Engineering topics

Kanki, Barbara G.

Publications and source records attributed to Kanki, Barbara G..

At least 19 records

NASA NTRS2014

Upset Recovery Human Factors

Accident and incident analyses as well as industry group concerns and recommendations have justified taking a second look at proficiency standards related to upset recovery training and performance. Quite a number of factors and theories have been suggested-- leading the NASA Aviation Safety Program to reconsider manual handling skills in highly automated aircraft particularly in conditions that can potentially lead to Loss of Control events. Our team of Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) first identified 76 Basic Recovery Skills that were important for effective crew response under five different anomaly conditions. In addition to manual handling skills, the skill set included knowledge and cognitive skills, as well as decision making and management skills. Advanced Recovery Skills were identified by combining skills, integrating with crew resource management skills, and developing heuristics for decision making.Using the Advanced Recovery Skill set, the SMEs then developed a generic process flow starting from the problem discovery phase (e.g., identifying an anomaly) through the decision making and management phase (e.g., assessing response options), through the recovery phase (e.g., controlling the aircraft). The generic process flow was refined by testing it against six additional scenarios. The next part of the project was to develop an approach for assessing and revising a generic training curriculum (we used an operators Advanced Qualification Program (AQP) as a framework). Although many of the Basic and Advanced Recovery Skills could be found in the Job Task Listing, they were not always structured or combined in the most effective way. Recommendations were developed for assessing relevant aspects of the Job Task Listing and Continuing Qualification curriculum so that the more comprehensive set of Upset Recovery skillsincluding Human Factors--could be trained and assessed in the most appropriate and effective context. The existing AQP methodology provides a natural way to insert targeted Upset Recovery skills into its system of proficiency objectives, training devices, training activities, and ultimately, into the event sets of a simulator training scenario.

AQP training↗

NASA NTRS2011

Human Factors Throughout the Life Cycle: Lessons Learned from the Shuttle Program

With the ending of the Space Shuttle Program, it is critical that we not forget the Human Factors lessons we have learned over the years. At every phase of the life cycle, from manufacturing, processing and integrating vehicle and payload, to launch, flight operations, mission control and landing, hundreds of teams have worked together to achieve mission success in one of the most complex, high-risk socio-technical enterprises ever designed. Just as there was great diversity in the types of operations performed at every stage, there was a myriad of human factors that could further complicate these human systems. A single mishap or close call could point to issues at the individual level (perceptual or workload limitations, training, fatigue, human error susceptibilities), the task level (design of tools, procedures and aspects of the workplace), as well as the organizational level (appropriate resources, safety policies, information access and communication channels). While we have often had to learn through human mistakes and technological failures, we have also begun to understand how to design human systems in which individuals can excel, where tasks and procedures are not only safe but efficient, and how organizations can foster a proactive approach to managing risk and supporting human enterprises. Panelists will talk about their experiences as they relate human factors to a particular phase of the shuttle life cycle. They will conclude with a framework for tying together human factors lessons-learned into system-level risk management strategies.

human factors↗

NASA NTRS2011

Tools for Designing, Evaluating, and Certifying NextGen Technologies and Procedures: Automation Roles and Responsibilities

Barbara Kanki from NASA Ames Research Center will discuss research that focuses on the collaborations between pilots, air traffic controllers and dispatchers that will change in NextGen systems as automation increases and roles and responsibilities change. The approach taken by this NASA Ames team is to build a collaborative systems assessment template (CSAT) based on detailed task descriptions within each system to establish a baseline of the current operations. The collaborative content and context are delineated through the review of regulatory and advisory materials, policies, procedures and documented practices as augmented by field observations and interviews. The CSAT is developed to aid the assessment of key human factors and performance tradeoffs that result from considering different collaborative arrangements under NextGen system changes. In theory, the CSAT product may be applied to any NextGen application (such as Trajectory Based Operations) with specified ground and aircraft capabilities.

Kanki, Barbara G.↗

NASA NTRS2011

A Human Factors Approach to Bridging Systems and Introducing New Technologies

The application of human factors in aviation has grown to cover a wide range of disciplines and methods capable of assessing human-systems integration at many levels. For example, at the individual level, pilot workload may be studied while at the team level, coordinated workload distribution may be the focal point. At the organizational level, the way in which individuals and teams are supported by training and standards, policies and procedures may introduce additional, relevant topics. A consideration of human factors at each level contributes to our understanding of successes and failures in pilot performance, but this system focused on the flight deck alone -- is only one part of the airspace system. In the FAA's NextGen plan to overhaul the National Airspace System (NAS), new capabilities will enhance flightdeck systems (pilots), flight operations centers (dispatchers) and air traffic control systems (controllers and air traffic managers). At a minimum, the current roles and responsibilities of these three systems are likely to change. Since increased automation will be central to many of the enhancements, the role of automation is also likely to change. Using NextGen examples, a human factors approach for bridging complex airspace systems will be the main focus of this presentation. It is still crucial to consider the human factors within each system, but the successful implementation of new technologies in the NAS requires an understanding of the collaborations that occur when these systems intersect. This human factors approach to studying collaborative systems begins with detailed task descriptions within each system to establish a baseline of the current operations. The collaborative content and context are delineated through the review of regulatory and advisory materials, letters of agreement, policies, procedures and documented practices. Field observations and interviews also help to fill out the picture. Key collaborative functions across systems are identified and placed on a phase-of-flight timeline including information requirements, decision authority and use of automation, as well as level of frequency and criticality.

Kanki, Barbara G.↗

NASA NTRS2008

Beyond 'Inop': Logbook Communication Between Airline Mechanics and Pilots

When mechanical discrepancies occur on aircraft, effective communication between pilots and mechanics can facilitate identification of the problem. A survey of pilots and mechanics was conducted to determine how often they were able to discuss discrepancies directly and to identify factors that influenced the detail they provided about discrepancies in the aircraft logbook. Logistical factors such as short turn times between flights and crew schedules appeared to present barriers to face-to-face meetings between pilots and mechanics. Guidelines for pilot logbook entries. Pilots reported receiving significantly less training on writing logbook entries and spent significantly less time making individual entries than mechanics. Mechanics indicated greater concern about the Federal Aviation Administration reading their entries than pilots. Mechanics indicated they had little opportunity to follow up with pilots to clarify a logbook entry once pilots departed the aircraft.

Munro, Pamela A.↗

NASA NTRS2008

Patterns of Error in Confidential Maintenance Incident Reports

Confidential reports of maintenance incidents are a valuable source of information on maintenance errors and the contexts within which they occur. NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System (ASRS) has been receiving an increasing number of maintenance incident reports since a specialized maintenance reporting form was introduced in 1996. In a series of studies, the database of ASRS maintenance incidents was examined using correspondence analysis, a statistical technique that converts complex data tables into a visual form. The analyses revealed patterns within the ASRS data set that would have otherwise been difficult to detect. The results have implications for a range of purposes including human factors training, the design of procedures, and the identification of improvements in aircraft design.

Hobbs, Alan↗

NASA NTRS2000

Realistic Radio Communications in Pilot Simulator Training

Simulators used for total training and evaluation of airline pilots must satisfy stringent criteria in order to assure their adequacy for training and checking maneuvers. Air traffic control and company radio communications simulation, however, may still be left to role-play by the already taxed instructor/evaluators in spite of their central importance in every aspect of the flight environment. The underlying premise of this research is that providing a realistic radio communications environment would increase safety by enhancing pilot training and evaluation. This report summarizes the first-year efforts of assessing the requirement and feasibility of simulating radio communications automatically. A review of the training and crew resource/task management literature showed both practical and theoretical support for the need for realistic radio communications simulation. A survey of 29 instructor/evaluators from 14 airlines revealed that radio communications are mainly role-played by the instructor/evaluators. This increases instructor/evaluators' own workload while unrealistically lowering pilot communications load compared to actual operations, with a concomitant loss in training/evaluation effectiveness. A technology review searching for an automated means of providing radio communications to and from aircraft with minimal human effort showed that while promising, the technology is still immature. Further research and the need for establishing a proof-of-concept are also discussed.

Burki-Cohen, Judith↗

NASA NTRS1998

From Crew Communication to Coordination: A Fundamental Means to an End

This viewgraph presentation describes the purposes and contexts of communication, factors which affect the interpretation of communication, and the advantages of effective, systematic communication to and from crews. Communication accomplishes information transfer, team/task management, shared problem solving and decision making, and establishment of the interpersonal climate. These accomplishments support outcomes: Technical task performance; CRM (crew resource management); Procedures and ATC (air traffic control); and Work/team atmosphere. The presentation lists various types of management inefficiency which can result from a lack of each of the four accomplishments. Communication skills are used within the following contexts: physical; social and organizational; task and operational; and speech and linguistic. Crew communication can be evaluated through investigation (case study), research (experimentation), and training.

Kanki, Barbara G.↗

NASA NTRS1997

Terminal Area Productivity Program: Dynamic Spacing Human Factors

Dynamic spacing human factors deals with the following human factors issues: define controller limits to incorporating dynamic changes in separation standards; identify timing, planning, and coordination strategies; and consider consistency with current practices, policies, and regulations. The AVOSS technologies will make it possible to reduce separation standards in the terminal area under certain meteorological conditions. This paper contains the following sections: Dynamic space human factors overview, Preliminary tests, and current research status & plans.

Kanki, Barbara G.↗

NASA NTRS1997

Reduction of Maintenance Error Through Focused Interventions

It is well known that a significant proportion of aviation accidents and incidents are tied to human error. In flight operations, research of operational errors has shown that so-called "pilot error" often involves a variety of human factors issues and not a simple lack of individual technical skills. In aircraft maintenance operations, there is similar concern that maintenance errors which may lead to incidents and accidents are related to a large variety of human factors issues. Although maintenance error data and research are limited, industry initiatives involving human factors training in maintenance have become increasingly accepted as one type of maintenance error intervention. Conscientious efforts have been made in re-inventing the "team" concept for maintenance operations and in tailoring programs to fit the needs of technical operations. Nevertheless, there remains a dual challenge: to develop human factors interventions which are directly supported by reliable human error data, and to integrate human factors concepts into the procedures and practices of everyday technical tasks. In this paper, we describe several varieties of human factors interventions and focus on two specific alternatives which target problems related to procedures and practices; namely, 1) structured on-the-job training and 2) procedure re-design. We hope to demonstrate that the key to leveraging the impact of these solutions comes from focused interventions; that is, interventions which are derived from a clear understanding of specific maintenance errors, their operational context and human factors components.

Kanki, Barbara G.↗

NASA NTRS1997

Teamwork in the Terminal Area: Organizational Issues and Solutions

Dynamic growth and technology advances in commercial aviation have turned the terminal area into a complex, multi-organization workplace which requires the smooth coordination of many operational teams. In addition to pilots, cabin crew, air traffic controllers, and dispatch (who nominally work together throughout a flight), surface operations additionally involve local, ground and ramp controllers, ramp agents, maintenance, dozens of service contractors, and any number of teams who are responsible for airport operations. Under abnormal or emergency conditions, even more teams become actively involved. In order to accommodate growth and to meet productivity and safety challenges, numerous changes are being made in surface operations. Unfortunately, it is often the case that changes in technologies, organizational roles, procedures, and training are developed and implemented in isolated and piecemeal fashion without regard to cross organizational impact. Thus, there is a need for evaluation methodologies which assure integrated system safety for all organizations. Such methodologies should aid the understanding of how organizations work together and how changes in one domain affects the next. In this study, we develop one approach toward addressing these organizational issues. Examples of surface operations in abnormal situations are examined in regard to their impact on personnel in the terminal area. Timelines are given for the responses to incidents, along with the necessary communication links, the specific roles that members of terminal teams have, and any overlapping responsibilities. Suggestions to improve cross-operational teamwork are given. Methods of graphic representation are explored, both in regards to human links and access to information. The outcome of such an approach should enhance the understanding which is critical for resolving organizational conflicts and maximizing system effectiveness.

Parke, Bonny K.↗

NASA NTRS1997

Operational Interventions to Maintenance Error

A significant proportion of aviation accidents and incidents are known to be tied to human error. However, research of flight operational errors has shown that so-called pilot error often involves a variety of human factors issues and not a simple lack of individual technical skills. In aircraft maintenance operations, there is similar concern that maintenance errors which may lead to incidents and accidents are related to a large variety of human factors issues. Although maintenance error data and research are limited, industry initiatives involving human factors training in maintenance have become increasingly accepted as one type of maintenance error intervention. Conscientious efforts have been made in re-inventing the team7 concept for maintenance operations and in tailoring programs to fit the needs of technical opeRAtions. Nevertheless, there remains a dual challenge: 1) to develop human factors interventions which are directly supported by reliable human error data, and 2) to integrate human factors concepts into the procedures and practices of everyday technical tasks. In this paper, we describe several varieties of human factors interventions and focus on two specific alternatives which target problems related to procedures and practices; namely, 1) structured on-the-job training and 2) procedure re-design. We hope to demonstrate that the key to leveraging the impact of these solutions comes from focused interventions; that is, interventions which are derived from a clear understanding of specific maintenance errors, their operational context and human factors components.

Kanki, Barbara G.↗

NASA NTRS1996

Enhancing the Flight Safety Culture Through Training

In the 1970's, flight safety professionals became profoundly concerned about the prevalence of crew-caused accidents and incidents, and the role of human error in flight operations. As result, they initiated a change in the flight safety culture which has grown to significant proportions today. At the heart of the evolution were crew concepts such as flightdeck management, crew coordination, and cockpit resource management, concepts which seemed to target critical deficiencies. In themselves, the concepts were not new but their incorporation into training as a direct means of changing the flight safety culture was an untried, almost 'grassroots' approach. The targeted crew concepts and skills were not an integral part of the typical training program; the methods, curriculum, media, and even course content itself, would have to be developed and implemented from the bottom up. A familiar truism in the pilot culture is that you should 'Train the way you fly; Fly the way you train'. In short, training was expected to provide the pilot with practical operational skills that were consistent with the performance standards they were required to maintain and the operational demands they met on a daily basis. In short, one could not simply command crews to use good CRM; one would have to research and define these skills operationally as well as develop and implement a consistent and effective training program. Furthermore, one would need active support and collaboration among the research, industry and government communities in order to ensure acceptance and continued commitment. Additional information is contained in the original extended abstract.

Kanki, Barbara G.↗

NASA NTRS1995

Identifying Human Factors Issues in Aircraft Maintenance Operations

Maintenance operations incidents submitted to the Aviation Safety Reporting System (ASRS) between 1986-1992 were systematically analyzed in order to identify issues relevant to human factors and crew coordination. This exploratory analysis involved 95 ASRS reports which represented a wide range of maintenance incidents. The reports were coded and analyzed according to the type of error (e.g, wrong part, procedural error, non-procedural error), contributing factors (e.g., individual, within-team, cross-team, procedure, tools), result of the error (e.g., aircraft damage or not) as well as the operational impact (e.g., aircraft flown to destination, air return, delay at gate). The main findings indicate that procedural errors were most common (48.4%) and that individual and team actions contributed to the errors in more than 50% of the cases. As for operational results, most errors were either corrected after landing at the destination (51.6%) or required the flight crew to stop enroute (29.5%). Interactions among these variables are also discussed. This analysis is a first step toward developing a taxonomy of crew coordination problems in maintenance. By understanding what variables are important and how they are interrelated, we may develop intervention strategies that are better tailored to the human factor issues involved.

Veinott, Elizabeth S.↗

NASA NTRS1995

The Nature of Procedural Interrupts in Ground Operations in Aerospace Systems

This study proposes a methodology for characterizing the causal context and consequences of procedural interrupts in ground operations tasks. Behavioral science researchers observed 26 tasks at NASA's Kennedy Space Center. From these tasks, 81 procedural interrupts were identified and coded for the following information: source of the interrupt, circumstances surrounding the interrupt, and consequences of the interrupt. We found that more interrupts were equipment or personnel-related than procedure-related. More interrupts were due to unavailable resources or resources being incorrect than resources being inaccessible, and most interrupts resulted in some action being taken. Variation in duration of procedural interrupts across causal categories was also examined. The characterization process helps to identify those interrupts that are disruptive, those that cannot be avoided, and those that may have been prevented through better planning or scheduling of resources. Implications for the use of the methodology and suggestions for further research are discussed.

Irwin, Cheryl M.↗

NASA NTRS1994

Communication Research in Aviation and Space Operations: Symptoms and Strategies of Crew Coordination

The day-to-day operators of today's aerospace systems work under increasing pressures to accomplish more with less. They work in operational systems which are complex, technology-based, and high-risk; in which incidents and accidents have far-reaching and costly consequences. For these and other reasons, there is concern that the safety net formerly built upon redundant systems and abundant resources may become overburdened. Although we know that human ingenuity can overcome incredible odds, human nature can also fail in unpredictable ways. Over the last 20 years, a large percentage of aviation accidents and incidents have been attributed to human errors rather than hardware or environmental factors alone. A class of errors have been identified which are not due to a lack of individual, technical competencies. Rather, they are due to the failure of teams to utilize readily available resources or information in a timely fashion. These insights began a training revolution in the aviation industry called Cockpit Resource Management, which later became known as Crew Resource Management (CRM) as its concepts and applications extended to teams beyond the flightdeck. Then, as now, communication has been a cornerstone in CRM training since crew coordination and resource management largely resides within information transfer processes--both within flightcrews, and between flightcrews and the ground operations teams that support them. The research I will describe takes its roots in CRM history as we began to study communication processes in order to discover symptoms of crew coordination problems, as well as strategies of effective crew management. On the one hand, communication is often the means or the tool by which team members manage their resources, solve problems, maintain situational awareness and procedural discipline. Conversely, it is the lack of planning and resource management, loss of vigilance and situational awareness, and non-standard communications that are implicated in accidents and incidents. NASA/Ames Crew Factors researchers have been developing a model of effective crew coordination in order to understand the sources of performance breakdowns, and to develop effective solutions and interventions. Because communication is a primary mechanism by which information is received and transmitted, and because it is observable behavior, we focus on these group processes in order to identify patterns of communication that distinguish effective from less effective crew performance. Since a prime objective is to develop training recommendations for enhancing communication skills, we interpret our findings in the context of relevant task and environmental conditions, role and procedural constraints, and the normal real-time parameters of flight operations. Another research objective is to consider how communication and coordination can be enhanced through design. For example, flight deck and hardware design as well as procedural and software design may greatly influence the efficiency with which crews communicate and coordinate their work. In addition, teams and tasks may be designed, organized, and trained so that team interactions with each other are based upon appropriately shared knowledge, procedures and situation awareness. In short, we are interested in enhancing communication practices through (1) the training of specific communication skills, and (2) the design of equipment, tasks, procedures, and teams that optimize smooth, unambiguous communication processes. Two examples of communication research will be described; one in aviation and one in space operations. The first example is a high-fidelity full mission simulation study which investigates the affect of flightdeck automation on crew coordination and communication (contrasting crew performance in the DC-9 vs. MD88). Additional information is contained in the original extended abstract.

Kanki, Barbara G.↗

NASA NTRS1992

Crew behavior and performance in space analog environments

The objectives and the current status of the Crew Factors research program conducted at NASA-Ames Research Center are reviewed. The principal objectives of the program are to determine the effects of a broad class of input variables on crew performance and to provide guidance with respect to the design and management of crews assigned to future space missions. A wide range of research environments are utilized, including controlled experimental settings, high fidelity full mission simulator facilities, and fully operational field environments. Key group processes are identified, and preliminary data are presented on the effect of crew size, type, and structure on team performance.

Kanki, Barbara G.↗

NASA NTRS1992

Team dynamics in isolated, confined environments - Saturation divers and high altitude climbers

The effects of leadership dynamics and social organization factors on team performance under conditions of high altitude climbing and deep sea diving are studied. Teams of two to four members that know each other well and have a relaxed informal team structure with much sharing of responsibilities are found to do better than military teams with more than four members who do not know each other well and have a formal team structure with highly specialized rules. Professionally guided teams with more than four members, a formally defined team structure, and clearly designated role assignments did better than 'club' teams of more than four members with a fairly informal team structure and little role specialization.

Kanki, Barbara G.↗