Is Paper Safer? The Role of Paper Flight Strips in Air Traffic Control

Summary:

The authors of this paper decide to observe the real places by themselves to find the answer of this question that "How can we help air traffic controllers make the transition from today’s paper flight strips to more modern computer-based systems?". These observations highlight the benefits of paper flight strips, including qualities difficult to quantify and replicate in new computer systems. Then, they offer two basic alternatives: maintaining the existing strips without computer support and bearing the financial cost of limiting the air traffic, or replacing the strips with automated versions, which offer potential benefits in terms of increased efficiency through automation, but unknown risks through radical change of work practices. Finally, they conclude with a suggestion for a third alternative: to maintain the physical strips, but turn them into the interface to the computer. This would allow controllers to build directly upon their existing, safe work practices with paper strips, while offering them a gradual path for incorporating new computer-based functions.

In each beacon, there are some radars, paper flight strips and controllers. Radar provides a two-dimensional representation of aircraft moving along predefined routes within an air sector, while paper flight strips allow controllers to track and modify information about aircraft and their flight plans. Controller is also responsible to check frequently radars, strips and air traffics.

Because of the safety-critical nature of the system, the air traffic controllers reject interfaces they do not like. Controllers have a very convincing reason: "if there is an accident, computers do not go to jail, controllers do". In the other word, air traffic controllers like paper flight strips according to some reasons. The interface is extremely flexible, familiar, easy-to-use, helps controllers instantly understand the current state of the traffic and lets them communicate without interrupting each other. More importantly, strips are reliable, and --unlike computers, telephones, radio, and radar-- do not break down. Another reason is that paper strips take advantage of both visual and tactile memory, and form an essential component of today’s air traffic control system.

Above the mentioned advantages by controllers, there some others mentioned by the author. Arguably, the most important activity that controllers perform is the continual, sequential checking of each aircraft, first on the radar and then on the strips. This routine is important, not only when things are hectic, but also when things are slow. Any new tool that fundamentally changes this work practice must demonstrate that the increased safety risk from inattention in low traffic levels is more than offset by increased safety in high-stress conditions. Moreover, when a new strip arrives, the act of removing it from the printer and inserting it into the appropriate strip holder forces the controller to mentally register the new flight. Most controllers, when taking over a control position, physically touch each strip, rearranging some of them. Reordering the strips also helps controllers mentally register the new traffic situation. In each case, it is the act of rearranging the strips, more than the final layout, that is important. The physical nature of strips also supports cooperative work. Peripheral awareness (such as audio and visual clues) is highly necessary for air traffic controllers. Controllers share a small physical space, which helps them monitor each others’ activities. Peripheral awareness helps explain a related phenomenon among team members. In light-to-moderate traffic conditions, members of the team who are not assigned to a particular position chat with each other near their team’s working control positions. Controllers also do more than passively accept peripheral information. In some situations, they actively manage it.

Peripheral monitoring, both active and passive, provides controllers with efficient methods of assessing the traffic situation and coming to each others’ aid. It is difficult to quantify the safety benefits of this type of nonverbal physical communication; however, new computer systems that isolate controllers from each other must somehow accommodate the checks and balances that occur naturally in the paper-based system.

While improving productivity is important, safety remains the overriding concern. Increasing the former at the expense of the latter is simply not acceptable. The current paper-based system supports safe and effective work practices and offers a level of flexibility difficult to imagine with traditional computer-based interfaces. The title of this article asks “Is paper is safer?” There is, of course, no single answer. But it does raise the question as to whether the current strategy of radically changing current work practices and eliminating paper strips may be misdirected.

My Idea:

I consider this paper as a curious paper. The attempts of the team members were admirable. They spent a lot of time, and obviously money, to visit the real area and gather information about the current aircraft controlling systems. In addition, they didn't restrict their discovering in one place and they examined 8 beacons in 2 different countries.

On my opinion, as the paper was very long, but it was not boring, because the context had been managed very well. During reading this paper, I assumed that I was in the same place. As a result, I believe that today's computer systems can be applied to replace those paper flight strips.