About Us Our Work Employment News & Events
MITRE Remote Access for MITRE Staff and Partners Site Map
Our Work

Follow Us:

Visit MITRE on Facebook
Visit MITRE on Twitter
Visit MITRE on Linkedin
Visit MITRE on YouTube
View MITRE's RSS Feeds
View MITRE's Mobile Apps
Home > Our Work > Technical Papers >

Multiple Pilot Evaluation of Third Party Flight Identification

November 2009

Karol Kerns, The MITRE Corporation
William J. Penhallegon, The MITRE Corporation
Leslie M. Benson, The MITRE Corporation

ABSTRACT

Air traffic controllers have long used voice communications to refer pilots to specific air traffic of interest. This kind of communication plays an important part in the operations envisioned to evolve from cockpit applications of Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) technology. In this paper we review past research on applications involving such communications and report the results of a multiple-pilot simulation study comparing three alternative communication formats. The study contrasted a baseline (Readback) format in which the controller describes relative position to point out referent traffic with alternatives which used Traffic Call Sign or a relative position (Essential) and "Flight" combined with the trip number part of the call sign (Alternate). Formats were tested in three types of traffic conditions: (a) with normal call sign traffic, (b) with highly similar call signs and (c) with unconventional call signs. Twenty pilots participated in a series of scenarios and communicated with a controller and other pilots using each of the alternatives. The findings indicated a significant effect of format on controller and pilot transmission times, and error correction rates. Both formats in which the controller used traffic call sign to identify third party traffic—Essential and Alternate—outperformed the Readback format with fewer transmissions required to complete a communication transaction. Additionally, controller and pilot transmission times were shorter with the Essential and Alternate formats in comparison to the Readback format. The Alternate format had significantly more uncorrected errors than either the Readback or Essential formats. In terms of acceptability, the subjective measures indicated a trend favoring both Essential and Alternate formats. These findings suggest aspects of procedures and operations that influence pilots' perceptions of risk and acceptability and have implications on further development of messages and communication formats. Further, across multiple studies, results consistently showed that Essential format outperformed Alternate format, which in turn outperformed the Readback format.

View/Download Document

Additional Search Keywords

n/a

 

Page last updated: December 18, 2009   |   Top of page

Homeland Security Center Center for Enterprise Modernization Command, Control, Communications and Intelligence Center Center for Advanced Aviation System Development

 
 
 

Solutions That Make a Difference.®
Copyright © 1997-2013, The MITRE Corporation. All rights reserved.
MITRE is a registered trademark of The MITRE Corporation.
Material on this site may be copied and distributed with permission only.

IDG's Computerworld Names MITRE a "Best Place to Work in IT" for Eighth Straight Year The Boston Globe Ranks MITRE Number 6 Top Place to Work Fast Company Names MITRE One of the "World's 50 Most Innovative Companies"
 

Privacy Policy | Contact Us