Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Managing safety in the air traffic control terminal airspace

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Cognition, Technology & Work Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The air traffic control system is designed so that controllers are able to accept aircraft into their airspace and handoff aircraft exiting their airspace with minimal need to collaborate with other controllers. This system is designed to manage safety through constraints that rely on prohibitions and protections that limit scope of action. We contend that the focus on constraints has led us to neglect how controllers are actively and collaboratively managing safety. A framework of collaboration in ATC is proposed that guides the research. To provide a preliminary evaluation of this framework, ten observations were conducted with eight controllers handling normal traffic in a terminal control unit serving a city in Australia. Participants were all experienced controllers with a minimum of 25-year ATC experience and at least 10-year experience in their current position. In contrast to what would be expected if controllers were working within the constrained system as designed, 28% of the interactions between controllers could be classified as involving modifications to the plans for aircraft, which shows that controllers are actively managing safety. Further, different types of plan modification (replanning, plan amendment and building plans) and different strategies to negotiate plan modification (deferential, preferential and generational) could be identified. ATC procedures and training programmes are typically based on constrained safety and are largely silent on how controllers actively manage safety. We therefore need to include a consideration of how controllers are actively managing safety if we are to ensure effective system management now and into the future.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Terminal Airspace is the airspace surrounding major airports, generally within 36–50 nautical miles (Airservices Airservices 2013). It extends from the surface up to approximately 24,000 feet with the lower level of controlled airspace within which clearances from ATC are required to operate progressively increasing as the distance from the aerodrome increases (Airservices Airservices 2013).

  2. The military operate infrequently in this location and while they have priority use of the restricted areas they have given permission for civil aircraft to plan through and transit this airspace, in most cases with no impediment. If military operations are occurring in this area the controller flexibly manages the non-military traffic. The flexible management of this area by controllers is a way to optimise efficiency of limited airspace.

References

  • Airservices Australia (Airservices) (2013) Guide to our operations. Retrieved 1 August 2014 from Airservices Australia. http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/wp-content/uploads/12-058BKT_Guide-to-our-operations_WEB.pdf

  • Amaldi P, Leroux M (1995) Selecting relevant information in a complex environment: the case of air traffic control. In: Norros L (ed) 5th European conference on cognitive science approaches in process control. VTT Automation, Espoo, pp 89–98

    Google Scholar 

  • Averty P (2005) Conflict perception by ATCs admits doubt but not inconsistency. In: Proceedings of the 6th air traffic management research & development seminar. Retrieved 21 March 2015. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.76.4989&rep=rep1&type=pdf

  • Bardram JE (1997) Plans as situated action: an activity theory approach to workflow systems. In: Proceedings of the 5th European conference on computer-supported cooperative workKluwer Academic Publishers. Retrieved 5 March 2015. http://ojs.statsbiblioteket.dk/index.php/daimipb/article/view/7054/6015

  • Bardram JE (1998) Designing for the dynamics of cooperative work activities. In: Proceedings of the ACM conference on computer supported cooperative work. ACM Press, New York. Retrieved 5 March 2015. http://ojs.statsbiblioteket.dk/index.php/daimipb/article/view/7066/6025

  • Beard BL (2012) Human-in-the-loop research supporting mid-term NextGen air traffic control tower operational improvements. Retrieved 5 March 2015. https://www.hf.faa.gov/hfportalnew/Search/SearchReport.aspx

  • Bentley R, Hughes JA, Randall D, Rodden T, Sawyer P, Shapiro D, Sommerville I (1992) Ethnographically-informed systems design for air traffic control. In: Proceedings of the 1992 ACM conference on computer-supported cooperative work, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Retrieved 12 Feb 2008. http://portal.acm.org.ezlibproxy.unisa.edu.au/citation.cfm?id=143470

  • Boeing Current Market Outlook (2014) Global Market Forecast 2013-2030. Retrieved 15 March 2015. http://www.boeing.com/assets/pdf/commerical/cmo/pdf/Boeing_Current_Market_Outlook_2014.pdf

  • Boyatzis RE (1988) Transforming qualitative information: thematic analysis and code development. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks

    Google Scholar 

  • Braun V, Clarke V (2012) Thematic Analysis. In: Cooper H (ed) The handbook of research methods in psychology. American Psychological Association, Washington, pp 57–71

    Google Scholar 

  • Burke CS, Stagl KC, Salas E, Pierce L, Kendall D (2006) Understanding team adaptation: a conceptual analysis and model. J Appl Psychol 91(6):1189–1207

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chow R, Christoffersen K, Woods DD (2000) A model of communication in support of distributed anomaly response and replanning. In: Proceedings of the 44st annual meeting of the human factors and ergonomics society/IEA2000, July, 2000

  • Cooke NJ, Gorman JC, Kiekel PA, Foltz P, Martin M (2005) Using team communication to understand team cognition in distributed vs. co-located mission environments. ARIZONA STATE UNIV EAST MESA AZ.

  • Corver S, Grote G (2016) Uncertainty management in enroute air traffic control: a field study exploring controller strategies and requirements for automation. Cogn Technol Work 18(3):541–565

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • D’Arcy JF, Rocco PS (2001) Air traffic control specialist decision making and strategic planning-a field survey. No. DOT/FAA/CT-TN01/05. FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION TECHNICAL CENTER ATLANTIC CITY NJ.

  • de Jonge H (2000) ATM/CNS: the response to current and future needs. Air Space Eur 2(5):15–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dekker SWA, Lundström JT (2007) From threat and error management (TEM) to resilience. Hum Factors Aerosp Saf 6(3):261–274

    Google Scholar 

  • Dubbels BR (2008) Video games, reading, and transmedial comprehension. In: Ferdig RE (ed) Handbook of research on effective electronic gaming in education. Information, Hershey, pp 251–276

  • Ellingson LL (2002) Communication, collaboration, and teamwork among health care professionals. Commun Res Trends 21(3):3–21

    Google Scholar 

  • Endsley MR, Rodgers MD (1994) Situation awareness information requirements analysis for en route air traffic control. In: Proceedings of the human factors and ergonomics society annual meeting, vol 38, no. 1. SAGE Publications, New York, pp 71–75

  • Engestrőm Y (1987) Learning by expanding. Orienta-Konsultit, Helsinki

    Google Scholar 

  • Engestrőm Y, Brown K, Christopher L, Gregory J (1997) Coordination, cooperation and communication in the courts. In: Cole M, Engestrőm Y, Vasquez O (eds) Mind, Culture and Activity. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Eurocontrol (2004) A measure to assess the impact of automation on teamwork. Edition 0.3 HRS/HSP-005-REP-07, EUROCONTROL, Brussels, Belgium

  • Flynn G, Benkouar A, Christien R (2003) Pessimistic sector capacity estimation. EEC Note 21(03):1

    Google Scholar 

  • Henderson J (2005) Changes in ATM safety culture due to new technology. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 34:215–257

    Google Scholar 

  • Hilburn B, Parasuraman R, Jha P, McGarry K (2006) Emerging human factors issues in future air traffic management. Center for human performance research. http://www.chpr.nl. 2006 Mar

  • Histon JM, Hansman RJ (2002) The impact of structure on cognitive complexity in air traffic control (Rep. No. ICAT-2002-4). MIT International Centre for Air Transportation, Cambridge.

  • Hoc JM, Carlier X (2002) Role of a common frame of reference in cognitive cooperation: sharing tasks between agents in air traffic control. Cogn Technol Work 4:37–47

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hollnagel E, Woods DD (2005) Joint cognitive systems: foundations of cognitive systems engineering. CRC Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hutchins E (1991) The social organization of distributed cognition. In: Resnick LR et al (eds) Perspectives on socially shared cognition. American Psychological Association, Washington, pp 284–307

    Google Scholar 

  • International Civil Aviation Authority (2010) ICAO environmental report 2010. http://www.icao.int/environmetnal-protection/Documents/EnvironmentalReport-2010/ICAO_EnvReport10-Outlook_en.pdf

  • Kallus KW, Van Damme D, Dittman A (1999) Integrated job and task analysis of air traffic controllers: phase 2. Task analysis of en-route controllers. European Air Tra Management Programme. Brussels, Belgium, EUROCONTROL. Ardt JW, Zschiegner SA et al (2002). Multifractal de

  • Karikawa D, Aoyama H, Takahashi M, Furuta K, Wakabayashi T, Kitamura M (2013) A visualization tool of en route air traffic control tasks for describing controller’s proactive management of traffic situations. Cogn Technol Work 15(2):207–218

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karikawa D, Aoyama H, Takahashi M, Furuta K, Ishibashi A, Kitamura M (2014) Analysis of the performance characteristics of controllers’ strategies in en route air traffic control tasks. Cogn Technol Work 16(3):389–403

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kontogiannis T (2010) Adapting plans in progress in distributed supervisory work: aspects of complexity, coupling, and control. Cogn Technol Work 12(2):103–118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kontogiannis T, Malakis S (2013) Strategies in controlling, coordinating and adapting performance in air traffic control: modelling ‘loss of control’ events. Cogn Technol Work 15(2):153–169

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leontév A (1978) Activity, consciousness, and personality. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs

    Google Scholar 

  • Leveson N (2004) A new accident model for engineering safer systems. Saf Sci 42:237–270

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leveson N, Dulac N, Marais K, Carroll J (2009) Moving beyond normal accidents and high reliability organizations: A systems approach to safety in complex systems. Organ Stud 30:227–249

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loft S, Bolland S, Humphreys MS, Neal A (2009) A theory and model of conflict detection in air traffic control: incorporating environmental constraints. J Exp Psychol Appl 15(2):106

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miguel AR (2006) Human error analysis for collaborative work. Doctoral dissertation, University of York, 2006. ftp://www-users.cs.york.ac.uk/reports/2007/YCST/06/YCST-2007-06.pdf

  • Mogford RH (1997) Mental models and situation awareness in air traffic control. Int J Aviat Psychol 7(4):331–341

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moon W, Yoo K, Choi Y (2011) Air traffic volume and air traffic control human errors. J Transport Technol 1(3):47–53. doi:10.4236/jtts.2011.13007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morel G, Amalberti R, Chauvin C (2008) Articulating the differences between safety and resilience: the decision-making process of professional sea-fishing skippers. Hum Factors 50:1–16

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Niessen C, Eyferth K, Bierwagen T (1999) Modelling cognitive processes of experienced air traffic controllers. Ergonomics 42(11):1507–1520. doi:10.1080/001401399184857

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Owen C (2004) Beyond teamwork! Reconceptualising communication, coordination and collaboration in air traffic control. Human Factors Aerosp Saf 4(4):289–306

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Pariés J (2011) Lessons from the Hudson. In: Hollnagel E, Paries J, David DW, Wreathall J (eds) Resilience engineering in practice: a guidebook. Ashgate Publishing Limited, England, pp 9–27

    Google Scholar 

  • Patterson ES, Woods DD, Cook RI, Render ML (2007) Collaborative cross-checking to enhance resilience. Cogn Technol Work 9:155–162

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rantanen EM, Nunes A (2005) Hierarchical conflict detection in air traffic control. Int J Aviat Psychol 15(4):339–362

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rantanen EM, Yeakel SJ, Steelman KS (2006) En route controller task prioritization research to support CE-6 human performance modeling: analysis of high-fidelity simulation data. Phase II. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Human Factors Division

  • Rasmussen J (1990) The role of error in organizing behaviour. Ergonomics 33:1185–1199

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rothe ER, Christian CK, Gustafson M, Sheridan TB, Dwyer K, Gandhi TK et al (2004) Using field observations as a tool for discovery: Analysing cognitive and collaborative demands in the operating room. Cogn Technol Work 6:148–157

    Google Scholar 

  • Eurocontrol/FAA AP15 Safety (2010) Human performance in air traffic management safety: a white paper; Eurocontrol

  • Seamster TL, Redding RE, Cannon JR, Ryder JM, Purcell JA (1993) Cognitive task analysis of expertise in air traffic control. Int J Aviat Psychol 3(4):257

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith-Jentsch KA, Baker DP, Salas E, Cannon-Bowers JA (2001) Uncovering differences in team competency requirements: the case of air traffic control teams. Improving teamwork in organizations. Appl Resour Manag Train 2001:31–54

    Google Scholar 

  • Soraji Y, Furuta K, Kanno T, Aoyama H, Inoue S, Karikawa D, Takahashi M (2012) Cognitive model of team cooperation in en-route air traffic control. Cogn Technol Work 14(2):93–105

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stout RJ, Cannon-Bowers JA, Salas E, Milanovich M (1999) Planning, shared mental models, and coordinated performance: an empirical link is established. Hum Factors 41(1):61–71

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stroeve SH, van Doorn BA, Everdij MHC (2013) Analysis of the human role in the resilience of air traffic management. In: Proceedings of the 5th symposium on resilience engineering, managing trade-offs. Resilience Engineering Association, pp 115–120

  • Suchman L (1993) Centers of coordination: a case and some themes. In: Resnick LB, Saljo R, Potecorvo C, Burge B (eds) Discourse, tools, and reasoning: situated cognition and technologically supported environment. Springer, Berlin, pp 41–62

    Google Scholar 

  • Vygotskij LS (1978) Mind and society. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Waller MJ (1999) The timing of adaptive group response to non-routine events. Acad Manag J 42:127–137

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wickens CD, Mavor AS, McGee JP (1997) Flight to the future: human factors in air traffic control. National Academy Press, Washing ton

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams KC (1998) Teamwork issues in air traffic system management. In: Proceedings of the second EUROCONTROL human factors workshop. Teamwork in Air Traffic Services, 7 1998, vol 11

  • Williams RF (2006) Using cognitive ethnography to study instruction. In: Proceedings of the 7th international conference of the learning sciences. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, pp 838–844

  • Woltjer R, Pinska-Chauvin E, Laursen T, Josefsson B (2015) Towards understanding work-as-done in air traffic management safety assessment and design. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 141:115–130

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woods DD, Cook RI (2002) Nine steps to move forward from error. Cogn Technol Work 4(2):137–144

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhicheng L, Neressian NJ, Stasko JT (2008) Distributed cognition as a theoretical framework for information visualization. IEEE Trans Vis Comput Graph 14(6):1173–1180

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Airservices, Australia, for allowing us to collect data in one of their facilities and would like to thank each of the participants for allowing us to observe them.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Central Queensland University, Appleton Institute, 44 Greenhill Rd, Wayville, SA, 5034, Australia

    Donald Gyles & Chris Bearman

  2. University of South Australia, Adelaide, SA, Australia

    Donald Gyles

Authors
  1. Donald Gyles
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Chris Bearman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Donald Gyles.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gyles, D., Bearman, C. Managing safety in the air traffic control terminal airspace. Cogn Tech Work 19, 143–159 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-017-0403-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-017-0403-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation