a goms analysis of the advanced automated cockpit l.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
“A GOMS Analysis of the Advanced Automated Cockpit” PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
“A GOMS Analysis of the Advanced Automated Cockpit”

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 28

“A GOMS Analysis of the Advanced Automated Cockpit” - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 302 Views
  • Uploaded on

“A GOMS Analysis of the Advanced Automated Cockpit”. Conference Proceeding, CHI’94, “Human Factors in Computing Systems” (1994). By Sharon Irvong, Peter Polson,J.E. Irving - University of Colorado Institute of Cognitive Science. Lecturers: Antoine JEGOU & Parry NG. Outline. Introduction

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about '“A GOMS Analysis of the Advanced Automated Cockpit”' - issac


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
a goms analysis of the advanced automated cockpit

“A GOMS Analysis of the Advanced Automated Cockpit”

Conference Proceeding, CHI’94, “Human Factors in Computing Systems” (1994)

By

Sharon Irvong, Peter Polson,J.E. Irving

-

University of Colorado

Institute of Cognitive Science

Lecturers:

Antoine JEGOU & Parry NG

outline
Outline
  • Introduction
  • Why this study ?
  • Presentation of CDU/FMC
  • The GOMS model of FMC operation
  • Test description
  • Results
  • Conclusion / Discussion
introduction
Introduction
  • Similarities:
    • between the modern automated office and the high technologies flight deck
    • Both workers are managers of complex suites of automation

Transfer knowledge

  • Goal of this article:

Analyse the skills needed to perform tasks using the Flight Management Computer (FMC) on an advanced commercial aircraft.

  • Why ?

Some reports on advanced aircrafts showed that…

      • High complexity of using FMC ;
      • Need months to have efficient skilled use of it.
  • Focus:

…on using the interface to the FMC: the Control & Display Unit (CDU).

the study
The Study
  • What Irving S., Polson P. and Irving J.E. have done ?
  • A detailed analysis of FMC tasks (using the GOMS model analysis)
  • Build a Training Program
  • Test the efficiency of this Training Program:
    • Trained subjects perform tasks in a full motion simulator
    • and compare them to others pilots
control display unit
Control & Display Unit
  • The FMC is an automated device (Autopilot)
  • The CDU is one of the way to keep the pilot in the loop, for active monitoring
  • Before takeoff:
    • Initial position;
    • Route from origin to destination;
    • Other parameters.
  • In-Flight:
    • Changes given by the Air Traffic Control

CDU-800

design a training device
Design a training device…
  • Because it takes months to learn…
  • …researchers have designed a computer based training program, based on their GOMS analysis.
  • Test the efficiency of the training program
  • Results:
  •  Show that CDU is not optimal for ATC directives !
the goms analysis
The GOMS analysis
  • GOMS=Goals, Operations, Methods & Selection Rules
  • Refer to to the work of Kieras D.E. and John B.E. for the GOMS model and later the EPIC model (based on CPM-GOMS), and Card S.K. in “The psychology of Human-Computer interaction” (1983)
  • Refer to presentations:
    • IEEM 552-7 : “Introduction to Cognitive Task Analysis”, Chipman, Schraagen, Shalin (1998)
    • IEEM 552-13 : “Predictive Engineering Models Based on the EPIC Architecture …”, Kieras, Wood, Meyer (1997)
  • Represents:

“A formalism for representing the knowledge required to perform routine cognitive tasks”

the goms analysis8
The GOMS analysis
  • Goals = user’s intentions
      • e.g.: “I want to pilot an aircraft”
      • Can be divided into sub-goals:
        • I want to takeoff
        • I want to reach 10,000 feet
        • I want to land
  • Methods = the steps to achieve a goal
  • Operations= user’s actions
  • Selection Rules = choose between alternative methods
the install route call to method
The INSTALL ROUTE call to method

Access

[route Area]

Get FPF Company route id.

Is cleared route a company route ?

Install Manual Route

Install Company route

Designate

[Company route id.]

Designate

[Departure Runaway]

Insert

[Company route id.]

[Departure Runaway]

Insert

Verify

[Route Entry]

Verify

Report

Activate and execute NOW ?

Activate & Execute

The Pre-Flight task is a sequence of 6 calls to methods that accomplish the major sub-tasks involved, “INSTALL ROUTE” is one of them.

Report

the 3 common methods

route

Arrival

JASIN

JASON

IOW

departure

The 3 Common Methods
  • ACCESS:
      • Identify the page associated with the current task
      • Carry out the sequence of operations necessary to get the page displayed on the CDU (I.e. function key or keyword)
  • DESIGNATE:
      • Determination of the identifier for a waypoint or an airway
  • INSERT:
      • Insert the information that was “designated” into the appropriate line
examples
Examples…

The Climb task:

  • A sub-task of the pre-flight task
  • Task requiring an ACCESS method
  • Is not provided by a prompt (not cued)
  • Use of function key…

OAL

  • To respond to a directive from the ATC : “…Flight 123, You are cleared Coaldale”
    • ACCESS The LEGS page
    • Find “OAL”, DESIGNATE it
    • And INSERT it on line 1, left (“direct to”)
evaluation of the model
Evaluation of the model
  • Objective:
    • To implement a training program based on GOMS model of FMC tasks
    • To validate both the model and hypothesis that the skills represented in the model can be developed adequately and efficiently out of context of
      • Other cockpit automation
      • Device and displays
      • Full motion simulator
the training program
The Training Program
  • CDU emulation on a Macintosh platform
  • Highly constraints set of exercises
  • No precise description of the Training program
transfer test
Transfer test

Install route

i.e. Flight route: Denver to Colorado Springs

Pre-flight FMC

directives came (e.g.:”” flight 123, you’re cleared Kiowa,…”)

Direct To

Going direct-to a point (not the original route) & add an waypoint

clearance came (e.g.:”” hold at KIOWA,…”)

Hold & Params

Enter the holding parameter, back to holding fix via ATC clearance, “… cleared direct KIOWA at this time”

Exit Hold

Intercept Leg To

Learns which runways are in use at destination

Install Approach

Intercept Leg To

Intercept a point on instrument landing system

results in general
Results (in general)
  • Difference in performance between groups for flight tasks were small
  • There are large differences between tasks ranging from 49% to 92% correct
    • Even the expert still made some errors !!!
  • Small differences between “200 pilots” and “Students” (experimental trained groups) in percent correct
    • both PRE-FLIGHT and MODIFY ROUTE (in-flight) tasks
  • “300 pilots” (professional trained groups) performed better than experimental trained groups especially on the pre-flight tasks
  • “Experts” did the best of all on in-flight tasks (not qualitatively better)
results pre flight tasks
Results (Pre-flight tasks)

For the average total times required to preflight the FMC,

  • highly significant differences between four groups, F(3,45) = 23.3, p<0.0001

For CLIMB task (i.e have a ACCESS problem),

  • Experimentally trained pilots  averaged 64 % correct
  • Professionally trained pilots  averaged 96 % correct
results pre flight tasks18
Results (Pre-flight tasks)
  • Reasons for the differences between experimental and professional trained groups:
    • experimental subjects: interacted for the very first time with actual aircraft hardware
    • “300 Pilots” had more experience with the actual hardware
results in flight tasks
Results (In-Flight tasks)
  • Highly significant difference between
    • groups (F(3,46) = 12.5, p <0.0001) and,
    • tasks (F(7,322) = 30.4, p < 0.0001) and,
    • group by task interaction (F(21,322) = 2.1, p < 0.003)
  • No consistent trend due to expertise across tasks
slide20

Experimental trained subjects

Professional trained subjects

Sample of In-flight task performance of all groups – mean time to complete and % correct

results in flight task v83
Results (In-Flight task – V83)
  • This task was the directive to add Victor 83, an airway, to the originally installed (programmed) route
  • Shows a large effect of expertise,
    • range from 25% correct for200 pilots to 90% correct for the Experts.
  • Little more than one-half the professionally trained pilot (“300”) could carry out this task without help
results in flight task v8322
Results (In-Flight task -- V83)

Comment on results:

  • identifier must be entered on the route (“RTE”) page
  • a large number of subjects tried to enter “V83” on the “LEGS” page getting the “NOT IN DATABASE” -- unclear system response
    • (i.e. ACCESS problem)
  • Although users may initially believe they got this message because they made a typographical error
  • no function key “AIRWAYS” to access the appropriate page to carry out the modification to the routing
results high time task intercept v83
Results (High-time task “INTERCEPT V83”)
  • Goal transformation : Re-mapping the clearance to CDU goal
    • “intercept V83”  “intercept the next down path waypoint on V83”
  • require the user to determine what the waypoint is (i.e. DESIGNATE problem)
  • “Expert’ had trouble completing this task without help
results high time task intercept v8324
Results (High-time task “INTERCEPT V83”)

Comment on results

  • Two set of target boxes shown on the CDU screen
    • left side: accomplishes a goal of “Direct To”
    • right side: accomplishes a goal of “Intercept-Leg-To” (Correct choice)
  • several subjects chose the left-hand side to place the waypoint identifier
    • (i.e. INSERT problem)
results form filling task hold parameters
Results (Form-filling task “HOLD PARAMETERS” )
  • involve checks between the current hold directive and the default value displayed on a page and some of those default values must be replaced (i.e DESIGNATE problem)
  • < 60 % Expert pilot carried out this task without prompting
  • Disconnection between the interface and the outer ATC environment
    • FMC does not operate in “radials”
    • Conversion between units are needed (125 radials  305 degrees)
conclusion
Conclusion
  • The inconsistencies of the CDU (difficulties for all subjects)
    • “RTE” page not clear when looking for airways
    • Directives in radians, input in degrees
  • Low fidelity training !!
    • Some scores are far too low… (25% for “200 pilots” in the in-flight V83 task)
  • The GOMS model of CDU operation revealed
    • All tasks carried out by 3 common methods (ACCESS, DESIGNATE, INSERT)
    • But those methods are complex, heterogeneous, very memory-demanding
  • Future Work: A more precise analysis should reveal that
    • Tasks should be all cued (cf. CLIMB in the pre-flight task)
    • Supported by: The environment (ATC directives) & the CDU interface
discussion
Discussion
  • This paper does not go deep enough
    • But it is a conference paper which refers to a complete research paper ([7] in the reference)
  • Weakness of the paper:
    • Training:
      • Why this solution ?
      • How many hours of training ?
    • Test:
      • nber of trials ?
      • The use of videotaping is not described in details
  • The GOMS analysis seems to be good but on the other hand the training program very poor