Adaptive Crew Task Planning for Aircraft Cognitive State Assessment

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative Solutions
Generate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Existing systems fail to reliably and dynamically assess a crew's ability to perform their tasks during a mission, as they only capture instantaneous physiological states without considering the crew's stress or resource allocation, leading to potential overloading or neglect of critical tasks.

Innovation Solution

A system that includes modules for determining global and local cognitive states based on interaction and physiological measurements, resource models, and context indicators to dynamically adjust task plans, ensuring crew members are fit to perform their tasks.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Measurement precision

If sensors are used to measure crew physiological state, then instantaneous state monitoring is improved, but the system cannot assess crew ability to perform tasks in relation to mission stresses

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvephysiological state measurementVSAvoidcrew operational status assessment
Core Design Contradiction:
Measurement precisionVSReliability

Solution Approach 1:

The system segments the assessment into multiple independent modules: a physiological state measurement module that captures instantaneous physiological data, a task plan module that defines mission requirements and stresses, and a determination module that integrates both to assess operational status. This segmentation allows each module to specialize while maintaining overall system reliability.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #1Segmentation

Solution Approach 2:

The system implements feedback by continuously comparing the crew's physiological state against the task plan requirements and mission stresses. The determination module uses this feedback loop to dynamically assess whether the crew member is fit to perform tasks, creating a reliable assessment mechanism that adapts to changing conditions.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #23Feedback

2Adaptability or versatility

If the task plan is adaptive and automatically updated, then mission flexibility is improved, but crew resource overload increases

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvetask plan adaptabilityVSAvoidcrew task performance capacity
Core Design Contradiction:
Adaptability or versatilityVSProductivity

Solution Approach 1:

The task plan is designed as a dynamic, adaptive structure that can be automatically updated during the mission based on changing objectives and environmental conditions. The system allows the task plan to evolve while the determination module continuously monitors crew capacity to ensure adaptability does not lead to overload.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #15Dynamics

Solution Approach 2:

The system uses feedback to balance task plan adaptability with crew capacity. The determination module continuously assesses whether the crew member is fit to perform tasks based on physiological state and task requirements, providing feedback that prevents resource overload even as the task plan adapts to new mission demands.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #23Feedback

3Productivity

If more tasks are assigned to the crew, then mission objectives are improved, but crew stress and fatigue increase

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvemission task completionVSAvoidcrew stress and fatigue
Core Design Contradiction:
ProductivityVSObject-affected harmful factors

Solution Approach 1:

The determination module continuously monitors crew physiological state and compares it against task requirements, creating a feedback mechanism that identifies when stress and fatigue levels become harmful. This feedback allows the system to maintain high mission productivity while preventing crew overload by detecting when additional tasks would exceed safe stress thresholds.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #23Feedback

Solution Approach 2:

The determination module acts as an intermediary between the task plan and the crew. It assesses whether the crew member is fit to perform tasks by mediating between mission requirements and crew physiological state, allowing the system to optimize task assignment while protecting against stress and fatigue accumulation.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #24Intermediary (Mediator)

4Reliability

If the system monitors crew state dynamically, then operational status assessment is improved, but system complexity increases

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvereal-time operational status assessmentVSAvoidmonitoring system structure
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The monitoring system is segmented into distinct functional modules: a physiological state measurement module, a task plan module, and a determination module. This segmentation reduces overall system complexity by allowing each module to be developed and maintained independently while achieving reliable real-time assessment when integrated.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #1Segmentation

Data Source

PatentEP4016417B1System for determining a working condition of an aircraft crew according to an adaptive task plan and associated method
Publication Date: 2025.12.31 DASSAULT AVIATION SA
  • EP4016417B1 patent drawingFigure 1
  • EP4016417B1 patent drawingFigure 2
  • EP4016417B1 patent drawingFigure 3

AI summary

The system includes a crew task determination module (40) and a crew resource determination module (44), designed to determine, for each crew member, at least one theoretical reference cognitive state of the crew member based on the task list assigned to the crew member, using a resource model. It also includes a crew operational state determination module (62), designed to determine an indicator of the crew member's ability to perform the task(s) on the task list assigned to the crew member, based on the crew member's actual cognitive state determined from physiological measurements of the crew member and measurements of the crew member's interaction with the aircraft, and from the crew member's theoretical reference cognitive state determined by the crew resource determination module (44).