and observed however that the conditions of applicability of the method must be respected, otherwise it could worsen the situations, resulting in an increase of workload and communication. The next step of the study will therefore be a "quantitative" experiment with the objective of evaluating expected gains of the method.

show abstract

Controller Situation Awareness in Free Flight

Cited by 19 publications

References 2 publications

A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Direct Objective Measures of Situation Awareness: A Comparison of SAGAT and SPAM

A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Direct Objective Measures of Situation Awareness: A Comparison of SAGAT and SPAM

Situation Awareness Catches On: What? So What? Now What?

Initial Evaluation of Limited Delegation of Separation Assurance to the Cockpit

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About