POWER: Objective activity and taskload assessment in en route air traffic control.

Abstract

Two computer programs, the National Airspace System (NAS) Data Management System (NDMS) and the Performance and Objective Workload Evaluation Research (POWER) program, have been developed to provide a platform for quantifying en route air traffic controller activity and taskload. The NDMS program extracts data produced by en route mainframe computers and encodes the information into database files that provide efficient storage and access. The POWER program calculates specific measures using aircraft positions and controller data entries. The development and use of such measures is important for establishing baseline activity measures and for evaluating modifications to ATC systems. NAS System Analysis Recording (SAR) data were collected from the Jacksonville en route air traffic control center between 8:30-10:30 a.m. and between 12:00-2:00 p.m. (local time) for each of four consecutive days. POWER measures were computed in 30-minute intervals for all active sectors. A Principal Components Analysis (PCA) was conducted to evaluate the current set of POWER variables and provide guidelines for the addition of new measures or the modification of existing ones. PCA with Varimax rotation converged in seven iterations and produced five components with eigenvalues > 1. Cumulatively, the four components accounted for 68.18% of the variability in the data set: Component 1 (Activity) accounted for 26%, Component 2 (Flight Path Variability) accounted for nearly 13%, Component 3 (Objective Workload) accounted for 11%, Component 4 (D-side Activity) accounted for 9%, and Component 5 (Overload) accounted for approximately 8%. Variables comprising the five extracted components provided valuable information about the underlying dimensions of the NAS data set. Additions or modifications that might improve the ability of POWER to describe ATC activity and taskload were identified.17.

Using air traffic control taskload measures and communication events to predict subjective workload.

“…The objective taskload measures used in this study were derived from the POWER software (Mills, Pfleiderer, & Manning, 2002). The POWER measures included information about the number of controlled aircraft; handoffs made and accepted; altitude changes; controller data entries and data entry errors; variations in aircraft headings, speeds, and altitudes; and the average time aircraft were under control.…”

“…The ATC data were extracted by the Data Analysis and Reduction Tool (DART; Federal Aviation Administration, 1993) and the National Track Analysis Program (NTAP; Federal Aviation Administration, 1991). The resulting files were processed both by the Systematic Air Traffic Operations Research Initiative (SATORI; Rodgers & Duke, 1993) and Performance and Objective Workload Evaluation Research (POWER; Mills, Pfleiderer, & Manning, 2002) software programs. SATORI synchronizes extracted data from DART and NTAP files with tapes containing the R controller's voice communications, using the time code common to both data sources, while POWER uses data from a subset of the DART files to compute taskload measures.…”

“…Research is being conducted to develop objective workload estimates that could replace subjective workload ratings by computing variables from routinely recorded ATC data (Buckley, DeBaryshe, Hitchner, & Kohn, 1983;Galushka, Frederick, Mogford, & Krois, 1995;Mills, Pfleiderer, & Manning., 2002;Stager, Ho, & Garbutt, 2001). These taskload measures usually describe both aircraft and controller activities.…”

Air Traffic Control

“…(2003); Kuhar et al (1976); Laudeman, Shelden, Branstrom, and Brasil (1998); Majumdar and Ochieng (2000); Mogilka. (2001, 2002); Manning and Pfleiderer (2006); Masalonis et al (2003); Mills, Pfleiderer, and Manning. (2002); Mogford et al (1993); Pawlak, Brinton, Crouch, and Lancaster (1996); Pfleiderer (2000); Porterfield (1997); Rantanen, McCarley, and Xu (2004); Rodgers, Mogford, and Mogford (1998); Schaefer (2001); Schmidt (1976); Smith et al (1998); Soede et al (1971); Sridhar et al (1998); Stein (1985); Vogt, Hagemann, and Kastner (2006); Wickens et al (1997); and Wyndemere (1996).…”