SEARCH · Search NASA
Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.
Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.
Priority inversion occurs when a process is delayed by the actions of another process with less priority. With atomic transations, the concurrency control mechanism can cause delays, and without taking priorities into account can be a source of priority inversion. In this paper, three traditional concurrency control algorithms are extended so that they are free from unbounded priority inversion.
Contemporary approaches to aerospace vehicle system monitoring rely heavily on thresholds that represent a compromise between providing warning early enough to avert a mishap while simultaneously minimizing false alarms. While this reliance on thresholds has been in place for decades and has permeated both cockpits and control rooms, we often find it insufficient when retrospectively analyzing data from an accident. To modernize and enhance flight test safety, we introduce new methods of monitoring for anomalous patterns of interaction rather than for thresholds exceedance. For systems with a well characterized baseline we show how the Inductive Monitoring System (IMS), utilized by NASA in the aftermath of the Columbia accident, might be implemented in real-time to provide earlier warning than currently employed techniques. For systems without such a baseline, we introduce new developments in statistical methods relating to critical slowing down, first applied in medicine and physics, which show promise for adaptation to flight test. Finally, the familiar resource constrained environment leads to a reliance on increased instrumentation that is challenging the limits of the current one-sensor, one-indicator threshold paradigm. Existing methods thus fail to accurately reflect the true complexity of a vehicle rich with interdependent interacting systems. We highlight these concepts in a brief summary of the 2001 Air Transat Flight 236 deadstick landing in the Azores. We then suggest control room and cockpit modifications to better display the information gleaned using these novel monitoring methods.
Contemporary approaches to aerospace vehicle system monitoring rely heavily on thresholds that represent a compromise between providing warning early enough to avert a mishap while simultaneously minimizing false alarms. While this reliance on thresholds has been in place for decades and has permeated both cockpits and control rooms, we often find it insufficient when retrospectively analyzing data from an accident. To modernize and enhance flight test safety, we introduce new methods of monitoring for anomalous patterns of interaction rather than for thresholds exceedance. For systems with a well characterized baseline we show how the Inductive Monitoring System (IMS), utilized by NASA in the aftermath of the Columbia accident, might be implemented in real-time to provide earlier warning than currently employed techniques. For systems without such a baseline, we introduce new developments in statistical methods relating to critical slowing down, first applied in medicine and physics, which show promise for adaptation to flight test. Finally, the familiar resource constrained environment leads to a reliance on increased instrumentation that is challenging the limits of the current "one-sensor, one-indicator" threshold paradigm. Existing methods thus fail to accurately reflect the true complexity of a vehicle rich with interdependent interacting systems. We highlight these concepts in a brief summary of the 2001 Air Transat Flight 236 deadstick landing in the Azores. We then suggest control room and cockpit modifications to better display the information gleaned using these novel monitoring methods.
Many current-day software design tools offer some variant of statechart notation for system specification. We, like others, have built an automatic translator from (a subset of) statecharts to a model checker, for use to validate behavioral requirements.