Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “flight safety”

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 55 records · Page 3
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2017

Quantifying Pilot Contribution to Flight Safety during Drive Shaft Failure

Accident statistics cite the flight crew as a causal factor in over 60% of large transport aircraft fatal accidents. Yet, a well-trained and well-qualified pilot is acknowledged as the critical center point of aircraft systems safety and an integral safety component of the entire commercial aviation system. The latter statement, while generally accepted, cannot be verified because little or no quantitative data exists on how and how many accidents/incidents are averted by crew actions. A joint NASA/FAA high-fidelity motion-base simulation experiment specifically addressed this void by collecting data to quantify the human (pilot) contribution to safety-of-flight and the methods they use in today's National Airspace System. A human-in-the-loop test was conducted using the FAA's Oklahoma City Flight Simulation Branch Level D-certified B-737-800 simulator to evaluate the pilot's contribution to safety-of-flight during routine air carrier flight operations and in response to aircraft system failures. These data are fundamental to and critical for the design and development of future increasingly autonomous systems that can better support the human in the cockpit. Eighteen U.S. airline crews flew various normal and non-normal procedures over a two-day period and their actions were recorded in response to failures. To quantify the human's contribution to safety of flight, crew complement was used as the experiment independent variable in a between-subjects design. Pilot actions and performance during single pilot and reduced crew operations were measured for comparison against the normal two-crew complement during normal and non-normal situations. This paper details the crew's actions, including decision-making, and responses while dealing with a drive shaft failure - one of 6 non-normal events that were simulated in this experiment.

Kramer, Lynda J.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Exploring Digital Transformation for NASA Nuclear Flight Safety

The U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA)’s Nuclear Flight Safety discipline is exploring opportunities to combine incremental advancements in many contributing areas in a way that produces a transformative change for how work is performed. More specifically, after providing some general NASA and space nuclear policy background, the authors will describe concepts and efforts that enable: (i) the use of objectives-d riven approaches (in concert with internal and external constraints) to establish a mission risk posture; (ii) the use of that risk posture in the planning process to risk-inform the selection of Safety and Mission Success (S&MS) methods and models; (iii) use of model-based and machine-assisted techniques to manage the complex and ponderous amount of information and interfaces that typify spaceflight efforts; (iv ) the means by which that infrastructure can directly feed an assurance case (including use of systems modelling language, ontological formulation, and semantic web technology) so as to address known weaknesses in our ability to communicate and manage that complexity; and (v) use of that case-assured framework to demonstrate that one did the adequate and sufficient S&MS work and that the S&MS work was done competently.

Donald Helton↗
NASA NTRS2005

Autonomous Flight Safety System Road Test

On February 3, 2005, Kennedy Space Center (KSC) conducted the first Autonomous Flight Safety System (AFSS) test on a moving vehicle -- a van driven around the KSC industrial area. A subset of the Phase III design was used consisting of a single computer, GPS receiver, and UPS antenna. The description and results of this road test are described in this report.AFSS is a joint KSC and Wallops Flight Facility project that is in its third phase of development. AFSS is an independent subsystem intended for use with Expendable Launch Vehicles that uses tracking data from redundant onboard sensors to autonomously make flight termination decisions using software-based rules implemented on redundant flight processors. The goals of this project are to increase capabilities by allowing launches from locations that do not have or cannot afford extensive ground-based range safety assets, to decrease range costs, and to decrease reaction time for special situations.

Simpson, James C.↗
NASA NTRS1972

Survey of space flight safety systems.

Preventive and remedial conceptual approaches may be employed to enhance the safety of space flight operations. The preventive approach makes use of components of high reliability and the incorporation of redundancy in crew safety-related functions. According to the second conceptual approach the means are to be provided to cope with accidents when they arise. The remedial means include onboard systems, pre-positioned aids, and earth-launched systems. Reports or papers dealing with rescue and survival systems of various types are considered, and a summary of the results of space escape, rescue, and survivability investigations is presented.

Fleisig, R.↗
NASA NTRS2017

Quantifying Pilot Contribution to Flight Safety during Hydraulic Systems Failure

Accident statistics cite the flight crew as a causal factor in over 60% of large transport aircraft fatal accidents. Yet, a well-trained and well-qualified pilot is acknowledged as the critical center point of aircraft systems safety and an integral safety component of the entire commercial aviation system. The latter statement, while generally accepted, cannot be verified because little or no quantitative data exists on how and how many accidents/incidents are averted by crew actions. A joint NASA/FAA high-fidelity motion-base human-in-the-loop test was conducted using a Level D certified Boeing 737-800 simulator to evaluate the pilot's contribution to safety-of-flight during routine air carrier flight operations and in response to aircraft system failures. To quantify the human's contribution, crew complement (two-crew, reduced crew, single pilot) was used as the independent variable in a between-subjects design. This paper details the crew's actions, including decision-making, and responses while dealing with a hydraulic systems leak - one of 6 total non-normal events that were simulated in this experiment.

Kramer, Lynda J.↗
NASA NTRS1980

Development of SCR Aircraft takeoff and landing procedures for community noise abatement and their impact on flight safety

Piloted simulator studies to determine takeoff and landing procedures for a supersonic cruise transport concept that result in predicted community noise levels which meet current Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) standards are discussed. The results indicate that with the use of advanced procedures, the subject simulated aircraft meets the FAA traded noise levels during takeoff and landing utilizing average flight crew skills. The advanced takeoff procedures developed involved violating three of the current Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) noise test conditions. These were: (1) thrust cutbacks at altitudes below 214 meters (700 ft); (2) thrust cutback level below those presently allowed; and (3) configuration change, other than raising the landing gear. It was not necessary to violate any FAR noise test conditions during landing approach. It was determined that the advanced procedures developed do not compromise flight safety. Automation of some of the aircraft functions reduced pilot workload, and the development of a simple head-up display to assist in the takeoff flight mode proved to be adequate.

Grantham, W. D.↗
NASA NTRS2022

Maintenance Human Factors and Flight Safety

This chapter will chronicle the journey of the community of operators, regulators, and researchers who embarked upon the task of identifying critical human factors of maintenance and inspection, establishing a database and research tools, developing practical strategies for reducing the risks of maintenance and inspection errors, and understanding its critical role in preserving flight safety. We will take a historical perspective, developing a timeline that is largely driven by key events such as accidents and regulatory/government actions and initiatives. Part 1 focuses on how the field of maintenance human factors was built, beginning in the late 1980’s. Part 2 describes the development of methods and tools for meeting the maintenance human factors challenges identified. Finally, Part 3 updates the original chapter by focusing on issues that have persisted or emerged since 2010.

maintenance↗
NASA NTRS2013

Speech Recognition Interfaces Improve Flight Safety

"Alpha, Golf, November, Echo, Zulu." "Sierra, Alpha, Golf, Echo, Sierra." "Lima, Hotel, Yankee." It looks like some strange word game, but the combinations of words above actually communicate the first three points of a flight plan from Albany, New York to Florence, South Carolina. Spoken by air traffic controllers and pilots, the aviation industry s standard International Civil Aviation Organization phonetic alphabet uses words to represent letters. The first letter of each word in the series is combined to spell waypoints, or reference points, used in flight navigation. The first waypoint above is AGNEZ (alpha for A, golf for G, etc.). The second is SAGES, and the third is LHY. For pilots of general aviation aircraft, the traditional method of entering the letters of each waypoint into a GPS device is a time-consuming process. For each of the 16 waypoints required for the complete flight plan from Albany to Florence, the pilot uses a knob to scroll through each letter of the alphabet. It takes approximately 5 minutes of the pilot s focused attention to complete this particular plan. Entering such a long flight plan into a GPS can pose a safety hazard because it can take the pilot s attention from other critical tasks like scanning gauges or avoiding other aircraft. For more than five decades, NASA has supported research and development in aviation safety, including through its Vehicle Systems Safety Technology (VSST) program, which works to advance safer and more capable flight decks (cockpits) in aircraft. Randy Bailey, a lead aerospace engineer in the VSST program at Langley Research Center, says the technology in cockpits is directly related to flight safety. For example, "GPS navigation systems are wonderful as far as improving a pilot s ability to navigate, but if you can find ways to reduce the draw of the pilot s attention into the cockpit while using the GPS, it could potentially improve safety," he says.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS2004

Space-Based Telemetry And Range Safety Flight Demonstration #1

The basic ability of STARS to maintain a satellite communications link with TDRSS satellites during dynamic aircraft flights was successfully demonstrated during FD 1. The Range Safety and Range User systems' link margins were measured. The ability to acquire/reacquire and maintain lock between a high-dynamic vehicle and a satellite-based system was demonstrated. The Range Safety system simultaneously received and processed command links from space and ground transmitters and provided near real-time Range Safety telemetry to DFRC, which then sent it in near real time to KSC, GSFC, and WFF for monitoring. The GPS receiver maintained track except during extremely dynamic maneuvers. The Range User system sent data at three different data rates. There were excellent cooperation and support from the different Centers, contractors, and Ranges. A large amount of data was recorded and extensive post-flight analysis was performed. The Range User TDRSS link margin met or exceeded the predicted performance at three different data rates. The Range Safety launch-head link margins generally agreed with the predicted performance. The UPS positions and velocities agreed with those from tracking radar to within about 20 m and a few rn/s. The link margins for the Range Safety TDRSS telemetry link were less than expected. The link margin for one TDRSS command link LPT channel was occasionally much less than the other. Additional post-flight testing has yet to identify the root causes of these results. There were many lessons learned from this first set of test flights. The most important one is that more time and testing are needed for each step to deal with the inevitable problems. It is vital that these lessons be among the primary areas of study that will carry over from FD#1 to FD#2, which is currently scheduled for early FY05 at DFRC and will use a specially designed Ku-band phased array antenna for the Range User system. The next series of flight demonstrations scheduled for late 2004 at DFRC will incorporate many lessons learned from FD#1. A specially designed Ku-band phased array antenna will be used with the Range User system. A test flight on a hypersonic vehicle is planned by the end of 2006.

Demspm. Erol↗
NASA NTRS2011

Ares I-X Range Safety Flight Envelope Analysis

Ares I-X was the first test flight of NASA's Constellation Program's Ares I Crew Launch Vehicle designed to provide manned access to low Earth orbit. As a one-time test flight, the Air Force's 45th Space Wing required a series of Range Safety analysis data products to be developed for the specified launch date and mission trajectory prior to granting flight approval on the Eastern Range. The range safety data package is required to ensure that the public, launch area, and launch complex personnel and resources are provided with an acceptable level of safety and that all aspects of prelaunch and launch operations adhere to applicable public laws. The analysis data products, defined in the Air Force Space Command Manual 91-710, Volume 2, consisted of a nominal trajectory, three sigma trajectory envelopes, stage impact footprints, acoustic intensity contours, trajectory turn angles resulting from potential vehicle malfunctions (including flight software failures), characterization of potential debris, and debris impact footprints. These data products were developed under the auspices of the Constellation's Program Launch Constellation Range Safety Panel and its Range Safety Trajectory Working Group with the intent of beginning the framework for the operational vehicle data products and providing programmatic review and oversight. A multi-center NASA team in conjunction with the 45th Space Wing, collaborated within the Trajectory Working Group forum to define the data product development processes, performed the analyses necessary to generate the data products, and performed independent verification and validation of the data products. This paper outlines the Range Safety data requirements and provides an overview of the processes established to develop both the data products and the individual analyses used to develop the data products, and it summarizes the results of the analyses required for the Ares I-X launch.

Starr, Brett R.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

NASA’S Current Efforts and Applications of NDE to Improve Space Flight Safety

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) continues to push the boundary of manned flight. Current mission profiles include flights to the moon and mars. Many of these missions require advance manufacturing and planned off planet resource utilization. As NASA continues to develop highly advance materials and manufacturing techniques to meet these mission profiles, inspection of these increasingly complex parts has had to evolve as well. Additive manufacturing is coming to the forefront as a primary manufacturing technique but offers unique challenges when inspection and certification are required. NASA has been working diligently to be a leader in developing and utilizing inspection techniques capable of inspecting these highly advanced parts. Additionally additive manufacturing techniques can also be used to build parts in space and provides a vehicle for in-situ resource utilization for off world missions. As NASA and its commercial crew partners move forward inspection techniques will need to continue to advance to ensure safe manned space flight. In this talk NASA will highlight many of the advanced nondestructive evaluation efforts going on across the agency. As well as highlights for points of infusion for helping NASA meet it’s future missions.

NDE↗
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 NTRS2002

"We Freeze to Please": A History of NASA's Icing Research Tunnel and the Quest for Flight Safety

The formation of ice on wings and other control surfaces of airplanes is one of the oldest and most vexing problems that aircraft engineers and scientists continue to face. While no easy, comprehensive answers exist, the staff at NASAs Icing Research Tunnel (IRT) at the Glenn Research Center in Cleveland has done pioneering work to make flight safer for experimental, commercial, and military customers. The National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA) initiated government research on aircraft icing in the 1930s at its Langley facility in Virginia. Icing research shifted to the NACA's Cleveland facility in the 1940s. Initially there was little focus on icing at either location, as these facilities were more concerned with aerodynamics and engine development. With several high-profile fatal crashes of air mail carriers, however, the NACA soon realized the need for a leading research facility devoted to icing prevention and removal. The IRT began operation in 1944 and, despite renovations and periodic attempts to shut it down, has continued to function productively for almost 60 years. In part because icing has proved so problematic over time, IRT researchers have been unusually open-minded in experimenting with a wide variety of substances, devices, and techniques. Early icing prevention experiments involved grease, pumping hot engine exhaust onto the wings, glycerin soap, mechanical and inflatable "boots," and even corn syrup. The IRT staff also looked abroad for ideas and later tried a German and Soviet technique of electromagnetism, to no avail. More recently, European polymer fluids have been more promising. The IRT even periodically had "amateur nights" in which a dentist's coating for children's teeth proved unequal to the demands of super-cooled water droplets blown at 100 miles per hour. Despite many research dead-ends, IRT researchers have achieved great success over the years. They have developed important computer models, such as the LEWICE software, and made significant contributions to prevent ice buildup on turbine-powered commercial aircraft, helicopters, and military planes.

Leary, William M.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Design and Testing of an Approach to Automated In-Flight Safety Risk Management for sUAS Operations

An onboard risk management automation design is presented based on run-time assurance principles, as well as the concept for In-Time Aviation Safety Management Systems (IASMS) as described by the National Academies. The automation is designed to operate independently of the autopilot and perform real-time risk assessment spanning multiple classes of hazards, predict constraint violations, and track autopilot states. In the event of elevated risk conditions or predicted constraint violations, the automation will select from a set of available contingencies and trigger autopilot mode changes if necessary to mitigate risk exposure. The onboard automation also informs the remote operator/pilot of what the independent monitor is observing and any contingency decisions or actions that may arise during flight. Details of an implementation of this design and results of verification and validation activities, as required to meet stringent NASA software and system assurance standards, are also presented. This includes simulation and flight testing using small unmanned aircraft systems.

Ersin Ancel↗
NASA NTRS1987

Cockpit Resource Management (CRM): A tool for improved flight safety (United Airlines CRM training)

The approach and methodology used in developing cockpit management skills is effective because of the following features: (1) A comparative method of learning is used enabling crewmembers to study different forms of teamwork. (2) The learning comes about as a result of crewmembers learning from one another instead of from an expert instructor. (3) Key elements of cockpit teamwork and effective management are studied so that crewmembers can determine how these elements can improve safety and problem solving. (4) Critique among the crewmembers themselves rather than from outsiders is used as a common focusing point for crews to provide feedback to one another on how each can be a more effective crewmember. (5) The training is continuous in the sense that it becomes part of recurrent, upgrade, and other forms of crewmember training and development. And (6) the training results in sound and genuine insights that come about through solid education as opposed to tutoring, coaching, or telling crewmembers how to behave more effectively.

Carroll, J. E.↗