faa design competition

ReTINA: The Pilot’s Eyes on the Ground

Tyler H. Shaw, PhD Faculty Advisor

Jane H. Barrow

William J. Benson

Eric J. Blumberg

Devon B. Kelley

Brian D. Kidwell

Haneen Saqer

Melissa A.B. Smith

Jonathan D. Strohl Graduate Students

George Mason University

ReTINA: The Pilot’s Eye on the Ground

2

Executive Summary

Runway incursions happen for a variety of reasons, but pilot deviations are the

leading cause. This problem will be exacerbated by the fact that air traffic is expected to

increase threefold by 2025. While there are many emerging technologies focused on

increasing surveillance of ground traffic, most of these systems are costly and will

support ATC, but not the pilot. Currently pilots rely on paper maps and textual Notices

to Airmen (NOTAMs) to familiarize themselves with airports and current conditions.

Our design, ReTINA (Realtime Taxiway Interactive Navigation Aid), will improve the

pilot’s awareness of the airport environment and conditions using digitized maps that

provide real time information to the pilot about their current location in addition to

allowing them to interactively highlight a desired taxi route. In addition to these

interactive features, ReTINA overlays a graphical representation of taxiway- and runway-

relevant NOTAMs so that pilots can easily identify closed runways, incursions hotspots

and construction areas. A user-centered design approach informed by user interviews,

usability testing and cognitive task analyses was used to develop an application that

minimizes the potential risk of introducing technology into existing cockpit systems.

ReTINA also has the capability to be scaled up to incorporate new systems and

capabilities as they become available. For example, other ground traffic can be displayed

on the Airport Diagrams with the integration of ADS-B and similar technologies.

While there is no replacement for looking out the window, ReTINA provides

pilots with a user-friendly interface, containing situationally relevant information, that

will improve pilots’ ability to taxi within the airport safely.


3

Table of Contents 1. Problem Statement and Background ........................................................................................................... 5

1.1 Causes of Runway Incursions Due to Pilot Deviations ................................................................. 5

1.2 Emerging Technologies to Prevent Runway Incursions .............................................................. 8

1.3 ReTINA: Realtime Taxiway Interactive Navigation Aid................................................................ 9

2. Summary of Literature Review ................................................................................................................... 10

2.1 Passive Approaches to Runway Incursion Prevention .............................................................. 10

2.2 Active Approaches to Runway Incursion Prevention ................................................................. 11

2.3 iPad Usage in the Cockpit ....................................................................................................................... 13

3. Team's Approach to Problem ...................................................................................................................... 14

4. Safety Risk Assessment .................................................................................................................................. 16

5. Technical Aspects of Design ......................................................................................................................... 16

5.1 Pilot Workflow During Taxiing ............................................................................................................ 17

5.2 ReTINA iPad Application: System Overview .................................................................................. 18

5.3 ReTINA: Specific Features ..................................................................................................................... 19

5.3.1 Homepage ............................................................................................................................................ 19

5.3.2 Map Display ......................................................................................................................................... 21

5.3.3 Settings and Help Menus ................................................................................................................ 23

5.4 Interaction Walkthrough - Taxiing at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport

(DCA) ...................................................................................................................................................................... 23

5.5 User Testing ................................................................................................................................................. 24

5.6 Scalability of the Design .......................................................................................................................... 25

6. Interactions with Airport Operators and Industry Experts ............................................................ 27

7. Projected Impact of Design and Findings ............................................................................................... 32

Appendix A ............................................................................................................................................................... 34

Appendix B ............................................................................................................................................................... 35

Appendix C Description of Non-University Partners ............................................................................. 36

Appendix D – Signoff Form by Advisor ......................................................................................................... 37

Appendix E ............................................................................................................................................................... 38

E-1 Dr. Tyler Shaw, Faculty Advisor ................................................................................................... 38

E-2 Jane H. Barrow ..................................................................................................................................... 40

E-3 William J. Benson ................................................................................................................................ 41

E-4 Eric J. Blumberg ................................................................................................................................... 41


4

E-5 Devon B. Kelley .................................................................................................................................... 42

E-6 Brian D. Kidwell .................................................................................................................................. 43

E-7 Haneen Saqer ....................................................................................................................................... 44

E-8 Melissa A.B. Smith .............................................................................................................................. 44

E-9 Jonathan D. Strohl .............................................................................................................................. 45

Appendix F - References ...................................................................................................................................... 47

Appendix G - Figures ............................................................................................................................................ 51


5

1. Problem Statement and Background Flight has become the most prevalent form of long distance transport; in the

United States of America alone, there is an average of over 7,000 takeoffs and landings

per hour and 50,000 flights per day (FAA, 2011a). The latest Runway Safety Report

indicates that in 2009, there were 52.9 million surface operations that took place (FAA,

2010a), and these numbers are set to increase threefold by the year 2025 (Joint Planning

and Development Office, 2004). Of those 52.9 million operations, 951 runway incursions

occurred in 2009, 12 of which fell into the serious, Category A classification for runway

incursions (FAA, 2010a). While the relative infrequency of incursions based on the

number of actual operations is a testament to the efficacy of the current system, the

likelihood of future incursions is quite high considering that runway traffic is due to

increase by three hundred percent (Joint Planning and Development Office, 2004).

Additionally, the consequences of a single runway incursion can be devastating - one

only has to look at the events that took place in Tenerife in 1977 to understand the loss of

life that can accompany such an event (de Luchtvaart, 1979). As a result, preventing

runway incursions has been at the top of both the Federal Aviation Administration and

the National Transportation Safety Board most wanted lists for many years (NTSB,

2011).

1.1 Causes of Runway Incursions Due to Pilot Deviations There are three types of runway incursions: operational errors on the part of an air

traffic controller (ATC), vehicle or pedestrian deviations, and pilot deviations (FAA,

2009). As of April 2012, pilot deviations are the leading cause of runway incursions, with

316 of the 455 incursions that have occurred year-to-date (FAA, 2012b). There are many

possible reasons for why pilot deviations are the primary cause of runway incursions,


6

including distractions, fatigue, stress, impatience, and most importantly, not realizing

where they are located (A. Gertsen, personal communication, February 24, 2012). This

lack of situational awareness (SA) may be the most problematic aspect of the pilot

experience, which is supported by the NTSB’s Most Wanted List of transportation safety

improvements (NTSB, 2011).

Situation awareness is generally defined as: “The perception of the elements in

the environment within a volume of time and space, the comprehension of their meaning,

and the projection of their status in the near future” (Endsley, 1995). Figure 1 depicts the

three-level model of SA as described by Endsley (1995). For example, the three levels of

SA can be conceptualized as follows: level 1 SA would be a pilot orienting his current

location on an airport diagram immediately after landing. Level 2 SA would be

represented by the pilot understanding and mentally visualizing the taxi directions given

to him by ATC, indicating an appropriate mental model of the airport surface area. Level

3 SA would be of the pilot listening to the party line and projecting ground traffic

patterns and final destinations for other aircraft in his proximity demonstrating an ability

to project future changes to the environment.

Several issues can lead to reduced SA for pilots, preventing them from even

attaining level 1 SA. One major issue is the current protocol for avoiding incursions in

General Aviation (GA), and even for the majority of commercial air traffic, which has

remained unchanged since the beginning of manned flight. “See-and-avoid” is the

overarching procedure for incursion avoidance, subsumed by standardized airport

operations and ATC guidance at non-towered and towered airports, respectively.

Proficiency through training in chart symbology and interpretation of airport surface


7

diagrams is the current preventative measure for runway incursions. Nevertheless, a

system solely reliant on pilot training and pilots’ perceptual processes is prone to

breakdowns in the fail-safes of airport procedures, as evidenced in the current statistics

reflecting pilot deviations as the leading cause of runway incursions. These breakdowns

can occur due to lack of training, fatigue, distractions in the cockpit, and inclement

weather conditions which hinder visual acuity. Moreover, the paper Airport Diagrams

used by pilots currently an integral part in runway operations are particularly poor tools

for aiding SA since they cannot provide the pilot with any indication of current location

in relation to other structures or traffic on the runway (B. Kidwell, personal

communication, March 3, 2012).

Another issue regarding SA and the cockpit is the limited use that pilots make of

NOtice To AirMen (NOTAMs; R. Loewen, personal communication, February 24,

2012). NOTAMs are daily updates to be accessed by the pilots (recommended at least

twice daily) that provide information regarding runway closures, taxiway closures and

other useful information (M. McClintock, personal communication, April 25, 2012).

However, they also provide information that is not directly relevant to most pilots.

NOTAMs are displayed in textual format with numerous abbreviations and they lack

organization. Additionally, pilots cannot filter or sort information included in NOTAMs

making it difficult to pick out relevant items, and consequently, many pilots simply

ignore them (C. McCalla, personal communication, April 25, 2012). This has a direct,

negative impact on SA, as NOTAMs contain pieces of highly relevant information

critical to pilots’ awareness of the aerodrome environment.


8

As mentioned earlier, there is expected be a significant increase in the quantity of

air traffic within the next 20 years. Using current technology and procedures may result

in devastating effects to both controller and pilot situation awareness and workload.

However, the FAA is implementing progressive programs such as Next Generation

(NextGen) to actively respond to this concern.

1.2 Emerging Technologies to Prevent Runway Incursions NextGen will add increasingly accurate and capable technologies to air traffic

control facilities. In turn, controllers will be better suited to prevent potential incursions,

both in the air and on the ground. New systems, such as Airport Surface Detection

Equipment, Model X (ASDE-X), provide increased accuracy in runway monitoring for

controllers. Another example of emerging technologies are runway lighting systems that

serve as external cockpit aids to instruct pilots to hold on the runway to avoid a potential

incursion. However, these systems provide little to the pilot in regards to awareness of

movements on the runway (Patterson, 2004; Tech Notes, 2010; FAA, 2010b). Most of

these lighting systems are costly to implement, making them cost-prohibitive for smaller

airports.

The information gleaned from ASDE-X and other surveillance systems will

greatly benefit ATC, however, current plans to incorporate this information in the cockpit

are not immediately feasible. This void indicates another approach may be possible to

mitigate runway incursions by aiding pilots in the cockpit. For these reasons our team

recognized an opportunity to design a pilot aid that would provide realtime information in

an interactive manner to improve SA for navigating on the ground.


9

1.3 ReTINA: Realtime Taxiway Interactive Navigation Aid The design our team produced to increase pilot situation awareness is an iPad

application intended to provide easy access to critical information necessary to pilots

during taxi. ReTINA was designed to provide real-time location information to the pilot

specific to his movements on taxiways and, in the future, surrounding traffic as well. It

was also designed to modernize paper Airport Diagrams, converting them into dynamic

displays and allowing for interactive navigation. This digitization includes the addition of

taxiway-relevant information, extracted from NOTAMs, as a graphical overlay on the

Airport Diagrams. A brief overview of ReTINA’s key features follows. Detailed

descriptions are provided in the Technical Aspects of Design Section.

Digitized Airport Diagrams (updated automatically)

Real-time updating of current location on ground

Ability to interactively plan taxi route on map

Graphical depiction of taxiway-relevant NOTAMs

Automatic retrieval of local NOTAM and weather updates

Ability to take notes on map (record taxi instructions)

Real-time updating of surrounding ground traffic movement (future)

These features were designed to complement the pilots current workflow, serve as an aid

to offload cognitive resources, provide a shared mental model between pilots and ATC of

ground aircraft movements, and improve pilots’ understanding of taxi instructions by

providing redundant information in a visual mode in addition to the auditory instructions

upon which they currently rely.

The remainder of this paper will focus first on the current approaches to

preventing runway incursions through technological systems and the iPad applications


10

that are currently available. This will lead into a discussion of the human-centered

approach the design team adopted to address the issue of poor pilot SA which leads to

runway incursions, and a brief assessment of the safety risk ReTINA may pose by

requiring additional attention from the pilot. The technical details of the app are then

provided, along with a description of how ReTINA will fit into current pilot workflow.

The results of a brief usability test of the ReTINA prototype are discussed, followed by a

discussion of potential scalability of the app when additional technologies become

available. The paper concludes with a summary of the interactions with different

individuals who contributed to our knowledge and development of our design, and a

discussion of the feasibility and benefit that ReTINA offers to the aviation industry.

2. Summary of Literature Review

2.1 Passive Approaches to Runway Incursion Prevention Large-scale initiatives are currently underway to mitigate the occurrence of

runway incursions through the dissemination of information. While these are not meant

to replace quality pilot training or skill, sound judgment, or conservative standards of

safety, they are intended to augment pilot capabilities. FAA airport diagrams include a

graphical depiction of runway incursion “hot spots” (FAA, 2012a):

“An ‘‘Airport surface hot spot’’ is a location on an aerodrome movement area

with a history or potential risk of collision or runway incursion, and where

heightened attention by pilots/drivers is necessary. A ‘‘hot spot’’ is a runway

safety related problem area on an airport that presents increased risk during

surface operations. Typically it is a complex or confusing taxiway/taxiway or

taxiway/runway intersection. The area of increased risk has either a history of or


11

potential for runway incursions or surface incidents, due to a variety of causes,

such as but not limited to: airport layout, traffic flow, airport marking, signage

and lighting, situational awareness, and training.”

This depiction is intended as a near-zero cost initiative to alert pilots to potentially

confusing and/or hazardous intersections. However, these graphical annotations on paper

maps are strictly passive indicators that can easily be overlooked by pilots.

2.2 Active Approaches to Runway Incursion Prevention Other methods for reducing runway incursions include a combination of

surveillance systems and physical signage/lighting systems. These technological

solutions have many advantages, although oftentimes at prohibitively high levels of cost.

Perhaps the most widely known system for the mitigation of runway incursions is ASDE-

X, which represents the first dedicated system to provide ATC with positional

surveillance for ground traffic. Across the United States only 35 systems are now in

operation (or planned implementation) (FAA, 2010b). The system operates through a

combination of ADS-B (Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast) signal,

multilateration sensors, terminal automation systems, and aircraft transponders. Another

system, AXSL (ASDE-X Safety Logic), uses positional data from ASDE-X systems to

anticipate potential incidents of collision between aircraft and ground vehicles. Together

these systems allow controllers to accurately identify aircraft on the ground, as well as

maintain vigilance to issues of ground separation through the use of visual and auditory

alert systems. While these technologies are proving successful in reducing runway

incursions, small airports are incapable of integrating these technologies at their current

costs. Again, this leaves pilots vulnerable to potential incursions. Furthermore, the system


12

only informs ATC, leaving the pilot out of the loop with regards to system feedback and

alerts.

The Low Cost Ground Surveillance (LCGS) initiative by the FAA was created to

provide a low cost alternative to ASDE-X. Currently, ASDE-X systems are cost

prohibitive for the majority of airports in America, costing more than 15 million dollars

(DOT, 2007). LCGS systems utilize a single ground radar sensor that updates positions

every second and is capable of tracking objects up to a few hundred feet in the air. This

information is fed to visual displays in the tower for use by ATC. LCGS systems can

detect ADS-B equipped aircraft to increase location sensitivity. Currently there are four

LCGS systems being tested across the country with the hope that within the next decade

30 more LCGS systems will be implemented. While LCGS systems are considered low

cost in comparison to ASDE-X, their cost remains prohibitive (capped at one million

dollars) to many general aviation airports across the country. Similar to ASDE-X, these

systems are designed to aid ATC rather than provide information to the pilot in the

cockpit. Finally, it will take many years to fully test and implement these systems

effectively, making it even more important to find a short-term pilot-centered approach to

runway incursion prevention.

Although many technologies focus on assisting ATC, some emerging

technologies are designed to alert the pilot to potential runway incursions. The National

Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Runway Incursion Prevention System

(RIPS) represents one such approach. The RIPS system operates via a combination of

heads-down and heads-up displays that provide a moving map of the airport surface with

real-time guidance to pilots. Subjective reporting and usability testing has indicated the


13

efficacy of the RIPS design (Jones & Prinzel III, 2006) in laboratory simulations. Even

still, this technology remains impractical for GA pilots, both for its price as well as the

demands of incorporating the additional displays into the flight deck (already a compact

area. Mobile technologies that can be used in any cockpit will benefit a significant

number of pilots until RIPS displays become standard and affordable. Another example

of this technology is Searidge Technologies’™ Runway Incursion Monitoring and

Collision Avoidance System (RIMCAS). Similar to RIPS, RIMCAS uses a network of

camera surveillance systems, automated incursion prediction algorithms, and operational

links in existing lighting systems (Searidge Technologies, 2012). However, the system is

constrained by the same narrow focus as the RIPS system, operating as a solution to the

occurrence of a runway incursion, rather than for the prevention of such an incident.

Lighting systems represent a relatively simple solution to the problem of runway

incursions. Runway Guard Lights (RGL), Runway Status Lights (RWSL), and Final

Approach and Runway Occupancy Signal (FAROS) systems have all been offered as

cost-effective, simple solutions overlaying existing technologies (Patterson, 2004; Tech

Notes, 2010; FAA, 2010b). Generally speaking, these systems operate by directly

alerting pilots via light signals as to runway occupancy. However, these systems rely on

the integration of information from more costly surveillance systems currently prohibitive

for general aviation airports.

2.3 iPad Usage in the Cockpit ReTINA is not the first iPad application aimed at supporting the pilot. In fact,

there are over 500 applications available for the iPad and iPhone (Aviator Apps, 2012).

The use of an iPad in commercial aviation has just recently become an option in the US.

American Airlines, Alaska Airlines and United Airlines were approved by the FAA to


14

use iPads in the cockpit to varying degrees. For example, American Airlines has been

approved to use the iPad during all stages of flight including both takeoff and approach

(Bilton, 2011). It is stated in Title 14, section 91.21 of the Electronic Code of Federal

Regulations the operator of the aircraft can use portable electronic devices that will not

cause interference with navigation or communication systems on the aircraft (e-CFR,

2012).

Currently available iPad apps fall into four primary categories: informational, en

route, terminal, and multi-purpose. Informational apps include access to digitized aircraft

handbooks, flight manuals, and helpful calculation tools for take-off and descent

(Brewster, 2011). En route apps contain information related to in flight tasks such as

navigation charts, weather information, and trip planning aids (Digital Cyclone, 2012).

Terminal apps currently feature static digital airport diagrams, fuel pricing, standard

instrument departures (SIDS), standard terminal arrivals (STARS), approach plates, and

visual flight rule (VFR) plates (RocketRoute LTD., 2012). Multi-purpose apps attempt to

do all of this, but in so doing, fall down in terms of price and usability. These apps can

exceed $1000, and have extremely poor ratings in terms of the user interface and

functionality of the application. Furthermore, any poorly designed interface will lead to

confusion and distraction, causing more heads down time in the cockpit. For this reason,

our design team use a human-centered approach with special consideration to the

cognitive limitations of the pilot and usability of the interface.

3. Team's Approach to Problem Figure 2 depicts an adaptation of the cognition-artifact-task triad introduced by

Gray and Altmann (2001) which helped to frame the design team’s thinking for the


15

design process. Gray and Altmann (2001) suggest that an operator’s behavior is

influenced by each member of the triad, culminating in the observed human-machine

interaction. In addition, it is important to take the environment into account, which

surrounds all aspects of the triad and can add additional influences. One of the primary

reasons for poor design is that many designers focus too heavily on the artifact and ignore

the constraints posed by the environment, the task, or the cognitive abilities of the user

(Boehm-Davis, 2006). In an effort to avoid this pitfall, the design team repeatedly

returned to this concept, ensuring that all aspects of this design framework were being

assessed.

A variety of techniques were used to perform an analysis of the needs for each

aspect of the design framework. The design team performed a large number of

interviews, both structured and unstructured. Structured interviews are when the

interviewer drives the direction of questioning, whereas unstructured allow for an open

dialog between the interviewer and the subject matter expert (SME; Cooke, 1999). These

interviews helped to frame the design team’s understanding of the needs of the user, the

task the user was performing, and the environment in which the user was operating. The

design team also used task analysis techniques, such as an Operational Sequence

Diagram, to understand the steps involved while taxiing, which allowed us to determine

where we could incorporate our design into the process without interrupting the current

workflow (Kirwan & Ainsworth, 1992). Finally, we turned our focus to developing the

actual product, which involved implementing usability guidelines for software interfaces,

developing a prototype for evaluation, and then conducting a usability test to elicit

feedback from users of the prototype (Stone, Jarrett, Woodroffe, & Minocha, 2005).


16

The details and outcomes of the various techniques are included in the next

section, as we describe the technical aspects of the design. By maintaining a pilot-

centered approach to the design, our decisions were informed by human factors principles

to offer a safe aid while minimizing distractions in the cockpit.

4. Safety Risk Assessment During usability testing of ReTINA, pilots reported that shuffling through a stack

of paper maps is much less efficient and more distracting than using the map search

function in the app. Pilots also reported that features provided within the application,

such as the draw your own route feature, graphical NOTAMS, and realtime display

would decrease the possibility of incursions by increasing situation awareness.

As with any display in the cockpit, pilots must be wary not to fall victim to

cognitive tunneling. There is no replacement for looking out the window; as such, we

strived to use best design practices to minimize heads-down time necessary to interact

with the app. Additionally, if the app does not pick up on another craft due to loss of

signal or if an animal or unmarked vehicle appears on the runway, pilots may not detect

the crucial events if they only rely on the app. Although our app incorporates and

acknowledgement window to remind them of this fact, as well as incorporating

technology to inform them when GPS reliability is less than accurate, over reliance on

automation remains a serious issue.

5. Technical Aspects of Design ReTINA, which was designed to promote pilot situational awareness on the

runway, is an acronym for Realtime Taxiway Interactive Navigation Aid. While ATC

currently has access to multiple technologies to support visualization of runway ground


17

traffic, pilots must solely rely on out-the-window views and auditory instructions from

ATC. ReTINA has been developed to provide a low-cost, accessible aid to pilots to

modernize terminal maps and provide an interactive interface to visualize taxi

instructions. Below we review the technical aspects of the design in the following terms:

pilot workflow during taxiing, system overview, specific design features and interactions,

usability testing, and scalability potential.

5.1 Pilot Workflow During Taxiing A successfully designed application should reduce pilot workflow while

minimizing “head-down” time (A. Gertsen, personal communication, February 24, 2012).

To fully understand the cognitive demands that are currently experienced by the pilot

during taxiing, we conducted a cognitive walkthrough with a pilot and mapped his

interactions on an Operational Sequence Diagram (OSD). The results of the OSD are

described in Figure 3. Upon successfully landing the aircraft, the pilot requests and

receives a sequence of taxi directions from ATC. The pilot then references a paper map

and either writes down the directions on paper held in place by a clipboard/kneeboard, or

maintains them in working memory. The pilot then reads back the taxiing directions to

the ATC controller who verbally confirms the route.

During optimal flight conditions and low demand situations, this task may not

require many cognitive resources for the experienced pilot. However, these ideal

workload situations are seldom the case in aviation. In challenging situations including

pilot fatigue, high-density traffic, inclement weather conditions, and unfamiliar airports,

the task of orienting oneself on a runway and remembering taxiing instructions becomes

more difficult. This may be especially difficult for inexperienced pilots. For example, as

pilots become more fatigued, holding several items in memory becomes onerous and


18

recall becomes prone to error. During late-evening and red-eye flights, when fatigue is of

particular concern, it can be difficult for pilots to hold more than two items in memory

(C. McCalla, personal communication, April 25, 2012). By using our app, pilots can

offload the cognitive demand of remembering taxiing instructions and focus on acquiring

situational awareness. Furthermore, the OSD reveals that the use of the iPad does not

overlap with other critical workflow operations. Therefore, providing pilots with a tool

to display their location on the runway and write down taxi instructions can enhance

situation awareness.

5.2 ReTINA iPad Application: System Overview ReTINA was designed to work successfully with the Apple iPad or other

comparable tablet devices. For example, the Apple iPad incorporates global positioning

system (GPS) to provide current location information and real-time updating of position

(it should be noted that ReTINA will incorporate Receiver Autonomous Integrity

Measure (RAIM) technology to detect signal degradation and alert the pilot). Tablet

computers were selected as the desired platform because it is a widely available and

popular commercial technology that incorporates intuitive gestures for zooming in and

out of images and other interactions. This will allow for quick and seamless adoption by

pilots. Additionally, there are kneeboards and clipboard mounts for iPads and tablets

available in cockpits (Figures 4 and 5, respectively) which will allow pilots to stabilize

the tablet during flight and landing. By introducing ReTINA via tablet devices, it allows

the FAA to test and iterate the design quickly and easily and serve as a prototype for

future inflight displays.

The proposed tablet app will help to reduce the number of repeats of taxiing

directions from ATC. All FAA issued Airport Diagrams will be provided within the app.


19

This will eliminate the inconvenience of pilots needing to carry paper maps and will

provide for all possible maps in case of emergency landing and diverted flight situations.

The application also eliminates the hassle of flipping through multiple pages to find the

desired map. In the tablet app, the maps will be updated automatically without the pilot

needing to purchase new paper maps multiple times a year, also reducing paper waste and

eliminating production costs.

ReTINA contains a digital database of maps for all airports under FAA

jurisdiction. These maps are not merely imported images of Airport Diagrams, but are re-

mastered and enhanced to contain interactive elements. The interactive features of the

Airport Diagrams will allow for visualizing taxiing routes and NOTAM information.

Future development and integration with aviation technology may allow for the graphical

display of real-time traffic information. The specific design features of ReTINA will be

detailed individually.

5.3 ReTINA: Specific Features

5.3.1 Homepage To visualize the design features of the application, a high fidelity protoype was

created using Microsoft Powerpoint (TM), Adobe Photoshop (TM), and Axure RP (TM).

Microsoft Powerpoint and Adobe Photoshop were used to create and manipulate images

and graphics. Simulated iPad graphics were obtained from the iPad Graphical User

Interface PhotoShop Data (PSD) file by Geoff Teehan (2010). The interactive

components of the prototype were created using Axure RP. The interactive nature of the

prototype allowed for basic user-testing for proof of design concepts.

The prototype is comprised of several pages. The homepage opens with the

startup of the app with a pop-up window overlayed on top with a warning to pilots that 1)


20

eyes should be kept outside the window at all times, and 2) the GPS may not be 100%

reliable (Figure 6). The user must select “I Acknowledge” on the pop-up window in order

to gain access to the homepage (Figure 7). The top headers are icons representing the

iPad’s wifi signal strength and battery life. Underneath this iPad header is the menubar

for the homepage which contains links to the settings and help pages. The homepage is a

summary page with in-frame windows that contain executable actions and current

information. These in-frame windows are customizable in size and location on the

homepage. Users are able to adjust these windows so that the individual’s most pertinent

information can be displayed. The homepage is defaulted to display 1) an Airport

Diagrams window, 2) a Favorites window, and 3) an Airport Advisories window

described below.

Individual maps can be opened from within the Airport Diagrams window. At the

top of the Airport Diagrams window contains the individual user’s most visited diagrams.

Underneath the most visited diagrams is a comprehensive list of airport diagrams.

Diagrams from this comprehensive list can be manually searched using the scroll bar or

can be searched by entering in an airport code in the search bar. When the user enters the

first letter of the airport code, the menu jumps to that portion of the alphabetical list and

the user can type via an iPad style keyboard (Figure 8).

The Favorites window contains user-defined groups of Airport Diagrams. These

groups can be customized so that multiple maps and NOTAM reports can be opened

simultaneously in tabular format with a single action. Pilots with routine routes can

access their most visited pages in this window. This allows pilots to set maps according


21

to routine flight patterns based on airline, day of the week, or geography. The Airport

Diagrams assign up to five groups can be edited through a feature in the settings menu.

The airport advisories window contains a real-time stream of information about

alerts and warnings for each of the airports. Similar to the Airport Diagrams window, the

first advisories displayed are for airports most proximal to current GPS location and the

most frequently visited airports. Underneath these most visited airports is a

comprehensive listing of all advisories. Again, users have the choice of manually

scrolling through the list to select a specific airport or typing in the airport code in the

search bar. The advisories and warnings consist of information pulled from the NOTAMs

reports as well as from NOAA’s Aviation Weather Center.

5.3.2 Map Display Upon selecting a specific map in the Airport Diagrams menu or selecting a group

of maps from the Favorites menu, the Airport Diagrams is displayed in portrait view

(Figure 9). Across the header, labels of opened maps are indicated from left to right in

tabular format. This allows the user to toggle between multiple windows without needing

to open and close each individual diagram. The top right of the header contains 1) a link

to return to the homepage, 2) a link to go to the settings menu, and 3) a link to go to the

help menu. These three icons are consistent across all airport diagrams and NOTAM

reports. By default, the map displays a directional arrow which indicates the aircraft’s

current location and direction. The bottom of the diagram page contains two links, one to

view a complete listing of the airport’s NOTAMs and another to open an onscreen

notepad (Figures 10 and 11). To the right of the airport diagram is a button to open up

dynamic on-map features which will be described in the next section.


22

By accessing the dynamic on-map features, the map is resized and a layers menu

is presented on the right-hand side (Figure 12). This menu displays options for dynamic

on-map layering as well as quick access to map features. The first dynamic layering

feature is an overlay of airport traffic (Figure 13). While technological limitations may

not currently permit for display of airport traffic, future developments may allow for this.

In the future, this information may be obtained from the ADS-B, ASDE-X, and Low-Cost

Ground Surveillance (LCGS) networks. It is also conceivable that airport traffic could be

generated within a closed network using the iPad’s GPS signal. This graphical display of

airport ground traffic may decrease incursions by providing pilots with traffic

information not within eyesight.

The second dynamic layering feature is an overlay of NOTAM report

information. Conceivably, an algorithm could be written to extract relevant

taxiway/runway information from the NOTAM reports. This would automatically

generate alerts and warnings on the map itself. For example, a NOTAM alert of a runway

closure can be graphically represented on the respective runway (Figure 14).

Maintenance warnings, hotspots, and weather advisories could also be graphically

overlayed on the map using this technique. The map menu also includes an automatic

dimming feature which would adjust the brightness of the screens for optimal viewing of

the screen in different lighting environments.

Another on-map feature that is accessible when the layers menu is minimized is a

route-drawing tool. When the route drawing mode is activated, accessible turning points

(visualized as navigation pins) from the aircraft’s current location become visible (Figure

15). For example, when the aircraft is on runway 19 South, the accessible turning points


23

from this runway become visible. According to the ATC’s directions, the pilot selects the

first turning point on the map. After this first turning point is selected, a line is drawn on

the map from the aircraft’s current location to this turning point and continues for all

subsequent interactions until arriving at the terminal destination (Figures 16-20). The user

may reset the map directions at any time by clicking on the aircraft’s current location

(Figure 21). The drawing of the map is expected to aid in confirming the ATC’s verbal

directions and instructions.

5.3.3 Settings and Help Menus The settings page allows for user customization (Figure 22). One of the settings

features on this page allows for the assignment of individual maps to groups in the

favorites window on the homepage. By building a group of favorite maps, multiple maps

can be opened with a single action. The settings page allows the user to change default

on-screen map features (e.g.. dynamic layering features). Other technical settings options

such as type of connection, sound, Wi-Fi settings, power saver modes, date and time

display, etc. are also represented on the settings menu.

The help page contains information on how to use the app as well as more

explanation of its different features. Frequently Asked Questions are displayed in this

location. The help menu is indexed by categories and is searchable by keywords.

5.4 Interaction Walkthrough - Taxiing at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport (DCA) Brian Benson, a persona for a newly licensed commercial pilot (Figure 23), works

for a regional airline and is still learning the layout of many of the airports. To

demonstrate the application features for a typical taxiing situation, we describe Brian’s

step-by-step interactions with ReTINA in the following scenario.


24

Brian has landed at a large airport at 10:00 pm and has continued his

communication with ATC through approach. Brian has a typical flight route and has

already acknowledged the app’s limitations and opened up Group 1 Airport Diagrams

from the Favorites window (Figures 6 and 7). Upon opening the map, his current location

is displayed and quickly orienting him. ATC verbally provides Brian with his taxiing

instructions. Brian selects the route drawing mode and with his finger selects the

corresponding turning points on the map. With each turning point that Brian selects a line

is drawn highlighting his route (Figures 16 through 20). As the route is visualized on the

map, written instructions populate on the side menu (Figure 20). By recording his

instructions within the app, Brian can offload the task of remembering the taxi directions

in working memory. Brian reads back these written instructions to ATC confirming his

taxiing route. Brian has the Visual NOTAMs feature turned-on and is able to visualize

the hotspots, construction, and closed runways at the airport. These features provide

Brian with better situation awareness and allows him to focus on taxiing the aircraft.

5.5 User Testing The prototype was displayed on a Dell Inspiron Duo tablet computer with touch

capability. The laptop screen can be folded down so that only the touch screen is

accessible to the user. The screen size is 6 inches x 10 inches and all images of the

prototype were set to the resolution dimensions for viewing on a mobile tablet device.

Two pilots agreed to participate in the user testing of the ReTINA prototype. After

introducing the pilots to the overall design challenge of reducing runway incursions, each

pilot was instructed to locate and select various features of the application including the

layer menu, turning on and off traffic and visual NOTAM display, and the notepad. The

pilots were then asked to draw a taxi route on the map using the drawing function. Both


25

pilots intuitively used tablet gestures to zoom in and out of the Airport Diagrams without

instruction from the researchers. Finally, the pilots completed a survey regarding their

subjective experience with the application. As part of the usability survey, the pilots were

asked whether they believed the individual features of the prototype would increase or

decrease runway incursions. Their responses from this portion of the survey can be found

in Figure 24.

Generally speaking, both pilots responded favorably to the idea of an application

for displaying current aircraft location, visual display of NOTAMs, and the potential for

including traffic. It was suggested that the device be used with a clipboard to stabilize it

and that a stylus would not be necessary because they can be dropped or lost. When

asked how likely they would be to use the graphical display of NOTAMs on the app both

responded very likely (based on a 5-point likert scale ranging from very unlikely to very

likely). They both also expressed that this feature would help to decrease runway

incursions. Both pilots expressed some concern that interacting with the map (either via

writing down the taxi instructions or by drawing the route on the map) could cause some

distraction and detract from looking out the window. However, both also felt that the

benefits of the application outweighed the potential risks. They were both excited at the

prospect of integrating ground traffic into the application and both responded favorably to

adopting mobile device technology if the application was well designed and sanctioned

by the FAA.

5.6 Scalability of the Design The first iteration of ReTINA will contain only basic location information and the

visualizations of NOTAMs. However, a significant benefit to designing software in a

mobile application is that it can easily be modified and integrated with emerging


26

technologies. NEXTGEN will require ADS-B transponders in all aircrafts flying in class

A, B and C airspaces by 2012 (A. Gertsen, personal communication, February 24, 2012).

Software applications like ReTINA should leverage this addition of location information

in a visual representation for pilots. At airports with ASDE-X and LCGS systems ground

surveillance can identify objects regardless of ADS-B transponders, including foreign

objects like rogue vehicles and wildlife (R. Higginbothom, personal communication,

March 30, 2012). Finally, ASDE-X data can be incorporated with ipads as well to

improve location accuracy. Because a user-centered approach was used to develop

ReTINA, the interaction foundations have been established and additional functionalities

can easily be added in the future.

Pilots are not the only potential users of ReTINA. Ground vehicle operators can

use ReTINA on devices as small as smartphones. Once ReTINA is successfully

integrated with surveillance monitoring systems that can detect objects that are not tagged

with transponders, the current location and movement of all ground traffic will be

available for users. In this way, ground vehicle operators can also benefit from the visual

display of NOTAMs relevant to taxiways and runways. This expansion of the application

will allow all stakeholders on the ground to share the same visualization of the traffic. A

visual representation of the airport surface will assist the operators in accurate and safe

navigation reducing runway incursion.

Another technological advancement that can improve the performance of

ReTINA is integration between ATC and the pilot. ATC controllers can standardize taxi

routes that can be sent wirelessly to the pilot’s mobile device. The application will

automatically highlight the route on the map diagram for the pilot. This can be done


27

either via text commands or via a voice to text conversion of ATC communication. This

feature would further reduce pilot workload because the route will be automatically

drawn on the map. Pilots will be able to learn their routes simultaneously via auditory and

visual signals allowing for a deeper encoding of the information.

In summary, smart devices are an excellent platform for interfacing with

emerging technologies because they can be quickly and easily adapted and can serve as

design models for future systems that will be incorporated into cockpit displays. The

addition of traffic and surveillance information and potential integration with ATC

communications are examples of the potential ReTINA will have to reduce runway

incursions.

6. Interactions with Airport Operators and Industry Experts Alex Gertsen, President and Founder, Aviation Fury, LLC. Mr. Alex Gertsen is

President and Founder of Aviation Fury, LLC, a technology company that provides

technology solutions to airports, the Federal Aviation Administration, and technology

developers. Alex has previously served as Director of ATC Programs at Air Traffic

Control Association (ATCA) and Director of Regulatory Affairs at American Association

of Airport Executives. According to Mr. Gertsen, he believes that pilot error due to

distractions, fatigue, or confusion are the main cause of runway incursions, in addition to

vehicle and pedestrian deviations. Specifically in general aviation, Alex believes that

pilots move without proper clearance because they are often unaware of hold lines. Mr.

Gertsen responded favorably to our design idea of providing digital maps to pilots via

portable tablets and felt that traffic information would be helpful for pilots because it is

only currently available to ATCs. His main concern regarding a digital tablet application


28

was that it not create overload for the pilot, but he felt that our design idea would be

particularly beneficial for planes without moving map displays. Alex stressed the

importance of incorporating our displays into other ground vehicles besides aircraft and

the importance to incorporate all airport movement into our design.

Todd A. Cox, C.M., Airport Manager, St. Lucie County International Airport.

Mr. Todd A. Cox is currently the general airport manager at Port St. Lucie Airport in Port

St. Lucie, Florida. Mr. Cox has over 33 years of aviation experience, including time as an

air traffic controller. As a general aviation airport manager, Mr. Cox was able to provide

insight into the various operational differences between general aviation and commercial

airports, as well as the differences in procedures due to technology and funding

disparities.

Rich Burton, National Lead LCGS, San Jose Tower. Richard provided us with

expert knowledge on the LCGS system along with information about the workload of

ATC. He described the system in San Jose and identified how it will be used throughout

the trial period. Richard went into detail about the technology behind the system. He also

indicated that pilot’s situation awareness may be a leading cause of runway incursions.

He believed that our ipad app will increase situation awareness and most likely lead to

fewer runway incursions.

Richard W. Loewen, National Air Traffic Controllers Association. Mr. Richard

Loewen is a member of the National Air Traffic Controllers Associations (NACTA).

Richard has been an Air Traffic Controller for 23 years and is currently based in Dallas-

Fort Worth, Texas. He is also a Runway Safety Action Team (RSAT) member. The

RSAT’s purpose is to address existing and potential runway safety problems and issues.


29

Richard provided insight into the activities of ATC as well as feedback on our design

ideas. Richard stressed the importance of maintaining ATC’s situational awareness of

ground traffic. Richard emphasized the importance of heads-up displays for both

controllers and pilots. Per Mr. Loewen, root cause analysis of prior incursions have

indicated that flight crew time spent on programming or looking down at maps have

resulted in pilot errors. Richard thought that providing pilots with an airport diagram on a

tablet computer would increase pilots’ situational awareness. He was also receptive to the

fact that the information could also be shared with other ground vehicle operators via the

use of portable devices. He also mentioned that NOTAM alerts can be very complicated

and a shared display with updated information would enhance the situational awareness

of pilots.

Jeff Anderson, Commercial Pilot. An interview with American Airlines pilot Jeff

Anderson (6000+ hours of flight time) informed us that airlines are starting to implement

iPads in the cockpit. He gave us an overview of the current technologies in the cockpit at

present and other ways in which airlines are trying to mitigate runway incursions. He

liked the idea of an iPad app that would consolidate the current airport maps into an

electronic form. He stated that this would increase pilots’ situational awareness on the

runway as long as there was no cognitive overhead in interacting with the app.

Chris Stephenson, Terminal Technology Coordinator, NATCA. Chris Stevenson

is a terminal technology coordinator. He worked for the safety and technology

department and sat on the runway safety council. He said most runway incursions occur

because of a breakdown in communications between pilots and ATC. Gave examples

such as: ATC can forget to include a hold short; pilot reads back correct instructions but


30

forgets a hold short; pilot can be disoriented; ATC gets distracted and issues right

instructions but cannot monitor the aircraft closely.

Luke Basso, General Aviation Pilot. Luke Basso is a general aviation pilot with

450 hours of flight time who has recently received his commercial license. Luke let us

know that some pilots use iPad apps for aviation. He liked the idea of using an iPad

besides flipping through a handbook of airport maps; thought that “it would be more

efficient.” Luke also told us that ATCs don’t usually have time to walk you through all of

the taxiway navigation and that during long taxi routes an app would be helpful. He

suggested that adding NOTAMS and other alerts would be helpful as well. He also

suggested that showing other traffic could be helpful.

Rob Higginbothom & Ben Marple, FAA & Veracity Engineering, LCGS

Division. We toured Veracity Engineering where the LCGS systems are being

monitored/evaluated. Rob and Ben gave us a presentation on the history and direction of

the LCGS systems. He spoke about the expected timeline for implementing more

systems. We were also able to interact with the LCGS interface.

James Heath, Commercial Airline Pilot. James Heath is a first officer for a large,

U.S. regional airline. He holds a commercial pilot’s license, CFI-I/MEI certificates, and

CL-65 and DHC-8 SIC type ratings. He has experience in commercial and flight training

environments. James provided information concerning pilot responsibilities in both

commercial and general aviation domains. With his background in flight instruction,

James was receptive to the idea of a navigational app for assisting low-time pilots with

navigating unfamiliar airports. His opposition to the use of an app in a commercial


31

operation guided the group’s focus towards GA as the specific user group for which our

efforts should be targeting.

Jim Slate, Manager, Dulles Air Traffic Control Tower, FAA. Jim Slate is the

manager of the Dulles Air Traffic Control tower. He talked about how ADS-B gives

information to pilots, and how ASDE-X is helpful to controllers. He also explained that

the company who works on ASDE-X is Sensis. Jim also talked about the concept of a

“moving map” in NextGen, which will use information from ADS-B to show locations of

other pilots, as well as show pilots their own location and terrain and weather patterns

around them. He also talked about the technology of runway status lights, and how they

are especially helpful in airports that consistently have poor visibility. He talked about

how runway status lights incorporate data from ASDE-X to identify if there is a runway

incursion, and that the lights will notify the pilots.

Christopher M. McCalla, Commercial Airline Pilot. Christopher McCalla

participated in a user test on April 25th, 2012 on a prototype of the iPad application. Mr.

McCalla reported that he had 23 years of commercial flight aviation, and 3 in general

aviation. From his usability survey, he reported that the application may be distracting to

pilots that rely too much on the application. He also reported that he currently uses iPads

in flight. Interestingly, while he reported that he prefers using paper maps, he thought the

addition of graphical NOTAM depictions, ability to view other runway traffic, and

interaction with the planning of runway routes all could be expected to decrease runway

incursions. When asked to describe our application in 3 words, he used the words

“pictures,” “ease,” and “potential.”


32

Michael McClintock, Commercial Airline Pilot. Michael McClintock was

another subject during our user test on April 25th. He reported to have 4 years experience

in general aviation, and less than 1 year in commercial aviation. He believed that iPad use

in the cockpit with cut down in shuffling through maps and books in the cockpit. He also

reported that the displays can benefit pilots in that they can identify what is occurring

around them in the ground environment in quick, real time. He believed that this feature

would be one of the stronger benefits of the application in terms of minimizing the

prevalence of runway incursions, whereas the “draw a route” feature wouldn’t be as

beneficial

7. Projected Impact of Design and Findings Oftentimes technologies are implemented as treatments to problems as opposed to

preventive measures. ReTINA provides pilots with location information that leads to

higher awareness of their environment. Knowing where you are and where you are going

are integral pieces of information when navigating an airport surface. Incorrect

movements can lead to dangerous situations such as runway incursions. Pilots will be

able to identify problem locations and movements before they become dangerous

situations. A visual display of the airport surface will increase pilot confidence about

their movement. Navigating large airports can be extremely difficult due to the number of

taxiways. ReTINA will enhance pilot navigation and possibly decrease the number times

pilots ask ATC to repeat taxiing instructions.

ReTINA leverages existing technologies offering a lower price point than almost

any other runway incursion prevention system available. The system utilizes an off the

shelf technology, the iPad along with any ground surveillance system that is available.


33

The main cost involved with ReTINA is the iPad. ReTINA provides an extremely low

cost alternative to cockpit retrofitting and other custom technologies.

ReTINA will be able to interface with future technologies providing a richer

degree of information to increase pilot SA. One of the problems with new technologies is

the misguided ideology that more is always better. More information or functionality

does not necessarily mean better. A design based in human factors principles will

continue to influence the design process with ReTINA as technologies move forward.

The extra set of eyes that ReTINA provides is invaluable to aviation safety.

While LCGS systems are only beginning to be tested, within the next 10 years

there may be upwards of 30 live systems across the nation (R. Higginbothom, personal

communication, March 30, 2012). Pilots who fly in and out of airports supporting ground

surveillance technologies will be able to improve their situation awareness through the

ReTINA interface. ReTINA will provide pilots with a level of awareness that will

improve their performance and decrease instances of runway incursions.


34

Appendix A Team Contact Information

Faculty Advisor

Tyler H. Shaw, PhD George Mason University

Psychology Department

4400 University Drive, 3F5

Fairfax, VA 22030

P. 703-993-5187

F. 703-993-1359

[email protected]

Graduate Student Team Members

Jane H. Barrow 4131 Fountanside Lane #204

Fairfax, VA 22030

858-735-6088

[email protected]

Brian D. Kidwell 10241 Evesham Lane

Fairfax, VA 22030

217-549-9305

[email protected]

William J. Benson 10200 Chase Commons Dr., APT 304

Burke, VA 22015

845-489-1480

[email protected]

Haneen Saqer 3851 Aristotle Court #1-304

Fairfax, VA 22030

713-884-0844

[email protected]

Eric J. Blumberg 7920 Sutcliffe Drive

Raleigh, NC 27613

919-673-9296

[email protected]

Melissa A.B. Smith 9930 Fairfax Sq APT 15

Fairfax, VA 22031

954-401-0107

[email protected]

Devon B. Kelley 10451 Malone Court

Fairfax, VA 22032

518-935-3413

[email protected]

Jonathan D. Strohl 4104 Summit Heights Way #222

Fairfax, VA 22030

610-504-2752

[email protected]


35

Appendix B Description of the University

George Mason University's growing reputation as an innovative educational

leader is rooted in Virginia's strong educational tradition. Since 1972, the university's

development has been marked by rapid growth and innovative planning. Drawing

prominent scholars from all fields, George Mason's outstanding faculty includes two

Nobel laureates in Economic Science, the Robinson Professors, a group of outstanding

scholars committed to undergraduate teaching and interdisciplinary scholarship, a

Pulitzer Prize winner, IEEE Centennial Medalists, and recipients of numerous grants and

awards, including Fulbright, National Science Foundation, and National Endowment for

the Arts awards. Endowed chairs have also brought many artists and scholars to campus.

The Arch Laboratory is housed in the Department of Psychology at George

Mason University and is the main research and training facility of the graduate program

in Human Factors and Applied Cognition. The Arch Lab has approximately 5,000 sq. ft.

of dedicated space for research in human factors, cognitive psychology, cognitive

neuroscience, and neuroergonomics. Agencies that have funded or are currently funding

research in the Arch Lab include NIH, NSF, ONR, DARPA, FAA, NASA, NTSB, DoD,

the Army Research Laboratory, and the Air Force Office of Scientific Research.


36

Appendix C Description of Non-University Partners

This project did not incorporate the use of any non-university partners.


37

Appendix D – Signoff Form by Advisor


38

Appendix E Evaluation of Educational Experience

E-1 Dr. Tyler Shaw, Faculty Advisor This was my first year serving as faculty advisor for the FAA design project. The

eight students who participated in the design project were a very diverse group,

consisting of 1st year MA students and a range of 1

st to 4

th year doctoral students. What I

was very impressed with was the ability of the group to self-organize; the more

experienced doctoral students stepped into a leadership position, and every student

seemed to acquire a role that played to their individual strength. Overall, the team was

extremely well-balanced and communicated well about vital aspects of the project. I feel

that they have learned a great deal about design, as well as team building and

communication, having been involved in the FAA competition.

This project was entirely student-driven. The eight students did not complete the

design project as part of a course requirement-- the entirety of the project was conducted

in their spare time. This also posed, in my opinion, the biggest challenge for students, as

they had to leverage completion of the project with other responsibilities such as their

coursework and individual research projects. Students overcame this potential obstacle

through precise coordination, clearly defined roles and delegation of responsibility, and

weekly meetings spanning the length of an entire 15-week semester. My role was largely

one of consultation — students handled all aspects of the project, ranging from a

conceptual model for the design, to the development of a workable project, and met with

me to discuss ideas. This is a testament to both the student’s ability to manage time

effectively and their independence as young scientists and designers.


39

At the outset of the project, few students had in-depth knowledge of the current

technology used in aviation. They spent a substantial amount of time ensuring that they

had adequate knowledge of the most relevant features, and truly did their “due diligence”

in making sure that no critical piece of information was overlooked. I think students may

have been a little taken aback by the tremendous strides aviation has made over the past

decade, largely due to the NextGen initiative, and may not have anticipated spending so

much of their 15-weeks conducting research. However, once they surveyed the existing

literature and technologies, they formulated a design and executed their plan of attack

flawlessly.

One of the more impressive aspects of the design process was the tangible

product, the ReTINA prototype, that was developed during the course of the design

process. The prototype is truly remarkable, and I think it was very beneficial for students

to get a sense as to the difficulties in designing a product that could potentially be used in

the field. When the prototype was developed, the students conducted a small usability

study with pilots to test the usability and intuitiveness of the design, and the results of

that study suggest that it could be potentially well-received. This was very encouraging

to myself and the students, especially since so much time and effort was allocated to

building the system from the ground up.

In sum, students seem to really benefit from having taken part in this experience.

I personally learned a great deal more about aviation, and we all learned about each other

in terms of the individual contributions we can make to these types of projects. In

addition, the interaction with the very polite, yet honest, subject matter experts

reemphasized to the team the importance of ecological validity and feasibility within any


40

design endeavor. Thus, an important lesson learned from this experience is that we can

never lose sight of the importance of simplicity and intuitiveness in system design,

something that can easily be overlooked by academicians. I hope to participate in the

FAA design in the future and I look forward to working with the next batch of students.

E-2 Jane H. Barrow This is the second year I have participated in the FAA Design Competition for

Universities, the first being the inaugural year in 2007. This year, I led the design team,

which was an entirely new experience for me. I learned a great deal about the process of

leading a group towards a design goal, which I thought was hugely valuable. I have been

part of a design team before, but it was a completely different challenge to lead the

design process. The biggest challenge we faced as a team was completing the project in a

single semester. The time it took us to develop a design idea was a bit longer than we

originally anticipated, while impacted the amount of time we could spend on developing

the prototype, user-testing the prototype, and then writing the paper. If we had had a few

more months, I think the process might have been less stressful. Our process began with

literature reviews and web searches to determine what the current solutions were and

what the problems with those solutions were. We then transitioned to interviews to learn

more about specific areas and get feedback about our initial thoughts on where we could

make a difference in the problem space. We also interviewed pilots to better understand

the task of taxiing, and to test our prototype once it was developed. Without these key

industry interactions, I'm not sure we could have developed the design to the same

degree. We were able to ask general and specific questions, and just about everyone that

we interviewed was extremely helpful. This was one of the best aspects of the

competition in my opinion - having the database of industry experts was a lifesaver. This


41

project was learning experience in project management, as well as a way to utilize

usability analysis and design techniques that we had learned about but hadn't been able to

practice.

E-3 William J. Benson The FAA Design competition was a valuable learning experience that I was happy

to participate in this year. I was able to interact with professionals in the field and learn a

substantial amount about ground operations and runway incursions. Not only did I learn

about the field of aviation, but the experience also taught me about working in a large

group with a variety of skills, on a project of a large magnitude. One of the biggest

challenges our group faced was coming up with a unique idea. With the issue of runway

incursions being a central focus in aviation, we were hard pressed to come up with an

idea that not had already been done before. What we finally decided on was dependent on

understanding pilot workflow on the ground, and thinking of ways we could minimize the

mental workload that pilots often have to manage. I truly believe that the application we

designed will reduce pilots workload by providing an efficient memory aid, as well as a

helpful tool for gaining as much information quickly about any airport as fast as possible.

Experts in the industry helped a great deal during the duration of our project, especially

when determining what information we can and should present to the pilot. In the end,

this project helped me determine that I would like to continue work in this field, and

perhaps further into application design and development.

E-4 Eric J. Blumberg Participating in the FAA competition was a great learning experience. It was

enjoyable to identify a problem space, create a prototype, and do user evaluations.

Completing the project involved a great deal of coordination and teamwork. As a group


42

we successfully navigated a number of tense situations. We were able to logically attack

the problems, enabling us to be object in our decisions. We did a good job of

understanding one another's strengths and weaknesses. We utilized whiteboards and

chalkboards to work out our problems. The visual information aids learning and

understanding of new concepts. We did a lot of brainstorming; thinking out loud of

various problem domains. Each of performed a literature review and examined the

problem space extensively. We met and were able to come to a consensus upon what we

thought were the greatest needs for pilots. We utilized subject matter experts extensively

because they possess the true wealth of information on the topics. They provided us with

invaluable information about the problem space . They also provided constructive

feedback on our idea and helped us focus our product. This project was valuable to me. I

improved my skills as an analytic researcher. This process also facilitated my ability to

work in teams.

E-5 Devon B. Kelley The FAA Design Competition was a meaningful experience for me because it was

a project that required me to think critically about developing a system provided me the

opportunity to get experience working in a large group on a long term project. Some

challenges that faced our team were different personalities and individuals from different

backgrounds in human factors, not just specifically aviation. Initially coming up with an

idea to mitigate incursions was also a challenge. We started off with very broad ideas

until we finally were able to narrow it down to the idea presented in this paper. We

overcame all challenges and obstacle by working closely with each other and holding

working meetings on a regular basis. Pilot awareness and communication with ATC were

critical aspects in whether runway incursions occurred or not. Thus, our hypothesis was


43

to create a system that would increase pilot’s situational awareness and perhaps enhance

the communication process between the pilot and ATC. Interviews with industry

professionals proved to be extremely useful to gathering information, ideas, and feedback

about our design. I believe this project with provided me with an experience that will help

me in the future, whether it is in the workforce or in conducting future research in

aviation.

E-6 Brian D. Kidwell Participating in a group project of this order was a challenging but positive

experience. As the resulting design is intended for review by a committee with which we

did not have direct contact, reliance on other group members for interpreting FAA desires

was the only method of consensus regarding the ideal group focus. This necessitated

group involvement and interdependence as our understanding of the aims of the

competition were the sum of the group members' views of the desired result. The iterative

process in which we investigated the problem of runway incursions, brainstormed

solutions, and went through the steps of task analysis and prototype design effectively

functioned as a level for ensuring that our group maintained project cohesion. Industry

experts guided our approach at each step, tempering various untenable solutions with the

realities of the National Airspace System. The largest obstacle in our design process was

the process of consolidating the ideas and intentions of eight different individuals into a

single, workable product. Even within a group of human factors students, each individual

comes with a unique and varying background of skills, ideas, and domain knowledge.

While this diversity occasionally created ideological congestion, the net effect is

undoubtedly positive as group consensus hones and strengthens the ultimate result.


44

E-7 Haneen Saqer The FAA Design Competition was a very valuable experience for me because it

afforded me the opportunity to work in a multidisciplinary team on a specific applied

program. Applying our human factors knowledge and usability skills to a real-world

problem with a significant impact was very rewarding. It was exciting to work with a

team whose members shared the goal of improving aviation safety by reducing runway

incursions. My biggest challenge throughout this process was my lack of previous

knowledge or experience with the aviation industry. To tackle this issue we interviewed

as many pilots and air traffic controllers as possible. To develop our hypotheses we

interviewed subject matter experts and conducted hours of research to determine current

technologies available in aviation. Once our hypothesis for a mobile application was

formed, we developed prototypes of the application and conducted user testing for

evaluation and feedback. I learned a great deal about the intricacies of the aviation

environment and the many stakeholders involved. I also taught myself how to use an

interaction design software package for developing prototypes, which will be a valuable

asset upon entering the workforce.

E-8 Melissa A.B. Smith The FAA Design Competition was a very rich learning experience, providing

various opportunities to learn about the pervasive problem of runway incursions,

brainstorm and design various solutions, apply task analysis techniques to real-world

scenarios, and collaborate with numerous industry experts and fellow graduate students.

As a first year doctoral student, working on a group project of this magnitude was a novel

experience, introducing me to the benefits and also the trials associated with large-scale

group work. Coordinating amongst such a large group of people, from meeting times to


45

idea compilation, can be a challenge, but the team overcame this issue by having weekly

meetings and using group collaboration technologies like a project wiki page, Google

Docs, and Dropbox. The team hypothesis was developed after talking with industry

experts about their perspectives on the issues surrounding runway incursions; these

interviews and tours from the industry experts were invaluable to the progression of the

project. This project provided a unique learning opportunity to explore the role of human

factors within the area of aviation and has allowed me to utilize skills I will need

throughout my graduate and future career.

E-9 Jonathan D. Strohl Previous to working on the FAA Design Competition, I had very limited

experience with human factors in the aviation domain. This competition not only

increased my body of knowledge on the subject matter but also provided me with critical

skills to take into the workplace. The initial creation of the design was a challenging

process. A lot of time went into not only coming up with a creative and convincing idea

to prevent incursions, but then molding this idea into a feasible solution. The group

initially focused on general background knowledge through literature reviews on the

history and current state of the problem of runway incursions. Once the problem space

was appropriately defined, we focused on a variety of emerging technologies that could

be implemented to address some of the most central contributing factors to runway

incursions. My favorite experiences on the project involved the interviews with the

industry professions. Our subject matter experts provided us with terrific insights into the

problem as well as helped us to frame our design proposal. They added indispensable

value to our final design. The competition particularly honed my interface prototyping

skills. Not only did I get to work with graphic design software, but I was able to help in


46

the production of a usable and testable interactive prototype. These skills will be very

beneficial in my future career as a human factors professional.


47

Appendix F - References

Aviator Apps. (2012). Aviation Apps for for the iPhone, iPod Touch, iPad, and Mac.

Retrieved from website: http://aviatorapps.com/

Bilton, N. (2011). F.A.A. Approves iPads in cockpits, but not for passengers. The New

York Times. Retrieved from website: http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/14/f-

a-a-approves-ipads-in-cockpits-but-not-for-passengers/.

Boehm-Davis, D. A. (2006). Improving product safety and effectiveness in the

home. Reviews of Human Factors and Ergonomics 1(1): 219-250.

Brewster, D. (2011). Cessnah T210 POH [iOS software].

Cooke, N. J. (1999). Knowledge Elicitation. In F.T. Durso (Ed.), Applied

Cognition. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, 479-509.

de Luchtvaart, R.V. (1979). Final Report and Comments of the Netherlands Aviation

Safety Board of the Investigation into the Accident with the Collision of KLM

Flight 4805, Boeing 747-121, N736PA at Tenerife Airport, Spain on 27 March

1977. Retrieved from website: http://www.skybrary.aero/bookshelf/books/313.pdf

Department of Transportation. (2007). FAA Needs to Improve ASDE-X Management

Controls to Address Cost Growth, Schedule Delays, and Safety Risks. Retrieved

from website: http://www.oig.dot.gov/library-item/4973

Digital Cyclone (2012). Garmin Pilot [iOS software].

Electronic Code of Federal Regulations (e-CFR). (2012). Title 14, Aeronautics and

Space. § 91.21. Retreived from website: http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-

idx?c=ecfr&sid=32ed53ffccb929bd13126f4654ed2363&rgn=div8&view=text&n


48

ode=14:2.0.1.3.10.1.4.11&idno=14

Endsley, M. R., (1995). Toward a Measurement of Situation Awareness in Dynamic

Systems. Human Factors 37(1), 32-64.

Federal Aviation Administration. (2009). Runway Safety - Runway Incursions. Retrieved

from website:

http://www.faa.gov/airports/runway_safety/news/runway_incursions/

Federal Aviation Administration. (2010a). Annual Runway Safety Report 2010. Retrieved

from website:

http://www.faa.gov/airports/runway_safety/news/publications/media/Annual_Run

way_Safety_Report_2010.pdf

Federal Aviation Administration. (2010b). Fact sheet – Airport Surface Detection

Equipment, Model X (ASDE-X). Retrieved from

website:http://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/news_story.cfm?newsId=6296

Federal Aviation Administration. (2012a). Airport facility directory. Retrieved from

website: http://aeronav.faa.gov/pdfs/All_Hotspot.pdf

Federal Aviation Administration. (2012b). Runway Incursion Totals for FY 2012.

Retrieved from website:

http://www.faa.gov/airports/runway_safety/statistics/regional/?fy=2012

Gabriel, J., Valovage, E., & Keller, S. (2003). Investigation of runway incursion

prevention systems. Informally published manuscript, Engineering, Cornell,

Ithaca, NY. Retrieved from website: http://eng-

web.engineering.cornell.edu/EngrWords/ingenuity/Keller_S_issue_1.pdf

Gray, W.D. & Altmann, E.M. (2001). Cognitive Modeling and Human-Computer


49

Interaction. In W. Karwowski (Ed.), International Encyclopedia of Ergonomics

and Human Factors. New York: Taylor & Francis Ltd. (1), 387-391.

Joint Planning and Development Office. (2004). Next generation air transportation

system integrated plan. Washington, DC: Author.

Jones, D. R., & Prinzel III, L. J. (2006). Runway Incursion Prevention for General

Aviation Operations. Paper presented at 25th Digital Avionics Systems

Conference.

Kirwan, B. A., Ainsworth, L.K. (1992). A guide to task analysis. London, UK, Taylor &

Francis

National Transportation Safety Board. (2011). NTSB Most Wanted List. Retrieved from

website: http://www.ntsb.gov/safety/mwl.html

Patterson Jr., J. W. (2004). Evaluation of in-pavement runway guard lights

(DOT/FAA/AR-TN04/49). Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation

Administration. Retrieved from website:

http://www.airporttech.tc.faa.gov/Safety/Downloads/TN04-49.pdf

RocketRoute LTD. (2012). AeroPlates [iOS software].

Searidge Technologies. (2012). Runway incursion monitoring and collision avoidance

system. Retrieved from website: http://searidgetech.com/ansp/rimcas

Stone, D., Jarrett, C., Woodroffe, M. & Minocha, S. (2005). User interface design and

evaluation. San Fransisco: Elsevier.

Tech notes (2010). Lincoln Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of

Technology. Retrieved from

website: http://www.ll.mit.edu/publications/technotes/TechNote_RWSL.pdf


50

Tehan, Geoff (2010). iPad GUI PSD. Retrieved from

website: http://www.teehanlax.com/blog/ipad-gui-psd/


51

Appendix G - Figures

Environment

Cognition

(User)

Artifact

(Product)

Task

Interactive

Behavior

Figure 2. Cognitive artifact task triad (adapted from Gray & Altmann, 2001)

Figure 1. Levels of situation awareness (adapted from Endsley, 1995)


52

Figure 3. Operational Sequence Diagram (OSD)


53

Figure 4. Kneeboard placement of iPad

Figure 5. Instrument panel mounting for iPad


54

Figure 6. Disclaimer pop-up on homepage


55

Figure 7. Homepage with three customizable windows


56

Figure 8. Keyboard display for searching for airports


57

Figure 9. Airport Diagram with current location displayed


58

Figure 10. Notepad displayed overtop of the diagram for quick access to note taking


59

Figure 11. NOTAMs in complete text format displayed overtop of the diagram for quick reference


60

Figure 12. Layers menu sidebar for graphical overlays on the map and quick access to features


61

Figure 13. Future technology development and integration may allow for display of real-time traffic


62

Figure 14. Extraction of info. from NOTAMs allows for graphical display of runway/taxiway alerts


63

Figure 15. Selecting the drawing mode displays all possible turning points from current location.


64

Figure 16. Selecting a turning point draws a line to the point and activates the next possible

turning points. Dots continue to be restricted to only accessible points to decrease screen clutter.


65

Figure 17. The next possible turning points are now active and the route has been updated.


66

Figure 18. The next possible turning points are now active and the route has been updated.


67

Figure 19. The user has selected the final turning point and the route has been updated.


68

Figure 20. Selecting the sidebar displays the route in textual format for easy read back by the

pilot


69

Figure 21. Selecting the current location resets the route and allows the user to begin again if

route has changed.


70

Figure 22. The settings menu allows the user to customize options and defaults. Here the user is

able to assign individual maps to a group. These groups are then accessible on the homepage.


71

Figure 23. User persona.


72

Pote

nti

al

effe

ctiv

enes

s

Likelihood of Features to Decrease Incursions

Pilot 1

Pilot 2

5 = Very likely to decrease runway incursions

4 = Likely to decrease runway incursions

3 = Neutral (will have no impact)

2 = Likely to increase runway incursions

1 = Very likely to increase runway incursions

Figure 24. Responses from two pilots after user-testing of the prototype.

faa design competition

Documents

pilots awareness

pilots eyes

pilots ability

causes of runway incursions

runwayrelevant notams

runway incursion prevention

ground tyler

pilot deviations