Alan Hobbs | Engineering Papers

NASA NTRS2024

Trade Space Analyses: Balancing Crew and Mission Design Parameters

In 2020, the Associate Administrator for Human Exploration and Operations and the Agency’s Federated Board requested an assessment to develop a methodology for trade space analysis comparing crew size for Mars missions against mission design parameters. The NASA Engineering and Safety Center (NESC) conducted an assessment to develop a methodology for systematic, repeatable trade space analysis for crew size and developed an initial set of human performance models and a list of candidate crew tasks for NASA’s first mission to Mars. This report contains the results of the NESC assessment.

Humans to Mars↗

NASA NTRS2024

Assessing the Number of Crew for Mars Against Trade Space Parameters

Missions to Mars will differ from all previous human spaceflight missions in that the onboard crew of astronauts will be required to operate in an Earth-independent manner given the long communication delays on Mars missions. Without a systematic, repeatable process to determine the number and composition of crew necessary to successfully accomplish these missions, NASA increases the risk in that crew sizes may be too small to meet primary mission objectives under nominal conditions and, more consequentially, the crewmembers may not have the expertise needed to successfully respond to unforeseen failures without the real-time expertise in the Mission Control Central (MCC) team on which NASA has come to rely. We present a framework for trade space analysis along with results from human-performance models developed in IMPRINT. We discuss the implications of model results on the trade space for number of crew for missions to Mars. This work was funded by the NASA Engineering and Safety Center (NESC) with support from NASA’s Human Research Program (HRP).

Donna Dempsey↗

NASA NTRS2021

Risk Reduction of Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV) Program Government-Furnished Equipment for Environmental Control and Life Support (ECLS)

The NASA Engineering and Safety Center (NESC) was requested to conduct technical risk-reduction activities for safety-critical government-furnished environmental control and life support (ECLS) equipment for the Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle Program. These items include the post-landing anomaly gas monitor, the in-flight anomaly gas monitor, the emergency breathing mask, the 144-hour in-suit survival capability, the portable fire extinguisher, the smoke eater, and the post-landing carbon dioxide control system. This document contains the outcome of the NESC assessment.

Environmental Control and Life Support↗

NASA NTRS2020

Guidance for Human Error Analysis (HEA)

NASA’s Human-Rating Requirements for Space Systems in NASA Procedural Requirements (NPR) 8705.2C requires Program Managers to conduct a human error analysis (HEA) for all mission phases. The purpose of the HEA is to enable programs to understand and manage potential catastrophic hazards that could be caused by human error, understand the relative risks and uncertainties within the system design, and influence decisions throughout the system lifecycle. This document provides guidance to NASA civil servants and contractors on how the Agency’s HEA requirement can be fulfilled.

Human Error Analysis; NASA Procedural Requirement;↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Thinking outside the box: The human role in increasingly automated aviation systems

Rapid advances in artificial intelligence are enabling automated systems to operate in an increasingly autonomous manner in domains that previously required the involvement of human operators. Examples are rail transport systems, self-driving cars, and warehouse delivery systems. From time to time, such automation encounters operational conditions that fall outside a “competency box” within which the system has been designed to operate. Human operators add resilience because they can see and act outside the competency box of scenarios and environments for which the system was designed. The system’s competencies can be expanded over time with modifications to software, sensors, etc.; however, it is unclear at what point the competency box becomes large enough to safely eliminate the role of the human operator. One area where advanced automation may be applied is Urban Air Mobility (UAM). Current UAM concepts envision fleets of highly automated air vehicles providing on-demand transport for people and goods. A phased development of UAM has been proposed, beginning with on-board pilots and transitioning to a future state where automated vehicles operate with minimal human involvement. Proponents of UAM note that this final state reduces cost as well as eliminating pilot error, identified as a contributing factor in many aircraft accidents. However, eliminating human involvement also risks eliminating their positive contributions to system resilience. Here we examine Concepts of Operation proposed for future UAM systems and explore how humans can best be incorporated to maintain resilience while minimizing cost and risk. A human-autonomy teaming approach is suggested.

Advanced Air Mobility↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Human Error Analysis for Human-Rated Space Systems

Humans bring unique capabilities to space systems and contribute to mission success in a manner that cannot be matched by machines. Nevertheless, from time to time, human error can present a threat to system performance, and system designers must anticipate and manage this risk. NASA’s Human-Rating Requirements for Space Systems call for program managers to conduct a human error analysis (HEA) during system development but does not specify how to do this. In 2018, NASA’s Engineering and Safety Center asked the authors to develop a guidance document on HEA. The resulting position paper outlines a suggested method for HEA and makes it clear that error analysis is about identifying and mitigating problems at a system level, and not about finding fault with individuals. Error management strategies must be directed at error-producing conditions, thereby reducing the likelihood of human error, while retaining the positive contribution that humans make to system operations.

human error human-rated space↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Survey Development and Initial Data: Flight Context and Pilot Techniques in Everyday Flights

The aviation industry is recognizing that flight crews routinely contribute to system safety in ways that go beyond adherence to standard operating procedures (SOPs). Our research goals were to explore a) whether a survey could shed light on pilots' contributions to adaptation and resilience in everyday flights and b) relevant assessment methods. The survey focused on challenges faced by pilots in normal operations, and on the ways that pilots anticipate and monitor those challenges. We collected responses concerning revenue flights from two pilot groups; one group also provided responses concerning a simulated scenario. The results indicated that relatively few flights proceeded exactly as in the original flight plan. Pilots routinely anticipated and adapted to changing circumstances. We discuss some design and assessment challenges encountered for a survey on this topic, we provide 5 approaches to assessment, and we present example findings as illustrations. We hope assessment methods such as these will lead to useful surveys of resilience in flight.

pilot behavior↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Managing Maintenance Error: Six Lessons From Aviation Maintenance

There are clear parallels between the ground processing of spacecraft and the maintenance of airline aircraft. In both cases, reliable human performance is critical to safe outcomes. Examples of human factors in airline maintenance and spacecraft ground processing illustrate the similarities between these two domains. The worldwide aviation industry began to pay close attention to human factors in maintenance after several maintenance-related disasters in the 1970s and 80s. Rather than simply applying solutions that had been developed for flight crew and air traffic controllers, the aviation industry developed human factors interventions specifically tailored for maintenance personnel. These interventions have led to safety improvements, greater reliability, and significant cost savings. Six human factors approaches from airline maintenance that can be usefully applied to enhance the quality and safety of ground processing are outlined. These are 1) Design for assembly, test, and maintenance, 2) Non technical skills training, 3) Improved design of documentation, 4) Reduction of iatrogenic quality lapses, 5) Barrier and control analysis, and 6) Continuous improvement based on learning from quality lapses.

maintenance human factors↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Humans to Mars, but How Many? Using Training Requirements Modeling to Inform Crew Size

Missions to Mars will differ from previous human spaceflight missions in that the onboard crew of astronauts will be required to operate in an Earth-independent manner due to the long communication delays. Without a systematic, repeatable process to determine the number and composition of crew necessary to successfully accomplish these missions, NASA increases the risk that crew sizes may be too small to meet primary mission objectives under nominal conditions and, more consequentially, that crewmembers may not have the expertise needed to successfully respond to unforeseen failures without the real-time expertise of the Mission Control Central (MCC) team NASA currently relies upon. The NASA Engineering and Safety Center (NESC) is developing a methodology for assessing the trade space of factors that affect the number of crew for future missions. This methodology includes the consideration of results from three human performance models developed using the Improved Performance Research and Integration Tool (IMPRINT) modeling platform as well as a custom-built model on expertise trained within the crew. The IMPRINT results will be presented in the modeling and simulation sub-tag. Here we present results of a model based on NASA’s crew qualification and responsibility matrix (CQRM), a tool used to identify the crew qualifications for each area of responsibility (operation, system, and payload) for a mission. The model outputs an optimized allocation of training assignments along with a flight-assigned CQRM that can be used to consider the expertise that can be trained within a crew of a given size. We discuss the CQRM model result implications on the trade space for Mars mission crew size.

Mars↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Identifying Human Factors Research for Unmanned Aircraft Systems and Advanced Air Mobility

This paper identifies some of the key human factors (HF) challenges when integrating Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) and Advanced Air Mobility (AAM) into the civil airspace. Unique HF considerations—those which are derived from the key differentiating aspects of UAS/AAM compared to conventional aviation—are the primary basis for identifying HF research opportunities. By identifying what makes UAS and AAM fundamentally different from conventional aviation, from a human integration perspective, HF research can be targeted to effectively inform best practices, standards, policy, guidance, and regulations associated with aircraft and air traffic systems and operations. HF research areas are discussed within the following topic areas: Sustained low-altitude operations; loss of natural sensing; novel aircraft; novel operations; link management and lost link; link performance; distributed pilot teams; and increased automation. The identified research descriptions are intended to serve as illustrative examples of what research is fundamental, and why. They are not intended to prescribe, prioritize or exclude research.

AAM↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Identifying Human Factors Research for Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) and Advanced Air Mobility (AAM)

This paper identifies some of the key human factors (HF) challenges when integrating Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) and Advanced Air Mobility (AAM) into the civil airspace. Unique HF considerations—those which are derived from the key differentiating aspects of UAS/AAM compared to conventional aviation—are the primary basis for identifying HF research opportunities. By identifying what makes UAS and AAM fundamentally different from conventional aviation, from a human integration perspective, HF research can be targeted to effectively inform best practices, standards, policy, guidance, and regulations associated with aircraft and air traffic systems and operations. HF research areas are discussed within the following topic areas: Sustained low-altitude operations; loss of natural sensing; novel aircraft; novel operations; link management and lost link; link performance; distributed pilot teams; and increased automation. The identified research descriptions are intended to serve as illustrative examples of what research is fundamental, and why. They are not intended to prescribe, prioritize or exclude research.

AAM↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

The Contribution of Pilots to Resilience in Normal Operations: A Survey Approach

Much of our knowledge about human performance in flight safety has come from the analysis of undesired events, whether accidents, incidents, or crew behaviors identified via flight exceedance monitoring or observational techniques. In recent years, there has been an acknowledgement that operational personnel are not merely sources of “human error”, but also make a unique human contribution to safe outcomes. In a few celebrated cases, this takes the form of “heroic saves”, but on many more occasions, operational personnel contribute to safety through everyday, often-unnoticed actions that turn potentially hazardous situations into non-events. An emerging approach to safety, frequently referred to as “Safety II,” proposes that the positive human contribution is an important and largely untapped source of safety information. Some airlines have successfully trained observers to identify and record the positive behaviors exhibited by the crew over the course of a flight. In other cases, flight crew are interviewed about good practices or positive behaviors. However, each of these methods are relatively limited in scale and resource intensive. A survey could provide a relatively low-cost approach to systematically gather this information on a larger scale. The primary purpose of the research was to develop and assess a surveys methodology for assessing crews' activities in normal flights and the operational perturbations encountered during normal operations. We hope that such a survey could be both a research tool as well as a safety management aid for the aviation industry. We collected responses concerning revenue flights from two groups of airline pilots (N = 25 & N= 65). The results indicated that relatively few flights proceeded exactly as in the original flight plan. Pilots routinely anticipated and adapted to changing circumstances. We will review the challenges encountered in developing the survey and summarize preliminary findings from two administrations of the survey to airline pilots.

human contribution safety↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

The Contribution of Pilots to Resilience in Normal Operations. Part II: A closer look at briefings: Anticipation and Monitoring Also Known as Planning and Coordination

Much of our knowledge about human performance in flight safety has come from the analysis of undesired events, whether accidents, incidents, or crew behaviors identified via flight exceedance monitoring or observational techniques. In recent years, there has been an acknowledgement that operational personnel are not merely sources of “human error”, but also make a unique human contribution to safe outcomes. In a few celebrated cases, this takes the form of “heroic saves”, but on many more occasions, operational personnel contribute to safety through everyday, often-unnoticed actions that turn potentially hazardous situations into non-events. An emerging approach to safety, frequently referred to as “Safety II,” proposes that the positive human contribution is an important and largely untapped source of safety information. Some airlines have successfully trained observers to identify and record the positive behaviors exhibited by the crew over the course of a flight. In other cases, flight crew are interviewed about good practices or positive behaviors. However, each of these methods are relatively limited in scale and resource intensive. A survey could provide a relatively low-cost approach to systematically gather this information on a larger scale. The primary purpose of the research was to develop and assess a surveys methodology for assessing crews' activities in normal flights and the operational perturbations encountered during normal operations. We hope that such a survey could be both a research tool as well as a safety management aid for the aviation industry. We collected responses concerning revenue flights from two groups of airline pilots (N = 25 & N= 65). The results indicated that relatively few flights proceeded exactly as in the original flight plan. Pilots routinely anticipated and adapted to changing circumstances. We will review the challenges encountered in developing the survey and summarize preliminary findings from two administrations of the survey to airline pilots.

human contribution safety↗