China
Africa
Explore chapters and articles related to this topic
Filling the Gaps in the Human Factors Certification Net
Published in Sidney Dekker, Erik Hollnagel, Coping with Computers in the Cockpit, 2018
The CDU is the main interactive interface between the crew and the FMS. Some newer designs include cursor and mouse-pad features (Boeing 777) but these features are not yet considered as standard and will not be addressed here. The standard interface includes a screen, line select keys, alpha numeric keys, specific function keys and warning lights. This design is typical to all manufacturers, but unlike the typewriter, there is no standard position for the letter keys. In addition, each specific function key has a different use in each design. The NAV key for example; on one design is used for navigating while on another design it is used for planning only. The FPLN (Flight Plan) key; on one design used for planning while on the other used for navigating. These features increase the risk of negative transfer when transitioning between systems.
Operating a flight
Published in Peter J. Bruce, Yi Gao, John M. C. King, Airline Operations, 2018
Aircraft navigation is a primary function of the FMS. Utilizing Global Positioning System (GPS) and Inertial Reference System (IRS) inputs, the FMS calculates aircraft position and maintains Flight Plan track when required. The FMS sends this information for display to the EFIS, Navigation Display (ND), or Multifunction Display (MFD). Given the importance of the FMS, accurate programming is essential. Other essential checks that will be performed prior to each and every flight are first, the exterior walk around, where a Flight Crew member conducts an external check of the aircraft, its critical components and systems, and second, the oxygen check procedure, where each operating crew member will ensure that his/her crew station oxygen mask is operating correctly. This is essential in the event that the aircraft experiences a decompression.
Automation
Published in Harry W. Orlady, Linda M. Orlady, John K. Lauber, Human Factors in Multi-Crew Flight Operations, 2017
Harry W. Orlady, Linda M. Orlady, John K. Lauber
The FMS integrates a number of different systems to provide automatic lateral and vertical navigation as well as performance optimization. The components included in the FMS can vary by aircraft type, by manufacturer, as well as by operator specifications. For example, the FMS on a Boeing B737-300 (through B737-800) is comprised of, but not limited to four component systems: Autopilot/Flight Director Systems (AFDS),Autothrottle (A/T), andInertial Reference Systems (IRSs) and, on later aircraft, Global Positioning Satellites (GPSs) and satellite communications (SATCOM),Flight Management Computer/Control Display Units (FMC/CDU).
Mastering Automation: New Airline Pilots’ Perspective
Published in International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 2021
Kassandra Kim Yoke Soo, Timothy J. Mavin, Yoriko Kikkawa
A more recent report by the Flight Deck Automation Working Group (Federal Aviation Administration, 2013) stated that there have been significant changes to the use of aircraft automation since its last review in the late 1990s. These changes include increased aircraft onboard capabilities for flight path management using (a) more capable flight management computer (FMC; sometimes referred to as flight management system (FMS); (b) more advanced navigation systems such as area navigation (RNAV), required navigation performance (RNP), and global positioning system (GPS); and (c) more advanced digital data presentation contained within the primary flight display (PFD), navigation display (ND), mode control panel (MCP), multi-function display (MFD), and control display unit (CDU) (see Figure 1). Pilots were required to adapt to such changes; however, this report highlighted that “current training methods, training devices, the time allotted for training, and content may not provide the flight crews with the knowledge, skills, and judgment to successfully manage flight path management systems” (Federal Aviation Administration, 2013, p. 4).
Driving aviation forward; contrasting driving automation and aviation automation
Published in Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 2019
Victoria A. Banks, Katherine L. Plant, Neville A. Stanton
In contrast to driving, automated solutions in aviation are used to assist the pilot in maintaining control of the aircraft. One of the core systems relating to cockpit automation is the Flight Management System (FMS). The FMS is used by pilots to assist them in flight planning, navigation, performance management and flight-progress monitoring activities (Sarter and Woods 1992). The first FMS was created in the mid-1970s by Sperry Flight Systems and became part of the standard avionic suite for Boeing 757 and 767 aircraft in 1982 (Liden 1994). By 1984, FMS became standard on both Airbus and Boeing aircraft. FMS represented a revolutionary step forward in the design of aircraft as it reduced workload significantly and led to a reduction in the number of flight crew required within the cockpit – from three to two. Of course, aviation automation has a much greater history. As with driving, automated solutions initially were designed to assist the pilot in the completion of physical tasks. For example, early Autopilot concepts were first engineered in the 1920s and 1930s which helped pilots keep the aircraft flying straight (Chialastri 2012). During the 1960s, there was an influx of innovative design solutions to help enhance system safety including the development of automatic throttles (used to maintain a preset speed), flight directors (to help pilots achieve pre-selected targets) and navigation instruments. These all play a role in automating the more tactical and strategic aspects of flight operations.
Trajectory optimization of an innovative-turbofan-powered aircraft based on particle swarm approach for low environmental impact
Published in Cogent Engineering, 2019
Ramón Fernando Colmenares-Quintero, Germán David Góez-Sánchez, Juan Carlos Colmenares-Quintero
Efforts to improve the performance of commercial aircraft and reduce pollution levels have been made in aircraft design (Carlos, Quintero, & Carlo, 2009) (Berton & Guynn, 2012) and flight route planning systems. In that sense, most commercial airplanes have advanced navigation systems to plan their route. They are called Flight Management Systems (FMS) and are based on performance to enable the aircraft to fly between two geographic coordinates that depend on a flight plan. FMS are bound to a fixed flight plan. As a result, unexpected events in the flight route—such as conflicts with other aircraft or weather changes—cause altitude or direction variations that had not been previously considered and, consequently, are not shown in the trajectories. Recently, experiments have been conducted with FMS platforms in simulated environments and different flight conditions have been presented to the route planner; this enabled to analyze the results of different configurations (Paglione, Musialek, Pankok, & Young, 2011).