Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Function Allocation”

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.

At least 37 records · Page 2
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2022

Functional Allocation Approach for Separation Assurance for Remotely Piloted Aircraft

A functional analysis framework is employed with the objective of exploring the separation assurance function for the remotely piloted aircraft system. The architecture of the remotely piloted aircraft system—highlighting several of the component systems and the functions resident onboard the remotely piloted aircraft and in the ground control station—is described to provide the context for understanding the complexity of the said system for a detailed functional analysis. The interactions between the agents of the separation assurance function belonging to the air traffic service provider, remotely piloted aircraft system operator and remotely piloted aircraft are described. Separation assurance by air traffic control, remain well clear by the remotely piloted aircraft system and collision avoidance onboard the remotely piloted aircraft are briefly discussed. The functional analysis framework is illustrated by relating the agents to the actions of (a) acquiring the surveillance information, (b) checking for conflicts, (c) creating the solutions for resolving conflicts and (d) implementing the conflict resolution solutions. This example is offered as a template by which a more detailed functional analysis of this and other functions could be developed. The architecture of the remotely piloted aircraft system is described to aid this process.

Functional analysis↗
NASA NTRS2022

A Framework for Dynamic Architecture and Functional Allocations for Increasing Airspace Autonomy

To enable scalability of air travel for use cases such as cargo delivery, it is anticipated that future air traffic operations will involve unmanned aircraft operated by remote pilots. Of particular interest are schemes where a small number of pilots operate a large number of vehicles, mitigating high cost and pilot shortage issues. Such architectures require increased levels of automation and supervisory control modes. They also require ensuring safe operations when the command and control link to the vehicle is degraded or lost completely, rendering the vehicle autonomous. To evaluate these variable and dynamic architectures, this paper will present a framework for decomposing the functions necessary to ensure safe, orderly, and expeditious air travel, assessing the agents in the system, and classifying the levels of autonomy. Then, an example allocation to agents of roles for the function of separation assurance is presented, highlighting the dependency of the allocation on three main factors: time criticality of a potential separation violation, the ratio of pilots to vehicles, and the loss of the command and control link.

air traffic management, function allocation, auton↗
NASA NTRS2022

A Framework for Dynamic Architecture and Functional Allocations for Increasing Airspace Autonomy

To enable scalability of air travel for use cases such as cargo delivery, it is anticipated that future air traffic operations will involve unmanned aircraft operated by remote pilots. Of particular interest are schemes where a small number of pilots operate a large number of vehicles, mitigating high cost and pilot shortage issues. Such architectures require increased levels of automation and supervisory control modes. They also require ensuring safe operations when the command and control link to the vehicle is degraded or lost completely, rendering the vehicle autonomous. To evaluate these variable and dynamic architectures, this paper will present a framework for decomposing the functions necessary to ensure safe, orderly, and expeditious air travel, assessing the agents in the system, and classifying the levels of autonomy. Then, an example allocation to agents of roles for the function of separation assurance is presented, highlighting the dependency of the allocation on three main factors; time criticality of a potential separation violation, the ratio of pilots to vehicles, and the loss of the command and control link.

air traffic management↗
NASA NTRS2015

How To Make the Most of Your Human: Design Considerations for Single Pilot Operations

Reconsidering the function allocation between automation and the pilot in the flight deck is the next step in improving aviation safety. The current allocation, based on who does what best, makes poor use of the pilot's resources and abilities. In some cases it may actually handicap pilots from performing their role. Improving pilot performance first lies in defining the role of the pilot - why a human is needed in the first place. The next step is allocating functions based on the needs of that role (rather than fitness), then using automation to target specific human weaknesses in performing that role. Examples are provided (some of which could be implemented in conventional cockpits now). Along the way, the definition of human error and the idea that eliminating/automating the pilot will reduce instances of human error will be challenged.

Schutte, Paul C.↗
NASA NTRS2014

A Closer Look at Automation Behavior During a Human-in-the-Loop Simulation

A 2012 Human-In-The-Loop air traffic control simulation investigated a gradual paradigm-shift in the allocation of functions between operators and automation. Air traffic controllers staffed five adjacent high-altitude en route sectors, and during the course of a two-week experiment, worked traffic under four different function allocation concepts aligned with increasingly mature NextGen operational environments. These NextGen time-frames ranged from near current-day operations to nearly fully-automated control, in which the ground systems automation was responsible for detecting conflicts, issuing strategic and tactical resolutions, and alerting controllers to exceptional circumstances. This paper continues the investigations reported in previous publications. Analyses of data surrounding the conflict-resolution task serve as the context in which we investigate the interactions between controllers and the automation.

Human-Automation Interaction↗
NASA NTRS2014

Human-Automation Cooperation for Separation Assurance in Future NextGen Environments

A 2012 Human-In-The-Loop air traffic control simulation investigated a gradual paradigm-shift in the allocation of functions between operators and automation. Air traffic controllers staffed five adjacent high-altitude en route sectors, and during the course of a two-week experiment, worked traffic under different function-allocation approaches aligned with four increasingly mature NextGen operational environments. These NextGen time-frames ranged from near current-day operations to nearly fully-automated control, in which the ground systems automation was responsible for detecting conflicts, issuing strategic and tactical resolutions, and alerting the controller to exceptional circumstances. Results indicate that overall performance was best in the most automated NextGen environment. Safe operations were achieved in this environment for twice todays peak airspace capacity, while being rated by the controllers as highly acceptable. However, results show that sector operations were not always safe; separation violations did in fact occur. This paper will describe in detail the simulation conducted, as well discuss important results and their implications.

air traffic control↗
NASA NTRS2011

Allocation of Functions in a Far-Term Air Traffic Control Environment

A human-in-the-loop exploration of a ground-based automated separation assurance concept was conducted that involved the allocation of certain functions between humans and automation. This exploration included operations that were sustained for prolonged periods of time with high levels of traffic in the presence of convective weather and scheduling constraints. An investigation into the acceptability of the defined roles and performance of tasks was conducted where it was found that the participants rated the concept and allocation of functions with a high level of acceptability. However, issues were encountered with the automation related to the detection of and response to tactical conflicts. Lower ratings were given on account of these concerns, and it was found that a key contributor to the underlying problems was transitioning aircraft and the uncertainty of their trajectories. Stemming from those results, participants responded that they would rather have direct control over aircraft transitions as well as more control over the tactical conflict resolution automation. In contrast, participants responded that they would rather have the automation place aircraft back on trajectory, and perform weather avoidance and scheduling tasks.

Homola, Jeffrey↗
NASA NTRS2013

Transitioning Resolution Responsibility between the Controller and Automation Team in Simulated NextGen Separation Assurance

As part of an ongoing research effort on separation assurance and functional allocation in NextGen, a controller- in-the-loop study with ground-based automation was conducted at NASA Ames' Airspace Operations Laboratory in August 2012 to investigate the potential impact of introducing self-separating aircraft in progressively advanced NextGen timeframes. From this larger study, the current exploratory analysis of controller-automation interaction styles focuses on the last and most far-term time frame. Measurements were recorded that firstly verified the continued operational validity of this iteration of the ground-based functional allocation automation concept in forecast traffic densities up to 2x that of current day high altitude en-route sectors. Additionally, with greater levels of fully automated conflict detection and resolution as well as the introduction of intervention functionality, objective and subjective analyses showed a range of passive to active controller- automation interaction styles between the participants. Not only did the controllers work with the automation to meet their safety and capacity goals in the simulated future NextGen timeframe, they did so in different ways and with different attitudes of trust/use of the automation. Taken as a whole, the results showed that the prototyped controller-automation functional allocation framework was very flexible and successful overall.

NextGen↗
NASA NTRS1995

Mode Transitions in Glass Cockpit Aircraft: Results of a Field Study

One consequence of increased levels of automation in complex control systems is the presence of modes. A mode is a particular configuration of a control system that defines how human command inputs are interpreted. In complex systems, modes also often determine a specific allocation of control authority between the human and automated systems. Even in simple static devices (e.g., electronic watches, word processors), the presence of modes has been found to cause problems in either-the acquisition or production of skilled performance. Many of these problems arise due to the fact that the selection of a mode causes device behavior to be mediated by hidden internal state information. For these simple systems, many of these interaction problems can be solved by the design of appropriate feedback to communicate internal state information to the human operator. In complex dynamic systems, however, the design issues associated with modes seem to trancend the problem of merely communicating internal state information via displayed feedback. In complex supervisory control systems (e.g., aircraft, spacecraft, military command and control), a key function of modes is the selection of a particular configuration of control authority between the human operator and automated control systems. One mode may result in full manual control, another may result in a mix of manual and automatic control, while a third may result in full automatic control over the entire system. The human operator selects an appropriate mode as a function of current goals, operating conditions, and operating procedures. Thus, the operator is put in a position of essentially trying to control two coupled dynamic systems: the target system itself, and also a highly complex suite of automation controlling the target system. From a historical perspective, it should probably not come as a surprise that very little information is available to guide the design of mode-oriented control systems. The topic of function allocation (i.e., the proper division of control authority among human and computer) has a long history in human-machine systems research. Although this research has produced some relevant guidelines, a design approach capable of defining appropriate allocations of control function between the human and automation is not yet available. As a result, the function allocation decision itself has been allocated to the operator, to be performed in real-time, in the operation of mode-oriented control systems. A variety of documented aircraft accidents and incidents suggest that the real-time selection and monitoring of control modes is a weak link in the effective operation of complex supervisory control systems. Research in human-machine systems and human-computer interaction has barely scraped the surface of the problem of understanding how operators manage this task.The purpose of this paper is to present the results of a field study which examined how operators manage mode selection in a complex supervisory control system. Data on mode engagements using the Boeing B757/767 auto-flight system were collected during approach and descent into four major airports in the East Coast of the United States. Protocols documenting mode selection, automatic mode changes, pilot actions, quantitative records of flight-path variables, and verbal reports during and after mode engagements were collected by an observer from the jumpseat. Observations were conducted on two typical trips between three airports. Each trip was be replicated 11 times, which yielded a total of 22 trips and 66 legs on which data were collected. All data collected concerned the same flight numbers, and therefore, the same time of day, same type of aircraft, and identical operational environments (e.g., ATC facilities, weather patterns, traffic flow etc.)

Degani, Asaf↗
NASA NTRS2016

Separation Assurance and Scheduling Coordination in the Arrival Environment

Separation assurance (SA) automation has been proposed as either a ground-based or airborne paradigm. The arrival environment is complex because aircraft are being sequenced and spaced to the arrival fix. This paper examines the effect of the allocation of the SA and scheduling functions on the performance of the system. Two coordination configurations between an SA and an arrival management system are tested using both ground and airborne implementations. All configurations have a conflict detection and resolution (CD&R) system and either an integrated or separated scheduler. Performance metrics are presented for the ground and airborne systems based on arrival traffic headed to Dallas/ Fort Worth International airport. The total delay, time-spacing conformance, and schedule conformance are used to measure efficiency. The goal of the analysis is to use the metrics to identify performance differences between the configurations that are based on different function allocations. A surveillance range limitation of 100 nmi and a time delay for sharing updated trajectory intent of 30 seconds were implemented for the airborne system. Overall, these results indicate that the surveillance range and the sharing of trajectories and aircraft schedules are important factors in determining the efficiency of an airborne arrival management system. These parameters are not relevant to the ground-based system as modeled for this study because it has instantaneous access to all aircraft trajectories and intent. Creating a schedule external to the CD&R and the scheduling conformance system was seen to reduce total delays for the airborne system, and had a minor effect on the ground-based system. The effect of an external scheduler on other metrics was mixed.

function allocation↗
NASA NTRS1997

Wings: A New Paradigm in Human-Centered Design

Many aircraft accidents/incidents investigations cite crew error as a causal factor (Boeing Commercial Airplane Group 1996). Human factors experts suggest that crew error has many underlying causes and should be the start of an accident investigation and not the end. One of those causes, the flight deck design, is correctable. If a flight deck design does not accommodate the human's unique abilities and deficits, crew error may simply be the manifestation of this mismatch. Pilots repeatedly report that they are "behind the aircraft" , i.e., they do not know what the automated aircraft is doing or how the aircraft is doing it until after the fact. Billings (1991) promotes the concept of "human-centered automation"; calling on designers to allocate appropriate control and information to the human. However, there is much ambiguity regarding what it mean's to be human-centered. What often are labeled as "human-centered designs" are actually designs where a human factors expert has been involved in the design process or designs where tests have shown that humans can operate them. While such designs may be excellent, they do not represent designs that are systematically produced according to some set of prescribed methods and procedures. This paper describes a design concept, called Wings, that offers a clearer definition for human-centered design. This new design concept is radically different from current design processes in that the design begins with the human and uses the human body as a metaphor for designing the aircraft. This is not because the human is the most important part of the aircraft (certainly the aircraft would be useless without lift and thrust), but because he is the least understood, the least programmable, and one of the more critical elements. The Wings design concept has three properties: a reversal in the design process, from aerodynamics-, structures-, and propulsion-centered to truly human-centered; a design metaphor that guides function allocation and control and display design; and a deliberate distinction between two fundamental functions of design, to complement and to interpret human performance. The complementary function extends the human's capabilities beyond his or her current limitations - this includes sensing, computation, memory, physical force, and human decision making styles and skills. The interpretive (or hermeneutic, Hollnagel 1991) function translates information, functionality, and commands between the human and the aircraft. The Wings design concept allows the human to remain aware of the aircraft through natural interpretation. It also affords great improvements in system performance by maximizing the human's natural abilities and complementing the human's skills in a natural way. This paper will discuss the Wings design concept by describing the reversal in the traditional design process, the function allocation strategy of Wings, and the functions of complementing and interpreting the human.

Schutte, Paul C.↗
NASA NTRS2012

Design and Evaluation of Nextgen Aircraft Separation Assurance Concepts

To support the development and evaluation of future function allocation concepts for separation assurance systems for the Next Generation Air Transportation System, this paper presents the design and human-in-the-loop evaluation of three feasible function allocation concepts that allocate primary aircraft separation assurance responsibilities and workload to: 1) pilots; 2) air traffic controllers (ATC); and 3) automation. The design of these concepts also included rules of the road, separation assurance burdens for aircraft of different equipage levels, and utilization of advanced weather displays paired with advanced conflict detection and resolution automation. Results of the human-in-the-loop simulation show that: a) all the concepts are robust with respect to weather perturbation; b) concept 1 (pilots) had highest throughput, closest to assigned spacing, and fewest violations of speed and altitude restrictions; c) the energy of the aircraft during the descent phase was better managed in concepts 1 and 2 (pilots and ATC) than in concept 3 (automation), in which the situation awareness of pilots and controllers was lowest, and workload of pilots was highest. The paper also discusses further development of these concepts and their augmentation and integration with future air traffic management tools and systems that are being considered for NextGen.

Johnson, Walter↗
NASA NTRS2000

Robust Inversion and Data Compression in Control Allocation

We present an off-line computational method for control allocation design. The control allocation function delta = F(z)tau = delta (sub 0) (z) mapping commanded body-frame torques to actuator commands is implicitly specified by trim condition delta (sub 0) (z) and by a robust pseudo-inverse problem double vertical line I - G(z) F(z) double vertical line less than epsilon (z) where G(z) is a system Jacobian evaluated at operating point z, z circumflex is an estimate of z, and epsilon (z) less than 1 is a specified error tolerance. The allocation function F(z) = sigma (sub i) psi (z) F (sub i) is computed using a heuristic technique for selecting wavelet basis functions psi and a constrained least-squares criterion for selecting the allocation matrices F (sub i). The method is applied to entry trajectory control allocation for a reusable launch vehicle (X-33).

Hodel, A. Scottedward↗
NASA NTRS2017

Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Integration in the National Airspace System (NAS) Project KDP-C Review

The topics discussed are the UAS-NAS project life-cycle and ARMD thrust flow down, as well as the UAS environments and how we operate in those environments. NASA's Armstrong Flight Research Center at Edwards, CA, is leading a project designed to help integrate unmanned air vehicles into the world around us. The Unmanned Aircraft Systems Integration in the National Airspace System project, or UAS in the NAS, will contribute capabilities designed to reduce technical barriers related to safety and operational challenges associated with enabling routine UAS access to the NAS. The project falls under the Integrated Systems Research Program office managed at NASA Headquarters by the agency's Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate. NASA's four aeronautics research centers - Armstrong, Ames Research Center, Langley Research Center, and Glenn Research Center - are part of the technology development project. With the use and diversity of unmanned aircraft growing rapidly, new uses for these vehicles are constantly being considered. Unmanned aircraft promise new ways of increasing efficiency, reducing costs, enhancing safety and saving lives 460265main_ED10-0132-16_full.jpg Unmanned aircraft systems such as NASA's Global Hawks (above) and Predator B named Ikhana (below), along with numerous other unmanned aircraft systems large and small, are the prime focus of the UAS in the NAS effort to integrate them into the national airspace. Credits: NASA Photos 710580main_ED07-0243-37_full.jpg The UAS in the NAS project envisions performance-based routine access to all segments of the national airspace for all unmanned aircraft system classes, once all safety-related and technical barriers are overcome. The project will provide critical data to such key stakeholders and customers as the Federal Aviation Administration and RTCA Special Committee 203 (formerly the Radio Technical Commission for Aeronautics) by conducting integrated, relevant system-level tests to adequately address safety and operational challenges of national airspace access by unmanned aircraft systems, or UAS. In the process, the project will work with other key stakeholders to define necessary deliverables and products to help enable such access. Within the project, NASA is focusing on five sub-projects. These five focus areas include assurance of safe separation of unmanned aircraft from manned aircraft when flying in the national airspace; safety-critical command and control systems and radio frequencies to enable safe operation of UAS; human factors issues for ground control stations; airworthiness certification standards for UAS avionics and integrated tests and evaluation designed to determine the viability of emerging UAS technology. Five Focus Areas of the UAS Integration in the NAS Project Separation Assurance Provide an assessment of how planned Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen) separation assurance systems, with different functional allocations, perform for UAS in mixed operations with manned aircraft Assess the applicability to UAS and the performance of NASA NextGen separation assurance systems in flight tests with realistic latencies and uncertain trajectories Assess functional allocations ranging from today's ground-based, controller-provided aircraft separation to fully autonomous airborne self-separation Communications Develop data and rationale to obtain appropriate frequency spectrum allocations to enable safe and efficient operation of UAS in the NAS Develop and validate candidate secure safety-critical command and control system/subsystem test equipment for UAS that complies with UAS international/national frequency regulations, standards and recommended practices and minimum operational and aviation system performance standards for UAS Perform analysis to support recommendations for integration of safety-critical command and control systems and air traffic control communications to ensure safe and efficient operation of UAS in the NAS Human Systems Integration Develop a research test bed and database to provide data and proof of concept for GCS - ground control station - operations in the NAS Coordinate with standards organizations to develop human-factors guidelines for GCS operation in the NAS Certification Define a UAS classification scheme and approach to determining Federal Aviation Regulation airworthiness requirements applicable to all UAS digital avionics Provide hazard and risk-related data to support development of type design criteria and best development practices Integrated Tests and Evaluation Integrate and test mature concepts from technical elements to demonstrate and test viability Evaluate the performance of technology development in a relevant environment (full-mission, human-in-the-loop simulations and flight tests)

outreach↗
NASA NTRS1992

Cognition and procedure representational requirements for predictive human performance models

Models and modeling environments for human performance are becoming significant contributors to early system design and analysis procedures. Issues of levels of automation, physical environment, informational environment, and manning requirements are being addressed by such man/machine analysis systems. The research reported here investigates the close interaction between models of human cognition and models that described procedural performance. We describe a methodology for the decomposition of aircrew procedures that supports interaction with models of cognition on the basis of procedures observed; that serves to identify cockpit/avionics information sources and crew information requirements; and that provides the structure to support methods for function allocation among crew and aiding systems. Our approach is to develop an object-oriented, modular, executable software representation of the aircrew, the aircraft, and the procedures necessary to satisfy flight-phase goals. We then encode in a time-based language, taxonomies of the conceptual, relational, and procedural constraints among the cockpit avionics and control system and the aircrew. We have designed and implemented a goals/procedures hierarchic representation sufficient to describe procedural flow in the cockpit. We then execute the procedural representation in simulation software and calculate the values of the flight instruments, aircraft state variables and crew resources using the constraints available from the relationship taxonomies. The system provides a flexible, extensible, manipulative and executable representation of aircrew and procedures that is generally applicable to crew/procedure task-analysis. The representation supports developed methods of intent inference, and is extensible to include issues of information requirements and functional allocation. We are attempting to link the procedural representation to models of cognitive functions to establish several intent inference methods including procedural backtracking with concurrent search, temporal reasoning, and constraint checking for partial ordering of procedures. Finally, the representation is being linked to models of human decision making processes that include heuristic, propositional and prescriptive judgement models that are sensitive to the procedural content in which the valuative functions are being performed.

Corker, K.↗