Cockpit display control iteration evaluation method based on scene

Abstract

The invention relates to the field of aircraft design, in particular to a scene-based cockpit display control iterative evaluation method. Firstly, novel, complex and integrated design features are identified, then display control special assessment including multiple assessment forms is carried out, and potential human factor problems are fully mined. And then risk analysis and mitigation / elimination are carried out, and a human factor expert, a flight crew and a system designer team analyze problem safety risks and take corresponding measures. And finally, carrying out test or test flight subject verification on the basis of a specific scene through iterative evaluation to ensure that problem solving measures are reasonable and effective and are participated by an appropriate number of units. According to the method, the airworthiness safety of the aircraft can be improved more scientifically, systematically and comprehensively, potential human factors can be handled in time, the design process is optimized, and the competitiveness of the aircraft is enhanced.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] The invention relates to the field of aircraft design, and in particular to a scenario-based cockpit display control iterative evaluation method. Background Art

[0002] With the continuous advancement 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 show that more than 70% of flight accidents are caused by human factors (hereinafter referred to as human factors), among which improper decision-making and operation of the flight crew in the cockpit are the most direct causes of accidents. The aircraft cockpit itself has a high degree of integration, many display information and control devices, and has complex human-computer interaction design characteristics. At the same time, as a market-oriented product, the human-computer interaction design of the cockpit is constantly introducing new technologies. A large part of the improper decision-making and operation behavior of the cockpit aircraft crew in the above-mentioned flight accidents can be considered to be caused by the flight crew's improper collection / analysis / disposal of the currently highly novel, complex and integrated cockpit display and control. Therefore, optimizing the design and control of cockpit display information and control processes, providing clear and unambiguous information to the crew and supporting correct decision-making operations are the key contents of cockpit display control human factor design, which is increasingly important in improving flight safety and reducing flight accidents. This 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 display control design evaluation is based on the specific clauses and requirements of the airworthiness standards for transport aircraft in Part 25 of the Civil Aviation Regulations of China (hereinafter referred to as CCAR Part 25) (such as the display device internal field of view requirements, control device accessibility requirements, etc.), and conducts targeted design evaluation and verification of specific clauses around the specific devices involved in the cockpit. This evaluation method is relatively isolated. During the evaluation, there may be products with novel and complex integrated design features, such as automatic flight mode control devices, integrated information display units, etc., whose defects in the human-computer interaction interface may not be discovered, and specific human-computer interaction features cannot be fully analyzed and considered, resulting in the need for design changes in the later stage of design, and even the flight safety during operation may be affected. Therefore, an iterative evaluation method for cockpit display control targeting novel and complex integrated design features is needed. This evaluation method conducts a special evaluation of the potential human factors problems in the display control in a series of scenarios based on the novel and complex integrated design features of the cockpit fed back by the crew in the early design stages, and iterates the design based on the evaluation results to ensure that the functions of various products with novel and complex integrated design features are airworthy and safe, so as to achieve the expected flight safety. Summary of the invention

[0004] The purpose of the present invention is to solve the problems of static isolation and incomplete coverage in the traditional cockpit display control design evaluation. The present invention can realize the whole process monitoring and dynamic scene verification of the cockpit display control design, and provide a scientific, systematic and comprehensive evaluation method for the airworthiness safety verification of the aircraft cockpit display control design. By applying this method, the airworthiness safety of the aircraft cockpit design can be more comprehensively improved, the level of flight accidents can be reduced, the flight safety of civil aircraft can be improved, the design cost of iterative updates can be reduced, and the overall design efficiency of the cockpit can be improved.

[0005] In order to achieve the above object, the present invention adopts the following steps:

[0006] Step 1: Identification of novelty, complexity and integration design features;

[0007] Step 2 shows the control-specific assessment;

[0008] Step 3: Risk analysis and mitigation / elimination;

[0009] Step 4: Iterative evaluation;

[0010] Further, identification of novelty, complexity and integrated design features: Based on the aforementioned definitions of novelty, complexity and integration, corresponding judgment criteria are formulated, and pilots, system designers and human factors design experts are jointly analyzed and evaluated on the human-machine interface of the systems and equipment used by the flight crew in the cockpit, and novel, complex and integrated design features and corresponding products and functions in the cockpit are identified and determined;

[0011] Novelty identification includes: evaluating whether new technologies or new applications of existing technologies are introduced into the cockpit design;

[0012] Integration identification is to evaluate the impact of the system integration level on the interaction or dependence between the various systems used by the flight crew to operate the aircraft;

[0013] Complexity identification means designing systems and equipment with complexity or automation level from the perspective of unit use, including both cognitive and operational aspects.

[0014] Further, display control special assessment: During the cockpit development process, through different forms of assessment and scenario-based verification activities, the potential human factors problems when the flight crew uses the system or equipment are fully identified for novel and complex integrated design features;

[0015] Further, risk analysis and mitigation / elimination: Analyze the possible safety risks of the identified potential human factors problems, and adopt corresponding measures based on the principle of risk mitigation or elimination to make the safety risks of the potential human factors problems acceptable;

[0016] Further, iterative evaluation: Based on the safety risk level of different human factors issues and based on risk mitigation or elimination measures, further confirmation and verification of the dynamic simulator platform or test flight subjects based on the iterative design of display control under operational scenarios is carried out as needed.

[0017] Furthermore, a full-process analysis is conducted on the display control content with novel, complex and integrated design features in the cockpit design, and a combined qualitative / quantitative analysis and evaluation method is used to fully identify the novel, complex and integrated design features and potential human factors problems contained in the display control content that is used alone or interconnected with other cockpit equipment in reasonable expected operations by the flight crew, and to form a list of potential human factors problems.

[0018] Furthermore, the analysis includes collecting a list of potential human factors issues through graphic evaluation, static evaluation, sub-task evaluation, full-task evaluation, test flight and dynamic simulator platform test activities.

[0019] Furthermore, the safety risks of potential human factors problems identified in the special control assessment are further analyzed through engineering analysis and supplementary assessment, and the risk levels are confirmed. For potential human factors problems of different risk levels, engineering analysis / supplementary assessment, design optimization, process improvement, and increased training are used to eliminate or mitigate potential human factors problems.

[0020] Furthermore, potential human factors problems and solutions are identified based on the complexity of design features, the likelihood of occurrence, and potential safety risks. After the issues to be confirmed and verified are determined, no less than 3 sets of flight crew evaluations with multi-dimensional differences and representing the general driving level are selected; additional solutions are given to the remaining human factors problems and iterative evaluations are carried out until the solutions are reasonable and effective to achieve the expected safety goals.

[0021] The present invention specifically has the following beneficial technical effects:

[0022] The present invention comprehensively considers the novelty, complexity and integrated design features in the cockpit, and conducts sufficient analysis and evaluation from multiple systems and levels (such as overall layout, dashboard, control device, display system, etc.) to avoid missing important design features and make the evaluation more comprehensive. For example, in novelty identification, it covers many aspects such as new operating methods, procedures, interaction methods and task functions, and comprehensively judges the novelty of the system / component / feature. Using a variety of methods such as graphic evaluation, static evaluation, flight test evaluation, subtask evaluation, full task evaluation, and combining dynamic simulator platform tests and flight test activities, the display control content is evaluated from different angles and stages to fully identify potential human factors problems. For example, for different levels such as the individual system level and the overall layout, the corresponding evaluation methods are used to comprehensively identify various potential human factors problems.

[0023] In the present invention, the safety risks of potential human factors problems are analyzed from the perspective of flight crew use and system design through engineering analysis and supplementary evaluation, and risk levels are formulated. Based on the principle of risk mitigation or elimination, corresponding measures are taken to ensure that safety risks are controllable. For example, different treatment methods are adopted for problems of different risk levels, including engineering analysis / supplementary evaluation, design optimization, program improvement, and increased training to effectively reduce safety risks. Iterative evaluation is carried out to screen and identify potential human factors problems and solutions from multiple aspects, and specific operating scenarios are formulated for problems that need to be confirmed. Through dynamic simulator platform tests or flight test verifications, it is ensured that the solutions are reasonable and effective, meet the expected safety design goals, and continuously improve flight safety.

[0024] Based on comprehensive assessment and risk management, potential human factors problems in cockpit display control design can be discovered and solved in a timely manner, avoiding large-scale changes due to problems in the later stages of design, improving design efficiency and reducing design costs. For example, potential problems can be identified and handled in the early stages to prevent them from accumulating and affecting the design progress. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

[0025] Figure 1 It is a flow chart of a specific embodiment of the present invention; DETAILED DESCRIPTION

[0026] The present invention will be described in detail below with reference to the accompanying drawings and in combination with embodiments. It should be noted that the embodiments and features in the embodiments of the present application can be combined with each other without conflict. Figure 1 , implementation methods include:

[0027] The present invention provides a feasible scenario-based iterative evaluation method for cockpit display control, which collects cockpit display control human-machine interaction problems reported by crews at different design stages by combing through novel and complex integrated design features in the cockpit, and designs special task evaluations for dynamic simulator platforms or test flight subjects to discover potential human factors problems. Risk levels are divided according to the problems found, and differentiated design iterations or compensation measures are implemented. For problems with higher risk levels, their design iteration solutions or compensation measures need to be verified twice to show that their potential human factors problems have been resolved or alleviated, and the safety impact is acceptable.

[0028] See also Figure 1 In the figure, number 1 is for identifying the novel, complex and integrated design features in the cockpit design features; 2 is for conducting a special evaluation of display control; 4 includes static evaluation, graphic evaluation, flight test evaluation, sub-task evaluation and full-task evaluation; 3 is risk analysis and mitigation / elimination, that is, according to the risk classification of potential human factors problems, differentiated risk mitigation or elimination measures are implemented to make the risks controllable; 5 is iterative evaluation, that is, according to the risk mitigation / elimination measures, dynamic simulator platform tests or flight test verifications based on 6 specific operating scenarios are carried out to ensure that the safety impact of potential human factors problems is acceptable; 7 is a team composed of human factors experts, crew members and system designers; 8 is a suitable number of iterative evaluation flight crews.

[0029] Example

[0030] (Step 1) Identification of novelty, complexity and integration design features, corresponding to the appendix of the specification Figure 1 1. Novelty, complexity and integration design feature identification is the starting point of the embodiment of the present invention. This step includes analyzing the design features of the overall cockpit layout, instrument panel design, control components, display system, human-machine interface, automation system, etc., and jointly analyzing the design features of the pilot, system designer, human factors expert (hereinafter referred to as human factors expert, corresponding to the appendix of the manual) Figure 1 7) Identify its novelty, complexity and integration. Design feature identification should follow the principles of scientificity, systematicity and practicality to ensure the accuracy and objectivity of the judgment. Specifically, the methods for identifying novelty, complexity and integration design features include:

[0031] Novelty identification: whether new technologies or new applications of existing technologies are introduced in the cockpit design, such as allowing the crew to operate with new operating procedures or interactive methods, or changing the crew's tasks or responsibilities. Typical introductions of new technologies or new applications of existing technologies include: operating in a new way in an established or new cockpit design (new operating method); new technologies require the addition of unconventional or novel operating procedures (new operating procedures); new designs introduce new operating methods, that is, the flight crew needs to use novel technical intervention systems (new interactive methods); the introduction of new designs brings new functions and changes the traditional tasks or division of responsibilities of the flight crew (new task functions). If the above novel features are identified, the relevant systems / components / features of the aircraft are judged to be novel. In particular, when a system has novel features, its system components also have novel features (such as the flight management system and its related components and features); when a system component has novel features, it is considered that the relevant features of its components also have novel features.

[0032] Integration identification: The system integration level mainly refers to the degree of interaction or dependence between the various systems that affect the flight crew's control of the aircraft. In order to effectively reduce the workload of the flight crew during the performance of flight missions, modern civil aircraft are increasingly adopting automation technology. High system integration refers to the information interconnection and complex information type display between one system and multiple systems, which makes the human-computer interaction level high, and may affect the flight crew's situational awareness of the system's working status. Typical high-integration features include automatic flight mode in the automatic flight system (displayed at the top of the integrated display, the aircraft's thrust mode, vertical guidance mode, lateral navigation mode, approach capability and automatic flight connection mode are displayed to the crew in abbreviated form).

[0033] Complexity identification: Complexity mainly refers to the design of systems and equipment with high complexity or automation from the perspective of crew use, including cognition and control. Cognition mainly refers to the amount of information provided by the cockpit to the crew; control mainly refers to the control of the system or the switching of automation modes. Due to the high degree of automation, the amount of information that needs to be monitored by the crew may increase; at the same time, the conversion control of different automation modes will also increase accordingly, so full attention should also be given to verification.

[0034] (Step 2) Display control special assessment, corresponding to the instruction manual Figure 1 2. This step conducts a comprehensive full-process special evaluation of the display control content of the novel, complex and integrated design features in the cockpit design. The special evaluation adopts a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods, and is jointly conducted by a team consisting of pilots, human factors experts, and system designers (corresponding to the appendix of the manual). Figure 17) including through analysis, evaluation and other methods to fully identify the novel, complex, integrated design features and potential human factors problems contained in the display control content used by the flight crew alone or in conjunction with other cockpit equipment in reasonable expected operations, and to form a list of potential human factors problems, the specific contents of which correspond to the Appendix to the Instructions Figure 1 4, including:

[0035] a) Carry out graphic and text evaluation based on documents and drawings for the novel, complex and integrated design features of display control content at the single system level, identify potential human factors issues of the novel, complex and integrated design features of display control content, and form a list of potential human factors issues;

[0036] b) Conduct static evaluation based on engineering prototypes for novel, complex and integrated design features of display control content at the cockpit overall layout and integrated environment level, identify potential human factors issues of novel, complex and integrated design features of display control content, and form a list of potential human factors issues;

[0037] c) For the display control content of a single system as a whole, in order to fully and comprehensively identify the novel, complex and integrated design features therein, invite multiple crews to conduct various sub-task assessments based on flight operation procedures on a dynamic simulator platform to identify potential human factors problems when flight crews use systems and equipment containing novel, complex and integrated design features in display control content that is used alone or in conjunction with other cockpit equipment in reasonable expected operations, and form a list of potential human factors problems;

[0038] d) For systems or equipment with integrated design features and their interconnected relationships, consider typical route operation scenarios under normal aircraft conditions, scenarios involving system failures, abnormal operating environments or crew errors, etc., invite multiple flight crews to conduct full-mission assessments based on flight scenarios, identify and form a list of potential human factors issues;

[0039] e) Continuously identify potential human factors issues when flight crews use systems and equipment containing novel design features in the expected operation through various flight test activities and dynamic simulator platform tests planned by other R&D design disciplines. Specific identification methods include:

[0040] 1) Based on the subjective comments of the crew on the cockpit display control human-machine interaction design during the test flight, potential human factors issues related to the cockpit display control design are identified from the test flight problem list and included in the potential human factors problem list;

[0041] 2) For the subjective comments of the crew on the human-machine interaction design of the cockpit display control during the test on the dynamic simulator platform, potential human factors problems related to the cockpit display control design are identified from the test problem list and included in the potential human factors problem list.

[0042] (Step 3) Risk analysis and mitigation / elimination, corresponding to the instructions Figure 1 3. This step is aimed at the potential human factors problems identified in the display control special assessment in step 2. A team composed of the crew, human factors experts, and system designers (corresponding to the appendix of the manual) Figure 1 7) Carry out the following activities:

[0043] a) Further analyze the safety risks of potential human factors problems identified in the special assessment of display control in step 2 through engineering analysis and supplementary assessment. The specific implementation methods include:

[0044] 1) Human factors experts and system designers conduct engineering analysis of potential human factors issues from the perspective of flight crew use and system design, and assess safety risks and levels. The safety risk level can be determined based on its relevance to flight safety, the likelihood of an event, and the consequences;

[0045] 2) Invite the flight crew to confirm the conclusions on the safety risks and levels of potential human factors issues.

[0046] b) Based on the principle of risk mitigation or elimination, adopt compensatory measures such as design changes or process improvements, additional training, etc. to make the safety risks of potential human factors in step 2 acceptable, including:

[0047] 1) For potential human factors issues that are considered to pose no safety risks by engineering analysis, submit engineering analysis conclusions and supplementary assessment evidence for explanation;

[0048] 2) For potential human factors problems that have been completed with design optimization and for which engineering analysis and supplementary evaluation can fully demonstrate that the safety risks of the scheme after design optimization have been eliminated, the design optimization evidence, engineering analysis conclusions and supplementary evaluation evidence shall be used to demonstrate that these potential human factors problems have been effectively resolved; 3) For potential human factors problems that the engineering analysis believes have acceptable safety risks, the engineering analysis conclusions and supplementary evaluation evidence involving pilots shall be submitted for explanation;

[0049] 4) For potential human factors issues that require further confirmation and verification, conduct dynamic simulator platform tests or flight test verifications based on specific scenarios to demonstrate that the safety risks of such issues are acceptable based on reasonable compensation measures, and demonstrate the adequacy of the specific clauses of the current CCAR Part 25. The specific implementation method is shown in step 4.

[0050] (Step 4) Iterative evaluation, corresponding to the instructions attached Figure 1 5. This step screens and identifies the potential human factors problems and solutions in step 3, confirms the potential human factors problems that need further confirmation and verification, and conducts iterative evaluation to confirm the rationality and effectiveness of the solutions. The specific implementation methods include:

[0051] a) For the potential human factors issues identified, based on the requirements of the human factors-related clauses in CCAR Part 25, the following aspects are considered to further analyze their impacts and identify potential human factors issues that need to be further confirmed through iterative assessments based on specific operating scenarios:

[0052] 1) The degree of novel and complex integration of design features involved;

[0053] 2) Likelihood of occurrence;

[0054] 3) Potential security risks.

[0055] b) For potential human factors issues that require further evaluation, human factors experts and flight crews jointly develop specific operating scenarios (corresponding to the Appendix of the Manual). Figure 1 6) Through dynamic simulator platform tests or flight test demonstrations based on specific operating scenarios, it is confirmed that these potential human factors problems will not have unacceptable safety impacts on the flight crew's mission based on relevant solutions. Demonstration verification based on specific operating scenarios considers the following aspects:

[0056] 1) According to the design features and potential human factors problems to be evaluated, formulate corresponding human factors test objectives, and when designing specific operation scenarios, consider the severity and rationality of the scenarios and select the most unfavorable conditions in the reasonable expected operation;

[0057] 2) Use an appropriate number of evaluation flight crews (the selection of an appropriate number of test crews is based on factors such as different flight experience, age, background, etc., and the flight crew samples will be as representative of the general driving level as possible, generally not less than 3 sets of crews, corresponding to the instructions attached Figure 1 6) Participate in dynamic simulator platform tests or flight tests based on specific operational scenarios;

[0058] 3) The dynamic simulator platform should have a high degree of scene fidelity. Before the test, it is necessary to confirm that the representativeness and fidelity of the test platform can support the test through platform testing and configuration evaluation.

[0059] c) The test analysis will include analysis of all test data obtained through questionnaires, observation records and interviews. For the human factors problems that still exist in the cockpit display control human-machine interaction design determined by the analysis, corresponding solutions need to be given and the display control iterative evaluation should be carried out again according to this step until the solutions to potential human factors problems are judged to be reasonable and effective and meet the expected safety design goals.

[0060] The embodiment of the present invention provides a specific implementation of a scenario-based cockpit display control iterative evaluation method. The above is a preferred implementation of the present invention. It should be pointed out that for ordinary technicians in this technical field, several improvements and modifications can be made without departing from the principles of the present invention. These improvements and modifications are also regarded as the scope of protection of the present invention.

Claims

1. A scenario-based cockpit display control iterative evaluation method, characterized in that: The following steps are involved: Identification of novelty, complexity and integration design features: Based on the aforementioned definitions of novelty, complexity and integration, corresponding judgment criteria are formulated to analyze and evaluate the human-machine interface of the systems and equipment used by the flight crew in the cockpit, and to identify and determine the novel, complex and integrated design features in the cockpit and the corresponding products and functions; Display control assessment: Through various forms of assessment and scenario-based verification activities, the potential human factors issues when the flight crew uses the system or equipment are fully identified for novel and complex integrated design features; Risk analysis and mitigation / elimination: Analyze the possible safety risks of the identified potential human factors problems, and adopt corresponding measures based on the principle of risk mitigation or elimination to make the safety risks of the potential human factors problems acceptable; Iterative evaluation: Based on the safety risk level of different human factors issues and risk mitigation or elimination measures, further confirmation and verification of the dynamic simulator platform or test flight subjects based on the iterative design of display control under operational scenarios is carried out as needed.

2. The scenario-based cockpit display control iterative evaluation method according to claim 1, characterized in that: in: Novelty identification is to: evaluate whether new technology or new application of existing technology is introduced in the cockpit design; Integration identification is to evaluate the impact of the system integration level on the interaction or dependence between the various systems used by the flight crew to operate the aircraft; Complexity identification means designing systems and equipment with complexity or automation level from the perspective of unit use, including both cognitive and operational aspects.

3. The scenario-based cockpit display control iterative evaluation method according to claim 1, characterized in that: Conduct a full-process analysis of the display control content with novel, complex and integrated design features in the cockpit design, use a combination of qualitative and quantitative analysis and evaluation methods to fully identify the novel, complex and integrated design features and potential human factors problems contained in the display control content that the flight crew uses alone or interconnected with other cockpit equipment in reasonable expected operations, and form a list of potential human factors problems.

4. The scenario-based cockpit display control iterative evaluation method according to claim 3, characterized in that: The analysis includes collecting a list of potential human factors issues through graphic evaluation, static evaluation, sub-task evaluation, full-task evaluation, test flights and dynamic simulator platform test activities.

5. The scenario-based cockpit display control iterative evaluation method according to claim 4, characterized in that: The specific analysis process is as follows: Conduct graphic evaluation based on documents and drawings to identify and form a list of potential human factors issues for the novel, complex and integrated design features of display control content at the single system level; In view of the novel, complex and integrated design characteristics of the cockpit overall layout and integrated environmental display control content, a static evaluation is conducted based on the engineering prototype to identify and form a list of potential human factors issues; For the overall display control content of a single system, multiple crews are invited to conduct various sub-task assessments based on flight operation procedures on a dynamic simulator platform to identify and list potential human factors problems when flight crews use systems and equipment with novel and complex integrated design features in reasonably expected operations; For systems or equipment with integrated design features and their interconnected relationships, evaluate typical route operation scenarios, system failures, abnormal operating environments or possible crew error scenarios under normal aircraft conditions, invite multiple flight crews to conduct multiple full-mission assessments based on flight scenarios, and identify and form a list of potential human factors issues; Through flight test activities planned by other R&D design disciplines and dynamic simulator platform testing activities, potential human factors issues are continuously identified when flight crews use systems and equipment that incorporate novel design features in their intended operations.

6. The scenario-based cockpit display control iterative evaluation method according to claim 1, characterized in that: Through engineering analysis and supplementary assessment, the safety risks of potential human factors problems identified in the special control assessment are further analyzed and the risk levels are confirmed. For potential human factors problems of different risk levels, engineering analysis / supplementary assessment, design optimization, process improvement, and increased training are used to eliminate or mitigate potential human factors problems.

7. The scenario-based cockpit display control iterative evaluation method according to claim 1, characterized in that: Potential human factors problems and solutions are identified based on the novelty, complexity, integration, probability of occurrence, and potential safety risks of design features. After determining the issues to be confirmed and verified, no less than 3 sets of flight crew evaluations with multi-dimensional differences and representing the general driving level are selected; additional solutions are given to the remaining human factors problems and iterative evaluation is carried out until the solutions are reasonable and effective to achieve the expected safety goals.

Images