How a cockpit calculates its speeds and why errors while doing this are so hard to detect
Recent incidents have shown that the production of take-off speeds is an activity vulnerable to miscalculations with a potential for disastrous outcomes. The aim of this paper is to analyze the calculation of the take-off speeds in a modern airline cockpit as a distributed cognitive activity in orde...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Cognition, technology & work technology & work, 2011-11, Vol.13 (4), p.217-231 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 231 |
---|---|
container_issue | 4 |
container_start_page | 217 |
container_title | Cognition, technology & work |
container_volume | 13 |
creator | Henriqson, Eder van Winsen, Roel Saurin, Tarcisio Abreu Dekker, Sidney W. A. |
description | Recent incidents have shown that the production of take-off speeds is an activity vulnerable to miscalculations with a potential for disastrous outcomes. The aim of this paper is to analyze the calculation of the take-off speeds in a modern airline cockpit as a distributed cognitive activity in order to identify possible vulnerabilities in this process. We took the cockpit as the joint cognitive system under analysis and conducted an ethnographic study based on documental analysis, flight observations, interviews, and the analysis of 22 events involving failures related to the calculation of take-off speeds. The main argument is that the cognitive systems engineering perspective, with less focus on the human contribution than it is common in investigations, levels people and artifacts in the system as equal contributors to its eventual performance. Our analysis identified four assertions regarding vulnerabilities in the process of take-off speeds calculation: (1) representations at the level of the cockpit are always partial and incomplete; (2) some interactions require interpretation rather than institution; (3) interactions of agents do not follow a canonical process of coordination; (4) the control of the prevention of failures is accurate but inadequate. These vulnerabilities are a matter of interactions among cognitive systems in the cockpit, rather than vulnerabilities of individual agents, such as humans or artifacts. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1007/s10111-010-0161-4 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_898677918</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2487567121</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c369t-d8fc0e2194c861b666f6f59f763f828ae725615f627f083f72b229e9a8ef30533</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kEFLAzEQhYMoWKs_wFvwvprJbrLZoxS1QsGLHjyFNDtpt66bNUkp_femVPTkYZgH894b-Ai5BnYLjNV3ERgAFAxYHglFdUImUJWiEELK018t1Dm5iHHDGAhV8gl5n_sdNdR6-zF2iVrT221vEkbapUjjiNhGaoaW7tZ7iiH4ELPseqSt74YVTesu3wPS6OnahJYmT1tMaNMlOXOmj3j1s6fk7fHhdTYvFi9Pz7P7RWFL2aSiVc4y5NBUVklYSimddKJxtSyd4spgzYUE4SSvHVOlq_mS8wYbo9CVTJTllNwce8fgv7YYk974bRjyS60aJeu6AZVNcDTZ4GMM6PQYuk8T9hqYPgDUR4A6A9QHgLrKGX7MxOwdVhj-iv8PfQP6SXH8</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>898677918</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>How a cockpit calculates its speeds and why errors while doing this are so hard to detect</title><source>SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings</source><creator>Henriqson, Eder ; van Winsen, Roel ; Saurin, Tarcisio Abreu ; Dekker, Sidney W. A.</creator><creatorcontrib>Henriqson, Eder ; van Winsen, Roel ; Saurin, Tarcisio Abreu ; Dekker, Sidney W. A.</creatorcontrib><description>Recent incidents have shown that the production of take-off speeds is an activity vulnerable to miscalculations with a potential for disastrous outcomes. The aim of this paper is to analyze the calculation of the take-off speeds in a modern airline cockpit as a distributed cognitive activity in order to identify possible vulnerabilities in this process. We took the cockpit as the joint cognitive system under analysis and conducted an ethnographic study based on documental analysis, flight observations, interviews, and the analysis of 22 events involving failures related to the calculation of take-off speeds. The main argument is that the cognitive systems engineering perspective, with less focus on the human contribution than it is common in investigations, levels people and artifacts in the system as equal contributors to its eventual performance. Our analysis identified four assertions regarding vulnerabilities in the process of take-off speeds calculation: (1) representations at the level of the cockpit are always partial and incomplete; (2) some interactions require interpretation rather than institution; (3) interactions of agents do not follow a canonical process of coordination; (4) the control of the prevention of failures is accurate but inadequate. These vulnerabilities are a matter of interactions among cognitive systems in the cockpit, rather than vulnerabilities of individual agents, such as humans or artifacts.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1435-5558</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1435-5566</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s10111-010-0161-4</identifier><identifier>CODEN: CTWOF8</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>London: Springer-Verlag</publisher><subject>Aerospace Technology and Astronautics ; Aircraft accidents & safety ; Automotive Engineering ; Cognitive Psychology ; Computer Science ; Engineering ; Error correction & detection ; Industrial and Organizational Psychology ; Medicine/Public Health ; Original Research ; User Interfaces and Human Computer Interaction</subject><ispartof>Cognition, technology & work, 2011-11, Vol.13 (4), p.217-231</ispartof><rights>Springer-Verlag London Limited 2010</rights><rights>Springer-Verlag London Limited 2011</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c369t-d8fc0e2194c861b666f6f59f763f828ae725615f627f083f72b229e9a8ef30533</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c369t-d8fc0e2194c861b666f6f59f763f828ae725615f627f083f72b229e9a8ef30533</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10111-010-0161-4$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10111-010-0161-4$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27922,27923,41486,42555,51317</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Henriqson, Eder</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>van Winsen, Roel</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Saurin, Tarcisio Abreu</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dekker, Sidney W. A.</creatorcontrib><title>How a cockpit calculates its speeds and why errors while doing this are so hard to detect</title><title>Cognition, technology & work</title><addtitle>Cogn Tech Work</addtitle><description>Recent incidents have shown that the production of take-off speeds is an activity vulnerable to miscalculations with a potential for disastrous outcomes. The aim of this paper is to analyze the calculation of the take-off speeds in a modern airline cockpit as a distributed cognitive activity in order to identify possible vulnerabilities in this process. We took the cockpit as the joint cognitive system under analysis and conducted an ethnographic study based on documental analysis, flight observations, interviews, and the analysis of 22 events involving failures related to the calculation of take-off speeds. The main argument is that the cognitive systems engineering perspective, with less focus on the human contribution than it is common in investigations, levels people and artifacts in the system as equal contributors to its eventual performance. Our analysis identified four assertions regarding vulnerabilities in the process of take-off speeds calculation: (1) representations at the level of the cockpit are always partial and incomplete; (2) some interactions require interpretation rather than institution; (3) interactions of agents do not follow a canonical process of coordination; (4) the control of the prevention of failures is accurate but inadequate. These vulnerabilities are a matter of interactions among cognitive systems in the cockpit, rather than vulnerabilities of individual agents, such as humans or artifacts.</description><subject>Aerospace Technology and Astronautics</subject><subject>Aircraft accidents & safety</subject><subject>Automotive Engineering</subject><subject>Cognitive Psychology</subject><subject>Computer Science</subject><subject>Engineering</subject><subject>Error correction & detection</subject><subject>Industrial and Organizational Psychology</subject><subject>Medicine/Public Health</subject><subject>Original Research</subject><subject>User Interfaces and Human Computer Interaction</subject><issn>1435-5558</issn><issn>1435-5566</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2011</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kEFLAzEQhYMoWKs_wFvwvprJbrLZoxS1QsGLHjyFNDtpt66bNUkp_femVPTkYZgH894b-Ai5BnYLjNV3ERgAFAxYHglFdUImUJWiEELK018t1Dm5iHHDGAhV8gl5n_sdNdR6-zF2iVrT221vEkbapUjjiNhGaoaW7tZ7iiH4ELPseqSt74YVTesu3wPS6OnahJYmT1tMaNMlOXOmj3j1s6fk7fHhdTYvFi9Pz7P7RWFL2aSiVc4y5NBUVklYSimddKJxtSyd4spgzYUE4SSvHVOlq_mS8wYbo9CVTJTllNwce8fgv7YYk974bRjyS60aJeu6AZVNcDTZ4GMM6PQYuk8T9hqYPgDUR4A6A9QHgLrKGX7MxOwdVhj-iv8PfQP6SXH8</recordid><startdate>20111101</startdate><enddate>20111101</enddate><creator>Henriqson, Eder</creator><creator>van Winsen, Roel</creator><creator>Saurin, Tarcisio Abreu</creator><creator>Dekker, Sidney W. A.</creator><general>Springer-Verlag</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>0-V</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88G</scope><scope>88J</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ALSLI</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>M2M</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M2R</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>PADUT</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PSYQQ</scope><scope>Q9U</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20111101</creationdate><title>How a cockpit calculates its speeds and why errors while doing this are so hard to detect</title><author>Henriqson, Eder ; van Winsen, Roel ; Saurin, Tarcisio Abreu ; Dekker, Sidney W. A.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c369t-d8fc0e2194c861b666f6f59f763f828ae725615f627f083f72b229e9a8ef30533</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2011</creationdate><topic>Aerospace Technology and Astronautics</topic><topic>Aircraft accidents & safety</topic><topic>Automotive Engineering</topic><topic>Cognitive Psychology</topic><topic>Computer Science</topic><topic>Engineering</topic><topic>Error correction & detection</topic><topic>Industrial and Organizational Psychology</topic><topic>Medicine/Public Health</topic><topic>Original Research</topic><topic>User Interfaces and Human Computer Interaction</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Henriqson, Eder</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>van Winsen, Roel</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Saurin, Tarcisio Abreu</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dekker, Sidney W. A.</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Social Sciences Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Psychology Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>Social Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Social Science Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>Psychology Database</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Social Science Database</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Research Library China</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest One Psychology</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><jtitle>Cognition, technology & work</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Henriqson, Eder</au><au>van Winsen, Roel</au><au>Saurin, Tarcisio Abreu</au><au>Dekker, Sidney W. A.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>How a cockpit calculates its speeds and why errors while doing this are so hard to detect</atitle><jtitle>Cognition, technology & work</jtitle><stitle>Cogn Tech Work</stitle><date>2011-11-01</date><risdate>2011</risdate><volume>13</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>217</spage><epage>231</epage><pages>217-231</pages><issn>1435-5558</issn><eissn>1435-5566</eissn><coden>CTWOF8</coden><abstract>Recent incidents have shown that the production of take-off speeds is an activity vulnerable to miscalculations with a potential for disastrous outcomes. The aim of this paper is to analyze the calculation of the take-off speeds in a modern airline cockpit as a distributed cognitive activity in order to identify possible vulnerabilities in this process. We took the cockpit as the joint cognitive system under analysis and conducted an ethnographic study based on documental analysis, flight observations, interviews, and the analysis of 22 events involving failures related to the calculation of take-off speeds. The main argument is that the cognitive systems engineering perspective, with less focus on the human contribution than it is common in investigations, levels people and artifacts in the system as equal contributors to its eventual performance. Our analysis identified four assertions regarding vulnerabilities in the process of take-off speeds calculation: (1) representations at the level of the cockpit are always partial and incomplete; (2) some interactions require interpretation rather than institution; (3) interactions of agents do not follow a canonical process of coordination; (4) the control of the prevention of failures is accurate but inadequate. These vulnerabilities are a matter of interactions among cognitive systems in the cockpit, rather than vulnerabilities of individual agents, such as humans or artifacts.</abstract><cop>London</cop><pub>Springer-Verlag</pub><doi>10.1007/s10111-010-0161-4</doi><tpages>15</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1435-5558 |
ispartof | Cognition, technology & work, 2011-11, Vol.13 (4), p.217-231 |
issn | 1435-5558 1435-5566 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_898677918 |
source | SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings |
subjects | Aerospace Technology and Astronautics Aircraft accidents & safety Automotive Engineering Cognitive Psychology Computer Science Engineering Error correction & detection Industrial and Organizational Psychology Medicine/Public Health Original Research User Interfaces and Human Computer Interaction |
title | How a cockpit calculates its speeds and why errors while doing this are so hard to detect |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-13T20%3A36%3A22IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=How%20a%20cockpit%20calculates%20its%20speeds%20and%20why%20errors%20while%20doing%20this%20are%20so%20hard%20to%20detect&rft.jtitle=Cognition,%20technology%20&%20work&rft.au=Henriqson,%20Eder&rft.date=2011-11-01&rft.volume=13&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=217&rft.epage=231&rft.pages=217-231&rft.issn=1435-5558&rft.eissn=1435-5566&rft.coden=CTWOF8&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s10111-010-0161-4&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2487567121%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=898677918&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |