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 397 records · Page 22

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

NASA NTRS2000

STS-106 Crew Activity Report/Flight Day 8 Highlights

On this eighth day of the STS-106 Atlantis mission, the flight crew, Commander Terrence W. Wilcutt, Pilot Scott T. Altman, and Mission Specialists Daniel C. Burbank, Edward T. Lu, Richard A. Mastracchio, Yuri Ivanovich Malenchenko, and Boris V. Morukov move into the second half of preparing the International Space Station (ISS) for its first resident crew. Lu and Malenchenko are seen installing the power converters in the Zvezda module and components of the primary oxygen generation system. Mastracchio and Wilcutt moves supplies and logistics from the payload of Atlantis to the ISS. Wilcutt and Altman participate in several interviews and the crew wishes the Olympiads in Sydney good luck in their endeavors. Scenes also include external views of the ISS and images of Earth, including Sydney, Australia.

Source record↗

NASA NTRS2000

STS-106 Crew Activities Report/Flight Day 9 Highlights

On this ninth day of the STS-106 Atlantis mission, the flight crew, Commander Commander Terrence W. Wilcutt, Pilot Scott D. Altman, and Mission Specialists Daniel C. Burbank, Edward T. Lu, Richard A. Mastracchio, Yuri Ivanovich Malenchenko, and Boris V. Morukov are shown transferring supplies and equipment. Equipment includes an exercise treadmill, for use by the first resident crew. Altman, Lu, Burbank and Morukov are seen installing the treadmill in the Zvezda module. Footage also shows Lu and Altman participating in a telecommunication interview. A beautiful night shot of the International Space Station (ISS) and Atlantis complex above the Earth is also shown.

Source record↗

NASA NTRS2000

STS-106 Crew Activities Report/Flight Day 10 Highlights

On this tenth day of the STS-106 Atlantis mission, the flight crew, Commander Commander Terrence W. Wilcutt, Pilot Scott D. Altman, and Mission Specialists Daniel C. Burbank, Edward T. Lu, Richard A. Mastracchio, Yuri Ivanovich Malenchenko, and Boris V. Morukov are shown preparing for their departure from the International Space Station (ISS). Crewmembers are shown closing the hatches of the Zarya, Unity and Zvezda modules. They are also shown packing up trash and packing materials into the Russian Progress ship.

Source record↗

NASA NTRS1997

STS-87 Day 08 Highlights

On this eighth day of the STS-87 mission, the flight crew, Cmdr. Kevin R. Kregel, Pilot Steven W. Lindsey, Mission Specialists Winston E. Scott, Kalpana Chawla, and Takao Doi, and Payload Specialist Leonid K. Kadenyuk take time out from their duties to be interviewed by CNN. As they reach the one week mark in their 16-day flight, the STS-87 crew shift the focus of their efforts towards the variety of science experiments flying on this mission.

Source record↗

NASA NTRS2000

STS-101: Crew Activity Report CAR/Flight Day 04 Highlights

On this fourth day of the STS-101 Atlantis mission, the flight crew, Commander James D. Halsell Jr., Pilot Scott J. Horowitz, and Mission Specialists Mary Ellen Weber, Jeffrey N. Williams, James S. Voss, Susan J. Helms, and Yuri Vladimirovich Usachev are seen performing final preparations for the scheduled space walk. Horowitz, Williams and Voss are seen in the mid-deck before the space walk. Horowitz and Weber are also seen in the flight deck, powering-up the robot-arm. During the space walk Voss is seen checking the American Cargo Crane-Orbital Replacement Unit Transfer Device. Voss and Williams are shown securing the American-built crane that was installed on the station last year. They are seen as they install the final parts (boom extension) of a Russian-built crane on the station. Voss and Williams are also shown as they replace a faulty antenna for one of the station's communications systems on the Unity Module, and install several handrails and a camera cable on the station's exterior.

Source record↗

NASA NTRS1995

Airport ramp safety and crew performance issues

This study examined 182 ramp operations incident reports from the Aviation Safety Reporting System (ASRS) database, to determine which factors influence ramp operation incidents. It was found that incidents occurred more often during aircraft arrival operations than during departure operations; incidents occurred most often at the gate stop area, less so at the gate entry/exit areas, and least on the ramp fringe areas; and reporters cited fewer incidents when more ground crew were present. The authors offer suggestions for both airline management and flight crews to reduce the rate of ramp incidents.

Chamberlin, Roy↗

NASA NTRS1997

The NASA Ames Fatigue Countermeasures Program: The Next Generation

Twenty-four hour, global aviation operations pose unique challenges to humans. Physiological requirements related to sleep, the internal circadian clock, and human fatigue are critical factors that are known to affect safety, performance, and productivity. Understanding the human operators' physiological capabilities, and limitations, will be important to address these issues as global demand for aviation activities continues to increase. In 1980, in response to a Congressional request, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Ames Research Center initiated a Fatigue/Jet Lag Program to examine the role of fatigue in flight operations. Originally established by Dr. John K. Lauber and Dr. Charles E. Billings, the Program was designed to address three objectives: (1) determine the extent of fatigue, sleep loss, and circadian disruption in flight operations; (2) determine how fatigue affected flight crew performance; and (3) develop strategies to maximize performance and alertness during flight operations.

Rosekind, Mark R.↗

NASA NTRS2006

System Would Detect Foreign-Object Damage in Turbofan Engine

A proposed data-fusion system, to be implemented mostly in software, would further process the digitized and preprocessed outputs of sensors in a turbofan engine to detect foreign-object damage (FOD) [more precisely, damage caused by impingement of such foreign objects as birds, pieces of ice, and runway debris]. The proposed system could help a flight crew to decide what, if any, response is necessary to complete a flight safely, and could aid mechanics in deciding what post-flight maintenance action might be needed. The sensory information to be utilized by the proposed system would consist of (1) the output of an accelerometer in an engine-vibration-monitoring subsystem and (2) features extracted from a gas path analysis. ["Gas path analysis" (GPA) is a term of art that denotes comprehensive analysis of engine performance derived from readings of fuel-flow meters, shaft-speed sensors, temperature sensors, and the like.] The acceleration signal would first be processed by a wavelet-transform-based algorithm, using a wavelet created for the specific purpose of finding abrupt FOD-induced changes in noisy accelerometer signals. Two additional features extracted would be the amplitude of vibration (determined via a single- frequency Fourier transform calculated at the rotational speed of the engine), and the rate of change in amplitude due to an FOD-induced rotor imbalance. This system would utilize two GPA features: the fan efficiency and the rate of change of fan efficiency with time. The selected GPA and vibrational features would be assessed by two fuzzy-logic inference engines, denoted the "Gas Path Expert" and the "Vibration Expert," respectively (see Figure 1). Each of these inference engines would generate a "possibility" distribution for occurrence of an FOD event: Each inference engine would assign, to its input information, degrees of membership, which would subsequently be transformed into basic probability assignments for the gas path and vibration components. The outputs of the inference engines would be fused by use of Dempster s combination algorithm (more precisely, an algorithm, based on the Dempster-Shafer-Yager theory of evidence, for fusing uncertain or imprecise information) to provide a reduced body of information to a human or computer decision maker. Figure 2 depicts some outputs generated in response to simulated accelerometer and GPA signals

Torso, James A.↗

NASA NTRS2017

Cyber Safety and Security for Reduced Crew Operations (RCO)

NASA and the Aviation Industry is looking into reduced crew operations (RCO) that would cut today's required two-person flight crews down to a single pilot with support from ground-based crews. Shared responsibility across air and ground personnel will require highly reliable and secure data communication and supporting automation, which will be safety-critical for passenger and cargo aircraft. This paper looks at the different types and degrees of authority delegation given from the air to the ground and the ramifications of each, including the safety and security hazards introduced, the mitigation mechanisms for these hazards, and other demands on an RCO system architecture which would be highly invasive into (almost) all safety-critical avionics. The adjacent fields of unmanned aerial systems and autonomous ground vehicles are viewed to find problems that RCO may face and related aviation accident scenarios are described. The paper explores possible data communication architectures to meet stringent performance and information security (INFOSEC) requirements of RCO. Subsequently, potential challenges for RCO data communication authentication, encryption and non-repudiation are identified.

Communications↗

NASA NTRS2017

Cyber Safety and Security for Reduced Crew Operations (RCO)

Aircraft Communication↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Extreme Problem Solving: The New Challenges of Deep Space Exploration

On the International Space Station today, the crew has the near real-time support of a large group of system experts on the ground when dealing with problems on-board. For exploration beyond Low Earth Orbit, however, intermittent and delayed communication with ground will force small crews to take the lead in responding to vehicle anomalies. Enabling a flight crew of roughly four astronauts to perform the job that has traditionally been done by a ground crew of over 80 experts will require a fundamental rethinking of human-systems integration. Through observations of anomaly resolution processes, interviews with system experts and astronauts, and analyses of problem-solving models, we have identified the capabilities that are not currently available on-board but will be needed to enable safe exploration further away from Earth. These include increased data access, just-in-time training tools and technologies, and troubleshooting decision support. Important questions remain on how these technologies can be designed and implemented for increased crew autonomy. We present this critical challenge for deep space exploration to the human-computer interaction research community to reflect on the areas identified by our needs analysis and contemplate how they might be manifested as solutions.

autonomy↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Learning About Routine Successful Pilot Techniques Using A Cued Retrospective Think-Aloud Task

Self-report can be a valuable method for collecting data about people’s goals and perceived motivations – data about aspects of crew thinking that are not otherwise readily observable. One of the challenges associated with collecting self-report data on routine successful performance, however, is that details may go unreported, be deemed unimportant, or may not be recalled. We report a study in which commercial airline flight crews participated in a video-cued retrospective think aloud after flying a high-fidelity simulated arrival into Charlotte airport. One day after flying the simulated arrival, crews were shown a video recording of their flight. The video was paused after each minute, and crew members were each asked to describe what they were doing and thinking during that interval. Reported data analysis focused on aspects of performance that are often ambiguously described as “pilot technique” or “airmanship,” in an attempt to provide more detail around these types of behaviors.

Jon Holbrook↗

NASA NTRS2000

STS-101: Crew Activity Report /Flight Day 9 Highlights

On this ninth day of the STS-101 Atlantis mission, the flight crew, Commander James D. Halsell Jr., Pilot Scott J. Horowitz, and Mission Specialists Mary Ellen Weber, Jeffrey N. Williams, James S. Voss, Susan J. Helms, and Yuri Vladimirovich Usachev prepares to undock Atlantis from the International Space Station (ISS). Atlantis is seen as it undocks form the ISS over Kazakhstan. Halsell, Usachev, and Weber are seen participating in a communication link with Russia.

Source record↗

NASA NTRS1989

The flights before the flight - An overview of shuttle astronaut training

Space shuttle astronaut training is centered at NASA's Johnson Space Center in Houston, Texas. Each astronaut receives many different types of training from many sources. This training includes simulator training in the Shuttle Mission Simulator, in-flight simulator training in the Shuttle Training Aircraft, Extravehicular Activity training in the Weightless Environment Training Facility and a variety of lectures and briefings. Once the training program is completed each shuttle flight crew is well-prepared to perform the normal operations required for their flight and deal with any shuttle system malfunctions that might occur.

Sims, John T.↗

NASA NTRS1995

STS-71 Shuttle/Mir Flight: Day 1

The first day of the STS-71 flight of the Space Shuttle Atlantis is contained in this video. This mission highlights the first U.S. docking with the Mir Space Station. The scope of this part of the STS-71 mission is to drop off and pickup two cosmonauts, and to pickup one American astronaut who has been living aboard the Mir Station for several months. The STS-71 flight crew consists of: Atlantis Mission Specialists Gregory Harbaugh, Ellen Baker, and Bonnie Dunbar; Flight Commander Robert Gibson; Russian cosmonauts Anatoly Solovyev, Vladimir Dezhurov; and Gannady Strekalov; and Dr. Norman Thagard. Flight footage contains prelaunch activities.

Source record↗

NASA NTRS2017

Flight Test Evaluation of an Unmanned Aircraft System Traffic Management (UTM) Concept for Multiple Beyond-Visual-Line-of-Sight Operations

This study evaluates a traffic management concept designed to enable simultaneous operations of multiple small unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) in the national airspace system (NAS). A five-day flight-test activity is described that examined the feasibility of operating multiple UAS beyond visual line of sight (BVLOS) of their respective operators in the same airspace. Over the five-day campaign, three groups of five flight crews operated a total of eleven different aircraft. Each group participated in four flight scenarios involving five simultaneous missions. Each vehicle was operated BVLOS up to 1.5 miles from the pilot in command. Findings and recommendations are presented to support the feasibility and safety of routine BVLOS operations for small UAS.

UTM↗

NASA NTRS2017

Flight Test Evaluation of an Unmanned Aircraft System Traffic Management (UTM) Concept for Multiple Beyond-Visual-Line-of-Sight (BVLOS) Operations

UA↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Manual Crew Override of Vehicle Landings Following G-Transitions

BACKGROUND Manual control during exploration spaceflight consists of both planned automated supervisory control and unplanned crew override. This crew override capability is critical to enable overall mission success during landing contingencies. However, the introduction of manual override capabilities must be implemented to enable crews to mitigate risks introduced by human error. Adaptive changes in the sensorimotor system can manifest during g-transitions as spatial disorientation. While training and landing aids enable successful landing through disorientation, these adaptive changes may increase cognitive demand that needs to be accounted for in the manual control strategy. It is important to characterize these effects as soon as possible following the G-transition to develop appropriate countermeasures. METHODS In this study, we will examine operational piloting tasks following International Space Station (ISS) missions in a simulated lunar landing using a six-degree-of-freedom (6DOF) motion base. The motion-based simulation will be implemented in our laboratory at the Johnson Space Center (JSC) and will be available within hours following the return from commercial crew landings. The primary goals of this study are (1) to understand the impact of spaceflight on crew ability to perform manual crew override tasks, (2) to examine how adaptive changes in vestibular and cognitive function relate to changes in manual crew override proficiency, and (3) compare performance during late “just-in-time” on-board training with early post-flight crew performance. The impact of spaceflight on piloting capability will be assessed from pre- versus post-flight changes in crewmembers assigned to either short duration (< 30 day) or long duration (~6- month) missions to the International Space Station (ISS). Individual differences in post-flight vestibular and cognitive changes include motion sickness reports, measures of tilt motion perception accuracy and precision, and dual-task tracking. During the 6DOF lunar simulation, the crew will manually takeover attitude and rate-of-descent to the nominal or re-designated landing aim point during the approach phase. The outcome measures for the lunar crew override tasks will be the percent time maintaining actual vehicle states, e.g., attitude and rate-of-descent, within recommended guidance during the landing approach, number and maximum deviation outside limits, and root mean square error (RMSE). Given that “just-in-time” (JIT) training is an operational expectation for the Human Landing System (HLS) program, all participants will perform late inflight JIT training for each manual crew override task in which they will participate. Crew proficiency will be captured inflight during JIT training that will be implemented on a laptop with hand controllers to allow the crewmember to practice the landing task procedures like the approach implemented for JIT training with Shuttle landing and ISS telerobotic tasks. COUNTERMEASURE UPDATES The lunar lander simulation has been implemented onto a two-laptop display system where subjects select from alternative landing points, based upon avoiding hazards that the on-board system identifies during the landing. The subject makes inputs using a rotational hand controller (i.e., joystick) and a translational hand controller, which are processed by simulated vehicle dynamics to update the vehicle attitude and rate of descent. Subjects will utilize a combination of flight, situation, and status displays to monitor the state of the simulated vehicle. The simulation exports tilt and translation movements to a 6DOF motion base synced to visual movements and provides representative vestibular cues to the subject while performing the task inside an enclosed cabin featuring a simulated lunar out-the-window view and a heads-down lander cockpit view. RELEVANCE This project will deliver an operational demonstration of crew override capability following spaceflight and identify potential deficits that may require remediation. Comparison of individual vestibular and cognitive changes with crew override performance will help better characterize the manual control risks associated with sensorimotor alterations. The inclusion of “just-in-time” on-board training will ensure we are characterizing changes in override proficiency with this expected countermeasure in place. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: The authors acknowledge contributions from Draper, HLS Joint Test Panel, Crew HLS Interfaces for Piloting Working Group, and Dynamic Skills Trainer (DST) Lab toward the development of the lunar landing simulation. This project is funded by the Human Health Countermeasures Element.

Austin M Bollinger↗