Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “FMS errors”

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.

21 records · Page 2

Cockpit Interruptions and Distractions: Effective Management Requires a Careful Balancing Act

Managing several tasks concurrently is an everyday part of cockpit operations. For the most part, crews handle concurrent task demands efficiently, yet crew preoccupation with one task to the detriment of performing other tasks is one of the more common forms of error in the cockpit. Most pilots are familiar with the December 1972 L1011 crash that occurred when the crew became preoccupied with a landing gear light malfunction and failed to notice that someone had inadvertently bumped off the autopilot. More recently a DC-9 landed gear-up in Houston when the crew, preoccupied with an stabilized approach, failed to recognize that the gear was not down because they had not switched the hydraulic pumps to high. We have recently started a research project to study why crews are vulnerable to these sorts of errors. As part of that project we reviewed NTSB reports of accidents attributed to crew error; we concluded that nearly half of these accidents involved lapses of attention associated with interruptions, distractions, or preoccupation with one task to the exclusion of another task. We have also analyzed 107 ASRS reports involving competing tasks; we present here some of our conclusions from those ASRS reports. These 107 reports involved 21 different types of routine tasks crews neglected at a critical moment while attending to another task. Sixty-nine percent of the neglected tasks involved either failure to monitor the current status or position of the aircraft or failure to monitor the actions of the pilot flying or taxiing. Thirty-four different types of competing activities distracted or preoccupied the pilots. Ninety percent of these competing activities fell into one of four broad categories: communication (e.g., discussion among crew or radio communication), heads-down work (e.g., programming the FMS or reviewing approach plates), responding to abnormals, or searching for VMC traffic. We will discuss examples of each of these four categories and suggest things crews can do to reduce their vulnerability to these and similar situations.

Dismukes, R. K.↗

Certification Considerations for Adaptive Stress Testing of Airborne Software

eduAdaptive Stress Testing (AST) has shown promise in identifying errant corner cases in complex software used in aerospace applications including Flight Management Systems (FMS). The strength of AST is performing test-based verification of complex aerospace software intensive systems at scale in simulated operational environments.Simulating and capturing the realistic operational complexities in integrated verification environments may exposeflaws in the softwareprior to field deployment, whereas the software may perform just fine to traditional requirements-basedunit and component level testing.AST can be used to test the whole system.Individual components may behave safely, but together can result in complex interactions and emergent failures, so it is important to test at the integrated system level.Motivated by the observed benefitsat the prototype proof of concept scale, this paper considers how AST may be integrated into a production workflow and used to generate objective evidence in a processthat delivers certified aerospace software.The research includes evaluation of alignment with both DO-178C and Overarching Properties(OP). The paper addresses questions such as “where should AST fit in the Plan for Software Aspects of Certification (PSAC) and Software Verification Plan (SVP), what aspects of AST do not fit, and what objectives does it satisfy?” The paper concludes that AST is in fact useful at locating errors in complex airborne application software and in doing so provides benefits to suppliers and end users. Furthermore, AST appears appropriate to add value in both DO-178Cbased and Overarching Properties based certification approaches.

certification↗

Trajectory Specification Applied to Terminal Airspace

Despite major efforts to automate air traffic control (ATC), it is still performed by humans today. The complexity and safety-criticality of ATC makes it very difficult to safely automate, but it must be automated to increase airspace capacity (the density of traffic that can be safely managed) and airport throughput (the number of arrivals and departures that an airport can safely handle in a given period of time) beyond what is possible with human controllers. This paper presents the Trajectory Specification (TS) concept, which can help to safely automate ATC. TS is a method of specifying aircraft trajectories such that the position at any given time in flight is restricted to a precisely defined bounding space, removing all ambiguity as to where the flight is allowed to be. The bounding space or volume is determined by tolerances relative to a reference trajectory (position as a function of time). The tolerances are dynamic and are based on the aircraft navigation capabilities and the traffic situation. The tolerances can be a piecewise linear function of time or distance along the route, allowing the tolerances to vary as needed, typically increasing with time for departures and decreasing for arrivals. A Trajectory Specification Language (TSL) is proposed for communicating trajectories from aircraft to ATC as requests and from ATC to aircraft as assignments. The TS concept requires a new generation of airborne Flight Management Systems (FMS) that understand the TSL and can fly the assigned trajectories, but this paper focuses on the ATC functions and the prototype ATC algorithms and software that were developed to test the TS concept. Assuming conformance, TS can guarantee safe separation for an arbitrary length of time even in the event of an ATC system or communication outage. It can help to achieve the high level of safety and reliability needed for ATC automation, and it can also reduce the reliance on ATC backup systems for tactical conflict detection and resolution during normal operation. TS can be applied to any controlled airspace, including enroute, terminal, and urban airspace, but this paper presents algorithms and software for arrival spacing and conflict detection and resolution in the terminal airspace serving a major airport. In a fast-time simulation of a full day of traffic in a major terminal airspace, all conflicts were resolved in near real time, demonstrating the computational feasibility and the preliminary operational feasibility of the TS concept. This paper is a compilation of previous papers, and it adds significant information that was omitted from those papers due to length limitations. It also updates some of the results of those earlier papers due to algorithm refinements and corrections of minor software errors.

air traffic control, trajectory↗