1 The role of human in ATM automation: a key issue Alain Printemps head of DNA/CENA

2 Automating ATM processes l Complete automation is not anticipated. l The controller is there, so we should: l take the best of human and machine capabilities l provide a working environment that should be l fault tolerant, reliable, flexible and efficient l providing a clear sharing of role of each actor l This constitutes in ATM the human centered approach

3 The human centred approach l Man better l strategy l flexibility / adaptability l creativity l global view / good sense l Machine better l stress l limited resources l errors / vigilance l real time computation Some recommendations (Dr. Erzberger, NASA) l DO NOT automate unique skills or enjoyable tasks l DO NOT automate complex or poorly understood tasks l DO automate to increase situation awareness (and not the contrary) l DO automate to enrich controllers work environment and complement controller skills

4 The PHARE approach Data link technology offers new possibilities: l how to take them into account to offer a better service and a better assistance to the controller? l The controller as a supervisor of an automated system. Not recommended: loss of situation awareness. l Cognitive approach (automation based on typical controller heuristics). Not retained as considered more appropriate for optimisation of existing concept. l From these two extremes an intermediate solution was selected.

5 Role of the controller in PHARE l Planning controller: global traffic management l Negotiates the conflict free aircraft trajectory. l Updates the planning of trajectories in case of unexpected events. l Tactical controller: traffic monitoring l Little initiative except when something does not go as planned. l Introduction of co-operative tools in PD/3 as an attempt to improve situation awareness and communication between the two controllers.

6 A challenge for the future l Today: increase number of controllers l Tomorrow (2005) : increase sector capacity with a cognitive approach to automation l 2010 and beyond? The PHARE scenario: a quite significant step. Issues to be resolved: l Training: is such a change acceptable for today controllers? l Liability: increased role of ground and airborne computers, new pilot responsibilities. l Transition: intermediate steps are necessary.