Automation and cognition in air traffic control: An empirical investigation

Vortac, O. U.; Edwards, Mark B.; Fuller, Dana K.; Manning, Carol A. · 1993 · OpenAlex-citations

DOI: 10.1002/acp.2350070707

archive: archived pipeline: cataloged verified

Get this paper ↗ (DOI — opens at the source; we link to it, we don't host it)

Summary

This study investigates the cognitive and performance impacts of automating air traffic control (ATC), specifically addressing concerns that replacing paper flight progress strips (FPSs) with electronic displays might impair controller cognition and safety. The research was motivated by the impending introduction of the Initial Sector Suite System (ISSS), which would eliminate the manual manipulation of FPSs. Critics argued that the physical interaction with paper strips—such as marking, moving, and organizing them—provided essential cognitive benefits, including enhanced memory and situational awareness. The authors aimed to empirically test whether removing these manual interactions would lead to negative consequences for controller performance and cognitive functioning. To simulate the effects of automation, the researchers conducted an experiment with 20 experienced ATC instructors divided into two groups: a Normal condition with full access to standard paper FPSs and a Restricted condition serving as an "automation analog." In the Restricted condition, subjects were provided with strips containing only minimal data (four of the usual 31 fields) and were prohibited from moving, writing on, or manipulating the strips. Participants managed simulated en route traffic scenarios in a high-fidelity radar training facility. The study measured both operational performance (via expert evaluation, position-relief briefings, and post-scenario traffic analysis) and cognitive processes, including attentional engagement, visual search, retrospective memory (map recall and data recall), and prospective memory (planning and remembering future actions). The results indicated that overall operational performance was comparable between the two conditions. Controllers in the Restricted condition did not exhibit significant deficits in separation, control judgment, or communication, nor did they show impaired attentional engagement or visual search speeds. Retrospective memory measures, such as recalling aircraft positions and flight data, were also not significantly impaired by the lack of manual strip interaction. Surprisingly, the Restricted group demonstrated improved performance in prospective memory and planning tasks. This advantage persisted despite the inability to use external memory aids, suggesting that reduced workload or changes in task nature may have facilitated better future-oriented cognition. The only notable performance difference was a non-significant trend where Normal controllers initiated more route changes, leaving Restricted controllers with slightly more pending actions at the scenario's end. The study concludes that the automation of flight progress strips does not necessarily impair the cognitive functioning or operational performance of air traffic controllers. Contrary to fears that manual interaction with strips is essential for maintaining situational awareness and memory, the empirical evidence suggests that controllers can adapt effectively to restricted information access. The findings imply that the transition to automated systems like ISSS may not carry the anticipated cognitive risks, and in some prospective memory domains, automation might even offer benefits. This supports the implementation of ATC automation while highlighting the need for continued monitoring of specific cognitive adaptations.

Provenance

The full processing record for this entry. Every stage of this paper's journey through the pipeline is logged — what ran, with which tool and model, how many attempts it took, and when it last completed.

Summary generated by qwen3.6-27b-prismaquant on 2026-06-25; verification: verified.

Topics

Ranked by relevance to this paper. Hover a topic for its definition.

• automation complacency bias