Independent evaluation strategy-based new aircraft type workload evaluation airworthiness conformity verification method

Abstract

The invention relates to the technical field of civil aircraft cockpit design, in particular to a new aircraft type workload assessment airworthiness conformity verification method based on an independent assessment strategy. According to the method, a flight scene set is defined, a verification scene set, a reference scene set and a comparison scene set are selected from the flight scene set, and a tested unit is selected according to the background and experience of the unit. Objective data and subjective data collected by the test flight and the simulator test are used for analyzing the fidelity and rationality of the workload. And comprehensively analyzing multi-party data to confirm whether the workload of the flight crew is safe and acceptable, thereby providing comprehensive evaluation and description for the seaworthiness of a new aircraft type.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] The invention relates to the technical field of civil aircraft cockpit design, and in particular to a new aircraft model workload assessment airworthiness compliance verification method based on an independent assessment strategy. Background Art

[0002] With the continuous progress of science and technology, the air traffic industry and the civil aviation industry are continuing to flourish. Aircraft have become an increasingly important means of transportation, so aviation safety has become particularly important. Aviation safety is not only related to the safety of personal life and property, but also to the social stability and international image of a country. However, global aviation accidents are still happening. The results of previous aviation accident investigations and studies have shown that more than 70% of flight accidents are caused by human factors, among which improper decision-making and operation of the crew are the most direct causes. Most of the improper decision-making and operation behaviors of the aircraft crew during the flight process can be considered to be caused by excessive workload of the flight crew. Studies have shown that about 70% of flight accidents occur during the climb and approach landing process with high workload, and in the flight accidents in the past 20 years, about 35% of the flight accidents are related to excessive workload of the flight crew. Therefore, crew workload assessment is often used as an important parameter for evaluating the overall ergonomic design level of the cockpit. Research on crew workload assessment is also increasingly important in improving flight safety and reducing flight accidents. The current airworthiness requirements for cockpit system safety are established based on the ergonomics design requirements for crew workload assessment. Therefore, the airworthiness compliance design based on the ergonomics level of crew workload assessment is not only responsible for the flight safety of civil aircraft, but also a reflection of the people-oriented advanced civil aircraft cockpit design concept.

[0003] Traditional cockpit workload assessment is a static, functional, and subjective evaluation system that cannot describe the detailed process of pilot operation in detail. Moreover, this evaluation system is generally analyzed and evaluated in isolation at certain design nodes, lacking comprehensive and integrated consideration of the flight crew's task behavior and workload during the design process. Therefore, a workload assessment method that can take the pilot's human factors as the core and is based on dynamic scenarios and objective quantitative evaluation is needed to complete the evaluation of cockpit workload design. Article 25.1523 of the Airworthiness Standards for Transport Category Aircraft of the Civil Aviation Regulations of China Part 25 (hereinafter referred to as CCAR Part 25) describes the airworthiness requirements based on actual flight scenarios, starting from the crew's job functions and workload, considering the minimum flight crew workload in the cockpit to ensure flight safety.

[0004] The foreign civil aviation industry developed early, and the requirements for cockpit workload assessment in the early airworthiness certification process were relatively low. Boeing, Airbus and other companies completed the research and development and application of their early models (such as A300, B717 and other models). With the improvement of aviation safety awareness, the requirements for cockpit workload assessment have gradually increased and become more comprehensive. Its subsequent models are based on a large amount of operating experience of early models, inheritance and improvement of human-machine interface design. Through direct comparison with the cockpit human-machine interface design of corresponding early models and simultaneous scenario-based workload tests / flight tests, direct or indirect comparison methods are used to show that the cockpit human-machine interface design of the new family-based models has no obvious defects and is more reasonable, meeting the airworthiness safety requirements, thus completing the relevant airworthiness clause compliance demonstration work for models such as A320 and B737.

[0005] Although the domestic civil aviation manufacturing industry started late, it has developed rapidly. In the newly developed aircraft models, the entire cockpit or some functional modules may have a series of novel and complex integrated design features, and there is no similar human-machine interface design at home and abroad. At this time, the minimum flight crew workload in the cockpit must be evaluated independently, that is, the evaluation system is evaluated as a relatively independent system component. This method does not need to be compared with other systems, but only needs to evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of the system itself. This method is suitable for when the new design system is essentially different from all existing verified systems and there is no suitable reference (benchmark) system for direct or indirect comparison. CCAR 25, Section 25.1523 and related advisory circulars do not have independent evaluation strategies for the new model workload assessment airworthiness compliance verification methods, processes and compliance criteria. That is, in the absence of a reference design, how to conduct a workload analysis based on actual flight scenarios, and based on the actual scenario test or test flight, based on the subjective and objective data obtained by measurement, the method of obtaining whether the minimum flight crew workload corresponding to the cockpit of this model is acceptable through criteria is a blank in the field of engineering practice. Summary of the invention

[0006] The present invention provides a feasible method for evaluating the airworthiness compliance of a new aircraft model based on an independent evaluation strategy. The method obtains subjective and objective measurement data of a minimum flight crew through scenario analysis, simulator testing and special test flights. The workload and airworthiness compliance status of the new aircraft model are obtained by combing and analyzing the data.

[0007] The method of the present invention includes four parts: flight scenario library, scenario analysis, workload assessment test and test flight, and workload airworthiness compliance assessment, and specifically includes the following steps:

[0008] Determine the definition of the flight scenario set encountered in operation based on personnel, aircraft and environmental factors; determine the verification scenario set for minimum flight crew workload assessment from the flight scenario set; determine the benchmark scenario set and comparison scenario set for minimum flight crew workload assessment based on the verification scenario set;

[0009] Select the appropriate number of test crews based on their flight experience, age, and background;

[0010] An appropriate number of test crews will conduct flight tests and simulator tests on the comparison scenario set, and collect experimental data to evaluate the simulator fidelity and data credibility;

[0011] Through special test flight activities, test flights of benchmark scenario sets are conducted to collect and analyze subjective and objective data of the crew;

[0012] Conduct simulator tests of the verification scenario set with an appropriate number of test units to confirm the high workload of the benchmark scenario and the reasonable workload supported by the data;

[0013] Conduct data analysis and workload airworthiness compliance statement, combine multi-party analysis data of verification, benchmark and comparison scenario sets, as well as data obtained from simulator tests and test flights, conduct comprehensive analysis to confirm whether the workload of the minimum flight crew of the new aircraft model is reasonable, and ultimately evaluate its airworthiness safety.

[0014] Furthermore, an analysis was conducted based on the results of the aircraft-level safety analysis (FHA), the typical operating environment of the aircraft model, complex design features, the minimum master equipment list (MMEL), typical flight missions and the division of responsibilities of the flight crew, and a verification scenario set was selected based on the basic job functions and operation types of the crew specified in Appendix D of CCAR 25.

[0015] Furthermore, timeline analysis and workload severity evaluation were performed on multiple verification scenarios, and several scenarios with the highest workload were selected from all verification scenario sets and included in the benchmark scenario set.

[0016] Furthermore, typical normal operation scenarios and low-risk failure scenarios are selected from the verification scenario set to form a comparison scenario set.

[0017] Furthermore, the appropriate number of test units is selected, which at least meets the following conditions: 1) It can represent that the test units have moderate driving skills and are representative of the model users; 2) The number of test units is statistically significant.

[0018] Furthermore, the flight tests and simulator tests of each scenario in the scenario set are compared to collect subjective and objective data. The objective data include heart rate, eye movements, hand movements, and sounds. The subjective data are collected by the crew's subjective evaluation of the workload, including filling out the Bedford form, NASA-TLX form, and crew opinion form.

[0019] Furthermore, the subjective data and objective data obtained in the comparison scenario set can be used to compare and analyze and verify the data of the benchmark scenario set.

[0020] Furthermore, the objective data collected by the minimum flight crew during the special test flight included data such as heart rate, and the subjective data consisted of the crew's subjective evaluation of the workload, including data such as filling out the NASA-TLX form after the test.

[0021] Furthermore, flight tests and simulator tests of each scenario in the verification scenario set are conducted to collect subjective and objective data. The objective data include heart rate, eye movements, hand movements, and sounds. The subjective data are collected by the crew's subjective evaluation of the workload, including filling out the Bedford form, NASA-TLX form, and crew opinion form.

[0022] The present invention has the following beneficial effects:

[0023] By defining flight scenario sets, verification scenario sets, and comparison scenario sets, the method effectively screens out scenarios suitable for evaluation, including normal operation, low-risk failures, and high workload situations. The above method helps capture the diverse operating environments and workloads that new aircraft models may face.

[0024] The method combines multiple factors such as aircraft-level safety analysis (FHA), typical operating environment of the aircraft model, complex design features, minimum master equipment list (MMEL), flight missions and crew responsibilities for analysis. This ensures that the evaluation method is comprehensive and integrated, and can cover various operating scenarios and workloads that new aircraft models may face.

[0025] Through test flights and simulator tests, objective data including heart rate, eye movements, hand movements, sounds, etc., as well as subjective evaluations of workload by crew members, such as the NASA-TLX table, are collected. This comprehensive data collection and analysis method helps to comprehensively evaluate whether the workload of new aircraft models is reasonable, thereby improving the efficiency and accuracy of airworthiness review.

[0026] The appropriate test crews were selected based on their flight experience, age, background and other factors to ensure the representativeness and statistical significance of the evaluation. This helps to generalize and applicability the evaluation results, while ensuring the reliability and credibility of the data. This method solves the problem of no reference design and evidence collection in the workload evaluation of new aircraft models by establishing a mutual verification and comparative analysis method. The above method not only improves the guarantee of airworthiness safety, but also ensures that the operational workload level of new aircraft models meets airworthiness standards and safety requirements.

[0027] In summary, this method comprehensively considers the operating scenarios in various dimensions, adopts the methods of analysis, test flight, and simulator testing, and solves the problem of workload assessment and airworthiness certification of new aircraft models without reference design through mutual verification and comparative analysis and testing, improves the efficiency of airworthiness review, and ensures that the workload level of new aircraft models is airworthy and safe. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

[0028] Figure 1 It is a flow chart of a specific embodiment of the present invention. DETAILED DESCRIPTION

[0029] The following will be combined with the drawings in the embodiments of the present invention to clearly and completely describe the technical solutions in the embodiments of the present invention. Obviously, the described embodiments are only part of the embodiments of the present invention, not all of the embodiments. Based on the embodiments of the present invention, all other embodiments obtained by ordinary technicians in this field without creative work are within the scope of protection of the present invention.

[0030] In order to make the above-mentioned objects, features and advantages of the present invention more obvious and easy to understand, the present invention is further described in detail below with reference to the accompanying drawings and specific embodiments.

[0031] Figure 1 A flow chart of a new aircraft model workload assessment airworthiness compliance verification method based on an independent assessment strategy provided by the present invention. Figure 1 Among them, 1 is the flight scenario library of the new aircraft model (forming a flight scenario set from aspects such as environment, aircraft, and personnel), 2 is the content of scenario analysis, specifically including the verification scenario set 5, benchmark scenario set 6, and comparison scenario set 7 framed by boxes below. 3 is the workload assessment test and test flight, specifically including the comparison scenario set test flight and data collection and analysis 9, comparison scenario set simulator test and data collection and analysis 10, benchmark scenario test flight and data collection and analysis 11, verification scenario simulator test and data collection and analysis 12, framed by boxes below; 4 is the workload airworthiness compliance statement; and 8 is the appropriate number of participating crews.

[0032] The flow chart of the new aircraft workload assessment airworthiness compliance verification method based on the independent assessment strategy mainly includes the following steps:

[0033] S1: Determine the validation scenario set 5 for minimum flight crew workload assessment from the flight scenario set 1;

[0034] S2: Benchmark scenario set 6 based on the minimum flight crew workload assessment determined in validation scenario set 5;

[0035] S3: Comparison scenario set 7 based on the minimum flight crew workload assessment determined in verification scenario set 5;

[0036] S4: Select appropriate number of test crews 8 according to their flight experience, age and background;

[0037] S5: An appropriate number of test crews 8 conduct flight tests and simulator tests of the comparison scenario set 7, and collect experimental data for evaluating simulator fidelity and data credibility;

[0038] S6: Conduct test flights of benchmark scenario set 6 through special test flight activities, and collect and analyze subjective and objective data of the crew;

[0039] S7: Conduct simulator tests of the verification scenario set 5 with an appropriate number of test units 8 to confirm the high workload of the benchmark scenario and the reasonable workload supported by the data;

[0040] S8: Conduct data analysis and workload airworthiness compliance statement, combine multi-party analysis data of verification, benchmark and comparison scenario sets, as well as data obtained from simulator tests and test flights, conduct comprehensive analysis to confirm whether the workload of the minimum flight crew of the new aircraft model is reasonable, and ultimately evaluate its airworthiness safety.

[0041] In step 1, the human-machine-environment factors are comprehensively considered to give a definition of the flight scenario set 1 that may be encountered in all operations. Then, through the engineering analysis method, analysis is conducted from aspects including but not limited to the aircraft-level safety analysis (FHA) results, typical operating environment of the aircraft type, novel and complex integrated design features, minimum main equipment list (MMEL), typical flight missions, and minimum flight crew division of responsibilities. In combination with the basic job functions of the crew specified in Appendix D of CCAR25, workload factors, and approved operation types, scenarios with strictness, coverage, and representativeness are selected to form the verification scenario set 5.

[0042] After forming the verification scenario set 5 in step 2, perform timeline analysis on each scenario in the verification scenario set, and analyze the severity of the scenario from the aspects of task complexity, time urgency, human-machine function allocation, proportion of multi-function time of the crew, novelty of the systems involved, and special operating conditions based on the severity of the workload. Select several scenarios with the highest workload from all the verification scenario sets and include them in the benchmark scenario set 6.

[0043] After forming the verification scenario set 5 in step 3, select some low-risk and easy-to-repeat scenarios from the verification scenario set to form a comparison scenario set. The minimum flight crew comparison scenario set is mainly based on typical normal operation scenarios (such as non-precision approach, arrival and departure procedures, etc.) and low-risk failure scenarios (single navigation source failure, etc.), and select appropriate scenarios to be included in the comparison scenario set 7.

[0044] So far, the scenario analysis 2 of this method has been completed. Now we will carry out the workload assessment test and test flight 3 related implementation projects.

[0045] Step 4: Select the appropriate number of crews 8. The selection of the appropriate number of test crews is done by considering factors such as different flight experience, age, background, etc., and matching the crews that meet the requirements, and ensuring that 1) the requirements can represent that the test crews have medium driving skills and are representative of aircraft users; 2) the number of test crews is statistically significant. Generally speaking, it is more appropriate to select 11 or more test crews.

[0046] In step 5, the test crew 8 conducts test flights (9) and simulator tests 10 for each scenario in the comparison scenario set. The test personnel collect objective and subjective data of the crew during and after the test. Through the comparison scenario set test and data analysis, it is shown that the fidelity of the simulator itself used for subsequent tests and the data obtained by the simulator test have satisfactory credibility, and the obtained data are valid. Among them, the objective data of the minimum flight crew in this step include but are not limited to heart rate, eye movement, hand movement, sound and other data, and the subjective data are subjectively evaluated by the crew on the workload, including but not limited to filling in the Bedford form, NASA-TLX form, crew opinion form and other data.

[0047] Step 6: Conduct a test flight 11 of the benchmark scenario set through special test flights or in combination with other professional test flight activities, collect and analyze subjective and objective data of the crew, and use the test flight data of the benchmark scenario set to show that the workload of each scenario subject in the benchmark scenario set representing a high workload is still acceptable during the actual test flight.

[0048] In some embodiments, since the benchmark scenario corresponds to a higher risk test flight subject, the special test flight in this step or the test flight activities combined with other professions may only correspond to scene fragments and cannot be fully corresponded to the scenes required in the benchmark scenario set. At this time, the correspondence and explanation are carried out through supplementary data analysis or supplementary scene analysis.

[0049] In some embodiments, since the verification of the test flight subjects corresponding to the benchmark scenario is a test flight combined with multiple subjects, the number of test crews may differ from the test crews (8) in the comparison scenario and the verification scenario in terms of personnel and quantity. At this time, the corresponding and explanation are performed through supplementary data analysis or supplementary scenario analysis. The data obtained in this step can be used to compare and analyze the benchmark scenario data set in step 2 and verify it. Among them, the objective data of the minimum flight crew collected in the special test flight of this step or in the test flight activities combined with other professions include but are not limited to heart rate and other data, and the subjective data is the subjective evaluation of the workload by the crew, including but not limited to data such as filling in the NASA-TLX form after the test.

[0050] In step 7, the test crew 8 conducts a simulator test 12 of the verification scenario set. The test personnel collect objective and subjective data of the crew during and after the test. Through the test and data analysis based on the verification scenario set, it is confirmed that 1) the crew workload of the benchmark scenario subjects in the verification scenario is higher than that of other verification scenarios; 2) the objective and subjective data of the crew obtained by the verification scenario set can show that the workload is reasonable and acceptable. Among them, the objective data of the minimum flight crew in this step include but are not limited to heart rate, eye movement, hand movement, sound and other data, and the subjective data are subjectively evaluated by the crew on the workload, including but not limited to filling in the Bedford form, NASA-TLX form, crew opinion form and other data. In addition, the simulator test of the verification scenario set conducted in this step, under the premise that there are no other differences that have an unacceptable impact on the simulator test, and the scenario subjects repeated in the comparison scenario set in the previous step 5, can use the subjective and objective data of the crew collected in the simulator test of the comparison scenario that has been completed.

[0051] Step 8 performs data analysis and workload airworthiness compliance statement 4, combines multiple scenario analysis 3 data such as verification scenario set, benchmark scenario set and comparison scenario set, as well as workload assessment simulator test and test flight 2 based on each scenario set and the obtained test flight and test data, and comprehensively analyzes and confirms whether the workload of the minimum flight crew of the new aircraft model is acceptable, and finally confirms the airworthiness safety of the workload assessment of the new aircraft model. In some embodiments, the submitted materials used as airworthiness compliance statement in this step include but are not limited to the verification scenario set analysis in step 1, the benchmark scenario set analysis in step 2, the test analysis report of the comparison scenario set in step 5, and the simulator test analysis report of the verification scenario set in step 7.

[0052] The above is a preferred embodiment of the present invention. It should be pointed out that a person skilled in the art can make several improvements and modifications without departing from the principle of the present invention. These improvements and modifications are also considered to be within the scope of protection of the present invention.

Claims

1. A new aircraft model workload assessment airworthiness compliance verification method based on an independent assessment strategy, including scenario analysis and workload assessment tests and test flights, characterized in that: The following steps are involved: Determine the definition of the set of flight scenarios encountered in operations based on personnel, aircraft, and environmental factors (1); Determine a verification scenario set (5) for minimum flight crew workload assessment from the flight scenario set (1); determine a benchmark scenario set (6) and a comparison scenario set (7) for minimum flight crew workload assessment based on the verification scenario set (5); Select the appropriate number of test crews based on their flight experience, age, and background (8); An appropriate number of test crews (8) conduct test flights and simulator tests on the comparison scenario set (7), and collect experimental data for evaluating simulator fidelity and data credibility; Through special test flight activities, test flights of the benchmark scenario set (6) are carried out to collect and analyze subjective and objective data of the crew; Conduct simulator tests of the verification scenario set (5) with an appropriate number of test units (8) to confirm the high workload of the benchmark scenario and a reasonable workload baseline supported by data; Conduct data analysis and workload airworthiness compliance statement, combine multi-party analysis data of verification, benchmark and comparison scenario sets, as well as data obtained from simulator tests and test flights, conduct comprehensive analysis to confirm whether the workload of the minimum flight crew of the new aircraft model is reasonable, and ultimately evaluate its airworthiness safety.

2. The method for verifying airworthiness compliance of a new aircraft model workload assessment based on an independent assessment strategy according to claim 1 is characterized in that: The verification scenario set is selected based on the results of the aircraft safety analysis (FHA), the typical operating environment of the aircraft model, complex design features, the minimum master equipment list (MMEL), typical flight missions and the division of responsibilities of the flight crew, and combined with the basic job functions and operation types of the crew specified in Appendix D of CCAR 25 (5).

3. The method for verifying airworthiness compliance of new aircraft workload assessment based on independent assessment strategy according to claim 1 is characterized in that: The verification scenarios are analyzed for timeline and workload severity, and the scenarios with the highest workload are selected from all the verification scenario sets (5) and included in the benchmark scenario set (6).

4. The method for verifying airworthiness compliance of a new aircraft model workload assessment based on an independent assessment strategy according to claim 1 is characterized in that: Typical normal operation scenarios and low-risk failure scenarios are selected from the verification scenario set (5) to form a comparison scenario set (7).

5. The method for verifying airworthiness compliance of new aircraft workload assessment based on independent assessment strategy according to claim 1 is characterized in that: The selection of an appropriate number of test units shall at least meet the following conditions: 1) It can demonstrate that the test units have moderate driving skills and are representative of the target users of the model; 2) The number of test units is statistically significant.

6. The method for verifying airworthiness compliance of new aircraft workload assessment based on independent assessment strategy according to claim 1 is characterized in that: Compare the various scenario test flights and simulator tests in the scenario set (7) to collect subjective data and objective data. The objective data includes heart rate, eye movement, hand movement, and sound. The subjective data is collected by the crew's subjective evaluation of the workload, including filling out the Bedford form, NASA-TLX form, and crew opinion form.

7. The method for verifying airworthiness compliance of new aircraft workload assessment based on independent assessment strategy according to claim 1 is characterized in that: The subjective data and objective data obtained from the comparison scene set (7) can be used to compare and analyze the data of the benchmark scene set (5).

8. The method for verifying airworthiness compliance of new aircraft workload assessment based on independent assessment strategy according to claim 1 is characterized in that: The objective data of the minimum flight crew collected during the special test flight include heart rate and other data, and the subjective data are the crew's subjective evaluation of the workload, including data such as filling out the NASA-TLX form after the test.

9. The method for verifying airworthiness compliance of new aircraft workload assessment based on independent assessment strategy according to claim 1 is characterized in that: Verify that each scenario in the scenario set (5) is tested by flight and simulator to collect subjective and objective data. The objective data includes heart rate, eye movement, hand movement, and sound. The subjective data is collected by the crew's subjective evaluation of the workload, including filling out the Bedford form, NASA-TLX form, and crew opinion form.

Images