SEARCH · Engineering Papers
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.
TRACER-MAP operated Jul - Aug 2022 as an ASR and ARM project. TRACER-MAP measured and mapped aerosol, volatile organic compounds, trace gas and select meteorological observations across the Houston domain during TRACER. The dataset has been corrected for truncation error using Bond et al, 2009.
During TRACER, the Texas A&M Rapid Onsite Atmospheric Measurements Van (ROAM-V) was deployed to capture airmasses behind (maritime) and ahead (continental) of the passage of the sea-breeze front through Houston. On select sampling days, ROAM-V sampled in the morning/mid-day on the coast and then transited to a second inland site for the afternoon/evening. The suite of instruments deployed on ROAM-V included a Condensation Particle Counter (CPC; GRIMM Model 5.403 CPC), Scanning Mobility Particle Sizer (SMPS; TSI 3750 detector, TSI 3082 classifier, TSI 3088 neutralizer, TSI 3081A Differential Mobility Analyzer), Cloud Condensation Nuclei counter (Droplet Measurement Technologies CCN Counter), micro pulse lidar (Droplet Measurement Technologies Micro Pulse LiDAR (miniMPL)), and a Davis Rotating Uniform size-cut Monitor (DRUM; DRUMAir 4-DRUM). Before sampling at each location, the latitude and longitude were recorded using the GPS on the phone application “My Altitude”. Onboard the ROAM-V, aerosol samples are drawn through a shared isokinetic inlet at a flow rate ranging from 3.5 to 7.0 LPM. A portion of this flow is directed through a cyclone impactor (Brechtel, Inc. Model SCC 0.732) and 0.3 LPM is directed to the CPC. To correct the data for particle losses, we used a two-step method. First, the measured SMPS size distributions were used to calculate total particle loss through the inlet for every SMPS scan at a single deployment location. Second, the CPC data was corrected for particle losses using the average of the total losses per scan. This calculation was done separately for each deployment location due to changes in the measured size distributions between locations. Particle loss from diffusion (based on Kesten, 1991 and Gormley, 1949), inertial impaction in 90-degree bends (based on Aerosol Measurement, 2011 and Crane, 1977), and cyclone impactor efficiency (based on Dirgo, 1985) were included in the loss calculation. When the SMPS was not sampling at a location (in the case of an instrument malfunction or operator error), the reported CPC data was corrected with an average of the total losses for the entire campaign at the specified deployment location (e.g., if we needed to correct Galveston data, then the average of all calculated losses at Galveston was taken). These flatline corrections were used for all data on 22/07/13, 22/07/20, 22/07/22, and the data from Galveston on 22/08/09. An additional flatline correction of 14% was applied to all CPC data based on laboratory calibration prior to and after the campaign. In laboratory calibrations, we identified that for the same sample of air the field CPC (GRIMM Model 5.403 CPC) undercounted the total concentration of particles by 14% compared to the ground truth laboratory CPC (TSI Model 3750). This data was collected for ARM Field Campaign AFC07055 and supported by DOE ASR grant DE-SC0021047. For any further questions, please feel free to contact the instrument PI, Sarah D. Brooks, sbrooks@tamu.edu. Kesten et. al. Calibration of a TSI Model 3025 Ultrafine Condensation Particle Counter. Aerosol Science and Technology, 15:2, 107-111, 1991. Gormley et. al. Diffusion from a Stream Flowing through a Cylindrical Tube. Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy, Vol 52, 163-169, 1948. Aerosol Measurement: Principles, Techniques, and Applications, Third Edition. John Wiley & Sons, Inc, 2011. Crane et. al. Inertial Deposition of Particles in a Bent Pipe. Journal of Aerosol Science, Vol 8, 161-170, 1977. Dirgo et. al. Cyclone Collection Efficiency: Comparison of Experimental Results with Theoretical Predictions. Aerosol Science and Technology, 4:4, 401-415, 1985.
During TRACER, the Texas A&M Rapid Onsite Atmospheric Measurements Van (ROAM-V) was deployed to capture airmasses behind (maritime) and ahead (continental) of the passage of the sea-breeze front through Houston. On select sampling days, ROAM-V sampled in the morning/mid-day on the coast and then transited to a second inland site for the afternoon/evening. The suite of instruments deployed on ROAM-V included a Condensation Particle Counter (CPC; GRIMM Model 5.403 CPC), Scanning Mobility Particle Sizer (SMPS; TSI 3750 detector, TSI 3082 classifier, TSI 3088 neutralizer, TSI 3081A Differential Mobility Analyzer), Cloud Condensation Nuclei counter (Droplet Measurement Technologies CCN Counter), micro pulse lidar (Droplet Measurement Technologies Micro Pulse LiDAR (miniMPL)), and a Davis Rotating Uniform size-cut Monitor (DRUM; DRUMAir 4-DRUM). Before sampling at each location, the latitude and longitude were recorded using the GPS on the phone application “My Altitude”. Onboard the ROAM-V, aerosol samples are drawn through a shared isokinetic inlet at a flow rate ranging from 3.5 to 7.0 LPM. A portion of this flow is directed through a cyclone impactor (Brechtel, Inc. Model SCC 0.732) and 0.5 LPM is directed to the CCN. To calculate particle losses, we used a two-step method. First, the measured SMPS size distributions were used to calculate particle loss through the inlet during sampling. Second, the corrected SMPS data was used to calculate the average of the total losses per scan down the CCN line. Then, the correction was applied to the CCN data. This calculation was done separately for each deployment location due to changes in the measured size distributions between locations. Particle loss from diffusion (based on Kesten, 1991 and Gormley, 1949), inertial impaction in 90-degree bends (based on Aerosol Measurement, 2011 and Crane, 1977), and cyclone impactor efficiency (based on Dirgo, 1985) were included in the loss calculation. When the SMPS was not sampling at a location (in the case of an instrument malfunction or operator error), the reported CPC data was corrected with an average of the total losses for the entire campaign at the specified deployment location (e.g., if we needed to correct Galveston data, then the average of all calculated losses at Galveston was taken). These flatline corrections were used for all data on 22/07/13, 22/07/20, 22/07/22, and the data from Galveston on 22/08/09. The supersaturation uncertainty is estimated conservatively at +/- 0.03%, where variation in the inlet temperature, pressure, and calibration technique prevents a more accurate measurement. Confidence in the reported supersaturation measurements is based on a pre-campaign calibration (following the methods from our previous work and Deng, 2014 based on Rose, 2008) in addition to inter-comparisons with the DOE for two days (22/08/18 and 22/09/01) where TAMU was co-located with AMF1. The inter-comparisons show good agreement between our instrument and the DOEs instrument on both days at all supersaturations. After the last inter-comparison on 22/09/01, there was no indication of a malfunction by our instrument through the rest of the campaign. Unfortunately, the instrument was dropped during demobilization. A post-campaign calibration was conducted, which showed a substantial departure from the pre-campaign calibration. The drop may have damaged the instrument’s ability to produce the desired supersaturations. Therefore, we do consider the data after 22/09/01 to be correct, but it should be used with caution. The CCN counter sampled for 3 minutes at each supersaturation setpoint (0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8, 1.0, and 1.2%). At the end of a cycle, the instrument was set to 0.01% supersaturation for 5 minutes. The data is comprised of the last 60 seconds of each supersaturation set point (0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8, 1.0, and 1.2%) to ensure the instrument stabilized and was able to reach thermal equilibrium. We removed the data during the periods where there were operational difficulties, setup, or maintenance. This data was collected for ARM Field Campaign AFC07055 and supported by DOE ASR grant DE-SC0021047. For any further questions, please feel free to contact the instrument PI, Sarah D. Brooks, sbrooks@tamu.edu. Rose et. al. Calibration and Measurement Uncertainties of a Continuous-Flow Cloud Condensation Nuclei Counter (DMT-CCNC): CCN Activation of Ammonium Sulfate and Sodium Chloride Aerosol Particles in Theory and Experiment. Atmos. Chem. Phys., 8, 1153-1179, 2008. Deng et. al. Using Raman Microspectroscopy to Determine Chemical Composition and Mixing State of Airborne Marine Aerosols over the Pacific Ocean. Aerosol Science and Technology, Vol 48, Issue 2, 2014. Kesten et. al. Calibration of a TSI Model 3025 Ultrafine Condensation Particle Counter. Aerosol Science and Technology, 15:2, 107-111, 1991. Gormley et. al. Diffusion from a Stream Flowing through a Cylindrical Tube. Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy, Vol 52, 163-169, 1948. Aerosol Measurement: Principles, Techniques, and Applications, Third Edition. John Wiley & Sons, Inc, 2011. Crane et. al. Inertial Deposition of Particles in a Bent Pipe. Journal of Aerosol Science, Vol 8, 161-170, 1977. Dirgo et. al. Cyclone Collection Efficiency: Comparison of Experimental Results with Theoretical Predictions. Aerosol Science and Technology, 4:4, 401-415, 1985.
During TRACER, the Texas A&M Rapid Onsite Atmospheric Measurements Van (ROAM-V) was deployed to capture airmasses behind (maritime) and ahead (continental) of the passage of the sea-breeze front through Houston. On select sampling days, ROAM-V sampled in the morning/mid-day on the coast and then transited to a second inland site for the afternoon/evening. The suite of instruments deployed on ROAM-V included a Condensation Particle Counter (CPC; GRIMM Model 5.403 CPC), Scanning Mobility Particle Sizer (SMPS; TSI 3750 detector, TSI 3082 classifier, TSI 3088 neutralizer, TSI 3081A Differential Mobility Analyzer), Cloud Condensation Nuclei counter (Droplet Measurement Technologies CCN Counter), micro pulse lidar (Droplet Measurement Technologies Micro Pulse LiDAR (miniMPL)), and a Davis Rotating Uniform size-cut Monitor (DRUM; DRUMAir 4-DRUM). Before sampling at each location, the latitude and longitude were recorded using the GPS on the phone application “My Altitude”. Onboard the ROAM-V, aerosol samples are drawn through a shared isokinetic inlet at a flow rate ranging from 3.5 to 7.0 LPM. A portion of this flow, 1.0 LPM, is directed through TSI's 0.071 cm impactor attached to the classifier of the SMPS setup. The SMPS’s DMA and CPC are connected through a 20.3 cm length of 0.48 cm diameter tubing. Measured SMPS size distributions were used to calculate size-dependent particle losses for each SMPS scan. Particle losses from diffusion (based on Kesten, 1991 and Gormley, 1949) and inertial impaction in 90-degree bends (based on Aerosol Measurement, 2011 and Crane, 1977) were included in the loss calculation. This data was collected for ARM Field Campaign AFC07055 and supported by DOE ASR grant DE-SC0021047. For any further questions, please feel free to contact the instrument PI, Sarah D. Brooks, sbrooks@tamu.edu. Kesten et. al. Calibration of a TSI Model 3025 Ultrafine Condensation Particle Counter. Aerosol Science and Technology, 15:2, 107-111, 1991. Gormley et. al. Diffusion from a Stream Flowing through a Cylindrical Tube. Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy, Vol 52, 163-169, 1948. Aerosol Measurement: Principles, Techniques, and Applications, Third Edition. John Wiley & Sons, Inc, 2011. Crane et. al. Inertial Deposition of Particles in a Bent Pipe. Journal of Aerosol Science, Vol 8, 161-170, 1977.
During TRACER, three Davis Rotating Uniform size-cut Monitors (DRUM; DRUMAir 4-DRUM) were used to collect aerosols for ice nucleation measurements in the Brooks laboratory at Texas A&M University. The three instruments were located at AMF1 in La Porte, Ancillary site in Guy (ANC), and onboard the Texas A&M Rapid Onsite Atmospheric Measurements Van (ROAM-V). ROAM-V was deployed to capture airmasses behind (maritime) and ahead (continental) of the passage of the sea-breeze front through Houston. On select sampling days, ROAM-V sampled in the morning/mid-day on the coast and then transited to a second inland site for the afternoon/evening. The suite of instruments deployed on ROAM-V included a Condensation Particle Counter (CPC; GRIMM Model 5.403 CPC), Scanning Mobility Particle Sizer (SMPS; TSI 3750 detector, TSI 3082 classifier, TSI 3088 neutralizer, TSI 3081A Differential Mobility Analyzer), Cloud Condensation Nuclei counter (Droplet Measurement Technologies CCN Counter), micro pulse lidar (Droplet Measurement Technologies Micro Pulse LiDAR (miniMPL)), and one of the Davis Rotating Uniform size-cut Monitors (DRUM; DRUMAir 4-DRUM). Before sampling at each location, the latitude and longitude were recorded using the GPS on the phone application “My Altitude”. Each DRUM sampler was operated at a flow rate of 23 LPM. Each DRUM has four stages where the aerodynamic diameter size cuts are as follows: stage 1 larger than 3 μm, stage 2 from 3 to 1.2 μm, stage 3 from 1.2 to 0.34 μm, and stage 4 from 0.34 to 0.15 μm. Pretreated aluminum foil was used as a substrate on all stages. At AMF1 and ANC sites, the DRUMs were operated on the shared aerosol inlet, with generous support of the DOE ARM site staff. These instruments rotated 24 mm per day and only contained aluminum foil substrates. Substrates were changed weekly and transported to Texas A&M for storage in -80C freezer until analysis. The DRUM onboard ROAM-V was operated at a faster rotation rate of 150 mm per day to clearly separate the multiple deployment locations for ROAM-V. For the ROAM-V DRUM, substrates were changed every deployment and transported to Texas A&M for storage in -80C freezer until analysis. At Texas A&M, ice nucleation experiments were conducted to measure the ice nucleation temperature of the ambient aerosol samples collected from the three DRUMs using our previously established procedures (Alsante et al., 2023; Fornea et al., 2009; Matthews et al., 2023). For ice nucleation, only samples collected on stage 3 were analyzed, given that these are the most relevant size (1.2 to 0.34 μm diameter) for potential ice nucleating particles. For the AMF1 and ANC sites, we cut and analyzed 2 mm (2-hour) samples. We analyzed the time periods of the AMF1 site instrument when the ROAM-V was deployed. A 72-hour period from July 11th at 23:49 through July 15th at 1:49 was analyzed from the ANC site instrument. For the ROAM-V instrument, we separated the daily samples by site location. Between 1- and 6-hour independent samples were analyzed at each location. We also cut the ROAM-V samples in half to allow for compositional analysis of the aerosol on the other half of the substrate. All viable samples from the ROAM-V were analyzed. Analysis was done using a custom-built ice nucleation apparatus, recently updated to include an array of 16 individual samples (Matthews et al., 2023). On our experimental setup, we used 100 μL of Ultra-High-Performance Liquid Chromatography (UHPLC) water (Sigma Aldrich, >99.9% purity) to wash off the aerosol from the DRUM substrate. Then, we micropipetted 2 μL droplet samples into each of the 16 wells of the array, using hydrophobically coated microscope slides. Experiments would cycle 28 times from 10 C to -40C over a 20-hour period. During analysis of the TRACER samples, nine experiments were conducted with UHPLC water process blanks that followed an identical preparation procedure. The average freezing temperature and standard deviation for these process blanks is -27.7±2.4 C. This data was collected for ARM Field Campaign AFC07023 and supported by DOE ASR grant DE-SC0021047. For any further questions, please feel free to contact the instrument PI, Sarah D. Brooks, sbrooks@tamu.edu. Alsante, A. N., Thornton, D. C., & Brooks, S. D. (2023). Ice nucleation catalyzed by the photosynthesis enzyme RuBisCO and other abundant biomolecules. Communications Earth & Environment, 4(1), 51. Fornea, A. P., Brooks, S. D., Dooley, J. B., & Saha, A. (2009). Heterogeneous freezing of ice on atmospheric aerosols containing ash, soot, and soil. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 114(D13). DOI:10.1029/2009JD011958 Matthews, B. H., Alsante, A. N., & Brooks, S. D. (2023). Pollen Emissions of Subpollen Particles and Ice Nucleating Particles. ACS Earth and Space Chemistry.
During TRACER, the Texas A&M Rapid Onsite Atmospheric Measurements Van (ROAM-V) was deployed to capture airmasses behind (maritime) and ahead (continental) of the passage of the sea-breeze front through Houston. On select sampling days, ROAM-V sampled in the morning/mid-day on the coast and then transited to a second inland site for the afternoon/evening. The suite of instruments deployed on ROAM-V included a Condensation Particle Counter (CPC; GRIMM Model 5.403 CPC), Scanning Mobility Particle Sizer (SMPS; TSI 3750 detector, TSI 3082 classifier, TSI 3088 neutralizer, TSI 3081A Differential Mobility Analyzer), Cloud Condensation Nuclei counter (Droplet Measurement Technologies CCN Counter), micro pulse lidar (Droplet Measurement Technologies Micro Pulse LiDAR (mini-MPL)), and a Davis Rotating Uniform size-cut Monitor (DRUM; DRUMAir 4-DRUM). Before sampling at each location, the latitude and longitude were recorded using the GPS on the phone application “My Altitude”. The mini-MPL deployed with ROAM-V is a 532 nm elastic and polarization lidar. The mini-MPL outputs normalized relative backscatter (NRB) derived from raw signal after after-pulse, overlap, and dead-time correction calibration. The depolarization ratio is calculated from the co-polarized and cross-polarized NRB (Flynna et al., 2007). The NRB and depolarization ratio data are resampled from the original data at 1-minute intervals. The vertical resolution of the mini-MPL data is 15 meters. The mini-MPL data can be used to determine the boundary layer, cloud top, and cloud bottom height and can be used to retrieve aerosol type and concentration profile. This data was collected for ARM Field Campaign AFC07055 and supported by DOE ASR grant DE-SC0021047. For any further questions, please feel free to contact the instrument PI, Sarah D. Brooks, sbrooks@tamu.edu . Flynna, C. J., Mendozaa, A., Zhengb, Y., & Mathurb, S. (2007). Novel polarization-sensitive micropulse lidar measurement technique. Optics express, 15(6), 2785-2790.
NCSU Flux Tower Data Level b1: QC checks applied to measurements Data Format: CSV Description: See "instrument descripotion Site: Houston, TX; Tracking Aerosol Convection interactions ExpeRiment (HOU) Location: Houston, TX; AMF1 (main site for TRACER) Facility Code: M1 Category: Aerosol Properties Data Type: PI Data Source Instrument/Data: Sonic Anemometer, 3 Condensation Particle Counters, 1 SP2, 1 POPS Start Date: 2022-06-01 End Date: 2022-9-26 Contact PI: Markus Petters (mdpetter@ncsu.edu) Funding Source: DOE ASR award US Department of Energy, Office of Science, Biological and Environment Research (grant no. DE-SC 0021074) Instrument description The NCSU flux tower was located next to the AMF sampling pad. The flux tower consisted of a 10 m telescoping tower. Mounted at the top of the tower was a sonic anemometer (RM Young 8000) and a Krypton Hygrometer. A sample line (¼” conductive tubing) and communication line was laid to a trailer located underneath and slightly adjacent to the tower. The sample line brought aerosol inside the trailer at 4.5 L min-1, where it was distributed between 3 CPCs (TSI 3776c, Dc ~ 2.5 nm, TSI 3771, Dc ~10nm, and TSI 3772, Dc ~40 nm) with different size cuts. Also sampling was a printed particle optical spectrometer (POPS) and a single particle soot photometer (SP2). Please contact mdpetter@ncsu.edu for further information.
NCSU RDMA Data Level b1: QC checks applied to measurements Data Format: CSV Description: See "instrument description Site: Houston, TX; Tracking Aerosol Convection interactions ExpeRiment (HOU) Location: Houston, TX; AMF1 (main site for TRACER) Facility Code: M1 Category: Aerosol Properties Data Type: PI Data Source Instrument/Data: Nano-Scanning Mobility Particle (SMPS); A Radial Differential Mobility Analyzer (RDMA) coupled with 1 Condensation Particle Counter Start Date: 2022-06-01 End Date: 2022-9-26 Contact PI: Markus Petters (mdpetter@ncsu.edu) Funding Source: DOE ASR award US Department of Energy, Office of Science, Biological and Environment Research (grant no. DE-SC 0021074) Instrument description The NCSU RDMA was operated at a sheath-to-sample flow ratio of 5:1.5 L min−1. The RDMA was configured to scan from 5 to 55 nm. It was located into the temperature-controlled trailer adjacent to the NCSU Flux Tower to observe size distributions of the aerosols.The sample line was dried with three silica-gel driers in series, and then neutralized with X-ray neutralizer. Please contact mdpetter@ncsu.edu for further information.
NCSU HTDMA data Data Level b1: QC checks applied to measurements Data Format: CSV Description: See "instrument description Site: Houston, TX; Tracking Aerosol Convection interactions ExpeRiment (HOU) Location: Houston, TX; AMF1 (main site for TRACER) Facility Code: M1 Category: Aerosol Properties Data Type: PI Data Source Instrument/Data: Humidified Tandem Differential Mobility Analyzer; 2 Differential Mobility Analyzers (DMA1 and DMA2). Start Date: 2022-06-01 End Date: 2022-09-26 Contact PI: Markus Petters (mdpetter@ncsu.edu) Funding Source: DOE ASR award US Department of Energy, Office of Science, Biological and Environment Research (grant no. DE-SC 0021074) Instrument description The NCSU HTDMA was operated at a sheath-to-sample flow ratio of 5:1 L min−1. The HTDMA was configured to measure hygroscopic growth factors of dry particles with mobility diameters of D = 15, 20, 30, 40, and 50 nm at RH ~ 70%. A complete cycle for all diameters took ~30 minutes. A sample line brought aerosol inside the trailer at 2.5 L min-1, where it was distributed between NCSU RDMA (1.5 L min-1) and NCSU HTDMA (1 L min-1) lines. The sample line was dried with three silica-gel driers in series, and then neutralized with X-ray neutralizer. The sample line entered DMA1 (operated as an electrostatic classifier). Monodisperse particles with certain fractions were humidified with temperature controlled Nafion membrane immersed in water before entering DMA2 (operated in scanning mobility particle sizer). Please contact mdpetter@ncsu.edu for further information.
NCSU SP2 Data Data Level b1: QC checks applied to measurements Data Format: CSV Description: See "instrument description Site: Houston, TX; Tracking Aerosol Convection interactions ExpeRiment (HOU) Location: Houston, TX; AMF1 (main site for TRACER) Facility Code: M1 Category: Aerosol Properties Data Type: PI Data Source Instrument/Data: Single Particle Soot Photometer (SP2) Start Date: 2022-06-01 End Date: 2022-09-27 Contact PI: Markus Petters (mdpetter@ncsu.edu) Funding Source: DOE ASR award US Department of Energy, Office of Science, Biological and Environment Research (grant no. DE-SC 0021074) Instrument description The SP2 was located in the temperature-controlled trailer adjacent to the NCSU Flux Tower to observe refractory black carbon (rBC) number concentration and mixing states of black carbon. The sample line brought aerosol inside the trailer at 4.5 L min-1, where it was distributed between 3 CPCs (TSI 3776c, Dc ~ 2.5 nm, TSI 3771, Dc ~10nm, and TSI 3772, Dc ~40 nm) with different size cuts, a printed particle optical spectrometer (POPS), and SP2. Please contact mdpetter@ncsu.edu for further information.
The study deals with 165 inadvertent operations on or into inappropriate portions of the aircraft areas at controlled airports. Pilot-initiated and controller-initiated incursions are described and discussed. It was found that a majority of the pilot-initiated occurrences involved operation without a clearance; controller-initiated occurrences usually involved failure to maintain assured separation. The factors associated with these occurrences are analyzed. It appears that a major problem in these occurrences is inadequate coordination among the various system participants. Reasons for this, and some possible solutions to various aspects of the problem, are discussed. A sample of reports from pilots and controllers is presented. These relate to undesired occurrences in air transport, general aviation, and air traffic control operations; to ATC coordination problems; and to a recurrent problem in ASRS reports, parachuting operations. A sample of alert bulletins and responses to them is presented.
A comprehensive study of near midair collisions in terminal airspace, derived from the ASRS database is presented. A selection of controller and pilot reports on airport perimeter security, unauthorized takeoffs and landings, and on winter operations is presented. A sampling of typical Alert Bulletins and their responses is presented.
Some 258 reports from more than 23,000 documents in the files of the Aviation Safety Reporting System (ASRS) were found to be to the hazard of flight into terrain with no prior awareness by the crew of impending disaster. Examination of the reports indicate that human error was a casual factor in 64% of the incidents in which some threat of terrain conflict was experienced. Approximately two-thirds of the human errors were attributed to controllers, the most common discrepancy being a radar vector below the Minimum Vector Altitude (MVA). Errors by pilots were of a much diverse nature and include a few instances of gross deviations from their assigned altitudes. The ground proximity warning system and the minimum safe altitude warning equipment were the initial recovery factor in some 18 serious incidents and were apparently the sole warning in six reported instances which otherwise would most probably have ended in disaster.
The development and implementation of a search strategy to extract pertinent reports from the Aviation Safety Reporting System-2 (ASRS-2) database are described. For any particular occurence to be pertinent to the study, it must have satisfied the following conditions: the aircraft must be of the type usually flown by a single pilot; operation on an IFR flight plan in instrument meteorological conditions; pilot experienced an operational problem. The occurances consist of reports by the pilot about his own performance, by the pilot about the system performance, or by an air traffic controller about a pilot's performance.
A review of seven research studies pertaining to Single Pilot IFR (SPIFR) operations was performed. Two studies were based on questionnaire surveys; two based on National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) reports; two were based on Aviation Safety Reporting System (ASRS) incident reports, and one report used event analysis and statistics to forecast problems. The results obtained in each study were extracted and integrated. Results were synthesized and key issues pertaining to SPIFR operations problems were identified. The research that was recommended by the studies and that addressed the key issues is catalogued for each key issue.
An analysis of incident data obtained from the NASA Aviation Safety Reporting System (ASRS) has been made to determine the problem areas in general aviation single-pilot IFR (SPIFR) operations. The Aviation Safety Reporting System data base is a compilation of voluntary reports of incidents from any person who has observed or been involved in an occurrence which was believed to have posed a threat to flight safety. This paper examines only those reported incidents specifically related to general aviation single-pilot IFR operations. The frequency of occurrence of factors related to the incidents was the criterion used to define significant problem areas and, hence, to suggest where research is needed. The data was cataloged into one of five major problem areas: (1) controller judgment and response problems, (2) pilot judgment and response problems, (3) air traffic control (ATC) intrafacility and interfacility conflicts, (4) ATC and pilot communication problems, and (5) IFR-VFR conflicts. In addition, several points common to all or most of the problems were observed and reported. These included human error, communications, procedures and rules, and work load.
A review of seven research studies pertaining to Single Pilot IFR (SPIFR) operations was performed. Two studies were based on questionnaire surveys, two were based on National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) reports, two were based on Aviation Safety Reporting System (ASRS) incident reports, and one report used event analysis and statistics to forecast problems. The results obtained in each study were extracted and integrated. Results were synthesized and key issues pertaining to SPIFR operations problems were identified. The research that was recommended by the studies and that addressed the key issues is cataloged for each key issue.
Communication errors involving aircraft call signs were portrayed in reports of 462 hazardous incidents voluntarily submitted to the ASRS during an approximate four-year period. These errors resulted in confusion, disorder, and uncoordinated traffic conditions and produced the following types of operational anomalies: altitude deviations, wrong-way headings, aborted takeoffs, go arounds, runway incursions, missed crossing altitude restrictions, descents toward high terrain, and traffic conflicts in flight and on the ground. Analysis of the report set resulted in identification of five categories of errors involving call signs: (1) faulty radio usage techniques, (2) call sign loss or smearing due to frequency congestion, (3) confusion resulting from similar sounding call signs, (4) airmen misses of call signs leading to failures to acknowledge or readback, and (5) controller failures regarding confirmation of acknowledgements or readbacks. These error categories are described in detail and several associated hazard mitigating measures that might be aken are considered.