Engineering topics

Press, Hayes N.

Publications and source records attributed to Press, Hayes N..

4 records

NASA NTRS2008

Predictive Information: Status or Alert Information?

Previous research investigating the efficacy of predictive information for detecting and diagnosing aircraft system failures found that subjects like to have predictive information concerning when a parameter would reach an alert range. This research focused on where the predictive information should be located, whether the information should be more closely associated with the parameter information or with the alert information. Each subject saw 3 forms of predictive information: (1) none, (2) a predictive alert message, and (3) predictive information on the status display. Generally, subjects performed better and preferred to have predictive information available although the difference between status and alert predictive information was minimal. Overall, for detection and recalling what happened, status predictive information is best; however for diagnosis, alert predictive information holds a slight edge.

Trujillo, Anna C.↗

NASA NTRS2007

Collocation and Pattern Recognition Effects on System Failure Remediation

Previous research found that operators prefer to have status, alerts, and controls located on the same screen. Unfortunately, that research was done with displays that were not designed specifically for collocation. In this experiment, twelve subjects evaluated two displays specifically designed for collocating system information against a baseline that consisted of dial status displays, a separate alert area, and a controls panel. These displays differed in the amount of collocation, pattern matching, and parameter movement compared to display size. During the data runs, subjects kept a randomly moving target centered on a display using a left-handed joystick and they scanned system displays to find a problem in order to correct it using the provided checklist. Results indicate that large parameter movement aided detection and then pattern recognition is needed for diagnosis but the collocated displays centralized all the information subjects needed, which reduced workload. Therefore, the collocated display with large parameter movement may be an acceptable display after familiarization because of the possible pattern recognition developed with training and its use.

Trujillo, Anna C.↗

NASA NTRS1995

A crew-centered flight deck design philosophy for High-Speed Civil Transport (HSCT) aircraft

Past flight deck design practices used within the U.S. commercial transport aircraft industry have been highly successful in producing safe and efficient aircraft. However, recent advances in automation have changed the way pilots operate aircraft, and these changes make it necessary to reconsider overall flight deck design. The High Speed Civil Transport (HSCT) mission will likely add new information requirements, such as those for sonic boom management and supersonic/subsonic speed management. Consequently, whether one is concerned with the design of the HSCT, or a next generation subsonic aircraft that will include technological leaps in automated systems, basic issues in human usability of complex systems will be magnified. These concerns must be addressed, in part, with an explicit, written design philosophy focusing on human performance and systems operability in the context of the overall flight crew/flight deck system (i.e., a crew-centered philosophy). This document provides such a philosophy, expressed as a set of guiding design principles, and accompanied by information that will help focus attention on flight crew issues earlier and iteratively within the design process. This document is part 1 of a two-part set.

Palmer, Michael T.↗

NASA NTRS1995

Summary of a Crew-Centered Flight Deck Design Philosophy for High-Speed Civil Transport (HSCT) Aircraft

Past flight deck design practices used within the U.S. commercial transport aircraft industry have been highly successful in producing safe and efficient aircraft. However, recent advances in automation have changed the way pilots operate aircraft, and these changes make it necessary to reconsider overall flight deck design. Automated systems have become more complex and numerous, and often their inner functioning is partially or fully opaque to the flight crew. Recent accidents and incidents involving autoflight system mode awareness Dornheim, 1995) are an example. This increase in complexity raises pilot concerns about the trustworthiness of automation, and makes it difficult for the crew to be aware of all the intricacies of operation that may impact safe flight. While pilots remain ultimately responsible for mission success, performance of flight deck tasks has been more widely distributed across human and automated resources. Advances in sensor and data integration technologies now make far more information available than may be prudent to present to the flight crew.

Palmer, Michael T.↗