Engineering topics

Feary, Mike

Publications and source records attributed to Feary, Mike.

4 records

NASA NTRS2020

Monitoring for Flight Path Management: Inputs to Pilot Monitoring Training

The commercial aviation industry world-wide has identified a need for improved pilot monitoring (e.g., ICAO, 2016). More specifically, aviation safety data indicate that failures in pilots' monitoring for flight path management (FPM) have contributed to a range of undesired outcomes: accidents, major upsets, and non-compliance with ATC guidance. The FAA has further stated that these types of FPM failures are likely to worsen with the increasingly complex air traffic control systems and FPM concepts proposed for NextGen (https://www.faa.gov/nextgen/what_is_nextgen/) operations (e.g., see Hah et al., 2017). An important element of this additional complexity will be the introduction of new automation or artificial intelligence that is intended to work with the flight crew but can add additional monitoring burdens. One potential mitigation for this situation is to enhance pilot training for effective monitoring. NASA Ames Research Center was asked to identify and evaluate training approaches that have the potential to enhance pilots' ability to effectively monitor for FPM (with the result of improved awareness). The focus of this work is to identify, develop or validate training guidance to improve pilot monitoring/awareness regarding FPM and mitigate the recent trend of accidents and incidents, especially Loss of Control (LOC) events. The result of this work should be guidance for FAA training and standards organizationsâ€”such as the Air Carrier Training Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ACT ARC)â€”to aid in reducing the risk of incidents and accidents due to inadequate pilot monitoring/awareness.

Feary, Mike↗

NASA NTRS2018

Aircraft Capability Management

This presentation presents an overview of work performed at NASA Ames Research Center in 2017. The work concerns the analysis of current aircraft system management displays, and the initial development of an interface for providing information about aircraft system status. The new interface proposes a shift away from current aircraft system alerting interfaces that report the status of physical components, and towards displaying the implications of degradations on mission capability. The proposed interface describes these component failures in terms of operational consequences of aircraft system degradations. The research activity was an effort to examine the utility of different representations of complex systems and operating environments to support real-time decision making of off-nominal situations. A specific focus was to develop representations that provide better integrated information to allow pilots to more easily reason about the operational consequences of the off-nominal situations. The work is also seen as a pathway to autonomy, as information is integrated and understood in a form that automated responses could be developed for the off-nominal situations in the future.

airplane capabilities↗

NASA NTRS2012

Task Allocation for Single Pilot Operations: A Role for the Ground

Researchers at NASA Ames Research Center and NASA Langley Research Center are jointly investigating issues associated with potential configurations for an environment in which a single pilot, or reduced crew, might operate. The research summarized in this document represents several of the efforts being put forth at NASA Ames Research Center. Specifically, researchers at NASA Ames Research Center coordinated and hosted a technical interchange meeting in order to gain insight from members of the aviation community. A description of this meeting and the findings are presented first. Thereafter, plans for ensuing research are presented.

Johnson, Walter↗

NASA NTRS2011

Evidence Report, Risk of Inadequate Design of Human and Automation/Robotic Integration

The success of future exploration missions depends, even more than today, on effective integration of humans and technology (automation and robotics). This will not emerge by chance, but by design. Both crew and ground personnel will need to do more demanding tasks in more difficult conditions, amplifying the costs of poor design and the benefits of good design. This report has looked at the importance of good design and the risks from poor design from several perspectives: 1) If the relevant functions needed for a mission are not identified, then designs of technology and its use by humans are unlikely to be effective: critical functions will be missing and irrelevant functions will mislead or drain attention. 2) If functions are not distributed effectively among the (multiple) participating humans and automation/robotic systems, later design choices can do little to repair this: additional unnecessary coordination work may be introduced, workload may be redistributed to create problems, limited human attentional resources may be wasted, and the capabilities of both humans and technology underused. 3) If the design does not promote accurate understanding of the capabilities of the technology, the operators will not use the technology effectively: the system may be switched off in conditions where it would be effective, or used for tasks or in contexts where its effectiveness may be very limited. 4) If an ineffective interaction design is implemented and put into use, a wide range of problems can ensue. Many involve lack of transparency into the system: operators may be unable or find it very difficult to determine a) the current state and changes of state of the automation or robot, b) the current state and changes in state of the system being controlled or acted on, and c) what actions by human or by system had what effects. 5) If the human interfaces for operation and control of robotic agents are not designed to accommodate the unique points of view and operating environments of both the human and the robotic agent, then effective human-robot coordination cannot be achieved.

Zumbado, Jennifer Rochlis↗