See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/259898511

Visual Aids for Merging Mixed Arrival Traffic

Conference Paper in Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting · September 2013
DOI: 10.1177/1541931213571135 · Source: DLR

CITATIONS READS
0 63

3 authors:

Bernhard Michael Weber Hendrik Oberheid

German Aerospace Center (DLR) Deutsche Flugsicherung (DFS)
77 PUBLICATIONS 678 CITATIONS 40 PUBLICATIONS 136 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Anne Papenfuß
German Aerospace Center (DLR)
85 PUBLICATIONS 347 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Cognitive Technical Systems - Human-Machine-Systems, Autonomous Systems, Interaction, Human Machine Interface View project

RAiCe - Remote Airport Traffic Control Centre View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Bernhard Michael Weber on 08 March 2022.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 PROCEEDINGS of the HUMAN FACTORS and ERGONOMICS SOCIETY 57th ANNUAL MEETING - 2013 630

Visual Aids for Merging Mixed Arrival Traffic:

Effects on Controllers’ Performance, Situation Awareness, and
Mental Workload
Bernhard Weber1, Hendrik Oberheid2 & Anne Papenfuss1
1
German Aerospace Center, 2Deutsche Flugsicherung

Innovative concepts for fuel-efficient and noise-reduced air traffic suggest a better utilization of modern
aircraft capabilities, like time-based planning of continuous descent approaches (CDA). One challenge of
such concepts is the integration of aircraft flying CDA approaches and conventional air traffic. In this
study, we examined the effects of different levels of automation provided by four different variants of visu-
al aids on performance, information acquisition, resultant situation awareness, and workload with N = 78
students in a complex and dynamic microworld setting. While visual assistance had a positive effect on
performance, attention was deviated from real aircraft. Nevertheless, attention deviation did not negatively
affect conflict detection when assistance was activated manually. Moreover, anticipation of future losses of
separation was improved by visual aids.

Compared to today’s approach procedures, novel procedures

INTRODUCTION
Long-term forecasts (International Civil Aviation Organiza-
tion, 2007; Eurocontrol, 2008) predict a significant growth of
worldwide civil aviation traffic. Thus, there is a pressing need
to improve efficiency of today’s air traffic management in a
safe and environmentally-friendly way. One promising con-
cept to accommodate these needs is an improved utilization of
the latest technical capabilities of modern aircraft (a/c). Spe-
cifically, current flight management systems (FMS) provide
Copyright 2013 by Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, Inc. All rights reserved. DOI 10.1177/1541931213571135
which embed time-based continuous decent approaches
(CDAs) into the arrival process require a modified approach
route structure. Today, arrival traffic is usually merged early,
commonly 30 miles outbound. All traffic is subsequently
forced onto similar vertical and speed profiles, in order to ad-
just or maintain spacing. According to a new concept for late
merging operations developed at the German Aerospace Cen-
ter (e.g., Kuenz, Mollwitz & Korn, 2007), arrival traffic is
merged only 6-10 miles away from the runway threshold at a
central late merging point (LMP). Two distinct procedures

new functionalities for planning and executing highly opti- Entry

mized trajectories and vertical profiles with a high degree of
time precision. These so called 4D-capabilities constitute a
Equipped Aircraft
core concept element of both the U.S. next generation air
transportation system (NextGen) and the single European sky Trombone
ATM research (SESAR) programs for the modernization of
the air traffic management (ATM) system.
Yet, one major challenge of implementing new procedures for Centerline Target
a/c equipped with a 4D-FMS (henceforth labelled as equipped
Ghost
a/c) is the harmonization with conventional procedures for a/c Late Merging
Point (LMP)
without a 4D-FMS (henceforth labelled as unequipped a/c),
which still constitute the majority of the a/c fleet. From the
Trombone
human factors perspective, coordinating different arrival
streams with time-based and conventional procedures would Unequipped Aircraft Examples of
Turning Points
be a novel and complex guidance task for air traffic controllers Entry
(ATCOs). Prior studies (Oberheid, Weber & Rudolph, 2009), Figure 1: Approach Routes of Aircraft and Visual Aids
however, provide initial evidence that such merging opera- exist for equipped a/c and unequipped a/c (see Figure 1).
tions can be accomplished more efficiently and safely, when Equipped a/c approach the LMP on a direct lateral path. A
working with assistance systems. Such systems enable ATCOs target time for overflight of the LMP is agreed between a/c
to better anticipate the merging situation and thus react on and ATC before the a/c begins the final descent. This con-
potential losses of separation when merging traffic streams. In straint is adhered to autonomously by the a/c, without further
the present study, we investigated the effects of different visu- clearances.
al aids, representing different levels of automation, on control- Unequipped a/c are unable to comply with a target time au-
lers’ performance, attention allocation, resultant situation tonomously with sufficient precision. Thus, they are guided
awareness, and workload in a complex and dynamic mi- via a conventional trombone pattern. The trombone pattern
croworld setting. enables the controller to adjust the arrival time by deciding
when to turn the a/c onto the centerline (see Figure 1). With
Late Merging Operations the integration of both approach procedures in the late merg-
PROCEEDINGS of the HUMAN FACTORS and ERGONOMICS SOCIETY 57th ANNUAL MEETING - 2013
ing concept, the advantages of modern 4D-FMS capabilities
can be utilized, while unequipped a/c are controlled as usual.
However, the late merging concept implicates fundamentally
new cognitive demands for arrival controllers. In the proposed
late merging concept, in addition to the active control of une-
quipped traffic, equipped a/c which approach on different
routes at higher speeds and altitudes will have to be moni-
tored. ATCOs will have to build a mental arrival sequence
integrating both equipped and unequipped a/c. Potential sepa-
ration losses between equipped and unequipped a/c at the
merging point have to be anticipated when determining the
turning maneuver for the unequipped a/c approaching on the
trombone. Frequent attention switching will be necessary due
to the fact that two different traffic streams have to be con-
trolled and monitored. However, there is ample evidence indi-
cating that ATCO performance decreases and conflict detec-
tion time increases in high traffic situations when both active
controlling and monitoring of a/c have to be performed simul-
taneously (e.g., Parasuraman, Molloy, Singh; 1993, Metzger &
Parasuraman, 2001). Similar effects have been reported when
a/c intent was not sufficiently transparent (e.g., Galster, Duley,
Masalonis & Parasuraman, 2001). This could be the case for
equipped a/c approaching autonomously.
Visual Aids for Merging Operations
One possibility to support ATCOs when merging autonomous-
ly approaching and actively controlled a/c are assistance func-
tions that provide additional visual aids on the radar display.
Ghosting. A ghost is a projection of an a/c onto another route,
serving the function of a placeholder for the real a/c. Ghosting
assistance systems have been utilized to support converging
runways operations, for instance (Mundra et al., 2003). Fur-
thermore, it has been reported that ghosting aids for merging
operations on arrival routes enable controllers to develop early
situation awareness (MacWilliams & Porter, 2007).
In the context of the late merging concept, ghosts will be pro-
jections of equipped a/c onto the centerline, visualizing which
time slots in a potential sequence of a/c are blocked by
equipped a/c (cf. Figure 1). The ghost also provides a visual
reference for the relative guidance of unequipped a/c, and po-
tentially supports the timing of the turn onto the centerline and
speed adjustments. The ghost projection moves towards the
LMP with the average speed of unequipped a/c on the trom-
bone paths (e.g., 220-230 knots). It finally merges with its real
counterpart, the equipped a/c, at the LMP and disappears. Two
ghosting variants are considered in our study: “Automated”
and “Manual Ghosting”. For the first variant of automated
ghosting, a ghost for each equipped a/c appears automatically
on the radar display when the real equipped a/c enters the con-
troller’s sector. The development of the second variant of
manual ghosting is based on findings of a pilot study that fully
automated ghosting potentially reduces situation awareness for
the real equipped a/c (Oberheid, Weber & Rudolph, 2009).
When working with manual ghosting support, controllers have
to activate the ghost projection of an entering equipped a/c by
clicking on the corresponding a/c label. Moreover, the manu-
ally activated ghost projection is temporarily highlighted at 6
miles distance to the LMP and then disappears at 4 miles dis-
631
tance to the LMP in order to redirect attention to the corre-
sponding real a/c prior to merging.
Targeting. While ghosting assistance provides a representation
of equipped a/c on the centerline to organize the unequipped
a/c around the ghosts, targeting automatically provides visual
information (i.e., a target) indicating the ideal position of une-
quipped a/c on the centerline (based on a sequence planning
algorithm). Hence, targeting assistance gives no information
about the equipped a/c, but indicates where each unequipped
a/c should be placed on the centerline to accomplish an opti-
mized sequence and spacing (cf. Figure 1). For each une-
quipped a/c approaching on the trombone, a specific target is
displayed on the centerline moving with the same speed as the
corresponding real a/c. In contrast to the ghosting function, the
targeting function thus specifies a sequence for the une-
quipped a/c and provides more support for the controller for
deciding when to initiate the turn maneuver. Also, targeting
should be more helpful in achieving sufficient spacing be-
tween unequipped a/c on the centerline and a/c merging at the
LMP compared to ghosting, because ghosting support pro-
vides no direct information about the optimal position of the
unequipped a/c on the centerline.
Ghosting and Targeting. The benefits of both visual cueing
systems can be utilized by combining both functions and dis-
playing both ghosts and targets simultaneously, resulting in
the highest level of automation compared to the other assis-
tance variants.
Altogether, we varied the level of automation (LoA) systemat-
ically in the present study, ranging from 1) no support (control
condition) to 2) manually activated support (manual ghosting),
automatically activated support (automated ghosting, 3) auto-
matically activated decision support (targeting) and 4) the
combination of 2 + 3. The following hypotheses were formu-
lated:
H1: The higher the LoA the lower the number of separation
losses between aircraft.
H2: Attention and situation awareness for real equipped air-
craft is diminished when working with automated ghosting
support compared to manual ghosting, targeting, and no
support conditions.
H3: The higher the LoA the lower the subjective workload
METHODS
Participants. Seventy-eight (24 female, 54 male) German un-
dergraduate students without ATC knowledge took part in the
study. Participants’ age ranged between 19 and 30 years (M =
23.1; SD = 2.3). As an incentive for participation, each partic-
ipant was paid 20 (approx. $ 26). Additionally, subjects
could earn a bonus of 30 (approx. $ 41) if they were one of
the ten top performers in the study.
Apparatus. Participants worked in a microworld simulation
environment (MAGIE; Oberheid, Weber & Rudolph, 2009) as
a simplified version of an arrival controller’s radar display for
late merging operations (cf. Figure 2). Task complexity was
reduced by using a simple route structure and by standardizing
the flight characteristics of a/c (flight profiles, weight catego-
ries, etc.). As a substitute for radio communication with the
pilots, a control panel was implemented featuring control ele-
PROCEEDINGS of the HUMAN FACTORS and ERGONOMICS SOCIETY 57th ANNUAL MEETING - 2013
ments for altitude, heading, and speed clearances. When a
participant clicked on an a/c label, the control panel appeared
on the top-left side. It disappeared after the participant had
confirmed the clearances by clicking on a “Send” button.
Furthermore, a timeline representation was arranged in the
top-right corner, indicating an optimal arrival sequence and
corresponding arrival times at the LMP. Separation and speed
rules in the different approach areas as well as recommended
headings for turning a/c from the trombones onto the center-
line were always present on the lower left side.
Figure 2: Experimental Radar Display
In case of separation losses, a conflict warning message in red
color popped up in the bottom-left corner indicating the in-
volved a/c and the current separation. Participants were told
that the number of conflicts would be the primary performance
indicator for the bonus payment.
Experimental Task. Subjects were instructed to control the
unequipped a/c in the simulation. A/c were controlled by
clicking on the a/c label and entering headings, speeds, and
altitudes in the control panel. Participants were told to accom-
plish safe merging operations without violating the separation,
speed, and altitude rules. A/c separation should not be lower
than 3 NM (ICAO minimum separation standard for a/c of
wake turbulence category M, ICAO, 2007). Moreover, ac-
ceptable speeds and altitudes were defined for the trombone
(180-250 kn, FL 50-80), the centerline (160-230 kn; 3000 ft -
FL 60), and the LMP (<180 kn; 3000 ft).
The a/c scenario included 13 equipped and 20 unequipped a/c
within a 40 minute run. A fixed arrival pattern of the equipped
a/c was chosen, i.e., the number of potential merging situa-
tions between equipped and unequipped a/c was identical for
each participant.
Independent and Dependent Measures. In the present study,
we compare different assistance systems for late merging op-
erations. Thus, the level of automation (LoA) provided by the
respective system is the independent variable. The effect of
the LoA variation on objective as well as subjective measures
is investigated.
1. Performance: The number of separation losses (< 3 NM)
between a/c was counted as a measure of controlling perfor-
mance. Additionally, we also measured the number of a/c that
632
landed on the runway (throughput), because there is a poten-
tial trade-off between the occurrence of separation losses and
throughput.
2. Information Acquisition: Besides performance measures,
we recorded the visual activity of the participants with a head-
mounted eye tracker (iViewX) with an optical head tracker
(A.R.T) at a sampling rate of 200 Hz. Specifically, the number
of fixations (> 100 msec, cf. Salvucci & Goldberg, 2000) on
equipped a/c as well as visual aids was measured.
3. Situation Awareness (SA): For SA measurement, partici-
pants had to answer an online query (SAGAT, adapted from
Endsley, 1995). Individuals were asked to reconstruct the po-
sitions of equipped and unequipped a/c (SA Level 1). In a next
step, subjects had to indicate current (SA Level 2) and future
violations of separation (SA Level 3) by joining conflicting a/c
with a line.
4. Workload: The NASA-TLX (Hart & Staveland, 1988) ques-
tionnaire was filled out to measure workload during experi-
mental runs.
Experimental Design and Procedure. The experiment utilized
a single factor between subjects design. Each subject was as-
signed to one of the five controller assistance conditions: No
support (control group, CG; n = 10), manual ghosting (MG; n
= 18), automated ghosting (AG; n = 17), targeting (TG; n =
15), and automated ghosting and targeting (AG&TG; n = 17).
Participants were seated in front of the MAGIE working sta-
tion, with distance of about 80 cm to the 80 x 60 cm mi-
croworld projection of the radar display. Next, participants
read a set of instructions, describing the MAGIE interface,
route structure, a/c types and the experimental task. While no
further instructions were given in the control condition (CG),
the respective assistance function in the experimental condi-
tions with automation support was explained.
After participants had read these instructions, eye tracking was
prepared and calibrated. Then, the 20 minutes training phase
was started to familiarize individuals with the task. In the
training phase, individuals performed three turn maneuvers
under instruction of the experimenter, and then trained a/c
guidance independently during the remaining time. After 10
minutes and at the end of the training phase, the online situa-
tion awareness query and the NASA-TLX-questionnaire had
to be answered. Then, the 40 minute exercise was started,
yielding the data for the later analyses. The exercise was inter-
rupted at four randomly chosen points in time and the online
SAGAT as well as NASA-TLX queries were administered.
RESULTS
Number of separation losses. We found a highly significant
main effect in a one-way ANOVA on the number of conflicts
(F (4, 72) = 6.9; p < .001). Consistent with our hypothesizing,
the highest number of conflicts occurred with no support in
the CG (M = 13; cf. Table 1). In all conditions with support
function, the number of conflicts was significantly lower (Ms
= 6.2 – 9.4; all ts > 2.6; all ps < .01) or tended to be lower in
the case of AG (M = 10.4; t (72) = 1.9; p = .06) as revealed by
a planned contrast analysis. Moreover, subjects in the
AG&TG condition caused significantly less conflicts than in
all other conditions (all ts > 2.5 and all ps < .05). No signifi-
PROCEEDINGS of the HUMAN FACTORS and ERGONOMICS SOCIETY 57th ANNUAL MEETING - 2013 633

cant differences were found when comparing conditions with significantly higher in the CG (M = 1.3) compared to all other
only one visual aid system activated (MG, AG, TG; all ts < conditions (all ts > 2.1; all ps < .05) with the exception of the
.90). targeting only condition (t (72) = .62). The number of unde-
Throughput. Performing a one-way ANOVA on the number of tected merging conflicts in the TG condition tended to be
a/c successfully established on the runway, we found a signifi- higher compared to the AG, MG (both ts > 1.4; ps < .10, one-
cant main effect (F (4, 72) = 4.0; p < .01). The highest number tailed testing), and was significantly higher compared to the
was achieved in the AG condition (M = 28.5; SD = 1.6), which AG&TG condition (t (72) = 3.2; p < .01).
was significantly higher compared to the both conditions with The lowest mean was found for the AG&TG condition (M =
targeting support (MTG = 25.7; MAG&TG = 27; both ts > 2.1; ps .18), which was significantly lower compared to all other con-
< .05). The average number achieved in the TG condition was ditions (all ts > 2.1; all ps < .05) with a tendency for the com-
significantly lower than the corresponding number in the CG parison with AG (t (72) = 1.6; p = .05; one-tailed testing).
(M = 27.7; t (72) = 2.4; p < .05). Workload. Finally, an ANOVA on the NASA-TLX workload
Information Acquisition. The following analyses were per- measure indicated no significant condition effect (F (4, 72) =
formed on a subsample of n = 65 subjects due to technical .62; ns).
problems in 13 cases. First, we compared the total number of
fixations in each condition. No significant differences oc- Table 1: Means and Standard Deviations (in Parentheses)
curred (F (4, 60) = 1.2; ns). The number of fixations on Performance Indicators
equipped a/c differed significantly between the experimental Conflicts (***)1 Throughput (**)
conditions (F (4, 60) = 16.4; p < .001). Contrasting the control CG 13.0 (3.7) 27.7 (1.3)
condition with the assistance conditions showed that the num- MG 9.4 (3.1) 27.5 (2.0)
ber of fixations on equipped a/c was significantly higher in the AG 10.4 (2.3) 28.5 (1.6)
control condition (M = 484.4; SD = 139.8; all ts > 4.1; all ps < TG 9.3 (3.8) 25.7 (2.8)
.001). Moreover, contrast analysis indicated that the number of AG&TG 6.2 (4.1) 27.0 (2.0)
fixations on equipped a/c was significantly lower in both AG
Information Acquisiton
conditions (MAG = 171.6; MAG&TG = 222.4) than in the other
conditions (Ms = 484.4- 258.3; all ts > 1.8; all ps < .05; one- Equipped (***) Visual Aids (***)
tailed testing), with the exception of the AG&TG and MG CG 484.4 (139.8) ---
comparison (t (60) = .98; p = .12; one-tailed testing). MG 258.3 (107.3) 260.9 (126.5)
Finally, the number of fixations on visual aids was investigat- AG 171.6 (70.1) 233.9 (110.6)
ed. The results of the corresponding one-way ANOVA re- TG 298.7 (110.1) 506.7 (248.6)
vealed a highly significant main effect of the assistance func- AG&TG 222.4 (81.6) 873.3 (427.0)
tion (F (3, 51) = 19.7; p < .001). Contrast analysis indicated Situation Awareness
that the fixations in automated as well as manual ghosting SA 1 (†) SA 2 (ns.) SA 3 (**)
were significantly lower than in both targeting conditions (all Equip. a/c [%] N (Confl.) N (Confl.)
ts > 2.2; all ps < .05). Furthermore, the fixation frequencies on CG .53 (.24) .00 (.00) 1.3 (1.3)
visual aids in the AG & TG condition were significantly high- MG .49 (.24) .06 (.24) .61 (.78)
er than in the targeting condition (t (51) = 3.3; p < .01), due to AG .38 (.24) .12 (.33) .47 (.62)
the larger amount of visual aids in the former condition. TG .48 (.21) .00 (.00) 1.0 (.93)
Situation Awareness (SA). Effects on level 1 SA were tested AG&TG .31 (.17) .00 (.00) .18 (.39)
by analyzing the average number of correctly recalled Workload (NASA-TLX2) (ns.)
equipped a/c positions. An ANOVA revealed a marginal con- CG 11.6 (2.1)
dition main effect (F (4, 71) = 2.4; p = .05). While individuals MG 10.5 (2.5)
in the CG recalled 53% of the equipped a/c correctly, the per- AG 11.5 (2.1)
centages in both AG conditions were substantially lower (MAG TG 11.5 (2.6)
= 38%; MAG&TG = 31%, cf. Table 1). Planned contrasts showed AG&TG 11.3 (2.4)
that the recall rates in the AG&TG condition were significant- 1
Number of stars indicates the significance level in ANOVA.
ly lower compared to conditions without automated ghosting 2
Scale ranging from 0-20; a/c = Aircraft.
support (CG, MG, TG; all ts > 2.1; ps < .05). A similar trend
was evident when contrasting the AG condition with CG and DISCUSSION
MG (both ts > 1.5; ps < .10; one-tailed testing). Yet, the dif-
ference between AG and TG failed to reach significance (t An experimental microworld study was conducted to investi-
(71) = 1.2; p = .11; one-tailed testing). gate the impact of automation provided by different visual
Level 2 SA was measured by the number of merging conflicts assistance systems on performance, attention allocation, situa-
that had not been detected in the SAGAT queries. ANOVA tion awareness and workload when performing late merging
performed on the average number of undetected conflicts operations in high traffic situations. We expected that the re-
yielded no significant effect (F (4, 72) = 1.2; ns.). spective automation level of these visual assistance systems
Level 3 SA was measured by counting the number of unde- should correspond with individuals’ controlling performance
tected future merging conflicts. A significant effect in an (H1). Indeed, the number of separation losses caused by the
ANOVA was found (F (4, 72) = 4; p < .01). The values were participants is - as expected - highest without visual assistance
PROCEEDINGS of the HUMAN FACTORS and ERGONOMICS SOCIETY 57th ANNUAL MEETING - 2013
and significantly lower with visual assistance. Moreover, indi-
viduals working with both assistance functions at the same
time cause significantly less conflicts compared to individuals
working with only one assistance function.
Contrary to our expectation that automation assistance should
have no impact on throughput, a significant reduction was
found in the targeting condition. This result might be ex-
plained by the fact that targets exclusively provide information
about free slots, but no explicit information about occupied
slots. As a consequence, there might be a higher degree of
uncertainty whether the displayed targets can be matched with
sufficient precision by the real a/c, because without ghosts no
visual reference for the turn manoeuvre and tolerable devia-
tions from the target is available. Thus, free slots are missed
out, leading to longer flight times on trombones and decreased
throughput. On the contrary, individuals supported by auto-
matically displayed ghosts try to use airspace most efficiently,
because they use the free sequence slots in a more flexible
way.
Next, we investigated whether these performance gains are
achieved at the expense of reduced attention and situation
awareness (H2). Automated ghosting substantially diminishes
attention allocation for the real equipped aircraft. Moreover,
level 1 SA was worst in these conditions. These effects can
partly be attributed to the additional attention that has to be
devoted to the ghosts. However, attention allocation on targets
is significantly higher compared to ghosts. Nevertheless, real
aircraft are attended significantly more often when working
with targeting. Thus, the above results on performance might
also be due to automation-induced complacency (e.g., Par-
asuraman et al., 1993), triggered by the highly reliable and
predictable automated ghosting system, and leading to reduced
aircraft monitoring. Altogether, H2 is confirmed.
Contrary to the partially detrimental effects of automation on
the lower levels of situation awareness, a beneficial automa-
tion effect was evident on level 3 SA. Individuals are better
able to anticipate future aircraft positions and separations with
visual aids compared to conditions without support, as reflect-
ed by SAGAT data. Individuals detected future merging con-
flicts more frequently with ghosting support and most fre-
quently with additional targeting support. No significant effect
is evident when targets are displayed without ghosts.
Consistent with our conjectures, information automation as
provided by visual aids systemically changes attentional dis-
tribution, which results in losses of situation awareness for
real aircraft. With the exception of automated ghosting, indi-
viduals were aware of safety-critical events, like separation
losses, despite this attention shift. In addition, anticipation of
future critical events was even improved by visual aids.
Participants in all conditions reported moderate levels of
workload (leading to rejection of H3). In the present mi-
croworld study, individuals had to select aircraft and clear
them for headings, speeds, altitudes, and ILS approaches in
high traffic situations. That is, implementation tasks were ra-
ther complex. The effort expended to complete these imple-
mentation tasks may have been more relevant for the subjec-
tive degree of workload, thus, leading to similar ratings in all
conditions since the assistance systems did not provide im-
plementation automation.
View publication stats
634
Altogether, we gathered evidence that time-based and conven-
tional approach procedures can be combined if the human
operator is adequately supported by assistance systems. Given
that assistance systems provide the necessary information to
accomplish merging without impairing situation awareness,
safety is ensured.
Based on the positive effects of manual ghosting on situation
awareness we found in this study, we will introduce a dedicat-
ed reporting procedure for equipped a/c to direct attention on
these a/c at certain points and validate it with expert ATCOs.
REFERENCES
Endsley, M. R., & Kiris, E. O. (1995). The out-of-the-loop
performance problem and level of control in automation.
Human Factors, 37(2), 381-394.
Galster, S. M., Duley, J. A., Masalonis, A. J., & Parasuraman,
R. (2001). Air traffic controller performance and workload
under mature free flight: Conflict detection and resolution of
aircraft self-separation. International Journal of Aviation
Psychology, 11, 71–93.
Hart, S. G., & Staveland, L. E. (1988). Development of
NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of empirical and
theoretical research. In P.A. Hancock & N. Meshkati (Eds.),
Human Mental Workload (pp. 139–183). Amsterdam: North-
Holland
International Civil Aviation Organization (2007). Performance
indicators. ICAO Journal, 62(5), 5–17.
Kuenz, A., Mollwitz, V., & Korn, B. (2007). Green Trajecto-
ries in High Traffic TMAs. Proceedings of the 26th Digital
Avionics Systems Conference. Dallas, TX: DASC.
MacWilliams, P., & Porter, D. (2007). An assessment of a
controller aid for merging and sequencing traffic on perfor-
mance-based arrival routes. Retrieved from
http://www.mitre.org/work/tech_papers/tech_papers_07/07_
0158/07_0158.pdf
Metzger, U., & Parasuraman, R. (2001). The role of the air
traffic controller in future air traffic management: An empir-
ical study of active control vs. passive monitoring. Human
Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics
Society, 43, 519-528.
Mundra, A. D., Bodoh, C. L. P., Domino, D. A., Sahragty, A.
E., Helleberg, J. R., & Smith, A. P. (2003). Capacity en-
hancements in IMC for airports with converging configura-
tions with knowledge of aircraft’s expected final approach
speeds: A case study. In Proceedings of USA-Europe ATM
Seminar, Budapest, Hungary.
Oberheid, H., Weber, B., & Rudolph, M. (2009). Visual con-
troller aids to support late merging operations for fuel effi-
cient and noise reduced approach procedures. Proceedings of
53rd Annual Meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomics
Society, San Antonio, TX: HFES.
Parasuraman, R., Molloy, R., & Singh, I. L. (1993). Perfor-
mance consequences of automation-induced “complacency”.
International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 3, 1–23.
Salvucci, D. D., & Goldberg, J. H. (2000). Identifying fixa-
tions and saccades in eye-tracking protocols. In Proceedings
of the Eye Tracking Research and Applications Symposium
(pp. 71-78). Palm Gardens, FL: ACM.