Flow Structure Modification Using Plasma Actuation for Enhanced UAV Flight Control

Author(s):  
Antonio J. Conesa Torres
2016 ◽  
Vol 760 ◽  
pp. 012013
Author(s):  
T Kura ◽  
E Fornalik-Wajs

2010 ◽  
Vol 47 (6) ◽  
pp. 1836-1846 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gilles Boesch ◽  
Huu Duc Vo ◽  
Bruno Savard ◽  
Christelle Wanko-Tchatchouang ◽  
Njuki W. Mureithi

2017 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 14
Author(s):  
Antonio Jesús Conesa Torres ◽  
Rafael Bardera-Mora ◽  
Mario Sánchez García ◽  
Marina León Calero

2015 ◽  
Vol 17 (12) ◽  
pp. 1032-1037 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jianyang Yu ◽  
Fu Chen ◽  
Huaping Liu ◽  
Yanping Song

2017 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 28-41 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert J. de Boer ◽  
Karel Hurts

Abstract. Automation surprise (AS) has often been associated with aviation safety incidents. Although numerous laboratory studies have been conducted, few data are available from routine flight operations. A survey among a representative sample of 200 Dutch airline pilots was used to determine the prevalence of AS and the severity of its consequences, and to test some of the factors leading to AS. Results show that AS is a relatively widespread phenomenon that occurs three times per year per pilot on average but rarely has serious consequences. In less than 10% of the AS cases that were reviewed, an undesired aircraft state was induced. Reportable occurrences are estimated to occur only once every 1–3 years per pilot. Factors leading to a higher prevalence of AS include less flying experience, increasing complexity of the flight control mode, and flight duty periods of over 8 hr. It is concluded that AS is a manifestation of system and interface complexity rather than cognitive errors.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document