Pilot evaluation system

Abstract

Having a flight rating system (112): a display system (206); an input system (210); a flight assessment facility (200); and a rating manager (215); where the rating manager (215) is set up: in response to an update taking place in a personnel database (216) and / or an evaluation database (218), to push the update without a request from the flight evaluation facility (200) to the flight evaluation facility (200) and to dynamically exchange a first form with a second form while the first form is in use, where the second form is an updated form; where the flight assessment facility (200) is set up: to display (500) information (114) for evaluating the performance of a group of operations (110) carried out by a number of crew members (106) of an aircraft (108) on the display system (206) while the aircraft (108) is being operated by the number of crew members (106) for whom the group of operations (110) is being evaluated; to receive an input (208) through the input system (210), which evaluates the execution of the group of operations (110) by the number of crew members (106); and the update, while the assessment (104) is being carried out, which dynamically exchanges the first form with the second form while the first form is in use, is received by the assessment manager (215).

Description

BACKGROUND

[0001] The present disclosure generally relates to an aircraft and, more particularly, to the operation of an aircraft. More particularly, the present disclosure relates to a method and apparatus for evaluating the performance of in-flight operations in an aircraft.

[0002] Pilots undergo flight training to gain the knowledge and experience required to fly an aircraft. The training may include classroom training, simulator training, and actual flight experience. As part of the training, tests are conducted to assess a pilot's proficiency in performing various aircraft operations.

[0003] The tests take various forms. For example, knowledge tests and practical tests may be prescribed. A knowledge test, also known as a written test, assesses the pilot's knowledge of various aspects of aircraft operation.

[0004] Practical testing may involve an instructor accompanying the pilot on a flight of the aircraft. This flight may be conducted in a simulator, a real aircraft, or both.

[0005] Even after training, pilot evaluations may be conducted periodically. For example, a flight check may be conducted for a pilot holding a certificate issued by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Flight checks may be conducted to evaluate the pilot's proficiency in operating an aircraft in a manner that complies with various rules and regulations.

[0006] Today, evaluators use a paper-based process to assess a pilot's performance when creating pilot evaluations. The forms used in this process can be completed by the person conducting the evaluation after observing the pilot's performance while operating an aircraft.

[0007] When using paper forms, the use of an incorrect or expired form results in the evaluator issuing an invalid rating. Consequently, a follow-up session with the pilot is required to observe the pilot's performance and conduct a proper rating using the correct form. This situation results in more time and effort being spent evaluating the pilot than desired. Furthermore, paper forms are difficult to use, expensive, error-prone, and time-consuming.

[0008] US 2011 / 0258021 A1 concerns a human-reliable assessment tool that supports security analysis and management.

[0009] US 2011 / 0246001 A1 concerns systems and methods for flight tracking and emergency location of aircraft.

[0010] Therefore, it would be desirable to have a method and apparatus that address at least some of the issues discussed above, as well as possible additional issues. SUMMARY

[0011] A flight evaluation system according to the invention is defined in claim 1.

[0012] In a further illustrative embodiment, a method for evaluating performance in operating an aircraft according to claim 11 is provided.

[0013] The features and functions may be achieved independently in various embodiments of the present disclosure or may be combined in still further embodiments, further details of which will become apparent upon reference to the following description and the drawings. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

[0014] The novel features believed to be characteristic of the illustrative embodiments are set forth in the appended claims. However, the illustrative embodiments, as well as a preferred mode of use, further objects, and features, will best be understood by reference to the following detailed description of an illustrative embodiment of the present disclosure when read in conjunction with the appended drawings. Fig. 1 depicts an illustration of a block diagram of an evaluation environment according to an illustrative embodiment; Fig. 2 depicts an illustration of a flight evaluation system according to an illustrative embodiment; Fig. 3 depicts an illustration of a personnel database according to an illustrative embodiment; Fig. 4 depicts an illustration of a rating database according to an illustrative embodiment; Fig. 5 depicts a high-level flowchart illustration of a process for evaluating crew member performance in operating an aircraft according to an illustrative embodiment; Fig. 6 depicts a flowchart illustration of a process for displaying a graphical user interface for performing an assessment of a number of crew members according to an illustrative embodiment; Fig. 7 depicts a flowchart illustration of a process for updating forms according to an illustrative embodiment; Fig. 8 depicts a flowchart illustration of a process for displaying an updated form according to an illustrative embodiment; Fig. 9 depicts an illustration of a task selection screen according to an illustrative embodiment; Fig. 10 depicts an illustration of a test screen according to an illustrative embodiment; Fig. 11 depicts an illustration of a personnel screen according to an illustrative embodiment; Fig. 12 depicts an illustration of an information screen according to an illustrative embodiment; Fig. 13 depicts an illustration of a report screen according to an illustrative embodiment; Fig. 14 depicts an illustration of an operation evaluation screen according to an illustrative embodiment; Fig. 15 depicts an illustration of a comment screen according to an illustrative embodiment; Fig. 16 depicts an illustration of a signature screen according to an illustrative embodiment; Fig. 17 depicts an illustration of a summary screen according to an illustrative embodiment; Fig. 18 depicts an illustration of another screen that may be displayed in a graphical user interface according to an illustrative embodiment; Fig. 19 depicts an illustration of a history screen according to an illustrative embodiment; Fig. 20 depicts an illustration of an evaluation screen according to an illustrative embodiment; Fig. 21 depicts an illustration of a data structure according to an illustrative embodiment; and Fig. 22 depicts an illustration of a block diagram of a data processing system according to an illustrative embodiment. DETAILED DESCRIPTION

[0015] Illustrative embodiments recognize and consider one or more different considerations. For example, the illustrative embodiments recognize and consider that currently used forms for generating pilot evaluations, in addition to being cumbersome, time-consuming, and error-prone, can be made more efficient by putting them into an electronic form for use in a device such as a computer.

[0016] These embodiments also recognize and consider that, even with electronic forms, the current process for evaluating pilot performance may still be more difficult than desired. For example, the illustrative embodiments recognize and consider that currently used forms do not provide a desired level of standardization of rating practices when pilot performance ratings are to be submitted.

[0017] Furthermore, the illustrative embodiments recognize and consider, for example, that currently used forms are optimized for data entry rather than for evaluating pilot performance. The currently used forms may require an evaluator to jump between sections. This situation can result in points being missed during an evaluation and can lead to errors in the evaluation. Furthermore, the currently used process involves submitting a physical form and entering it into a system for use.

[0018] The illustrative embodiments provide a method and apparatus for evaluating the performance of a number of crew members operating an aircraft. In these illustrative examples, an apparatus comprises a display system, an input system, and a flight evaluation device. The flight evaluation device is configured to display information for evaluating the performance of a group of operations performed by a number of crew members of the aircraft on the display system while the number of crew members for whom the group of operations is being evaluated is operating the aircraft. The flight evaluation device receives user inputs evaluating the performance of the group of operations by the number of crew members through the input system.

[0019] In these illustrative examples, the use of a "number of" or "group of" in reference to items means one or more items. For example, a number of crew members represents one or more crew members. In another example, a group of operations represents one or more operations.

[0020] With reference to the figures and in particular with reference to Fig. 1 shows a block diagram illustration of an assessment environment according to an illustrative embodiment. In this illustrative example, an evaluator 102 performs an assessment 104 for a number of crew members 106 operating an aircraft 108 in an assessment environment 100.

[0021] As shown, the evaluation 104 may be performed by the evaluator 102 for a group of operations 110 performed by the number of crew members 106 while operating the aircraft 108. The group of operations 110 performed by the number of crew members 106 may include operations performed when the aircraft 108 is in a variety of different states. For example, the group of operations may be performed when the aircraft 108 is stationary on the ground, moving on the ground, taking off, landing, flying smoothly, and / or in other states.

[0022] As used herein, the term "and / or," when used in connection with a list of items, means that various combinations of one or more of the listed items may be used, and that only one item from the list may be used at a time. For example, "Item A, Item B, and / or Item C" may include, without limitation, Item A, or Item A and Item B. This example may also include Item A, Item B, and Item C, or Item B and Item C. In further examples, "at least one of" may mean, for example, without limitation, two instances of Item A, two instances of Item B, and ten instances of Item C; four instances of Item B and seven instances of Item C; and other suitable combinations.

[0023] An evaluator 102 performs an evaluation 104 by observing the number of crew members 106 performing the group of operations 110. In these illustrative examples, the evaluator 102 performs an evaluation 104 of a number of crew members 106 using a flight evaluation system 112. As shown, the flight evaluation system 112 is a hardware system and may include software.

[0024] As shown, the flight evaluation system 112 may display information 114 to the evaluator 102 while the crew member 106 is performing the group of operations 110 during operation of the aircraft 108. This display of information may occur when the aircraft 108 is in one or more different states. The display of information 114 may be used by the evaluator 102 to create an evaluation 104 of the performance of the crew member 106.

[0025] In particular, the information 114 may be such that the assessment 104 can be performed in a desired manner by the evaluator 102. For example, the information 114 may be selected such that the assessment 104 is standardized for the number of crew members 106 as well as for other crew members for whom assessments can be performed.

[0026] Let us now turn to the Fig. 2, which shows an illustration of a flight rating system according to an illustrative embodiment. This figure shows an example implementation of a flight rating system 112.

[0027] In this illustrative example, the flight assessment system 112 includes a variety of different components. As shown, the flight assessment system 112 includes a flight assessment device 200 and a computer system 202.

[0028] As shown, the flight evaluation device 200 is a component that is used by the evaluator 102 of the Fig. 1 is used. The flight assessment device 200 may be disposed in the aircraft 108 during the time when the evaluator 102 performs the assessment 104 of the crew members 106 performing the operations 110. In these various illustrative examples, the flight assessment device 200 may be implemented by software, hardware, firmware, or a combination thereof. If software is used, the operations performed by the flight assessment system 112 may be implemented in program code configured to run on a processing device. If firmware is used, the operations performed by the flight assessment system 112 may be implemented in program code and data and stored in persistent memory to run on a processing device.If hardware is employed, the hardware may include circuitry operative to perform the operations in the flight evaluation facility 200.

[0029] In these illustrative examples, the hardware may take the form of a circuit system, an integrated circuit, an Application Specific Integrated Circuit (ASIC), a programmable logic device, or any other suitable hardware type configured to perform a plurality of operations. With a programmable logic device, the device is configured to perform the plurality of operations. The device may be reconfigured at a later time or may be permanently configured to perform the plurality of operations. Examples of programmable logic devices include, for example, a programmable logic array, programmable array logic, a field-programmable logic array, a field-programmable gate array, and other suitable hardware devices.Furthermore, the processes can be implemented in organic components integrated into inorganic components and / or can be entirely part of organic components, excluding a human. The processes can, for example, be implemented as circuits in organic semiconductors.

[0030] In the illustrative example, the flight evaluation device 200 may be implemented in a data processing system 204. The data processing system 204 may be implemented in many different ways. In one illustrative example, the data processing system 204 may be a portable data processing system. Thus, the evaluator 102 may carry the data processing system 204 in the aircraft 108. The data processing system 204 may be implemented, for example, as a tablet computer, mobile phone, laptop computer, electronic flight bag (EFB), or in any other suitable form.

[0031] As shown, in this illustrative example, the flight evaluation device 200 is configured to display the information 114 for evaluating the performance of the group of operations 110 performed by the number of crew members 106 of the aircraft 108 on a display system 206. In particular, the information 114 may be presented on a graphical user interface 207 on the display system 206.

[0032] The display system 206 is a hardware system and includes one or more display devices. The display system 206 may include, for example, a liquid crystal display, an LED display, a plasma display, and / or other suitable types of display devices.

[0033] The evaluator 102 may perform the assessment 104 while viewing the information 114 displayed on the graphical user interface 207 on the display system 206. Furthermore, while performing the assessment 104, the evaluator 102 may input a user input 208 into the flight evaluation device 200 via the input system 210. The input system 210 is a hardware system and includes one or more input devices. The input system 210 may include, for example, a mouse, a keyboard, a trackball, a joystick, a button, a touchscreen, and / or other suitable types of devices.

[0034] In one illustrative example, the display system 206 and the input system 210 may be integrated with each other. The display system 206 and the input system 210 may, for example, take the form of a touchscreen device in the data processing system 204.

[0035] Information 114 may be sent to the flight assessor 200 before the assessment 104 is performed. In another example, an update to the information 114 may be received by the flight assessor 200 before or during the assessment 104 is performed. In the illustrated example, the information 114 may be received from an assessment manager 215 in the computer system 202. As shown, the information 114 may be sent over a communication link 211. In these illustrative examples, the communication link 211 is a wireless communication link.

[0036] In this illustrative example, computer system 202 is one or more computers. If more than one computer is present in computer system 202, these computers communicate with each other over a communication medium, such as a network.

[0037] The assessment manager 215 in the computer system 202 may identify crew information 212 and test information 214 as information 114. The crew information 212 may be identified by the computer system 202 using a personnel database 216. The test information 214 may be identified by the assessment manager 215 using an assessment database 218. In this illustrative example, the crew information 212 is information about the number of crew members 106 for whom the assessment 104 is to be performed.

[0038] The assessment manager 215 is configured to send the information 114 to the flight assessment facility 200 via the communication link 211. In these illustrative examples, the assessment manager 215 may send the information 114 in response to requests, push information 114, or combinations thereof. If the information 114 is pushed without a request from the flight assessment facility 200, the information 114 may be sent when updates occur in the personnel database 216 and / or the assessment database 218, where the updates are required by the flight assessment facility 200 to perform the assessment 104.

[0039] As shown, the test information 214 is information used to identify the group of operations 110 to be evaluated by the evaluator 102. Furthermore, the test information 214 may also include standards according to which the evaluation 104 should be made.

[0040] In these illustrative examples, the test information 214 may be based on a variety of different factors. In these illustrative examples, the test information 214 may be based on the aircraft type, the airline, the aircraft manufacturer, the country, and / or other suitable information.

[0041] With the test information 214, the assessment 104 for the number of crew members 106 can be performed on a standardized basis compared to assessments created for other crew members. In other words, this means that the test information 214 can be used to generate the assessment 104 more objectively in a manner that standardizes the assessment 104 and reduces errors in the assessment 104.

[0042] When the assessment 104 is completed, a report 220 may be generated by the flight assessment facility 200. In the examples shown, the report 220 is an electronic report. Furthermore, the report 220 may be signed by the evaluator 102 and / or by the number of crew members 106.

[0043] The flight assessment facility 200 sends the report 220 to the computer system 202 via the communications link 211. The report 220 can then be sent to an entity 224 for use. The entity 224 can be, for example, an airline, a training facility, a government agency, a pilot association, or any other suitable entity. In these illustrative examples, the report 220 can be used to update the crew information 212 to provide a test history for the number of crew members 106.

[0044] Thus, using the flight rating system 112, and in particular the flight rating device 200, the evaluator 102 can perform the rating 104 of the number of crew members 106 in real time while the number of crew members 106 performs the group of operations 110 during operation of the aircraft 108. Furthermore, the display of the information 114 by the flight rating device 200 can enable a desired rating of the number of crew members 106 when generating the rating 104 for the number of crew members 106. The rating 104 can be provided, for example, using guidelines, rating scales, instructions, and / or suitable information types.

[0045] Let us now turn to the Fig. 3, which shows an illustration of a personnel database according to an illustrative embodiment. As shown, an implementation of a personnel database 216 is shown.

[0046] In this illustrative example, the personnel database 216 includes personnel information 300. As shown, the personnel information 300 includes in personnel entries 302 a name 304, an organization 306, a position 308, an equipment 310, and a history 312.

[0047] Name 304 is the name of the crew member. Organization 306 can be, for example, the airline where the crew member is employed. Position 308 is the crew member's position within the organization. The position can be, for example, captain, co-pilot, or any other suitable title. Equipment 310 can be, for example, the type of aircraft the person operates.

[0048] History 312 may include a person's previous ratings. History 312 may include, for example, scores, comments, and other information from previous ratings.

[0049] With reference to Fig. Next, an illustration of a rating database according to an illustrative embodiment is shown in Figure 4. An example implementation for a rating database 218 is shown in this figure.

[0050] As shown, the assessment database 218 includes information for use in generating the test information 214. The assessment database 218 may, for example, include events 400 for which assessments are to be created. The selection of the events 400 may be based on aircraft types 402 and / or organizations 404.

[0051] An event in events 400 is an occurrence or occurrence for which the assessment 104 is to be created, which can take various forms. For example, an event can be selected from a pre-flight check, an engine start, a departure from the gate, a taxi, a takeoff, a en-route, a descent, a landing, an engine shutdown, and / or other suitable events. Other events can also include encountering turbulence, receiving a turbulence warning, receiving diversion instructions, undesired engine performance, and / or other suitable event types that may occur during operation of the aircraft 108.

[0052] The aircraft type in the aircraft types 402 can be, for example, a commercial aircraft, a military aircraft, or another suitable aircraft type. Furthermore, the aircraft types 402 can also be based on the manufacturer and model of the aircraft. In some cases, the aircraft type itself can be more specific and based on an account number for the aircraft.

[0053] As shown, the organizations 404 can take a variety of different forms. The organizations 404 can include, for example, an airline, a training facility, a government agency, or any other suitable organizational type.

[0054] Based on a selection of an event from the events 400, an aircraft type from the aircraft types 402, and / or an organization from the organizations 404, the test information 214 may be selected from the evaluation information 405. In these illustrative examples, the test information 214 may include a group of operations 406, classification criteria 408, instructions 410, and other suitable information types for the event in the events 400.

[0055] The group of operations 406 identifies one or more operations for which the assessment 104 is to be created. In these illustrative examples, an operation is an action that can be performed by a crew member in response to an event that may occur.

[0056] In the illustrative example, the ranking criteria 408 provides information used to generate ratings or scores for the assessment 104. The ranking criterion 408 is used to provide a more normalized score for the group of operations 110 determined by the number of crew members 106, relative to other crew members who may perform the same group of operations.

[0057] Instructions 410 may provide information to evaluator 102 to perform assessment 104. For example, instructions 410 may provide an identification of which actions evaluator 102 should look for when performing assessment 104. As another example, instructions 410 may identify which crew member should perform which operations in group of operations 406 for the event, and instructions 410 may identify other suitable information.

[0058] In these illustrative examples, the evaluation information 405 may be organized as a form 412. These forms may be saved in various formats. For example, the forms 412 may be saved as Extensible Markup Language (XML) documents, Hypertext Markup Language (HTML) documents, or in another suitable format.

[0059] Forms 412 may be generated by an airline, a training institution, or another entity. These forms may be updated in the rating database 218. Updates to Forms 412 may then be sent to the flight rating facility 200 of the Fig. 2 for use in conducting assessment 104.

[0060] Updates to Form 412 can take various forms. Updates can affect the format, organization, content, and other aspects of Form 412.

[0061] As shown, these updates are sent from the assessment manager 215 to the flight assessment facility 200. These changes can be made dynamically without requiring a request from the flight assessment facility 200 to receive the information in the illustrative example.

[0062] The illustration of the assessment environment 100 and the various components in the assessment environment 100 in the Fig. 1 through 4 does not imply any physical or architectural limitations regarding a possible implementation of an illustrative embodiment. Other components may be used in addition to or instead of the illustrated components. Some components may be superfluous. Blocks are also shown to clarify functional components. One or more of these blocks may be combined, split, or combined and split into different blocks when implemented in an illustrative embodiment.

[0063] For example, the flight assessment device 200 may be implemented in a computer system onboard the aircraft 108 rather than being carried by the aircraft 108. In these illustrative examples, the flight assessment device 200 may take the form of software transmitted to the aircraft 108 via the communications link 211.

[0064] Let us now turn to the Fig. 5, which shows a high-level flowchart illustration of a process for evaluating crew member performance in operating an aircraft according to an illustrative embodiment. The various operations performed in the Fig. 5 are examples of operations performed using the flight evaluation device 200 of the Fig. 2 can be implemented.

[0065] The process begins by displaying information for evaluating the performance of a group of operations performed by a number of crew members of an aircraft on a display system (operation 500). In this illustrative example, the information is displayed while the number of crew members for whom the group of operations is being evaluated is operating an aircraft.

[0066] An input evaluating the performance of operations by the number of crew members is received via an input system (operation 502). A report is then generated based on the performance of the group of operations performed by the number of crew members of the aircraft (operation 504), after which the process ends.

[0067] With reference to Fig. 6, an illustration of a flowchart of a process for displaying a graphical user interface for performing an assessment of a number of crew members is shown according to an illustrative embodiment. The various operations illustrated in this example may be performed on the graphical user interface 207 in the display system 206 by the flight assessment device 200 of the Fig. 2 are displayed.

[0068] The process begins by displaying an evaluation selection screen in a graphical user interface (operation 600). This screen, when displayed in a graphical user interface, allows an evaluator to perform one or more different evaluations. These different selections can be used to perform the evaluations for a number of crew members. The evaluations can be conducted in a simulator, an actual aircraft, or any combination thereof. In other words, this means that one evaluation may be conducted in an aircraft simulator, while another evaluation may be conducted in the aircraft itself.

[0069] The process then receives user input selecting a number of ratings (operation 602). A rating is selected from the number of ratings (operation 604).

[0070] An assessment screen is displayed in the graphical user interface to identify the type of assessment to be performed (operation 606). Information identifying the assessment is received (operation 608). If the assessment is being performed in an aircraft, the information may include a plan, the line check type, and other appropriate information. The plan may represent a particular flight, which may be used to identify the type of aircraft to be flown. If the assessment is being performed using a simulator, the information may include identification of an aircraft, a date, a location, and other appropriate information.

[0071] The process then displays a personnel screen in the graphical user interface (operation 610). The process then receives information about the crew members and the evaluator via the personnel screen (operation 612). Next, the process displays an information screen in the graphical user interface (operation 614). In operation 614, the information screen is configured to display information from the personnel database 216. This screen can display information such as the personnel being evaluated, the date, and other information about the personnel being evaluated for evaluation.

[0072] A user input is received that identifies support, approaches, pilot monitoring, and other appropriate information (operation 616). The information entered at operation 616 is used to identify the person or persons being evaluated.

[0073] A report screen is displayed in the graphical user interface (operation 618). The report screen provides an opportunity to select assessment tasks. For each task, a group of operations is performed to complete the task. The evaluation may be an evaluation of the manner in which the task or tasks are performed by one or more of the crew members. In these illustrative examples, the evaluation may be created for one task or multiple tasks, depending on the particular implementation. The evaluation may be created for multiple tasks if these tasks are considered sufficiently related. In other cases, the evaluation may be created by an entity for multiple tasks based on the appearance of the form for performing an evaluation.The selection of tasks for assessment can be done in this operation.

[0074] An identification of a rating and maneuvers for evaluation is received (operation 620). In operation 620, information about the operations to be performed is received. The information may include, for example, the maneuvers to be performed by a pilot. An identification of ratings in this operation may also be received, which are to be entered for the pilot's performance. Next, an operation evaluation screen is displayed in the graphical user interface (operation 622). The screen allows the evaluator to enter scores for different operations performed for a task.

[0075] A user input is received that provides a rating of performed operations (operation 624). The user input may take the form of scores for various operations that are evaluated in the evaluation of a crew member.

[0076] The process then displays a comment screen in the graphical user interface (operation 626). The comment screen allows the evaluator to enter more information about a crew member's performance. The process then receives the comments about the crew member (operation 628). In some cases, the user input may not be a comment entered about the crew member.

[0077] A signature screen is displayed in a graphical user interface (operation 630). One or more signatures are then received upon user input into the signature screen (operation 632).

[0078] The process then displays a summary screen in the graphical user interface (operation 634). User input is received to send a report (operation 636). The process then sends the report (operation 638).

[0079] Next, a determination is made as to whether there is another rating that has not yet been evaluated to form a performance rating (operation 640). If there is another rating, the process returns to operation 602 described above. Otherwise, the process ends.

[0080] The identification of information in the various operations of the Fig. 6 can be performed in a variety of different ways. For example, the information may be identified by a user entering information into fields. In other examples, the information may be identified by selecting the information from a list displayed on the screen.

[0081] The flowcharts and block diagrams in the various illustrated embodiments show the architecture, functionality, and operation of some possible implementations of the devices and methods in an illustrative embodiment. In this regard, each block in the flowcharts or block diagrams may represent a module, a segment, a function, and / or a portion of an operation or step. For example, one or more of the blocks may be implemented as program code, hardware, or a combination of program code and hardware. When implemented as hardware, the hardware may, for example, take the form of integrated circuits fabricated or configured to perform one or more operations in the flowcharts or block diagrams. When implemented as a combination of program code and hardware, the implementation may take the form of firmware.

[0082] Let us now turn to the Fig. 7, which shows an illustration of a flowchart of a process for updating forms according to an illustrative embodiment. The Fig. The process illustrated in Figure 7 can be implemented if the forms 412 are stored in the assessment database 218 of the Fig. 4. In particular, this process can be performed by the evaluation manager 215 of the Fig. 2 to dynamically exchange a first form with a second form in the forms 412 while the first form is in use.

[0083] The process begins by selecting a first form to be modified by a second form (operation 700). The first form may be an existing form from the forms 412 in the evaluation database 218. The second form may be an updated form or a new form generated by an airline, a training institution, or any other suitable entity.

[0084] Next, the process identifies differences and similarities between the first form and the second form (operation 702). In these illustrated examples, the similarities between the forms include information that is the same for both the first form and the second form. The differences between the forms may include information that was not needed in the first form but is now needed in the second form.

[0085] Based on the similarities identified between the first form and the second form, the process may then move all data entered into the first form to the second form (operation 704), after which the process may exit. During operation 704, the process may account for changes in the formatting of the data between the two forms.

[0086] In this manner, one or more forms 412 may be updated in the evaluation database 218. Using an illustrative embodiment, the forms 412 may be dynamically replaced with updated forms while the forms 412 are in use by an evaluator or other entity.

[0087] With reference to Fig. 8, an illustration of a flowchart of a process for displaying an updated form according to an illustrative embodiment is shown. The Fig. The process illustrated in Figure 8 can be repeated using the Fig. 7 by the flight assessment facility 200 of the Fig. 2 when a form from the forms 412 has been updated or replaced. In particular, the process shown in this figure can be performed by the flight assessment device 200 using the graphical user interface 207 in the display system 206 of the Fig. 2 be implemented.

[0088] The process begins by displaying the second form with the information from the first form (operation 800). In these illustrative examples, the second form represents the updated form, which is determined by the Fig. 7. The first form represents the form that was modified by the second form.

[0089] Next, the process displays the differences between the first form and the second form (operation 802). In these examples, the display of the differences between the forms can be presented in many different ways. For example, the differences can be highlighted in the graphical user interface 207.

[0090] In other illustrative examples, a drop-down list of differences may be displayed in the graphical user interface 207. In this case, the evaluator may select a particular difference from the list of differences, and the flight evaluator 200 may direct the evaluator to a page in the second form that requires additional input or action. For example, if the second form includes a new field that is not present in the first form, an indication that the new field is present may appear in the list of differences displayed on the graphical user interface 207. The evaluator may then select the new field, and the flight evaluator 200 may direct the evaluator to the appropriate field so that the evaluator can enter the input required by that field.

[0091] In still further illustrative examples, an icon may be displayed on the graphical user interface 207 so that the evaluator knows that the information contained in the field corresponding to the icon is different from the information contained in the first form. For example, a red flag may be displayed on the graphical user interface 207 near a new field in the second form. In this case, the evaluator may select the flag, and text may appear providing instructions for the required input type.

[0092] In yet other illustrative examples, differences and similarities between forms can be indicated using different text types. For example, similar fields can be indicated by italicized text, while new or different fields can be indicated by bold text. Of course, differences between the first form and the second form can be indicated in other suitable ways, depending on the particular implementation.

[0093] In this way, the evaluator can see differences and similarities between the first form and the second form in the graphical user interface 207. Furthermore, the evaluator can be directed to fields where new information is needed. As a result, using one illustrative embodiment, the evaluator can receive the most up-to-date form to complete assessments.

[0094] In other alternative implementations of an illustrative embodiment, the function or functions noted in the blocks may appear out of the order noted in the figures. For example, in some cases, two blocks shown in sequence may execute substantially concurrently, or the blocks may sometimes be performed in the reverse order, depending on the functionality involved. Also, other blocks may be added in addition to the illustrated blocks in a flowchart or block diagram.

[0095] In Fig. 6 For example, a summary does not always need to be sent when a summary screen is displayed in the graphical user interface. Instead, the summary can be saved and sent at a later time. In some cases, the summary can be deleted if the particular task needs to be repeated for some reason.

[0096] As another example, a sequence of screens during different operations in Fig. 6. The operations that display a sequence of screens may be interrupted in some cases. For example, the process may be interrupted if the assessment is aborted or an event occurs for which the assessment being created is no longer applicable. As a further illustrative example, some operations may be performed in a different order. For example, the signature screen displayed at operation 630 may be performed after the summary screen is displayed at operation 634.

[0097] With reference to the Fig. 9-17, illustrations of screens that may be displayed in a graphical user interface are shown according to an illustrative embodiment. The various screens illustrated in these figures represent examples of screens that may be displayed in the graphical user interface 207 on the display system 206 by the flight assessment facility 200. Furthermore, these screens represent examples of screens that may be displayed during various operations described with reference to the flowchart of Fig. 6. The sequence of screens described in the Fig. 9-17, supports the evaluator 102 in Fig. 1 in correctly evaluating crew members during a variety of different tasks. As a result, a uniform evaluation process can be implemented using an illustrative embodiment.

[0098] With reference to Fig. 9, an illustration of a task selection screen is shown according to an illustrative embodiment. In this example, the assessment selection screen 900 represents an example of a screen used in the operation 600 of the Fig. 6 is displayed.

[0099] The rating selection screen 900 is configured to receive user input to select ratings to be evaluated by the evaluator 102 in Fig. 2 are to be performed. In this illustrative example, an assessment 902, an assessment 904, an assessment 906, an assessment 908, an assessment 910, and an assessment 912 have been selected in a pop-up menu 914. The pop-up menu 914 is displayed when a control 916 is selected. In this example, the various assessments that can be selected represent forms that can be displayed for use in creating the assessment.

[0100] With reference to Fig. 10, an illustration of a test screen according to an illustrative embodiment is shown next. The test screen 1000 represents an example of a screen used in operation 606 of the Fig. 6 is displayed.

[0101] Test screen 1000 may be displayed to receive user input to identify evaluation information. In this example, section 1002 is configured to receive a selection of an aircraft type. Section 1004 is configured to receive a selection of a date for the evaluation.

[0102] In this example, the assessment is actually conducted in an aircraft rather than in a simulator. This assessment type may be referred to as a line review. In this illustrative example, a line review represents a review category, where each review may have different nuances. A section 1006, a section 1008, a section 1010, a section 1012, a section 1014, and a section 1016 are set up to be selected to identify the report type that can be generated.

[0103] In this illustrative example, an annual line review is selected in section 1006. As a result, an annual line review is generated from the input by the evaluator 102 of the Fig. 2 generated during the assessment. One or more additional report types may be selected during an assessment, depending on the specific implementation.

[0104] With reference to Fig. 11, an illustration of a personnel screen according to an illustrative embodiment is shown. In this particular example, a personnel screen 1100 represents an example of a personnel screen used in operation 610 of the Fig. 6 can be displayed.

[0105] In this particular example, information about the personnel, such as the crew members, as well as about the evaluator can be entered. The information about the crew members can, for example, be entered in a section 1101 and a section 1102 in the personnel screen 1100.

[0106] The evaluator can be entered into a section 1104 in the personnel screen 1100. In this illustrative example, the evaluator 102 can enter the information about each crew member into the personnel screen 1100. In other illustrative examples, the information about these crew members and the evaluator 102 can be retrieved from a database, such as the personnel database 216 of the Fig. 2.

[0107] In section 1101, for example, the crew member's name can be entered in field 1106. An employee designation can be entered in field 1108. An airline designation can be entered in field 1110. The crew member's rank can be selected in field 1112, and the crew member's location on the aircraft can be selected in field 1114.

[0108] Similar information may be entered into the fields shown in section 1102 and section 1104 in this illustrative example.

[0109] Let us now turn to the Fig. 12, which shows an illustration of an information screen according to an illustrative embodiment. In this example shown, an information screen 1200 represents an example of a screen that may be displayed during operation 614 of the Fig. 6 can be displayed.

[0110] As shown, the information screen 1200 identifies information for the evaluation to be performed. In particular, the information screen 1200 can be displayed by the evaluator 102 of the Fig. 1 can be used to enter rating information.

[0111] In this example, an assistance selection for the crew member being evaluated is identified in a section 1202. A selection of the route flown for the evaluation may be made in a section 1204. The approach type for the route selected in section 1202 may be selected in a section 1206.

[0112] Let us now turn to the Fig. 13, which shows an illustration of a report screen according to an illustrative embodiment. In this example, a report screen 1300 represents an example of a screen displayed during operation 618 of the Fig. 6. In this example, the report screen 1300 is displayed for the crew member listed in section 1102 of the Fig. 11. In other illustrative examples, the report screen 1300 may be displayed for the crew member defined by section 1101 or for other crew members whose information is displayed in the personnel screen 1100 of the Fig. 11 must be entered.

[0113] The report screen 1300 is configured to receive a user input from the evaluator 102 of the Fig. 1 that identifies a crew member's performance during the evaluation. In this illustrated example, a section 1301 in the report screen 1300 displays a list of categories 1303. The categories in the list of categories 1303 may be phases of a flight or other evaluation categories used by the evaluator 102 to evaluate a crew member's performance. A category in the list of categories 1303 may be selected during an evaluation. A pilot monitoring / non-flying pilot duties category 1305 is selected in this illustrative example. The evaluator 102 may select the pilot monitoring / non-flying pilot duties category 1305 to evaluate a crew member on the performance of tasks specific to pilot monitoring and scenarios in which the pilot is not flying.

[0114] In this illustrative example, a section 1307 with a list of items 1302 is shown in the report screen 1300. Items in the list of items 1302 may represent tasks that are assessed during evaluation by the evaluator 102.

[0115] In some illustrative examples, the number of tasks evaluated by evaluator 102 may vary between evaluations. For example, during this evaluation, evaluator 102 selects checklist procedures 1304, radio communications 1306, and flight planning 1308 as demonstrated by the crew member during one evaluation. During other evaluations, evaluator 102 may evaluate the same task or other tasks in the list of items 1302, depending on the particular implementation.

[0116] In these illustrated examples, the crew member may achieve a score for each task evaluated by the evaluator 102 in the report screen 1300. This score may be a numerical score, a satisfaction / dissatisfaction representation, or another score type using another suitable scoring format. As shown, additional comments about the evaluation may be entered in section 1310 of the report screen 1300. For example, the evaluator 102 may enter descriptive comments in section 1310 of the report screen 1300. For example, the evaluator 102 may comment on a crew member's performance during a task. In another illustrative example, the evaluator 102 may comment on why a task was not completed, was not scored, or provide any other suitable reason.

[0117] In some cases, flight dynamics may dictate which tasks can be evaluated by the evaluator 102. As a result, not all tasks listed in the list of items 1302 can be performed during each evaluation. In this way, comments regarding evaluated tasks, non-evaluated tasks, and other flight details can be entered into section 1310 of the report screen 1300. The comments entered into the report screen 1300 are used by the report 220 of the Fig. 2 be included.

[0118] Although the illustration of report screen 1300 is shown including section 1301, section 1307, and section 1310, other sections may be implemented in report screen 1300 in addition to or instead of section 1301, section 1307, and section 1310. For example, an additional section may be implemented in report screen 1300 to assist evaluator 102 in evaluating crew members.

[0119] In alternative implementations of an illustrative embodiment, a section may be shown in report screen 1300 that guides evaluator 102 in evaluating different tasks in item list 1302. When this selection type is used, evaluator 102 may view evaluation criteria for each task in item list 1302 when that task is selected.

[0120] In other words, this means that the evaluation criteria for a selected task can be displayed in a pop-up section in some illustrative examples. These criteria can be determined based on user preferences, Federal Aviation Administration guidelines, or other appropriate standards depending on the particular implementation. In this way, an illustrative embodiment utilizing report screen 1300 provides evaluator 102 with a unified process for evaluating, commenting on, and recording a crew member's performance during a particular set of tasks.

[0121] With reference to Fig. 14, an illustration of an operation evaluation screen is shown according to an illustrative embodiment. An evaluation screen 1400 represents an example of the screen displayed during operation 622 in the Fig. 6 can be displayed.

[0122] In this example, the evaluation screen 1400 can be used to evaluate the performance of a crew member performing various operations during an evaluation of that crew member. The various points rated during the performance of a group of operations are found in a section 1402, a section 1404, a section 1406, a section 1408, a section 1410, a section 1412, a section 1414, a section 1416, and a section 1418.

[0123] With reference to Fig. 15, an illustration of an annotation screen is shown according to an illustrative embodiment. In this illustrative example, an annotation screen 1500 represents an example of a screen that may be displayed at operation 626.

[0124] In this particular example, the annotation screen 1500 is configured to receive additional input from the evaluator 102 that is not found in other screens in these illustrative examples. This additional input may be entered by the evaluator 102 into a field 1502 in a section 1504.

[0125] Referring to Fig. 16, an illustration of a signature screen according to an illustrative embodiment is shown. In this example, a signature screen 1600 may be displayed at operation 630 of the Fig. 6 are displayed.

[0126] As shown, signature screen 1600 can be used to receive signatures from the number of crew members being tested and the evaluator. In this example, a signature can be entered by the crew member into a section 1602. The signature of evaluator 102 can be entered into a section 1604.

[0127] Referring to Fig. 17 shows an illustration of a summary screen according to an illustrative embodiment. In this example, a summary screen 1700 represents an example of a screen displayed during operation 634 of the Fig. 6 can be displayed.

[0128] As shown, summary screen 1700 provides a summary of the assessment performed by evaluator 102. Furthermore, the summary displayed in summary screen 1700, as well as other information about the assessment, may be sent in a report.

[0129] The illustrations of the various screens of the Fig. 9-17 are presented as examples of screens that may be displayed by the flight assessor 200 in the graphical user interface 207 on the display system 206 to display the information 114. These screens are intended to be merely illustrative examples of screens that may be displayed in the graphical user interface 207 and are not intended to limit the manner in which the flight assessor 200 may display the information 114 in the graphical user interface 207.

[0130] In these illustrative examples, the evaluator 102 may display these screens in the manner described in the Fig. 9-17 to support a consistent evaluation of the crew members. Of course, the evaluator 102 may also use the Fig. 9-17 in any order, depending on the preferences of the evaluator 102. In this way, the Fig. 6 and the process illustrated in the Fig. 9-17 provides the evaluator 102 with a uniform and easy-to-use assessment.

[0131] In Fig. 18, an illustration of another screen is shown according to an illustrative embodiment that may be displayed in a graphical user interface. In this example, an information screen 1800 displays an event 1802, an event 1804, an event 1806, an event 1808, an event 1810, an event 1812, and an event 1814 for a flight profile 1816. In this illustrative example, the flight profile 1816 represents a vertical flight profile of an aircraft's flight during which assessments are performed for various events. These events are displayed at locations in the flight profile 1816 to indicate when an assessment should be created for a task being performed for a particular event.

[0132] Of course, other flight profile types may be used in other illustrative examples. For example, a horizontal flight profile may be displayed instead of or in addition to the vertical flight profile shown in this example. The horizontal flight profile may show the aircraft's route overlaid on an aeronautical map. The aeronautical map may show terrain, political features, airspace boundaries, radio frequencies, and / or other appropriate information. The events for which assessments are to be performed may be displayed at the location where the events occur along the route.

[0133] With reference to Fig. 19 shows an illustration of a history screen according to an illustrative embodiment. A history screen 1900 may be displayed to provide the evaluator with information regarding how a crew member performed on previous evaluations created for specific events.

[0134] In this illustrative example, previous assessments are shown in a section 1902, a section 1904, a section 1906, a section 1908, a section 1910, and a section 1912. These sections provide information about scores on assessments created for tasks performed for events identified in the information screen 1800. For example, section 1902 corresponds to event 1802 in Fig. 18; the section 1904 corresponds to the event 1804 in Fig. 18; the section 1906 corresponds to the event 1806 in Fig. 18; the section 1908 corresponds to the event 1808 in Fig. 18; the section 1910 corresponds to the event 1810 in Fig. 18; and the section 1912 corresponds to the event 1812 in Fig. 18.

[0135] Let us now turn Fig. 20, which shows an illustration of an evaluation screen according to an illustrative embodiment. An evaluation screen 2000 represents another example of an evaluation screen that may be displayed during operation 622 of the Fig. 6 can be displayed. In this example, the evaluation screen displays 2000 norms for ranking operations performed on a task when an event occurs.

[0136] In this example, crew members can be selected for evaluation in section 2002. In this example, "Jane Carol" was selected by selecting a 2004 key in section 2002. Other crew members can be selected by selecting a 2006 key, a 2008 key, or a 2010 key in section 2002.

[0137] An assessment can be selected in a section 2012. The assessment can be created to perform the operations for the task by selecting a button 2014, a button 2016, a button 2018, a button 2020, a button 2022, or a button 2024.

[0138] A section 2026 allows the evaluator to enter the number of repetitions performed. For example, the evaluator can enter "5" because the crew member performed the task five times. The number of repetitions can be selected by selecting a key 2028, a key 2030, a key 2032, a key 2034, or a key 2036.

[0139] Reasons for the assessments can be entered in a section 2038. The reasons can be selected here by selecting a button 2040, a button 2042, a button 2044, a button 2046, a button 2048, a button 2050, a button 2052 or a button 2054.

[0140] An evaluation of whether the crew member is capable of performing the operations for the task in response to the event may be made in a section 2058 by selecting a button 2060 or a button 2062.

[0141] A final assessment can be entered in a section 2064. The final assessment can be created by selecting a key 2066, a key 2068, a key 2070, a key 2072, a key 2074, or a key 2076.

[0142] Furthermore, the evaluator can also enter comments in a section 2078. This allows the evaluator to enter more information that is important for evaluating the performance of the operations in the task.

[0143] It can be seen that the judgments and reasons in the various sections in the 2000 Evaluation Screen are fixed in a manner that results in a better standardized evaluation produced by different evaluators using this screen.

[0144] With reference to Fig. 21, an illustration of a data structure according to an illustrative embodiment is shown below. In this example, a data structure 2100 represents an example of a data structure used to send the information 114 to the flight evaluation device 200 of the Fig. 2 can be used.

[0145] Data structure 2100 represents an example of a manner in which data may be used to transmit information 114. In this example, data structure 2100 is shown in the form of a Unified Modeling Language (UML) diagram.

[0146] In this illustrative example, data structure 2100 includes different members. As shown, data structure 2100 includes an assessment 2102, an event 2104, an instruction 2106, a grade 2108, a student 2110, and an instructor 2112.

[0147] The assessment 2102 represents a parent entity of the data structure 2100. The assessment 2102 may include information such as a briefing time, a mission briefing time, an identification, a name, and a device time. In these illustrative examples, the briefing time represents a duration of the meeting between the evaluator and the crew member prior to the assessment. The student may be one of the crew members 106 of the Fig. 1.

[0148] In these examples, the briefing time represents the duration of the meeting between the evaluator and the crew member after the assessment is complete. The identification represents the assessment type. The name is the name of the student being assessed, and the fixture time represents the total time spent in the simulator.

[0149] In the illustrative example, event 2104 includes an altitude index, i_selected, a name, and a time index. This information is used to identify the event for which the assessment can be created. Event 2104 represents a subcategory of assessment 2102. In these illustrative examples, the altitude index represents the altitude at which event 2104 occurs. i_selected represents the internal usage variable used so that the application knows which event is currently being assessed. The name represents the name of event 2104. The time index represents the time at which event 2104 occurs.

[0150] An instruction 2106 represents a subcategory of event 2104. The instruction 2106 includes an action, a frequency, a label, a name, a trigger, and a type. In these illustrative examples, an action represents a category that specifies a specific action the evaluator can perform in the simulator. The frequency represents a frequency to be used when communicating with the simulator. The label represents an index of the series that determines an order of instructions for the event. The name represents a title name of the instruction. The trigger represents an action that causes the instruction to be executed. The type represents the classification of the instruction type.

[0151] The 2108 rating represents the assessment of each event of the 2104 events. The 2108 rating includes a final rating, a flag, comments, prof, a rating, reasons, and repetitions. In these illustrative examples, the final rating corresponds to the final rating field in section 2064 of the 2000 rating screen of the Fig. 20. The label represents the label that correlates with the grade in Grade 2108, the student in Student 2110, and in section 2002 of the 2000 assessment screen. Remarks corresponds to the Remarks field in section 2078 of the 2000 assessment screen. Prof corresponds to the Prof field in section 2058 of the 2000 assessment screen. The assessment corresponds to the Assessment field in section 2012 of the 2000 assessment screen. The Reasons corresponds to the Justification field in section 2038 of the 2000 assessment screen. The Repetitions correspond to the Repetition field in section 2026 of the 2000 assessment screen.

[0152] Student 2110 represents the student being assessed during the assessment. Student 2110 includes a field for added data, for an equipment, for a label, for a name, for an organization, for an overall rating, for a photo, and for a position. In these examples shown, the added date represents the timestamp indicating when the student was added to the assessment. Equipment corresponds to the equipment field on the student form. The label correlates the student to Assessment 2102. Name corresponds to the name field on the student form. Organization corresponds to the organization field on the student form. The overall rating corresponds to the score shown in the overall student score table for each assessment. Photo corresponds to the picture of Student 2110. Position corresponds to the position field on the student form.

[0153] The instructor 2112 represents the person who grades the students and runs the application. The instructor 2112 may be an example for the evaluator 102 of the Fig. 1. The instructor 2112 includes an instructor, a location, an observer, a photograph, and an implementation. As shown, the instructor represents the name of the instructor. The location corresponds to the location field. The observer represents the name of each additional observer. The photograph is an image of the instructor. The implementation includes a name of a controller observing the assessment.

[0154] As shown, the data structure 2100 can be implemented in a variety of different ways. The data structure 2100 can be, for example, a flat file, a Hypertext Markup Language (HTML) document, an Extensible Markup Language (XLM) document, or another suitable form. Furthermore, the data structure 2100 can also include program code, scripts, or other elements used by the flight evaluation facility 200 to display the information 114 in the graphical user interface 207 of the Fig. 2 to display.

[0155] Let us now turn to the Fig. 22, which shows an illustration of a block diagram of a data processing system according to an illustrative embodiment. A data processing system 2200 may be used to implement the data processing system 204 and the computer system 202 of the Fig. 2. In this illustrative example, data processing system 2200 includes a communications framework 2202 that enables communications between a processor unit 2204, a memory 2206, a persistent storage 2208, a communications unit 2210, an interface unit 2212, and a display 2214. In this example, the communications framework may take the form of a bus system.

[0156] Processor unit 2204 is for executing instructions for software that can be loaded into memory 2206. Processor unit 2204 may be a plurality of processors, a multiprocessor core, or any other type of processor, depending on the particular implementation.

[0157] Memory 2206 and persistent storage 2208 represent examples of storage devices 2216. A storage device is any piece of hardware that can store information, such as data, program code in functional form, and / or other suitable information, without limitation, either on a temporary basis and / or a permanent basis. Storage devices 2216 may also be referred to as computer-readable storage devices in these illustrative examples. Memory 2206 in these examples may be, for example, random access memory or any other suitable volatile or non-volatile storage device. Persistent storage 2208 may take various forms depending on the particular implementation.

[0158] Persistent storage 2208 may include one or more components or devices. Persistent storage 2208 may be, for example, a hard disk, flash memory, a rewritable optical disk, a rewritable magnetic tape, or any combination thereof. The media used by persistent storage 2208 may also be removable. A removable hard disk, for example, may be used as persistent storage 2208.

[0159] In these illustrative examples, the communication unit 2210 enables communication with other data processing systems or devices. In these illustrative examples, the communication unit 2210 represents a network interface card.

[0160] The interface unit 2212 enables input and output of data with other devices that may be connected to the data processing system 2200. For example, the interface unit 2212 may provide a connection for user input through a keyboard, a mouse, and / or any other suitable input device. Furthermore, the interface unit 2212 may send output to a printer. The display 2214 provides a mechanism for displaying information to a user.

[0161] Instructions for the operating system, applications, and / or programs may be located in memory devices 2216, which are in communication with processor unit 2204 via communication framework 2202. The operations of the various embodiments may be performed by processor unit 2204 using computer-implemented instructions that may be located in memory, such as memory 2206.

[0162] These instructions are referred to as program code, computer-usable program code, or computer-readable program code that can be read and executed by the processor in processing unit 2204. The program code in various embodiments may be embodied on different physical or computer-readable storage media, such as memory 2206 or persistent storage 2208.

[0163] The program code 2218 is located in a functional form on the computer-readable medium 2220, which is optionally removable, and can be loaded onto the data processing system 2200 or transferred to the data processing system 2200 for execution by the processor unit 2204. The program code 2218 and the computer-readable medium 2220 form a computer program product 2222 in these illustrative examples. In one example, the computer-readable medium 2220 can be a computer-readable storage medium 2224 or a computer-readable signal medium 2226.

[0164] In these illustrative examples, the computer-readable storage medium 2224 represents a physical or tangible storage device used to store the program code 2218 rather than a medium that propagates or transmits the program code 2218.

[0165] Alternatively, the program code 2218 may be transferred to the data processing system 2200 using the computer-readable signal medium 2226. The computer-readable signal medium 2226 may, for example, be a propagating data signal containing the program code 2218. The computer-readable signal medium 2226 may, for example, be an electromagnetic signal, an optical signal, and / or any other suitable signal type. These signals may be transmitted over communication links, such as wireless communication links, optical fiber cables, coaxial cables, a wire, and / or any other suitable communication link type.

[0166] The various components illustrated for data processing system 2200 are not intended to represent an architectural limitation on the manner in which various embodiments may be implemented. The various illustrative embodiments may be implemented in a data processing system including components used in addition to and / or instead of those illustrated for data processing system 2200. Other components illustrated in Fig. 22 may differ from the illustrative examples shown. The various embodiments may be implemented using any hardware device or system capable of executing program code 2218.

[0167] Thus, the illustrative embodiments provide a method and apparatus for evaluating the performance of crew members of an aircraft. In one or more illustrative embodiments, an evaluator may use a mobile computing system, such as a mobile phone or tablet computer, to perform an evaluation of that crew member, such as a pilot.

[0168] When using a flight assessment device in the mobile data processing system, the evaluator can evaluate a pilot's performance in real time during a simulation or during an actual flight. The flight assessment device can provide guidance for a desired evaluation of operations performed for a specific event in various illustrative examples. The use of a flight assessment device can also provide guidance for grading the performance of operations. In this way, the same guidance can be used for evaluations conducted at different times by different evaluators. As a result, an increase in the standardization of the results of crew member evaluations can be achieved.

[0169] Furthermore, the use of the flight rating facility in these illustrative examples can reduce the time and effort required to conduct ratings. The flight rating facility can reduce or eliminate the need for paper-based ratings and rating operations after they have been conducted.

[0170] In addition, the summary generated by the flight review facility can be used for a variety of purposes. For example, the summary can be used for a crew briefing, as an entry for operational purposes, and for other purposes.

[0171] The description of the various illustrative embodiments has been presented for purposes of illustration and description and is not intended to limit or exhaust the embodiment to the form disclosed. Many changes and modifications will be apparent to those skilled in the art.

[0172] Furthermore, different illustrative embodiments may provide different features compared to other illustrative embodiments. The selected embodiment(s) were chosen and described to best explain the principles of the embodiments and their practical application, and to enable those skilled in the art to understand the disclosure for various embodiments with various modifications as suited to the particular intended use.

Claims

[1] A flight rating system (112) comprising: a display system (206); an input system (210); a flight assessment device (200); and an evaluation manager (215); where the evaluation manager (215) is set up: in response to an update taking place in a personnel database (216) and / or an assessment database (218), pushing the update to the flight assessment facility (200) without a request from the flight assessment facility (200) and dynamically exchange a first form with a second form while the first form is in use, the second form being an updated form; wherein the flight evaluation device (200) is arranged: displaying (500) on the display system (206) information (114) for evaluating performance of a group of operations (110) performed by a number of crew members (106) of an aircraft (108) while the aircraft (108) is operated by the number of crew members (106) for which the group of operations (110) is being evaluated; receive an input (208), through the input system (210), evaluating the performance of the group of operations (110) by the number of crew members (106); and receiving the update while performing the evaluation (104) that dynamically exchanges the first form with the second form while the first form is in use, by the evaluation manager (215). [2] The flight evaluation system (112) of claim 1, wherein the flight evaluation device (200) is further configured to store the input (208) and, using the user input (208), generate a report (220) on the performance of the group of operations (110) performed by the number of crew members (106). [3] The flight assessment system (112) of claim 1, wherein the group of operations (110) is for a task performed in response to an event. [4] The flight evaluation system (112) of claim 1, wherein the flight evaluation device (200) is further configured to send a report (220) based on the input (208) to an entity (224) via a communication link (211). [5] The flight evaluation system (112) of claim 1, wherein the flight evaluation device (200) is further configured to receive the update to the information (114) for evaluating the performance of the group of operations (110) performed by the number of crew members (106) from a computer system (202) via a communication link (211). [6] The flight evaluation system (112) of claim 1, wherein the flight evaluation device (200) is configured to receive the input (208) during performance of the group of operations (110) by the number of crew members (106) for an event. [7] The flight evaluation system (112) according to claim 1, wherein the display system (206), the input system (210) and the flight evaluation device (200) are arranged in a data processing system (204). [8] The flight evaluation system (112) of claim 7, wherein the data processing system (204) is selected from a tablet computer, an electronic flight bag, a mobile phone, or a laptop computer. [9] The flight evaluation system (112) of claim 1, wherein the operation of the aircraft (108) is performed using the aircraft (108) and / or the simulator for the aircraft (108). [10] The flight evaluation system (112) according to claim 1, wherein the display system (206) and the input system (210) are designed as a touch screen. [11] A method for evaluating performance in operating an aircraft (108), the method comprising: a flight evaluation system (112) comprising: a display system (206); an input system (210); a flight evaluation device (200); and an evaluation manager (215); wherein the assessment manager (215), in response to an update occurring in a personnel database (216) and / or an assessment database (218), pushes the update to the flight assessment facility (200) without a request from the flight assessment facility (200) and dynamically exchanges a first form with a second form while the first form is in use, the second form being an updated form; and wherein the flight evaluation device (200) performs: Displaying information (114) for evaluating performance of a group of operations (110) performed by a number of crew members (106) of the aircraft (108) on a display system (206) during operation of the aircraft (108) by the number of crew members (106) for which the group of operations (110) is evaluated; Receiving an input (208), by the input system (210), that evaluates the performance of the group of operations (110) by the number of crew members (106); and Receiving, while the evaluation (104) is being performed, the update that the first form dynamically exchanges with the second form while the first form is in use, by the evaluation manager (215). [12] The method of claim 11, wherein the displaying step comprises: Displaying the information (114) in a graphical user interface (207) in the display system (206) for a portable data processing system, wherein the information (114) is used to evaluate the performance of the group of operations (110) performed by the number of crew members (106) of the aircraft (108) on the display system (206) during operation of the aircraft (108) by the number of crew members (106) for which the group of operations (110) is evaluated. [13] The method of claim 11, wherein the displaying step comprises: Displaying classification criteria (408) for evaluating the performance of the group of operations (110) performed by the number of crew members (106). [14] The method of claim 11, wherein the group of operations (110) is for a task performed in response to an event. [15] The method of claim 11, further comprising: Receiving an update to the information (114) for evaluating the performance of the group of operations (110) performed by the number of crew members (106) from a computer system (202) via a communication link (211). [16] The method of claim 11, wherein the user input (208) is received during performance of the group of operations (110) by the number of crew members (106) for an event. [17] The method of claim 11, wherein the display system (206) and the input system (210) are arranged in a data processing system (204) selected from a tablet computer, an electronic flight bag, a mobile phone, or a laptop computer. [18] The method of claim 11, wherein the operation of the aircraft (108) is performed using the aircraft (108) and / or a simulator for the aircraft (108).

Images