Avionics Voice Command Hazard Level Differentiation
Find Innovative SolutionsGenerate Solutions
Solution Overview
Problem
Current voice recognition systems in avionics lack the ability to differentiate between varying levels of hardware and software criticality and do not align with modern flight deck procedures, failing to meet the high reliability standards set by regulatory authorities such as DO-178B for critical functions.
Innovation Solution
A system that uses voice commands to perform avionics functions, where low-hazard functions are executed immediately and high-hazard functions require confirmation, utilizing a processing system with microphones and speakers to detect and confirm voice commands, and includes a test voice command feature to ensure system accuracy.
Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles
Engineering Contradiction Analysis
1Ease of operation
If voice commands are used to control avionics systems, then ease of operation is improved, but reliability deteriorates due to inability to differentiate hazard levels
Solution Approach 1:
The system applies different confirmation requirements to different hazard levels of avionics functions. Low-hazard functions (hazard level 3-4) execute immediately upon voice command, while high-hazard functions (hazard level 1-2) require explicit confirmation. This local differentiation maintains ease of operation for routine tasks while ensuring reliability for critical functions.
Solution Approach 2:
The system dynamically adjusts the execution protocol based on the hazard level of the requested function. The confirmation requirement is not static but changes according to the specific function being controlled, allowing the system to be responsive and efficient for low-risk operations while being cautious for high-risk operations.
2Reliability
If confirmation is required for all voice commands, then reliability is improved, but productivity deteriorates due to increased time for command execution
Solution Approach 1:
The system applies confirmation requirements selectively based on hazard level rather than universally. Low-hazard functions execute immediately without confirmation overhead, while only high-hazard functions require confirmation. This localized approach maintains productivity for routine operations while ensuring reliability for critical functions.
Solution Approach 2:
The system applies confirmation (an additional action) only partially - specifically for high-hazard functions - rather than for all voice commands. This partial application of confirmation maintains overall productivity while providing enhanced reliability where most needed.
3Ease of operation
If voice recognition software is used without hazard level differentiation, then ease of operation is improved, but manufacturing precision deteriorates due to inability to meet regulatory standards
Solution Approach 1:
The system incorporates hazard level differentiation that aligns with regulatory standards (DO-178B) while maintaining voice command ease of operation. The local quality principle allows the system to meet manufacturing precision requirements for critical functions through confirmation protocols while keeping routine functions simple and efficient.
Solution Approach 2:
The voice recognition system serves multiple functions: it provides ease of operation for all commands while simultaneously meeting regulatory manufacturing precision requirements through hazard-level-based confirmation. This multi-functionality allows a single system to address both operational simplicity and regulatory compliance.
4Reliability
If hazard level differentiation is implemented in voice commands, then reliability is improved, but device complexity increases due to additional confirmation logic
Solution Approach 1:
The system segments avionics functions by hazard level (1-4) and applies different execution protocols to each segment. This segmentation allows the complexity of hazard differentiation to be organized into manageable categories, where the confirmation logic is systematically applied based on pre-defined hazard levels rather than ad-hoc complexity.
Solution Approach 2:
The system uses feedback from the hazard level assessment to determine the appropriate execution protocol. When a voice command is received, the system evaluates the hazard level and provides feedback control - either immediate execution or request for confirmation - thereby managing complexity through structured feedback loops rather than unmanaged complexity.
Data Source
Figure 1
Figure 2
AI summary
Methods and system for operating an avionics system with voice command capability are provided. A first voice command is received. A first type of avionics system function is performed in response to the receiving of the first voice command. A second voice command is received. A second type of avionics system function that has a hazard level higher than that of the first type of avionics system function is performed in response to the receiving of the second voice command only after a condition is detected that is indicative of a confirmation of the request to perform the second type of avionics function. The avionics system may also have the capability to test whether or not the voice command feature is functioning properly.