SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Aviation Safety Reporting System”

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.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 253 records · Page 14

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

NASA NTRS2011

Comparison of In-Situ, Model and Ground Based In-Flight Icing Severity

As an aircraft flies through supercooled liquid water, the liquid freezes instantaneously to the airframe thus altering its lift, drag, and weight characteristics. In-flight icing is a contributing factor to many aviation accidents, and the reliable detection of this hazard is a fundamental concern to aviation safety. The scientific community has recently developed products to provide in-flight icing warnings. NASA's Icing Remote Sensing System (NIRSS) deploys a vertically--pointing Ka--band radar, a laser ceilometer, and a profiling multi-channel microwave radiometer for the diagnosis of terminal area in-flight icing hazards with high spatial and temporal resolution. NCAR s Current Icing Product (CIP) combines several meteorological inputs to produce a gridded, three-dimensional depiction of icing severity on an hourly basis. Pilot reports are the best and only source of information on in-situ icing conditions encountered by an aircraft. The goal of this analysis was to ascertain how the testbed NIRSS icing severity product and the operational CIP severity product compare to pilot reports of icing severity, and how NIRSS and CIP compare to each other. This study revealed that the icing severity product from the ground-based NASA testbed system compared very favorably with the operational model-based product and pilot reported in-situ icing.

Johnston, Christopher J.↗

NASA NTRS2015

Planning the Unplanned Experiment: Assessing the Efficacy of Standards for Safety Critical Software

We need well-founded means of determining whether software is t for use in safety-critical applications. While software in industries such as aviation has an excellent safety record, the fact that software aws have contributed to deaths illustrates the need for justi ably high con dence in software. It is often argued that software is t for safety-critical use because it conforms to a standard for software in safety-critical systems. But little is known about whether such standards `work.' Reliance upon a standard without knowing whether it works is an experiment; without collecting data to assess the standard, this experiment is unplanned. This paper reports on a workshop intended to explore how standards could practicably be assessed. Planning the Unplanned Experiment: Assessing the Ecacy of Standards for Safety Critical Software (AESSCS) was held on 13 May 2014 in conjunction with the European Dependable Computing Conference (EDCC). We summarize and elaborate on the workshop's discussion of the topic, including both the presented positions and the dialogue that ensued.

Graydon, Patrick J.↗

NASA NTRS2024

Recommendations on Evidence and Process for Certification of Learning-enabled Components in Aerospace Systems

This report primarily identifies a collection of relevant and necessary evidence for assurance of machine learnt components (MLCs)—also known as learning-enabled components—integrated into aircraft systems, and gives preliminary suggestions on the elements of a certification process that invoke the identified evidence. The main focus is on feedforward neural networks that are static and trained offline through supervised learning. A brief background on the generic elements of the lifecycle of an MLC is given to contextualize the assurance considerations and, consequently, the evidence that is relevant and necessary to support certification. At the level of an MLC, those considerations relate to: (i) the consistency and correctness of MLC contributions to system functions in the context of a validated functional intent; and (ii) the absence of MLC contributions to aircraft-level failure conditions. At an ML model level, confidence in model and data properties contribute to assurance of the containing MLC, in particular: (a) generalizability and robustness of models, in the presence of inputs not previously seen during training, disturbances to inputs, and unexpected inputs; and (b) valid data, i.e., data that are at least representative, relevant, complete, and accurate. Evidence for the above span the elements of the ML lifecycle, and includes, at a minimum, lifecycle artifacts that pertain to: (1) properties of requirements capturing functional intent, safety constraints, and aspects of the intended use and operating environment; (2) model performance, model complexity and design, and algorithm choice; (3) achievement of required performance at the levels of a trained model during model development, a trained model after model development is complete, and a trained model that is transformed into an executable equivalent; (4) model implementation aspects necessary for transforming a trained model into the executable equivalent; (5) integration of the executable trained model into the containing MLC, and eventually the larger system; and, (6) lastly, the verification and validation (V&V) of each of the above. Such V&V lifecycle artifacts themselves include: aspects of coverage, e.g., of various levels of requirements by the input space of the model and the data; traceability (where applicable); application of formal methods for property specification, analysis, and checking. Examples of evidence generation methods and tools further ground the discussion on what constitutes evidence, and the contribution to assurance during certification. The identified assurance considerations and supporting evidence is not a comprehensive set. Additionally, neither what should be considered as sufficient evidence relative to the assigned criticality of an MLC, nor how criticality ought to be determined and adjusted, have been considered in this report. However, suggestions are made for potential activities of the ML lifecycle that are aimed at providing confidence that an MLC can be relied upon when integrated into its containing (aircraft) system. Those activities are proposed as candidate elements of a certification process for MLCs. The main purpose of this report to inform regulatory guidance and consensus standards that may be used to meet the safety intent of the applicable regulations.

Aviation safety↗

NASA NTRS2008

Guidance and Control Software Project Data - Volume 2: Development Documents

The Guidance and Control Software (GCS) project was the last in a series of software reliability studies conducted at Langley Research Center between 1977 and 1994. The technical results of the GCS project were recorded after the experiment was completed. Some of the support documentation produced as part of the experiment, however, is serving an unexpected role far beyond its original project context. Some of the software used as part of the GCS project was developed to conform to the RTCA/DO-178B software standard, "Software Considerations in Airborne Systems and Equipment Certification," used in the civil aviation industry. That standard requires extensive documentation throughout the software development life cycle, including plans, software requirements, design and source code, verification cases and results, and configuration management and quality control data. The project documentation that includes this information is open for public scrutiny without the legal or safety implications associated with comparable data from an avionics manufacturer. This public availability has afforded an opportunity to use the GCS project documents for DO-178B training. This report provides a brief overview of the GCS project, describes the 4-volume set of documents and the role they are playing in training, and includes the development documents from the GCS project. Volume 2 contains three appendices: A. Guidance and Control Software Development Specification; B. Design Description for the Pluto Implementation of the Guidance and Control Software; and C. Source Code for the Pluto Implementation of the Guidance and Control Software

Hayhurst, Kelly J.↗

NASA NTRS2008

Guidance and Control Software Project Data - Volume 1: Planning Documents

The Guidance and Control Software (GCS) project was the last in a series of software reliability studies conducted at Langley Research Center between 1977 and 1994. The technical results of the GCS project were recorded after the experiment was completed. Some of the support documentation produced as part of the experiment, however, is serving an unexpected role far beyond its original project context. Some of the software used as part of the GCS project was developed to conform to the RTCA/DO-178B software standard, "Software Considerations in Airborne Systems and Equipment Certification," used in the civil aviation industry. That standard requires extensive documentation throughout the software development life cycle, including plans, software requirements, design and source code, verification cases and results, and configuration management and quality control data. The project documentation that includes this information is open for public scrutiny without the legal or safety implications associated with comparable data from an avionics manufacturer. This public availability has afforded an opportunity to use the GCS project documents for DO-178B training. This report provides a brief overview of the GCS project, describes the 4-volume set of documents and the role they are playing in training, and includes the planning documents from the GCS project. Volume 1 contains five appendices: A. Plan for Software Aspects of Certification for the Guidance and Control Software Project; B. Software Development Standards for the Guidance and Control Software Project; C. Software Verification Plan for the Guidance and Control Software Project; D. Software Configuration Management Plan for the Guidance and Control Software Project; and E. Software Quality Assurance Activities.

Hayhurst, Kelly J.↗

NASA NTRS2008

Guidance and Control Software Project Data - Volume 3: Verification Documents

The Guidance and Control Software (GCS) project was the last in a series of software reliability studies conducted at Langley Research Center between 1977 and 1994. The technical results of the GCS project were recorded after the experiment was completed. Some of the support documentation produced as part of the experiment, however, is serving an unexpected role far beyond its original project context. Some of the software used as part of the GCS project was developed to conform to the RTCA/DO-178B software standard, "Software Considerations in Airborne Systems and Equipment Certification," used in the civil aviation industry. That standard requires extensive documentation throughout the software development life cycle, including plans, software requirements, design and source code, verification cases and results, and configuration management and quality control data. The project documentation that includes this information is open for public scrutiny without the legal or safety implications associated with comparable data from an avionics manufacturer. This public availability has afforded an opportunity to use the GCS project documents for DO-178B training. This report provides a brief overview of the GCS project, describes the 4-volume set of documents and the role they are playing in training, and includes the verification documents from the GCS project. Volume 3 contains four appendices: A. Software Verification Cases and Procedures for the Guidance and Control Software Project; B. Software Verification Results for the Pluto Implementation of the Guidance and Control Software; C. Review Records for the Pluto Implementation of the Guidance and Control Software; and D. Test Results Logs for the Pluto Implementation of the Guidance and Control Software.

Hayhurst, Kelly J.↗

NASA NTRS2008

Guidance and Control Software Project Data - Volume 4: Configuration Management and Quality Assurance Documents

The Guidance and Control Software (GCS) project was the last in a series of software reliability studies conducted at Langley Research Center between 1977 and 1994. The technical results of the GCS project were recorded after the experiment was completed. Some of the support documentation produced as part of the experiment, however, is serving an unexpected role far beyond its original project context. Some of the software used as part of the GCS project was developed to conform to the RTCA/DO-178B software standard, "Software Considerations in Airborne Systems and Equipment Certification," used in the civil aviation industry. That standard requires extensive documentation throughout the software development life cycle, including plans, software requirements, design and source code, verification cases and results, and configuration management and quality control data. The project documentation that includes this information is open for public scrutiny without the legal or safety implications associated with comparable data from an avionics manufacturer. This public availability has afforded an opportunity to use the GCS project documents for DO-178B training. This report provides a brief overview of the GCS project, describes the 4-volume set of documents and the role they are playing in training, and includes configuration management and quality assurance documents from the GCS project. Volume 4 contains six appendices: A. Software Accomplishment Summary for the Guidance and Control Software Project; B. Software Configuration Index for the Guidance and Control Software Project; C. Configuration Management Records for the Guidance and Control Software Project; D. Software Quality Assurance Records for the Guidance and Control Software Project; E. Problem Report for the Pluto Implementation of the Guidance and Control Software Project; and F. Support Documentation Change Reports for the Guidance and Control Software Project.

Hayhurst, Kelly J.↗

NASA NTRS2022

Recommendations on the Use of Commercial-Off-The-Shelf (COTS) Electrical, Electronic, and Electromechanical (EEE) Parts for NASA Missions - Phase II

This assessment had two Phases. Phase I captured NASA Centers’ current practices for commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) Electrical, Electronic, and Electromechanical (EEE) parts 1 used in spaceflight systems and ground support equipment (available at https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20205011579) [ref. 1]. The Phase II report provides guidance for selecting and using COTS parts in NASA missions. The approaches proposed in this report differ from current agency practices. This top-level executive summary touches on these new approaches for using COTS parts but does not provide the detailed information that is critical in understanding the rationale behind these new approaches. Readers will need to read the entire report to gain full understanding and effectively use the recommendations herein. NASA’s historical approach to selecting and applying parts has been to define certain parts, primarily specific classes of military specification (MIL-SPEC) parts, as “standard”, leaving all others, including COTS parts, as nonstandard. Standard parts typically are used without further testing (“use-as-is”). Nonstandard parts are subjected to initial screening and subsequent lot acceptance testing of representative samples from each procured lot per MIL-SPEC or similar requirements. Decades later, top-tier commercial part manufacturers have evolved significant manufacturing, statistical control, and technological improvements that can now provide parts as reliable or more reliable than MIL-SPEC parts, when used within their datasheet limits. Concurrently, the space science and exploration community’s needs demand technological advances unavailable with MIL-SPEC parts. This ongoing change necessitates using COTS parts for space missions. Properly selected COTS parts in appropriate applications can offer performance and supply availability advantages compared to MIL-SPEC parts. Their utility and demonstrated reliability result from large volumes and automated production and testing processes. However, careful review and a thorough understanding of their specifications (i.e., datasheet limitations) is needed, and verifying that manufacturer specifications and reliability meet space hardware application needs are necessary. This report recommends MIL-SPEC screening and non-radiation-related lot acceptance testing be reduced or eliminated in cases where evidence of sufficient quality and reliability exists for COTS parts. The extent of NASA's insight into COTS manufacturers and the amount and nature of the needed evidence will differ by mission and will likely be driven by a mission's resources and associated risk posture. To facilitate this goal, two new terminologies have been defined and described: “Industry Leading Parts Manufacturer (ILPM)” and “Established COTS parts.” An ILPM is a COTS manufacturer that produces high quality and reliable parts. Some parts produced by ILPMs, defined as Established COTS parts, do not need any additional MIL-SPEC or NASA screening and lot acceptance testing to be used in space applications. This report provides guidance for selecting, procuring, and applying COTS parts and for performing part-, board-, and system-level COTS parts verification. The recommendation to select Established COTS parts from ILPMs will assure those COTS parts will have comparable quality to corresponding MIL-SPEC parts. Selecting, applying, and verifying Established COTS parts from ILPMs requires a holistic team approach, engaging parts engineers, circuit designers, quality, reliability, and systems engineers, procurement specialists, radiation specialists, avionics leads, and program/project managers. A mission-specific approach tailored to a project’s Mission, Environment, Applications and Lifetime (MEAL) [ref. 2] requirements should be developed and approved by program/project managers. Any associated risks should be clearly identified, quantified, mitigated, and/or accepted. Different approaches are recommended according to program/project Risk Classes A, B, C, and D [ref. 3] and human-rated missions [ref. 4]: 1. Recommend Classes A and B and human-rated missions consider a “MIL-SPEC parts- based design” approach. ”MIL-SPEC parts-based design” approach is one in which most parts are MIL-SPEC parts and Established COTS parts from ILPMs are used only when an equivalent MIL-SPEC part does not meet functional or size, weight, and power (SWaP) or performance requirements, or is not available. 2. Recommend Classes D and Sub-D missions consider a “System of COTS” approach. “System of COTS” approach is one which most parts are Established COTS parts from ILPMs. 3. Recommend Class C missions determine which approach is the best for their projects; that is, use either a “MIL-SPEC parts-based design” approach, “System of COTS” approach, or a combined approach utilizing elements of both. This report intends to provide guidance in using COTS parts for NASA missions with risk classifications of A through D and human-rated missions; but it does not address the costs of using COTS parts. Costs of using COTS parts in different NASA mission classes can vary significantly even if the same parts are used in different risk postures, due to differing verification levels needed. The guidance does not distinguish between critical or non-critical systems, and a given project will need to apply the appropriate guidance based on their risk posture. The intended audience of this report are NASA personnel and commercial practitioners who support NASA’s spaceflight missions, including spaceflight program or project managers, parts engineers, parts manufacturers, radiation engineers, avionics engineers, system engineers, circuit design engineers, reliability engineers, safety and mission assurance (SMA) personnel, and parts procurement specialists. The NEPP Program will perform a pathfinder study to explore implementing the guidance in this NESC report. An ILPM verification process is not the same as conventional vendor qualification processes performed according to military standards and specifications. This NESC report intends to provide guidance in utilizing available parts data from ILPM manufacturers for parts assurance assessments needed for NASA missions. The report also captured the current practices from DoD and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in Section 10. Note each DoD and FAA report was provided by the corresponding agencies regarding their practices, which are independent from the NESC recommendations in the report.

Commercial-Off-The-Shelf↗

NASA NTRS2008

Testing HyDE on ADAPT

The IVHM Project in the Aviation Safety Program has funded research in electrical power system (EPS) health management. This problem domain contains both discrete and continuous behavior, and thus is directly relevant for the hybrid diagnostic tool HyDE. In FY2007 work was performed to expand the HyDE diagnosis model of the ADAPT system. The work completed resulted in a HyDE model with the capability to diagnose five times the number of ADAPT components previously tested. The expanded diagnosis model passed a corresponding set of new ADAPT fault injection scenario tests with no incorrect faults reported. The time required for the HyDE diagnostic system to isolate the fault varied widely between tests; this variance was reduced by tuning HyDE input parameters. These results and other diagnostic design trade-offs are discussed. Finally, possible future improvements for both the HyDE diagnostic model and HyDE itself are presented.

Sweet, Adam↗

NASA NTRS2019

Safe and Optimal Techniques Enabling Recovery, Integrity, and Assurance

There is a trend in the aviation industry to go from federated to integrated computing systems. Combining a number of traditional stand-alone federated systems into an integrated common platform (called Integrated Modular Avionics, IMA) has the benefit of increased power efficiency, reduced support hardware, and reduced cabling. However, changing from federated to integrated has a significant impact on the system architecture and hence the process of how avionic systems are to be analyzed. Traditional approaches to safety analysis become inefficient when functional boundaries can no longer be assumed for failure independence and fault isolation. In this report, we describe a tool that we developed to accelerate the safety engineer's ability to perform safety analysis of IMA systems through modeling, as well as optimize the system engineer's ability to develop a system through architecture synthesis. This work was the result of a three-year research effort called SOTERIA (Safe and Optimal Techniques Enabling Recovery, Integrity, and Assurance). We developed a compositional modeling language that supports rapid development, modification, and evaluation of architectures. The modeling language is structured such that the end-user defines a library of components with information on component reliability, connectivity, and fault propagation logic. The system model is built by instantiating the components from the library, connecting the components, and identifying the top-level faults of interest. Our tool is compositional in that the end-user only needs to define safety aspects at the component level. The tool takes the model and automatically synthesizes both the qualitative and quantitative safety analyses. We go further by allowing users to describe system information such as components to use in an architecture and their connection compatibility and automatically synthesize an architecture that meets the top-level probability target adhering to end-user specified constraints. This capability allows users to rapidly explore a design space..

Siu, Kit Y.↗

NASA NTRS2022

NASA System-Wide Safety Wildland Firefighting Operations Workshop Report

On March 9-11, 2022, NASA’s System-Wide Safety Wildland Firefighting Operations Workshop engaged the broader wildland firefighting management ecosystem in a safety-oriented discussion via a virtual platform. This enabled a better understanding of how NASA and community expertise can be leveraged in the safe development of current and future firefighting systems and operations. The goals of the workshop were to: (1) identify and prioritize the top safety-oriented risks, gaps in capabilities, and emerging technologies to enhance wildland firefighting for both near-term and far-term concepts, with a specific focus on aviation operations and (2) engage the stakeholder community in defining emergent safety-oriented scope, roles, responsibilities, and procedures for agents undergoing increasingly complex wildland firefighting operations in information-rich, but uncertain environments. Workshop participants were solicited from wildland firefighting stakeholders across government, industry, and academia. All levels of government were engaged, as NASA sought attendees from federal, state, local, and tribal government agencies. Industry participants from traditional wildland firefighting domains such as data visualization and equipment manufacturers were invited, and corporate attendees from novel application domains such as aerial robotics and autonomous systems were present as well. The top three findings were as follows: (1) Enhancing situation awareness is a safety priority, especially in the use of aerial assets; (2) Timely access to information along with data fusion and integrated displays will enhance safety-critical decision-making both inside and outside aviation contexts; and (3) Tailorable standards and common operating pictures in the field will enhance inter-agency cooperation in the wildland firefighting lifecycle and enable the optimal use of limited resources such as aerial assets. The workshop helped inform NASA of the relevant safety-related wildland firefighting concerns and aided the broader ecosystem in understanding the potential safety-oriented role NASA might play in this community. Increased engagement with crucial governmental stakeholders (e.g., U.S. Forest Service, CAL FIRE, etc.) along with industry partners in cutting- edge information -centric domains is a fundamental next step. Additionally, the workshop findings will help define the first of a series of operationally challenging demonstrations, held in concert with strategic ecosystem partners, known as the Safety Demonstrator Series for NASA’s System-Wide Safety project. The first demonstration is set in the wildland firefighting application domain and will: (1) examine high risk operational scenarios to reduce their overall risk via services, functions or capabilities that act as risk mitigators (or transfer that risk to automated systems better able to tolerate it) and (2) explore novel tools and technologies that will enhance safety margins by enabling non-traditional or neoteric operational paradigms.

wildland firefighting↗

DOE OSTI2021

H2@Airports (Workshop Summary Report)

This report serves as the proceedings of the H2@Airports Workshop held virtually by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) in collaboration with the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) and Department of Defense (DOD), November 4-6, 2020. Presentations from the workshop can be found at H2@Airports Workshop: https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/h2airports-workshop. The workshop was held to assess the state of the art for electric aircraft and airport applications specifically using hydrogen fuel cells, to discuss operational requirements and lessons learned on early fuel cell aviation and airport projects, to understand current technology gaps, to identify collaborative research and development (R&D) opportunities, to highlight codes, standards, safety, and regulatory challenges, and to identify potential actions that address them. Experts and stakeholders from industry, government, and academia met to discuss the current state of the art of hydrogen and fuel cell technologies and the requirements for using these technologies in aviation applications and land-based applications at airports. This report summarizes the discussions and diverse opinions expressed at the workshop.

08 HYDROGEN↗

NASA NTRS2007

Air Data Report Improves Flight Safety

NASA's Aviation Safety Program in the NASA Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate, which seeks to make aviation safer by developing tools for flight data analysis and interpretation and then by transferring these tools to the aviation industry, sponsored the development of Morning Report software. The software, created at Ames Research Center with the assistance of the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, seeks to detect atypicalities without any predefined parameters-it spots deviations and highlights them. In 2004, Sagem Avionics Inc. entered a licensing agreement with NASA for the commercialization of the Morning Report software, and also licensed the NASA Aviation Data Integration System (ADIS) tool, which allows for the integration of data from disparate sources into the flight data analysis process. Sagem Avionics incorporated the Morning Report tool into its AGS product, a comprehensive flight operations monitoring system that helps users detect irregular or divergent practices, technical flaws, and problems that might develop when aircraft operate outside of normal procedures. Sagem developed AGS in collaboration with airlines, so that the system takes into account their technical evolutions and needs, and each airline is able to easily perform specific treatments and to build its own flight data analysis system. Further, the AGS is designed to support any aircraft and flight data recorders.

Source record↗

NASA NTRS2001

The Conference Proceedings of the 2001 Air Transport Research Society (ATRS) of the WCTR Society

The ATRS held its Annual conference at Jeju Island, Korea in July 2001. The conference was a success with nearly 140 participants including 70 presenters. This report contains presentations from Volume 1 on the following: Airline and Travel Agent Relationships in Asia;Benchmarking Aviation Safety in the Commercial Airline Industry;Impact of Frequent Flyer Program on the Demand for Air Travel; Application of Genetic Algorithm on Airline Schedule;The Effects of Dual Carrier Designation and Partial Liberalization: The Case of Canada;Defense of Air Carriers and Air Agencies in FAA Enforcement proceedin gs - Damage Control Before the Case Arises; Cost Incentives for Airline Mergers? - An examination on the cost impact of U.S. airline mergers and acquisitions;Airport Regulation, Airline Competition and Canada's Airport System; Airline Competition: The Case of Israel's Domestic Doupoly; Non-Financial Indicators of Airline Distress: A Conceptual Approach;and Airport Privatization: An Empirical Analysis of Financial and Operational Efficiency.

Lee, Yeong-Heok↗

NASA NTRS1971

The practical application of mishap data in Army aircraft system safety programs

The means are discussed by which the the United States Army Board for Aviation Accident Research (USABAAR) now utilizes the vast store of historical accident data in the application of the system safety concept for developmental aircraft. USABAAR serves as the central agency for the Army Accident Prevention Program which includes the receipt, processing, and analysis of all data and information related to Army aircraft accident experience. It is pointed out that methods which served the cause of accident prevention so well in the past are no longer adequate and that traditional parameters used to measure mishap experience have become obsolete. USABAAR has developed, and recently put into use, completely revised accident reporting forms which greatly expand the scope and detail of information provided as a result of investigation. This and other factors which have resulted in an improved data system are discussed in detail.

James T. Darrah, Jr↗

NASA NTRS2015

Certification Considerations for Adaptive Systems

Advanced capabilities planned for the next generation of aircraft, including those that will operate within the Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen), will necessarily include complex new algorithms and non-traditional software elements. These aircraft will likely incorporate adaptive control algorithms that will provide enhanced safety, autonomy, and robustness during adverse conditions. Unmanned aircraft will operate alongside manned aircraft in the National Airspace (NAS), with intelligent software performing the high-level decision-making functions normally performed by human pilots. Even human-piloted aircraft will necessarily include more autonomy. However, there are serious barriers to the deployment of new capabilities, especially for those based upon software including adaptive control (AC) and artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms. Current civil aviation certification processes are based on the idea that the correct behavior of a system must be completely specified and verified prior to operation. This report by Rockwell Collins and SIFT documents our comprehensive study of the state of the art in intelligent and adaptive algorithms for the civil aviation domain, categorizing the approaches used and identifying gaps and challenges associated with certification of each approach.

Bhattacharyya, Siddhartha↗

NASA NTRS2021

Detect-and-Avoid Safety and Operational Suitability Analysis using an Electro-Optical/Infared Sensor Model

This report documents a closed-loop analysis of an DAA system using a Electro/Optical sensor model. Safety and operational suitability metrics are computed. Results show that the safety metrics are most sensitive to the angular rate accuracy of the intruder aircraft. Trade-off between safety and operationl suitability metrics is discussed. Results from this work directly inform the requirements of an electro/optical sensors for detect-and-avoid.

Detect-and-avoid↗

NASA NTRS2006

Steering Aircraft Clear of Choppy Air

AeroTech Research (U.S.A.), Inc., a leader in turbulence-detection and warning systems, has been involved with NASA Aviation Safety research since 1998. AeroTech served as a contractor for the TPAWS government/industry development project, and was funded by NASA to develop the E-Turb Mode Radar algorithms and the TAPS software. (Other contributors to this project include the National Center for Atmospheric Research, the FAA, North Carolina State University, and the Research Triangle Institute.) The radar algorithms combine an aircraft's turbulenceresponse characteristics with radar measurements to determine the predicted turbulence loads the aircraft will experience, and present this information to the pilot. The TAPS software monitors and processes onboard aircraft sensor data; generates automatic reports when an aircraft encounters turbulence and a set turbulence threshold is exceeded; and then displays the reports and underlying information to ground personnel to improve situational awareness of the location and the severity of the turbulence encounter.

Source record↗