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 55 records · Page 3

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

NASA NTRS2005

STS-114: Discovery TCDT Flight Crew Test Media Event at Pad 39-B

The STS-114 Space Shuttle Discovery Terminal Countdown Demonstration Test (TCDT) flight crew is shown at Pad 39-B. Eileen Collins, Commander introduces the astronauts. Andrew Thomas, mission specialist talks about his primary responsibility of performing boom inspections, Wendy Lawrence, Mission Specialist 4 (MS4) describes her role as the robotic arm operator supporting Extravehicular Activities (EVA), Stephen Robinson, Mission Specialist 3 (MS3) talks about his role as flight engineer, Charlie Camarda, Mission Specialist 5 (MS5) says that his duties are to perform boom operations, transfer operations from the space shuttle to the International Space Station and spacecraft rendezvous. Soichi Noguchi, Mission Specialist 1 (MS1) from JAXA, introduces himself as Extravehicular Activity 1 (EVA1), and Jim Kelley, Pilot will operate the robotic arm and perform pilot duties. Questions from the news media about the safety of the external tank, going to the International Space Station and returning, EVA training, and thoughts about the Space Shuttle Columbia crew are answered.

Source record↗

NASA NTRS2005

Return to Flight: Crew Activities Resource Reel 1 of 2

The crew of the STS-114 Discovery Mission is seen in various aspects of training for space flight. The crew activities include: 1) STS-114 Return to Flight Crew Photo Session; 2) Tile Repair Training on Precision Air Bearing Floor; 3) SAFER Tile Inspection Training in Virtual Reality Laboratory; 4) Guidance and Navigation Simulator Tile Survey Training; 5) Crew Inspects Orbital Boom and Sensor System (OBSS); 6) Bailout Training-Crew Compartment; 7) Emergency Egress Training-Crew Compartment Trainer (CCT); 8) Water Survival Training-Neutral Buoyancy Lab (NBL); 9) Ascent Training-Shuttle Motion Simulator; 10) External Tank Photo Training-Full Fuselage Trainer; 11) Rendezvous and Docking Training-Shuttle Engineering Simulator (SES) Dome; 12) Shuttle Robot Arm Training-SES Dome; 13) EVA Training Virtual Reality Lab; 14) EVA Training Neutral Buoyancy Lab; 15) EVA-2 Training-NBL; 16) EVA Tool Training-Partial Gravity Simulator; 17) Cure in Place Ablator Applicator (CIPAA) Training Glove Vacuum Chamber; 16) Crew Visit to Merritt Island Launch Area (MILA); 17) Crew Inspection-Space Shuttle Discovery; and 18) Crew Inspection-External Tank and Orbital Boom and Sensor System (OBSS). The crew are then seen answering questions from the media at the Space Shuttle Landing Facility.

Source record↗

NASA NTRS2000

Flight Crew Factors for CTAS/FMS Integration in the Terminal Area

Center TRACON Automation System (CTAS)/Flight Management System (FMS) integration on the flightdeck implies flight crews flying coupled in highly automated FMS modes [i.e. Vertical Navigation (VNAV) and Lateral Navigation (LNAV)] from top of descent to the final approach phase of flight. Pilots may also have to make FMS route edits and respond to datalink clearances in the Terminal Radar Approach Control (TRACON) airspace. This full mission simulator study addresses how the introduction of these FMS descent procedures affect crew activities, workload, and performance. It also assesses crew acceptance of these procedures. Results indicate that the number of crew activities and workload ratings are significantly reduced below current day levels when FMS procedures can be flown uninterrupted, but that activity numbers increase significantly above current day levels and workload ratings return to current day levels when FMS procedures are interrupted by common ATC interventions and CTAS routing advisories. Crew performance showed some problems with speed control during FMS procedures. Crew acceptance of the FMS procedures and route modification requirements was generally high; a minority of crews expressed concerns about use of VNAV in the TRACON airspace. Suggestions for future study are discussed.

Crane, Barry W.↗

NASA NTRS1985

An analysis of the application of AI to the development of intelligent aids for flight crew tasks

This report presents the results of a study aimed at developing a basis for applying artificial intelligence to the flight deck environment of commercial transport aircraft. In particular, the study was comprised of four tasks: (1) analysis of flight crew tasks, (2) survey of the state-of-the-art of relevant artificial intelligence areas, (3) identification of human factors issues relevant to intelligent cockpit aids, and (4) identification of artificial intelligence areas requiring further research.

Baron, S.↗

NASA NTRS2009

The Integrated Medical Model: A Decision Support Tool for In-flight Crew Health Care

This viewgraph presentation reviews the development of an Integrated Medical Model (IMM) decision support tool for in-flight crew health care safety. Clinical methods, resources, and case scenarios are also addressed.

Butler, Doug↗

NASA NTRS1991

STS-37 Post-flight Crew Press Conference

This NASA Kennedy Space Center video release presents a continuation of the April 19, 1991 STS-37 post-flight crew press conference from Johnson Space Center (JSC). Part 2 of the conference continues the question and answer period of Part 1 with Steven R. Nagel, Commander, Kenneth D. Cameron, Pilot, Jerry L. Ross, Mission Specialist 1, Jay Apt, Mission Specialist 2, and Linda M. Godwin, Mission Specialist 3 fielding questions posed by scientific journalists from JSC and other NASA centers. Topics discussed include: the necessary Extravehicular Activity (EVA) to free the Gamma Ray Observatory high gain antenna, communication between Atlantis and space station MIR, HAM radio contacts with Earth, and EVA contingency planning. Part 1 of the press conference can be found in Report Number NONP-NASA-VT-2000013419.

Source record↗

NASA NTRS1990

In-flight crew training

The Helmet Mounted Display system and Part Task Trainer are two projects currently underway that are closely related to the in-flight crew training concept. The first project is a training simulator and an engineering analysis tool. The simulator's unique helmet mounted display actually projects the wearer into the simulated environment of 3-D space. Miniature monitors are mounted in front of the wearers eyes. Partial Task Trainer is a kinematic simulator for the Shuttle Remote Manipulator System. The simulator consists of a high end graphics workstation with a high resolution color screen and a number of input peripherals that create a functional equivalent of the RMS control panel in the back of the Orbiter. It is being used in the training cycle for Shuttle crew members. Activities are underway to expand the capability of the Helmet Display System and the Partial Task Trainer.

Gott, Charles↗

NASA NTRS2011

Integration of an Evidence Base into a Probabilistic Risk Assessment Model. The Integrated Medical Model Database: An Organized Evidence Base for Assessing In-Flight Crew Health Risk and System Design

This slide presentation reviews the Integrated Medical Model (IMM) database, which is an organized evidence base for assessing in-flight crew health risk. The database is a relational database accessible to many people. The database quantifies the model inputs by a ranking based on the highest value of the data as Level of Evidence (LOE) and the quality of evidence (QOE) score that provides an assessment of the evidence base for each medical condition. The IMM evidence base has already been able to provide invaluable information for designers, and for other uses.

Saile, Lynn↗

NASA NTRS1982

Flight crew performance when pilot-flying and pilot-not-flying duties are exchanged

This study compares reports from the ASRS database depicting operational anomalies related to flight crew performance when pilot-flying and pilot-not-flying duties were exchanged. A greater number of near midair collisions, takeoff anomalies, and crossing altitude deviations were reported when the Captain was flying. More altitude deviations, near midair collisions during approach, and landing incidents occurred when the First Officer was flying. There were differences in monitoring effectiveness and in the type and distribution of information transfer problems associated with the anomalies. In addition, a number of crew performance factors were noted that were not affected by the exchange of duties. Several of these were deemed important enough to be included as matter of general interest.

Orlady, H. W.↗

NASA NTRS1990

Flight crew aiding for recovery from subsystem failures

Some of the conceptual issues associated with pilot aiding systems are discussed and an implementation of one component of such an aiding system is described. It is essential that the format and content of the information the aiding system presents to the crew be compatible with the crew's mental models of the task. It is proposed that in order to cooperate effectively, both the aiding system and the flight crew should have consistent information processing models, especially at the point of interface. A general information processing strategy, developed by Rasmussen, was selected to serve as the bridge between the human and aiding system's information processes. The development and implementation of a model-based situation assessment and response generation system for commercial transport aircraft are described. The current implementation is a prototype which concentrates on engine and control surface failure situations and consequent flight emergencies. The aiding system, termed Recovery Recommendation System (RECORS), uses a causal model of the relevant subset of the flight domain to simulate the effects of these failures and to generate appropriate responses, given the current aircraft state and the constraints of the current flight phase. Since detailed information about the aircraft state may not always be available, the model represents the domain at varying levels of abstraction and uses the less detailed abstraction levels to make inferences when exact information is not available. The structure of this model is described in detail.

Hudlicka, E.↗

NASA NTRS1989

Enroute flight-path planning - Cooperative performance of flight crews and knowledge-based systems

Interface design issues associated with the introduction of knowledge-based systems into the cockpit are discussed. Such issues include not only questions about display and control design, they also include deeper system design issues such as questions about the alternative roles and responsibilities of the flight crew and the computer system. In addition, the feasibility of using enroute flight path planning as a context for exploring such research questions is considered. In particular, the development of a prototyping shell that allows rapid design and study of alternative interfaces and system designs is discussed.

Smith, Philip J.↗

NASA NTRS1995

What ASRS incident data tell about flight crew performance during aircraft malfunctions

This research examined 230 reports in NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System's (ASRS) database to develop a better understanding of factors that can affect flight crew performance when crew are faced with inflight aircraft malfunctions. Each report was placed into one of two categories, based on severity of the malfunction. Report analysis was then conducted to extract information regarding crew procedural issues, crew communications and situational awareness. A comparison of these crew factors across malfunction type was then performed. This comparison revealed a significant difference in ways that crews dealt with serious malfunctions compared to less serious malfunctions. The authors offer recommendations toward improving crew performance when faced with inflight aircraft malfunctions.

Sumwalt, Robert L.↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Examining the Relationship between Self-Reported Workload and Resilient Performance in Airline Flight Crews

Workload has long been associated with human performance in aviation. High workload is typically viewed as a system design problem. The aim of this work was to find observable behaviors that guard cognitive resource margins; thus, improve handling of perturbations that arise. Twelve commercial airline flight crews participated in an experiment at NASA Langley Research Center. We explored workload data (NASA Task Load Index) self-reported after completing flight simulation scenarios to see how different individuals, using the same technologies, cope with challenging situations. A trained observer from the same airline as the study participants assessed performance. We differentiated a lower workload crew from a higher workload crew and analyzed their workload and performance. Results indicate that the workload may be a component of pilots’ resilient performance. Initial strategies that reduced workload were classified and these types of behaviors, if implemented correctly, might assist pilots in maintaining functional workload resource margins.

Michael Stewart↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Examining the Relationship Between Workload and Resilient Performance in Airline Flight Crews

Michael Stewart↗

NASA NTRS1982

Simulation for STS flight crew training

Training activities for flights of the Space Shuttle Orbiter are performed in the most complicated flight simulation facility yet assembled. The Shuttle Mission Simulator (SMS) provides training for the entire mission from prelaunch to postlanding. An extensive pilot-cues environment is provided in which visual, aural, and motion cues are presented. The planning and execution of training on the simulator must take into account the complexity of the Shuttle systems, the complexity of the procedures and crew interface on the Shuttle, and the complexity of the mission, itself. The major points of this training program are highlighted.

Hughes, F. E.↗

NASA NTRS2006

Operational Concept for Flight Crews to Participate in Merging and Spacing of Aircraft

The predicted tripling of air traffic within the next 15 years is expected to cause significant aircraft delays and create a major financial burden for the airline industry unless the capacity of the National Airspace System can be increased. One approach to improve throughput and reduce delay is to develop new ground tools, airborne tools, and procedures to reduce the variance of aircraft delivery to the airport, thereby providing an increase in runway throughput capacity and a reduction in arrival aircraft delay. The first phase of the Merging and Spacing Concept employs a ground based tool used by Air Traffic Control that creates an arrival time to the runway threshold based on the aircraft s current position and speed, then makes minor adjustments to that schedule to accommodate runway throughput constraints such as weather and wake vortex separation criteria. The Merging and Spacing Concept also employs arrival routing that begins at an en route metering fix at altitude and continues to the runway threshold with defined lateral, vertical, and velocity criteria. This allows the desired spacing interval between aircraft at the runway to be translated back in time and space to the metering fix. The tool then calculates a specific speed for each aircraft to fly while enroute to the metering fix based on the adjusted land timing for that aircraft. This speed is data-linked to the crew who fly this speed, causing the aircraft to arrive at the metering fix with the assigned spacing interval behind the previous aircraft in the landing sequence. The second phase of the Merging and Spacing Concept increases the timing precision of the aircraft delivery to the runway threshold by having flight crews using an airborne system make minor speed changes during enroute, descent, and arrival phases of flight. These speed changes are based on broadcast aircraft state data to determine the difference between the actual and assigned time interval between the aircraft pair. The airborne software then calculates a speed adjustment to null that difference over the remaining flight trajectory. Follow-on phases still under development will expand the concept to all types of aircraft, arriving from any direction, merging at different fixes and altitudes, and to any airport. This paper describes the implementation phases of the Merging and Spacing Concept, and provides high-level results of research conducted to date.

Baxley, Brian T.↗

NASA NTRS1993

High level organizing principles for display of systems fault information for commercial flight crews

Advanced fault management aiding concepts for commercial pilots are being developed in a research program at NASA Langley Research Center. One aim of this program is to re-evaluate current design principles for display of fault information to the flight crew: (1) from a cognitive engineering perspective and (2) in light of the availability of new types of information generated by advanced fault management aids. The study described in this paper specifically addresses principles for organizing fault information for display to pilots based on their mental models of fault management.

Rogers, William H.↗

NASA NTRS1999

STS-93: Columbia Flight Crew Arrival on FSS 195' Level, Walk Across OAA and Ingress into White Room

The primary objective of the STS-93 mission was to deploy the Advanced X-ray Astrophysical Facility, which had been renamed the Chandra X-ray Observatory in honor of the late Indian-American Nobel Laureate Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar. The mission was launched at 12:31 on July 23, 1999 onboard the space shuttle Columbia. The mission was led by Commander Eileen Collins. The crew was Pilot Jeff Ashby and Mission Specialists Cady Coleman, Steve Hawley and Michel Tognini from the Centre National d'Etudes Spatiales (CNES). This videotape opens with a view of the shuttle on the launch pad. It then shows the flight crew arrival on the 195 foot level of the fixed service structure (FSS), walks across the orbiter access arm (OAA) into the white room, where the crew is assisted in putting on the final stages of their spacesuits, and then their crawl into the orbiter.

Source record↗