Formal Aspects of Human-Automation Interaction

While new versions of automated control systems such as flight guidance systems are introduced at a rapid pace, it is widely recognized that user interaction with these machines is increasingly problematic. One cause for this difficulty that is commonly cited in the literature, is the discrepancy between the machine's behavior and the operator's (e.g., pilot) expectations. This paper discusses a formal approach to the analysis of operator's interaction with complex automated control systems. We focus attention on the issue of interface correctness; that is, on the question whether the display provides adequate information about the machine's configurations (states, modes, and associated parameters) and transitions, so as to enable the operator to successfully perform the specified set of tasks. To perform the analysis several assumptions are made: (1) A complete formal model of the machine's behavior is available (e.g., as a state transition system, or as a hybrid-machine); (2) A specification of operator's tasks is available and can be formally described (e.g., the reliable and predictable transition between activities involved in executing a climb to a new altitude); (3) The pilot is well trained and has a correct 'mental' model of the machine's response-map. By 'comparing' the machine's model with the set of operator's tasks we formally (i.e., mathematically) evaluate two questions: 1) does the machine's output interface (display) enable the operator to determine, unambiguously, what the current configuration (e.g., mode) of the machine is, and 2) does the display enable the operator to determine, unambiguously, what the next configuration of the machine will be, in response to a specified interaction by the operator (e.g., engaging a mode or changing a parameter such as a speed or target altitude). This paper describes a methodology for conducting such an evaluation using examples from automated flight control systems of modem 'glass cockpit' jetliners. Taxonomy of the different types of discrepancies that lead to pilot inability to resolve the current and next configuration of the machine is suggested. Data from incident reports involving 'mode confusion' is used to corroborate these discrepancies. Finally, means for compensating, either by augmenting the display and/or the operator's 'mental model' are briefly mentioned.