EUROCONTROL Experimental Centre...A total of ten experts participated in the evaluation: • four controllers from Shanwick OACC (all with experience of Systems Working Groups), •

EUROPEAN ORGANISATIONFOR THE SAFETY OF AIR NAVIGATION

EUROCONTROLExperimental Centre

CAE/ICELANDDEMONSTRATOR EVALUATION

EEC Note No. 18/95 : EEC Task AR37/CAEEATCHIP Task DPS/ET1/ST08

Approved for publicationby Head of Division B1

Issued : August 1995

The information contained in this document is the property of the EUROCONTROL Agencyand no part should be reproduced in any form without the Agency's permission. It does not

necessarily represent the official policy of the Agency.

DOCUMENTATION PAGE

ReferenceEEC Note No. 18/95

Security ClassificationUnclassified

Originator

EEC Division B1

Originator (Corporate author) Name/LocationEUROCONTROL Experimental CentreBP15 91222 Brétigny-sur-Orge CEDEXFRANCETelephone: (33 -1) 69 88 75 00

Sponsor

Director EEC

Sponsor Contract Authority) Name/LocationEUROCONTROL Experimental CentreBP15 91222 Brétigny-sur-Orge CEDEXFRANCETelephone: (33 - 1) 69 88 75 00

Title :CAE/Iceland Demonstrator Evaluation

AuthorsR V GrahamDr H David

Date

08/95

Pages

21

Figs Ref. Annex

2

EATCHIP Task

DPS/ET1/ST08

EEC Task No.

AR37/CAE

Task No. Sponsor

AR37/CAE

Period

May/June 94Distribution Statement :

(a) Controlled by : Head B1(b) Special Limitations (if any) : None(c) Copy to NTIS : No

Descriptors (keywords) :Air Traffic Control (ATC), Electronic strips, Oceanic control, Colour displays, Mouse inputdevice, Windows, Conflict probe, System assisted co-ordination, HMI (MMI, HCI, CHI).

Abstract :This note reports on an evaluation of the CAE/Iceland OACC Demonstrator by airtraffic controllers and personnel involved in ATC simulation.

The demonstrator is a dynamic and interactive representation of the new ReykjavikFlight Data Processing System (RFDPS). Controller Working Stations comprise a 19inch colour monitor with both mouse and keyboard input devices. The demonstratoremploys a multi-window system using electronic strips as the main control support andproviding system assisted co-ordination, system and manual flight plan updating andconflict probing.

Participants found the demonstrator to be visually comfortable but felt that too manyseparate windows had been defined and that too many inputs were required toaccess functions and update the system.

It was considered that a greater use of graphics could be made to represent aircraftposition and to depict predicted conflict situations.

This document has been collated by mechanical means. Should there be any missing pages,please contact :

Publications OfficeEUROCONTROL Experimental Centre

B.P. 1591222 Bretigny-Sur-Orge CEDEX

(France)

TOC - 1

TABLE OF C O N T E N T S

1. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................... 1

2. OBJECTIVES ........................................................................................................................ 1

3. PARTICIPATION.................................................................................................................... 1

4. EVALUATION CONDUCT ..................................................................................................... 2

4.1 EVALUATION PERIOD........................................................................................................ 24.2 EVALUATION EXPLANATION ............................................................................................ 24.3 PRESENTATION OF THE DEMONSTRATOR.................................................................... 24.4 TRAINING............................................................................................................................ 3

5. EVALUATION AND DEBRIEFING ......................................................................................... 3

6. ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................................. 3

7. DEMONSTRATOR................................................................................................................. 3

7.1 OVERVIEW ......................................................................................................................... 37.2 FUNCTIONALITY................................................................................................................. 4

8. EVALUATION SCHEDULE.................................................................................................... 5

9. ASSESSMENT ...................................................................................................................... 6

9.1 MOUSE................................................................................................................................ 69.2 KEYBOARD......................................................................................................................... 69.3 WINDOW MANAGEMENT .................................................................................................. 79.4 DATA DISPLAY ................................................................................................................... 79.5 COLOUR ............................................................................................................................. 89.6 FONT ................................................................................................................................ 99.7 AURAL INFORMATION ....................................................................................................... 99.8 MENUS................................................................................................................................ 99.9 OUTSTANDING STRIP QUEUE........................................................................................ 109.10 STRIP PREVIEW............................................................................................................. 109.11 SECTOR MESSAGE QUEUE INDICATOR ..................................................................... 109.12 STRIP BAY ...................................................................................................................... 119.13 ELECTRONIC STRIP ...................................................................................................... 119.14 POP UP WINDOWS........................................................................................................ 159.15 COORDINATION ............................................................................................................. 169.16 POSITION REPORT........................................................................................................ 169.17 CLEARANCE WINDOW.................................................................................................. 169.18 TRIAL PROBE WINDOW ................................................................................................ 179.19 INTRUDER ACTIVE WINDOW........................................................................................ 189.20 SAR/LOST COMMUNICATIONS GEOGRAPHICAL WINDOW....................................... 189.21 AIRSPACE RESERVATION GEOGRAPHICAL WINDOW.............................................. 19

10. GENERAL COMMENTS .................................................................................................... 19

11. SUMMARY......................................................................................................................... 20

ANNEX I TRAINING AND EVALUATIONANNEX II QUESTIONNAIRE

EUROCONTROL Experimental CentreCAE/Iceland Demonstrator Evaluation ReportTask AR37/CAE : EEC Note No. 18/95

Page - 1

1. INTRODUCTION

The EUROCONTROL Experimental Centre (EEC) originally obtained the CAE IcelandOACC Demonstrator for use in conjunction with the Santa Maria OACC Simulation (EECTask AR24).

With the agreement of CAE, an evaluation of the demonstrator was undertaken byoperational, HMI and software experts at the EUROCONTROL Experimental Centre.The evaluation was limited to the HMI aspects of the demonstrator.

The demonstration comprised a single workstation which was concurrently running threemain functions; the flight data processing function, the user interface function and amessage scenario. The software was a pre-release version with some missing functionsand software “bugs.”

This note summarises the subjective opinion of the evaluation participants. It should benoted that some of the comments in this note are contrary to the customer’s specificationto CAE.

Where appropriate, EUROCONTROL includes CAE’s response to comments.

2. OBJECTIVES

The objectives of the evaluation were to :

• examine the system interface and operational functionality of the demonstrator,• to identify perceived benefits and possible limitations of that functionality.• examine the system functionality with regards to an oceanic control environment

including system-assisted:

◊ strip-handling,◊ co-ordination,◊ conflict probes, and◊ message handling.

3. PARTICIPATION

A total of ten experts participated in the evaluation:

• four controllers from Shanwick OACC (all with experience of Systems WorkingGroups),

• two EEC operational staff,• two EEC HMI staff, and• two EEC software staff.


Page - 2

4. EVALUATION CONDUCT

4.1 EVALUATION PERIOD

The evaluation took place at the EEC from the 9th May to the 2nd June 1994.Participating controllers were allocated a two day evaluation period each whilst EEC staffmembers participated for half a day.

4.2 EVALUATION EXPLANATION

Each participant was informed of his role in the evaluation and advised that the objectivewas "system evaluation, not participant evaluation." Specifically, the participants wereasked :

• to consider the operational aspects of the demonstrator concerning strip handling,co-ordination, conflict probing and message handling;

• to consider the ease of accessing and inputting data;• to consider the position and legibility of information, and use of colour.

A questionnaire was provided at the beginning of the evaluation to help guide controllersin the task.

4.3 PRESENTATION OF THE DEMONSTRATOR

The presentation of the demonstrator comprised a general description and a detailedexplanation of the system.

4.3.1 General Description

The general description included the following :

• presentation of various elements of the system e.g. keyboard, mouse, layout;• description of the sector layout (using the "on screen" sector map);• a short explanation of the change from "paper strips" to "electronic strips;"• provision of data to the system (flight plan);• a short explanation of how the exercise would proceed.

4.3.2 Functional Explanation

The detailed explanation of system functionality included the following :

• use of the mouse and keyboard for menu access and data input;• function of message queues;• strip window and the various "setting up" options;• strip layout and the callsign menu applications and sub-menus;• demonstration of position reports, clearance and conflict probe;• system assisted co-ordination;• application of colour;• airspace reservation and SAR window.


Page - 3

4.4 TRAINING

Training for participating controllers took the following form :

• demonstration of the functions to be evaluated (menus, input panels etc.)• repetition by the participant;• verbal "talk through" followed by an exercise

The aim of training was to give the participant a good understanding of the majorfunctions provided by the electronic strip environment.

5. EVALUATION AND DEBRIEFING

Participants were allowed to explore the system within a series of structured exercises.Exercises included:

• scripted events (verbal requests to change speed, levels etc..);• error detection (detection of incorrect data),• increased traffic loading to test strip handling and conflict management.

Participants were then left alone to explore the system functions (the experimenter wasavailable to prompt when necessary).

EUROCONTROL Experimental Centre staff participating in the evaluation were providedwith a "Hands On" presentation and were then encouraged to explore the system whilstcommenting on the demonstrator.

6. ANALYSIS

Analysis was based on participants subjective opinion expressed during and afterexercises and in a specifically designed questionnaire. Only the four Shanwickcontrollers completed the questionnaire.

The subjective opinion was evaluated by the Project Leader and Project Human FactorsExpert and is the subject of this note.

7. DEMONSTRATOR

7.1 OVERVIEW

The CAE/Iceland Demonstrator is a dynamic and interactive representation of the newReykjavik Flight Data Processing System (RFDPS). The demonstrator provides aninsight into the RFDPS controller/system interface which is based on electronic strips.

A Controller Work Station (CWS) comprises a 19 inch colour monitor, a three buttonmouse, keyboard and two strip printers (strip printers were not used). The controllercould access and operate more that one sector via the single display.


Page - 4

Data input is achieved via mouse and keyboard. Window management functionsincluding move, icon and scroll provide the operator with some flexibility when setting upthe display.

The RFDPS provides system assistance to the controller in the form of :

• flight plan processing (including repetitive FPL and data checking);• system assisted co-ordination;• conflict probing;• track deviation monitoring;• restrictive airspace management;• weather modelling.

7.2 FUNCTIONALITY

The evaluation concentrated on the functions available through the Sector Windowwhich effectively replaces the “strip bay.”

This window contains the electronic strips which provide the controller with the “look andfeel” of paper strips.

Strips are posted in a pending window and can be visualised in a strip preview window.The controller may move a strip into the strip bay by double clicking or copy/move mouseactions or automatically. In the event that the strip bay becomes full a scroll bar isavailable to display hidden strips. Several strip bay default formats are availableincluding a double strip bay.

An electronic strip contains the following data :

• callsign, type and speed;• co-ordination states;• flight level information;• position report information (past, current and future);• local/supplementary data (departure, destination, annotations, conflict indicator).

Data input is via mouse and/or keyboard action using a menu and sub-menu system.Most data input commences at the aircraft callsign displayed on the electronic strip whichprovides access to the following functions :

• SAR/Lost communications;• strip annotation;• strip highlighting;• flight data messages; • co-ordination;• transfer of control;• clearance formulation (with conflict

probe);• trial (conflict) probe;

• strip handling (move/copy, delete);• Supplementary data including :

◊ assign SSR code◊ turbulence report◊ show old data◊ show annotations◊ show (second) profile◊ show restrictions

• amend flight plan

Colour coding is used in the system to advise the controller of conditions such asdirection of flight (strips), position report (including overdue position reports), co-


Page - 5

ordination state, conflict situations, estimate revisions (also uses “flashing) and secondprofile data.

Messages displayed to or accessed by the controller are classified by type andpriority. Access to other functions is possible by interaction on a message format, forexample, access to the clearance window or position report window.

Other functions which are not covered by this evaluation include :

• flight plan management windows;• meteorology windows;• search and rescue/lost communications window;• system status window;• NOTAM data window;• Sectorisation window;• weather model;• message processing.

8. EVALUATION SCHEDULE

EVALUATION SCHEDULE - AR37/CAE EVALUATIONDAY AM PM

Tue 10 May ATCO Shanwick 1Wed 11 May ATCO Shanwick 1Thu 12 May ATCO Shanwick 1Mon 16 May ATCO Shanwick 2 ATCO Shanwick 2Tue 17 May ATCO Shanwick 2Mon 23 May EEC Soft 1Wed 25 May ATCO Shanwick 3 ATCO Shanwick 3Thu 26 May EEC HMI 1 ATCO Shanwick 3Fri 27 May EEC Ops 1 EEC HMI 2Mon 30 May EEC Ops 2Tue 31 May EEC Soft 2Wed 01 June ATCO Shanwick 4 ATCO Shanwick 4Thu 2 June ATCO Shanwick 4


Page - 6

9. ASSESSMENT

9.1 MOUSE

A three button mouse is used: B1 - select; B2 - Menu; B3 - Custom use. Click, press and drag, double clickfunctions.

The majority of participants considered that the mouse was under utilised. Severalparticipants did not like the mix of key board and mouse for data input as they preferredto concentrate on “on screen” information; it was felt that too much interaction betweenmouse and keyboard could result in “time wasting” hunting for the correct key (s).

It was suggested that the cursor was too small and that a larger “cross hair” type ofcursor would provide greater accuracy for selecting data.

The interface replicates accurately common strip features used in ATC today; better useof the mouse might be achieved if it were considered as a “physical metaphor” i.e. itshould replicate physical actions of the hand.

Participants were occasionally unsure whether an input action had been accepted or not;it was suggested that a “busy cursor” indication to provide feed back that the system hasaccepted an input would resolve this.

CAE RESPONSE : CAE agrees that mouse buttons are under-utilised. CAE designers areacquiring experience in “accepted” conventions and agree on the need for a scheme that is“intuitive.”

CAE agrees strongly that moving from a keyboard to mouse and vice-versa is undesirable. To thisend the system will be optimised to ensure that typical operations can be conveniently completedusing either the keyboard or the mouse, according to the user’s preference.

Cursor size - this is a cosmetic change.

Positive feedback - point taken.

9.2 KEYBOARD

keyboard functions include : general data input and function keys providing the same functions and data access asthe callsign menu.

No problems were experienced with the keyboard, nevertheless, participants preferred toinput data via the mouse.

It was suggested that function keys could be programmed to provide other functions thanthose already available through the callsign menu e.g. quick input access to panels forFlight Levels and speed.

CAE RESPONSE : CAE agrees that some function key assignments should be modified, based onuser experience.


Page - 7

9.3 WINDOW MANAGEMENT

Window management includes : move, resize, iconify, scroll by direct action or through a window tool box.

Participants were able to accidentally “lock” themselves out of the strip bay window. Thisoccurred by clicking on the window move function in the tool box located in the windowheader. The system positions the cursor in the middle of the window; the window cannow be positioned so that the header bar is outside of the display area. Once thetoolbox and header are no longer accessible the window cannot be repositioned.

Participants liked the flexible window management and indicated that the windowmanagement was sufficient for the system as presented.

However, it was suggested that a preference save function should be available whichwould permit controllers to save individual window settings at each working position. Itwas also considered that a selection of “default windows settings” would probably bemore convenient whilst remaining acceptable to most controllers.

Participants noted that :

• slider bars in different windows were of different colour and size;• window close buttons were inconsistent; participants were observed searching

window frames for a close button. Close could be achieved by menu (even when theonly menu function was “close”) or by close button found in various window positions;

• by double clicking in a window header (right button) it was (occasionally) possible toiconify the window (this would be operationally unacceptable).

CAE RESPONSE : The lockout problem was a bug and has been fixed.

Preference sets are feasible, but are they desirable?

For window reposition, it is easy to move a window, and the window “remembers” and will comeback to the new position.

With regard to fonts and colours, it could make the job of a supervisor or relieving controller difficult- the same data could look quite different from screen to screen. Changing font can change thewindow size and geometry. Changing colour can result in loss of contrast and hence illegibility.

Inconsistencies between windows will be corrected.

9.4 DATA DISPLAY

Single display with multi-windows, electronic strips and menu system to access functions either through keyboardand/or mouse input action.

All participants found the screen to be "HEAVY" with information when a selection ofwindows had been opened. Despite this, most participants were comfortable with thedisplay.

It was noticed that most of the participants resorted to touching the screen whendiscussing situations or pondering actions. This may indicate a need for a highlightingmechanism which could be made available via mouse interaction on an object. Such afunction should be selectable (on/off).


Page - 8

Several participants suggested that one display might be too restrictive for sectoroperations when a full strip bay is selected. A second display would provide an optionfor other functions such as data input on position reports and clearance formulation etc.

Participants felt that in general too many windows have been defined. It was consideredimportant to reduce the number of windows by creating one or several “general” windowswhich could combine commonly used applications e.g. position report with conflict probe.

On a number of occasions participants were not sure which windows belonged to whichaircraft and felt that they had to “read” too much data to find the answer.

CAE RESPONSE : Possible solutions to the problem of a “screen heavy with data” include use ofa second screen or a larger screen.

Screen touching phenomena - it is natural when explaining the system or a situation to point andtouch the screen. When the system is in operational use, most use will be one - to - one thereforeno need to point out things to oneself. Is screen touching a problem with radar systems?

Too many windows - which is best a few multi-purpose windows or a number of smaller windowswith very specific functionality? The system design currently represents a compromise.

The idea of having a selected “active” aircraft and highlighting on the screen all windows,messages, flight strips related to that aircraft has been discussed. It may be implemented as anenhancement.

9.5 COLOUR

Colour was used to define direction of flight (strips), message queue priority, position reports, co-ordination state,conflict indications, ETA revisions, second profile data.

Participants were not confused by the use of colour and did not experience difficulty inreading colour coded information.

The choice of “soft” pastel colours was considered to be very good. However,participants considered the highlight and delete colours to be virtually the same.

Strip colours (direction of flight) were considered too subtle. Participants could notalways distinguish eastbound flight strips (yellow/buff outline). It was suggested that toimprove detection of direction of flight :

• the strip background could be coloured coded; or• the strip holder edging could be thickened to designate more clearly the colour

coding; or• the callsign box, as a point of visual importance, could be colour coded. It was suggested that the overdue position report should be denoted by yellow, which isconsidered to be a warning colour, instead of the green used by the system.

The grey highlight colour was considered to be too similar to the bay header and deletestrip colours. All participants felt that the use of grey to highlight was wrong (i.e. it is a“low light”) The use of florescent green/orange or another “more striking” colour wassuggested.


Page - 9

Participants felt that colour could be more supportive, for example :

• outline a climbing (or descending) aircraft blocking strip;• clearly indicate the direction of flight;• highlight a conflict area;• define conflict pairs.

CAE RESPONSE : Colours are easily modified and will be adjusted before the system becomesoperational. It was found that with many colours and tones on the screen it is not easy to devise acolour scheme which does not, in some combinations, provide poor readability. For this reason,colour should not be a user selectable parameter.

The highlight and delete colours have been changed.

Strip colours indicating direction of flight will be made more distinct.

The overdue alert colour can be modified.

Other colour uses could added.

9.6 FONT

The possibility of having a choice of font size (or a choice of large and small charactersize) was considered to be worth evaluation.

CAE RESPONSE : Fonts can be easily modified. Some experimentation is required to determinethe best font sizes and styles to use. CAE is not sure whether is desirable to allow users to selecttheir preferred font size.

9.7 AURAL INFORMATION

The use of an “Aural Tone” (beep!) was generally disliked. Participants were not alwaysable to identify why a noise had been produced by the system.

It was felt that if several CWP’s are positioned together then it would be impossible toassociate a “beep” to a particular position. It was suggested that if the beep is importantthen something requiring acknowledgement should “pop out.”

CAE RESPONSE : There are two levels of aural warning :

single short duration “polite” beep (e.g. new message on queue).insistent “warning tone” (e.g. alert for overdue aircraft position report).

CAE agrees that it is not always obvious what has caused the short beep.CAE agrees that a room full of beeping terminals will be infuriating. Note: aural warnings can beturned off. The signals can also be modified (adaptable).

9.8 MENUS

The use of menus to access data was not always evident. Participants wereoccasionally confused and felt that the system was not particularly easy to use. Thismay be related to lack of system familiarity but was a common area of discussion.

The prime concern was the lack of direct access to functions.


Page - 10

CAE RESPONSE : In some cases push button selection might be better than menu selection; thisis a relatively easy convenience change to implement.

9.9 OUTSTANDING STRIP QUEUE

Provided a list of aircraft callsigns for flights which had been activated or posted to the sector.

The strip queue was considered to be useful for finding pending flight plans. However, itwas considered that the function of providing access to pending strips could becombined with the Strip preview window where additional strip data is displayed.

9.10 STRIP PREVIEW

Permits preview of strip before integration into the strip bay; is linked to strip queue. New strips selected in thestrip queue window are brought to the front of the strip preview window.

The strip preview was considered to be a positive feature. However, participants did nothave a feeling for the number of pending strips; this could be resolved with theintroduction of a simple counter and a scrolling mechanism providing access to pendingstrips. Such a function would make the New Strip Window obsolete thereby reducing thenumber of display windows.

It was noted that when a time update was made it was not reflected in the preview byflashing yellow ETA’s as in the strip bay.

A double click on a strip in the preview window to auto insert should be possible, as inthe new strip window.

CAE RESPONSE : The comment is not entirely clear. CAE interprets it as a suggestion for ascrolling preview area, in place of the strip queue and single strip preview area. This is a goodidea.

9.11 SECTOR MESSAGE QUEUE INDICATOR

Provides access to all messages which concern the sector; colour coding indicates the priority of pending messages.

All message formats were considered to be clear and concise by the participants.

Participants were not sure as to the priority of information displayed in the SectorMessage Window. The provision of a message ranking would resolve this problem (e.g.message category indicated by letter and sorted by priority).

There is no method of quickly highlighting or finding a strip in the strip bay to which aparticular message is related. This would be a useful and time saving feature.

Repeat messages remain in the queue. A method of comparing and discarding “old”messages would resolve this.

CAE RESPONSE : Relating messages to strips : see comment in section 9.4


Page - 11

9.12 STRIP BAY

A strip display area divided by level headers. Scrolling available to display hidden strips. A multi-use area isprovided for reserved airspace and SIGMET information.

Participants generally found the strip bay comfortable and easy to use.

The strip bay caused some problems when more strips were posted than could bedisplayed. Participants became frustrated with the amount of scrolling required butconsidered the scrolling mechanism easy to operate.

Although the system provides an “out of view” indicator there is no indication as to thenumber of hidden strips (except by reference to the scroll bar button size).

When the dual strip bay was selected and a significant number of strips were posted(more than twenty) the system slowed and became "jumpy" when scrolling.

It was considered disconcerting to have strips descending from the top of the secondstrip bay when scrolling; participants felt that strips in the second bay should scroll fromthe bottom upwards.

The use of the text CHANGE HEIGHT in the strip bay menu has operationalconnotations; an alternative command could be used e.g. “CHANGE BAY” or “CHANGESIZE”.

Several participants felt that once a strip had been integrated the strip bay should centreon that strip since the controllers next action will be to compare the new strip with otherstrips.

Controllers were unsure as to how strips were sorted in individual level bays.

CAE RESPONSE : The use of a larger screen e.g. 20 inch square format, will allow a much largerstrip bay. This would solve most of the observations about scrolling strips.

The rules for sorting strips are as follows :

Each sector has a focal point fix/meridian for sorting strips (e.g. 30W). The flight stripcolumn containing this should be aligned for all strips and should be in conventional order(first aircraft passed this point at the bottom of the level bay). Problems arise with aircraftwhich do not pass this fix/meridian and some arbitrary rules are used to insert these stripsinto the strip bay.

9.13 ELECTRONIC STRIP

An electronic strip with the “look and feel” of a paper strip. Strips are updated by the system and provide access toother functions through a callsign menu. Colour coding indicates the direction of flight, position status, co-ordination state, conflict situation, estimate revisions and new profile data

Participants considered that, with the exception of colour coding, the visualrepresentation of the strip was good. The strip handling (Copy/Move/Comparisonfunctions) was considered to be good. However, some aspects of the strip HMI causedcomment and this is summarised below.

CAE RESPONSE : CAE prototyped several electronic strip formats. It was found hard to improveon the paper strips now used, so the electronic strips are very similar to these.


Page - 12

9.13.1 Strip Interaction

Interaction may be by mouse and/or keyboard. Pre-defined function keys provide direct access to certain systemfunctions. A system of menus leads the operator to the required function. Most control related functions areaccessed through the callsign menu.

The majority of data input for a flight is commenced via action on the callsign leading to amenu choice. All participants found the callsign menu to be restrictive and too heavywith data. It was felt that direct action on text fields or in specific areas of the strip shouldbe exploited.

It was observed during the evaluation that once participants became familiar with systemfunctions they intuitively clicked on text areas to try to open windows.

A direct access option would offer a potential reduction in the number of mouse clickactions required to accomplish a function, for example, acknowledging a change of ETAor position report.

Examples suggested for direct input action include :

• co-ordination box - co-ordination;• level box - profile (level change);• position box - position report and profile (route change option);• departure or destination identifier - flight plan access;• speed - profile (speed change/restriction);• non text areas - highlight.

It was suggested that the callsign menu should close when another aircraft’s callsignmenu is opened. Currently it must be independently closed.

It was felt that when a strip changes to grey and is in the “delete state” there is only oneaction that can be taken - delete. In this case clicking anywhere on the strip shoulddelete it.

The delete strip function of positioning the mouse cursor on a “hot spot” in the callsignbox was considered too difficult to achieve quickly due to the high level of accuracyrequired. Participants suggested that a large fixed area (for example a square in thecallsign box) should be displayed when the strip is in a “delete state.”

CAE RESPONSE : Direct selection of fields in strips is a convenience feature. Implementation isunder consideration.

9.13.2 Strip Flight Level Box

Displays Reported FL (upper); Cleared FL (middle); RFL (lower).

Display of flight level information in this box was considered to be potentially confusingand open to misinterpretation.

In this example the aircraft was cleared to climb to FL370, however,it is possible to interpret the aircraft situation to be at FL370 andcleared to FL330.

330↑370330


Page - 13

The correct sorting of flight levels and positioning of climb/descentarrows is essential to ensure correct “reading” and safe interpretationof an aircraft’s current level situation

CAE RESPONSE : CAE feels that the larger font used for the cleared flight level is unambiguous.

9.13.3 Route Information

Route data showing, past, current and future positions with colour coding.

It was noted that when there were more flight plan navigation points than reporting pointboxes in the strip no indication was provided that additional points were not displayed. Ifthe controller is unaware of such a situation the posting of an overdue position report(with no visual strip indication) could cause confusion. In addition, the controller cannottest a hidden navigation point for conflicts; this is potentially unsafe.

A visual indication of “hidden” navigation points should be provided together with someform of access, for example, press and drag or press and hold to “pop out” the data.

Controllers felt that the continued display of past positions was unnecessary. Such datacould be removed or indeed the positions could “roll up.” It would always be possible torecall past data via action on the strip, for example, scrolling the position boxes.

It was suggested that “Out of Conformance” could be indicated directly by showing thetime (or flight level) difference on the strip in a warning colour. Direct input action on thistext could pop up the position report window or new clearance window.

CAE RESPONSE : Software has now been changed so there are no hidden fixes. If ,more thanseven fixes are needed by a sector the strip is double height, allowing a second set of seven fixes.

CAE cannot see the benefit of rolling up passed fixes or clearing the fields. This would spoil thealignment of common fix/meridian boxes. Displaying passed fixes in low contrast seems a goodsolution.

The out of conformance suggestion is worth considering.

9.13.4 Second Profile Data

Second profile indicated by popping out the route box area - when displayed (callsign menu option) colourcoding is used to distinguish state of second profile ( under co-ordination, awaiting read backacknowledgement)

The application of “popping out” the route boxes to indicate a second (pending) profilewas considered to be insufficient. Not all of the participants were able to detect thatthese boxes had been “popped out.” This is perhaps an area where greater use ofcolour could be beneficial.

CAE RESPONSE : CAE agrees that second profile strips could be better differentiated.


Page - 14

9.13.5 General Comments Concerning Strip HMI

Several changes or additions to the HMI were proposed :

• there appears to be a need for a quick change from a normal strip to a mini strip inorder to reduce the amount of information displayed. Definition of a mini strip in thisinstance relates to its height or “thickness;”

• there does not appear to be a strip retrieval capability. It was suggested that a strip

bin should be provided to dump and/or retrieve strips. The electronic strip system aspresented replicates standard strip functions of today so the provision of a strip binwould maintain the “physical metaphor;”

• the strip highlight function should not be specific to the callsign menu. Clicking

anywhere on the strip (except on text) should permit highlighting; • when an aircraft is transferred, crossing out the callsign or the entire strip would

replicate current practice and resolve the confusion with strip highlighting (bothcoloured grey);

• "dead wood" (strips which are no longer active in the sector) could be removed from

the strip display by the system and not the controller. This could be an auto-deletefunction related to a time period which would make better use of the system. Theprovision of a “strip bin” would provide a strip retrieval option;

• when large number of strips are posted it should be clear if there are hidden strips for

aircraft at the same flight level. This could be achieved by always leaving half a stripvisible to indicate more aircraft at same level but hidden from display;

• the conflict indicator does not readily attract attention. Highlighting the reporting

point(s) box where a conflict is predicted to take place or indeed the whole strip,would make the situation more conspicuous and would be clearly seen when acontroller scrolls through the strips;

• participants found it annoying that an annotation (free text commentary) was not

displayed immediately following input. When an annotation is entered a “displaynow” option should be available. In addition, it should be possible to temporarilydisplay annotations; this could be achieved by press and hold action on theannotation symbol in the strip;

• an aircraft reporting reduced MNPS increases separation requirements and should

be clearly indicated; the current indication is considered to be insufficient.

CAE RESPONSE : It is easy to implement mini-strips but controllers must agree on what would bedisplayed on a mini-strip.

The strip bin is a good suggestion.

For the highlight, a mouse button combination could be used to turn on/off.

For aircraft transferred, the problem was with highlight colour, which was too similar to the thendeleted strip colour; this is resolved.

CAE tried an auto-remove however, the customer wanted all strip deletions to be manual.


Page - 15

The hidden strip suggestion is worth considering.

For conflict indication, a red indicator is displayed in the fix box immediately before conflict; it is notsure if this was in the demonstration release.

The annotation comment is a good suggestion.

The MNPS comment is a good suggestion.

9.13.6 Blocking Strip

System created strip positioned in level bays to be traversed by an aircraft cleared to a new level.

The use of a standard strip indicating that an aircraft has been cleared through one ormore level bands may potentially increase the controllers workload. The provision ofsome form of coding, for example colour, to distinguish a “blocking Strip” could reduceworkload by highlighting their temporary nature.

Additionally, when a report has been entered indicating that the aircraft is now clear ofthe level band (s) the system could automatically remove the “blocking strip.”

CAE RESPONSE : Differentiation of blocking strips is not difficult to implement.

CAE tried an auto-remove, however, the customer wanted all strip deletions to be manual.

9.14 POP UP WINDOWS

Text in pop up windows was considered to be too small.

It appears that there is no limit on the number of pop up windows that can be opened(i.e. possible to open a clearance window for every aircraft displayed). This should belimited to avoid confusion.

It was suggested that data should be accessible through areas of the strip other than thecallsign e.g. position report from the reporting point, co-ordination from the co-ordinationbox, level changes from the level box.

The positioning of pop up windows when opened tends to hide strip data. Pre-defineduser preferences for pop up positions should be available.

CAE RESPONSE : The text size is adjustable (cosmetic).

CAE agree that a limit on the number of windows that can be opened is desirable.

Window pop-up by direct selection of fields in strips (rather than by strip menu) is underconsideration.

CAE agrees that the demonstrator release used some illogical default positions. CAE is not sure ifuser preference sets are really necessary.


Page - 16

9.15 COORDINATION

Used to initiate, inhibit, release, accept, reject coordination or indicate manually done. Colour coded to indicatestate.

The method of displaying coordination in the strip was considered to be good. However,participants would have preferred to access coordination by direct mouse action in thecoordination strip box.

It was also felt important that ongoing coordination or coordination requirements shouldbe apparent in the clearance window so that the controller knows in advance that anaction is not possible or has to be completed/started.

The coordination initiation pop up window uses a back ground colour to show thatcoordination is in progress; a more common approach would be to “grey out” the box toshow that the function is in progress or is not available.

The use of the text “CANCEL” in the initiate window could be taken to mean close popup instead of cancel or inhibit the clearance.

CAE RESPONSE : Access to coordination functions by direct selection of coordination indicatorsin strips (rather than by strip menu) would be convenient and is worth consideration.

9.16 POSITION REPORT

Provides data on flight plan ETA and pilot ETA for a fix, pilot level report; permits update of ETA, position reportand flight level.

This window was considered to be very easy to use by the participants. However, it wasfelt that the text character size should be bigger and that time “out of conformance”should be highlighted e.g. yellow characters would be easily detected.

Participants suggested that :

• when the ENTER button is clicked to accept a report the window should closeautomatically;

• if the controller does not accept the report it should be possible to go direct to theclearance window.

CAE RESPONSE : Good comment.

9.17 CLEARANCE WINDOW

Permits controller to define a clearance (with restrictions), to probe the clearance and to send the clearance to theradio operator or to indicate clearances transmitted by VHF. A clearance may be saved for future use.

This window was considered to be comprehensive and easy to use, especially theconflict probe function. However, some comments were made concerning data input, theuse of syntax and conflict probing.

It was felt that it should not be necessary to input F when entering a Flight Level value orM when entering MACH numbers. The system could be programmed to default toaltitude/flight level or TAS/MACH according to the phase of flight.


Page - 17

When either CLEAR or CLEARVHF are selected it was felt that the clearance windowshould close automatically. Selection of CLEAR or CLEARVHF generally indicates nofurther action in that window.

The use of syntax for formulating clearance restrictions was totally rejected by allparticipants as being too time consuming and open to error.

It was suggested that clearance restrictions could be displayed in common groupingsand that these should be available by pull down menu. Only levels and time restrictionsshould be entered by the keyboard or a mouse scroll mechanism as provided in thesystem.

A “quick list” of commonly used clearance restrictions could be provided via menu access(called down by mouse input).

It was felt that the conflict report window could form part of the clearance window therebyreducing the number of window to be handled.

Some participants expressed concern that the system composed a clearance even whena conflict had been detected by the trial probe. It was felt that this should be inhibiteduntil a new conflict free clearance has been formulated.

CAE RESPONSE : Good comment.

A clearance restriction composition tool would be useful. Prototyping should be conducted todetermine the best method of entry of restrictions.

Possibly some form of displaying the resulting profile showing time/geographic/level implicationswould be convenient.

It must be possible to prepare clearance text, even though a future conflict situation may bepredicted. This is sometimes required e.g. the controller may know that the conflicting aircraft willbe going to climb to another flight level long before the actual loss of separation.

CAE agrees that display of a future conflict detected as a result of a probe could be displayed moredistinctly than an actual conflict although the controller needs the same information in both cases.

9.18 TRIAL PROBE WINDOW

Permits the controller to test a new profile.

This window was considered to be comprehensive and easy to use. However, severalparticipants questioned the need for separate trial probe and clearance windows whichprovide similar functions. It was suggested that these windows should be combined.

CAE RESPONSE : The original intention was that this window would be used by a controller whowas not in control of this aircraft e.g. to evaluate alternative coordination parameters to thoseoffered. The trial probe window does not have a clearance delivery option and the window showsthe current profile, the proposed profile and has a working area to prepare and probe a third profile.


Page - 18

9.19 INTRUDER ACTIVE WINDOW

Indicates to the controller that a conflict has been detected. Remains displayed until conflict situation is resolved.

The default position for the intruder active window overlays the strip preview windowthereby blocking pending strips from view. As the window cannot be moved or cleared itconstrains the controllers ability to validate strips before integration into the strip display.This was considered to be very restrictive by the participants.

It was felt that a window of such importance should convey more information such as thenature of the predicted conflict i.e. :

• catching up/overtaking;• crossing;• climbing/descending through an occupied FL.

The function of this window was considered ideal for a graphical representation of thepredicted conflict situation.

Participants felt that there was not enough urgency conveyed by the window. Colourcould be used to draw attention, for example, window outline in red or warning/urgentcolour used as a window background.

It was also felt that there should be a visual link between the intruder active window andthe strip (s) of the aircraft involved, for example, linking by cocking out the strip (s) or byuse of colour and text.

CAE RESPONSE : The window can now be moved but it cannot be deleted or hidden underanother window. Information is available in the conflict report window, including :

a) Rule (same direction, crossing, etc. )b) Required and actual separation.c) Point and time of loss of separation.d) Point and time of minimum separation.e) Point and time of regaining separation.

A geographic representation of the conflict situation, while useful, was outside of the scope of thiscontract.

9.20 SAR/LOST COMMUNICATIONS GEOGRAPHICAL WINDOW

Displays a static image of the last reported aircraft position and system predicted current position on a map overlay.

This was considered to be a good option.

Participants suggested that direct input would be useful in order to determine anaircraft’s latitude and longitude; for example, clicking on the aircraft’s callsign could popout a latitude and longitude readout window.

It was observed that on occasion callsigns overlapped and could not be read. A callsignanti-overlap function could resolve this.

CAE RESPONSE : A fully dynamic geographic situation display would supersede this window.CAE has developed such a window but it is outside the scope of this contract.


Page - 19

9.21 AIRSPACE RESERVATION GEOGRAPHICAL WINDOW

Displays an image of reserved or restricted airspace on a map overlay.

This was considered to be a good option. It was suggested that it should be possible toopen the airspace reservation window directly from the airspace reservation strip.

It was suggested that the airspace reservation graphic display should show aircraftpositions and current North Atlantic Tracks.

CAE RESPONSE : See comments in 9.20

10. GENERAL COMMENTS

The following comments were made by participants during the evaluation :

• The window close function was considered to be inconsistent with different actionsrequired in different windows. It was suggested that a single close option positionedin the window header would be acceptable. Additionally, this would make good useof a “wasted” display area.

• On occasion participants accidentally iconified windows (usually the main strip

display) by inadvertently clicking the right mouse button in the window header bar.Protection should be provided against such a situation.

• The clock provided in the system management window was considered to be too

small. A clock of greater size with larger characters is required. • Participants found the use of graphic "Plan view" displays in the SAR and airspace

reservation windows to be very good and wondered why greater use of this capabilitywas not made with regard to visualising aircraft positions.

It was felt that graphics could readily display active NAT tracks with aircraft positions

and level allocations. Such a display could be dynamic with both “reported” and“predicted” aircraft positions being displayed to the controller in a radar type image.

CAE RESPONSE : The comments concerning inconsistency between windows e.g. closingwindows, is cosmetic; CAE plans to eliminate all inconsistencies.

The accidental iconification of windows is no longer possible.

Change of the clock size is a cosmetic adjustment.

Implementation of a geographic display is not in the scope of the contract.

CAE is not qualified to enter the debate as to whether situation displays are necessary or desirablefor oceanic and procedural control. CAE is happy to leave organisations such as EUROCONTROLto provide guidance. CAE can easily add a situation display. A prototyping exercise could then beconducted to evaluate the performance of controllers with and without the help of a situationdisplay.


Page - 20

11. SUMMARY

Participants found the demonstrator interface and functions to be comprehensive.However, data input and menu management would appear to be onerous.

Both the mouse and keyboard were easy to use although participants tended towards amouse operation.

Greater flexibility and a reduced number of data inputs could be achieved by using themouse input device in a more direct fashion. Clicking on specified text fields (using anobject oriented approach) rather than relying on a main menu for access to functionswould reduce the number of input actions.

Data input should be immediately acknowledged by the system to avoid unnecessary‘double-clicks’.

The use of colour was considered to be good but could be extended further.

It was felt that too many windows had been defined and that the demonstrator requiredtoo many input actions to achieve system update (for example, up to 8 mouse/keyboardactions may be necessary to change a flight level).

Window manipulation was not standardised and general actions (e.g. closing a window)required different actions in different windows.

Default positions for pop up windows would improve window layout. The use of personalpreferences for controllers and a choice of defaults should be considered.

A method of locking or disabling window movement should be provided, since unwantedwindow manipulation, or accidental iconification of a working window can be extremelydisruptive of the controllers’ work pattern. It should not be possible for the controller toaccidentally ‘lock himself out’ of windows he needs to use.

Although the general design of the electronic strips was satisfactory, there were someunresolved problems. In particular, the directional coding was too subdued, and conflictindication was too inconspicuous.

Strip management was not ideal, and automatic removal of ‘dead wood’, combined witha possibility to call back deleted strips was suggested. (Human Factors Specialists pointout, however, that in other full length real time simulations automatic strip removal wasdisruptive because controllers found strips had moved without their knowledge). Amethod of ‘cocking’ strips with the mouse should be considered.

The system assisted coordination, position report information and clearance compositionand probing was found to be good. However, the requirement to input whole lines of textsubject to syntax validation when formulating clearance restrictions was consideredunacceptable. The use of standard pre-defined clearances was proposed.

Controllers liked the graphical windows and felt that the graphical display principle couldbe usefully extended to other data such as conflict “Intruder Active” windows.

From a Human Factors point of view, it is interesting that two of the four participatingcontrollers reported occasional soreness of the eyes and that some lettering was felt tobe too small.


Page - 21

The appearance of these phenomena in a short-term evaluation is a definite dangersignal for a system that will be used every day for years by ageing controllers. If it is notpossible to provide a means of increasing lettering and symbol sizes, great care must betaken that medical norms for CRT use are respected, and that defocusing of displays isnot allowed to occur. (It is not sufficient to wait for complaints from the users, who maysuffer severe effects before becoming aware of their cause).

Two out of the four controllers wore spectacles, one wore contact lenses.

The demonstrator represents the transformation of a traditional paper-and-pencil systemto the use of electronic display systems, at a level between menu-driven and hypertextapproaches. As such it replicates much of the functionality of a traditional ATC system.Further evolution should profit from greater use of the data organising and displaycapacity of such modern electronic systems.

ANNEX I

ANNEX I - TRAINING AND EVALUATION

EUROCONTROL EXPERIMENTAL CENTRECAE/Iceland Demonstrator Evaluation reportTask AR37/CAE : EEC Note No. 18/95

Page - I

ANNEX I - TRAINING AND EVALUATION

The list of functions below provided the basis for training and evaluation

Menus

MessagesStatusWeatherReservationsRepetitive FPLFlight Plan Enter/Edit

Show Sector Map (Hidden)

Strip Area

Strip DisplayMulti-PurposeChange HeightPositionSortColumn ModeEnter Flight Plan

Message WindowNew Strip WindowStrip Preview Window

Window Management

Mouse use

ScrollingIconify

Message Queues

Pending StripsSector Message WindowStrip PreviewMini Callsign Menu

WKSN (Work Station)SHSUPFDCPFDEP

Strip Layout

Callsign Box

SSR CodeType

Speed (MACH)

Current Sector ColourCoordinating Box (Black-Done, InverseVideo-Being Done, Green-To Be Done,Orange-Needs To Be Done)

Flight Level Box

Actual Reported LevelRFLCleared LevelStarArrow

Route Box

Grey Background Text BlackGrey Background Text GreyBlue BackgroundGreen TextYellowSecond Profile (indented)

Info BoxDeparture ICAODestination ICAORemarks (MNPS Annotations etc.)

Strip ColourBlueBuff

Strip Input

Using Function Keys

F1 Highlight StripF2 Show RemarksF3 Show ClearanceF4 Show 2nd ProfileF5 Position ReportF6 Clearance

F7 Change AckF8 Show OldF9 Trial ProbeF10 Amend FPLF11 SAR/LostF12 Delete

EUROCONTROL EXPERIMENTAL CENTRECAE/Iceland Demonstrator Evaluation reportTask AR37/CAE : EEC Note No. 18/95

Page 2

Using Callsign Menu (Mouse)

Options

SAR/LostEnter AnnotationsHighlight StripMessagesPrint StripSuppress MEA WarningInvoke MEA WarningLimited MNPSRemove Restrictions

Coordinate

InitiateInhibitReleaseAcceptRejectDone

Clearance

Open

AcknowledgeReject

Trial ProbePosition ReportRadar ContactVHF ContactTurbulenceAssign SSR CodeChange AcknowledgeShow OldShow AnnotationShow Second ProfileShow ClearanceAmend Flight Plan

Clearance

Second ProfileProbeClear (VHF)CancelReporting InstructionsInsert FixAdd Reporting Points

Position ReportCoordinationTransfer of Control

ANNEX II

QUESTIONNAIRE

EUROCONTROL EXPERIMENTAL CENTRECAE/Iceland Demonstrator Evaluation ReportTask AR37/CAE : EEC Note No. 18/95

Page - I

ANNEX II - QUESTIONNAIRE

Note :

Only the four controllers from Shanwick were requested to complete thequestionnaire.

For convenience, their replies have been combined with the questionnaire.

Some controllers did not respond to certain questions; totals may not always beequal to four.

Written comments have been transcribed.


Page - II

1. BACKGROUND INFORMATION

1.1 PERSONAL DETAILS

Your Height (metres) 1.59m - 1.87m

Your Weight (Kg) 65 - 84

Your Age (years) 43 - 49

(circle your response)

Do you normally wear contact lenses? Yes 1 No 3

Do you normally wear spectacles? Yes 2 No 2

If you wear spectacles, do you wear them

for near objects (reading)? Yes 2 No 1for distant objects? Yes 2 Nowhen working? Yes 2 No

Did you find difficulty distinguishing the colours used? Yes No 4

Are you colour blind? Yes No 4

With which hand do you write? Right 4 Left

While taking part in this exercise did you -

Never Once 2 - 5 Times Often Always

Feel tired 4

Feel Giddy 4

Feel your eyes were sore 2 2

Feel your arms ache 4

Feel head ache 4

Feel back ache 4

Feel sick 4

Feel anxious 3 1


Page - III

1.2 WORK EXPERIENCE

Before you took part in this experiment how much had you used computer typeequipment? (tick your choice)

About once per Never Year Month Week Day

Keyboard 4

Mouse 1 3

Rolling Ball 3

Display Screen 4

"Windows" 1 3

Home Computer 1 1 2

Video Games 2 1 1

Automatic Bank 1 1 2

Do you participate in any ATC working groups? Yes 4 No

2. DIALOGUE

2.1 THE MOUSE

• Was the Mouse generally (circle your choice)

Good Adequate Poor

3 - 1 - -

• When you moved the mouse how did the cursor move (circle your choice)

Too fast Just right Too slow

- 1 3 - -

• Did you ever have difficulty in locating the cursor on the screen? (circle yourchoice)

Never Occasionally Always

- 3 - 1 -


Page - IV

• Did you experience difficulty in accurately placing the cursor on a text field fordata input or to pop-up a window? (circle your choice)


- 1 3 - -

• Were you confused as to which button to use when operating the mouse?(circle your choice)


1 1 2 - -

• General Comments on the use of the mouse.

“Mouse functionality generally good, but cursor arrow too small - when displayed asX size about right”

“Smooth moving - fitted into hand nicely - felt comfortable”

“I felt sometimes I was ’too quick’ for the mouse - I was tending to move out of thebox before ‘clicking’”

“No problems. More use could have been made of the different buttons for differentfunctions”

2.2 KEYBOARD

• Was the keyboard functionality generally? (circle your choice)

Good Adequate Poor

2 - 2 - -

• Was the application of the Function Keys (circle your choice)

Good Adequate Poor

2 - 1 1 -

• Did you ever have difficulty in entering data via the keyboard? (circle yourchoice)


1 2 - 1 -

• General Comments on the use of the keyboard.


Page - V

“Infinitely prefer mouse to keyboard! Keyboard was not used apart from delete andchange acknowledge”

“No real problems - as little keyboarding as possible - the mouse is far quicker andmore accurate (unless you are a skilled keyboarder)”

“The “insert” “Home” keys etc. could be programmed with “W” for west, “E” for east,“N” for North, and possibly “F” for flight level and “M” for Mach no. to make inputtingchanges quicker. These keys are close to the number pad and using them inconjunction with the number pad is quicker than finding the letters on the QWERTYkeyboard”

• Did you prefer one particular input device? (circle your choice)

NO KEYBOARD MOUSE 2 - 1

3. WINDOW MANAGEMENT

• Did you find the windows easy to manage ( move, icon, close etc.) (circle yourchoice)

Not at All Mostly Completely

- 1 1 1 1

• Were you always able to locate the window management functions (iconify,enlarge, close) in a window? (circle your choice)

YES2

NO 2

• If NO, what were you not able to locate?

“Position of “choices” should be standard in all applications, otherwise leads toconfusion.

I would have liked a “close” icon in a common position in all windows.”


Page - VI

• General Comments on the Window Management

“It is possible to display too many windows thus blocking valuable information.

Windows should have pre-allocated positions to ensure that the main strip displayis visible at all times.”

“Window management is not a problem - just too many windows available - moreinformation could/should be combined to make it simpler to locate the information.”

“I don’t want to have to manage windows. The system should do it. The windowsshould display themselves in a defined position, according to their functions andshould avoid overlaying other windows containing information relevant to thefunction being carried out.”

4. SCREEN INTERFACE

• Were you comfortable with the display? (circle your choice)

Not at all Mostly Completely

- 1 1 - 2

• Did you consider that having an "All on Screen" interface, i.e. all informationand commands accessible from the same support, to be a good idea? (circleyour choice)


- 1 - 1 2

• Do you consider a multi-window working environment to be a positive directionfor future ATC systems? (circle your choice)


- 1 - 1 2

• General Comments on the Screen Interface

“If multi-windows are to be used, strict conventions will have to control whichinformation is available at any given time and instant return to ‘main’ window mustbe available.

Simplicity must be the main guiding principle with the number of windows reducedto the minimum compatible with the task to be performed.”


Page - VII

“The screen was too small for all the functions to be carried out without interferingwith each other. A larger screen or two screens would have avoided so muchoverlaying or scrolling to find information”

5. USE OF COLOUR

• Were you ever confused by the function of colour? (circle your choice)


1 3 - - -

• Did any of the colours used cause you difficulty in reading text e.g. in the stripwindow or menus? (circle your choice)


2 1 1 - -

• If your answer was between 2 and 5, please indicate the colour (s) whichcaused you difficulty?

“Differentiation between shades of grey”

• Please write any particular observations that you might wish to makeconcerning the use of colour?

“Amber may be more appropriate on the strip as a warning on the strip for overdueposition reports (as was used for co-ordination overdue.)”

“ The FPS Should be coloured for the direction of flight, rather than the thin band”

“Should definitely be used.”

• General Comments on the use of Colour

“More use of colour would be acceptable providing a standard convention isapplied i.e. Red to get attention to urgent situations, amber to warn and green toconfirm or indicate acceptance.”

“ I feel that if you have the option of using more colour to define functions, e.g.direction of flight, then it should be used to the full.”

“All Westbound strips should be Blue, All Eastbound strips should be Buff, all‘Crossers’ should be Pink. All conflicts should be highlighted (edge) in red, and theparticular area of conflict brought out in a darker shade of the relevant colour.”


Page - VIII

6. MENUS

• Were you ever confused by the information provided in a menu? (circle yourchoice)


- 1 1 2 -

• Did you find the menu facility easy to use? (circle your choice)


1 1 1 1 -

• General Comments on the Menus

“Menu should be accessed through function on strip. i.e. if level modification isrequired access should be through the flight level box on strip; -if co-ordination,then through co-ordination box. An additional advantage to this approach to menuswould be a larger and easier-to-use menu. Keep it SIMPLE!”

“Menu could also illuminate any function which is required to be done - e.g. positionreport due - whenever menu accessed position report. Should be ‘illuminated’(Colour? flashing?) as aid to controller.”

“At the beginning I found them a little confusing, but soon became familiar withthem.”

“Perhaps with more exposure to the system, over a period of weeks or months, onewould start to ‘find ones way’ about the menus, but initially I found them a littleconfusing and offering too much information.”

“Some menus contained only one item and were therefore pointless. Other menuswere too long making selection from them too slow.”

“I would prefer, whenever possible to have direct access to functions by pointingand clicking on a relevant part of the strip e.g. click on a position box to obtain theposition report input window.”


Page - IX

7. STRIP WINDOW

• Did you consider the Electronic strip window easy and comfortable to use?(circle your choice)


- - 1 1 2

• Was the letter size in the Electronic Strip window (circle your choice)

Too big Adequate Too small

- - 4 - -

“Callsign size good. All other numerals/letters too small. I felt it unnecessary tohave all the “Westings” on individual strips. This could be put at the top of the stripdisplay, since the 10/20/30W etc. all appear in the same box of the FPS. In thisway you could increase the size of the Northings.”

“ BUT! size should be variable to suit controller requirement”

• Was the colour coding for direction in the Electronic strip window (circle yourchoice)

Too strong Adequate Too weak

- 1 - - 3

“Entire strip should be coloured”

• Was the background colour of the Electronic strip window (circle your choice)

Too light Adequate Too dark

1 - 3 - -

• Was there anything in the Electronic strip that could be left out (circle yourchoice)

YES 2

NO 2


Page - X

• If YES, what?

“Levels/responsible sector. If you “own” the sector, why do you need to be told?Levels need only appear in the end box if aircraft is climbing or descending,otherwise you can have a level header at the top of the strip display.”

“Sector responsible is only needed when transition of responsibility is in progress.“Historical” level not required once at new level.”

• Was there anything missing from the Electronic strip window that you needed?(circle your choice)

YES2

NO 2

• If YES, what?

“There was no indication of where a climb which may have been cleared in thefuture, would take place. Not all reporting points were displayed.”

“All positions at which reporting may be made should be available. Leveloccupancy should be indicated when transiting a climb. i.e. if climbing 330 to 370,when reported through 350, it should be indicated.”

• Did you find the method for strip manipulation to be (circle your choice)

Good Adequate Poor

2 1 - - 1

• General Comments on the Strip window

“When two levels are shown on the strip, they should be shown the correct wayround, i.e. lower below higher. When extra reporting points were added, the stripdoubled in depth, but positions were not logically positioned on strip. The routeboxes should scroll in order to show exceptionally long routes, and to enablereporting points to be aligned relative to each other.”

“Very easy on the eye. As mentioned above, a better arrangement would be tohave headers at the top of the strip display i.e. TRACK A FL 350 TRACK B Fl 330and alongside this (and in line with the FPSs the Westings (10deg W to 60deg W.)”

“I found that for climbing or descending traffic the presentation in the box wasconfusing, I would prefer to see the cleared level for climbing at the top of the box,and for descending at the bottom. I found it disconcerting that a position need notnecessarily be displayed on the strip and that a flight could be overdue.”

“Ability to highlight strips inadequate - cock-out preferred. “Historic positions shouldbe deleted or deletable, Conflict presentation inadequate - flash or colour changeaffected strips.


Page - XI

8. CLEARANCE WINDOW

• Did you consider the Clearance window easy and comfortable to use? (circleyour choice)


- 1 2 - 1

”Too much information scattered about. A little difficult to locate what you want.However this would improve with exposure”

“Cleared profile should be displayed in the same way as new profile.”

• Was the letter size in the Clearance window (circle your choice)


- - 2 1 1

• Was the background colour of the Clearance window (circle your choice)


- - 4 - -

• Was there anything in the Clearance window that could be left out (circle yourchoice)

YES3

NO1

• If YES, what?

“Having to type F in Flight level box, M in Mach No box.”

“‘Historic’ information in routing”

• Was there anything missing from the Clearance window that you needed?(circle your choice)

YES4

NO -


Page - XII

• If YES, what?

“Reminder to co-ordinate clearance with adjacent agencies”

“Quicker access to new profile times for restriction purposes”

• Did you find the construction of a clearance in the Clearance window (circleyour choice)

Easy Adequate Difficult

- 1 1 2 -

• General Comments on the Clearance window

“Unable to ‘easily’ construct a message e.g. “X 20W LVL At Flxxx” or “X 20W 1403”

“The clearance window is precisely that - making a clearance. This involves either achange in level, speed or route - therefore these should be highlighted and in boldtype. You should be able to ‘click’ onto them and then be offered the choice ofwhat to do.”

“Having to use syntax to set up a clearance was very poor. The system should beable to insert a way-point between two consecutive reporting points based on atime, crossing a latitude or crossing a longitude. There should be a flight level +mach number box beside each waypoint box and the complete profile could be setup using these boxes.”

9. POSITION REPORT WINDOW

• Did you consider the Position report window easy and comfortable to use?(circle your choice)


- - 3 - 1

• Was the letter size in the Position report window (circle your choice)


- - 2 1 1

• Was the background colour of the Position report window (circle your choice)


- - 4 - -


Page - XIII

• Was there anything in the Position report window that could be left out (circleyour choice)

YES2

NO2

• If YES, what?

“ When ENTER is selected, the statement “Position Report has been added ...”need not appear - the window should simply close.

• Was there anything missing from the Position report window that you needed?(circle your choice)

YES-

NO3

• If YES, what?

• Did you find the validation of ATC and Pilot reports (circle your choice)

Easy Adequate Difficult

2 - 1 1 -

• General Comments on the Position Report window

“I’m not sure about the advisability of putting default values into the pilot reportboxes. There is a danger of entering these into the system and not noticing that thepilot has actually said something different”

“I was able to compare the ATC estimates and see the A/C report very easily, andwould be able to accept an aircraft report that required verifying quicker than withthe current system at Shanwick.”

“If the reports are within the accepted parameters they should be automaticallyaccepted by the system and the FPSs updated without reference to the controller.If outside the parameters, then the report should be referred to the controller toaccept or reject or query.”

“ATC and Pilot times and levels should be adjacent for comparison.”


Page - XIV

10. CONFLICT PROBE INFORMATION

• Did you understand the conflict probe information in the PLOS window (circleyour choice)


- 1 1 1 1

• Did you consider the indication of a conflict as marked on an Electronic strip tobe (circle your choice)

Good Adequate Poor

1 - - - 3

• General Comments on the Conflict Probe Information

“1. The result of the conflict probe should appear within the clearance window notelsewhere on the screen.

2. I’m disturbed by the fact that a message is created authorising the change ofprofile, even although there is a conflict. It would be too easy to send thisinadvertently

3. It should be easier to cancel the new profile.”

“I found it much easier to understand where the conflict would occur than in thecurrent Shanwick system.

Again, as I used the system more, I became much more aware of the meaning ofthe conflict message.

When a strip has been deleted (properly!) and subsequent traffic lost separation,the traffic left on display shows but the other traffic is not displayed, so conflictCANNOT be resolved. Any method of calling traffic out of data base?”

“As mentioned earlier, if a conflict exists, then I would like the aircraft concerned tobe highlighted with a red line around the FPS. Additionally, I would like theparticular area of conflict to be highlighted as darker blue/buff according to flightdirection.”

“Much more emphasis should be given to displaying conflicts : colour, flashing etc.

“Emergency situations should be instantly addressed and controller’s attentiondemanded. “


Page - XV

11. MESSAGE QUEUES

• Was the colour coding for attracting attention to the message queues (circleyour choice)

Too strong Adequate Too weak

- - 4 - -

• Did you understand the information in the message queues (strip window andaircraft message window) (circle your choice)


- - 2 1 1

• Was there anything missing from the Message windows that you needed?(circle your choice)

YES

2NO2

• If YES, what?

“The message should be prioritised and the priority category shown.”“High priority messages should be forced to the front of the queue and perhapshighlighted in some way, otherwise an important message may be ‘lost’ at the backof a long queue.”

• General Comments on the message windows

“Messages should be allocated a priority and displayed in priority order. Duplicatemessages should be compared with the original and discarded if identical exceptfor originator.”

12. RESPONSE TIME

• Did you consider the system response time to be (circle your choice)

Good Adequate Poor

2 - 2 - -

Documents

EUROCONTROL Experimental Centre...A total of ten experts participated in the evaluation: • four controllers from Shanwick OACC (all with experience of Systems Working Groups), •