Results for “single pilot operations” — Page 5

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Effects of Communication Modality on Pilot-Controller Coordination during a Simulated m:N Operation

The last decade or so has seen growing interest in new control paradigms and concepts of operation for uncrewed aircraft systems (UAS) in which multiple aircraft are piloted remotely by a single or relatively small number of people. Referred to as “one-to-many” and “many-to- many” (alternatively, “multi-operator, multi-vehicle”)—and frequently expressed as the corresponding ratios, 1:N and m:N—such novel configurations of aircraft and the people who manage them are seen as critical to the path to future operations involving UAS. Examples of industry domains interested in these control paradigms are small package delivery services utilizing small UAS and passenger-carrying, short-range “Urban Air Mobility” (UAM) operations. Stakeholders in such operations have identified communication and coordination of flight activity with air traffic controllers (ATC) as a barrier to operations. In contrast to present-day flight operations, in which a pilot communicates with one ATC on one radio frequency for one aircraft, multi-vehicle operations potentially entail a significant increase in pilot task load for management of comms. New concepts, such as UAS Service Suppliers (USSs) and Providers of Services to UAM (PSUs), have been proposed to address the known bottleneck for Air Traffic Management (ATM) presented by multi-vehicle operations. While progress has been steadily made over years developing USSs and PSUs, it is generally expected that initial UAM operations will rely on traditional voice-over-radio communication with ATC for purposes of ATM. The current study was a human-in-the-loop simulation that had participants, each possessing a Private Pilot License, act as the ground-based pilot-in- command for multiple vehicles in a hypothetical UAM service in the San Francisco Bay Area. The experiment utilized a 2-by-3, within-subjects design in which the pilot’s Vehicle Load (4 vs. 12) and Comm System (Voice, Datalink, and a Hybrid) were manipulated. The task given to pilots was to use the Comm System to coordinate flight activity for all aircraft with appropriate controllers, having to obtain departure and arrival clearances at “vertiport” facilities and transition clearances for any intermediate airspaces along the route. Pilots were additionally responsible for compliance with vectoring instructions issued by ATC. Subjective workload questionnaires (NASA-TLX) were administered following each experimental trial. Screen recordings of the pilot’s Ground Control Station (GCS) and audio recordings of trials were subsequently coded to obtain performance metrics: response times and error rates. Presented in this paper are results related to pilot responses to vectoring instructions issued by ATC. Workload was found to be significantly higher in the 12-Vehicle condition compared to the 4-Vehicle condition, nearly maxing out the NASA-TLX overall workload scale. There was no significant difference made by the Comm System on workload ratings. Pilots’ response times to communications were fastest in the Voice condition, although overall “service time” for compliance was shorter in Datalink and Hybrid conditions in most cases. Errors by pilots were frequent in both Vehicle Load conditions, most perniciously when using the Voice system. The results of this study suggest tradeoffs in advantages and disadvantages of the three comm systems. Recommendations for communication system design are provided taking the tradeoffs into account.

urban air mobility↗

NASA NTRS1976

Landing practices of general aviation pilots in single-engine light airplanes

The methods and techniques used by a group of general aviation pilots during the landing phase of light airplane operations are documented. The results of 616 landings made by 22 pilots in 2 modern, four-place, single-engine, flight airplanes (one having a low wing and the other, a high wing) are presented. The landings were made on both a long runway (1524 m (5000 ft)) and a short runway (762 m (2500 ft)); both runways were considered typical of those used in general aviation. The results generally show that most of the approaches were fast with considerable floating during the flares and with touchdowns that were relatively flat or nose-low.

Goode, M. W.↗

NASA NTRS1992

Analysis of accidents during instrument approaches

General aviation and air taxi approach phase accidents, which occurred during VFR and IFR, respectively over the last 25 years, were analyzed. The data suggest that there is a 204 percent higher risk during the approach and landing phase of VFR flights, than during similar IFR operations (14.82 vs 7.27 accidents/100,000 approaches). Alarmingly, the night single pilot IFR (SPIFR) accident rate is almost 8 times the rate of day IFR, 35.43 vs 4.47 accidents/100,000 approaches, and two and a half times that of day VFR approaches, 35.43 vs 14.82 accidents/100,000 approaches. Surprisingly, the overall SPIFR accident rates are not much higher than dual-pilot IFR (DPIFR), 7.27 vs 6.48 accidents/100,000 approaches. The generally static ratio of the statistics for SPIFR/DPIFR accident rates may be accounted for by little or no change in general aviation cockpit technology during the last 25 years, and because IFR operational flight task management training has not kept pace.

Bennett, C. T.↗

NASA NTRS2005

Overview of the Small Aircraft Transportation System Project Four Enabling Operating Capabilities

It has become evident that our commercial air transportation system is reaching its peak in terms of capacity, with numerous delays in the system and the demand still steadily increasing. NASA, FAA, and the National Consortium for Aviation Mobility (NCAM) have partnered to aid in increasing the mobility throughout the United States through the Small Aircraft Transportation System (SATS) project. The SATS project has been a five-year effort to provide the technical and economic basis for further national investment and policy decisions to support a small aircraft transportation system. The SATS vision is to enable people and goods to have the convenience of on-demand point-to-point travel, anywhere, anytime for both personal and business travel. This vision can be obtained by expanding near all-weather access to more than 3,400 small community airports that are currently under-utilized throughout the United States. SATS has focused its efforts on four key operating capabilities that have addressed new emerging technologies, procedures, and concepts to pave the way for small aircraft to operate in nearly all weather conditions at virtually any runway in the United States. These four key operating capabilities are: Higher Volume Operations at Non-Towered/Non-Radar Airports, En Route Procedures and Systems for Integrated Fleet Operations, Lower Landing Minimums at Minimally Equipped Landing Facilities, and Increased Single Pilot Performance. The SATS project culminated with the 2005 SATS Public Demonstration in Danville, Virginia on June 5th-7th, by showcasing the accomplishments achieved throughout the project and demonstrating that a small aircraft transportation system could be viable. The technologies, procedures, and concepts were successfully demonstrated to show that they were safe, effective, and affordable for small aircraft in near all weather conditions. The focus of this paper is to provide an overview of the technical and operational feasibility of the four operating capabilities, and explain how they can enable a small aircraft transportation system.

Viken, Sally A.↗

NASA NTRS2005

Overview of the Small Aircraft Transportation System Project Four Enabling Operating Capabilities

It has become evident that our commercial air transportation system is reaching its peak in terms of capacity, with numerous delays in the system and the demand still steadily increasing. NASA, FAA, and the National Consortium for Aviation Mobility (NCAM) have partnered to aid in increasing the mobility throughout the United States through the Small Aircraft Transportation System (SATS) project. The SATS project has been a five-year effort to provide the technical and economic basis for further national investment and policy decisions to support a small aircraft transportation system. The SATS vision is to enable people and goods to have the convenience of on-demand point-to-point travel, anywhere, anytime for both personal and business travel. This vision can be obtained by expanding near all-weather access to more than 3,400 small community airports that are currently under-utilized throughout the United States. SATS has focused its efforts on four key operating capabilities that have addressed new emerging technologies, procedures, and concepts to pave the way for small aircraft to operate in nearly all weather conditions at virtually any runway in the United States. These four key operating capabilities are: Higher Volume Operations at Non-Towered/Non-Radar Airports, En Route Procedures and Systems for Integrated Fleet Operations, Lower Landing Minimums at Minimally Equipped Landing Facilities, and Increased Single Pilot Performance. The SATS project culminated with the 2005 SATS Public Demonstration in Danville, Virginia on June 5th-7th, by showcasing the accomplishments achieved throughout the project and demonstrating that a small aircraft transportation system could be viable. The technologies, procedures, and concepts were successfully demonstrated to show that they were safe, effective, and affordable for small aircraft in near all weather conditions. The focus of this paper is to provide an overview of the technical and operational feasibility of the four operating capabilities, and explain how they can enable a small aircraft transportation system.

Viken, Sally A.↗

NASA NTRS2017

Simulation Test of a Head-Worn Display with Ambient Vision Display for Unusual Attitude Recovery

Head-Worn Displays (HWDs) are envisioned as a possible equivalent to a Head-Up Display (HUD) in commercial and general aviation. A simulation experiment was conducted to evaluate whether the HWD can provide an equivalent or better level of performance to a HUD in terms of unusual attitude recognition and recovery. A prototype HWD was tested with ambient vision capability which were varied (on/off) as an independent variable in the experiment testing for attitude awareness. The simulation experiment was conducted in two parts: 1) short unusual attitude recovery scenarios where the aircraft is placed in an unusual attitude and a single-pilot crew recovered the aircraft; and, 2) a two-pilot crew operating in a realistic flight environment with "off-nominal" events to induce unusual attitudes. The data showed few differences in unusual attitude recognition and recovery performance between the tested head-down, head-up, and head-worn display concepts. The presence and absence of ambient vision stimulation was inconclusive. The ergonomic influences of the head-worn display, necessary to implement the ambient vision experimentation, may have influenced the pilot ratings and acceptance of the concepts.

Arthur, Jarvis (Trey) J., III↗

NASA NTRS2017

Quantifying Pilot Contribution to Flight Safety during Hydraulic Systems Failure

Accident statistics cite the flight crew as a causal factor in over 60% of large transport aircraft fatal accidents. Yet, a well-trained and well-qualified pilot is acknowledged as the critical center point of aircraft systems safety and an integral safety component of the entire commercial aviation system. The latter statement, while generally accepted, cannot be verified because little or no quantitative data exists on how and how many accidents/incidents are averted by crew actions. A joint NASA/FAA high-fidelity motion-base human-in-the-loop test was conducted using a Level D certified Boeing 737-800 simulator to evaluate the pilot's contribution to safety-of-flight during routine air carrier flight operations and in response to aircraft system failures. To quantify the human's contribution, crew complement (two-crew, reduced crew, single pilot) was used as the independent variable in a between-subjects design. This paper details the crew's actions, including decision-making, and responses while dealing with a hydraulic systems leak - one of 6 total non-normal events that were simulated in this experiment.

Kramer, Lynda J.↗

NASA NTRS1986

Flight test of a displacement sidearm controller

A six-axis displacement-stick sidearm controller was developed to enable single-handed control of remote manipulator operations in space. With a working model available, piloted evaluation became possible in a fly-by-computer variable-stability research aircraft, originally a Bell 205 helicopter. The original mechanization was limited to three rotational axes and a linear one, analogous to the collective stick. A newly designed short stickgrip was mounted and the spring force pattern adjusted to suit the helicopter flight control environment. A standard set of test maneuvers was flown by four experimental pilots with conventional helicopter flight controls and with sidearm controllers equipped with two different handgrips. Existing data from flight tests with an isometric-stick controller were added to complete the comparison. The displacement controller consistently achieved a rating of 3.0 to 3.5 on the Cooper-Harper scale, on par with the conventional controls. The same basic controller design was tested in spacecraft and remote manipulator simulations with very promising results. In each application operator/system integration was rapid and positive. The results demonstrate feasibility and support the design philosphy of using deflection as well as force to generate proprioceptive feedback.

Lippay, A. L.↗

NASA NTRS2018

Playbook for UAS: UX of Goal-Oriented Planning & Execution

We are evaluating Playbook for CASAS (Connected Autonomous Smart Aerospace Systems), a tool designed to aid first responders in disaster relief efforts. We are adapting an existing tool, Playbook, to support a future unmanned aircraft system (UAS) swarm demonstration. Playbook for CASAS will be used to plan, edit, and monitor simulated UAS swarms, and we are interested in evaluating the user experience of this prototype as well as developing recommendations for future UAS interfaces. Allocation of roles and responsibilities between human-automation systems is key to promoting productive cooperation between users and automation. Future interfaces, however, must allow for adaptive management of the swarm not a constant split in human-automation control. Our early research indicates that when a single pilot is controlling swarms of robotic agents, such as UAS or ground rovers, operators require a higher level, goal-based interface with usability at its core. Along with that high-level control, users can leverage sensors within the swarm to be notified when lower level actions must be taken by the pilot. First responders working in disaster relief efforts require a high level of situational awareness (SA) and precise control at key moments within a mission. This balance in operator workload paired with SA can lead to improved safety and mission outcomes. Our research below outlines leverage points as well as the balance between human involvement and autonomy in UAS interfaces.

UAS↗

NASA NTRS1983

Controls, Displays, and Information Transfer for General Aviation IFR Operations

The purpose of the workshop was to review and evaluate the work performed under the NASA Single Pilot IFR (SPIFR) program, to highlight and disseminate major research findings, and to provide a forum for industry, universities, and government to interact and discuss the future thrust of research in the SPIFR program. The presentations selected represent key elements of the SPIFR program. These elements are classified into five disciplinary areas: program definition, controls, displays, information transfer, and research simulation facilities. Emphasis is also placed on aircraft accident investigation.

Bergeron, H. P.↗

NASA NTRS1983

The NASA Aviation Safety Reporting System

This is the fourteenth in a series of reports based on safety-related incidents submitted to the NASA Aviation Safety Reporting System by pilots, controllers, and, occasionally, other participants in the National Aviation System (refs. 1-13). ASRS operates under a memorandum of agreement between the National Aviation and Space Administration and the Federal Aviation Administration. The report contains, first, a special study prepared by the ASRS Office Staff, of pilot- and controller-submitted reports related to the perceived operation of the ATC system since the 1981 walkout of the controllers' labor organization. Next is a research paper analyzing incidents occurring while single-pilot crews were conducting IFR flights. A third section presents a selection of Alert Bulletins issued by ASRS, with the responses they have elicited from FAA and others concerned. Finally, the report contains a list of publications produced by ASRS with instructions for obtaining them.

Source record↗

NASA NTRS1984

Operational requirements - system concepts

Nine research areas that are most critical to the issue of cockpits for the single pilot are discussed. Helicopter are addressed in this report. They are as follows: (1) automation priority issues; (2) increased complexity of systems; (3) cockpit workload highest in navigation; (4) auto hover and flight trim controls; (5) voice technology in integrated form; (6) systems must have visual and auditory declutter modes; (7) cockpit should be designed to be NBC resistant; and (8) considerations for spillover to civilian public service.

Voorhees, J. W.↗

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. The approach includes a comprehensive safety-hazard analysis of the RCO system to determine top level INFOSEC requirements for RCO and proposes an option for effective RCO implementation. This paper concludes with questioning the economic viability of RCO in light of the expense of overcoming the operational safety and security hazards it would introduce.

Aircraft Communication↗

NASA NTRS1994

User type certification for advanced flight control systems

Advanced avionics through flight management systems (FMS) coupled with autopilots can now precisely control aircraft from takeoff to landing. Clearly, this has been the most important improvement in aircraft since the jet engine. Regardless of the eventual capabilities of this technology, it is doubtful that society will soon accept pilotless airliners with the same aplomb they accept driverless passenger trains. Flight crews are still needed to deal with inputing clearances, taxiing, in-flight rerouting, unexpected weather decisions, and emergencies; yet it is well known that the contribution of human errors far exceed those of current hardware or software systems. Thus human errors remain, and are even increasing in percentage as the largest contributor to total system error. Currently, the flight crew is regulated by a layered system of certification: by operation, e.g., airline transport pilot versus private pilot; by category, e.g., airplane versus helicopter; by class, e.g., single engine land versus multi-engine land; and by type (for larger aircraft and jet powered aircraft), e.g., Boeing 767 or Airbus A320. Nothing in the certification process now requires an in-depth proficiency with specific types of avionics systems despite their prominent role in aircraft control and guidance.

Gilson, Richard D.↗

NASA NTRS2007

Cooperative Collision Avoidance Technology Demonstration Data Analysis Report

This report details the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Access 5 Project Office Cooperative Collision Avoidance (CCA) Technology Demonstration for unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) conducted from 21 to 28 September 2005. The test platform chosen for the demonstration was the Proteus Optionally Piloted Vehicle operated by Scaled Composites, LLC, flown out of the Mojave Airport, Mojave, CA. A single intruder aircraft, a NASA Gulf stream III, was used during the demonstration to execute a series of near-collision encounter scenarios. Both aircraft were equipped with Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance System-II (TCAS-II) and Automatic Dependent Surveillance Broadcast (ADS-B) systems. The objective of this demonstration was to collect flight data to support validation efforts for the Access 5 CCA Work Package Performance Simulation and Systems Integration Laboratory (SIL). Correlation of the flight data with results obtained from the performance simulation serves as the basis for the simulation validation. A similar effort uses the flight data to validate the SIL architecture that contains the same sensor hardware that was used during the flight demonstration.

Source record↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Advanced Capabilities for Emergency Response Operations (ACERO)

The use of unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) to support disaster management is becoming more widespread. Uninhibited by many of the operational constraints imposed on crewed aircraft, UAS have the potential to augment the aerial response in a number of ways, including supporting situation awareness, thereby accelerating disaster management efforts. The intent of the Scalable Traffic management for Emergency Response Operations (STEReO) activity is to build an ecosystem that will allow small UAS (sUAS) operations to fly safely in the airspace during disaster management events. The first step toward this goal was to develop a small, single-user tool (the UASP-kit) that will enhance an sUAS pilot’s situation awareness of the airspace. In a subsequent project (Advanced Capabilities for Emergency Response Operations (ACERO)) the UASP-kit will be expanded and built upon to develop and airspace management tool.

STEReO↗

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 NTRS1983

General aviation single pilot IFR autopilot study

Five levels of autopilot complexity were flown in a single engine IFR simulation for several different IFR terminal operations. A comparison was made of the five levels of complexity ranging from no autopilot to a fully coupled lateral and vertical guidance mode to determine the relative benefits versus complexity/cost of state-of-the-art autopilot capability in the IFR terminal area. Of the five levels tested, the heading select mode made the largest relative difference in decreasing workload and simplifying the approach task. It was also found that the largest number of blunders was detected with the most highly automated mode. The data also showed that, regardless of the autopilot mode, performance during an IFR approach was highly dependent on the type of approach being flown. These results indicate that automation can be useful when making IFR approaches in a high workload environment, but also that some disturbing trends are associated with some of the higher levels of automation found in state-of-the-art autopilots.

Bergeron, H. P.↗