Results for “Number of Crew” — Page 13

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Nutrition of Antarctic-grown Crops to Supplement the Crew Diet, with Applications for Spaceflight

The availability of fresh produce during longer-duration spaceflight missions is being explored as a countermeasure for human biobehavioral health and performance, including how fresh fruits and vegetables can supplement the crew diet with nutrients that are predicted to become deficient throughout the missions. Crop production in the Veggie and Advanced Plant Habitat vegetable production chambers on the International Space Station (ISS) have tested pick-and-eat crops in spaceflight. However, the limited plant cultivation volume of these chambers has restricted the sample sizes and biomass allocated for nutrition assessment. To gain a better understanding of the nutrient composition of pick-and-eat crops, leafy greens and fruiting plants were grown in the EDEN ISS plant cultivation facility near the German Neumayer Station III in Antarctica from March 2021 to January 2022. Target crops for nutrition sampling aligned with cultivars grown in spaceflight, including ‘Outredgeous’ red romaine lettuce, Mizuna mustard, ‘Red Robin’ dwarf cherry tomato, and NuMex ‘Española Improved’ chili pepper. Plants subsamples were taken at harvest; in the event of multiple harvests from the same plants, subsamples were taken at both the first and final harvests. ‘Outredgeous’ and Mizuna were also grown multiple times throughout the year, allowing multiple grow-outs to be analyzed for potential effects across the growing season. Subsamples were first weighed for fresh mass, dried in a dedicated oven at 70°C for 96 h, weighed again, and stored in air-tight containers inside Neumayer Station III. At the beginning of 2022, the samples were shipped to NASA’s Kennedy Space Center, where they are currently being analyzed with ion chromatography for nutrients of interest in the astronaut diet, including calcium, iron, magnesium, and potassium. This study aims to increase our understanding of how the crops that have successfully grown on the ISS can supplement the crew diet, as well as how other factors like plant age and the number of days the facility has been in operation may impact nutrient concentrations. Such findings can improve the crop selection process and how pick-and-eat crops are cultivated during spaceflight missions.

Jess M. Bunchek↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Space Crop Production Gaps and Challenges

As astronauts venture farther from Earth, and stay for longer periods, the space food system will increase in importance. Crop production can supplement a pre-packaged space diet to provide nutrition and dietary variety for space crews. In future missions, bioregenerative approaches may be used to generate a larger percentage of the diet, as well as help to reduce life support system burdens and resupply from Earth. Plants may also provide behavioral health benefits to crew members living in the isolated, confined environment of a space habitat. A number of unique challenges exist for growth of plants in microgravity and on other reduced gravity surfaces like the moon and Mars. Testing plant growth inside the Veggie and Advanced Plant Habitat (APH) chambers on the International Space Station is allowing us to understand the impacts of gravity and spaceflight on crop growth, nutritional content, acceptability, and the importance of plants to astronauts living and working away from Earth. We are also gaining a better understanding of food safety concerns and the behavior of space plant microbiomes and plant pathogens, but major gaps in knowledge remain. As we move from research towards operational space crop production to enable exploration, there are numerous gaps in technology, knowledge, and practice related to space crop growth that must be addressed. Research and development in key focus areas such as effective water and nutrient delivery at variable gravity levels, autonomous plant health monitoring, growth system cleaning and disinfection, and selection of ideal space crops are needed to fill these gaps. Breeding or engineering custom space crops may impact areas including plant growth and development, plant physiology, produce nutrition, organoleptic acceptability, and post-harvest characteristics, and these may further enable space crop production scenarios. Space crop challenges are multifaceted and require diverse interdisciplinary teams working together to develop effective solutions. Solving these requires an array of skill sets from across the biological and physical sciences, engineering, and human social sciences. Solutions to help ensure food security off-Earth may also translate to more sustainable terrestrial crop production approaches, and regular dialog between industry, academia, and government organizations working in related fields benefit all. Additional help can come from engagement with student researchers at various levels through courses, participatory science projects, and open science activities which can provide useful data. Global coordination and integration between space agencies and partners will be essential.

Gioia Donna Massa↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Space Crop Production Gaps and Challenges

As astronauts venture farther from Earth, and stay for longer periods, the space food system will increase in importance. Crop production can supplement a pre-packaged space diet to provide nutrition and dietary variety for space crews. In future missions, bioregenerative approaches may be used to generate a larger percentage of the diet, as well as help to reduce life support system burdens and resupply from Earth. Plants may also provide behavioral health benefits to crew members living in the isolated, confined environment of a space habitat. A number of unique challenges exist for growth of plants in microgravity and on other reduced gravity surfaces like the moon and Mars. Testing plant growth inside the Veggie and Advanced Plant Habitat (APH) chambers on the International Space Station is allowing us to understand the impacts of gravity and spaceflight on crop growth, nutritional content, acceptability, and the importance of plants to astronauts living and working away from Earth. We are also gaining a better understanding of food safety concerns and the behavior of space plant microbiomes and plant pathogens, but major gaps in knowledge remain. As we move from research towards operational space crop production to enable exploration, there are numerous gaps in technology, knowledge, and practice related to space crop growth that must be addressed. Research and development in key focus areas such as effective water and nutrient delivery at variable gravity levels, autonomous plant health monitoring, growth system cleaning and disinfection, and selection of ideal space crops are needed to fill these gaps. Breeding or engineering custom space crops may impact areas including plant growth and development, plant physiology, produce nutrition, organoleptic acceptability, and post-harvest characteristics, and these may further enable space crop production scenarios. Space crop challenges are multifaceted and require diverse interdisciplinary teams working together to develop effective solutions. Solving these requires an array of skill sets from across the biological and physical sciences, engineering, and human social sciences. Solutions to help ensure food security off-Earth may also translate to more sustainable terrestrial crop production approaches, and regular dialog between industry, academia, and government organizations working in related fields benefit all. Additional help can come from engagement with student researchers at various levels through courses, participatory science projects, and open science activities which can provide useful data. Global coordination and integration between space agencies and partners will be essential.

Gioia Massa↗

NASA NTRS2025

Astronaut Physiological Deconditioning and Exercise Prescription Countermeasures in Spaceflight

The human skeletal muscular and cardiovascular systems are adapted to the upright posture of Earth’s gravitational environment. Astronauts experience an altered gravity environment in spaceflight that leads to a number of physiological changes and decrements to these systems that can decrease overall crew performance. Countermeasures, including prescribed exercise during spaceflight, is vital for astronauts to maintain optimal health and performance. The degree of physiological deconditioning is dependent on a multitude of factors such as sex, age, mission duration, fitness level, and gravity environments experienced. Deconditioning begins immediately upon entering an altered gravity environment and physiological decrements of the skeletal muscular and cardiovascular systems are measurable among astronauts within a few days. Thus, to maintain their physical fitness, ability to perform mission duties, and be able to egress vehicles when needed, it is imperative that astronauts participate in exercise during all phases of flight. This is especially important for long duration flights where deconditioning effects can be more deleterious. The NASA Office of the Chief Health and Medical Officer 3001 Standards Team develops requirements utilized by commercial and international partners to better understand spaceflight-induced physiological changes and countermeasures and expected outcomes with or without exercise.

exercise physiology↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Space Crop Production Gaps and Challenges

As astronauts venture farther from Earth, and stay for longer periods, the space food system will increase in importance. Crop production can supplement a pre-packaged space diet to provide nutrition and dietary variety for space crews. In future missions, bioregenerative approaches may be used to generate a larger percentage of the diet, as well as help to reduce life support system burdens and resupply from Earth. Plants may also provide behavioral health benefits to crew members living in the isolated, confined environment of a space habitat. A number of unique challenges exist for growth of plants in microgravity and on other reduced gravity surfaces like the moon and Mars. Testing with the Veggie and Advanced Plant Habitat (APH) chambers on the International Space Station is allowing us to understand the impacts of gravity and spaceflight on crop growth, nutritional content, acceptability, and the importance of plants to astronauts living and working away from Earth. We are also gaining a better understanding of food safety concerns and the behavior of space plant microbiomes and plant pathogens, but major gaps in knowledge remain. As we move from research towards operational space crop production to enable exploration, there are numerous gaps in technology, knowledge, and practice related to space crop growth that must be addressed.

Gioia Massa↗

NASA NTRS2013

An Investigation of Flight Deck Data Link in the Terminal Area

The Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen) and Europe's Single European Sky ATM Research (SESAR) concepts require an increased use of trajectory-based operations, including extensive strategic air traffic control clearances. The clearances are lengthy and complex, which necessitate data link communications to allow for message permanence and integration into the autoflight systems (i.e., autoload capability). This paper examines the use of flight deck data link communications for strategic and tactical clearance usage in the terminal area. A human-in-the-loop simulation was conducted using a high-fidelity flight deck simulator, with ten commercial flight crews as participants. Data were collected from six flight scenarios in the San Francisco terminal airspace. The variables of interest were ATC message modality (voice v. data link), temporal quality of the message (tactical v. strategic) and message length. Dependent variables were message response times, communication clarifications, communication-related errors, and pilot workload. Response time results were longer in data link compared to voice, a finding that has been consistently revealed in a number of other simulations [1]. In addition, strategic clearances and longer messages resulted in a greater number of clarifications and errors, suggesting an increase in uncertainty of message interpretation for the flight crews when compared to tactical clearances. The implications for strategic and compound clearance usage in NextGen and SESAR are discussed

data link communication↗

NASA NTRS1997

Evaluation of Flight Attendant Technical Knowledge

Accident and incident reports have indicated that flight attendants have numerous opportunities to provide the flight-deck crew with operational information that may prevent or lessen the severity of a potential problem. Additionally, as carrier fleets transition from three person to two person flight-deck crews, the reliance upon the cabin crew for the transfer of this information may increase further. Recent research indicates that flight attendants do not feel confident in their ability to describe mechanical parts or malfunctions of the aircraft, and the lack of flight attendant technical training has been referenced in a number of recent reports. Chute and Wiener describe five factors which may produce communication barriers between cockpit and cabin crews: the historical background of aviation, the physical separation of the two crews, psychosocial issues, regulatory factors, and organizational factors. By examining these areas of division we can identify possible bridges and address the implications of deficient cockpit/cabin communication on flight safety. Flight attendant operational knowledge may provide some mitigation of these barriers. The present study explored both flight attendant technical knowledge and flight attendant and pilot expectations of flight attendant technical knowledge. To assess the technical knowledge of cabin crewmembers, 177 current flight attendants from two U.S. carriers voluntarily completed a 13-item technical quiz. To investigate expectations of flight attendant technical knowledge, 181 pilots and a second sample of 96 flight attendants, from the same two airlines, completed surveys designed to capture each group's expectations of operational knowledge required of flight attendants. Analyses revealed several discrepancies between the present level of flight attendant operational knowledge and pilots' and flight attendants' expected and desired levels of technical knowledge. Implications for training will be discussed.

Dunbar, Melisa G.↗

NASA NTRS2010

Computational Aeroelastic Analysis of Ares Crew Launch Vehicle Bi-Modal Loading

A Reynolds averaged Navier-Stokes analysis, with and without dynamic aeroelastic effects, is presented for the Ares I-X launch vehicle at transonic Mach numbers and flight Reynolds numbers for two grid resolutions and two angles of attack. The purpose of the study is to quantify the force and moment increment imparted by the sudden transition from fully separated flow around the crew module - service module junction to that of the bi-modal flow state in which only part of the flow reattaches. The bi-modal flow phenomenon is of interest to the guidance, navigation and control community because it causes a discontinuous jump in forces and moments. Computations with a rigid structure at zero zero angle of attack indicate significant increases in normal force and pitching moment. Dynamic aeroelastic computations indicate the bi-modal flow state is insensitive to vehicle flexibility due to the resulting deflections imparting only very small changes in local angle of attack. At an angle of attack of 2.5deg, the magnitude of the pitching moment increment resulting from the bi-modal state nearly triples, while occurring at a slightly lower Mach number. Significant grid induced variations between the solutions indicate that further grid refinement is warranted.

Massey, Steven J.↗

NASA NTRS2018

A First Look at the Evolution of Flight Crew Requirements for Emerging Market Aircraft

This is an exciting time for aviation. New vehicle and airspace technologies promise large increases in the number of aircraft in operation. One critical technology for these emerging markets is the increased use of automated systems to reduce pilot skill, training, and proficiency requirements. While the use of these systems promises to reduce or eliminate pilot functions in the long-term, the technology development for the required functions will necessitate a phased transition. The transition to, and adoption of automated systems will generate new safety challenges. This paper is a first look at a model to help frame flight crew functions for evaluation of future operational requirements. The model is intended to provide required flight crew functions regardless of whether the functions are performed by human or artificial agent. It is hoped that the model will be useful in identifying safety challenges and enabling a safe transition for the new aviation markets. The paper presents some background for a model for framing the flight crew function model and some thoughts about next steps.

safety-critical automation↗

NASA NTRS2012

NASA and ESA Partnership on the Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle Service Module

(1) ESA decided in its Council Meeting in March 2011 to partially offset the European ISS obligations after 2015 with different means than ATVs; (2) The envisioned approach is based on a barter element(s) that would generate cost avoidance on the NASA side; (3) NASA and ESA considered a number of Barter options, NASA concluded that the provision by ESA of the Service Module for the NASA Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV) was the barter with the most interest;. (4) A joint ESA - NASA working group was established in May 2011 to assess the feasibility of Europe developing this Module based on ATV heritage; (5)The working group was supported by European and US industry namely Astrium, TAS-I and Lockheed-Martin; and (6) The project is currently in phase B1 with the objective to prepare a technical and programmatic proposal for an ESA MPCV-SM development. This proposal will be one element of the package that ESA plans submit to go forward for approval by European Ministers in November 2012.

Schubert, Kathleen E.↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Soyuz Landing Risk Characterization

INTRODUCTION United States On-orbit Segment (USOS) astronauts have been returning to Earth from the International Space Station (ISS) aboard the Russian Soyuz vehicle since 2003. The energetics associated with Soyuz landings are comparable to our next generation of US space vehicles (Orion, Crew Dragon, and Starliner). Soyuz also lands crew in a similar state of spaceflight deconditioning that is anticipated using the future vehicles. A number of injuries have now been observed during these Soyuz landings. Currently it is unknown how Soyuz landing accelerations and the numbers and types of associated injuries relate to the new occupant protection requirements levied upon future space vehicles. Understanding this relationship will allow better quantification of the risk of injury for future spacecraft designs. METHODS An estimate of injury occurrence during Soyuz landings has been determined using data contained in NASA flight medicine databases and supplemented with data collected from crewmembers and flight surgeons. At the time of this abstract, 96 USOS astronauts have returned to Earth in the Soyuz (59 US, 31 International Partner, and 6 spaceflight participants). Of that total, data from 80 individual crew landings has been collected through this study as of 2021. Injuries are classified either as contusions/abrasions, Class I (minor, no medical follow-up), Class II (moderate, medical follow-up necessary), Class III (severe), or Class IV (life threatening). Current NASA occupant protection standards are primarily based on the Multi-axial Dynamic Response Index (MDRI), which is a simple lumped-parameter spring, mass, damper model tuned to human impact responses in three orthogonal axes. RESULTS Using what is known about Soyuz landing dynamics from airborne and drop test data, the MDRI predicts essentially no Class IV or III injuries, < 1% Class II injuries, and < 5% Class I injuries. Approximately one-third of all USOS crewmembers for whom data has been gathered have suffered some sort of injury related to landing in the Soyuz vehicle. Most of these injuries fall into the contusion/abrasion category (21.3 %) (n.b. This is the percent for whom contusion/abrasion was the worst injury. Those with class I or II injuries typically also received contusions/abrasions). Class I injuries have been sustained by 5.0% of all crew, and Class II injuries have been observed in 3.8%. No Class III or IV injuries have been sustained to date. Forty-three injuries have been documented, with some crewmembers sustaining more than one injury in a single landing. The knee was the most likely area of injury (n=9), followed by the back (n=8), then the arm (n=7). CONCLUSION Soyuz landing dynamics are the most comparable analog environment for the anticipated loads associated with Orion and commercial crew vehicle landings. The MDRI under predicts the percentage of Class II injuries experienced during Soyuz landings, but it is better at predicting Class I injury occurrences. However, if contusions/abrasions are included in the minor injury Class I category, then the MDRI vastly under predicts those injuries as well. Given this data, it is important to re-evaluate the expected injury rates for future vehicles and work toward improving the predictive tools for spaceflight use. Spaceflight deconditioning may account for some of the under prediction, and work is ongoing to assess the relationship between landing injuries and impact tolerance changes due to spaceflight deconditioning. Future work includes expanding this study to involve private space missions on new vehicles to better characterize the effects of time in flight, suit and seat design, and vehicle dynamics.

N Newby↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Soyuz Landing Risk Characterization

INTRODUCTION United States On-orbit Segment (USOS) astronauts have been returning to Earth from the International Space Station (ISS) aboard the Russian Soyuz vehicle since 2003. The energetics associated with Soyuz landings are comparable to our next generation of US space vehicles (Orion, Crew Dragon, and Starliner). Soyuz also lands crew in a similar state of spaceflight deconditioning that is anticipated using the future vehicles. A number of injuries have now been observed during these Soyuz landings. Currently it is unknown how Soyuz landing accelerations and the numbers and types of associated injuries relate to the new occupant protection requirements levied upon future space vehicles. Understanding this relationship will allow better quantification of the risk of injury for future spacecraft designs. METHODS An estimate of injury occurrence during Soyuz landings has been determined using data contained in NASA flight medicine databases and supplemented with data collected from crewmembers and flight surgeons. At the time of this abstract, 96 USOS astronauts have returned to Earth in the Soyuz (59 US, 31 International Partner, and 6 spaceflight participants). Of that total, data from 80 individual crew landings has been collected through this study as of September 2023. Injuries are classified either as contusions/abrasions, Class I (minor, no medical follow-up), Class II (moderate, medical follow-up necessary), Class III (severe), or Class IV (life threatening). Current NASA occupant protection standards are primarily based on the Multi-axial Dynamic Response Index (MDRI), which is a simple lumped-parameter spring, mass, damper model tuned to human impact responses in three orthogonal axes. RESULTS Using what is known about Soyuz landing dynamics from airborne and drop test data, the MDRI predicts essentially no Class IV or III injuries, < 1% Class II injuries, and < 5% Class I injuries. Approximately one-third of all USOS crewmembers for whom data has been gathered have suffered some sort of injury related to landing in the Soyuz vehicle. Most of these injuries fall into the contusion/abrasion category (21.3 %) (n.b. This is the percent for whom contusion/abrasion was the worst injury. Those with class I or II injuries typically also received contusions/abrasions). Class I injuries have been sustained by 5.0% of all crew, and Class II injuries have been observed in 3.8%. No Class III or IV injuries have been sustained to date. Forty-three injuries have been documented, with some crewmembers sustaining more than one injury in a single landing. The knee was the most likely area of injury (n=9), followed by the back (n=8), then the arm (n=7). CONCLUSION Soyuz landing dynamics are the most comparable analog environment for the anticipated loads associated with Orion and commercial crew vehicle landings. The MDRI under predicts the percentage of Class II injuries experienced during Soyuz landings, but it is better at predicting Class I injury occurrences. However, if contusions/abrasions are included in the minor injury Class I category, then the MDRI vastly under predicts those injuries as well. Given this data, it is important to re-evaluate the expected injury rates for future vehicles and work toward improving the predictive tools for spaceflight use. Spaceflight deconditioning may account for some of the under prediction, and work is ongoing to assess the relationship between landing injuries and impact tolerance changes due to spaceflight deconditioning. Future work includes expanding this study to involve private space missions on new vehicles to better characterize the effects of time in flight, suit and seat design, and vehicle dynamics.

P Greenhalgh↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Soyuz Landing Risk Characterization

INTRODUCTION United States On-orbit Segment (USOS) astronauts have been returning to Earth from the International Space Station (ISS) aboard the Russian Soyuz vehicle since 2003. The energetics associated with Soyuz landings are comparable to our next generation of US space vehicles (Orion, Crew Dragon, and Starliner). Soyuz also lands crew in a similar state of spaceflight deconditioning that is anticipated using the future vehicles. A number of injuries have now been observed during these Soyuz landings. Currently it is unknown how Soyuz landing accelerations and the numbers and types of associated injuries relate to the new occupant protection requirements levied upon future space vehicles. Understanding this relationship will allow better quantification of the risk of injury for future spacecraft designs. METHODS An estimate of the occurrences of injury during Soyuz landings has been determined using data contained in NASA flight medicine databases and supplemented with data collected from crewmembers and flight surgeons. At the time of this abstract, 96 USOS astronauts have returned to Earth in the Soyuz (59 US, 31 International Partner, and 6 spaceflight participants). Of that total, data from 80 individual crew landings has been collected through this study. Injuries are classified as either contusions/abrasions, Class I (minor, no medical follow-up), Class II (moderate, medical follow-up necessary), Class III (severe), and Class IV (life threatening). Current NASA occupant protection standards are primarily based on the Multi-axial Dynamic Response Index (MDRI), which is a simple lumped-parameter spring, mass, damper model tuned to human impact responses in three orthogonal axes. RESULTS Using what is known about Soyuz landing dynamics from airborne and drop test data, the MDRI predicts essentially no Class IV or III injuries, < 1% Class II injuries, and < 5% Class I injuries. Approximately one-third of all USOS crewmembers for whom data has been gathered have suffered some sort of injury related to landing in the Soyuz vehicle. Most of these injuries fall into the contusion/abrasion category (21.3 %). Class I injuries have been sustained by 5.0% of all crew, and Class II injuries have been observed in 3.8%. No Class III or IV injuries have been sustained to date. Forty-three injuries have been documented, with some crewmembers sustaining more than one injury in a single landing. The knee was the most likely area of injury (n=9), followed by the back (n=8), and then the arm (n=7). CONCLUSION Soyuz landing dynamics are the most comparable analog environment for the anticipated loads associated with Orion and commercial crew vehicle landings. The MDRI under predicts the percentage of Class II injuries experienced during Soyuz landings. The MDRI is better at predicting Class I injury occurrences. However, if contusions/abrasions are included in the minor injury Class I category, then the MDRI also vastly under predicts those injuries as well. Given this data, it will be important to re-evaluate the expected injury rates for future vehicles, and work toward improving the predictive tools for spaceflight use. Spaceflight deconditioning may account for some of the under prediction, and work is ongoing to assess the relationship between landing injuries and impact tolerance changes due to spaceflight deconditioning.

N Newby↗

NASA NTRS1977

Analysis of the Skylab flight crew health stabilization program

Isolation periods were established prior to launch as well as postflight in order to reduce the number of infectious illness contacts between crewmen. The most frequently reported illness contacts were upper respiratory infections. Enteric illnesses represented the next most common illness, but these were relatively rare compared to upper respiratory infections.

Ferguson, J. K.↗

NASA NTRS1987

Introduction to Trans Australia Airlines CRM training

Trans Australia believes that its excellent accident rate record is due to a number of factors. It has a good group of standard operating procedures, and its crews are pretty well self-disciplined and adhere to those procedures. But the other thing that it believes is a factor in its safety record is that perhaps it is also due to its preparedness to be innovative, to keep up with what is going on in the rest of the world and, if it looks to have value, then to be amongst the first to try it out. Trans Australia commenced a program similar to Line Oriented Flight Training (LOFT) fairly early in 1979--that being its first windshear program-- which leads to why they are doing a course of resource management training, which we have chosen to call Aircrew Team Management (ATM). This course is detailed in another presentation.

Davidson, Jim↗

NASA NTRS1990

A function-based approach to cockpit procedure aids

The objective of this research is to develop and test a cockpit procedural aid that can compose and present procedures that are appropriate for the given flight situation. The procedure would indicate the status of the aircraft engineering systems, and the environmental conditions. Prescribed procedures already exist for normal as well as for a number of non-normal and emergency situations, and can be presented to the crew using an interactive cockpit display. However, no procedures are prescribed or recommended for a host of plausible flight situations involving multiple malfunctions compounded by adverse environmental conditions. Under these circumstances, the cockpit procedural aid must review the prescribed procedures for the individual malfunction (when available), evaluate the alternatives or options, and present one or more composite procedures (prioritized or unprioritized) in response to the given situation. A top-down function-based conceptual approach towards composing and presenting cockpit procedures is being investigated. This approach is based upon the thought process that an operating crew must go through while attempting to meet the flight objectives given the current flight situation. In order to accomplish the flight objectives, certain critical functions must be maintained during each phase of the flight, using the appropriate procedures or success paths. The viability of these procedures depends upon the availability of required resources. If resources available are not sufficient to meet the requirements, alternative procedures (success paths) using the available resources must be constructed to maintain the critical functions and the corresponding objectives. If no success path exists that can satisfy the critical functions/objectives, then the next level of critical functions/objectives must be selected and the process repeated. Information is given in viewgraph form.

Phatak, Anil V.↗

NASA NTRS1993

The use of multiple models in case-based diagnosis

The work described in this paper has as its goal the integration of a number of reasoning techniques into a unified intelligent information system that will aid flight crews with malfunction diagnosis and prognostication. One of these approaches involves using the extensive archive of information contained in aircraft accident reports along with various models of the aircraft as the basis for case-based reasoning about malfunctions. Case-based reasoning draws conclusions on the basis of similarities between the present situation and prior experience. We maintain that the ability of a CBR program to reason about physical systems is significantly enhanced by the addition to the CBR program of various models. This paper describes the diagnostic concepts implemented in a prototypical case based reasoner that operates in the domain of in-flight fault diagnosis, the various models used in conjunction with the reasoner's CBR component, and results from a preliminary evaluation.

Karamouzis, Stamos T.↗

NASA NTRS2000

Crew/Automation Interaction in Space Transportation Systems: Lessons Learned from the Glass Cockpit

The progressive integration of automation technologies in commercial transport aircraft flight decks - the 'glass cockpit' - has had a major, and generally positive, impact on flight crew operations. Flight deck automation has provided significant benefits, such as economic efficiency, increased precision and safety, and enhanced functionality within the crew interface. These enhancements, however, may have been accrued at a price, such as complexity added to crew/automation interaction that has been implicated in a number of aircraft incidents and accidents. This report briefly describes 'glass cockpit' evolution. Some relevant aircraft accidents and incidents are described, followed by a more detailed description of human/automation issues and problems (e.g., crew error, monitoring, modes, command authority, crew coordination, workload, and training). This paper concludes with example principles and guidelines for considering 'glass cockpit' human/automation integration within space transportation systems.

Rudisill, Marianne↗