SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “National Transportation Safety Board”

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 73 records · Page 4

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

NASA NTRS2011

Causal Factors and Adverse Events of Aviation Accidents and Incidents Related to Integrated Vehicle Health Management

Causal factors in aviation accidents and incidents related to system/component failure/malfunction (SCFM) were examined for Federal Aviation Regulation Parts 121 and 135 operations to establish future requirements for the NASA Aviation Safety Program s Integrated Vehicle Health Management (IVHM) Project. Data analyzed includes National Transportation Safety Board (NSTB) accident data (1988 to 2003), Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) incident data (1988 to 2003), and Aviation Safety Reporting System (ASRS) incident data (1993 to 2008). Failure modes and effects analyses were examined to identify possible modes of SCFM. A table of potential adverse conditions was developed to help evaluate IVHM research technologies. Tables present details of specific SCFM for the incidents and accidents. Of the 370 NTSB accidents affected by SCFM, 48 percent involved the engine or fuel system, and 31 percent involved landing gear or hydraulic failure and malfunctions. A total of 35 percent of all SCFM accidents were caused by improper maintenance. Of the 7732 FAA database incidents affected by SCFM, 33 percent involved landing gear or hydraulics, and 33 percent involved the engine and fuel system. The most frequent SCFM found in ASRS were turbine engine, pressurization system, hydraulic main system, flight management system/flight management computer, and engine. Because the IVHM Project does not address maintenance issues, and landing gear and hydraulic systems accidents are usually not fatal, the focus of research should be those SCFMs that occur in the engine/fuel and flight control/structures systems as well as power systems.

Reveley, Mary S.↗

NASA NTRS2012

Analyzing a Mid-Air Collision Over the Hudson River

On August 8, 2009, a private airplane collided with a sightseeing helicopter over the Hudson River near Hoboken, New Jersey. All three people aboard the airplane, the pilot and two passengers, and all six people aboard the helicopter, the pilot and five passengers, were killed. The National Transportation Safety Board report on the accident identified inherent limitations of the see-and-avoid concept, inadequate regulations, and errors by the pilots and an air traffic controller as causing or contributing to the accident. This paper presents the results of analyzing the accident using the Systems-Theoretic Accident Model and Processes (STAMP) approach to determining accident causation.

Brown, Sean↗

NASA NTRS2012

Simulation Modeling Requirements for Loss-of-Control Accident Prevention of Turboprop Transport Aircraft

In-flight loss of control remains the leading contributor to aviation accident fatalities, with stall upsets being the leading causal factor. The February 12, 2009. Colgan Air, Inc., Continental Express flight 3407 accident outside Buffalo, New York, brought this issue to the forefront of public consciousness and resulted in recommendations from the National Transportation Safety Board to conduct training that incorporates stalls that are fully developed and develop simulator standards to support such training. In 2010, Congress responded to this accident with Public Law 11-216 (Section 208), which mandates full stall training for Part 121 flight operations. Efforts are currently in progress to develop recommendations on implementation of stall training for airline pilots. The International Committee on Aviation Training in Extended Envelopes (ICATEE) is currently defining simulator fidelity standards that will be necessary for effective stall training. These recommendations will apply to all civil transport aircraft including straight-wing turboprop aircraft. Government-funded research over the previous decade provides a strong foundation for stall/post-stall simulation for swept-wing, conventional tail jets to respond to this mandate, but turboprops present additional and unique modeling challenges. First among these challenges is the effect of power, which can provide enhanced flow attachment behind the propellers. Furthermore, turboprops tend to operate for longer periods in an environment more susceptible to ice. As a result, there have been a significant number of turboprop accidents as a result of the early (lower angle of attack) stalls in icing. The vulnerability of turboprop configurations to icing has led to studies on ice accumulation and the resulting effects on flight behavior. Piloted simulations of these effects have highlighted the important training needs for recognition and mitigation of icing effects, including the reduction of stall margins. This paper addresses simulation modeling requirements that are unique to turboprop transport aircraft and highlights the growing need for aerodynamic models suitable for stall training for these configurations. A review of prominent accidents that involved aerodynamic stall is used to illustrate various modeling features unique to turboprop configurations and the impact of stall behavior on susceptibility to loss of control that has led to new training requirements. This is followed by an overview of stability and control behavior of straight-wing turboprops, the related aerodynamic characteristics, and a summary of recent experimental studies on icing effects. In addition, differences in flight dynamics behavior between swept-wing jets and straight-wing turboprop configurations are discussed to compare and contrast modeling requirements. Specific recommendations for aerodynamic models along with further research needs and data measurements are also provided. 1

Crider, Dennis↗

NASA NTRS2012

SURF IA Conflict Detection and Resolution Algorithm Evaluation

The Enhanced Traffic Situational Awareness on the Airport Surface with Indications and Alerts (SURF IA) algorithm was evaluated in a fast-time batch simulation study at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Langley Research Center. SURF IA is designed to increase flight crew situation awareness of the runway environment and facilitate an appropriate and timely response to potential conflict situations. The purpose of the study was to evaluate the performance of the SURF IA algorithm under various runway scenarios, multiple levels of conflict detection and resolution (CD&R) system equipage, and various levels of horizontal position accuracy. This paper gives an overview of the SURF IA concept, simulation study, and results. Runway incursions are a serious aviation safety hazard. As such, the FAA is committed to reducing the severity, number, and rate of runway incursions by implementing a combination of guidance, education, outreach, training, technology, infrastructure, and risk identification and mitigation initiatives [1]. Progress has been made in reducing the number of serious incursions - from a high of 67 in Fiscal Year (FY) 2000 to 6 in FY2010. However, the rate of all incursions has risen steadily over recent years - from a rate of 12.3 incursions per million operations in FY2005 to a rate of 18.9 incursions per million operations in FY2010 [1, 2]. The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) also considers runway incursions to be a serious aviation safety hazard, listing runway incursion prevention as one of their most wanted transportation safety improvements [3]. The NTSB recommends that immediate warning of probable collisions/incursions be given directly to flight crews in the cockpit [4].

Jones, Denise R.↗

NASA NTRS2007

A Study to Estimate the Effectiveness of Visual Testing Training for Aviation Maintenance Management

The Air Commerce Act of 1926 set the beginning for standards in aviation maintenance. Even after deregulation in the late l970s, maintenance standards and requirements still have not changed far from their initial criteria. After a potential candidate completes Federal Aviation Administration training prerequisites, they may test for their Airframe and Powerplant (A&P) certificate. Performing maintenance in the aviation industry for a minimum of three years, the technician may then test for their Inspection Authorization (IA). After receiving their Airframe and Powerplant certificate, a technician is said to have a license to perform. At no time within the three years to eligibility for Inspection Authorization are they required to attend higher-level inspection training. What a technician learns in the aviation maintenance industry is handed down from a seasoned technician to the new hire or is developed from lessons learned on the job. Only in Europe has the Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA) required higher-level training for their aviation maintenance technicians in order to control maintenance related accidents (Lu, 2005). Throughout the 1990s both the General Accounting Office (GAO) and the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) made public that the FAA is historically understaffed (GAO, 1996). In a safety recommendation the NTSB stated "The Safety Board continues to lack confidence in the FAA's commitment to provide effective quality assurance and safety oversight of the ATC system (NTSB, 1990)." The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has been known to be proactive in creating safer skies. With such reports you would suspect the FAA to also be proactive in developing more stringent inspection training for aviation maintenance technicians. The purpose of this study is to estimate the effectiveness of higher-level inspection training, such as Visual Testing (VT) for aviation maintenance technicians, to improve the safety of aircraft and to make recommendations to management with regard to the value of such training.

Law, Lewis Lyle↗

NASA NTRS2013

An Examination of Aviation Accidents Associated with Turbulence, Wind Shear and Thunderstorm

The focal point of the study reported here was the definition and examination of turbulence, wind shear and thunderstorm in relation to aviation accidents. NASA project management desired this information regarding distinct subgroups of atmospheric hazards, in order to better focus their research portfolio. A seven category expansion of Kaplan's turbulence categories was developed, which included wake turbulence, mountain wave turbulence, clear air turbulence, cloud turbulence, convective turbulence, thunderstorm without mention of turbulence, and low altitude wind shear, microburst or turbulence (with no mention of thunderstorms).More than 800 accidents from flights based in the United States during 1987-2008 were selected from a National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) database. Accidents were selected for inclusion in this study if turbulence, thunderstorm, wind shear or microburst was considered either a cause or a factor in the accident report, and each accident was assigned to only one hazard category. This report summarizes the differences between the categories in terms of factors such as flight operations category, aircraft engine type, the accident's geographic location and time of year, degree of injury to aircraft occupants, aircraft damage, age and certification of the pilot and the phase of flight at the time of the accident.

Evans, Joni K.↗

NASA NTRS2013

Identification of Crew-Systems Interactions and Decision Related Trends

NASA Vehicle System Safety Technology (VSST) project management uses systems analysis to identify key issues and maintain a portfolio of research leading to potential solutions to its three identified technical challenges. Statistical data and published safety priority lists from academic, industry and other government agencies were reviewed and analyzed by NASA Aviation Safety Program (AvSP) systems analysis personnel to identify issues and future research needs related to one of VSST's technical challenges, Crew Decision Making (CDM). The data examined in the study were obtained from the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) Aviation Accident and Incident Data System, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Accident/Incident Data System and the NASA Aviation Safety Reporting System (ASRS). In addition, this report contains the results of a review of safety priority lists, information databases and other documented references pertaining to aviation crew systems issues and future research needs. The specific sources examined were: Commercial Aviation Safety Team (CAST) Safety Enhancements Reserved for Future Implementation (SERFIs), Flight Deck Automation Issues (FDAI) and NTSB Most Wanted List and Open Recommendations. Various automation issues taxonomies and priority lists pertaining to human factors, automation and flight design were combined to create a list of automation issues related to CDM.

Jones, Sharon Monica↗

NASA NTRS2014

Aviation Trends Related to Atmospheric Environment Safety Technologies Project Technical Challenges

Current and future aviation safety trends related to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's Atmospheric Environment Safety Technologies Project's three technical challenges (engine icing characterization and simulation capability; airframe icing simulation and engineering tool capability; and atmospheric hazard sensing and mitigation technology capability) were assessed by examining the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) accident database (1989 to 2008), incidents from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) accident/incident database (1989 to 2006), and literature from various industry and government sources. The accident and incident data were examined for events involving fixed-wing airplanes operating under Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Parts 121, 135, and 91 for atmospheric conditions related to airframe icing, ice-crystal engine icing, turbulence, clear air turbulence, wake vortex, lightning, and low visibility (fog, low ceiling, clouds, precipitation, and low lighting). Five future aviation safety risk areas associated with the three AEST technical challenges were identified after an exhaustive survey of a variety of sources and include: approach and landing accident reduction, icing/ice detection, loss of control in flight, super density operations, and runway safety.

Reveley, Mary S.↗

NASA NTRS2016

Evaluation of Synthetic Vision Display Concepts for Improved Awareness in Unusual Attitude Recovery Scenarios

A recent study conducted by the Commercial Aviation Safety Team (CAST) determined 40 percent of all fixed-wing fatal accidents, between 2001 and 2011, were caused by Loss-of-Control (LOC) in flight (National Transportation Safety Board, 2015). Based on their findings, CAST recommended manufacturers develop and implement virtual day-visual meteorological conditions (VMC) display systems, such as synthetic vision or equivalent systems (CAST, 2016). In a 2015 simulation study conducted at NASA Langley Research Center (LaRC), researchers gathered to test and evaluate virtual day-VMC displays under realistic flight operation scenarios capable of inducing reduced attention states in pilots. Each display concept was evaluated to determine its efficacy to improve attitude awareness. During the experiment, Evaluation Pilots (EPs) were shown the following three display concepts on the Primary Flight Display (PFD): Baseline, Synthetic Vision (SV) with color gradient, and SV with texture. The baseline configuration was a standard, conventional 'blue over brown' display. Experiment scenarios were simulated over water to evaluate Unusual Attitude (UA) recovery over 'featureless terrain' environments. Thus, the SV with color gradient configuration presented a 'blue over blue' display with a linear blue color progression, to differentiate attitude changes between sky and ocean. The SV with texture configuration presented a 'blue over blue' display with a black checkerboard texture atop a synthetic ocean. These displays were paired with a Background Attitude Indicator (BAI) concept. The BAI was presented across all four Head-Down Displays (HDDs), displaying a wide field-of-view blue-over-blue attitude indicator. The BAI aligned with the PFD and showed through the background of the navigation displays with opaque transparency. Each EP participated in a two-part experiment series with a total seventy-five trial runs: Part I included a set of twenty-five Unusual Attitude Recovery (UAR) scenarios; Part II included a set of fifty Attitude Memory Recall Tasks (AMRT). At the conclusion of each trial, EPs were asked to complete a set post-run questionnaires. Quantitative results showed that there were no significant statistical effects on UA recovery times when utilizing SV with or without the presence of a BAI. Qualitative results show the SV displays (color, texture) with BAI On are most preferred for both UA recognition and recovery when compared with the baseline display. When only comparing SV display concepts, EPs performed better when using the SV with texture, BAI On, than any other display configuration. This is an interesting find considering most EPs noted their preference towards the SV with color gradient when the BAI was on.

Nicholas, Stephanie↗

NASA NTRS2018

Stabilized Approach Criteria: Bridging the Gap Between Theory and Practice

Approach and landing is the most common phase of flight for aviation accidents, accounting annually for approximately 65 percent of all accidents. A Flight Safety Foundation study of 16 years of runway excursions determined that 83 percent could have been avoided with a decision to go around. In other words, 54 percent of all accidents could potentially be prevented by going around. A critical industry policy designed to help prevent such accidents is the go-around policy. However, the collective industry performance of complying with go-around policies is extremely poor and only about three percent of unstable approaches result in a go-around. Improving the go-around compliance rate holds tremendous potential in reducing approach and landing accidents. There are many reasons for flight crews ignoring go-around policies related to pilot judgement and company policies. Examples are the collective industry norm to accept the noncompliance of go-around policies, management being disengaged from go-around noncompliance, and pilot fatigue and lack of situational awareness. One of the biggest factors is that pilots see current stabilized-approach criteria as too complex and restrictive for the operational environment. Following the American Airlines 1420 accident (Little Rock, 1999), where the aircraft overran the runway upon landing and crashed, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) recommended that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) define detailed parameters for a stabilized approach, and develop detailed criteria indicating when a go-around should be performed. The experiment discussed in this presentation is the first step towards developing these go-around criteria for commercial transport aircraft.

pilot performance↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

MIKA: Manager for Intelligent Knowledge Access Toolkit for Engineering Knowledge Discovery and Information Retrieval

Repositories of safety reports are often underutilized and only analyzed manually by trained experts, despite safety management systems requiring reports. These collections of documents contain a wealth of information from past projects and operations that could improve system safety and design. Advances in natural language processing techniques have improved information extraction and retrieval in consumer technology, biomedicine, and finance, for instance, but have not been applied to engineering documents on the same scale. To this end, the Manager for Intelligent Knowledge Access (MIKA) open-source toolkit has been developed for rapid knowledge discovery and information retrieval in safety engineering applications. The MIKA toolkit uses state-of-the-art natural language processing algorithms and allows a user to apply these methods to their own dataset. This paper describes the MIKA toolkit and its two primary capabilities, knowledge discovery and information retrieval, and demonstrates the toolkit via a case study on National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) reports.

Machine Learning↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

MIKA: Manager for Intelligent Knowledge Access Toolkit for Engineering Knowledge Discovery and Information Retrieval

Systems Engineering↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

SafeAeroBERT: Towards a Safety-Informed Aerospace-Specific Language Model

As aviation systems continue to operate with high traffic, large amounts of documents containing safety-relevant data continue to be generated via reporting systems such as the Aviation Safety Reporting System (ASRS). Advanced natural language processing techniques, specifically pre-trained language models, have shown great success in domain-specific applications; however, the text in aviation safety reports is inundated with jargon and thus not fully utilized by general pre-trained models. In this research, we work towards developing a safety-informed aerospace-specific language model by pre-training a Bidirectional Encoder Representations from Transformer (BERT) model on reports from the Aviation Safety Reporting System and the National Transportation Safety Board. The resulting model, called SafeAeroBERT, is fine-tuned for the specific task of document classification, and can be further tuned for named-entity recognition, relation detection, information retrieval, and summarization. Results from the classification task are compared between SafeAeroBERT, the base BERT, and SciBERT models and show SafeAeroBERT outperforms the general BERT and SciBERT on classifying reports about weather and procedure. SafeAeroBERT can be used on custom tasks, not limited to document classification, and is intended to aid an intelligent knowledge manager for safety report repositories.

Aviation↗

DOE OSTI2025

Dynamic response of 17-4 stainless steel as a function of manufacturing method and heat treatment

We present a series of plate-impact experiments on 17-4 stainless steel to study the effect of manufacturing method and heat treatment on the Hugoniot elastic limit (HEL), Hugoniot, phase transformation stress, and spallation strength. Two traditional manufacturing methods were considered, wrought processing and casting, as well as two additive manufacturing methods, laser powder-bed fusion (LPBF) and wire-fed electron beam (EBAM). For both LPBF and EBAM 17-4 stainless steel variants, two billets were printed, enabling the application of two unique heat treatments. The HEL stress depended heavily on the thermal history, with the HEL increasing after the formation of Cu-rich precipitates via heat treatment. The Hugoniot response both below and above the phase transition was unaffected by the manufacturing method or heat treatment. The phase transition stress depended heavily on the thermal history, with its variation being attributed to the presence of various microstructural features. This is supported by a marked increase in the phase transition stress after precipitation hardening. These results suggest that the notion of the phase transition stress being dictated by bulk composition is an oversimplification and the stress fields generated by the meso-scale structure are a dominant force. The spallation strength was lower in the cast material compared to all other 17-4 stainless steel variants due to the presence of brittle δ-ferrite inclusions. Additionally, a drop in the tensile strain-rate was observed in the spallation response above the phase transition stress, which was hypothesized to stem from the kinetics of the reversion to the low-pressure phase during spall.

Compressive stress↗

NASA NTRS1983

Single pilot IFR accident data analysis

The aircraft accident data recorded by the National Transportation and Safety Board (NTSR) for 1964-1979 were analyzed to determine what problems exist in the general aviation (GA) single pilot instrument flight rule (SPIFR) environment. A previous study conducted in 1978 for the years 1964-1975 provided a basis for comparison. This effort was generally limited to SPIFR pilot error landing phase accidents but includes some SPIFR takeoff and enroute accident analysis as well as some dual pilot IFR accident analysis for comparison. Analysis was performed for 554 accidents of which 39% (216) occurred during the years 1976-1979.

Harris, D. F.↗

NASA NTRS2008

Managing Space Radiation Risk in the New Era of Space Exploration

Space exploration is a risky enterprise. Rockets launch astronauts at enormous speeds into a harsh, unforgiving environment. Spacecraft must withstand the bitter cold of space and the blistering heat of reentry. Their skin must be strong enough to keep the inside comfortably pressurized and tough enough to resist damage from micrometeoroids. Spacecraft meant for lunar or planetary landings must survive the jar of landing, tolerate dust, and be able to take off again. For astronauts, however, there is one danger in space that does not end when they step out of their spacecraft. The radiation that permeates space -- unattenuated by Earth s atmosphere and magnetosphere -- may damage or kill cells within astronauts bodies, resulting in cancer or other health consequences years after a mission ends. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has recently embarked on Project Constellation to implement the Vision for Space Exploration -- a program announced by President George W. Bush in 2004 with the goal of returning humans to the Moon and eventually transporting them to Mars. To adequately prepare for the safety of these future space explorers, NASA s Exploration Systems Mission Directorate requested that the Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board of the National Research Council establish a committee to evaluate the radiation shielding requirements for lunar missions and to recommend a strategic plan for developing the radiation mitigation capabilities needed to enable the planned lunar mission architecture

Source record↗

NASA NTRS2016

The Evolution of the NASA Commercial Crew Program Mission Assurance Process

In 2010, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) established the Commercial Crew Program (CCP) in order to provide human access to the International Space Station and low Earth orbit via the commercial (non-governmental) sector. A particular challenge to NASA has been how to determine that the Commercial Provider's transportation system complies with programmatic safety requirements. The process used in this determination is the Safety Technical Review Board which reviews and approves provider submitted hazard reports. One significant product of the review is a set of hazard control verifications. In past NASA programs, 100% of these safety critical verifications were typically confirmed by NASA. The traditional Safety and Mission Assurance (S&MA) model does not support the nature of the CCP. To that end, NASA S&MA is implementing a Risk Based Assurance process to determine which hazard control verifications require NASA authentication. Additionally, a Shared Assurance Model is also being developed to efficiently use the available resources to execute the verifications.

Mission Assurance↗

NASA NTRS1992

Buffet test in the National Transonic Facility

A buffet test of a commercial transport model was accomplished in the National Transonic Facility at the NASA Langley Research Center. This aeroelastic test was unprecedented for this wind tunnel and posed a high risk for the facility. Presented here are the test results from a structural dynamics and aeroelastic response point of view. The activities required for the safety analysis and risk assessment are described. The test was conducted in the same manner as a flutter test and employed on-board dynamic instrumentation, real time dynamic data monitoring, and automatic and manual tunnel interlock systems for protecting the model.

Young, Clarence P., Jr.↗