Engineering topics

Hobbs, Alan

Publications and source records attributed to Hobbs, Alan.

At least 19 records

NASA NTRS2017

Analysis of San Francisco Bar Pilot Dispatch Records: Preliminary Report

Maritime pilots licensed by the San Francisco Board of Pilot Commissioners perform safety-critical tasks in a demanding environment, working in all weather and at all times of day and night. Since 1850, San Francisco maritime pilots have been known as Bar Pilots because their duties include guiding ships safely across the large sand bar that lies west of the Golden Gate. Schedules and Work Hours Records for San Francisco Bay Bar Pilots were analyzed to determine the minimum and maximum work periods, the frequency of extended work hours, the frequency of night work and the rotation of work hours. A mathematical model is being applied to predict fatigue in order to identify schedules that may have a high likelihood of fatigue. This presentation provides a progress report on the research thus far.

marine pilots↗

NASA NTRS2016

The Human Challenges of Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems

Remotely Piloted Aircraft (RPA) range from small electric quadcopters that are flown close to the ground within visual range of the operator, to larger systems capable of extended flight in airspace shared with conventional aircraft. Before RPA can operate routinely and safely in civilian airspace, we need to understand the unique human factors associated with these aircraft. RPA pilots participated in focus groups where they were asked to recall critical incidents that either presented a threat to safety, or highlighted a case where the pilot contributed to system resilience or mission success. Ninety incidents were gathered from focus-groups. Human factor issues included the impact of reduced sensory cues, traffic separation in the absence of an out-the-window view, control latencies, vigilance during monotonous and ultra-long endurance flights, control station design considerations, transfer of control between control stations, the management of lost link procedures, and decision-making during emergencies. Some of these concerns have received significant attention in the literature, or are analogous to human factors of manned aircraft. Although many of the reported incidents were related to pilot error, the participants also provided examples of the positive contribution that humans make to the operation of highly-automated systems.

Hobbs, Alan↗

NASA NTRS2016

The Cognitive Challenges of Flying a Remotely Piloted Aircraft

A large variety of Remotely Piloted Aircraft (RPA) designs are currently in production or in development. These aircraft range from small electric quadcopters that are flown close to the ground within visual range of the operator, to larger systems capable of extended flight in airspace shared with conventional aircraft. Before RPA can operate routinely and safely in civilian airspace, we need to understand the unique human factors associated with these aircraft. The task of flying an RPA in civilian airspace involves challenges common to the operation of other highly-automated systems, but also introduces new considerations for pilot perception, decision-making, and action execution. RPA pilots participated in focus groups where they were asked to recall critical incidents that either presented a threat to safety, or highlighted a case where the pilot contributed to system resilience or mission success. Ninety incidents were gathered from focus-groups. Human factor issues included the impact of reduced sensory cues, traffic separation in the absence of an out-the-window view, control latencies, vigilance during monotonous and ultra-long endurance flights, control station design considerations, transfer of control between control stations, the management of lost link procedures, and decision-making during emergencies. Some of these concerns have received significant attention in the literature, or are analogous to human factors of manned aircraft. The presentation will focus on issues that are poorly understood, and have not yet been the subject of extensive human factors study. Although many of the reported incidents were related to pilot error, the participants also provided examples of the positive contribution that humans make to the operation of highly-automated systems.

remote pilot station↗

NASA NTRS2016

The Collection of Human Factors Incident Reports via UAS Pilot Focus Groups

There is a need for incident data relevant to the operation of civilian unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) in the National Air Space (NAS). Currently, the tightly-restricted civilian UAS industry has produced relatively few incident reports that shed light on the human factors of UAS operations. An exploratory study is being conducted to examine the feasibility of using the critical incident technique (Flanagan, 1954) to collect reports from UAS pilots. The information is being used to identify areas where human factors guidelines will be of assistance. Experienced UAS pilots are participating in small focus groups in which they are prompted to describe critical incidents that either reveal a system flaw, or highlight a case where the human operator contributed to system resilience or mission success. To date, 90 incidents have been reported by UAS pilots. The de-identified incidents are being analyzed to identify contributing factors, with a focus on design issues that either hindered or assisted the pilot in dealing with the incident..

Hobbs, Alan↗

NASA NTRS2016

Human Factors Guidelines for Remotely Piloted Aircraft System (RPAS) Remote Pilot Stations (RPS): Guidelines - Version 1.1

This document contains a list of human factors guidelines for remote pilot stations (RPS) arranged within an organizing structure. The guidelines are intended for the remote pilot stations (RPSs) of remotely piloted aircraft (RPA) that are capable of operating beyond visual line-of-sight in all airspace classes of the United States National Airspace System (NAS). Numerous human factors guidelines and standards for technological systems have been published by standards agencies and regulatory authorities. In compiling this document, the intent was not to reproduce or re-state existing human factors material. Instead, this document focuses on the unique issues of civilian RPAS, and contains guidelines specific to this sector. As a result, it should be seen as a supplement to existing aviation human factors standards and guidance material. Two constraints were used to focus the scope of this document. First, the assumptions contained in the FAA (2013a) UAS roadmap were used to define the responsibilities that will be assigned to the pilot of a RPAS operating beyond visual line-of-sight in the NAS. This in turn, helped to define the tasks that the remote pilot must perform via the RPS, and thereby the required features and characteristics of the RPS. Second, the points of difference between RPAS and conventional aviation were used to further focus the guidelines on the considerations that make piloting a RPA significantly different to piloting a conventional aircraft. Five broad categories of guidelines are identified. These are (1) performance-based descriptions of pilot tasks that must be accomplished via the RPS, (2) information content of displays, (3) descriptions of control inputs, (4) properties of the interface, and (5) high-level design considerations. Some of the guidelines in this document have been adapted from existing RPAS human factors material from several sources, including RTCA publications and Standardization Agreements (STANAGs) published by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).

unmanned↗

NASA NTRS2016

Human Factors of Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems: Lessons from Incident Reports

An exploratory study is being conducted to examine the feasibility of collecting voluntary critical incident reports from RPAS pilots. Twenty-three experienced RPAS pilots volunteered to participate in focus groups in which they described critical incidents from their own experience. Participants were asked to recall (1) incidents that revealed a system flaw, or (2) highlighted a case where the human operator contributed to system resilience or mission success. Participants were asked to only report incidents that could be included in a public document. A total of 90 incidents were reported. Human factor issues included the impact of reduced sensory cues, traffic separation in the absence of an out-the-window view, control latencies, vigilance during monotonous and ultra-long endurance flights, control station design considerations, transfer of control between control stations, the management of lost link procedures, and decision-making during emergencies.

human factors↗

NASA NTRS2016

Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems

This chapter provides an overview of human factors of remotely piloted aircraft systems.

remotely piloted↗

NASA NTRS2016

C2-Related Incidents Reported by UAS Pilots

unmanned aircraft systems↗

NASA NTRS2016

Pilot Critical Incident Reports as a Means to Identify Human Factors of Remotely Piloted Aircraft

It has been estimated that aviation accidents are typically preceded by numerous minor incidents arising from the same causal factors that ultimately produced the accident. Accident databases provide in-depth information on a relatively small number of occurrences, however incident databases have the potential to provide insights into the human factors of Remotely Piloted Aircraft System (RPAS) operations based on a larger volume of less-detailed reports. Currently, there is a lack of incident data dealing with the human factors of unmanned aircraft systems. An exploratory study is being conducted to examine the feasibility of collecting voluntary critical incident reports from RPAS pilots. Twenty-three experienced RPAS pilots volunteered to participate in focus groups in which they described critical incidents from their own experience. Participants were asked to recall (1) incidents that revealed a system flaw, or (2) highlighted a case where the human operator contributed to system resilience or mission success. Participants were asked to only report incidents that could be included in a public document. During each focus group session, a note taker produced a de-identified written record of the incident narratives. At the end of the session, participants reviewed each written incident report, and made edits and corrections as necessary. The incidents were later analyzed to identify contributing factors, with a focus on design issues that either hindered or assisted the pilot during the events. A total of 90 incidents were reported. Human factor issues included the impact of reduced sensory cues, traffic separation in the absence of an out-the-window view, control latencies, vigilance during monotonous and ultra-long endurance flights, control station design considerations, transfer of control between control stations, the management of lost link procedures, and decision-making during emergencies. Pilots participated willingly and enthusiastically in the study, and generally had little difficulty recalling critical incidents. The results suggest that pilot interviews can be a productive method of gathering information on incidents that might not otherwise be reported. Some of the issues described in the reports have received significant attention in the literature, or are analogous to human factors of manned aircraft. In other cases, incident reports involved human factors that are poorly understood, and have not yet been the subject of extensive study. Although many of the reported incidents were related to pilot error, the participants also provided examples of the positive contribution that humans make to the operation of highly-automated systems.

unmanned aircraft systems↗

NASA NTRS2015

Identification of Human Factors in Unmanned Aviation Via Pilot Incident Reports

There is a need for incident data relevant to the operation of civilian unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) in the National Air Space (NAS). Currently, very limited incident and accident data are available from military sources, and the tightly-restricted civilian UAS industry has produced very few incident reports that could shed light on design issues relevant to human factors. An exploratory study is being conducted to examine the feasibility of collecting voluntary critical incident reports from UAS pilots, and using the information to identify areas where human factors guidelines will be of assistance. Experienced UAS pilots are participating in small focus groups in which they are prompted to describe critical incidents that either reveal a system flaw, or highlight a case where the human operator contributed to system resilience or mission success. The de-identified incidents are being analyzed to identify contributing factors, with a focus on design issues that either hindered or assisted the pilot in dealing with the incident. Preliminary findings will be described.

human factors↗

NASA NTRS2015

Human Performance Considerations for Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems (RPAS)

Successful integration of Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems (RPAS) into civil airspace will not only require solutions to technical challenges, but will also require that the design and operation of RPAS take into account human limitations and capabilities. Human factors can affect overall system performance whenever the system relies on people to interact with another element of the system. Four types of broad interactions can be described. These are (1) interactions between people and hardware, such as controls and displays; (2) human use of procedures and documentation; (3) impact of the task environment, including lighting, noise and monotony; and lastly, (4) interactions between operational personnel, including communication and coordination. In addition to the human factors that have been identified for conventional aviation, RPAS operations introduce a set of unique human challenges. The purpose of document is to raise human factors issues for consideration by workgroups of the ICAO RPAS panel as they work to develop guidance material and additions to ICAO annexes. It is anticipated that the content of this document will be revised and updated as the work of the panel progresses.

ICAO↗

NASA NTRS2014

Defining Reliability and Robustness from a Human Factors Perspective

A human factors team was tasked with assessing best practices for developing a crewed space vehicle that is both reliable and robust. The team identified two broad dimensions of human factors are relevant to system design. Namely, the attributes of the product, and the processes used to develop the product. The “product” includes hardware, software, documentation, training systems, and procedures throughout all phases of the system life, including construction, testing, operation and maintenance. Three product attributes relevant to robustness are the extent to which task demands are within human capabilities, the capacity of the system to cope with unanticipated human actions, and the ability of the system to make use of unique human capabilities during non-routine situations. The “process” dimension of human factors relates to the activities that start in the early stages of design, and continue throughout the life of the system. There are, of course, no guarantees that a formal consideration of human factors throughout the design process will identify all the relevant human issues. In the absence of such a consideration, however, problems are virtually assured.

Hobbs, Alan↗

NASA NTRS2014

Human Factor Challenges of Remotely Piloted Aircraft

The control stations of many unmanned systems have been characterized by inadequate human-system interfaces. Some of the interface problems may have been prevented had an existing regulation or cockpit design principle been applied. In other cases, the design problems may indicate a lack of suitable guidance material. The human factors of unmanned operations will be reviewed, and a NASA program to develop human-factor guidelines for control stations will be described. To be effective, guidelines must be relevant to a wide range of systems, must not be overly prescriptive, and must not impose premature standardization on evolving technologies. Several types of guidelines are described. These relate to required capabilities, information requirements, properties of the human machine interface, and general cognitive engineering principles.

Hobbs, Alan↗

NASA NTRS2014

User Interaction with the CNPC Link

As part of NASAs UAS in the NAS project, human factor guidelines are being developed for the ground control station of unmanned aircraft systems. A critical task for the pilot of a UAS is the management and control of the terrestrial radio links used to provide control of the vehicle and relay communications with air traffic control. An analysis of the task of the UAS pilot has been conducted to identify areas where guidelines are required. This analysis has identified a set of information requirements that must be supported by the radio equipment used to provide Control and Non-payload Communication (CNPC). Key requirements include the need for an alert when the link is lost, information on the current quality and latency of the link, and information to enable the future quality of the link to be anticipated as the aircraft changes location. These identified requirements can assist in the development of minimum operational performance standards for CNPC equipment.

unmanned aerial systems↗

NASA NTRS2014

The Development of Human Factor Guidelines for Unmanned Aircraft System Control Stations

Despite being referred to as unmanned some of the major challenges confronting unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) relate to human factors. NASA is conducting research to address the human factors relevant to UAS access to non-segregated airspace. This work covers the issues of pilot performance, interaction with ATC, and control station design. A major outcome of this research will be recommendations for human factors design guidelines for UAS control stations to support routine beyond-line-of-sight operations in the US national airspace system (NAS). To be effective, guidelines must be relevant to a wide range of systems, must not be overly prescriptive, and must not impose premature standardization on evolving technologies. In developing guidelines, we recognize that existing regulatory and guidance material may already provide adequate coverage of certain issues. In other cases suitable guidelines may be found in existing military or industry human factors standards. In cases where appropriate existing standards cannot be identified, original guidelines will be proposed.

guidelines↗

NASA NTRS2013

Human Factors Guidelines for UAS in the National Airspace System

The ground control stations (GCS) of some UAS have been characterized by less-than-adequate human-system interfaces. In some cases this may reflect a failure to apply an existing regulation or human factors standard. In other cases, the problem may indicate a lack of suitable guidance material. NASA is leading a community effort to develop recommendations for human factors guidelines for GCS to support routine beyond-line-of-sight UAS operations in the national airspace system (NAS). In contrast to regulations, guidelines are not mandatory requirements. However, by encapsulating solutions to identified problems or areas of risk, guidelines can provide assistance to system developers, users and regulatory agencies. To be effective, guidelines must be relevant to a wide range of systems, must not be overly prescriptive, and must not impose premature standardization on evolving technologies. By assuming that a pilot will be responsible for each UAS operating in the NAS, and that the aircraft will be required to operate in a manner comparable to conventionally piloted aircraft, it is possible to identify a generic set of pilot tasks and the information, control and communication requirements needed to support these tasks. Areas where guidelines will be useful can then be identified, utilizing information from simulations, operational experience and the human factors literature. In developing guidelines, we recognize that existing regulatory and guidance material will, at times, provide adequate coverage of an area. In other cases suitable guidelines may be found in existing military or industry human factors standards. In cases where appropriate existing standards cannot be identified, original guidelines will be proposed.

Guidelines↗

NASA NTRS2010

Passing the Baton: An Experimental Study of Shift Handover

Shift handovers occur in many safety-critical environments, including aviation maintenance, medicine, air traffic control, and mission control for space shuttle and space station operations. Shift handovers are associated with increased risk of communication failures and human error. In dynamic industries, errors and accidents occur disproportionately after shift handover. Typical shift handovers involve transferring information from an outgoing shift to an incoming shift via written logs, or in some cases, face-to-face briefings. The current study explores the possibility of improving written communication with the support modalities of audio and video recordings, as well as face-to-face briefings. Fifty participants participated in an experimental task which mimicked some of the critical challenges involved in transferring information between shifts in industrial settings. All three support modalities, face-to-face, video, and audio recordings, reduced task errors significantly over written communication alone. The support modality most preferred by participants was face-to-face communication; the least preferred was written communication alone.

Parke, Bonny↗

NASA NTRS2009

The Coming Paradigm-Shift in Maintenance: From Metals to Composites

The purpose of this study is to examine the current maintenance practices of airline operators in the detection and repair of damage to composite structures, with the aim of learning lessons that will be applicable to the maintenance of future advanced composite airplanes. A process map was created to capture the events and activities that occur from the moment a damage event occurs, through damage detection, assessment and repair. The study is identifying areas where operational risks may negatively impact the process, where personnel are required to make judgments in the absence of procedural guidance, and areas where future tools or techniques may be of assistance.

Hobbs, Alan↗