Psychological tools in respect to NOSS the example of the SETTool

1
Psychological tools in respect to NOSS - the
example of the SET-Tool

• P.Hoffmann
• K.W.Kallus

2

• NOSS is based on the TEM Modell
• NOSS is obeserving the human behaviour in threat
  and error situations
• -threat management
• -error management

3

• LOSA and NOSS try to look for desired (e.g.
  threat management) and undisered (errors,
  deviations from procedures) variability in task
  execution.
• Goals
• Proficiency check
• Feedback on working pratices
• Establishment of best practices
• Refinement of procedures
• Bechmarking in TEM
• Devepment of professional task execution even in
  non standard situations

4

• LOSA and NOSS center around tasks and their
  execution. Thus methods from task analysis should
  be checked for contributions
• Two methods are recommended
• Reconstruction interviews
• SET-Tool

5
Safety-Efficiency-taskload ModellSET
ATCO have to guarantee at the same time Safety
Efficiency in adynamic traffic situation
situation which causes Taskload SET follows a
system dynamic approach
6
NOSS and SET
Safety buffer
Safety
NOSS
efficiency
taskload
Traffic mix Dynamic Density (Complexity) Number
of a/c Amount of requests Weather .....
Separation level Direct routing Requested
flightlevel
7
Questions

• What environmental and operational circumstances
  causes
• Reduction of the safety buffers
• Reduction of efficiency
• Reduction of taskload

8
Question

• What environmental circumstances interfere the
  balance between
• - SAFETY
• - EFFICIENCY
• - TASKLOAD

9
QUESTION

• which level of misbalance (unstability) between
  safety, efficiency and taskload lead to

errors incidents accidents
10
The method

• Strip analysis
• Analysing specific traffic situations which had
  deveated from the routine
• Description of this situation
• Assesment of this traffic situation with the SET-
  Tool
• Structured assesment of traffic situations every
  hour with the set-tool

11
Data set

• We get through this method a clear picture of
• - different levels of taskload
• - decisionmaking in favour of safety,
  efficiency or taskload
• - threats and threatmanagement
• - errors and errormanagement

12
Advantages of SET

• Training people one day
• The ATCOs are directly involved in the analysis
• The ATCOs get directly feedback
• The data can be easily stored in a SPSS programm
• The data collection can be compared and combined
  with other psychological, physiological, traffic
  data if required

13
Balanced System no additional s-buffer, average
efficiency, average taskload

14
Disbalanced System safety and efficiency are
kept by increased taskload (and workload)

15
Ergebnisse der SEW-Balance
16
Ergebnisse Objektive Belastung (EKG) bei
verschiedenen Arbeitsweisen
17
Ergebnisse Objektive Belastung (EKG) bei
verschiedenen Arbeitsweisen
18
Unbalanced System no additional s-buffer,
reduced efficiency, increased taskload and
workload

19
Unbalanced System reduced safety-buffer, average
efficiency, high taskload

20
Balanced System no additional s-buffer, average
efficiency, average taskload

21
Validity of SET(Vormayr Kallus, 2005)

• Grafiken 4.26-4.28 aus Vormayr Arbeit.
• PC simulated scenarios, which differend in
  dynamic density were rated twice by controllers
  using the SET-Tool. There a highly significant
  effects of dynamic density.

22
Validity of SET(Winkler, Hoffmann Kallus, 2006)

• Ggf einfügen von Di
• Reconstruction interviews after full shift
  observations show clear cut differences between
  normal traffic situations and those, which
  approach the level of individually critical
  traffic situations

23
Conclusions

• Tools from task analyses in ATC (and cockpits)
  might add valuable information to LOSA and NOSS
  especially in cases in which professional task
  performance is to be improved and best practices
  for threats should be developed.
• Feedback (and feedback rules) has to be an
  essential element of LOSA and NOSS approaches