An Analysis of En Route Controller- DOT-VNTSC-FAA-93-2 Pilot Voice Communications Research and Development Service Washington
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
DOT/FAA/RD-93/11 An Analysis of En Route Controller- DOT-VNTSC-FAA-93-2 Pilot Voice Communications Research and Development Service Washington. DC 20591 Kim M. Cardosi Research and Special Programs Administration John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center Cambridge, MA 02142-1093 Final Report March 1993 Reprint July 1993 This document is available to the public through the National Technical Information Service, Springfield. VA22161 © U.S.Department ofTransportation Federal Aviation Administration NOTICE This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the Departmentof Transportation inthe interest of information exchange. The United States Government assumesno liability forits contents orusethereof. NOTICE The United States Government does not endorse products ormanufacturers. Trade ormanufacturers' names appear herein solely because they are considered essential to the object ofthis report. REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved OMB No. 0704-0188 STSiedS1"^txa neeoea, ano the — or any other - Headquarters ,, Arlington. VA REPORT TYPE ANO DATES COVERED Final Report 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5. FUNDING NUMBERS An Analysis of En Route Controller-Pilot Voice Communications FA3L1/A3021 6. AUTHOR(S) Kim H. Cardosi 7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center REPORT NUMBER Research and Development Administration Transportation Systems Center DOT-VNTSC-FAA-93-2 Cambridge, MA 02142 9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSORING/MONITORING Federal Aviation Administration AGENCY REPORT NUMBER Research and Development Service 800 Independence Ave., S.W. DOT/FAA/RD-93/11 Washington, DC 20591 11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES 12a. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE This document is available to the public through the National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161 13. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 words) The purposes of this analysis were to examine current pilot-controller communication practices in the en route environment. Forty-eight hours of voice tapes from eight different Air Route Traffic Control Centers (ARTCCs) were examined. There were 5,032 controller-to-pilot transmissions and 3,576 clearances (e.g., instructions to maneuver or change radio frequencies, routing changes, etc.) In this sample. The complexity of the clearances (I.e., the number of pieces of information) was examined and the number of erroneous readbacks and pilot requests for repeats were analyzed as a function of clearance complexity. Pilot acknowledgements were also analyzed; the numbers of full and partial readbacks, and acknowledgements only (i.e., "roger") were tallied. Fewer than one percent of the clearances resulted in communications errors. Among the error factors examined were: complexity of the clearance, type of acknowledgement, use of call sign In the acknowledgement, type of information in error, and whether or not the controller responded to the readback error. Instances in which the controller contacted the aircraft with one call sign and the pilot acknowledged the transmission with another call sign were also examined. The report concludes with recommendations to further reduce the probability of communication problems. 14. SUBJECT TERMS 15. NUMBER OF PAGES 28 Pilot-Controller Communications 16. PRICE CODE 17. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 18. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 19. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 20. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACT OF REPORT OF THIS PAGE OF ABSTRACT Unclassified Unclassified Unclassified NSN 7540-01-280-5500 Standard Form 298.(Rev. 2-89) sntt1bed by ANSI Std. PREFACE This research was sponsored by the Federal Aviation Administration's Research and Development Service, Human Performance Program (ARD-210). We thank Bill White and John Zalenchak of that office for their support and helpful suggestions. The voice tapes were analyzed, and raw data gathered, by John Chevalier, Nicholas Craddock, Joseph Jarboe and Joseph Moyer of Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC). We thank them and their supervisor, Bryan Brett, for theifmany hours of tedious analysis. Dr. Jordan Multer assisted in designing the test plan, provided critical comments in the initial stages of this work, and provided a great deal of administrative support to the project. Judith Burki-Cohen reviewed a previous draft of this manuscript and provided many helpful comments. in METRIC/ENGLISH CONVERSION FACTORS ENGLISH TO METRIC METRIC TO ENGLISH LENGTH (approximate) LENGTH «A»mcxiMATi) 1 inch (in) a 2.5 centimeters (cm) 1 millimeter (mm) a 0.04 inch(in) 1 foot(h) a 30 centimeters (em) 1 centimeter (cm) a 0.4inch(in) 1 yard(yd) a 0.9meter (m) 1 meter (m) « 3.3 feet (ft) 1 mile (mi) a 1.6 kilometers (km) 1 meter (m) a 1.1 yards (yd) 1 kilometer (km) a 0.6 mile (mi) AREA (APPXCXIMATE) AREA (AFMOXIMATI) • 1 square inch (sq in, in2) = 6.5 square centimeters (cm:) 1square centimeter (cm2) a 0.16 square inch (sq in,in2) 1 square foot (sq ft, ft2) a 0.09 square meter (m5) 1square meter(m2) a 1.2 square yards (sq yd,yd2) 1 square yard(sq yd, yd') a 0.8 square meter (m2) 1square kilometer (km2) a 0.4 square mile (sq mi,mi2) 1 square mile (sq mi, mi2) a 2.6 square kilometers (km2) 1 hectare (he)a 10,000squaremeters (mJ)a 2.5 acres 1 acre a 0.4 hectares (he) = 4,000 square meters (m}) MASS-WEIGHT (approximate) MASS - WEIGHT (appkoximatd 1 ounce (oz) = 28 grams (gr) 1 gram (gr) a 0.036 ounce (oz) 1 pound (lb) a .45 kilogram (kg) 1kilogram (kg) a 2.2 pounds(lb) 1 short ton a 2,000 pounds (lb) a 0.9 tonne (t) 1tonne (t) a 1.000kilograms (kg)a 1.1 shorttons VOLUME (APPROXIMATE) VOLUME (APMOXIMATI) 1 teaspoon (tsp) a 5 milliliters (ml) 1 milliliter(ml) a 0.03 fluid ounce (fI oz) 1 tablespoon (tbsp) a 15 milliliters (ml) 1 liter (I) a 2.1 pints (pt) 1 fluid ounce (fI oz) = 30 milliliters (ml) 1 liter (I) = 1.06 quarts (qt) 1 cup(c) a 0.24 liter (I) 1 liter (I) a 0.26 gallon (gal) 1 pint (pt) a 0.47 liter (I) 1 cubicmeter {m') = 36 cubicfeet (cuft. ft') 1 quart (qt) a 0.96 liter (I) 1 cubic meter (m')= 1.3cubic yards (cu yd, yd') 1 gallon (gal) a 3.8 liters (I) 1 cubic foot (eu ft, ft') a 0.03 cubic meter (mJ) 1 cubic yard (cu yd, yd1) a 0.76 cubic meter (m'J TEMPERATURE, {exacd TEMPERATURE (exact) [{9/5)y + 32]*C » x*F l(x.32K5/9)J'F= y*C QUICK INCH-CENTIMETER LENGTH CONVERSION INCHES 12 3 4 5 6 7 10 CENTIMETERS 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 | 25.40 QUICK FAHRENHEIT-CELSIUS TEMPERATURE CONVERSION *F -40" -22* -4* 14* 32' 50* 68* 86' 104* 122* 140* 158' 176* 194" 212* -i i 1 i 1 i 1 1 I \ i 1 i 1 r- *C -40* -30* -20* -10* 0* 10* 20* 30* 40* 50' 60* 70* 80* 90* 100* For more exact and'or ether conversion factors, see NBSMiscellaneousPublication286. Units of Weights and l/.easures. Price S2.S0. SO Catalog No. CI3 10 2E6. IV TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page 1. INTRODUCTION 1 2. METHOD 3 3. ROUTINE COMMUNICATIONS PRACTICES 5 3.1 Clearance Complexity 5 3.2 Clearance Acknowledgement 6 3.3 Miscommunications 6 3.3.1 Clearance Complexity and Readback Errors 6 3.3.2 Clearance Complexity and Incidence of Full Readbacks in Communication Errors 7 3.3.3 Use of Call Signs in Readback Errors 9 3.3.4 Clearance Complexity and Pilot Responses for Repeats 9 3.3.5 Clearance Complexity and Miscommunications 9 3.3.6 Hearback Errors 12 3.3.7 Communication Errors and Type of Information 12 3.3.8 Coincident Factors 13 3.3.9 Call Sign Discrepancies 15 4. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 17 REFERENCES 18 LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. Percent of Pilot Readback Errors as a Function of Clearance Complexity 8 2. Percent of Clearances Followed by Pilot Request for Repeat" as a Function of Clearance Complexity 10 3. Percent of Clearances Requiring Full or Partial Repeat as a Function of Clearance Complexity 11 LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Percentage of Clearances as a Function of Message Complexity 5 2. Pilot Responses to ATC Clearances 6 3. Percentage of Full Readbacks in Communication Errors as a Function of Message Complexity 7 4. Distribution of Readback Errors by Type of Information 13 5. Call Sign Discrepancies 15 VI EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The sheer volume of communications between pilots and air traffic controllers makes human error inevitable. The opportunity for miscommunications is constant and the consequences range from annoying to potentially dangerous. At the very least, miscommunications result in increased frequency congestion and increased controller workload, as more communications are necessary to correct the problem. Depending on the nature of the error, miscommunications have the potential of narrowing the margin of safety to an unacceptable level. Information obtained by sampling pilot-controller voice communications is useful in a variety of ways. Not only does it give insights into the frequency of occurrence of specific practices that are known to affect the efficiency of communications, but it also allows us to address specific questions that need to be answered to develop and evaluate new systems and procedures. The purposes of this tape analysis were to examine current pilot-controller communication practices in the en route environment and to analyze the communication errors in detail. Forty-seven hours of voice tapes from eight different Air Route Traffic Control Centers (ARTCCs) were examined. There were 5,032 controller to pilot transmissions in this sample. This included 3,576 clearances (e.g., instructions to maneuver or change radio frequencies, routing changes, etc.) and 1,456 requests for information, salutations, controller acknowledgements, etc.