SEARCH · Search NASA
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.
Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.
The capabilities and evolution is described of a flight engineer's workstation (called TEST-PLAN) from an automated flight test management system. The concept and capabilities of the automated flight test management systems are explored and discussed to illustrate the value of advanced system prototyping and evolutionary software development.
The state of the art in human factors in flight-deck automation is presented. A number of critical problem areas are identified and broad design guidelines are offered. Automation-related aircraft accidents and incidents are discussed as examples of human factors problems in automated flight.
Issues of flight deck automation are multifaceted and complex. The rapid introduction of advanced computer-based technology onto the flight deck of transport category aircraft has had considerable impact both on aircraft operations and on the flight crew. As part of NASA's responsibility to facilitate an active exchange of ideas and information among members of the aviation community, a NASA/FAA/Industry workshop devoted to flight deck automation, organized by the Aerospace Human Factors Research Division of NASA Ames Research Center. Participants were invited from industry and from government organizations responsible for design, certification, operation, and accident investigation of transport category, automated aircraft. The goal of the workshop was to clarify the implications of automation, both positive and negative. Workshop panels and working groups identified issues regarding the design, training, and procedural aspects of flight deck automation, as well as the crew's ability to interact and perform effectively with the new technology. The proceedings include the invited papers and the panel and working group reports, as well as the summary and conclusions of the conference.
Automation has been implemented in many different industries to improve efficiency and reduce human error. Reducing or eliminating the human interaction in tasks has been proven to increase productivity in manufacturing and lessen the risk of mistakes by humans in the airline industry. Human space flight requires the flight controllers to monitor multiple systems and react quickly when failures occur so NASA is interested in implementing techniques that can assist in these tasks. Using automation to control some of these responsibilities could reduce the number of errors the flight controllers encounter due to standard human error characteristics. This paper will investigate the possibility of reducing human error in the critical area of manned space flight at NASA.
There has been much concern in recent years about the rapid increase in automation on commercial flight decks. The survey was composed of three major sections. The first section asked pilots to rate different automation components that exist on the latest commercial aircraft regarding their obtrusiveness and the attention and effort required in using them. The second section addressed general 'automation philosophy' issues. The third section focused on issues related to levels and amount of automation. The results indicate that pilots of advanced aircraft like their automation, use it, and would welcome more automation. However, they also believe that automation has many disadvantages, especially fully autonomous automation. They want their automation to be simple and reliable and to produce predictable results. The biggest needs for higher levels of automation were in pre-flight, communication, systems management, and task management functions, planning as well as response tasks, and high workload situations. There is an irony and a challenge in the implications of these findings. On the one hand pilots would like new automation to be simple and reliable, but they need it to support the most complex part of the job--managing and planning tasks in high workload situations.
The paper analyzes the role of human factors in flight-deck automation, identifies problem areas, and suggests design guidelines. Flight-deck automation using microprocessor technology and display systems improves performance and safety while leading to a decrease in size, cost, and power consumption. On the other hand negative factors such as failure of automatic equipment, automation-induced error compounded by crew error, crew error in equipment set-up, failure to heed automatic alarms, and loss of proficiency must also be taken into account. Among the problem areas discussed are automation of control tasks, monitoring of complex systems, psychosocial aspects of automation, and alerting and warning systems. Guidelines are suggested for designing, utilising, and improving control and monitoring systems. Investigation into flight-deck automation systems is important as the knowledge gained can be applied to other systems such as air traffic control and nuclear power generation, but the many problems encountered with automated systems need to be analyzed and overcome in future research.
A survey of line pilots' attitudes about flight deck automation was conducted by the Royal Air Force Institute of Aviation Medicine (RAF IAM, Farnborough, UK) under the sponsorship of the United Kingdom s Civil Aviation Authority and in cooperation with IATA (the International Air Transport Association). Survey freehand comments given by pilots operating 13 types of commercial transports across five manufacturers (Airbus, Boeing, British Aerospace, Lockheed, and McDonnell-Douglas) and 57 air carriers/organizations were analyzed by NASA. These data provide a "lessons learned" knowledge base which may be used for the definition of guidelines for flight deck automation and its associated crew interface within the High Speed Research Program. The aircraft chosen for analysis represented a progression of levels of automation sophistication and complexity, from "Basic" types (e.g., B727, DC9), through "Transition" types (e.g., A300, Concorde), to two levels of glass cockpits (e.g., Glass 1: e.g., A310; Glass 2: e.g., B747-400). This paper reports the results of analyses of comments from pilots flying commercial transport types having the highest level of automation sophistication (B757/B767, B747-400, and A320). Comments were decomposed into five categories relating to: (1) general observations with regard to flight deck automation; comments concerning the (2) design and (3) crew understanding of automation and the crew interface; (4) crew operations with automation; and (5) personal factors affecting crew/automation interaction. The goal of these analyses is to contribute to the definition of guidelines which may be used during design of future aircraft flight decks.
Described here are the capabilities and evolution of a flight-test engineer's workstation (called TEST PLAN) from an automated flight-test management system. The concept and capabilities of the automated flight-test management system are explored and discussed to illustrate the value of advanced system prototyping and evolutionary software development.
This short presentation outlines an upcoming flight test to be performed as part of the Advanced Air Mobility (AAM) project. Referred to as the Integration of Automated Systems (IAS) flight test series, the objectives are to evaluate NASA research concepts and technologies for complex operations through integrated automation and candidate operational concepts and scenarios. The primary objective is to test mature AAM technologies in a relevant environment. The two primary systems under test are the Flight Path Management (FPM) and Hazard Perception and Avoidance (HPA) technology. This presentation focuses on the HPA technology developed by the FAA known as the Airborne Collision Avoidance System X for Rotorcraft (ACAS Xr) since the audience consists of committee members currently working on developing the minimum requirements for this system. The second half of the presentation explains the primary objectives and describes the scenarios expected to be tested in flight.
Function allocation assigns work functions to all agents in a team, both human and automation. Efforts to guide function allocation systematically have been studied in many fields such as engineering, human factors, team and organization design, management science, cognitive systems engineering. Each field focuses on certain aspects of function allocation, but not all; thus, an independent discussion of each does not address all necessary aspects of function allocation. Four distinctive perspectives have emerged from this comprehensive review of literature on those fields: the technology-centered, human-centered, team-oriented, and work-oriented perspectives. Each perspective focuses on different aspects of function allocation: capabilities and characteristics of agents (automation or human), structure and strategy of a team, and work structure and environment. This report offers eight issues with function allocation that can be used to assess the extent to which each of issues exist on a given function allocation. A modeling framework using formal models and simulation was developed to model work as described by the environment, agents, their inherent dynamics, and relationships among them. Finally, to validate the framework and metrics, a case study modeled four different function allocations between a pilot and flight deck automation during the arrival and approach phases of flight.
Achieving the National Academy of Science’s vision of advanced aerial mobility will depend on significant developments in automation to achieve safe and efficient operations. Flight path management (FPM), a major category of automation functionality needed to achieve this vision, will provide dynamic management of an aircraft’s flight path, ensuring that it remains feasible to fly to mission completion, deconflicted from hazards, coordinated with other traffic, flexible to accommodate future disturbances, and optimized to meet business objectives. While efforts are underway to advance FPM technology for the Urban Air Mobility application, initial design guidelines are presented for FPM automation capabilities to achieve each of these objectives based on 15+ years of prior FPM automation research and development. Methods to efficiently account for uncertainty in the prediction of trajectories are described, as are additional considerations for prioritizing safety in the design of FPM automation capabilities and interactions between aircraft. Recommendations are supported by extensive experience gained via previous work with the FPM reference automation system, Autonomous Operations Planner, developed by NASA. By employing capable FPM automation supported by cooperative operational flight rules and information sharing, future aircraft operators will benefit from an increased ability to plan and execute safe and efficient flights and to achieve mission success in a dynamic airspace.
Achieving the National Academy of Science’s vision of advanced aerial mobility will depend on significant developments in automation to achieve safe and efficient operations. Flight path management (FPM), a major category of automation functionality needed to achieve this vision, will provide dynamic management of an aircraft’s flight path, ensuring that it remains feasible to fly to mission completion, deconflicted from hazards, coordinated with other traffic, flexible to accommodate future disturbances, and optimized to meet business objectives. While efforts are underway to advance FPM technology for the Urban Air Mobility application, initial design guidelines are presented for FPM automation capabilities to achieve each of these objectives based on 15+ years of prior FPM automation research and development. Methods to efficiently account for uncertainty in the prediction of trajectories are described, as are additional considerations for prioritizing safety in the design of FPM automation capabilities and interactions between aircraft. Recommendations are supported by extensive experience gained via previous work with the FPM reference automation system, Autonomous Operations Planner, developed by NASA. By employing capable FPM automation supported by cooperative operational flight rules and information sharing, future aircraft operators will benefit from an increased ability to plan and execute safe and efficient flights and to achieve mission success in a dynamic airspace.
The integration of new capabilities into the Mission Control Center at the Johnson Space Center in Houston, Texas in order to improve the data monitoring and analysis of the STS is discussed. User interface application software and systems, such as the flight data file Shuttle mission simulator and failure analysis program, to be utilized for flight operations automation are examined. Consideration is given to task automation, the trend monitoring system, the data retrieval system, and the launch processing system. The development and functions of the Shuttle data analysis system, which is to operate in real time, are described.
The flight deck of a moderm commercial airliner is a complex system consisting of two or more crew and a suite of technological devices. When everything goes right, all modem flight decks are easy to use. When things go sour, however, automated flight decks provide opportunities for new kinds of problems. A recent article in Aviation Week cited industry concern over the problem of verifying the safety of complex systems on automated, digital aircraft, stating that the industry must "guard against the kind of incident in which people and the automation seem to mismanage a minor occurrence or non-routine situation into larger trouble." The design of automated flight deck systems that flight crews find easy to use safely is a challenge in part because this design activity requires a theoretical perspective which can simultaneously cover the interactions of people with each other and with technology. In this paper, I will introduce some concepts that can be used to understand the flight deck as a system that is composed of two or more pilots and a complex suite of automated devices. As I will try to show, without a theory, we can repeat what seems to work, but we may not know why it worked or how to make it work in novel circumstances. Theory allows us to rise above the particulars of specific situations and makes the application of the roots of success in one setting applicable to other settings.
The flight deck of a modern commercial airliner is a complex system consisting of two or more crew and a suite of technological devices. The flight deck of the state-of-the-art Boeing 747-400 is shown. When everything goes right, all modern flight decks are easy to use. When things go sour, however, automated flight decks provide opportunities for new kinds of problems. A recent article in Aviation Week cited industry concern over the problem of verifying the safety of complex systems on automated, digital aircraft, stating that the industry must "guard against the kind of incident in which people and the automation seem to mismanage a minor occurrence or non-routine situation into larger trouble." The design of automated flight deck systems that flight crews find easy to use safely is a challenge in part because this design activity requires a theoretical perspective which can simultaneously cover the interactions of people with each other and with technology. In this paper, some concepts that can be used to understand the flight deck as a system that is composed of two or more pilots and a complex suite of automated devices is introduced.
The scope of automation, the benefits of automation, and automation-induced problems were discussed at a workshop held to determine whether those functions previously performed manually on the flight deck of commercial aircraft should always be automated in view of various human factors. Issues which require research for resolution were identified. The research questions developed are presented.
The scope of automation, the benefits of automation, and automation-induced problems were discussed at a workshop held to determine whether those functions previously performed manually on the flight deck of commercial aircraft should always be automated in view of various human factors. Issues which require research for resolution were identified. The research questions developed are presented. Previously announced in STAR as N81-16022
One of the goals of the National Aviation Safety/Automation program is to address the issue of human-centered automation in the cockpit. Human-centered automation is automation that, in the cockpit, enhances or assists the crew rather than replacing them. The Georgia Tech research program focused on this general theme, with emphasis on designing a computer-based pilot's assistant, intelligent (i.e, context-sensitive) displays, and an intelligent tutoring system for understanding and operating the autoflight system. In particular, the aids and displays were designed to enhance the crew's situational awareness of the current state of the automated flight systems and to assist the crew's situational awareness of the current state of the automated flight systems and to assist the crew in coordinating the autoflight system resources. The activities of this grant included: (1) an OFMspert to understand pilot navigation activities in a 727 class aircraft; (2) an extension of OFMspert to understand mode control in a glass cockpit, Georgia Tech Crew Activity Tracking System (GT-CATS); (3) the design of a training system to teach pilots about the vertical navigation portion of the flight management system -VNAV Tutor; and (4) a proof-of-concept display, using existing display technology, to facilitate mode awareness, particularly in situations in which controlled flight into terrain (CFIT) is a potential.