Abstract
Determining a suitable airport and planning a trajectory in detail all the way down to landing is a difficult task to do well, especially in emergencies. While a variety of planning aids have been proposed to aid in this task, their evaluation with pilots has led to the question: How do we support a human in a task that is too hard for them to perform well in the time provided, but is too open-ended for automation to perform perfectly in every situation? This paper specifically focuses on whether procedure context information can help pilots evaluate an emergency descent trajectory provided by automation, building on prior studies finding that such information can encourage a more interpretative strategy for evaluating and appropriately following (or not exactly following) procedures. Here, pilots were asked to quickly evaluate emergency flight plans presented both spatially and as a procedure (list of discrete actions). The procedures were presented in a variety of formats, where some explicitly presented the rationale for critical actions and/or emphasized which actions need to be done in a particular sequence. The results indicate that including rationale with a suggested plan can improve some aspects of a human’s reasoning about an automatically generated plan. This finding has implications for both the design of plans and procedures, and the design of mixed-initiative planning aids: capturing the underlying rationale for key actions when generating a plan or procedure can then be beneficial when it can be portrayed to the human planner.




Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.References
Ai-Chang M, Bresina J, Charest L, Chase A, Cheng-jung Hsu J, Jonsson A, Kanefsky B, Morris P, Rajan K, Yglesias J, Chafin BG, Dias WC, Maldague PR (2004) MAPGEN: mixed-initative planning and scheduling for the mars exploration rover mission. IEEE Intell Syst Jan–Feb:8–12
Atkins EM, Portillo IA, Strube MJ (2006) Emergency flight planning applied to total loss of thrust. J Aircraft 43:1205–1216
Biundo S, Bercher P, Geier T, Müller F, Schattenberg B (2011) Advanced user assistance based on AI planning. Cogn Syst Res 12:219–236
BresinaJL, Jonsson AK, Morris PH, Rajan K (2005) Mixed-initiative planning in MAPGEN: capabilities and shortcomings. In: ICAPS-05 workshop on mixed-initiative planning and scheduling, Monterey, CA
Chen TL, Pritchett AR (2001) Cockpit decision-aids for emergency flight planning. J Aircraft 38:935–943
deBrito G (1999) Human error in procedure following: a first classification. In: Proceedings of the human error, safety and systems development seminar
Dien Y, Montmayeul R, Beltranda G (1991) Allowing for human factors in computerized procedure design. In: Proceedings of the HFES 35th annual meeting, pp 639–642
Guerlain SA, Smith PJ, Obradovich JH, Rudmann S, Strohm P, Smith JW, Svirbely J, Sachs L (1999) Interactive critiquing as a form of decision support: an empirical evaluation. Hum Factors 41:72–89
Kontogiannis T (2010) Adapting plans in progress in distributed supervisory work: aspects of complexity, coupling, and control. Cogn Technol Work 12:103–118
Layton C, Smith PJ, McCoy CE (1994) Design of a cooperative problem-solving system for en-route flight planning: an empirical evaluation. Hum Factors 36:94–119
Maldague P, Ko A, Page D, Starbird T (1998) APGEN: a multi-mission semi-automated planning tool. In: First international NASA workshop on planning and scheduling, pp 363–365
McCarthy JC, Wright PD, Monk AF, Watts LA (1998) Concerns at work: designing useful procedures. Human Comut Interact 13:433–457
Mosier KL, Skitka LJ (1999) Automation use and automation bias. In: Proceedings of the human factors and ergonomics society 43rd annual meeting, pp 344–348
Myers KL, Smith SF, Hildum DW, Jarvis PA, de Lacaze R (2013a) Integrating planning and scheduling through adaptation of resource intensity estimates. In: Proceedings of the 6th European conference on planning, pp 150–158
Myers KL, Jarvis PA, Lee TD (2013b) CODA: coordinating human planners. In: Proceedings of the 6th European conference on planning, pp 289–291
Norros L, Liinasua M, Savioja P (2011) Operators’ conceptions of procedure guidance in NPP process control. Cogn Technol Work 17:1–11
Norros L, Liinasauo M, Savioja P (2014) Operators’ orientations to procedure guidance in NPP process control. Cogn Technol Work 16:487–499
Ockerman JJ, Pritchett AR (2000) A review and reappraisal of task guidance: aiding workers in procedure following. Int J Cogn Ergon 4:191–212
Ockerman JJ, Pritchett AR (2004) Improving performance on procedural tasks through presentation of locational procedure context: an empirical evaluation. Behav Inform Technol 23:11–20
Olson IJ, Harmsel AJT, Atkins EM (2014) Safe landing planning for an energy-constrained multicopter. In: Proceedings of the international conference on unmanned aircraft systems (UAS), pp 1225–1235
Pritchett AR, Nix DC, Ockerman JJ (2001) Empirical evaluations of pilot planning behavior in emergency situations. In: Proceedings of the 4th annual meeting of the human factors and ergonomics society
Smith EE, Goodman L (1984) Understanding written instructions: the role of an explanatory schema. Cogn Instruct 1:359–396
Smith PJ, McCoy CE, Layton C (1997) Brittleness in the design of cooperative problem-solving systems: the effects on user performance. IEEE T Syst Man Cy A 27:360–371
Suchman L (1987) Plans and situated actions: the problem of human-machine communication. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Swezey RW (1987) Design of job aids and procedure writing. In: Salvendy G (ed) Handbook of human factors. Wiley, New York, pp 1039–1057
Veloso MM, Mulvehill AM, Cox MT (1997) Rational-supported mixed-initiative case-based planning. In: AAAI/IAAI, pp 1072–1077
Vicente KJ (1999) Cognitive work analysis: toward safe, productive, and healthy computer-based work. Lawrence Earlbaum Associates, Mahwah
Wang Z, Wang HW, Qi C, Wang J (2013) A resource enhanced THN planning approach for emergency decision-making. Appl Intell 38:226–238
Wright P, Pocock S, Fields B (1998) The prescription and practice of work on the flight deck. In: Proceedings of the 9th European conference on cognitive ergonomics, pp 37–42
Acknowledgments
This work was funded by NASA Langley under grant NAG1-01055, with Anna Trujillo as technical monitor. The authors also thank Ted Chen and Michael Hayes for their technical assistance, and all the pilots who participated in the study.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Pritchett, A.R., Ockerman, J.J. Supporting mixed-initiative emergency flight planning by portraying procedure context information. Cogn Tech Work 18, 643–655 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-016-0387-x
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-016-0387-x