Engineering topics

Bendrick, Gregg A.

Publications and source records attributed to Bendrick, Gregg A..

4 records

NASA NTRS2017

General Nobile and the Airship Italia: No Second-In-Command

The airship Italia, commanded by General Umberto Nobile, crashed during its return flight from the North Pole in 1928. Prior work has demonstrated the possibility that this crash was fatigue-related, due to significant sleep-deprivation on the part of its Commander, and to resulting errors in cognition and judgment. However, the underlying cause of the fatigue was likely due to the fact that the Commander did not have a Second-In-Command on board to take over duties while the Commander was allowed to rest. At that time the Second-In-Command was a formally designated position, and according to Nobiles previous writings was considered to be a necessary crew member on an airship.

Second-In-Command↗

NASA NTRS2008

Instrument Display Visual Angles for Conventional Aircraft and the MQ-9 Ground Control Station

Aircraft instrument panels should be designed such that primary displays are in optimal viewing location to minimize pilot perception and response time. Human Factors engineers define three zones (i.e. "cones") of visual location: 1) "Easy Eye Movement" (foveal vision); 2) "Maximum Eye Movement" (peripheral vision with saccades), and 3) "Head Movement" (head movement required). Instrument display visual angles were measured to determine how well conventional aircraft (T-34, T-38, F- 15B, F-16XL, F/A-18A, U-2D, ER-2, King Air, G-III, B-52H, DC-10, B747-SCA) and the MQ-9 ground control station (GCS) complied with these standards, and how they compared with each other. Methods: Selected instrument parameters included: attitude, pitch, bank, power, airspeed, altitude, vertical speed, heading, turn rate, slip/skid, AOA, flight path, latitude, longitude, course, bearing, range and time. Vertical and horizontal visual angles for each component were measured from the pilot s eye position in each system. Results: The vertical visual angles of displays in conventional aircraft lay within the cone of "Easy Eye Movement" for all but three of the parameters measured, and almost all of the horizontal visual angles fell within this range. All conventional vertical and horizontal visual angles lay within the cone of "Maximum Eye Movement". However, most instrument vertical visual angles of the MQ-9 GCS lay outside the cone of "Easy Eye Movement", though all were within the cone of "Maximum Eye Movement". All the horizontal visual angles for the MQ-9 GCS were within the cone of "Easy Eye Movement". Discussion: Most instrument displays in conventional aircraft lay within the cone of "Easy Eye Movement", though mission-critical instruments sometimes displaced less important instruments outside this area. Many of the MQ-9 GCS systems lay outside this area. Specific training for MQ-9 pilots may be needed to avoid increased response time and potential error during flight.

Bendrick, Gregg A.↗

NASA NTRS2008

Instrument Display Visual Angles for Conventional Aircraft and the MQ-9 Ground Control Station

Aircraft instrument panels should be designed such that primary displays are in optimal viewing location to minimize pilot perception and response time. Human Factors engineers define three zones (i.e. cones ) of visual location: 1) "Easy Eye Movement" (foveal vision); 2) "Maximum Eye Movement" (peripheral vision with saccades), and 3) "Head Movement (head movement required). Instrument display visual angles were measured to determine how well conventional aircraft (T-34, T-38, F- 15B, F-16XL, F/A-18A, U-2D, ER-2, King Air, G-III, B-52H, DC-10, B747-SCA) and the MQ-9 ground control station (GCS) complied with these standards, and how they compared with each other. Selected instrument parameters included: attitude, pitch, bank, power, airspeed, altitude, vertical speed, heading, turn rate, slip/skid, AOA, flight path, latitude, longitude, course, bearing, range and time. Vertical and horizontal visual angles for each component were measured from the pilot s eye position in each system. The vertical visual angles of displays in conventional aircraft lay within the cone of "Easy Eye Movement" for all but three of the parameters measured, and almost all of the horizontal visual angles fell within this range. All conventional vertical and horizontal visual angles lay within the cone of Maximum Eye Movement. However, most instrument vertical visual angles of the MQ-9 GCS lay outside the cone of Easy Eye Movement, though all were within the cone of Maximum Eye Movement. All the horizontal visual angles for the MQ-9 GCS were within the cone of "Easy Eye Movement". Most instrument displays in conventional aircraft lay within the cone of Easy Eye Movement, though mission-critical instruments sometimes displaced less important instruments outside this area. Many of the MQ-9 GCS systems lay outside this area. Specific training for MQ-9 pilots may be needed to avoid increased response time and potential error during flight. The learning objectives include: 1) Know three physiologic cones of eye/head movement; 2) Understand how instrument displays comply with these design principles in conventional aircraft and an uninhabited aerial vehicle system. Which of the following is NOT a recognized physiologic principle of instrument display design? Cone of Easy Eye Movement 2) Cone of Binocular Eye Movement 3) Cone of Maximum Eye Movement 4) Cone of Head Movement 5) None of the above. Answer: # 2) Cone of Binocular Eye Movement

Kamine, Tovy Haber↗

NASA NTRS2007

Did Vertigo Kill America's Forgotten Astronaut?

On November 15, 1967, U.S. Air Force test pilot Major Michael J. Adams was killed while flying the X-15 rocket-propelled research vehicle in a parabolic spaceflight profile. This flight was part of a joint effort with NASA. An electrical short in one of the experiments aboard the vehicle caused electrical transients, resulting in excessive workload by the pilot. At altitude Major Adams inappropriately initiated a flat spin that led to a series of unusual aircraft attitudes upon atmospheric re-entry, ultimately causing structural failure of the airframe. Major Adams was known to experience vertigo (i.e. spatial disorientation) while flying the X-15, but all X-15 pilots most likely experienced vertigo (i.e. somatogravic, or "Pitch-Up", illusion) as a normal physiologic response to the accelerative forces involved. Major Adams probably experienced vertigo to a greater degree than did others, since prior aeromedical testing for astronaut selection at Brooks AFB revealed that he had an unusually high degree of labyrinthine sensitivity. Subsequent analysis reveals that after engine burnout, and through the zenith of the flight profile, he likely experienced the oculoagravic ("Elevator") illusion. Nonetheless, painstaking investigation after the mishap revealed that spatial disorientation (Type II, Recognized) was NOT the cause, but rather, a contributing factor. The cause was in fact the misinterpretation of a dual-use flight instrument (i.e. Loss of Mode Awareness), resulting in confusion between yaw and roll indications, with subsequent flight control input that was inappropriate. Because of the altitude achieved on this flight, Major Adams was awarded Astronaut wings posthumously. Understanding the potential for spatial disorientation, particularly the oculoagravic illusion, associated with parabolic spaceflight profiles, and understanding the importance of maintaining mode awareness in the context of automated cockpit design, are two lessons that have direct application to the commercial space industry today.

Bendrick, Gregg A.↗