Reducing the Costs of Automation Failure by Providing Voluntary Automation Checking Tools

Objective: We investigated the extent to which a voluntary-use range and bearing line (RBL) tool improves return-to-manual performance when supervising high-degree conflict detection automation in simulated air traffic control. Background: High-degree automation typically benefits routine performance and reduces workload, but can degrade return-to-manual performance if automation fails. We reasoned that providing a voluntary checking tool (RBL) would support automation failure detection, but also that automation induced complacency could extend to nonoptimal use of such tools. Method: Participants were assigned to one of three conditions, where conflict detection was either performed: manually, with RBLs available to use (Manual + RBL), automatically with RBLs (Auto + RBL), or automatically without RBLs (Auto). Voluntary-use RBLs allowed participants to reliably check aircraft conflict status. Automation failed once. Results: RBLs improved automation failure detection – with participants intervening faster and making fewer false alarms when provided RBLs compared to not (Auto + RBL vs Auto). However, a cost of high-degree automation remained, with participants slower to intervene to the automation failure than to an identical manual conflict event (Auto + RBL vs Manual + RBL). There was no difference in RBL engagement time between Auto + RBL and Manual + RBL conditions, suggesting participants noticed the conflict event at the same time. Conclusions: The cost of automation may have arisen from participants’ reconciling which information to trust: the automation (which indicated no conflict and had been perfectly reliable prior to failing) or the RBL (which indicated a conflict). Applications: Providing a mechanism for checking the validity of high-degree automation may facilitate human supervision of automation.