“…In contrast to using a great deal of on-board automation and autonomy [e.g. [13,14], the distributed systems-based design philosophy [15,16,17] for a single pilot aircraft has been regarded as the more conservative, safer approach to development of such an aircraft; a solution more likely to gain early acceptance from the certification authorities [30]. However, if a Harbour Pilot approach is adopted this may seriously restrict the number of potential destinations for such an aircraft, especially on 'thinner' routes where the introduction of this type of operation may have the greatest cost saving potential.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Various technological approaches are currently being explored for the development of a single pilot airliner. Some focus upon the development of sophisticated automation, for example, intelligent knowledge-based systems, autonomous systems and adaptive automation [13,14]. Others adopt a more technologically cautious approach to that of using a large amount of on-aircraft computing.…”
Section: House Of Representatives and The Committee On Commerce Scien...mentioning
Single pilot passenger aircraft concepts are being developed by several manufacturers. Various technological approaches are being explored: One concept is to use a Harbour Pilot dedicated to providing support for departures and arrivals. The Harbour Pilot has comprehensive knowledge of the terminal area airspace, procedures and operations. If a single pilot aircraft is to be viable, however, the number of supporting personnel needs to be significantly smaller than the number of First Officers normally employed for a two-crew aeroplane, but the number such staff has yet to be determined. This study models operations by a UK low-cost operator at a regional airport to determine the optimum number of Harbour Pilots required to support operations throughout the day. The model uses a simplified timeline analysis with task data incorporated into a dynamic discrete event modelling system allowing for multiple replications using various configurations. Results suggest that for this operation six Harbour Pilots per shift used flexibly to support both departures and arrivals would be required.
“…In contrast to using a great deal of on-board automation and autonomy [e.g. [13,14], the distributed systems-based design philosophy [15,16,17] for a single pilot aircraft has been regarded as the more conservative, safer approach to development of such an aircraft; a solution more likely to gain early acceptance from the certification authorities [30]. However, if a Harbour Pilot approach is adopted this may seriously restrict the number of potential destinations for such an aircraft, especially on 'thinner' routes where the introduction of this type of operation may have the greatest cost saving potential.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Various technological approaches are currently being explored for the development of a single pilot airliner. Some focus upon the development of sophisticated automation, for example, intelligent knowledge-based systems, autonomous systems and adaptive automation [13,14]. Others adopt a more technologically cautious approach to that of using a large amount of on-aircraft computing.…”
Section: House Of Representatives and The Committee On Commerce Scien...mentioning
Single pilot passenger aircraft concepts are being developed by several manufacturers. Various technological approaches are being explored: One concept is to use a Harbour Pilot dedicated to providing support for departures and arrivals. The Harbour Pilot has comprehensive knowledge of the terminal area airspace, procedures and operations. If a single pilot aircraft is to be viable, however, the number of supporting personnel needs to be significantly smaller than the number of First Officers normally employed for a two-crew aeroplane, but the number such staff has yet to be determined. This study models operations by a UK low-cost operator at a regional airport to determine the optimum number of Harbour Pilots required to support operations throughout the day. The model uses a simplified timeline analysis with task data incorporated into a dynamic discrete event modelling system allowing for multiple replications using various configurations. Results suggest that for this operation six Harbour Pilots per shift used flexibly to support both departures and arrivals would be required.
“…The interaction paradigm and associated interface were developed based on the requirements defined for HAT in space operations, domain knowledge models for HAT, and preliminary function allocation guidelines for HAT (Tokadlı, Dorneich et al, 2018; Tokadlı & Dorneich, 2017). Based on shared task model, the human and CA teammates exchanged information regarding the desired goals, tasks, partial plans, and constraints in the developing environmental conditions (Figure 1) (Tokadlı et al, 2021). Figure 1.System architecture (Tokadlı et al, 2021).…”
“…Based on shared task model, the human and CA teammates exchanged information regarding the desired goals, tasks, partial plans, and constraints in the developing environmental conditions (Figure 1) (Tokadlı et al, 2021). Figure 1.System architecture (Tokadlı et al, 2021). …”
What makes an autonomous system a teammate? The paper presents an evaluation of factors that can encourage a human perceive an autonomous system as a teammate rather than a tool. Increased perception of teammate-likeness more closely matches the human’s expectations of a teammate’s behavior, benefiting coordination and cooperation. Previous work with commercial pilots suggested that autonomous systems should provide visible cues of actions situated in the work environment. These results motivated the present study to investigate the impact of feedback modality on the teammate-likeness of an autonomous system under low (sequential events) and high (concurrent events) task loads. A Cognitive Assistant (CA) was developed as an autonomous teammate to support a (simulated) Mars mission. With centralized feedback, an autonomous teammate provided verbal and written information on a dedicated display. With distributed feedback, the autonomous teammate provided visible cues of actions in the environment in addition to centralized feedback. Perception of teammate-likeness increased with distributed feedback due to increased awareness of the CA’s actions, especially under low task load. In high task load, teamwork performance was higher with distributed feedback when compared to centralized feedback, where in low task load there was no difference in teamwork performance between feedback modalities.
“…Effective design of supportive controls and displays for application environments is especially critical, not only for task delegation/ workload sharing, but also to exploit automation's assistance in collaborating on courses of actions, monitoring task execution/system operation, and managing contingencies. Fortunately, progress has been made on minimizing adaptable automation's LOA/task assignment workload by extending Playbook delegation pioneered by Miller and Parasuraman (2007) for both single human control of multiple unmanned vehicles (Calhoun et al, 2018) and single pilot-manned aircraft operation (Tokadli et al, 2021). Both enable a human operator to seamlessly transition across low-to-high LOAs and tailor automation depending on the task, situation, human's trust in the automation, or a unique combination of these factors.…”
Objective Identify a critical research gap for the human factors community that has implications for successful human–automation teaming. Background There are a variety of approaches for applying automation in systems. Flexible application of automation such that its level and/or type changes during system operations has been shown to enhance human–automation system performance. Method This mini-review describes flexible automation in which the level of automated support varies across tasks during system operation, rather than remaining fixed. Two types distinguish the locus of authority to change automation level: adaptable automation (the human operator assigns how automation is applied) has been found to aid human’s situation awareness and provide more perceived control versus adaptive automation (the system assigns automation level) that may impose less workload and attentional demands by automatically adjusting levels in response to changes in one or more states of the human, task, environment, and so on. Results In contrast to vast investments in adaptive automation approaches, limited research has been devoted to adaptable automation. Experiments directly comparing adaptable and adaptive automation are particularly scant. These few studies show that adaptable automation was not only preferred over adaptive automation, but it also resulted in improved task performance and, notably, less perceived workload. Conclusion Systematic research examining adaptable automation is overdue, including hybrid approaches with adaptive automation. Specific recommendations for further research are provided. Application Adaptable automation together with effective human-factored interface designs to establish working agreements are key to enabling human–automation teaming in future complex systems.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
