Methods, systems, and media for dynamic program cues to assist plant decisions

Abstract

The invention relates to a dynamic program prompting method and system for assisting unit decision making and a medium. The method comprises the steps that a current program corresponding to a current alarm is executed and triggered; according to the alarm suppression and alarm combination relationship, judging whether a root alarm or a combined alarm associated with the current alarm is pushed at the same time: if so, prompting that the current program is not applicable by the alarm system; if not, the alarm system directly executes the next judgment; judging whether the current program contains a delay item or not: if the current program contains the delay item, providing a prompt for checking or executing the delay item according to the typical operation event; if the current program does not contain the delay item, the alarm system directly executes the next judgment; monitoring and identifying the invalid air rebootable equipment; judging whether a state in which the air rebootable equipment is allowed to be rebooted occurs; if the state occurs, providing a prompt that the air rebootable equipment can be rebooted by an alarm system; and if the state does not appear, ending the process.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] This application relates to the field of avionics systems, and more particularly to a method, system, and medium for providing dynamic procedural prompts to assist crew decision-making. Background Technology

[0002] In the aviation industry, before the advent of electronic checklists, airlines typically used paper-based Quick Checklists (QRHs) as an essential operational manual for flight crews. With the advancement of technology and the times, the traditionally bulky paper-based QRHs have been widely integrated into the operating systems of modern cockpits, forming an electronic program.

[0003] In other words, electronic procedures refer to the integration of traditional paper checklists, operation manuals, and standard procedures into the aircraft's avionics system to achieve digital, interactive display and management of operating guidelines.

[0004] A core contradiction in existing electronic procedures (such as ECAM / EICAS) is that while the system is designed to provide standardized operations, complex, cascading, or unexpected failure scenarios still force pilots to rely on extensive integrated judgment and working memory to “fill in” gaps in the procedures, thus posing potential risks.

[0005] For example, during abnormal procedure execution, two or more alarms may occur in succession and continue to meet their respective alarm conditions. How the crew should handle a currently open but incomplete procedure when its root alarm or combined alarm occurs is a question frequently mentioned in pilot training.

[0006] For example, in some cases, abnormal or emergency procedures include supplementary actions that need to be delayed until a more appropriate time during subsequent flights. The collection of these supplementary actions is called a delayed procedure, and each item is called a delayed item. How the crew can effectively determine the appropriate timing for each delayed item has always been a major challenge for crew members (especially inexperienced novice pilots).

[0007] For example, when the equipment that malfunctions during inspection is an in-flight restartable device (meaning an in-flight restartable device is one that the OEM has pre-set in a program or list to allow the crew to attempt to restart in the air), there is a lack of a corresponding notification mechanism to promptly remind the pilots to restart the device after the malfunction is resolved, which increases potential flight risks.

[0008] Therefore, it is desirable to provide a dynamic procedural prompting method and system to assist unit decision-making, which can minimize the reliance on the unit's comprehensive judgment and working memory, thereby reducing the burden on the unit. Summary of the Invention

[0009] This application proposes a dynamic procedural prompting method, system, and medium to assist crew decision-making. It addresses the problem of excessive reliance on pilots' comprehensive judgment and working memory in the use of electronic abnormal or emergency procedures, and proposes optimizations in terms of the applicability, comprehensiveness, and timeliness of the procedures.

[0010] The innovations of the proposed solution mainly include:

[0011] 1. Status prompts indicating that the handling procedure is not applicable under multiple alarm conditions; 2. Delay item check prompts for typical operational events; 3. Restart operation prompts for over-the-air restartable devices.

[0012] According to a first aspect of this application, a method for providing dynamic procedural prompts to assist in unit decision-making is provided, comprising: Execute the current procedure that triggered the current alarm; Based on alarm suppression and alarm combination relationships, determine whether a root cause alarm or a combined alarm associated with the current alarm has been pushed simultaneously: If a push notification is received, the alarm system will indicate that the current program is not applicable. If no notification is sent, the alarm system will proceed directly to the next step. Determine whether the current program contains a delay item: If the current program contains the delayed item, then prompts are provided to check or execute the delayed item based on typical operation events; If the current program does not contain the delay item, the alarm system will directly proceed to the next judgment. Monitor and identify failed over-the-air restartable devices; Determine whether the state allowing the over-the-air restartable device to restart has occurred: If the aforementioned state occurs, the alarm system provides a prompt that the over-the-air restartable device can be restarted; If the described state does not occur, the process ends.

[0013] According to a second aspect of this application, a system for dynamic procedural prompts to assist unit decision-making is provided, including means for performing a method for dynamic procedural prompts to assist unit decision-making as described in the first aspect.

[0014] According to a third aspect of this application, a computer storage medium storing computer-executable instructions is provided, which, when executed by a machine, causes the machine to execute a dynamic program prompt as described in the first aspect for assisting unit decision-making.

[0015] This overview is provided to introduce, in a simplified form, some of the concepts further described in the detailed description below. This overview is not intended to identify key or essential features of the claimed subject matter, nor is it intended to limit the scope of the claimed subject matter. Attached Figure Description

[0016] To describe how the above and other advantages and features of the invention are obtained, a more detailed description of the invention, which has been briefly described above, will be presented with reference to specific embodiments of the invention shown in the accompanying drawings. It will be understood that these drawings depict only exemplary embodiments of the invention and are therefore not intended to limit its scope. The invention will be described and explained using the drawings and with the aid of additional features and details, in which: Figure 1 An example signal logic relationship for a dynamic program prompt for assisting unit decision-making according to an embodiment of this application is shown.

[0017] Figure 2 An example flowchart of a method for dynamic procedural prompts to assist unit decision-making according to an embodiment of this application is shown.

[0018] Figure 3 A specific example scenario is shown to further illustrate the practical application of the dynamic procedural prompting method for assisting unit decision-making according to this application. Detailed Implementation

[0019] As described in the background section, existing electronic procedures mainly suffer from the following three problems: 1) During abnormal program execution, two or more alarms may occur in succession and continue to meet their respective alarm conditions. For currently open but incomplete programs, it becomes meaningless to continue executing the program when its root alarm or combined alarm still exists.

[0020] 2) When abnormal or emergency procedures include delays that need to be performed at a more appropriate time during subsequent flights, the crew does not know how to seize the opportunity and thus misses the chance to perform the delays.

[0021] 3) When the faulty equipment is found to be an in-flight restartable device during inspection, there is a lack of a corresponding prompting mechanism to remind the pilot to restart the equipment in a timely manner.

[0022] To overcome these problems in the prior art, this application discloses a dynamic procedural prompting method, system, and medium to assist crew decision-making, which can dynamically provide prompts to support crew decision-making at different stages of pilots' execution of abnormal or emergency procedures.

[0023] exist Figure 1The diagram shows an example signal logic relationship when the present application executes the dynamic program prompting method for assisting unit decision-making.

[0024] Specifically, in response to the aforementioned problems in the prior art, the solutions of this application include: A) During abnormal or emergency procedure execution: Under multiple alarm conditions, provide a prompt indicating that the procedure is not applicable based on alarm suppression and alarm combination relationships; B) At the end of the program execution: For programs containing delayed items, prompts are provided to check or execute the delayed program (or delayed item) based on typical operation events; C) After the program is executed: For devices that are allowed to be restarted over the air, provide a prompt to perform a restart operation based on the actual status of the device.

[0025] The following discussion addresses the three solutions proposed in this application for the aforementioned three issues.

[0026] A) Status prompt indicating that the handling procedure is not applicable under multiple alarm conditions

[0027] Multiple alarm conditions refer to the occurrence of two or more alarms in succession during abnormal program execution.

[0028] During the flight crew's execution of the procedure that triggers the current alarm, if the alarm system simultaneously pushes a root cause alarm or a combined alarm associated with the current alarm, based on the alarm suppression and alarm combination relationship, the current procedure will be indicated as inapplicable.

[0029] B) Delay item check prompts for typical operational events

[0030] As mentioned earlier, in some cases, abnormal or emergency procedures include supplementary actions that need to be delayed until a more appropriate time during subsequent flights. The set of these supplementary actions is called a delayed procedure, and each item is called a delayed item.

[0031] For example, on certain aircraft models, when an active abnormal or emergency procedure includes a delay procedure, that delay procedure can be accessed on the DEFERRED PROCUDURE LIST page. Flight crews can manually display and activate delay procedures through the DEFERRED PROCUDURE LIST page.

[0032] Table 1 below compares the normal checklist settings for different models from three different OEMs, showing that the timing of the delayed checks varies.

[0033] Table 1. Normal Inspection Checklist Stages for Different OEMs and Their Relationship with Delayed Procedures

[0034] Because of ECAM's complete and mature alarm sorting mechanism, the E / WD of a certain series of passenger aircraft using this system always displays the procedure corresponding to the highest priority alarm, saving the crew the work of comprehensive judgment.

[0035] Another model adds a centralized display of delay procedures to the Status page of the ECAM-System Display (SD), but does not provide precise phased push notifications. Pilots can access the information as needed via the DEFRD button on the ECAM control panel.

[0036] Another aircraft type employs a method of adding delay procedures after the traditional normal checklist to provide a notification to the flight crew. For example, an example of adding delay procedures from the FLAP / SLAT CONTROL abnormal checklist to the approach checklist can be shown for this type of aircraft.

[0037] Other series of models also have electronic displays without delay.

[0038] However, the prompting mechanisms of these delay procedures all have flaws.

[0039] For example, taking a certain aircraft model as an example, according to its Flight Crew Operations Manual (FCOM), the check of delay items for descent preparation scenarios involves two steps: 1. According to the standard operating procedure (SOP) for this model, the following requirements apply during descent preparation: EICAS...Check (Note: Check all EICAS messages and delayed items) 2. According to the first inspection item of the normal inspection checklist - approach inspection checklist for this aircraft model: Deferred items......Checked (The crew is required to check the deferred items).

[0040] Therefore, based on the above requirements analysis, the following conclusions can be drawn (that is, the potential directions for optimization of the solution in this application): Within the range from cruising altitude to 10,000 ft above ground, FCOM does not specify the timing for the execution of specific delay items and requires reliance on crew memory to execute them as needed. The timing of the delay from 10,000 ft altitude to landing is not mentioned in the normal operating procedures or checklists, so it is necessary to rely on the crew's memory to execute it as appropriate.

[0041] Specifically, in the example interface for checking the FCOM delay procedure on another model, a similar issue can be found: the right side of the FCOM check interface displays the details of the delay procedure, while the left side provides corresponding prompts. DEFERRED PROC (ALL)……………………PREVIEW The flight crew must not activate the deferred procedures. At this stage, referring to the DEFERRED PROCEDURES is only a quick review to evaluate the workload for each flight phase . That is, "delayed procedure...... ...... ...... ......preview" Flight crews should not activate delay procedures. At this stage, reviewing delay procedures is only for a quick review to assess each individual situation. Workload during the flight phase ".

[0042] Therefore, while the FCOM provides alarm prompts for the delay procedure in the inspection interface, it does not provide any information regarding the timing of its execution. This forces the crew to constantly memorize the delay procedure and execute it only as needed, undoubtedly increasing their workload.

[0043] To overcome the aforementioned problems, this application analyzes the delayed procedure in the above example. Specifically, during descent preparation, the aircraft is still at cruising altitude; therefore, the delayed procedure is only previewed and not executed during descent preparation, aiming to assess the workload of each subsequent stage. The first check item on the approach checklist (requiring the crew to check the delayed item) is executed at an altitude of 10,000 ft, while the purpose of a normal checklist is a secondary confirmation after the procedure is completed.

[0044] Accordingly, this scheme establishes a correspondence between a typical operational event of descending to an altitude of 10,000 ft and the execution of the first check item on the approach checklist (requiring the crew to check delayed items). Thus, when this typical operational event is triggered, a prompt is given to check or execute the delayed procedure. In this way, the crew does not need to constantly memorize the delayed procedure and simply check or execute it when the prompt appears.

[0045] C) Restart instructions for over-the-air restartable devices

[0046] As mentioned earlier, air-restartable equipment refers to equipment that OEMs pre-program or list to allow the crew to attempt to restart in the air.

[0047] In existing technology, when an in-flight restartable device malfunctions during inspection, there is a lack of a corresponding notification mechanism to remind the pilot to restart the device in a timely manner to eliminate the malfunction. This results in in-flight restartable devices, which could have been restored to normal operation in the air, being delayed until after the aircraft has landed, increasing potential flight risks.

[0048] To address this issue, the solution in this application collects a list of failed devices from various alarm messages and identifies in-flight restartable devices. The status of these devices is then continuously monitored. Once the alarm conditions associated with the restartable device disappear, a restart prompt is immediately provided. This allows the crew to restore the in-flight restartable devices to normal operation as quickly as possible.

[0049] It should be noted that the three problems 1)-3) and the corresponding solutions A)-C) mentioned above will not necessarily occur and be implemented simultaneously. That is to say, some abnormal or emergency procedures may only have one, two, or all of these problems, and correspondingly, the solution of this application only needs to implement one, two, or three of the corresponding solutions. These embodiments all fall within the scope of protection claimed in this application.

[0050] The following is in conjunction with the appendix Figure 2 Here is a detailed description of an example flow of a method for providing dynamic procedural prompts to assist in unit decision-making according to an embodiment of this application.

[0051] As shown in the figure, firstly, at step 202, the flight crew executes the current procedure (abnormal / emergency procedure, hereinafter referred to as "current procedure") corresponding to the current alarm.

[0052] Subsequently, in step 204, during the flight crew's execution of the current procedure, it is determined, based on the alarm suppression and alarm combination relationship, whether the alarm system has simultaneously pushed a root cause alarm or a combined alarm associated with the current alarm.

[0053] In aviation alerting systems (such as ECAM / EICAS), root cause alerts and combined alerts are two key concepts used to help pilots quickly locate the core problem among numerous alert messages. Root cause alarms refer to the most fundamental and initial source of a series of fault phenomena. They are usually caused by the failure of a specific piece of hardware (such as a generator, computer, or sensor) or a software logic error. They are characterized by their small number but high priority. Resolving a root cause alarm often eliminates or mitigates a series of derivative alarms it triggers. Therefore, root cause alarms are the primary type of alarm that the unit should identify and handle. For example, a generator failure is the root cause of the load equipment failure, a bleed air failure is the root cause of the air conditioning equipment failure, and a hydraulic pump failure is the root cause of the flight control surfaces, main wheel brakes, and other functions.

[0054] A combined alarm refers to an alarm message used to replace two or more related alarm messages that do not share a common cause. To meet the high safety requirements of civil aircraft airworthiness, civil aircraft systems often employ redundancy designs. This redundancy design can merge two or more related alarm messages that do not share a common cause into a single combined alarm. For example, "HYD 1 PRESS LOW" and "HYD 2 PRESSLOW" can be merged into "HYD 1+2 PRESS LO". Similarly, when more than one boarding door, service door, or cargo door is not closed simultaneously, a single DOORS alarm can be used to replace the alarms for these doors.

[0055] In engineering practice, a mapping table is generally used to represent the root cause alarm-derived alarm relationship, and the combined alarm-individual alarm relationship. For example, on a certain model, low hydraulic pressure in the first set is the root cause message for faults in the multi-functional spoiler, automatic brake, parking brake, etc.

[0056] Therefore, if the alarm system simultaneously pushes a root cause alarm or a combined alarm associated with the current alarm, it indicates that the root cause of the current alarm has not yet been resolved. Thus, the process can proceed to step 206.

[0057] At step 206, the alarm system indicates that the current procedure is inapplicable because the root cause of the alarm has not been resolved. Based on this, the unit will suspend the handling of the current alarm and instead focus on resolving the root cause, thus avoiding unnecessary work.

[0058] If the alarm system does not push any root cause alarms or combined alarms associated with the current alarm, it means that the root cause of the problem associated with the current alarm has been resolved, and the current program can execute normally without any prompts. Therefore, the process directly executes the measures for the delayed item (judgment step 208).

[0059] Subsequently, at step 208, the alarm system determines whether the current program contains a delay item.

[0060] As mentioned above, the “delayed items” refer to the various items in the current abnormal or emergency procedures that need to be delayed (due to malfunction) until a more appropriate time in the subsequent flight process.

[0061] If the current program contains delayed items, the process proceeds to step 210 to establish the correspondence between typical operation events and delayed items.

[0062] "Typical operational events" refer to a class of events that require the crew to operate or verify according to standard operating procedures during routine flight or operation, typically occurring at points during flight phase transitions. Typical operational events constitute the standard procedural framework for routine flight. Examples of typical operational events include automatic braking mode selection, barometric reference setting, activating landing lights, flap handle 1 / 2 activation, landing gear deployment, and speed brake pre-positioning.

[0063] "Delayed items" are special operations that must be delayed until a later typical flight phase (i.e., when a typical operational event is triggered) due to a malfunction before they can be safely executed.

[0064] This demonstrates a close, dynamic management relationship of "basic" and "exceptional" between typical operational events and their corresponding delayed items. This correspondence allows for the precise timing of delayed item execution. For a specific example, please refer to measure "B". Delay item check tips for typical operational events The example scenario described in "".

[0065] Subsequently, at step 212, after the flight crew has completed the alarm procedure excluding the delay item, the typical operational events are continuously monitored. Specifically, typical operational events at flight phase transition nodes are generally not included during the execution of abnormal / emergency procedures. Typically, typical operational events are only triggered when the crew performs other operations according to the SOP (Standard Operating Procedure) after the abnormal / emergency procedures are completed.

[0066] After the alarm system detects the typical operation event, in step 214, it is determined whether the delay item associated with the triggered typical operation event has been completed.

[0067] If the delayed item associated with the triggered typical operating event has not yet been completed, the process proceeds to step 216, where the alarm system provides a prompt to check or execute the delayed item associated with the triggered typical operating event. This allows the unit to understand that the time has come to address the delayed item and resolve the issue promptly.

[0068] If the current procedure does not contain any delay items or all delay items associated with the triggered typical operation event have been completed, then no further prompting is needed, and the process can proceed directly to the measures for devices that are allowed to be restarted over the air (step 218).

[0069] In step 218, failed over-the-air (OTA) restartable devices are monitored and identified. Specifically, the alarm system collects a list of failed devices from various alarm messages and identifies OTA restartable devices from them.

[0070] Subsequently, in step 220, the alarm system continuously monitors and determines whether a state allowing the air-to-restartable device to restart has occurred (the state refers to the disappearance of alarm conditions associated with the air-to-restartable device).

[0071] If the state described above occurs, i.e., the alarm condition associated with the air-restartable device disappears, the process proceeds to step 222.

[0072] In step 222, the alarm system provides a notification that the air-to-air restartable device is ready for restart. Upon seeing this notification, the crew can immediately restart the air-to-air restartable device to restore normal operation.

[0073] If the stated state does not occur, it indicates that the alarm conditions associated with the air-resettable device have not been resolved. Therefore, the air-resettable device should not be restarted. Consequently, the alarm system will not issue any notification, and the process ends here.

[0074] It should be understood that if there are multiple root causes, multiple delays and / or multiple air-rebootable devices, the above-mentioned measures and steps can be performed for each root cause, delay and / or air-rebootable device, and these all fall within the scope of protection of this application.

[0075] It should be noted that not all of the above-mentioned measures and steps need to be implemented. That is to say, some abnormal or emergency procedures may only have one, two, or all of these problems (alarm messages), and correspondingly, the solution of this application only needs to implement one, two, or all of the corresponding solution steps. All of this falls within the scope of protection of this application.

[0076] After understanding the example flow of the dynamic procedural prompting method for assisting unit decision-making in this application, the following will be combined with... Figure 3 To further describe the practical application of the method flow, a specific example scenario will be used, in which: a. The unit is executing the electronic checklist (or procedure) corresponding to the LDC BUS alarm; b. If a combined alarm (L+R DC BUS) associated with an L DC BUS occurs, the alarm system will provide a message indicating that the current procedure is not applicable, such as "Current PROC UNAVAIL". Similarly, if a root cause alarm associated with an L DC BUS occurs, the alarm system will also provide a message indicating that the current procedure is not applicable. c. The alarm procedures of both L DC BUS and L+R DC BUS include a delay procedure. When flap handle 2 is locked (i.e., the corresponding typical operation event occurs), the time for the delay item has arrived. The alarm system provides prompts to check or execute the delay procedure, such as inverted color display. d. When the overheating condition of the No. 3 hydraulic system disappears and the HYD 3 OVHT alarm is removed, the alarm condition associated with the No. 3 hydraulic system (an air-restartable device) will disappear. The alarm system will promptly prompt the unit that the No. 3 hydraulic system can be restarted, for example, by directly displaying the operation action HYD 3B Selector...ON on the main page.

[0077] Thus, the method described in this application can improve the unit's situational awareness of executing procedures under multiple alarm conditions, promptly remind the unit to check or execute delayed procedures, and suggest the unit to complete feasible equipment restarts in a timely manner, thereby meeting operational requirements, increasing system redundancy, and effectively improving operational safety.

[0078] In another embodiment of this application, a system for dynamic procedural prompts to assist unit decision-making is disclosed, including apparatus for performing the method of dynamic procedural prompts to assist unit decision-making as described above.

[0079] Furthermore, in yet another embodiment of this application, a computer storage medium storing computer-executable instructions is disclosed, which, when a machine executes the computer-executable instructions, causes the machine to execute a method such as the dynamic program prompts for assisting unit decision-making described above.

[0080] Although the techniques have been described using language specific to structural features and / or methodological actions, it should be understood that the appended claims are not necessarily limited to the described features or actions. Rather, these features and actions are described as exemplary forms of implementing these techniques.

[0081] The operations of the example processes are shown in separate boxes and are summarized with reference to these boxes. These processes are shown as a flow of logical boxes, each of which may represent one or more operations that can be implemented using hardware, software, or a combination thereof. In the context of software, these operations represent computer-executable instructions stored on one or more computer-readable media that, when executed by one or more processors, cause one or more processors to perform a given operation. Generally, computer-executable instructions include routines, programs, objects, modules, components, data structures, etc., that perform a particular function or implement a particular abstract data type. The order in which the operations are described is not intended to be construed as limiting, and any number of the operations may be executed in any order, combined in any order, subdivided into multiple sub-operations, and / or executed in parallel to implement the described process. The described process may be executed by resources associated with one or more computing devices, such as one or more internal or external CPUs or GPUs, and / or one or more pieces of hardware logic, such as FPGAs, DSPs, or other types of accelerators.

[0082] All of the methods and processes described above can be embodied in software code modules executed by one or more general-purpose computers or processors, and can be fully automated via these software code modules. These code modules can be stored on any type of computer-executable storage medium or other computer storage device. This code can also be packaged into corresponding computer program products. Some or all of these methods can alternatively be embodied in dedicated computer hardware.

[0083] Any routine description, element, or box in the flowcharts described herein and / or in the accompanying drawings should be understood as potentially representing a module, segment, or portion of code comprising one or more executable instructions for implementing a specific logical function or element in that routine. Alternative implementations are included within the scope of the examples described herein, wherein elements or functions may be removed or performed inconsistently with the order shown or discussed, including substantially synchronous or reverse order execution, depending on the functionality involved, as will be understood by those skilled in the art.

[0084] While different embodiments have been described above, it should be understood that they are merely examples and not limitations. Those skilled in the art will appreciate that various modifications in form and detail may be made without departing from the spirit and scope of the invention as defined in the appended claims. Therefore, the breadth and scope of the invention disclosed herein should not be limited by the exemplary embodiments disclosed above, but should be defined solely by the appended claims and their equivalents.

Claims

1. A method for dynamic program prompts to assist unit decision-making, comprising: Execute the current procedure that triggered the current alarm; Based on alarm suppression and alarm combination relationships, determine whether a root cause alarm or a combined alarm associated with the current alarm has been pushed simultaneously: If a push notification is received, the alarm system will indicate that the current program is not applicable. If no notification is sent, the alarm system will proceed directly to the next step. Determine whether the current program contains a delay item: If the current program contains the delayed item, then prompts are provided to check or execute the delayed item based on typical operation events; If the current program does not contain the delay item, the alarm system will directly proceed to the next judgment. Monitor and identify failed over-the-air restartable devices; Determine whether a state allowing the over-the-air restartable device to restart has occurred: If the aforementioned state occurs, the alarm system provides a prompt that the over-the-air restartable device can be restarted.

2. The method as described in claim 1, characterized in that, The root cause alarm refers to the most fundamental and initial source of a series of fault phenomena; while the combined alarm refers to a collection of multiple secondary alarms triggered or derived from the source of the fault.

3. The method as described in claim 1, characterized in that, The step of providing prompts to check or execute the delayed item based on typical operational events includes: Establish the correspondence between the typical operation events and the delay items; After the flight crew has completed the alarm procedure except for the aforementioned delay items, the typical operational events are continuously monitored. When the typical operation event is detected to be triggered, determine whether the delay item associated with the triggered typical operation event has been completed: If not completed, the alarm system provides a prompt to check or perform the delayed item associated with the triggered typical operational event.

4. The method as described in claim 1, characterized in that, The typical operational events refer to events that occur periodically and routinely at different stages of aircraft operation, requiring the crew to verify or operate according to established procedures. The term "delayed item" refers to various items in the current abnormal or emergency procedures that need to be delayed until a more appropriate time during subsequent flights.

5. The method as described in claim 1, characterized in that, The step of monitoring and identifying failed over-the-air restartable devices includes: the alarm system collecting a list of failed devices from various alarm messages and identifying the over-the-air restartable devices from them.

6. The method as described in claim 1, characterized in that, The determination of whether the state allowing the over-the-air restartable device to restart occurs includes: When the alarm conditions associated with the air-restartable device disappear, it is determined that a state allowing the air-restartable device to restart has occurred.

7. A system for dynamic procedural prompts to assist unit decision-making, comprising means for performing a method for dynamic procedural prompts to assist unit decision-making as described in any one of claims 1-6.

8. A computer storage medium storing computer-executable instructions, which, when executed by a machine, causes the machine to perform a method for providing dynamic program prompts for assisting unit decision-making as described in any one of claims 1-6.

Images