Human-in-the-loop AI: Requirements on future

(unified) air traffic management systems

Magnus Bång Jimmy Johansson
Jonas Lundberg
Department of Computer and Department of Science and Technology
Department of Science and Technology
Information Science Linköping University
Linköping University
Linköping University Norrköping, Sweden
Norrköping, Sweden
Norrköping, Sweden jimmy.johansson@liu.se
jonas.lundberg@liu.se
magnus.bang@liu.se
Ali Cheaitou Zain Tahboub
Billy Josefsson
Industrial Engineering and Engineering Dubai Aviation Engineering Projects
LFV Air Navigation Services of Sweden
Manafement Department Dubai, UAE
Norrköping, Sweden
University of Sharjah zain.tahboub@daep.ae
billy.josefsson@lfv.se
Sharjah, United Arab Emirates
acheaitou@sharjah.ac.ae

Abstract—Intense drone traffic, exceeding human capabilities
of manual control, is expected to occur during the last stage of
Unified Traffic Management (UTM) and Unmanned Airspace
System (UAS) service deployment in cities. In this paper, we
discuss how humans and automation could collaborate to manage
this airspace. We review theory on options for UTM airspace
structure (volumes, points, networks, layers), machine learning,
optimization, and human-automation collaboration. Based on
simulation and visualization of two cities, we discuss four
abilities: to discern traffic patterns, to recognize situations, to
predict situational developments, and to function in varying
conditions of rule-following habits of airspace users. We then
discuss the challenge of collaborating though the use of advanced
visual dashboards, for human-in-the loop AI but also for society-
in-the-loop. Finally, we discuss how the challenge of human-
automation collaboration can be expected to shift, as the
capabilities of the machine increases.
Keywords— Unified Traffic Management; Urban Traffic
Management; UTM; Deep Learning; Optimization; Traffic
management; Airspace design; Airspace management; Human-
automation collaboration; HMI; Interface design; Cognitive Work
Analysis;
I. INTRODUCTION
AI-assistance and automated (e.g. optimization) tools are a
pre-requisite for intense city drone traffic management. To
assess future issues, a drone traffic simulation was developed
and used in a workshop series with domain stakeholders to
explore future concepts for Unified Traffic Management
(UTM). Previous studies [1] has showed that using basic
airspace structures (e.g., geofencing) to resolve first-order
issues (e.g., the need to enclose traffic or keep it out), second-
order issues emerge (e.g., congestion around geofence edges).
These new issues require new interventions. The intervention
tasks could be manual or automated. In this paper, we discuss
how humans and automation could collaborate in AI- assisted
city UTM.
Since there is currently no intense city drone traffic to
study, we use a simulation as the point of departure. As a basis
for our analysis, we use simulated drone traffic over a city with
This paper was supported by an internal funding from the University of Sharjah
through the project number 1702040585-P, and supported by the Swedish
Governmental Agency for Innovation Systems (VINNOVA).
XXX-X-XXXX-XXXX-X/XX/$XX.00 ©20XX IEEE
about 140 000 citizens, one central airport, and low-height
buildings. As a contrast case, we also discuss a city with 3.2
million inhabitants, one central airport, and high-rise building,
for which traffic simulation is currently being developed.
The European U4 stage (step 4 in the foreseen
development) of drone traffic services is predicted to be the
most profitable stage, with a focus on cities.
Each U step builds upon the previous one. While U1 and
U2 are organization and structure for basic information needs
and the interactions are on a rudimentary level. The U1 / U2
system support are supporting initial autonomy whereas U3
and U4 benefit from technology; Artificial Intelligence (AI),
aeronautical information management (AIM), and smart
algorithms. Autonomy and high level of automation will cater
for efficiency and safety related to the usage of airspace and
consequently impact on the conventional Air Traffic
Management (ATM) services.
Key distinguishing characteristics of the U4 [2] stage from
previous stages include increased traffic intensity and
complexity as well as increased ground risk. This means that
some simplification that are useful in U1-U3 cannot be
assumed to hold for U4 solutions. Examples of simplifications
that do not apply to U4 include (1) to always exclusively
reserve airspace for single drones or mission operators (shared
airspace is required), (2) to always avoid drones over people
(safe trajectories over populated areas are required) and (3) to
assume that there is always plenty of space (congestion
hotspots will instead emerge).
When services mature as a consequence of technological
developments and regulations, services such as the transport of
people will be undoubtedly a reality and will most likely need
to operate at altitudes around 2000 feet in order to minimize
the noise footprint. In many city areas, there is an airport in the
vicinity, which means that the airspace might be the limiting
factor for providing services in these urban environments and
in particular if the altitudes exceed very low levels. Hence, the
integration of airspace users (whether they are manned,
unmanned or fully autonomous) points at an argument for an
integration of ATM/AIM/UTM services.

978-1-7281-0649-6/19/$31.00 ©2019 IEEE

Authorized licensed use limited to: Middlesex University. Downloaded on July 20,2020 at 05:27:00 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 Previous work [1, 3] suggests that point-based control of Figure 1-3. It has relatively low buildings, characteristic of
individual drones results in too much, and perhaps also to Sweden, but more importantly, it also has a local airport near
rapidly occurring, work for human direct control. Instead, the city center. For the Norrköping case, direct routing with
indirect, supervisory control through airspace management (of detect-and-avoid was the main principle, see Fig. 1.
structural elements) were suggested, to enable viable
conditions for point-based control by the UTM system Secondly, the city of Dubai (approx. 3.2 million
automation and by the drones (autonomous drones or remote inhabitants) in the UAE was also selected, Figure 4-5. It has
pilots). several areas with high-rise buildings, with surrounding low-
level buildings or desert, further Dubai also has an airport in
To monitor the airspace, it was suggested that the UTM the city center. For the Dubai case, route networks with
system provides optimized traffic flow was the main principle.
1. A basic tool set for airspace structuring, and a basic For the Norrköping case, services from the workshops were
dashboard for visualizing airspace quality. implemented in the simulator, and a case from the simulation
will be presented for analysis. For the Dubai case, modelling
2. Tools for manually addressing second order issues for simulation is on-going. Currently, routing principles and a
(side-effects of using the basic tool set), to adjust the core set of services have been identified for simulation. This
airspace manually (e.g. local rules), and to evaluate the case will be discussed on that more preliminary basis.
effects of interventions (e.g. through a dashboard).
3. Optimized and automated management of second- A. Simulation
order issues (side-effects).
In one of our recent workshops on automation in UTM, we
however encountered a core issue. Our workshop participants
(with managerial ATM experience, including drone related
issues) raised the question of their own role, versus automation,
realizing that optimization tools could (in principle) be devised
to solve many (perhaps almost all) situations. In this paper, we
explore this issue further, with a focus on how humans and
automation could collaborate to manage the UTM airspace. We
discuss the potential of AI (Machine Learning and
Optimization) in UTM, and how the human may stain in
control of AI-based UTM solutions (Human-in-the-loop-AI),
through information visualization techniques (dashboards). We
also discuss the use of visualization as a means to keep society- Fig. 1. City Traffic, direct point-to-point with airport geofence. Background
in-the loop (e.g. regulators, other stakeholders), and finally generated from GSD-Ortofoto25 and GSD-Höjddata, grid 2+ ©
how the evolution of AI may shift the character of human- Lantmäteriet.
automation collaboration.

II. CASES
Since no intense city drone traffic existed in the cities
involved in this study, an interactive traffic simulation and
visualization was developed. This enables exploration of
potential solutions and traffic situations, of UTM as a first-of-
a-kind system [1, 3]. To design and evaluate solutions, a triple
helix approach was used, where experts from academia worked
together with domain stakeholders. In particular, with air traffic
management experts, and regulatory experts, but also with
experts in related areas (e.g. drone hardware).
The simulation allows exploration of solution ideas, and
side-effects, and provides common ground for discussion. In Fig. 2. Congestion at geofence corners, close-up. Background generated
the simulation, extremes can be tested, such as the minimal from GSD-Ortofoto25 and GSD-Höjddata, grid 2+ © Lantmäteriet.
airport geofences in Figures 1 and 4. Further, future services
can be explored and their impact can be assessed, see e.g. the The system used in this case study consists of a drone
service locations in Figure 5 and the traffic patterns in Figures traffic simulator, with services dispatching drones to perform
1-3. These thus do not reflect current rules/regulation, but by tasks, and a touch-table interface with visualization, statistics
placing them in the simulation, we can observe/measure some and interaction support. See [3] for more details on the design
effects that these designs and conditions for traffic could have. of the system and the traffic scenarios for Norrköping. As
shown in Figures 1-3, lines represent the drone trajectories,
For this study, two cities were selected. Firstly, the city of while the current drone altitudes are indicated by different
Norrköping (140 000 inhabitants) in Sweden was selected, colors. In addition, spheres indicate the drone positions. Light

Authorized licensed use limited to: Middlesex University. Downloaded on July 20,2020 at 05:27:00 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
shading of selected areas indicate the presence of geofences in III. DRONE TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT
these areas. CONCEPTS OF OPERATION

U-space can be defined as a set of services and associated

functions and an all-encompassing framework designed to
support multiple Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) operations,
to:
• Unleash the potential of drones.
• Integrate unmanned aircraft with already established
airspace users.
• Preserve a high level of safety in the airspace.
• Guarantee citizens their privacy.
• Contribute to a sustainable environment.

New and disruptive technology will be introduced by the

Air Navigation Service Providers (ANSP) and could also be
Fig. 3. Conflicting traffic from two delivery hubs Background generated introduced by new players in air space management.
from GSD-Ortofoto25 and GSD-Höjddata, grid 2+ © Lantmäteriet. Nevertheless, the ANSPs are the actors in charge of the safety
and utilization of the airspace. Therefore, ANSPs will have to
embrace the emerging tools and additional automation in order
to be able to manage the airspace efficiently and safely
accommodate drones and regular air traffic.

A. Airspace structural elements

Previous work has identified basic airspace structural
components. For instance, layers [4], as well as unstructured
free flight, route networks, and volumes [5], and also variants
such as air parcels [6], i.e. volumes mirroring land ownership.
Their implications for UTM have also been analyzed
previously [1, 7], see Table 1 for a summary.

Fig. 4. Minimal airport Geofence example

TABLE I. BASIC AIRSPACE STRUCTURE ELEMENTS

Airspace structure elements

WORK in PROGRESS DRAFT Element Description
Separation by enclosing objects in volumes or
7.Media excluding them from volumes; monitor and
8.Datacollection
9. Emergency
Volumes control of volume boundaries; setting of volume-
based rule-sets for traffic behavior; monitoring of
5. Wastescan 9. Emergency

6. DroneTaxi 4. Delivery 4. Delivery

KPI;s for the volumes)

ti on 4. Delivery
spec
3.In

axi
Point- Separation of individual moving volumes, e.g. by
based direct control, by setting constraints on
on eT 1.Aerodrome
6. Dr

4. Delivery

control movements, by setting rules for maneuvers

n
ectio 4. Delivery
3.Insp 4. Delivery
4. Delivery
8.Datacollection 4. Delivery

Route Protected trajectories, separation of the

4. Delivery 4. Delivery networks lines/tubes
Separation into horizontal volume slices, adds the
6. DroneTaxi

ction
3.Inspe
2Agriculture Layers complication of controlling/monitoring
6. DroneTaxi movement between/through layers
Fig. 5. Potential service locations, used for simulation development. Vertical volume slices, e.g. sub-dividing volumes
Grids
into a grid of increasingly smaller volumes

B. Traffic patterns
When combining drone usage (e.g. high-density
commercial services, leisure use), with airspace elements
(Table II), traffic patterns (Figure 1-3) emerge. In Figure 1, for
instance, direct point-to-point traffic is used (going around
geofences). We see that the delivery from a warehouse at the
top of the figure results in a characteristic “fan” pattern of
traffic.

Authorized licensed use limited to: Middlesex University. Downloaded on July 20,2020 at 05:27:00 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 We also see the effect on traffic of a minimal airport
geofence in Figure 1 (another geofence example is shown in
Figure 4). These geofences are drawn to be as small as possible
around the airport movements for the respective cities, by
ATM experts in the respective areas. Depending on the
effectiveness of the UTM system in actually controlling the
traffic, or due to other separation requirements, the geofence
may need to be larger. There could also be fences-within-
fences, allowing some traffic closer to the airport, and other
traffic further away.
Figure 2 illustrates a key issue reported in [1], congested
geofence corners. In Figure 3, we see another issue reported in
[1], e.g. conflicting intense traffic. In Figure 3, the rightmost
hub delivers goods to the area to the left – across the leftmost
hub that delivers goods to the area to the right. This leads to
two conflicting delivery fan patterns.
Figure 5 shows some potential service locations that are
used for simulation development. Since the Dubai area
contains high-rise buildings, for this area, route networks (over
roads, between buildings) are considered a central part of the
solution. Lines indicate the shortest point-to-point paths, actual
routes will be longer, following the road network.
C. Event Horizon
The event horizon of current operations consist of the
currently moving drones and what is known about their
planned movements. This also includes any temporal
characteristics on current structures, e.g. current geofences that
will expire.
Regarding planned operations, this includes both what is
planned to depart in the short run (e.g. a taxi has been ordered
for immediate dispatch) and what is planned in the long run
(e.g. package deliveries that are known a longer time in
advance, perhaps hours or even days before departure). This
also includes pre-planned structures such as geofences.
When it comes to expected traffic, there are various sources
of expectations. One source may be previous traffic in similar
situations. Another source may be the reservation of airspace
capacity for specific kinds of services (e.g. reserving the
capacity to deliver 100 packages during one hour in a specific
area, but without planning specific deliveries or specific route
plans at the time of the reservation).
D. Side-effects of combining structural elements and traffic
patterns
Previous work [1] has also identified side-effects of putting
various components together into an airspace structure with air
traffic patterns (partially shaped by the movements required by
drone services and partially shaped by the airspace structure
itself):
1. Congestion, e.g. around geofence edges or at corners
(geofences together with traffic patterns).
2. Long routes, resulting from the need to go around large
geofences such as those around airports near or in
cities (geofences together with traffic patterns).
Authorized licensed use limited to: Middlesex University. Downloaded on July 20,2020 at 05:27:00 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
3. Global Detect and Avoid (D&A) “pushing” traffic off-
track, into geofences. (geofences together with
algorithm for detect-and-avoid).
4. Drones viloating geofenced areas (e.g. new geofences
together with pre-existing traffic that is slow to move
out).
The UTM system thus needs to monitor and manage both new
(perhaps surprising) and known (perhaps accurately
anticipated) secondary effects, as structures change, and as
traffic changes over time.
IV. THEORY
A. Human-Automation Collaboration
Automation is often seen as a progression from low to high
levels of automation (LOA) [8]. The various variants of LOA
in industry and academia mainly vary regarding the number of
levels used. The main principle of all LOA taxonomies is
however the same, with all functions allocated to humans at the
lowest level (manual control) and all functions allocated to the
machine at the highest level (full automation).
A wide range of well-known problems [9-11] are however
associated with high levels of automation in safety-critical
domains, designed with a “black box” approach that excludes
the human. For instance, automation surprise, where the
automation produces puzzling and sometimes fatal situations,
in some cases with humans wrestling for system control with
automation.
With high levels of automation, we thus need to consider
the case when planning is allocated to the machine in the LOA
taxonomies. In this case, we need to consider how humans
could and should work together with automation.
This can be addressed from human-centric perspective
known as cognitive systems engineering (CSE) [12-14]. The
CSE perspective is particularly well- suited, since it is based on
human control of real-time processes, and has been applied in
numerous safety-critical domains. The CSE perspective
addresses granularity of control, from “hands-on” contextual
action-oriented control based on demands of the immediate
situation, to “hands-off” high level control based on long-term
goals and targets. We use a basic level structure that has
previously been used for UTM [3].
For UTM, a central concern, initially addressed in [3], is to
decide on what cognitive control level(s) humans work, versus
at what levels of autonomy that automated systems work.
For instance, an emergency transport situation, that requires
a traffic management intervention to get it through as quickly
as possible (level 6). The system then needs to set/alter goals
for emergency transports (level 5), change or measure actual
airspace goal priorities/qualities (level 4); decide on the types
of plans, functions, airspace object types (Table 1) used to
make room for the drone (level 3); decide how they are
implemented (level 2), implementing them through resources
that are available to the system (level 1).
 What aspects of this process are then automated? Does the
automation monitor the human, or does the human monitor the
automation? What aspects are done collaboratively versus
being assigned to human or automation? At what levels
could/should human operators be able to monitor automation
and intervene?
capacity [15] and noise [16]. Does the human then set a
congestion limit (level 4), with the automation then adjusting
traffic accordingly (levels 1-3)? Or does the automation display
both the current and desired congestion limit (level 4), and the
human adjusts the traffic (levels 1-3)?

Taking another example, we can consider the division of
work in an UTM system with automated sub-systems, where
the human has the ultimate responsibility for managing
airspace quality (level 6, generic approach, relying extensively
on level 4 control), considering process goals such as airspace
To collaborate with automation, to monitor, to adjust
automation thus requires automation to have leverage points
and transparency at various levels, which can e.g. be designed
through an approach called ecological interface design, EID
[17]

TABLE II. LEVELS OF COGNITIVE CONTROL

Cognitive control levels versus traffic situation and control approach

No Level Ability
Framing of situations (what is going on, what situation do
we need to manage, what is our overarching approach)?
6 Framing Are there known properties, solutions, leverage points,
indications in the environment of situational change i.e.
described on levels 1-5, associated with the frame?)
5 Effects Goal formulation; desired effects on the external process.
Trading-off between conflicting goals (desired level 5
effects)
4 Values Measures of high-level performance indicators such as risk
levels.
(what we have/can have/might have).
Overarching (generalized) plans and structures, functions of
the system (generalizations of implementations, new plans
3 Generic
to implement); with potential and characteristics on levels 4-
5.
Implementation of functions, plans and structures, through
physical action and physical form.
Constraints from particular implementations (e.g. using
2 Implementation particular objects), on particular plan executions (e.g. speed
limits).
Side-effects from particular implementations (e.g. noise, to
consider at level 5), developments that threaten levels 3-6.
Physical objects and their properties, specific actions on
physical objects, places, and associated constraints (e.g
1 Physical
resource limits for implementation).
Object status that affects levels 2-6.
Example
A need to manage the airspace centrally, to be able to set goals and
keep drone traffic within limits.
Target states, quality such as efficiency and safety (what we want
to achieve).
Calculations of key performance indicators, such as risk levels,
congestion levels, disturbance (e.g. noise), levels, public acceptance
estimation of current traffic. Calculation of capacity of a specific
kind of intersection model (in general, with current traffic).
Airspace element, such as the structure of geofences, intersection
models (generic structures) for route networks; their constraints on
lower-level implementations, effects on overarching goals. The
ability to adjust these to achieve desired aims at overarching levels;
to understand their status versus lower-level implementations.
Noise emission from particular drones during usage; limits based
on drone maneuvering capabilities, precision of positioning from
specific hardware. The ability to e.g. measure the status of objects
in use, to predict their movement patterns and compare to generic
baselines, or the ability to implement generic plans.
Ground and air hazards, their physical location. Physical locations
of all drones, landing spots, etc. Physical “location” of geofences
(and other airspace objects, even if the objects themselves are
virtual).

amalgams (fused objects) and tube/layer flows, due to time-

B. Machine learning
Machine Learning (ML) and AI solutions will be needed
technologies in future UTM to monitor and control city
airspace in real time. Based on historical data and events, ML-
based solutions can classify and predict upcoming traffic
situations and inform the Air Traffic Controller (ATCO) as
well as suggesting possible optimization actions. Research in
this area for UTM is still sparse, however, work on AI has been
done in traditional ATM, in the SESAR and NextGen
programmes, that translates partly to the UTM domain;
predicting traffic volume, trajectories, and route choice etc [18,
19]. However, the situation for a supervisory UTM
controller is somewhat different from the ATM counterpart. In
UTM, the ATCO needs to adapt, not solely to the traffic
intensity and weather conditions, but to a range of variables
related to the city and its inhabitants’ life patterns. This means
that the UTM ATCO needs to control numerous objects as
constrains and operator workload and open and restrict the total
airspace dynamically. Additionally, since urban environments
have social dynamics these aspects will affect UTM control
and related AI solutions. For example, public gatherings such
as sports events can affect drone traffic dynamically, in time
and space, and will affect control in a similar fashion as newly
raised building blocks, antennas and other physical obstacles in
the city. The above is a new dimension in air traffic control and
sets special requirements on ML solutions for UTM, in
addition to weather and traffic variables. Moreover, recently
published work on machine learning and cognitive ergonomics
in the ATM domain highlights the need for ML and AI
solutions that can explain its predictions and suggestions to the
operator [20]. In the following sections, will discuss the above
requirements on ML/AI for UTM ATCOs.

Authorized licensed use limited to: Middlesex University. Downloaded on July 20,2020 at 05:27:00 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
C. Optimization
As mentioned earlier, for cities with high-rise buildings, the
suggested airspace design includes layers and grids within the
layers. The idea is to use two layers with two different altitudes
and two potential speeds for the drones. In addition, the grid
system includes a conflict-free intersection system.
One of the major potential services that the proposed
approach focuses on is related to parcel deliveries. The
approach assumes that for a fixed planning horizon, such as 24
hours, the transport demand is known, in terms of the
quantities to be transported and their corresponding origins
(such as warehouses) and destinations. In addition, given the
grid structure of the airspace, Manhattan distance is used to
determine the shortest distance between every pair of points in
the network. The demands, the distances, the initial battery
levels of the drones (autonomy) and the drone carrying
capacities are then used to determine the optimal points and
their sequence of visit for each drone, i.e. its optimal route, as
well as the quantities to be delivered by each drone. Different
priorities for the transport demand can be assumed, which
corresponds to the common practice in the delivery industry.
The problem formulation is inspired by the existing works in
the literature [21-24]. It is modelled using integer programming
and solved using the CPLEX solver for small size instances
and a heuristic approach for large size instances.
Given the structure of airspace, although the shortest
distance between every two points in the network is unique,
this shortest distance may correspond to more than one
possible route. Therefore, once the sequence of visit of the
delivery points is known for one drone, choosing the route
(path) to follow in order to go from any point in the solution to
the following point in the sequence requires further processing.
After pre-processing the optimization problem, the
obtained solutions, including the sequence of visits for each
drone, the timings, and the quantities, are then transferred to
the simulation system to be visualized.
V. DISCUSSION : HUMAN-IN-THE-LOOP-AI
In the following section, we discuss how humans and
automation could collaborate to manage the UTM airspace. We
first discuss four abilities: to discern traffic patterns, to
recognize situations, to predict situational developments, and to
function in varying conditions of rule-following habits of
airspace users. We then discuss the challenge of collaborating
though the use of advanced visual dashboards, for human-in-
the loop AI but also for society-in-the-loop. Finally, we discuss
how the challenge of human-automation collaboration can be
expected to shift, as the capabilities of the machine increases.
A. Discern traffic patterns
Spatio-temporal traffic patterns will be important to
monitor, identify and manage such as congested geofence
corners or varying high-intensity local traffic during lunch
hours. An AI-algorithm needs to identify and predict these
patterns timely for the supervisory ATCO to act since better
control can be achieved resolving negative traffic patterns
preemptively (event horizon). The problem, as discussed
Authorized licensed use limited to: Middlesex University. Downloaded on July 20,2020 at 05:27:00 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
earlier, also has to do with events in the city life such as
community events. Hence, an AI solution must be able to
process data, not only from the drones per se, but also variables
related to the city’s social life and pulse. For AI to be effective
here, needed is a multiparameter model of social city events
and the “rhythm” of the city. Such a model must include
patterns on human social living during different time-periods,
weekends and religious ceremonials/events such as periods of
changed daytime eating. Knowledge of these social patterns
will be crucial to predict and plan the city airspace. Visualizing
these traffic patterns in real time as well as showing predictive
future traffic patterns, and social patterns will be key as well as
finding suitable GUI solutions for this. Hence, since the above
is contextual, such a model must be developed for the specific
city.
B. Recognizing situations
It is likely that ATCOs will need attentional support to
identify different situations and traffic patterns. Typically, and
from a technical standpoint, ML approaches are, at present,
better at identifying common patterns in a stream of data than
the opposite, which is, finding rarer events and outliers. Hence,
traditional ML analysis engines can be used to identify
common traffic patterns that may or may not need special
attention from the ATCO to be resolved. However, needed also
is attentional support to find unusual events and trends out of
the ordinary. There are approaches to this problem such as
autoencoder neural networks and long-short term memory
neural networks (LSTMs) that can detect anomalies and that
perform well in detecting complex relationships in
multiparameter time-series data. Nevertheless, important is that
the chosen approach can provide adequate information for the
ATCO to act on, such as providing information on which
neural input variables and metrics that are the significant
factors in a classification or a prediction.
C. Predict development of situations over time
In highly automated control environments it is important
that the operator can form a view of possible future states. It is
also important, for the operator, to assess capabilities and
shortages in the automation per se. One solution for UTM,
could be predictive displays that shows future traffic
developments and also provides simulation capability. With
such a feature, the operator could – as part of operations – test
different traffic/city configurations and evaluate the outcomes
and, in effect, understand relationship between automation
predictions and actual outcomes. Additionally, this approach
would also be a source for a supervised ML algorithm to get
operator input – closing the learning feedback loop in the
system.
In addition, predicting the traffic status in order to detect
some situations requiring the attention of the ATCO can be
done by combining optimization of traffic routing with
simulation. As described earlier, an interface can allow the
users to input the problem parameters, such as selecting on a
map the locations of the delivery points using a touch screen,
which allows the system to determine their coordinates. An
interactive interface may allow the user to input the other
required information. The acquired input information is then
sent to be processed by the optimization system and the results
are visualized. As mentioned earlier, a further processing may
allow to use the optimization results to distribute the traffic on
the network so that the imbalance in the traffic density may be
minimized. This approach allows to test the impact on hot
spots such as the corners of geofences and to visualize this
impact. Using this approach in an on/off mode may allow to
determine the resulting situations of traffic and the effect of
using this approach on the traffic density in general.
Moreover, in case a new geofence is created dynamically,
while the implementation of the results is being visualized,
then a post-processing algorithm is needed in order to take the
coordinates of this area, from the user, and to re-route the
traffic that was supposed to cross the newly geofenced area
without considering the other traffic outside the geofence.
Another point that is worth mentioning here, is that some
traffic management rules are to be considered in the airspace
design, such as the rules to avoid conflicts especially at the
intersections of the grid. Using these policies may also have an
impact on the traffic situations especially at certain points in
the network and are worth investigation.
The final barrier to protect against having conflictual
situations is the use of the detect-and-avoid technology. The
use of this technology appears to be necessary in the grid arcs
where two drones are following each other, but also at the
intersection points especially for two flows of drones which are
going to merge into one.
D. Uniqueness of patterns and situations
Since UTM is contextual and dynamic, each city operator
may need to train ML nets to suit the local and situational
demands. This is both due to variations in what services that
are being used, and due to priorities by drone operators.
Although all drone operators should prioritize rules first,
some may nevertheless decide to perform their own assessment
of situations (and sometimes then disregard rules), while others
may go one step further and do what they themselves believe
that they have the right to do. This creates uncertainty and
unpredictability in the system. Such behavior may over time
evolve into habits and may even become a cultural or sub-
cultural factor, re-introducing a degree of predictability.
However, variations between cultures/habits between
cities/areas and over time, nevertheless reduce the
generalizability between areas/times of trained ML nets.
E. The challenge of designing visual dashboards
The complexity of managing and controlling hundreds, or
even thousands of simultaneously moving UAVs is a complex
task that could be facilitated by interactive information
visualization, so called dashboards. Visualization is a proven
technique for conveying large, complex and temporal data sets,
as well as for translating these into applicable knowledge [25].
In this particular area this is a challenging task due to several
reasons. Real-time data is particularly difficult to comprehend
by humans due to our bad memory when tracking multiple
moving objects. Hence, developing interactive dashboards for
such data is not an easy task, especially if the airspace is
Authorized licensed use limited to: Middlesex University. Downloaded on July 20,2020 at 05:27:00 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
divided into different zones, each having different properties.
This could, for example, be controlled changes in altitudes,
speeds etc. By simultaneously visualizing KPIs for several
regions, one could facilitate the decision-making process by
getting a quick overview of differences and similarities
between the regions which can facilitate the decision-making
process.
For predictive analysis using ML approaches, dashboards
could be an effective tool in order to present a quick overview
of current and future scenarios. Dashboards that present
relevant KPIs for different predictions can then be used to
interactively modify the simulation and in this way help the
operator to find the “best” solution.
To address the above challenges, it would not be sufficient
with traditional dashboards with simple bar charts or line
graphs. Focus will instead be on more complex representations
such as theme river [26], space-time cube [27] and parallel
coordinates [28], which will be modified to meet the specific
tasks. In particular, a 3D version of parallel coordinates has
been found to be efficient in identifying temporal patterns [29].
Since the application is designed for a touch table an
additional challenge is to design intuitive touch-based
interaction techniques for dashboards.
F. Society-in-the-loop
The perspective of society-in-the-loop that evolves from the
human-in-the-loop approach is a natural step in the
implementation of services in particular for urban
environments. The urban environment will be different, the
need for transport and monitoring of areas, people, traffic and
developments will still be there but the services will be carried
out differently and especially supported by automation. Views
will vary, but the people and society’s need, expectations and
worries must be addressed. The interactive visualization
presented in this paper used for a human / society-in-the-loop
exercises may become a best practice for the implementation of
U3/4 services and beyond. What is clear is that there is a huge
need for citizens, regulators, city planners and decision makers
to have a pre view of the possible future developments. The
idea of using an advanced dashboard may not only facilitate
UTM operations, but also to society-in-the loop.
G. Man - Intelligent Machine interface modes Current and
Future Issues:
UTM involves additional challenges beyond the usual ones
in managing manned aviation. Dealing with both types of
Aerial Vehicles; UAV’s and manned aircraft, simultaneously,
adds more complexity, requirements and features to the already
challenging air traffic management field. One such easy,
though, not efficient way to handle the complexity is
geofencing and/or separation between the two types of
aviation. Regardless, the fact remains that in UTM both man
and intelligent machine(s), whether controlling a UAV or
managing the traffic space (in the future), have to work side by
side.
“Two heads are better than one” that was the title of a
keynote speech of Herbert Simon in the opening of
ORSA/TIMS Conference in Miami October 1986, later he That is one reason why override control of intelligent machines
published a paper with the same title in Interface [30]. The two is a challenge that need to be further researched, especially in
heads Simon referred to were Operations Research and AI. The the UTM domain, to develop the optimal arrangements or
same phrase still holds true, however, the two heads for UTM alternative solutions.
are Man and Intelligent Machine. It is evident that teaming
Humans are expected to gain more intelligence, skills and
between the cognitive capabilities of man and intelligent
knowledge by interfacing with intelligent machines. This will
machines will lead to better performance that cannot be
happen in several ways, for example, humans will learn from
achieved with either one alone. Teaming between Humans and
the decisions taken by intelligent machines. At the same time,
Intelligent machine or Autonomous Machines, HAT, has been
as AI advances, intelligent agents will carry out more tasks.
considered as the way for the future [31].
Humans will carry the remaining tasks that require higher level
of cognitive abilities (otherwise it would have been
TABLE III. ISSUES AND CHALLENGES WITH automated), therefore one can expect that future workers will
DIFFERENT COMBINATIONS OF MAN AND INTELLIGENT MACHINES
have and will gain more intelligence by working with
intelligent machines.
Agent
To summarize, more developments in Man and Intelligent
Man Machine Machines integration will take place in the years to come. In
Table IV, a macro roadmap for the same is given. It is
Human errors Communication
preferably to read the table from the bottom up. The UTM field
Less efficient / less productive Takeover option is, definitely, one domain where these developments will be
Man

welcomed and accelerated.

Control & Management

Slower Man limits capacity

Option for reclaiming control / Less constraints on capacity TABLE IV. ROADMAP FOR CURRENT AND FUTURE
/override by man INTERACTION/COOPERATION BETWEEN MAN AND INTELLIGENT MACHINES

Less human errors Fast / risky Intelligent

Area Man When
Machine
Machine

Fast / efficient Could be chaotic If Intelligent

Are humans going
Machines are in
Control to lose control to Future?
Optimal for partial tasks Could develop in catastrophe control, is Man in
machines?
danger?
Intelligent
Man needs to
Machines will
develop new tools Now and
However, the current and future expected issues, challenges Learning
to learn from
learn from other
Future
and problems that need to be addressed to optimize the Man intelligent machines
Intelligent
and Intelligent Machines cooperation/setup include firstly, the Machines
Logic is designed
allocation of tasks and coordination between man and Intelligent
and developed by
Now and
intelligent machines. Second, gaining public trust and Machines II
the machine
Future
improving safety, otherwise it will impede full economic
utilization of autonomous intelligent agents in UAV’s and Learning Machine learning Eighties
UTM, alike. Third, machine based logic: currently the logic Logic was designed
used in intelligent machines is designed and built by man, in Logic and developed by Early 70's
the future, machines will have better learning tools and logic man
design capabilities so that the logic used in new intelligent From day 1
Control Completely by Man until
machines (Intelligent Machines II) will be built by intelligent recently
machines. Fourth, man learning: machine learning has for long
time been the focus of attention of researchers. Tools for VI. CONCLUSION: HUMAN-IN-THE-LOOP-AI
machine learning has developed over the years to the point that
machines have demonstrated superior performance In conclusion, we have discussed the following aspects of
(intelligence) than man in certain fields and problems. In the human-in-the loop AI:
near future, man has to develop new online tools to learn from 1. Machine learning based on supervised learning,
intelligent machines to improve on man’s capability of requires human work in optimizing automation
teaming/ coordination/co-working with intelligent machines. performance.
Otherwise, the intelligence gap between man and intelligent
machines can become dangerous. Regarding control, this shift 2. Unsupervised learning requires human work on the
corresponds to increased AI performance on the framing level KPIs (key performance indicators) used to evaluate
of cognitive control, and downwards (Table 1). Fifth, override solutions and
control: Humans felt safe dealing with very powerful machines 3. Combining offline optimization of routing, AI for
in the last century since man can always override control, and traffic situation prediction, visualization, and online
similarly, intelligent machines can be safe or controllable by optimization to resolve situations such as newly closed
ensuring the override capability for man. This is necessary to
prevent catastrophes; yet, it could cause problems, as well.

Authorized licensed use limited to: Middlesex University. Downloaded on July 20,2020 at 05:27:00 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 geofences, can be an efficient tool to assess UTM
system efficiency.
4. Future work would include the improvement of the
used algorithms from different perspectives: easing the
human interaction with the system, speeding up the
offline and online computations, and considering other
types of traffic.
5. Currently, perhaps the most important point, for new
situations - for the AI - humans are still required to
intervene. Thus, since the core of traffic management
has to do with managing changing conditions and
unexpected situations, a human-automation team is
required, with supervisory control of these factors.
6. The visualization and dashboard discussed here could
be used not only for human-in-the-loop AI, but also to
keep society-in-the loop.
Finally, the relation between human and automation may
shift, as the abilities of the machine increase, e.g. from humans
training machines, to humans learning from the AI systems.
REFERENCES
[1] J. Lundberg , B. Josefsson, and K. Lundin-Palmerius, "Urban Air Traffic
Management (UTM) Implementation In Cities – Sampled Side-Effects,"
in 37th Digital Avionics Systems Conference, London, UK, 2018, pp.
400-406: IEEE.
[2] SESAR Joint Undertaking. (2017, 18 sept). U-space blueprint.
Available:
https://www.sesarju.eu/sites/default/files/documents/reports/U-
space%20Blueprint.pdf
[3] J. Lundberg , M. Arvola, C. Westin, S. Holmlid, M. Nordvall, and B.
Josefsson, "Cognitive work analysis in the conceptual design of first-of-
a-kind systems – designing urban air traffic management," Behaviour &
Information Technology, in press.
[4] T. Jiang, J. Geller, D. Ni, and J. Collura, "Unmanned Aircraft System
traffic management: Concept of operation and system architecture,"
International Journal of Transportation Science and Technology, vol. 5,
no. 3, pp. 123-135, 2016/10/01/ 2016.
[5] E. Sunil et al., "Metropolis: Relating Airspace Structure and Capacity
for Extreme Traffic Densities," presented at the 11th USA/EUROPE Air
Traffic Management R&D Seminar, Lisboa, Portugal., 2015.
[6] A. G. Foina, C. Krainer, and R. Sengupta, "An Unmanned Aerial Traffic
Management solution for cities using an air parcel model," in 2015
International Conference on Unmanned Aircraft Systems (ICUAS),
2015, pp. 1295-1300.
[7] J. Lundberg, C. Westin, M. Arvola, S. Holmlid, and B. Josefsson,
"Cognitive Work Analysis and Conceptual Designing for Unmanned Air
Traffic Management in Cities," presented at the Proceedings of the 36th
European Conference on Cognitive Ergonomics, Utrecht, Netherlands,
2018. Available: https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=3232078.3232082
[8] T. B. Sheridan and W. L. Verplank, "Human and Computer Control of
Undersea Teleoperators (No. ADA057655). ," Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, Cambridge, MA1978, Available:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=related:zs604DilCckJ:scholar.googl
e.com/&hl=en&num=20&as_sdt=0,5.
[9] J. M. Bradshaw, R. R. Hoffman, D. D. Woods, and M. Johnson, "The
Seven Deadly Myths of "Autonomous Systems"," IEEE Intelligent
Systems, vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 54-61, 2013.
[10] S. W. A. Dekker and D. D. Woods, "MABA-MABA or Abracadabra?
Progress on Human–Automation Co-ordination," (in English),
Cognition, Technology & Work, vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 240-244, 2002/11/01
2002.
[11] L. Bainbridge, "Ironies of automation," Automatica, vol. 19, no. 6, pp.
775-779, 1983/11/01/ 1983.
Authorized licensed use limited to: Middlesex University. Downloaded on July 20,2020 at 05:27:00 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
[12] E. Hollnagel and D. A. Woods, Joint cognitive systems: foundations of
cognitive systems engineering. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 2005, p.
223.
[13] E. Hollnagel, "Context, cognition and control," in Co-operative process
management: cognition and information technology, Y. Waern, Ed.
Bristol, UK: Taylor & Francis, 1998, pp. 27-52.
[14] J. Rasmussen, Infromation Processing and Human-Machine Interaction -
An Approache to Cognitive Engineering (North-Holland Series in
System Science and Engieering). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Elsevier,
1986.
[15] V. Bulusu, V. Polishchuk, R. Sengupta, and L. Sedov, "Capacity
Estimation for Low Altitude Airspace," in 17th AIAA Aviation
Technology, Integration, and Operations Conference(AIAA AVIATION
Forum: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2017.
[16] V. Bulusu, L. Sedov, and V. Polishchuk, "Noise estimation for future
large scale small uas operations," presented at the Noise Control
Improving the Quality of Life NOISE-CON, Grand Rapids, Michigan,
US, 2017.
[17] K. Vicente and J. Rasmussen, "Ecological interface design: theoretical
foundations," Systems, Man and Cybernetics, IEEE Transactions on,
vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 589-606, Jul 01 1992.
[18] H. Naessens, T. Philip, M. Piatek, K. Schippers, and R. Parys,
"Predicting flight routes with a Deep Neural Network in the operational
Air Traffic Flow and Capacity Management system.,"
EUROCONTROL Maastricht Upper Area Control Centre, Maastrich,
NL2017.
[19] C. Bosson and T. Nikoleris, "Supervised Learning Applied to Air
Traffic Trajectory Classification," NASA Ames Research CenterReport
ARC-E-DAA-TN51240, 2018.
[20] T. Kistan, A. Gardi, and R. Sabatini, "Machine Learning and Cognitive
Ergonomics in Air Traffic Management: Recent Developments and
Considerations for Certification," Aerospace, vol. 5, no. 4, p. 103, 2018.
[21] K. Sundar and S. Rathinam, "Algorithms for Routing an Unmanned
Aerial Vehicle in the Presence of Refueling Depots," IEEE Transactions
on Automation Science and Engineering, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 287-294,
2014.
[22] K. Dorling, J. Heinrichs, G. G. Messier, and S. Magierowski, "Vehicle
Routing Problems for Drone Delivery," IEEE Transactions on Systems,
Man, and Cybernetics: Systems, vol. 47, no. 1, pp. 70-85, 2017.
[23] B. N. Coelho et al., "A multi-objective green UAV routing problem,"
Computers & Operations Research, vol. 88, pp. 306-315, 2017/12/01/
2017.
[24] W. P. Coutinho, M. Battarra, and J. Fliege, "The unmanned aerial
vehicle routing and trajectory optimisation problem, a taxonomic
review," Computers & Industrial Engineering, vol. 120, pp. 116-128,
2018/06/01/ 2018.
[25] Robert Spence. . , Information Visualization: An Introduction (3rd ed.).
Switzerland: Springer International Publishing, 2014.
[26] S. Havre, B. Hetzler, and L. Nowell, "ThemeRiver: visualizing theme
changes over time," in Information Visualization, 2000. InfoVis 2000.
IEEE Symposium on, 2000, pp. 115-123.
[27] T. Hägerstraand, "What About People In Regional Science?," Papers in
Regional Science, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 7-24, 1970.
[28] A. Inselberg, "The plane with parallel coordinates," The Visual
Computer, journal article vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 69-91, August 01 1985.
[29] K. A. Hassan, N. Rönnberg, C. Forsell, M. D. Cooper, and J. Johansson,
"A Study on Parallel Coordinates for Pattern Identification in Temporal
Multivariate Data. ," presented at the Information Visualization, IV23,
2019.
[30] H. A. Simon, "Two Heads Are Better than One: The Collaboration
between AI and OR," INFORMS Journal on Applied Analytics, vol. 17,
no. 4, pp. 8-15, 1987.
[31] A. Schulte and D. Donath, "A Design and Description Method for
Human-Autonomy Teaming Systems” Intelligent Human Systems
Integration," presented at the Proceedings of the 1st International
Conference on Intelligent Human Systems Integration (IHSI 2018):
Integrating People and Intelligent Systems, Dubai, United Arab
Emirates, January 7–9, 2018, 2018.