SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Flight crew”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 271 records · Page 15

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

NASA NTRS2019

A Summary of Results from Technologies for Aircraft State Awareness Safety Enhancement 210 Output 2

In 2014, the Commercial Aviation Safety Team produced a report describing the results of an analysis intended to understand and mitigate airplane incidents and accidents associated with flight crew loss of attitude or energy state awareness. That report described several "Safety Enhancements" including a new category of "Research Safety Enhancements". This paper focuses on Safety Enhancement (SE) 210 Output 2, investigating improvements in design methods and guidelines to "assess flight crew performance in situations associated with loss of energy and/or attitude state awareness".

Feary, Michael S.↗

NASA NTRS2017

Review of Significant Incidents and Close Calls in Human Spaceflight from a Human Factors Perspective

This project aims to identify poor human factors design decisions that led to error-prone systems, or did not facilitate the flight crew making the right choices; and to verify that NASA is effectively preventing similar incidents from occurring again. This analysis was performed by reviewing significant incidents and close calls in human spaceflight identified by the NASA Johnson Space Center Safety and Mission Assurance Flight Safety Office. The review of incidents shows whether the identified human errors were due to the operational phase (flight crew and ground control) or if they initiated at the design phase (includes manufacturing and test). This classification was performed with the aid of the NASA Human Systems Integration domains. This in-depth analysis resulted in a tool that helps with the human factors classification of significant incidents and close calls in human spaceflight, which can be used to identify human errors at the operational level, and how they were or should be minimized. Current governing documents on human systems integration for both government and commercial crew were reviewed to see if current requirements, processes, training, and standard operating procedures protect the crew and ground control against these issues occurring in the future. Based on the findings, recommendations to target those areas are provided.

Silva-Martinez, Jackelynne↗

NASA NTRS1994

Operator procedure verification with a rapidly reconfigurable simulator

Generating and testing procedures for controlling spacecraft subsystems composed of electro-mechanical and computationally realized elements has become a very difficult task. Before a spacecraft can be flown, mission controllers must envision a great variety of situations the flight crew may encounter during a mission and carefully construct procedures for operating the spacecraft in each possible situation. If, despite extensive pre-compilation of control procedures, an unforeseen situation arises during a mission, the mission controller must generate a new procedure for the flight crew in a limited amount of time. In such situations, the mission controller cannot systematically consider and test alternative procedures against models of the system being controlled, because the available simulator is too large and complex to reconfigure, run, and analyze quickly. A rapidly reconfigurable simulation environment that can execute a control procedure and show its effects on system behavior would greatly facilitate generation and testing of control procedures both before and during a mission. The How Things Work project at Stanford University has developed a system called DME (Device Modeling Environment) for modeling and simulating the behavior of electromechanical devices. DME was designed to facilitate model formulation and behavior simulation of device behavior including both continuous and discrete phenomena. We are currently extending DME for use in testing operator procedures, and we have built a knowledge base for modeling the Reaction Control System (RCS) of the space shuttle as a testbed. We believe that DME can facilitate design of operator procedures by providing mission controllers with a simulation environment that meets all these requirements.

Iwasaki, Yumi↗

NASA NTRS1995

STS-84 Day 03 Highlights

On this third day of the STS-84 mission, the flight crew, Cmdr. Charles J. Precourt, Pilot Eileen M. Collins, Payload Cmdr, Jean-Francois Clervoy (ESA), Mission Specialists Edward T. Lu, Carlos I. Noriega, Elena V. Kondakova, Jerry M. Linenger (download), and C. Michael Foale (upload) guide Atlantis to its docking with the Mir to cap off a 42-hour chase. Precourt greets Mir 23 Commander Vasily Tsibliev and, after embraces and handshakes, the crew members make their way into the Mir Core Module for a brief welcoming ceremony. During the ceremony, the Shuttle crew give Tsibliev and Flight Engineer Alexander Lazutkin baseball caps emblazoned with the STS-84 crew insignia as well as the traditional Russian offering of bread, tea and salt. Then, the ten astronauts and cosmonauts get down to business, first conducting a joint safety briefing to familiarize themselves with each other's craft.

Source record↗

NASA NTRS2017

Flight Test Evaluation of the ATD-1 Interval Management Application

Interval Management (IM) is a concept designed to be used by air traffic controllers and flight crews to more efficiently and precisely manage inter-aircraft spacing. Both government and industry have been working together to develop the IM concept and standards for both ground automation and supporting avionics. NASA contracted with Boeing, Honeywell, and United Airlines to build and flight test an avionics prototype based on NASA's spacing algorithm and conduct a flight test. The flight test investigated four different types of IM operations over the course of nineteen days, and included en route, arrival, and final approach phases of flight. This paper examines the spacing accuracy achieved during the flight test and the rate of speed commands provided to the flight crew. Many of the time-based IM operations met or exceeded the operational design goals set out in the standards for the maintain operations and a subset of the achieve operations. Those operations which did not meet the goals were due to issues that are identified and will be further analyzed.

Swieringa, Kurt A.↗

NASA NTRS2019

The Role of Alerting System Failures in Loss of Control Accidents CAST SE-210 Output 2

This report is part of a series of reports that address flight deck design and evaluation, written as a response to loss of control accidents. In particular, this activity is directed at failures in airplane state awareness in which the pilot loses awareness of the airplane's energy state or attitude and enters an upset condition. In a report by the Commercial Aviation Safety Team, an analysis of accidents and incidents related to loss of airplane state awareness determined that hazard alerting was not effective in producing the appropriate pilot response to a hazard (CAST, 2014). In the current report, we take a detailed look at 28 airplane state awareness accidents and incidents to determine how well the hazard alerting worked. We describe a five-step integrated alerting-to-recovery sequence that prescribes how hazard alerting should lead to effective flight crew actions for managing the hazard. Then, for each hazard in each of the 28 events, we determine if that sequence failed and, if so, how it failed. The results show that there was an alerting failure in every one of the 28 safety events, and that the most frequent failure (20/28) was tied to the flight crew not orienting to (not being aware of) the hazard. The discussion section summarizes findings and identifies alerting issues that are being addressed and issues that are not currently being addressed. We identify a few recent upgrades that have addressed certain alerting failures. Two of these upgrades address alerting design, but one response to the safety events is to upgrade training for approach to stall and stall recovery. We also describe issues that are not being addressed adequately: better alert integration for flight path management types of hazards, airplanes in the fleet that do not meet the current alerting regulations, a lack of innovation for addressing cases of channelized attention, and existing vulnerabilities in managing data validity.

aviation safety↗

NASA NTRS1981

Space shuttle slidewire emergency egress system

The slidewire emergency egress system is designed to provide a fast and safe egress means for the shuttle flight crew, passengers, and ground closeout crew in the event of imminent danger while the space vehicle is still on the launch pad. Egress is from the 195 ft. level of the fixed service structure (FSS) to a ground landing area 1200 ft. away from the launch site. The slidewire design is such that the flight crew and passengers can be evacuated to a safe area within two minutes with winds as high as 34 knots from any direction.

Jeffcoat, G. B.↗

NASA NTRS1996

STS-75 Flight Day 6

On this sixth day of the STS-75 mission, the flight crew, Cmdr. Andrew Allen, Pilot Scott Horowitz, Payload Cmdr. Franklin Chang-Diaz, Payload Specialist Umberto Guidoni (Italy), and Mission Specialists Jeffrey Hoffman, Maurizio Cheli (ESA) and Claude Nicollier (ESA), are shown performing experiments from the United States Microgravity Payload-3 (USMP-3). Mission Control continues to update the flight crew regarding the status of the free orbiting tethered satellite and the few experiments that they were able to start-up onboard the satellite. There is an in-orbit question and answer interview with the astronauts by a group of sixth graders from a West Virginia school. Earth views include water masses and horizon shots.

Source record↗

NASA NTRS1998

STS-95 Day 09 Highlights

On this ninth day of the STS-95 mission, the flight crew, Cmdr. Curtis L. Brown, Pilot Steven W. Lindsey, Mission Specialists Scott E. Parazynski, Stephen K. Robinson, and Pedro Duque, and Payload Specialists Chiaki Mukai and John H. Glenn, spend a good part of their day checking out important spacecraft systems for entry and landing. The commander and pilot begin the flight control system checkout by powering up one auxiliary power unit and evaluating the performance of aerodynamic surfaces and flight controls. The flight crew conducts a reaction control system hot fire, followed by a test of the communications system.

Source record↗

NASA NTRS2002

STS-111/Endeavour/ISS UF2 Landing with Playbacks

Footage of the STS-111 Endeavour landing at Edwards Air Force base in California is shown. Shots of the mission control room, the shuttle's re-entry into Earth's atmosphere and the landing strip at Edwards Air Force base are seen. The STS-111 flight crew (Pilot Paul Lockhart; Mission Specialist Franklin Chang-Diaz; Mission Specialist Phillippe Perrin) delivered the Expedition Five crew (ISS Commander Valery Kozun; Flight Engineer Peggy Whitson; Flight Engineer Sergei Treschev) to the International Space Station and returned the Expedition Four crew (ISS Commander Yury Onufrienko; Flight Engineer Daniel Bursch; Flight Engineer Carl Walz) to Earth.

Source record↗

NASA NTRS1988

STS-26/Discovery Preparations for Launch

This NASA Kennedy Space Center two-part video release is comprised of footage covering STS-26 launch preparations from the arrival of the Tracking and Data Relay Satellite (TDRS) at the Orbiter Processing Facility (OPF) to the lift and mate of the external tanks. The STS-26 flight crew include: Frederick H. (Rick) Hauck, mission commander; Richard O. Covey, pilot; John M. (Mike) Lounge, mission specialist; David C. Hilmers, mission specialist; and George D. (Pinky) Nelson, mission specialist. The primary payload of STS-26 is the TDRS while the secondary payloads include the Physical Vapor Transport of Organic Solids (PVTOS); Protein Crystal Growth (PCG); Infrared Communications Flight Experiment (IRCFE); Aggregation of Red Blood Cells (ARC); Isoelectric Focusing Experiment (IFE); Mesoscale Lightning Experiment (MLE); Phase Partitioning Experiment (PPE); Earth-Limb Radiance Experiment (ELRAD); Automated Directional Solidification Furnace (ADSF) and two Shuttle Student Involvement Program (SSIP) experiments. Launch preparation footage includes flight crew arrival at KSC, rollout of Discovery to Pad B, OV-103 Discovery power-up, main engine unpacking and installation, solid rocket boosters' arrival prep and stacking, and aft skirt to aft segment mating.

Source record↗

NASA NTRS1984

An intelligent flight-management aid for procedure execution

A computer program is described that contains a model of the procedures used in the operation of a twin engine aircraft. This program, by comparing the model to the aircraft state, can determine when a procedure (or checklist) should be or is invoked and when each step (detectable by a change in the aircraft state) is completed. Thus, the program tracks the flight crew's procedure execution through changes in the aircraft state. Data were used for evaluation from an earlier experiment on a Link GAT-II simulator. The program had been able to identify practically all of the errors identified by human judges as well as locate some missed by them. It is felt that this model could significantly aid flight crews.

Hammer, J. M.↗

NASA NTRS2014

Assessing V and V Processes for Automation with Respect to Vulnerabilities to Loss of Airplane State Awareness

Automation has contributed substantially to the sustained improvement of aviation safety by minimizing the physical workload of the pilot and increasing operational efficiency. Nevertheless, in complex and highly automated aircraft, automation also has unintended consequences. As systems become more complex and the authority and autonomy (A&A) of the automation increases, human operators become relegated to the role of a system supervisor or administrator, a passive role not conducive to maintaining engagement and airplane state awareness (ASA). The consequence is that flight crews can often come to over rely on the automation, become less engaged in the human-machine interaction, and lose awareness of the automation mode under which the aircraft is operating. Likewise, the complexity of the system and automation modes may lead to poor understanding of the interaction between a mode of automation and a particular system configuration or phase of flight. These and other examples of mode confusion often lead to mismanaging the aircraftâ€"TM"s energy state or the aircraft deviating from the intended flight path. This report examines methods for assessing whether, and how, operational constructs properly assign authority and autonomy in a safe and coordinated manner, with particular emphasis on assuring adequate airplane state awareness by the flight crew and air traffic controllers in off-nominal and/or complex situations.

Whitlow, Stephen↗

NASA NTRS1997

Prototype Conflict Alerting Logic for Free Flight

This paper discusses the development of a prototype alerting system for a conceptual Free Flight environment. The concept assumes that datalink between aircraft is available and that conflicts are primarily resolved on the flight deck. Four alert stages are generated depending on the likelihood of a conflict. If the conflict is not resolved by the flight crews, Air Traffic Control is notified to take over separation authority. The alerting logic is based on probabilistic analysis through modeling of aircraft sensor and trajectory uncertainties. Monte Carlo simulations were used over a range of encounter situations to determine conflict probability. The four alert stages were then defined based on probability of conflict and on the number of avoidance maneuvers available to the flight crew. Preliminary results from numerical evaluations and from a piloted simulator study at NASA Ames Research Center are summarized.

Yang, Lee C.↗

NASA NTRS1972

US-USSR space biology report

The recommendations of the Joint Working Group on Space Biology and Medicine are reported. The exchange of information for the U.S. included the pre- and postflight medical requirements and flight crew health stabilization program for Apollo 16. The U.S.S.R. presentations detailed the medical findings of the Soyuz/Salyut mission, including the postflight autopsy results. The causes of death of the cosmonauts were the occurrence of hypoxia and gaseous embolism. A significant development resulting from the meeting was the agreement that the Joint Working Group strive toward the development of common pre- and postflight medical examination procedures for flight crews for direct comparison of U.S. and U.S.S.R. data.

Friedman, R.↗

NASA NTRS2017

Pairwise Trajectory Management (PTM): Concept Overview

Pairwise Trajectory Management (PTM) is an Interval Management (IM) concept that utilizes airborne and ground-based capabilities to enable the implementation of airborne pairwise spacing capabilities in oceanic regions. The goal of PTM is to use airborne surveillance and tools to manage an "at or greater than" inter-aircraft spacing. Due to the precision of Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) information and the use of airborne spacing guidance, the PTM minimum spacing distance will be less than distances a controller can support with current automation systems that support oceanic operations. Ground tools assist the controller in evaluating the traffic picture and determining appropriate PTM clearances to be issued. Avionics systems provide guidance information that allows the flight crew to conform to the PTM clearance issued by the controller. The combination of a reduced minimum distance and airborne spacing management will increase the capacity and efficiency of aircraft operations at a given altitude or volume of airspace. This paper provides an overview of the proposed application, description of a few key scenarios, high level discussion of expected air and ground equipment and procedure changes, overview of a potential flight crew human-machine interface that would support PTM operations and some initial PTM benefits results.

Jones, Kenneth M.↗

NASA NTRS1986

Effect of emerging technology on a convertible, business/interceptor, supersonic-cruise jet

This study was initiated to assess the feasibility of an eight-passenger, supersonic-cruise long range business jet aircraft that could be converted into a military missile carrying interceptor. The baseline passenger version has a flight crew of two with cabin space for four rows of two passenger seats plus baggage and lavatory room in the aft cabin. The ramp weight is 61,600 pounds with an internal fuel capacity of 30,904 pounds. Utilizing an improved version of a current technology low-bypass ratio turbofan engine, range is 3,622 nautical miles at Mach 2.0 cruise and standard day operating conditions. Balanced field takeoff distance is 6,600 feet and landing distance is 5,170 feet at 44,737 pounds. The passenger section from aft of the flight crew station to the aft pressure bulkhead in the cabin was modified for the interceptor version. Bomb bay type doors were added and volume is sufficient for four advanced air-to-air missiles mounted on a rotary launcher. Missile volume was based on a Phoenix type missile with a weight of 910 pounds per missile for a total payload weight of 3,640 pounds. Structural and equipment weights were adjusted and result in a ramp weight of 63,246 pounds with a fuel load of 30,938 pounds. Based on a typical intercept mission flight profile, the resulting radius is 1,609 nautical miles at a cruise Mach number of 2.0.

Beissner, F. L., Jr.↗

NASA NTRS2012

Interval Management with Spacing to Parallel Dependent Runways (IMSPIDR) Experiment and Results

An area in aviation operations that may offer an increase in efficiency is the use of continuous descent arrivals (CDA), especially during dependent parallel runway operations. However, variations in aircraft descent angle and speed can cause inaccuracies in estimated time of arrival calculations, requiring an increase in the size of the buffer between aircraft. This in turn reduces airport throughput and limits the use of CDAs during high-density operations, particularly to dependent parallel runways. The Interval Management with Spacing to Parallel Dependent Runways (IMSPiDR) concept uses a trajectory-based spacing tool onboard the aircraft to achieve by the runway an air traffic control assigned spacing interval behind the previous aircraft. This paper describes the first ever experiment and results of this concept at NASA Langley. Pilots flew CDAs to the Dallas Fort-Worth airport using airspeed calculations from the spacing tool to achieve either a Required Time of Arrival (RTA) or Interval Management (IM) spacing interval at the runway threshold. Results indicate flight crews were able to land aircraft on the runway with a mean of 2 seconds and less than 4 seconds standard deviation of the air traffic control assigned time, even in the presence of forecast wind error and large time delay. Statistically significant differences in delivery precision and number of speed changes as a function of stream position were observed, however, there was no trend to the difference and the error did not increase during the operation. Two areas the flight crew indicated as not acceptable included the additional number of speed changes required during the wind shear event, and issuing an IM clearance via data link while at low altitude. A number of refinements and future spacing algorithm capabilities were also identified.

Baxley, Brian T.↗