Modelling and supporting flight crew decision-making during aircraft engine malfunctions: developing design recommendations from cognitive work analysis.

In this article, we analyse flight crew response to an in-flight powerplant system malfunction (PSM) using control task analysis. We demonstrate the application of the decision ladder template and the skills, rules, and knowledge (SRK) framework to this new area of inquiry. Despite the high reliability of turbofan engines, accidents and incidents involving PSM still occur. During these unusual events, flight crew have not always responded appropriately, leading to a reduction in safety margins or disruption of operations. This article proposes recommendations for technological and information system that can support flight crew in responding safely and appropriately to a PSM. These recommendations focus on new ways in which information from engine health monitoring system and other sources of data can be utilised and displayed. Firstly, we conducted knowledge elicitation using Critical Decision Method (CDM) interviews with airline pilots who have experienced real or simulated PSM events. We then developed generic decision ladders using the interview data, operations manual, training manual, and other guideline documents. The generic decision ladders characterise the different stages of responding to PSM identified as part of the research. These stages include: regaining and maintaining control of aircraft, identifying PSM and selecting appropriate checklists to secure the engine, and modifying the flight plan. Using the decision ladders and insights from the CDM interviews, we were able to identify cognitive processes and states that are more prone to errors and therefore more likely to generate an inappropriate response. Using the SRK framework, we propose design recommendations for technological and information systems to minimise the likelihood of such inappropriate response. We conclude that this combination of methods provides a structured and reliable approach to identifying system improvements in complex and dynamic work situations. Our specific contributions are the application of these techniques in the unrepresented area of flight operations, and the development of evidence-based design recommendations to improve flight crew response to in-flight powerplant system malfunctions.

[1]  Christopher D. Wickens,et al.  A model for types and levels of human interaction with automation , 2000, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. Part A.

[2]  Neville A. Stanton,et al.  A decision ladder analysis of eco-driving: the first step towards fuel-efficient driving behaviour , 2015, Ergonomics.

[3]  Guy H. Walker,et al.  Using the Decision-Ladder to Add a Formative Element to Naturalistic Decision-Making Research , 2010, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact..

[4]  Karen M. Feigh,et al.  Modeling Human–Automation Function Allocation , 2014 .

[5]  Jens Rasmussen,et al.  A Model of Human Decision Making in Complex Systems and its Use for Design of System Control Strategies , 1982 .

[6]  Christine M. Mitchell,et al.  Use of Model-Based Qualitative Icons and Adaptive Windows in Workstations for Supervisory Control Systems , 1987, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics.

[7]  Neville A Stanton,et al.  Using the decision ladder to understand road user decision making at actively controlled rail level crossings. , 2016, Applied ergonomics.

[8]  T. Connolly,et al.  The reinvention of decision making. , 1993 .

[9]  Jens Rasmussen,et al.  Cognitive Systems Engineering , 2022 .

[10]  Guy H. Walker,et al.  A formative approach to developing synthetic environment fidelity requirements for decision-making training. , 2011, Applied ergonomics.

[11]  Tim Horberry,et al.  Using the critical decision method and decision ladders to analyse traffic incident management system issues , 2015 .

[12]  N. Naikar,et al.  Analysing activity in complex systems with cognitive work analysis: concepts, guidelines and case study for control task analysis , 2006 .

[13]  Jens Rasmussen,et al.  Information Processing and Human-Machine Interaction: An Approach to Cognitive Engineering , 1986 .

[14]  Gavan Lintern A Comparison of the Decision Ladder and the Recognition-Primed Decision Model , 2010 .

[15]  Kim J. Vicente,et al.  Coping with Human Errors through System Design: Implications for Ecological Interface Design , 1989, Int. J. Man Mach. Stud..

[16]  Daniel P. Jenkins Using cognitive work analysis to describe the role of UAVs in military operations , 2012 .

[17]  Penelope M. Sanderson,et al.  Can the decision ladder framework help inform industry risk assessment processes , 2014 .

[18]  Neelam Naikar,et al.  Designing safe and effective future systems: A new approach for modelling decisions in future systems with Cognitive Work Analysis , 2008 .

[19]  David Harris Human Performance on the Flight Deck , 2011 .

[20]  K. J. Vicente,et al.  Cognitive Work Analysis: Toward Safe, Productive, and Healthy Computer-Based Work , 1999 .

[21]  Catherine M. Burns,et al.  Representing Stages and Levels of Automation on a Decision Ladder , 2016 .

[22]  N. Stanton,et al.  What could they have been thinking? How sociotechnical system design influences cognition: a case study of the Stockwell shooting , 2011, Ergonomics.

[23]  Nigel Shadbolt,et al.  Use of the Critical Decision Method to Elicit Expert Knowledge: A Case Study in the Methodology of Cognitive Task Analysis , 1998, Hum. Factors.