On the Design of Flight-Deck Procedures - Intelligent Systems ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

7.1.3 Structure of ProceduresAs mentioned earlier, it is common in all high-risk systems that critical tasks that affect the goals of thesystem are always accompanied with a set of procedures. Procedures, in turn, specify a set of sub-tasksor actions to be completed. That is, each procedure can be shown to lie between a higher level task and alower level sub-tasks. Figure 10 shows this structure.Phase: AirborneFunction: DescentProcedureProcedureTask: Configure for Landing•Task: CAT III approach•ProcedureProcedure Procedure ProcedureAction: Start switches,Action: Speed brakes,ActionsActionsActionsFigure 10. The task-procedure structure.The normal tasks and procedures that are required to fly a passenger aircraft can be arranged in such ahierarchical manner: possibly starting with a high level goal of flying passengers from point A to B, andthen branching out to phases such as ground phase at departing airport, airborne phase, and groundphase at destination. This is followed by a third level, that includes functions such as preflight,boarding passengers, engine start and push back, before taxi, etc. The fourth level includes tasks suchas starting engines, configuration of various systems, etc. The fifth level includes the various actionssuch as setting switches, tuning radios, monitoring a gauge, etc., that are necessary to perform the task.The task-procedure hierarchy allows the designer to structure the procedures in the context of theoverlying tasks, functions, and the phases of flight. Such decomposition is a proven way to manage thecomplexity involved in human machine systems (Miller, 1985; Mitchell and Miller, 1986; Rasmussenand Lind, 1981). By using such decomposition methodology, one can better design the procedure sothat it will meet the demands.For each function (e.g., engine start and push back) the objectives are determined and listed. Once theobjectives are specified, the tasks required to meet them are listed. Then, the actions required to executeeach task are listed. Finally, the procedure is designed. The procedure, of course, is composed of allthe previously listed actions necessary to perform the task. For example, let us assume that the functionis “engine start and push back.” In this case the objectives may be to:1. Start all engines safely and economically2. Involve all crew members (both cockpit and ground) in the engine start process3. Disconnect and push back safely42
4. Get ready for the next phase (taxi)The tasks and actions are:1. Brief the crew (cockpit and ground) regarding engine start sequence: when to start, which engineis started first, etc.2. Check for completion of all pre-start conditions: clearance, configuration, cabin doors locked,safety of ground crew, etc.3. Perform the engine start sequence: ignition selector, open start valve, open spar fuel valve, etc.4. Closely monitor start process: oil pressure, N2, N1, EGT, starter cutout, etc.5. Configure systems after engine start.6. Advise ground crew and check for completion of post-start conditions: disconnect externalpower, air, etc.7. Obtain push-back clearance from ATC8. Coordinate and monitor push-back and disconnect from the ground crewThe procedures are:1. Before start checklist2. Engine start process and callouts3. After engine start configuration flow4. SOP tasks and callout for coordination with ground crewIt is at this point that the adequacy and the compatibility between the SOP and the tasks begin to berevealed. If the design and sequence of the SOP associated with engine start and push back do notsupport all the tasks, then the SOP must be changed. Likewise, if the SOP does not allow for thefulfillment of all objectives, then either the tasks or objectives must be changed. For an example inwhich the procedure did not support all the objectives, see the example in Section 6.2.3 regardingambiguity in engine start sequence.7.2 SCHEDULING OF TASKS AND PROCEDURESTwo factors affect the flow of procedures in the cockpit. First is the sequencing of tasks and procedures,which is specified by the designer of the SOPs and checklists. Second, is the actual scheduling of tasksand procedures, which is conducted by the cockpit crew. The goal is to optimize the sequencing in thedesign process and to promote efficient scheduling by the crews.Tasks require time, attention, cognitive resources, and therefore they contribute to workload. Thedesigner's goal is not merely to minimize workload, but also to distribute it throughout the phase(s) offlight in order to avoid periods of very high or very low workload. While this is important for anyroutine operation, it appears to be extremely important in today’s automated two-person cockpit.7.2.1 “Window of Opportunity”For every task on the flight deck, there is a time boundary. This period is sometimes referred to as thewindow of opportunity, indicating the time period in which a task can take place. For example, thewindow of opportunity for the DESCENT checklist can be defined as the time period between top ofdescent and 10,000 feet. This time period (i.e., from time at top of descent to time at 10,000 feet)depends on cruise altitude, rate of descent, ATC vectors and restrictions, and therefore may vary.Although a given task can be effectively accomplished at any time within the window, it appears thatthere is an advantage in conducting the task early. Laudeman and Palmer (in preparation) conducted astudy to evaluate task-scheduling strategies of airline pilots flying DC-9 and MD-88 aircraft in a full43
Page 2 and 3: TABLE OF CONTENTSSUMMARY ..........
Page 4 and 5: 1. INTRODUCTIONWhen we try to pick
Page 6 and 7: Hendrick (1987) states that human f
Page 8 and 9: influenced by the individual philos
Page 10 and 11: 3. THE FOURTH P: PRACTICES3.1. AN E
Page 12 and 13: To summarize, the ultimate factor t
Page 14 and 15: Humor. Humor is closely related to
Page 16 and 17: technical deficiencies, induce work
Page 18 and 19: operations and the philosophy of th
Page 20 and 21: 5.3 MERGERS AND ACQUISITIONSMergers
Page 22 and 23: Figure 7. A Boeing B-757 checklist
Page 24 and 25: e made. Consider, also, the followi
Page 26 and 27: flight operations, the philosophy m
Page 28 and 29: 5.7.3 Technique and PoliciesAny giv
Page 30 and 31: For example, one company constantly
Page 32 and 33: 6. ISSUES IN PROCEDURE DESIGN6.1 CO
Page 34 and 35: solution involves “anchoring” a
Page 36 and 37: On August 19, 1980, a Saudi Arabian
Page 38 and 39: 3. The procedures allow the other a
Page 40 and 41: coordination of tasks between agent
Page 42 and 43: Similarly, it has been a common pra
Page 46 and 47: mission simulation (see Wiener et a
Page 48 and 49: felt that this is an efficient tech
Page 50 and 51: esponse. The PF, therefore, can con
Page 52 and 53: 7.5.1 Cross-fleet StandardizationCr
Page 54 and 55: 1. Training department (for both pi
Page 56 and 57: REFERENCESAviation Week and Space T
Page 58 and 59: Perrow, C. (1986). Complex organiza
Page 60 and 61: APPENDICESAppendix 1 - Guidelines f
Page 62 and 63: 14. In managing automated cockpits,
Page 64 and 65: APPENDIX 3 - QUESTIONS ASKED OF FLI
Page 66 and 67: APPENDIX 5 - QUESTIONS ASKED DURING
Page 68 and 69: 8. Change in operational environmen

On the Design of Flight-Deck Procedures - Intelligent Systems ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?