Study on air traffic controllers' situational awareness reliability in emergency scenarios

doi:10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2024.06.1780

Abstract

Abstract:

In order to improve air traffic controllers' emergency response ability, a reliability model of air traffic controllers' SA was constructed from three aspects: air traffic controllers' personal ability, air traffic control task characteristics and air traffic control equipment. Tower control simulation software and SA Global Assessment Technique (SAGAT) were used to measure the air traffic controllers' SA level in emergency situations. Based on BN, SA reliability was quantitatively analyzed to predict air traffic controllers' level of SA, and based on Bayesian inference, the key factors affecting the reliability of air traffic controllers' SA were analyzed. The results show that the reliability of SA of air traffic controllers is positively correlated with the level of SA in emergency scenarios, and the SA level can be predicted by air traffic controllers' SA reliability. The BN inference analysis reveals that the factors with a higher degree of influence and sensitivity to the reliability of controllers' SA were the deployment of aircraft availability time, the accuracy of the control equipment and the controller's memory. The causal chain that has the greatest impact on the air traffic controllers' SA reliability is the deployment of aircraft availability time→mission characteristics→SA reliability.

Key words: emergency situation, air traffic controllers, situational awareness (SA), reliability, Bayesian network (BN)

CLC Number:

X949

WANG Yanqing, WU Siyu, YANG Keyue. Study on air traffic controllers' situational awareness reliability in emergency scenarios[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2024, 34(6): 207-215.

Figures/Tables 15

Table 1

Description of performance shaping factor of air traffic controllers' SA

PSF	状态等级	评价准则/描述
记忆力	好	管制员的记忆力好,即未出现过由于记忆问题导致的管制差错
	中	管制员的记忆力中等,即偶尔出现过由于记忆问题导致的工作失误,导致出现差错
	差	管制员的记忆力差,即经常出现由于记忆问题导致工作失误,曾出现过差错
注意品质	好	管制员能够集中注意力并合理分配注意资源,注意稳定性好,能够快速、准确完成管制任务
	中	管制员注意范围不足,注意稳定性中等、能够集中注意力准确完成管制任务,但在交通流量大时容易遗漏管制对象^[14]
	差	管制员反应不及时,无法合理分配注意资源,容易出现忽略管制对象的状况
调配飞机可用时间	好	可用时间充分
	中	可用时间略大于正常管制的所需时间
	差	可用时间小于正常管制的所需时间
任务的复杂性	好	需要同时指挥飞机数量较少,且没有突发状况的发生
	中	需要同时指挥飞机数量一般,且没有突发状况的发生
	差	需要同时指挥飞机数量较多或出现突发状况
天气/环境的复杂性	好	天气/环境状况良好,完全满足飞行要求,无不良影响
	中	天气/环境状况一般,能够满足飞行要求
	差	天气/环境状况恶劣,接近最低飞行标准
管制设备的精准度	好	管制设备精确度高,完全能够准确实现管制员的各项操作
	中	管制设备精确度中等,基本一般能够准确实现管制员的完成管制的各项操作,偶尔出现设备不灵敏的状况
	差	管制设备精确度低,经常不能一次性准确实现管制员的各项操作
管制设备的人性化	好	管制员使用管制设备时动作非常顺畅,完成管制任务的动作线符合人体的惯性
	中	管制员使用管制设备时动作一般顺畅,偶尔会出现导致人体姿势不舒服的情况
	差	管制员使用管制设备时动作不顺畅,严重影响到管制员的指挥工作,经常会出现导致人体姿势不舒服的情况

Table 1

Fig.1

Fig.2

Fig.3

Table 2

Table 3

Table 4

Table 5

t-test for air traffic controllers' SA data

—	—	( $x -$ ±s)	t检验	p值
SA得分	正常情境	0.651±0.077	2.069	0.035
SA得分	应急情境	0.741±0.108	2.069	0.035
SA可靠性	正常情境	0.953±0.129	2.093	0.005
SA可靠性	应急情境	0.704±0.267	2.093	0.005

Table 5

Fig.4

Table 6

Table 7

Table 8

Fig.5

Fig.6

Fig.7

References 23

[1]	ENDSLEY M R. A taxonomy of situation awareness errors[J]. Human Factors in Aviation Operations, 1995, 3(2):287-292.
[2]	ENDSLEY M R. Toward a theory of situation awareness in dynamic systems[J]. Human Factors, 1995, 37(1):32-64.
[3]	WICKENS C D. Situation awareness and workload in aviation[J]. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 2002, 11(4):128-133.
[4]	靳慧斌, 刘亚威, 朱国蕾. 基于眼动和绩效分析的管制员情境意识测量[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2017, 27(7):65-70. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2017.07.012
	JIN Huibin, LIU Yawei, ZHU Guolei. Measuring situation awareness of tower controllers based on eye movement and performance analysis[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2017, 27(7):65-70. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2017.07.012
[5]	YUVARAJ R, LYE S W, WEE H J. A real time neurophysiological framework for general monitoring awareness of air traffic controllers[C]. 2020 IEEE Asia-Pacific Conference on Computer Science and Data Engineering (CSDE), 2020:1-4.
[6]	杨越, 马博凯, 曹宇轩. 国外空管不安全事件中的人误风险分析[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2022, 32(12):38-45. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2022.12.2739
	YANG Yue, MA Bokai, CAO Yuxuan. Human error risk analysis based on foreign unsafe events in air traffic management[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2022, 32(12):38-45. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2022.12.2739
[7]	刘继新, 兰思洁, 江灏, 等. 基于人为因素的管制员情景意识研究[J]. 人类功效学, 2021, 27(2):51-56.
	LIU Jixin, LAN Sijie, JIANG Hao, et al. Research on situational awareness of controllers based on human factors[J]. Chinese Journal of Ergonomics, 2021, 27(2):51-56.
[8]	王莉莉, 朱敏. 基于事故树的空中交通管制员情景意识分析[J]. 安全与环境学报, 2021, 21(1):249-256.
	WANG Lili, ZHU Min. On the situational awareness of the air flight controller based on the fault tree analysis[J]. Journal of Safety and Environment, 2021, 21(1):249-256.
[9]	王永刚, 陈道刚. 基于结构方程模型的管制员情境意识影响因素研究[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2013, 23(7):19-25.
	WANG Yonggang, CHEN Daogang. Study on factors influencing air traffic controller's situation awareness based on structural equation model[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2013, 23(7):19-25.
[10]	李鹏程, 张力, 戴立操, 等. 核电厂数字化主控室操纵员的情境意识可靠性模型[J]. 系统工程理论与实践, 2016, 36(1):243-252. doi: 10.12011/1000-6788(2016)01-0243-10
	LI Pengcheng, ZHANG Li, DAI Licao, et al. Operator's situation awareness reliability model in digital main control rooms of nuclear power plants[J]. Systems Engineering-Theory & Practice, 2016, 36(1):243-252.
[11]	PAPE A M, WIEGMANN D A, SHAPPELL S. Air traffic control (ATC) related accidents and incidents: a human factors analysis[C]. Proceedings of the 11^th International Symposium on Aviation Psychology, 2001:1-4.
[12]	王茜. 民航特殊职业从业人员焦虑心理的成因及其应对方式分析[J]. 民航学报, 2018, 2(3):69-72.
	WANG Qian. Analysis on causes of anxiety of civil aviation special professional groups and the solutions[J]. Journal of Civil Aviation, 2018, 2(3):69-72.
[13]	蒋英杰, 李龙, 孙志强, 等. 行为形成因子分析方法评述[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2011, 21(1):66-72.
	JIANG Yingjie, LI Long, SUN Zhiqiang, et al. Review of performance shaping factor analysis methods[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2011, 21(1):66-72.
[14]	李敬强, 王蓓, 赵宁, 等. 基于k-means聚类的管制员注意品质特征研究[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2017, 27(6):13-18. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2017.06.003
	LI Jingqiang, WANG Bei, ZHAO Ning, et al. On characteristics of attention quality of controller based on k-means clustering[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2017, 27(6):13-18. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2017.06.003
[15]	ENDSLEY M R. Direct measurement of situation awareness: validity and use of SAGAT[M]. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 2000:147-174.
[16]	秦岩, 盛武. 基于贝叶斯网络的煤矿顶板事故致因研究[J]. 矿业安全与环保, 2022, 49(3):136-142.
	QIN Yan, SHENG Wu. Study on causes of coal mine roof accidents based on Bayesian network[J]. Mining Safety & Environmental Protection, 2022, 49(3):136-142.
[17]	PEARL J. Bayesian networks: a model of self-activated memory for evidential reasoning[C]. Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, 1985:329-334.
[18]	ROED W, MOSLEH A, VINNEM J E, et al. On the use of the hybrid causal logic method in offshore risk analysis[J]. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 2009, 94(2):445-455.
[19]	李鹏程, 金肖, 王炎鑫, 等. 数字化核电厂班组情景意识可靠性评价方法[J]. 原子能科学技术, 2021, 55(1):159-168. doi: 10.7538/yzk.2020.youxian.0023
	LI Pengcheng, JIN Xiao, WANG Yanxin, et al. Reliability evaluation method of team situation awareness in digital nuclear power plant[J]. Atomic Energy Science and Technology, 2021, 55(1):159-168. doi: 10.7538/yzk.2020.youxian.0023
[20]	HOLLNAGEL E. Cognitive reliability and error analysis method[M]. Oxford: Elsevier Science Ltd., 1998:254-255.
[21]	GERTMAN D I, BLACKMAN H S, MARBLE J L, et al. The SPAR H human reliability analysis method[C]. American Nuclear Society 4^th International Topical Meeting on Nuclear Plant Instrumentation, Control and Human Machine Interface Technology, 2004:17-24.
[22]	SWAIN A D. Accident sequence evaluation program human reliability analysis procedure[R]. US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 1987.
[23]	严利鑫, 秦伶巧, 熊钰冰, 等. 多模式共驾智能车行驶安全性评估研究[J]. 交通信息与安全, 2018, 36(3):1-7.
	YAN Lixin, QIN Lingqiao, XIONG Yubing, et al. A safety evaluation on intelligent vehicles with multi-mode cooperative driving[J]. Journal of Transport Information and Safety, 2018, 36(3):1-7.

PSF	先验概率
PSF	好	中	差
记忆力	0.750	0.180	0.070
注意品质	0.700	0.200	0.100
管制设备的精准度	0.680	0.250	0.070
管制设备的人性化	0.650	0.250	0.100
天气/环境的复杂性	0.770	0.170	0.060
任务复杂性	0.750	0.150	0.100
调配飞机可用时间	0.720	0.200	0.080

中间节点	影响因素PSF		一致性检验	相对权重 x_i		权重比R
个人能力	记忆能力		0.000	0.750		3
个人能力	注意品质		0.000	0.250		3
管制设备	管制设备的精准度		0.000	0.500		1
管制设备	管制设备的人性化		0.000	0.500		1
任务特点	任务的复杂性	天气/环境的复杂性	0.000	0.330	0.500	2
	任务的复杂性	管制设备的精准度		0.330	0.500
	调配飞机可用时间			0.670
SA可靠性模型	个人能力		0.018	0.120		2
	管制设备			0.320
	任务特点			0.560

PSF		状态及概率
记忆力		好			中			差
注意品质		好	中	差	好	中	差	好	中	差
个人能力	好	0.951	0.810	0.786	0.175	0.045	0.039	0.039	0.009	0.001
	中	0.048	0.181	0.175	0.786	0.910	0.786	0.175	0.181	0.048
	差	0.001	0.009	0.039	0.039	0.045	0.175	0.786	0.810	0.951

排名	PSF	SA可靠性=差			提高比例/%
排名	PSF	PSF状态为差	PSF状态为中	PSF状态为好	提高比例/%
1	调配飞机可用时间	0.370	0.160	0.090	311.111
2	管制设备的精准度	0.190	0.140	0.110	72.727
3	记忆力	0.170	0.130	0.120	41.667
4	管制设备的人性化	0.160	0.130	0.120	33.333
5	天气/环境的复杂性	0.150	0.130	0.120	25.000
6	注意品质	0.130	0.130	0.120	8.333

排名	PSF	SA可靠性=差的后验概率			SA可靠性=中的后验概率			SA可靠性=好的后验概率
		节点状态
		差	中	好	差	中	好	差	中	好
1	调配飞机可用时间	0.240	0.250	0.510	0.090	0.280	0.630	0.040	0.130	0.830
2	管制设备的人性化	0.130	0.270	0.600	0.110	0.270	0.630	0.090	0.230	0.680
3	管制设备的精准度	0.110	0.280	0.610	0.080	0.280	0.650	0.060	0.220	0.720
4	记忆力	0.100	0.190	0.710	0.070	0.200	0.730	0.060	0.160	0.780
5	注意品质	0.100	0.200	0.690	0.100	0.200	0.700	0.100	0.200	0.700
6	天气/环境的复杂性	0.070	0.180	0.750	0.060	0.180	0.760	0.060	0.160	0.780