Automation and an increasing level of autonomy are not novelties in aircraft cockpits. One of the main goals of automation in aviation is to increase pilots’ situation awareness (SA) and reduce their workload – both of high importance for a safe flight. Increasing automation has historically reduced aviation accident rates and improved efficiency. Yet, currently implemented systems have also contributed to accidents, when failed, or were insufficient to increase pilots’ SA for improving their decision-making. This paper discusses the need for an enhanced decision-support system and its potential benefits for safer aviation. A model-based decision support system that leverages artificial intelligence, Integrated Flight Advisory System (IFAS), is presented. Further, the conceptual design of this system is described. The overview and roadmap provided in this paper consist of an effort toward a more holistic, pilot-centered, AI-based decision-support that can contribute to safer aviation.
RamosMAThiemeCAUtneIB, et al. Autonomous systems safety – state of the art and challenges. In: Proceedings of the 1st international workshop on autonomous systems safety (eds RamosMThiemeCUtneIB, et al.), Trondheim, Norway, 11–13March2019, p.128. Trondheim: NTNU.
2.
National Research Council. Autonomy Research for Civil Aviation. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2014.
3.
HolbrookJPrinzelLJChanceyET, et al. Enabling urban air mobility: human-autonomy teaming research challenges and recommendations. In: AIAA Aviation 2020 forum, virtual event, 15–19June2020, pp.1–9.
4.
Abilio RamosMUtneIBMoslehA. Collision avoidance on maritime autonomous surface ships: operators’ tasks and human failure events. Saf Sci2019; 116: 33–44.
5.
KharoufahHMurrayJBaxterG, et al. A review of human factors causations in commercial air transport accidents and incidents: from to 2000–2016. Prog Aerosp Sci2018; 99: 1–13.
6.
SalasEDickinsonTLConverseSA, et al. Toward an understanding of team performance and training. In: SwezeyESalas (eds) Teams: their training and performance. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing, 1992, pp.3–29.
7.
EndsleyMR. Supporting situation awareness in aviation systems. Proc IEEE Int Conf Syst Man Cybern1997; 5: 4177–4181.
8.
BillingsCE. Human-centered aviation automation: principles and guidelines. NASA Technical Memorandum 110381, 1996, p.222.
9.
BillingsCE. Human-centered aircraft automation: A concept and guidelines. NASA Technical Memorandum, Document ID: 19910022821 (1991).
10.
TaylorA. Human-machine interaction in the cockpit and applicable design changes towards better collaboration. In: NunesIL (ed.) Advances in human factors and sustainable infrastructure. Warsaw: Springer, 2016, pp.278.
11.
EndsleyMR. From here to autonomy: Lessons learned from human-automation research. Hum Factors2017; 59: 5–27.
12.
KuipersAKappersAvan HoltenCR, et al. Spatial disorientation incidents in the R.N.L.A.F. F16 and F5 aircraft and suggestions for prevention. In: Situational awareness in aerospace operations (AGARD-CP-478). Neuilly Sur Seine, France: NATO-AGARD, 1990, pp.OV/E/1–OV/E/16.
13.
National Transportation Safety Board. Aircraft accidents report: USAIR, Inc., Boeing 737-400, LaGuardia Airport, Flushing New York, September 20, 1989 (NTSB/AAR-90-03). Washington, DC: National Transportation Safety Board, 1990.
14.
KaberDB. A conceptual framework of autonomous and automated agents. Theor Issues Ergon Sci2018; 19: 406–430.
15.
UtneIBSørensenAJSchjølbergI. Risk management of autonomous marine systems and operations. In: Proceedings of the 36th International conference on ocean, offshore & arctic engineering, Trondheim, Norway, 25–30 June 2017, pp.1–10. Trondheim, Norway: American Society of Mechanical Engineers.
16.
MorrisJWSchmitfVRJenneyGD. Fly-by-Wire – A historical and Design Perspective. Wallendale, PA: Society of Automotive Engineers, 2016.
17.
CrespoAMF. Less automation and full autonomy in aviation, dilemma or conundrum? In: 2019 IEEE International conference on systems, man and cybernetics (SMC), Bari, Italy, 6–9 October 2019, pp.4245–4250.
18.
RamosMAThiemeCAUtneIB, et al. A generic approach to analysing failures in human – system interaction in autonomy. Saf Sci2020; 129: 104808. DOI: 10.1016/j.ssci.2020.104808
19.
VagiaMTransethAAFjerdingenSA. A literature review on the levels of automation during the years. What are the different taxonomies that have been proposed?Appl Ergon2016; 53: 190–202.
20.
SAE. Taxonomy and definitions for terms related to driving automation systems for on-road motor vehicles. SAE paper J3016_201806, 2016. 10.4271/2012-01-0107
21.
AndersonEFanninTNelsonB. Levels of aviation autonomy. In: 2018 IEEE/AIAA 37th digital avionics systems conference (DASC), London, 23–27 September 2018, pp.1–8.
22.
Boeing Commercial Airplanes. Statistical summary of commercial jet airplane accidents. Boeing Commercial Airplanes, 2015, p.24.
23.
BennettSA. Aviation crew resource management – a critical appraisal, in the tradition of reflective practice, informed by flight and cabin crew feedback. J Risk Res2019; 22: 1357–1373.
24.
National Transportation Safety Board. Collision between vehicle controlled by developmental automated driving system and pedestrian, HWY18MH010. Tempe, AZ: National Transportation Safety Board, 2019. pp.1–5.
25.
BradshawJMHoffmanRRJohnsonM, et al. The seven deadly myths of ‘autonomous systems’. IEEE Intell Syst2013; 28: 54–61.
26.
SalmonPM. The horse has bolted! Why human factors and ergonomics has to catch up with autonomous vehicles (and other advanced forms of automation). Ergonomics2019; 62: 502–504.
27.
CookSDietrichAHookL, et al. Promoting autonomy design and operations in aviation. In: 2019 IEEE/AIAA 38th digital avionics systems conference (DASC), San Diego, CA, 8–12 September 2019. DOI: 10.1109/DASC 43569.2019.9081809.
National Transportation Safety Board. Descent below visual glidepath and impact with Seawall Asiana Airlines Flight 214 Boeing 777-200ER, HL7742 - NTSB/AAR-14/01, 2013.
30.
TaylorAKSteven CotterT. Human opinion counts-making decisions in critical situations when working with highly automated systems. In: 2016 International annual conference of the American Society for Engineering Management, ASEM 2016, Charlotte, NC, 26–29 October 2016, pp. 47–55.
31.
LyuHNandiganahalliJSHwangI. Automation intent inference using the GFHMM for flight deck mode confusion detection. J Aerosp Inf Syst2018; 15: 172–177.
32.
BrennanMLiW-C. The design principles of flight deck automation and the occurrence of active failures in aviation. J Aviat Saf Manage2017; 4: 81–97.
33.
LiWCGreavesM. Pilots in automated cockpits: a causal factor in accidents or the last line of defence?Ergonomist2014; 523: 17–18.
34.
CampionEMJuillardCKnudsonMM, et al. Reconsidering the resources needed for multiple casualty events: Lessons learned from the crash of Asiana airlines flight 214. JAMA Surg2016; 151: 512–517.
35.
KnudsonMM. Disaster medicine: lessons learned from the crash of Asiana Airlines Flight 214. In: LimRB (ed.) Surgery during natural disasters, combat, terrorist attacks, and crisis situations. New York, NY: Springer, 2016.
36.
MarzuoliABoidotEFeronE, et al. Multimodal impact analysis of an airside catastrophic event: a case study of the Asiana crash. IEEE Trans Intell Transp Syst2016; 17: 587–604.
37.
TabibzadehMShapetiVMokhtariM. Systematic investigation of the Asiana Airlines 214 air crash using the AcciMap methodology. Proc Hum Factors Ergon Soc Annu Meet2019; 63: 606–610.
38.
HornAW-cLIBraithwaiteG. Human-centered design of flight mode annunciation for instantaneous mode awareness. In: Engineering psychology and cognitive ergonomics – 15th international conference, EPCE 2018 held as part of HCI International 2018, Las Vegas, NV, 15–20July2018. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-91122-9.
39.
SarterNBMumawRJWickensCD. Pilots’ monitoring strategies and performance on automated flight decks: an empirical study combining behavioral and eye-tracking data. Hum Factors2007; 49: 347–357.
40.
Bureau d’enquêtes et d’analyses pour la sécurité de l’aviation civile (BEA). Final report on the accident on 1st June 2009 to the Airbus A330-203 registered F-GZCP operated by Air France flight AF 447 Rio de Janeiro – Paris, www.bea.aero (2012).
41.
RochaRLimaF. Erros humanos em situações de urgência: análise cognitiva do comportamento dos pilotos na catástrofe do voo Air France 447. Gestão Produção2018; 25: 568–582.
42.
DavidLZSchraagenJM. Analysing communication dynamics at the transaction level: the case of Air France Flight 447. Cogn Technol Work2018; 20: 637–649.
43.
SalmonPMWalkerGHStantonNA. Pilot error versus sociotechnical systems failure: a distributed situation awareness analysis of Air France 447. Theor Issues Ergon Sci2016; 17: 64–79.
44.
OliverNCalvardTPotočnikK. Cognition, technology, and organizational limits: Lessons from the Air France 447 disaster. Organ Sci2017; 28: 729–743.
45.
PalmerJB. Understanding Air France 447. William Palmer, 2013.
46.
SherryLMauroR. Controlled flight into stall (CFIS): functional complexity failures and automation surprises. In: 2014 Integrated communications, navigation and surveillance conference, ICNS, Herndon, VA, 8–10 April 2014. Piscataway, NJ: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc. DOI: 10.1109/ICNSurv.2014.6819980.
47.
HelmreichRLKlinectJRWilhelmJA. Model of threat, error and CRM in flight operations. Proc Tenth Int Symp Aviat Psychol1999; 47: 667–682.
48.
KharchenkoVChynchenkoYRaychevS. Threat and error management in air traffic control. Proc Natl Aviat Univ2007; 33: 24–29. DOI: 10.18372/2306-1472. 33.1491
49.
International Air Transport Association. Unstable Approaches: Risk Mitigation Policies, Procedures and Best Practices, 2nd ed. 2016.
50.
CampbellAMZaalPMTSchroederJA, et al. Development of possible go-around criteria for transport aircraft. In: 2018 Aviation technology, integration, and operations conference, Atlanta, GA, 25–29 June 2018. DOI: 10.2514/6.2018-3198.
51.
BlajevT. Go-around decision-making & execution project report. In: 62nd Annual business aviation safety summit (BASS 2017), Phoenix, AZ, 4–5May2017, pp.45–62.
52.
NTSB. Taxiway overflight, Air Canada Flight 759, Airbus A320-211, C-FKCK, San Francisco, CA. NTSB/AIR-18/01. Washington, DC: NTSB, 7July2017.
53.
JiangLYangPMaX, et al. Comparison of detection technology for runway incursion prevention in Airport Hot Spot. J Phys Conf Ser2020; 1570: 0–8.
54.
TomaszewskaJZiejaMWochM, et al. Statistical analysis of ground-related incidents at airports. J KONES2018; 25: 467–472.
55.
Cockpit Voice. Collision between an aeroplane taxiing on a taxiway and an aeroplane at standstill, second in line at the holding point. BEA, 2019, pp.1–10.
56.
AldemirT. A survey of dynamic methodologies for probabilistic safety assessment of nuclear power plants. Ann Nucl Energy2013; 52: 113–124.
57.
GuarroSYauM. Dynamic flowgraph methodology (DFM) modeling of nuclear and advanced technology system risk and reliability scenarios. In: AldemirT (ed.) Advanced concepts in nuclear energy risk assessment and management. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing Co, 2018, pp.353–425.
58.
LeCunYBengioYHintonG. Deep learning. Nature2015; 521: 436–444.
59.
Hu J. Squeeze-and-excitation networks. In: Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition (CVPR), Salt Lake City, UT, 18–23 June 2018, pp.7132–7141.
60.
ZophBLeQ V. Neural architecture search with reinforcement learning. In: 5th International conference on learning representations (ICLR 2017), Toulon, France, 24–26 April 2017.
61.
ShinH-CRothHRGaoM, et al. Deep convolutional neural networks for computer-aided detection: CNN architectures, dataset characteristics and transfer learning. IEEE Trans Med Imaging2016; 35(5): 1285–1298.
62.
RenSHeKGirshickR, et al. Faster R-CNN: towards real-time object detection with region proposal networks. In: CortesCLawrenceNLeeD, et al. (eds) Advances in neural information processing systems28. Montreal, Canada: Curran Associates, Inc, 2015, pp. 91–99.
63.
AngelovPPZhouX. Evolving fuzzy-rule-based classifiers from data streams. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst2008; 16: 1462–1475.
64.
KhanZAliABMSRiazZ. Computational Intelligence for decision support in cyber-physical Systems. Cham: Springer, 2014.
ChoiAWangRDarwicheA. On the relative expressiveness of Bayesian and neural networks. Int J Approx Reason2019; 113: 303–323.
67.
JiaJZhouHLiY. Using deep neural network approximate Bayesian network. arXiv:1801.00282, 2018.
68.
CastanedoF. A review of data fusion techniques. Sci World J2013; 2013: 1–19. DOI: 10.1155/2013/704504
69.
KhaleghiBKhamisAKarrayFO, et al. Multisensor data fusion: A review of the state-of-the-art. Inf Fusion2013; 14: 28–44.
70.
SamyIPostlethwaiteIGuDW. Survey and application of sensor fault detection and isolation schemes. Control Eng Pract2011; 19: 658–674.
71.
PrecupREAngelovPCostaBSJ, et al. An overview on fault diagnosis and nature-inspired optimal control of industrial process applications. Comput Ind2015; 74: 75–94.
72.
StantonNALiWCHarrisD. Editorial: Ergonomics and Human Factors in aviation. Ergonomics2019; 62: 131–137.
73.
ReitsmaJPvan PaassenMMMulderM. Methodology comparison for designing a decision-making support system. IFAC-PapersOnLine2019; 52: 157–162.
74.
YehMSwiderCJoYJ, et al. Human Factors Considerations in the design and evaluation of flight deck displays and controls. Washington, DC: Federal Aviation Administration, 2016.
75.
AbbottKMcKenneyDRailsbackP. Operational use of flight path management systems. Washington, DC: Federal Aviation Administration, 2013.
GuarroSYauMKOzgunerU, et al. Formal framework and models for validation and verification of software-intensive aerospace systems. In: AIAA Information systems-AIAA Infotech @ Aerospace, Grapevine, TX, 9–13 January 2017. Reston, VA: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. DOI: 10.2514/6.2017-0418.
