Controller inhibition of automated conflict resolutions in a maximum NextGen condition

With the continued projection of increases in air traffic density, operations in the National Airspace System (NAS) are expected to exceed human capabilities in the near future [1]. In order to address the bottleneck of human workload capacity, highly automated safety-critical systems are under development to support air traffic controllers. However, the transfer of tasks and capabilities from a human agent to an automated agent is not without its pitfalls. Human controllers provide safe, efficient, and creative problem-solving in conflict situations-situations that often are outside the abilities of an automated system. In order for controllers to best use their creative problem-solving skills in safety-critical situations, automated agents must shoulder `routine´ activities contributing to controller workload in the current-day system, such as housekeeping tasks and basic separation assurance activities. The detection and resolution of conflicts required for basic separation assurance is the primary contributor to current day workload, since it requires controllers have an awareness of all aircraft to produce effective solutions. However in high-traffic airspace (e.g., 30+ aircraft in a sector), full situation awareness becomes impossible without automated assistance. While research on the automation of conflict detection and resolution is fairly well established, questions remain concerning the give and take between the responsibilities of the human controller and those of the automated agent. Discussed here is a portion of a larger human-in-the-loop experiment examining controllers´ transition through four hypothetical automation stages of the Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen). This portion, called Maximum NextGen, simulated a fully automated environment where the automation was responsible for detecting and resolving conflicts within simulation parameters in high-density airspace. The human moved to primarily a supervisory position: typical- y only assuming control over separation assurance tasks during conflict situations deferred by the automation. While tasks were allocated a-priori between the controller and automated agent, controllers maintained authority to inhibit the automation from interacting with particular aircraft. This analysis focuses on the circumstances surrounding controller´s inhibitory actions upon the automation, postulating about their reasons for doing so based on contextual similarities, ultimately identifying preliminary trends for both further research and automation refinement.