Aerospace and Electronic Systems - May 2019 - 15

Karahasanovic et al.

Figure 1.
Controller working positions included a radar screen, a flight strip
tool, and an arrival/departure manager. The radar screen was a
modified version of the Navsim air traffic simulator, stripped
down to the graphical user interface for the display of the
simulated radar image. The electronic flight strips tool
"SmartStrips" was supplied by Frequentis AG; this was used to
display the state of the simulated aircraft and for communication
with the simulated pilots. The auxiliary screen was a generic
implementation of an arrival/departure management tool, providing the controller with increased time awareness.

and the experimental procedure itself, we provided extensive training for all the participants. Several weeks prior
to the simulation, the participants were asked to familiarize themselves with the training material describing the
working procedures that were to be followed during the
simulation. One week before the simulation, a telephone
session was held that included a walkthrough of all the
procedures. The participants had an opportunity to ask
any questions they had regarding the material, and all
unclear issues were discussed. In addition, the first day of
the study was devoted to training, including a walkthrough
session, two training runs, and discussions. During these
training runs, the participants had the opportunity not only
to become completely familiar with the tasks and the environment but also to improve their performance as a team.
They discussed situations with the potential for performance improvement and, together, found better detailed
procedures to be followed during the study.

Control room of the Hamburg airport human-in-the-loop simulation exercise. Each controller workstation is labeled with the
controller's function in the experiment.

(see Figure 1). The simulation did not involve simulated
pilots or participating pilots; hence, the ATCOs did not
have to handle voice communication with pilots. Instead,
the simulation was held as if there were a controller-pilot
data link connection to the aircraft facilitated by means of
the electronic flight strip tool. Instrument meteorological
conditions were used, with a wind component of 10 kts
from 270 . The participants followed a tower working procedure. Training materials were produced to familiarize
the participants with these working procedures.

PROCEDURES
As described previously, we organized training before the
simulation. The simulation session spanned two days. It
consisted of two training runs and three measured runs
that were used for analysis, each lasting approximately
one hour. At the beginning of each run, it was explained
to the participants how much traffic they would need to
handle during the run, and they were reminded that they
should follow the following priorities during the
simulation:
Priority 1-Safety: Minimize the number of safety
violations during the simulation.

MATERIALS
The participants were subjected to realistic work scenarios
using the NAVSIM air traffic simulator [14]. The simulator
was set up to replicate the tower environment at Hamburg
airport in terms of runway configuration, traffic scenarios,
and controller equipment. The traffic scenarios were based
on real traffic data from Hamburg airport, taken from the
peak hours on a specified set of dates. This traffic data were
adapted to some extent, in order to provide the required
traffic loads. Each of the five ATCOs had a working
position configured for his or her particular role, equipped
with a radar screen, an electronic flight strip tool, and an
auxiliary screen used for arrival/departure management
MAY 2019

Figure 2.

Priority 2-Punctuality: Make flights depart the
runway as close to the calculated takeoff time as
possible.
Priority 3-Efficiency: Minimize taxi time and taxi
distance.
The participants were then seated at their respective
positions in the simulation room (see Figure 2), and the
simulation was initiated.
The traffic scenarios used during the simulation runs
differed in terms of traffic load. The first training run
involved a scenario with a traffic load of 30 aircraft, while

IEEE A&E SYSTEMS MAGAZINE

Aerospace and Electronic Systems - May 2019

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Aerospace and Electronic Systems - May 2019