Competency Analysis

Sathiyavathy (2016) explains that the role of an air traffic control officer (ATCOs) is
extremely complex. They are operators that work within a complex socio-technical system to
safely guide all aircrafts in their designated airspace. Therefore, it is crucial to understand how
the fifth phase of the cognitive work analysis (CWA), worker competencies analysis, applies to
ATCOs. In this discussion post, we will discuss a specific example that will aid in comprehending
the key distinction between different competencies.
S-R-K Model Applied on ATCOs
Skill-Based Behavior
Rasmussen (1983) illustrates that the behavior of an operator can be described in three
ways: (1) skill-based, (2) rule-based, and (3) knowledge-based. An example of a skill-based
behavior may include an ATCO communicating with a familiar traffic that requests to land at
their airfield every day at the same time. In this case, the pilot and the controller communicate
fast and effortlessly with little feedback required (Embrey, 2005). The key distinction in this case
is that this type of behavior is often automatic and seems more habitual than other types of
communications that require more thought and awareness by the ATCO.
Rule-Based Behavior
Next, an example of a rule-based behavior may be described as ‘if-then’ scenarios
(Embrey, 2005). Let’s say an ATCO gives an aircraft the clearance the line-up with the centerline
of the runway. However, the pilot mistakenly takes that as an approval to take-off. In these
situations, the ATCO is given a set of rules stating that if such violations are made by the pilot,
then there are certain consequences as described by the corresponding regulatory body. The
key distinction in this case is that this type of behavior is often based on rules that have been
learned from formal training. In other words, the ATCO follows skill-based behavior and when
the environment is modified, the ATCO relies on rule-based behavior to resolve the situation.
Knowledge-Based Behavior
Finally, an example of a knowledge-based behavior may include an ATCO facing a novel
environment. Let’s say a group of aircraft that just took off from an aerodrome declare may-day
as have to make a forced landing immediately to avoid further damage to the aircraft and/or
the passenger(s). Even though, the ATCO is familiar with what is required of them during these
situations, they are likely to be inexperienced or never-been-trained for to deal with numerous
aircrafts declaring may-day at the same time (Embrey, 2005). The ATCO may require
considerable feedback, take time to accommodate to what the pilots need, and would require
tremendous amount of attention and effort in getting the aircrafts safely on ground. The key
distinction in this case is that this type of behavior may cause errors due to the lack of
awareness of the consequences and/or operator overload.
Interactions & Influences between S-R-K Model
To connect this concept to the other examples, we can say that the ATCOs first use their
skill-based behavior for handling regular activities. Then, the ATCOs use their rule-based
behavior when there is a slight change/violation in the regular activities. In the end, the ATCOs
use their knowledge-based behavior when these changes persist and the ATCOs find
themselves in a situation that is likely require high levels of cognitively workload management
skills. Subsequently, this shows that the controlled tasks performed by ATCOs are not pure
skill-, rule-, or knowledge-based behaviors and instead, the interaction between the three aid
ATCOs to successfully accomplish the necessary tasks (Borghini et al., 2015).
Conclusion
In conclusion, this discussion post shows examples of how different situations require
ATCOs to portray different types of behaviors. Furthermore, Borghini et al. (2015) demonstrate
that it is not possible to recreate pure S-R-K behaviors. While skill-based scenarios don’t require
ATCOs to be entirely focused on them, they are still expected to be focused to be able to switch
between behaviors based on the dynamic environment they are placed within. Another
example may include that while ATCOs use their conflict resolution behavior (knowledge-
based), they may be also performing at a rule or skill level to handle the surrounding
environment. Researchers can explore further on this topic as to how this model can further aid
our understanding of how the human-in-the-loop interacts with the interface within other
complex socio-technical environments.

While Skill events were basic interactions with the interface and the ATCO could be almost
entirely focused on them, the same could not be done for the Rule and Knowledge levels. The
Rule events were control tasks and conflicts resolutions, during which controllers were also
performing at a skill level (having to interact with the interface to handle them). The Knowledge
events involved the three levels: Skill + Rule + Knowledge.

Borghini et al. (2015) explain in their research paper that using different types of
behaviors influence the operator’s brain differently. The skill-based behavior , which involved
high automated processes, long term memory, low executive control, low attention, no decision
making or problem solving, showed high parietal brain activity than rule- and knowledge-based
behavior. The rule-based behavior, which involved less automated processes, long term
memory, more executive control, more attention, no decision making or problem solving,
showed high frontal theta activity than skill-based behavior. Finally, skill-based behavior, no
automated processes, long term memory, executive control, high attention, decision making or
problem solving, showed higher frontal theta activation and parietal alpha brain activity than
rule- and skill-based behaviors.

References
Borghini, G., Aricò, P., Di Flumeri, G., Graziani, I., Colosimo, A., Salinari, S., ... & Pozzi, S. (2015).
Skill, Rule and Knowledge-based Behaviors Detection during Realistic ATM Simulations by
Means of ATCOs’ Brain Activity. Fifth SESAR Innovation Days.
https://www.sesarju.eu/sites/default/files/documents/sid/2015/SIDs_2015_paper_8.pdf
Embrey, D. (2005). Understanding human behaviour and error. Human Reliability Associates,
1(2005), 1-10. https://www.humanreliability.com/downloads/Understanding-Human-
Behaviour-and-Error.pdf
Rasmussen, J. (1983). Skills, rules, and knowledge; signals, signs, and symbols, and other
distinctions in human performance models. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and
Cybernetics, 13(3), 257–266. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSMC.1983.6313160
Sathiyavathy, M. (2016). Guidelines for the approval of air traffic services (ATS) training
organization [ATO].
http://164.100.60.133/misc/draft%20circular/DraftATOGuidelines(ANS_June2016).pdf