Search

We suggest gelatin hydrogel as an electrolyte and demonstrate organic electrochemical transistors (OECTs) based on a sheet of gelatin. We also modulate electrical characteristics of the OECT with respect to pH condition of the gelatin hydrogel from acid to base and analyze its characteristics based on the electrochemical theory. Moreover, we extend the gelatin-based OECT to electrochemical logic circuits, for example, NOT, NOR, and NAND gates., Funding Agencies|Pioneer Research Center Program [NRF-2014M3C1A3053029]; National Research Foundation of Korea - Ministry of Science, ICT and Future Planning [NRF-2015K2A7A1063990]; Swedish Foundation for Strategic Research (Si-organic electronics); Advanced Functional Material Center at Linkoping University

Access to affordable and effective flight-simulation training devices (FSTDs) is critical to safely train airline crews in aviating, navigating, communicating, making decisions, and managing flight-deck and crew resources. This paper provides an overview of the Federal Aviation Administration-Volpe Center Flight Simulator Human Factors Program examining the requirements for the qualification and use of FSTDs. We will summarize past research investigating the need for a full hexapod-platform motion system, describe regulatory and industry developments, and report on current activities.

As part of the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) initiative towards affordable flight simulators for U.S. commuter airlines, this study empirically examined the effect of six-degree-of-freedom simulator platform motion on recurrent pilot training and evaluation in the presence of a wide field-of-view visual system. Sound scientific data on the relationship between the motion requirement and its effect on the transfer of pilot performance/behavior to and from the airplane is all the more important given that the FAA may mandate the use of simulators for airline pilot training and evaluation. The study addressed the question of whether the motion provided by an FAA qualified Level C simulator affects 1) pilot performance/behavior and instructor grading criteria during First Look evaluation, 2) the course of Training in the simulator, and 3) the Transfer of skills acquired during Training in the simulator with or without motion to the simulator with motion as a stand-in for the airplane. Every effort was made to avoid deficiencies in the research design identified in a review of prior studies, by measuring pilot stimulation and response, testing both maneuvers and pilots that are diagnostic of a need of motion, avoiding pilot and instructor bias, and ensuring sufficient statistical power to capture operationally relevant effects.

FA16, FAN2, This document provides an overview of Cockpit Display of Traffic Information (CDTI) products as of May 2016, including those with airport moving map functionality, and airport moving map applications without traffic depiction. This document updates and replaces the Volpe Center’s 2009 airport moving map industry survey. The information for this report was gathered through industry contacts, websites, and online product brochures. This report was conducted in support of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), but the information is intended to be of use to anyone interested in CDTI and airport moving map products. Nineteen manufacturers and two research organizations participated in this industry survey. Each provided a description of software and hardware components (when applicable), including display characteristics, depiction of traffic, airport moving map information elements, and other functions and capabilities. Participating manufacturers were classified into three categories based on their products: CDTI Installed, CDTI Portable, and Airport Moving Map Only (without traffic depiction). Note that although some manufacturers provide a portable CDTI function, a CDTI is NOT considered an Electronic Flight Bag (EFB) function per AC 120-76C, and can not be authorized for use for Part 121, 125, 135, 91F and 91K operations via the AC.

FA6Y, FA07C2, FA07C4, FAN2C4, The objective of this effort is to have a single source document for human factors regulatory and guidance material for flight deck displays and controls, in the interest of improving aviation safety. This document identifies guidance on human factors issues to consider in the design and evaluation of avionics displays and controls for all types of aircraft (14 CFR parts 23, 25, 27, and 29). It is intended to facilitate the identification and resolution of typical human factors issues that are frequently reported by FAA Aircraft Certification Specialists. Topics address the human factors/pilot interface aspects of the display hardware, software, alerts/annunciations, and controls as well as considerations for flight deck design philosophy, intended function, error management, workload, and automation. A checklist of topics to consider during a display system evaluation, sample testing procedures and scenarios, and a list of key references are provided as appendices to facilitate the use and application of this document.

FAN2C4/MLH29, Two studies were conducted to identify best practices for the design of Low Visibility Operations/Surface Movement Guidance and Control System (LVO/SMGCS) paper charts and flightcrew use of them in extremely low visibility surface conditions. In the Chart Usability study, the researchers gathered information to understand the general usability of LVO/SMGCS charts on flightcrew position awareness. In the Airport Markings study, the researchers evaluated different airport marking designs, which may influence the use of LVO/SMGCS charts under those same conditions. For each study, 24 air transport pilots (twelve flightcrews) with Cat II or III qualifications performed taxi scenarios in a simulation of Memphis International Airport at runway visual range (RVR) 300 ft/75 m at night. The RVR and night-time conditions were chosen to represent worst-case conditions for LVO/SMGCS operations. In some scenarios, flightcrews were given difficult air traffic control (ATC) clearances that contained appropriate clearance instructions but did not necessarily follow strict ATC clearance protocol. The study was particularly interested in examining the accuracy of flightcrew actions under these conditions while using LVO/SMGCS taxi charts. The results of these studies showed that, under extreme low-visibility conditions, an 8.5 x 11 inch (21.59 x 27.94 cm) black-and-white paper LVO/SMGCS chart was sufficient for flightcrews to maintain position awareness. Additionally, flightcrews generally responded to air traffic control instructions properly and reported their locations correctly. The detailed results of the studies were used to generate a list of recommended best practices for LVO/SMGCS charts and airport markings.

FA07C1 HSA68, FA6YC1 FD912, This document provides an overview of Electronic Flight Bag (EFB) systems and capabilities, as of June 2010. This document updates and replaces the April 2007 EFB Industry Review (Yeh and Chandra, 2007). As with the previous industry survey, the focus is on the human systems interface. The information for this report was gathered through industry contacts, demonstrations, websites, brochures, and trade journal reports. This report was conducted in support of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), but the information is intended to be of use to anyone interested in EFBs. The report contains four sections. The first provides an overview of the effort. The second contains tables summarizing the information collected from those manufacturers who provide an integrated EFB system solution. The third provides details for products and services offered by EFB systems manufacturers, i.e., those who develop physical EFB hardware and provide EFB software. The fourth contains detailed information for products offered by EFB software manufacturers who do not develop EFB hardware. Software manufacturers were classified into two categories: those who offer an integrated and customizable software package that integrates several functions/applications and those who provide commercial off-the-shelf software that has not been integrated, customized, or tailored for a particular EFB. References to FAA EFB regulatory and guidance material and links to Flight Standardization Board (FSB) reports, which provide information regarding the operational suitability for particular EFB models, are also included.

The objective of this effort is to have a single source reference document for human factors regulatory and guidance material for flight deck displays and controls, in the interest of improving aviation safety. This document identifies guidance on human factors issues to consider in the design and evaluation of avionics displays and controls for all types of aircraft (14 CFR parts 23, 25, 27, and 29). It is intended to facilitate the identification and resolution of typical human factors issues that are frequently reported by FAA Aircraft Certification Specialists. This document supersedes the Version 1 report (DOT/FAA/TC-13/44; DOT- VNTSC-FAA-13-09). Topics address the human factors/pilot interface aspects of the display hardware, software, alerts/annunciations, and controls as well as considerations for flight deck design philosophy, intended function, error management, workload, and automation. Sample testing procedures and scenarios, and a list of key references are provided as appendices to facilitate the use and application of this document.

FAN2C3, FAN2C4, This document provides an overview of Electronic Flight Bag (EFB) hardware and software capabilities, including portable electronic devices (PEDs) used as EFBs, as of July 2015. This document updates and replaces the Volpe Center’s previous EFB industry surveys. The information for this report was gathered through industry contacts, websites, and online product brochures. This report was conducted in support of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), but the information is intended to be of use to anyone interested in EFBs/PEDs. Nineteen manufacturers participated in this industry survey. Each provided a description of hardware components, supported software, functions and capabilities, as applicable. Participating Manufacturers were classified into three categories based on their products. Hardware manufacturers (without software) are those that provide an EFB/PED display platform and/or hardware components. Hardware/Software manufacturers (EFB software and hardware) are those manufacturers who develop physical hardware in addition to providing EFB software. Integrated and customizable software manufacturers (without hardware) are those who provide custom software that performs a specific function or integrates and/or manages EFB applications from other software providers. A list of 46 commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) software manufacturers offering COTS, standalone software is also provided in order to provide a snapshot of the types of standalone, COTS software applications currently available. These manufacturers provide specific applications that have not been integrated or customized. References include EFB regulatory and guidance material, Flight Standardization Board (FSB) reports, and other research reports.