Engineering topics

Koteskey, Robert

Publications and source records attributed to Koteskey, Robert.

4 records

NASA NTRS2018

Crew Resource Management for Automated Teammates (CRM-A)

Crew Resource Management (CRM) is the application of human factors knowledge and skills to ensure that teams make effective use of all resources. This includes ensuring that pilots bring in opinions of other teammates and utilize their unique capabilities. CRM was originally developed 40 years ago in response to a number of airline accidents in which the crew was found to be at fault. The goal was to improve teamwork among airline cockpit crews. The notion of "team" was later expanded to include cabin crew and ground resources. CRM has also been adopted by other industries, most notably medicine. Automation research now finds itself faced with similar issues to those faced by aviation 40 years ago: how to create a more robust system by making full use of both the automation and its human operators. With advances in machine intelligence, processing speed and cheap and plentiful memory, automation has advanced to the point that it can and should be treated as a teammate to fully take advantage of its capabilities and contributions to the system. This area of research is known as Human-Autonomy Teaming (HAT). Research on HAT has identified reusable patterns that can be applied in a wide range of applications. These patterns include features such as bi-directional communication and working agreements. This paper will explore the synergies between CRM and HAT. We believe that HAT research has much to learn from CRM and that there are benefits to expanding CRM to cover automation.

Crew Resource Management↗

NASA NTRS2014

Toward Single Pilot Operations: The Impact of the Loss of Non-Verbal Communication on the Flight Deck

Since the 1950s, the crew required to fly transport category aircraft has been reduced from five to two. NASA is currently exploring the feasibility of a further reduction to one pilot. In this study we examine the effects of separating the pilots on crew interaction. The results are consistent with earlier research on decision-making between remote groups. Pilots strongly prefer face-to-face interactions; however, we could find no impact of separation on their ultimate decisions. There were a number of areas in which separation negatively affected communications. We discuss possible mitigations for these areas.

Single Pilot Operations↗

NASA NTRS2012

An Evaluation of Controller and Pilot Performance, Workload and Acceptability under a NextGen Concept for Dynamic Weather Adapted Arrival Routing

In todays terminal operations, controller workload increases and throughput decreases when fixed standard terminal arrival routes (STARs) are impacted by storms. To circumvent this operational constraint, Prete, Krozel, Mitchell, Kim and Zou (2008) proposed to use automation to dynamically adapt arrival and departure routing based on weather predictions. The present study examined this proposal in the context of a NextGen trajectory-based operation concept, focusing on the acceptability and its effect on the controllers ability to manage traffic flows. Six controllers and twelve transport pilots participated in a human-in-the-loop simulation of arrival operations into Louisville International Airport with interval management requirements. Three types of routing structures were used: Static STARs (similar to current routing, which require the trajectories of individual aircraft to be modified to avoid the weather), Dynamic routing (automated adaptive routing around weather), and Dynamic Adjusted routing (automated adaptive routing around weather with aircraft entry time adjusted to account for differences in route length). Spacing Responsibility, whether responsibility for interval management resided with the controllers (as today), or resided with the pilot (who used a flight deck based automated spacing algorithm), was also manipulated. Dynamic routing as a whole was rated superior to static routing, especially by pilots, both in terms of workload reduction and flight path safety. A downside of using dynamic routing was that the paths flown in the dynamic conditions tended to be somewhat longer than the paths flown in the static condition.

Johnson, Walter W.↗

NASA NTRS2012

Comparison of Controller and Flight Deck Algorithm Performance During Interval Management with Dynamic Arrival Trees (STARS)

Managing the interval between arrival aircraft is a major part of the en route and TRACON controller s job. In an effort to reduce controller workload and low altitude vectoring, algorithms have been developed to allow pilots to take responsibility for, achieve and maintain proper spacing. Additionally, algorithms have been developed to create dynamic weather-free arrival routes in the presence of convective weather. In a recent study we examined an algorithm to handle dynamic re-routing in the presence of convective weather and two distinct spacing algorithms. The spacing algorithms originated from different core algorithms; both were enhanced with trajectory intent data for the study. These two algorithms were used simultaneously in a human-in-the-loop (HITL) simulation where pilots performed weather-impacted arrival operations into Louisville International Airport while also performing interval management (IM) on some trials. The controllers retained responsibility for separation and for managing the en route airspace and some trials managing IM. The goal was a stress test of dynamic arrival algorithms with ground and airborne spacing concepts. The flight deck spacing algorithms or controller managed spacing not only had to be robust to the dynamic nature of aircraft re-routing around weather but also had to be compatible with two alternative algorithms for achieving the spacing goal. Flight deck interval management spacing in this simulation provided a clear reduction in controller workload relative to when controllers were responsible for spacing the aircraft. At the same time, spacing was much less variable with the flight deck automated spacing. Even though the approaches taken by the two spacing algorithms to achieve the interval management goals were slightly different they seem to be simpatico in achieving the interval management goal of 130 sec by the TRACON boundary.

Battiste, Vernol↗