DLR Project NICo – Feasibility Study of an Alternate Airport Assistant for Pilots Deciding Where to Divert
Joan Iñaki GONZÁLEZ CABEZA, Sören PETERSEN, Jan-Philipp BUCH, Dominik NIEDERMEIER, Matthias WIES, Anne PAPENFUẞ
Abstract. Recently, industry has worked on concepts for reducing active flight crew in cruise while one crew member is resting (extended Minimum Crew Operations, eMCO). The project Next generation Intelligent Cockpit (NICo) of the German Aerospace Centre (DLR) aimed to develop assistance systems in the context of single pilot operations (SiPO) to support and relieve pilots in phases of high workload. To assist pilots with considering options for an alternate airport in case of urgent diversions, DLR has designed an electronic flight bag (EFB) application that calculates in-flight and landing performance and provides a ranking of suitable airports. Four criteria comprising distance, fuel on arrival, stop margin and crosswind defined suitability. In a previous pilot survey, these criteria were identified as important when deciding where to divert. The aims of a simulator study were to assess the functionalities of the EFB application and to gain pilot feedback on its usability and suggestions for further development. Focus was laid on investigating whether the equal weightings are consistent with the pilots’ reasoning. Seven crews of two pilots with current or past Airbus A320 type rating performed a scenario in the DLR AVES full-motion A320 simulator. In this study, crews had to decide whether they would divert to an alternate airport when encountering a non-time-critical malfunction in adverse meteorological conditions. The pilots made use of the EFB application during their FORDEC process resting importance on its comprehensible ranking mechanism. In a preliminary analysis of results, it became evident that pilots rated the EFB application favourably and would consider using it in real operations when faced with the need to divert from the planned destination. Pilots experienced little workload throughout the scenario which shows that the EFB application is intuitive, helpful and lowers the workload in a potentially stressful situation.
Keywords
Single Pilot Operations, Electronic Flight Bag, Flight Deck, Human-Machine Interface
Published online 7/20/2026, 4 pages
Copyright © 2026 by the author(s)
Published under license by Materials Research Forum LLC., Millersville PA, USA
Citation: Joan Iñaki GONZÁLEZ CABEZA, Sören PETERSEN, Jan-Philipp BUCH, Dominik NIEDERMEIER, Matthias WIES, Anne PAPENFUẞ, DLR Project NICo – Feasibility Study of an Alternate Airport Assistant for Pilots Deciding Where to Divert, Materials Research Proceedings, Vol. 69, pp 1471-1474, 2026
DOI: https://doi.org/10.21741/9781644904251-258
The article was published as article 258 of the book CEAS – AIDAA Conference 2025
Content from this work may be used under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license. Any further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the title of the work, journal citation and DOI.
References
[1] D. Hulst. „Boeing Commercial Market Outlook.“ [Online]. Available: https://www.boeing.com/content/dam/boeing/boeingdotcom/market/assets/downloads/2024-cmo-executive-presentation.pdf
[2] R. E. Bailey, L. J. Kramer, K. D. Kennedy, C. L. Stephens, and T. J. Etherington, „An assessment of reduced crew and single pilot operations in commercial transport aircraft operations,“ in 2017 IEEE/AIAA 36th Digital Avionics Systems Conference (DASC), 2017, pp. 1–15. [Online]. Available: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/8101988
[3] D. Ziakkas, A. Plioutsias, and K. Pechlivanis, „Artificial Intelligence in aviation decision making process.The transition from extended Minimum Crew Operations to Single Pilot Operations (SiPO),“ in Artificial Intelligence and Social Computing, 2022, doi: 10.54941/ahfe1001452.
[4] D. Niedermeier, A. Papenfuß, and M. Wies, „Simulator Study on a Spatially Separated Airline Crew in a Complex Decision-Making Scenario,“ in AIAA AVIATION 2023 Forum, San Diego, CA and Online, 2023, doi: 10.2514/6.2023-3474.
[5] H. Soll, S. Proske, G. Hofinger, and G. Steinhardt, „Decision-Making Tools for Aeronautical Teams: FOR-DEC and Beyond,“ Aviation Psychology and Applied Human Factors, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 101–112, 2016, doi: 10.1027/2192-0923/a000099.
[6] F. Zinn, J. della Guardia, and F. Albers, „Pilot‘s Perspective on Single Pilot Operation: Challenges or Showstoppers,“ Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 14018, pp. 216–232, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://elib.dlr.de/194502/
[7] B. Uzun, M. Taiwo, A. Syidanova, and D. Uzun Ozsahin, „The Technique For Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS),“ in Application of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis in Environmental and Civil Engineering (Professional Practice in Earth Sciences), D. Uzun Ozsahin, H. Gökçekuş, B. Uzun, and J. LaMoreaux, Eds., Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2021, pp. 25–30.
[8] G. Schmitz and J.-P. Buch, „DLR-Projekt NICo: Vorläufige Auswertung einer Online-Pilotenstudie zur Entscheidungsfindung bei der Auswahl eines Ausweichflughafens,“ 2024, doi: 10.25967/610107.
[9] S. G. Hart and L. E. Staveland, „Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of Empirical and Theoretical Research,“ in Human Mental Workload (Advances in Psychology), Elsevier, 1988, pp. 139–183.
