Search NASASearch

Engineering topics

Hooey, Becky Lee

Publications and source records attributed to Hooey, Becky Lee.

NASA-DLR Collaboration Follow-Up: B5 - Surface Management

This presentation iintroduces a very high level overview of NASA aeronautics research and Airspace Operations and Safety Program (AOSP) under ARMD. It also provides high level overview of Airspace Technology Demonstration Project (ATD) under AOSP Program. Finally, suggestions and ideas for future collaboration with DLR on the Surface Management topic (B5) are presented for further discussion.

4D Taxi

NextGen Flight Deck Surface Trajectory-Based Operations (STBO): Contingency Holds

The purpose of this pilot-in-the-loop taxi simulation was to investigate a NextGen Surface Trajectory-Based Operations (STBO) concept called "contingency holds." The contingency-hold concept parses a taxi route into segments, allowing an air traffic control (ATC) surface traffic management (STM) system to hold an aircraft when necessary for safety. Under nominal conditions, if the intersection or active runway crossing is clear, the hold is removed, allowing the aircraft to continue taxiing without slowing, thus improving taxi efficiency, while minimizing the excessive brake use, fuel burn, and emissions associated with stop-and-go taxi. However, when a potential traffic conflict exists, the hold remains in place as a fail-safe mechanism. In this departure operations simulation, the taxi clearance included a required time of arrival (RTA) to a specified intersection. The flight deck was equipped with speed-guidance avionics to aid the pilot in safely meeting the RTA. On two trials, the contingency hold was not released, and pilots were required to stop. On two trials the contingency hold was released 15 sec prior to the RTA, and on two trials the contingency hold was released 30 sec prior to the RTA. When the hold remained in place, all pilots complied with the hold. Results also showed that when the hold was released at 15-sec or 30-sec prior to the RTA, the 30-sec release allowed pilots to maintain nominal taxi speed, thus supporting continuous traffic flow; whereas, the 15-sec release did not. The contingency-hold concept, with at least a 30-sec release, allows pilots to improve taxiing efficiency by reducing braking, slowing, and stopping, but still maintains safety in that no pilots "busted" the clearance holds. Overall, the evidence suggests that the contingency-hold concept is a viable concept for optimizing efficiency while maintaining safety.

NextGen

Modeling and Evaluating Pilot Performance in NextGen: Review of and Recommendations Regarding Pilot Modeling Efforts, Architectures, and Validation Studies

NextGen operations are associated with a variety of changes to the national airspace system (NAS) including changes to the allocation of roles and responsibilities among operators and automation, the use of new technologies and automation, additional information presented on the flight deck, and the entire concept of operations (ConOps). In the transition to NextGen airspace, aviation and air operations designers need to consider the implications of design or system changes on human performance and the potential for error. To ensure continued safety of the NAS, it will be necessary for researchers to evaluate design concepts and potential NextGen scenarios well before implementation. One approach for such evaluations is through human performance modeling. Human performance models (HPMs) provide effective tools for predicting and evaluating operator performance in systems. HPMs offer significant advantages over empirical, human-in-the-loop testing in that (1) they allow detailed analyses of systems that have not yet been built, (2) they offer great flexibility for extensive data collection, (3) they do not require experimental participants, and thus can offer cost and time savings. HPMs differ in their ability to predict performance and safety with NextGen procedures, equipment and ConOps. Models also vary in terms of how they approach human performance (e.g., some focus on cognitive processing, others focus on discrete tasks performed by a human, while others consider perceptual processes), and in terms of their associated validation efforts. The objectives of this research effort were to support the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in identifying HPMs that are appropriate for predicting pilot performance in NextGen operations, to provide guidance on how to evaluate the quality of different models, and to identify gaps in pilot performance modeling research, that could guide future research opportunities. This research effort is intended to help the FAA evaluate pilot modeling efforts and select the appropriate tools for future modeling efforts to predict pilot performance in NextGen operations.

pilot human performance models

Evaluating Nextgen Closely Spaced Parallel Operations Concepts with Validated Human Performance Models: Flight Deck Guidelines

The objectives of the current research were to develop valid human performance models (HPMs) of approach and land operations; use these models to evaluate the impact of NextGen Closely Spaced Parallel Operations (CSPO) on pilot performance; and draw conclusions regarding flight deck display design and pilot-ATC roles and responsibilities for NextGen CSPO concepts. This document presents guidelines and implications for flight deck display designs and candidate roles and responsibilities. A companion document (Gore, Hooey, Mahlstedt, & Foyle, 2013) provides complete scenario descriptions and results including predictions of pilot workload, visual attention and time to detect off-nominal events.

guidelines

A Validated Set of MIDAS V5 Task Network Model Scenarios to Evaluate Nextgen Closely Spaced Parallel Operations Concepts

The Closely Spaced Parallel Operations (CSPO) scenario is a complex, human performance model scenario that tested alternate operator roles and responsibilities to a series of off-nominal operations on approach and landing (see Gore, Hooey, Mahlstedt, Foyle, 2013). The model links together the procedures, equipment, crewstation, and external environment to produce predictions of operator performance in response to Next Generation system designs, like those expected in the National Airspaces NextGen concepts. The task analysis that is contained in the present report comes from the task analysis window in the MIDAS software. These tasks link definitions and states for equipment components, environmental features as well as operational contexts. The current task analysis culminated in 3300 tasks that included over 1000 Subject Matter Expert (SME)-vetted, re-usable procedural sets for three critical phases of flight; the Descent, Approach, and Land procedural sets (see Gore et al., 2011 for a description of the development of the tasks included in the model; Gore, Hooey, Mahlstedt, Foyle, 2013 for a description of the model, and its results; Hooey, Gore, Mahlstedt, Foyle, 2013 for a description of the guidelines that were generated from the models results; Gore, Hooey, Foyle, 2012 for a description of the models implementation and its settings). The rollout, after landing checks, taxi to gate and arrive at gate illustrated in Figure 1 were not used in the approach and divert scenarios exercised. The other networks in Figure 1 set up appropriate context settings for the flight deck.The current report presents the models task decomposition from the tophighest level and decomposes it to finer-grained levels. The first task that is completed by the model is to set all of the initial settings for the scenario runs included in the model (network 75 in Figure 1). This initialization process also resets the CAD graphic files contained with MIDAS, as well as the embedded operator models that comprise MIDAS. Following the initial settings, the model progresses to begin the first tasks required of the two flight deck operators, the Captain (CA) and the First Officer (FO). The task sets will initialize operator specific settings prior to loading all of the alerts, probes, and other events that occur in the scenario. As a note, the CA and FO were terms used in developing this model but the CA can also be thought of as the Pilot Flying (PF), while the FO can be considered the Pilot-Not-Flying (PNF)or Pilot Monitoring (PM). As such, the document refers to the operators as PFCA and PNFFO respectively.

task network model

Extending Validated Human Performance Models to Explore NextGen Concepts

To meet the expected increases in air traffic demands, NASA and FAA are researching and developing Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen) concepts. NextGen will require substantial increases in the data available to pilots on the flight deck (e.g., weather,wake, traffic trajectory predictions, etc.) to support more precise and closely coordinated operations (e.g., self-separation, RNAV/RNP, and closely spaced parallel operations, CSPOs). These NextGen procedures and operations, along with the pilot's roles and responsibilities, must be designed with consideration of the pilot's capabilities and limitations. Failure to do so will leave the pilots, and thus the entire aviation system, vulnerable to error. A validated Man-machine Integration and design Analysis System (MIDAS) v5 model was extended to evaluate anticipated changes to flight deck and controller roles and responsibilities in NextGen approach and Land operations. Compared to conditions when the controllers are responsible for separation on decent to land phase of flight, the output from these model predictions suggest that the flight deck response time to detect the lead aircraft blunder will decrease, pilot scans to the navigation display will increase, and workload will increase.

Gore, Brian Francis

A Design Rationale Capture Tool to Support Design Verification and Re-use

A design rationale tool (DR tool) was developed to capture design knowledge to support design verification and design knowledge re-use. The design rationale tool captures design drivers and requirements, and documents the design solution including: intent (why it is included in the overall design); features (why it is designed the way it is); information about how the design components support design drivers and requirements; and, design alternatives considered but rejected. For design verification purposes, the tool identifies how specific design requirements were met and instantiated within the final design, and which requirements have not been met. To support design re-use, the tool identifies which design decisions are affected when design drivers and requirements are modified. To validate the design tool, the design knowledge from the Taxiway Navigation and Situation Awareness (T-NASA; Foyle et al., 1996) system was captured and the DR tool was exercised to demonstrate its utility for validation and re-use.

design verification