Case Analysis Effectiveness

Case Analysis Effectiveness

Simona Teodorovic

July, 2018

Developing an idea, analyzing and writing up a case study allowed for a reliable and proper method of learning. I found this mean of teaching as a great way for participating and enhancing our current writing styles. Whether some of the students were developing an idea “from scratch” or basing it on a current project or job-related topic, it put us in the position of practicing strategy.

First, buy developing the idea, it compelled us to come up with a topic that has not yet been analyzed to that extent or not even at all.  The purpose of writing this paper could also be to “diagnose and size up” (p. 2) the human factor issues related to it (Schreiber, 2014). Second, by diving into the significance of the problem and proposing the alternatives, we were able to increase our understanding of what would be an appropriate technique for resolving the problem and what wouldn’t be. Third, we gained valuable practice in identifying and proposing new recommendations. This way we were able to systematically specify a workable strategy for future actions.   

I believe this to be an important and skillful method for participating in the class. Although all of us are in the aviation industry, not all have the same job requirements on a daily basis. However, this method is transparent and applicable for different companies and therefor, allows for actual work-related experience. Additionally, the traditional written case study was coupled with creating a presentation, which supported focusing on the details.

A recommendation would be releasing and posting our presentations to a discussion board. I believe that by seeing how other students further expanded their work, we would gain valuable knowledge. In my, opinion, the case analysis was favorable and a valuable experience that will most certainly be applicable for any future projects and job positions.

References

Schreiber, D. (2014, May 6). How experts write case studies that convert, not bore. Zapier. Retrieved on July 27^th, 2018 from https://zapier.com/blog/effective-case-study/.

Human Factors, Ethics and Morality

Human Factors, Ethics and Morality

Simona Teodorovic

July, 2018

            Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) are used for a wide range of purposes. In commercial aviation, they can be used for remote sensing, gathering imagery and agricultural surveying. In the military, UAS have been used for reconnaissance, attacks, monitoring targets, etc. These systems have further been specifically developed for the purpose of reducing the loss of human lives, whether it be by enhancing current vehicles (airborne) or designing completely new ones that are ground-based. Unfortunately, military UASs also initiate collateral damage.

            Systems used in the military are effective because of their increased accuracy (Wilson, 2014). Coupling the ethical and moral issues of their use, many positive and negative consequences arise. Ethics relate to actions carried out by moral agents and the evaluation of those acts (O’Fallon & Butterfield, 2005). The issues related to the use of a UAS are based on the action of the system, but with action being a continuing of the operators decision (Wilson, 2014). If the discussed system is not autonomous, the main ethical and moral concerns are solely related to the operator managing it. Additionally, Wilson (2014) states that ethical issues also are of concern for “who and what is influenced by the activities of the drone” (p. 2).

            Another interest revolving around the issue of ethics and morality is privacy. In war, a major role of UASs is surveillance and keeping the men on the ground safe. Forces that are involved in combat have the right to protect and minimize causalities, but this might come at the expense of exposing other parties not related to the matter.  

            One of the greatest arguments is the responsibility of decision-making. Many operators are part of a mission, however the decision for taking out an enemy or firing a missile is on the Pilot in Command (PIC). An insert from The Economist (2011) illustrates that ultimately there might not be a difference whether the pilot is on board the aircraft or at a distant command center. According to the author, “The legal defense for that missile killing people who have not been proven to be terrorists or who have not been allowed the chance to give themselves up is the same too” (p. 6).

            Nowadays it is difficult to associate UASs with positive news, which are not linked to war. For this reason, many do not see the favoring advances it brings financially, legally and risk wise. The economic benefits are far greater than the cost of manned forces and the decreased risk for any combatant are supporting arguments for the use of the systems. Although the operators and pilots are disconnected from the real-time images of war, they are safe and far away from the war zone. Additionally, UASs are capable of operating for a significant period of time. These factors, and many more, are supporting reasons for continuing with the use of UASs.

References

Drones and The Man. (July 30^th, 2011). In The Economist. Retrieved on July 27^th, 2018 from https://www.economist.com/leaders/2011/07/30/drones-and-the-man

O’Fallon, M. J., & Butterfield, K. D. (2005). A review of the empirical ethical decision-making literature: 1996-2003. Journal of Business Ethics, 59, 375-413. doi:10.1007/s10551-005-2929-7

Wilson, R. L. (2014). Ethical issues with the use of drone aircraft. Ethics in Science Technology and Engineering 2014 IEEE International Symposium, Chicago, IL, pp. 1-4. doi:10.1109/ETHICS.2014.6893424

UAS Crew Member Selection

UAS Crew Member Selection

Simona Teodorovic

July, 2018 

For safe operation and integration of Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) into the National Airspace System (NAS), selecting and employing qualified and competent personnel is crucial. This indicates complying with the regulations set by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) as well as obtaining appropriate certifications. 

Both the Insitu ScanEagle and the General Atomics Ikhana have similar features, which keep them in the same category of UASs (United States Air Force, 2011; NASA, 2015). Small and designed for long-endurance, the Insitu ScanEagle flies at low-altitude (up to 10,000 ft). The General Atomics Ikhana is composed for flying at medium-altitude (above 40,000 ft) in Beyond Line of Sight (BLOS) conditions. Although some systems that are from the small UAS category do not require more than the operator, the Insitu ScanEagle and Ikhana require a flight crew that comprises out of the pilot, and the operator that oversee the sensors.  

The specific mission these systems are intended to operate is an oceanic environmental study. First, for this type of operation, there would be a need for an airworthiness certificate that would grant the operators a legal and safe entry into the NAS (FAA, 2012). Dividing the two systems and describing them in more detail will give a better preview of the qualifications and requirements needed from the operators of these systems.  

The Insitu ScanEagle UAS requires two operators, one that sets up the flight plan and the other that manages the sensors and payload. Once the vehicle is airborne, the crew reduces to just the operator. The Ground Control Station (GCS) is a “point-and-click real-time control” (Insitu, n.d.).

General Atomics’ Ikhana is derived from the company’s MQ-9 Predator and is constructed to take up to “400 pounds of sensors and over 2000 pounds in external under-wing pods” (NASA, 2017, p. 14). Although similar in category and some features, their operational requirements are dissimilar.

As previously-mentioned, regulators are facing important challenges for safely integrating UASs into the NAS. With this in mind, forming the standards and guidelines operators have to comply with, is not an easy task. Based on the operations these systems are planned on flying, the assumption is that both UASs have a two-person crew. For the individuals to qualify for these positions, they would have to go through six-month basic training for operating the systems. However, prior to enrolling in the training program, there would be a stage of evaluating personalities, characters, and skills. To operate in such a stressful environment, there must exist an abundance of discipline and control.

Currently, it is preferred that operators have no prior aviation-related experience and medical certificates for qualifying. It is proposed that this changes. As equal users of airspace, there should be complacent, similar regulations for unmanned systems operators, as there are for pilots of commercial flights. As stated in the International Civil Aviation Organization Circular Advisory (2012), the “licensing and training requirements will be developed similar to those for manned aviation and will include both the aeronautical knowledge and operational components” (p. 34). Additionally, operators should have knowledge of the principles of aviation.

Many of the specific requirements can be found in the FAA’s Advisory Circular 10A (see Figure 1). However, for BLOS operations there should be added specifications, such as holding a FAA pilot’s certificate for operating in multiple airspace classes, under Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) and in night time operations (FAA, 2008).

Figure 1 Regulations

The minimal and ideal set of criteria for selecting a qualified UAS operator is widely discussed. However, with the increased use and complexity of each operation, determining one set of standards is challenging. It is evident that there cannot be a universal rule for operating the systems, however, complying with the rules of airspace must be imperative.

References

Federal Aviation Administration (2008). Unmanned Aircraft Systems Operations in the United States National Airspace System (Interim Operational Approval Guidance 08-01). Retrieved from file:///C:/Users/DBCERTLab/Downloads/723339.pdf on July 19^th, 2018.

Federal Aviation Administration Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, Section 333, 62-68 (2012). Retrieved from https://www.faa.gov/uas/media/Sec_331_336_UAS.pdf on July 18^th, 2018. 

Insitu (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.insitu.com/images/uploads/pdfs/ScanEagle_SubFolder_Digital_DU032817.pdf on July 19^th, 2018.

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (2015). NASA Armstrong fact sheet: Ikhana predator B unmanned science and research aircraft system. Retrieved from https://www.nasa.gov/centers/armstrong/news/FactSheets/FS-097-DFRC.html on July 18^th, 2018.   

United States Air Force (2011). Scan Eagle factsheet. Retrieved from https://web.archive.org/web/20130710112005/http://www.af.mil/information/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=10468 on July 18^th, 2018.  

Operational Risk Management

Operational Risk Management
Simona Teodorovic
July, 2018

            Among safety critical industries, Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) stand out regarding the many distributed levels of interactions in control and decision making. Due to the crucial interaction between the various elements of UASs, providing a safe environment for operations is making sure that each of these elements function properly.

            For the purpose of safely implementing and operating Small UASs (sUAS), the safety assessment process will evaluate whether the selected system(s) are sacrificing safety. This means that all possible impacts of an operations or system should be assessed and their combined safety effects analyzed.

            According to Netjasov, Mirkovic, Krstic-Simic and Babic (2018), a hazard is defined as “a result of a system or component failure and it can be anything that might negatively influence safety or an event or situation with possible harmful effects” (p. 309). They should be identified beforehand. However, both a reactive measure and a proactive process provide an effective way of determining hazards.

            The RQ-7 Shadow is a UAS highly used by the United States military. Instead of focusing on possible functions and failures, the starting point of a hazard identification is the safety of the operation (De Jong, Blom, & Stroeve, 2007). The goal of a hazard identification process is to obtain as many hazards as possible that could apply to the operation within the scope of the risk assessment.

         At a military base under consideration, the operation of a RQ-7 Shadow is analyzed. Following is an example of a Preliminary Hazard List (PHL) with its corresponding risk level values (Figure 1).

Figure 1 Preliminary Hazard List (page 3 of 5)

Hazards may include any condition that might have the potential to generate various negative results. For this reason, the scope of hazards of a sUAS are wide. Hazards can originate from design factors, procedures and operating practices, personnel factors, regulatory related factors, etc. (Netjasov, 2015).

When a safety hazard has been identified, an analysis is required to assess its potential for damage. The PHL lists several hazards, the probability of their occurrence and the severity. Following, the risk matrix appoints values to the risk. According to Netjasov, “risks have to be managed to a level that is as reasonably attainable” (2015). The Residual Risk Level (RRL) is reduced by lessening the severity of the potential outcomes, after applying a mitigating response.

Brainstorming as a method for hazard and risk mitigation, usually requires inventiveness, resourcefulness and awareness for all possible solutions. Additionally, analyzing various outcomes for risk and hazard mitigation, it is a common occurrence that not all have the same capability for reducing risks (Garriga, 2014).

Although this approach for hazard assessment has many advantages, such as being used by non-system experts and capturing a wide range of previous knowledge and experience, the disadvantages are far greater. Issues such as a limited use when dealing with novel systems and missing hazards that have not been previously seen and documented might degrade the use of the checklist. Accordingly, applying a Structured What-if (SWIFT) technique might be more adequate. This method would consider a complete multidisciplinary team of experts under the direction of a Chairman. It ensures reliability, detailed records and less time for the identification. However, this technique does require extensive preparation (Netjasov, 2015).

           

           

References

De Jong, H., Blom, H. A. P., & Stroeve, S. H. (2007). How to identify unimaginable hazards? 25^th International System Safety Conference ISSC. Baltimore, USA. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/255970182_How_to_identify_unimaginable_hazards

International Civil Aviation Organization (2014). Safety assessments for aerodromes. Retrieved from https://www.icao.int/NACC/Documents/Meetings/2014/SMSF1/P10.pdf .

Netjasov, F. (2015). Introduction to risk and safety of air navigation. Belgrade, Serbia: Faculty of Transport and Traffic Engineering.

Netjasov, F., Mirkovic, B., Krstic-Simic, T., & Babic, O. (2018). Hazard identification approach for future highly-automated air traffic management concepts of operation: Experiences from the Autopace Project. WIT Transactions on the Built Environment, 174, 303-315. doi:10.2495/SAFE170281

Automatic Take-off and Landing

Automatic Take-off and Landing

Simona Teodorovic

July, 2018

           

            A very simple search reveals various systems that have the capability of automatic take-off and landing. For decades, pilots of manned aircraft have been utilizing the autopilot, which later on has developed into the autoland. Debates and discussions are nowadays held, arguing what is the role of the pilot in the cockpit? How much, during the actual flight is he operating at the commands, as opposed to just overviewing them and managing input and output data? However, as far as technology in aviation has evolved, a completely automatic take-off of a manned aircraft has not yet been achieved (Can a Plane Land Automatically, n.d.).

            Any flight that is completely autonomous requires skillful precision in aircraft positioning. For landings and take-offs, this is of even greater importance (Wenzel, Masselli, & Zell, 2011). From the same source, we can see the authors developing a system that has the capability of automatic landing on a moving platform. Due to the size of the Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV), the on-board space is very limited for implementing navigational aids and additional equipment.

            In contrast to the mentioned system, a fixed wing, blended wide body (BWB) has proven to be successful in automated phases of flight. This type aircraft has improved flight characteristics and advanced payload capabilities. Even though this vehicle cannot compete with those of the military, it demonstrates increased endurance, which for the purpose of this analysis allows for an illustration of its level of automation.

            According to Huh and Shim (2010), this type of aircraft can land automatically, by controlling this phase through “vision algorithms and relatively simple landing aids” (p. 218). This way, there would be no need for costly sensors and additional equipment. The overall system consists out of “an inflated dome as a visual marker, a vision processing unit, and a flight controller using a visual servoing algorithm” (p. 219). This technology offers a simply solution to automatic landing. Additionally, due to its simplicity, in the event of a malfunction, the system will be able to be transferred and operated by a pilot. Depending on the level of sophistication of the additional equipment, the aircraft has the ability to fly from an initial position to a final one, based on a partially recognized environment (Saripalli, Montgomery, & Sukhatme, 2002).       

            This type of system has many advantages. Low cost and maintenance, simplicity and GPS based navigation, allows for an easy transition between automated and manual flight. At this level of automation, a suggestion would be to further develop it. The structure of a BWB allows for greater payload, stability and an overall, positive performance.

            Many systems currently have the capability of automatic operations (Scan Eagle, Global Hawk, etc.). However, as much as it might reduce human factor issues, it arises new concerns. There are terrible consequences of landings that are not executed correctly and that fail. In other words, it would be preferable and beneficial if the operator could recognize and terminate a disastrous landing beforehand.

 References

Can a Plane Land Automatically. Retrieved on July 7^th, 2018, from https://www.flightdeckfriend.com/can-a-plane-land-automatically

Huh, S., & Shim, D. H. (2010). A vision-based automatic landing method for fixed-wing UAVs. Journal of Intelligent and Robotic Systems, 57, 217-231. doi:10.1007/s10846-009-9382-2

Saripalli, S., Montgomery, J. F., & Sukhatme, G. S. (2002). Vision-based autonomous landing of an unmanned aerial vehicle. In Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, 2779-2804. Washington, D.C., USA.

Wenzel, K. E., Masselli, A., & Zell, Andreas (2011). Automatic take-off, tracking and landing of a miniature UAV on a moving carrier vehicle. Journal of Intelligent and Robotic Systems, 61, 221-238. doi:10.1007/s10846-010-9473-0

Shift Work Schedule

Shift work schedule

Simona Teodorovic

June, 2018

Generating a work schedule that is adequate for workforces that operate in shifts is a demanding and critical burden (Musliu, Gartner & Slany, 2002). In many cases, rotating work schedules are created to meet the legal requirements with little regard to the human factor issues that arise with such complex scheduling. Exhaustion, fatigue, stress and many other factors occur while crewman operate in such intense environments. Therefore, it is imperative that employees have rest days and work cycles that do not disrupt the circadian rhythm in a greater sense.

            Working in shifts can be defined in many ways. Most frequently it involves two or more teams, working an arrangement of hours, which differentiate in their starting and finishing times (Sallinen & Kecklund, 2010).

The decision and design of a work schedule must comply with issues related to fatigue and stress. This matter is of great concern for safety experts in various operational environments. By enforcing work schedules that do not allow for enough rest, the alertness of the individual or team is low. This leads to a reduction in productivity and unfortunately, in many cases, an increased accident rate (Cadwell, 2001). 

As seen from the provided work schedule, the four teams were divided into working three different shifts: (1) day; (2) swing; and (3) night. Due to the layout of work hours and rest days, many of the crewmembers started reporting excessive fatigue and insufficient sleep, due to their shift schedule. As a result, an alternative work schedule was created.

As a solution to the problem described above, the basis of the alternative was working six days in a row, followed by a two-day rest. However, working one shift for six consecutive days, adapts the body and its circadian rhythm to those specific hours. The two rest days were not sufficient enough to adapt the body to a new rhythm. Although the author of the original schedule might have had in mind that the later shifts were developed in equal increments, allowing the two-day rest period was not enough to compensate for the following cycle of work shifts.

As a countermeasure to the original schedule, a two day shift was suggested, grouped as six days, followed by a two-day rest period. To demonstrate, Team 1 will manage the day shift for two days, followed by two days of the swing and then two days of the night shift. After six days of working, Team 1 has two days for resting. In the meantime, the remaining teams were equally distributed, with respect to their working and rest days.

The proposed alternative shows a greater fluctuation in the shifts. The intention was to not allow the circadian rhythm to get into a circuit, because adapting to the new a shift might pose as a greater challenge. According to research conducted by Musliu, Gartner and Slany (2002), a different, “efficient backtracking algorithm for each step” (p. 86) of the schedule design, maximizes the quality of performance.

Techniques for adjusting to various work and sleep cycles have been studied for decades. Finding one algorithm that suits all poses as a challenge. However, continuous research into particular methods can resolve which ones are beneficial to specific departments within the industry.

References

Cadwell, L. J. (2002). Work and sleep hours of U. S. army aviation personnel working reverse cycle. Military Medicine, 166(2), 159-166. doi:10.1093/milmed/166.2.159

Musliu, N., Gartner, J., & Wolfgang S. (2002). Efficient generation of rotating workforces schedules. Discrete Applied Mathematics, 188(2), 85-98. doi:10.1016/S0166-218X(01)00258-X

Sallinen, M., & Kecklun, G. (2010). Shift work, sleep, and sleepiness-Differences between shift schedules and systems. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment and Health, 36(2), 121-133. doi:10.5271/sjweh.2900

UAS Beyond Line of Sight Operations

UAS Beyond Line of Sight Operations

Simona Teodorovic

June, 2018

An important step to integrating Unmanned Aerial Systems (UASs) into the National Airspace System (NAS) is allowing Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) to fly Beyond the Line of Sight Operations (BLOS). This calls for a safe integration of all the additional equipment, communication between operators and Air Traffic Control (ATC) and following all procedures and regulations. In addition, a major issue for safe commercial UAS operations is complying with the detect, sense and avoid principle and requirement.

Defined by the United States Department of the Interior (2016), the Pulse Vapor 55 is an Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS), converted from a tactical helicopter. It is able to carry greater payloads, up to 24 lbs. To be precise, the payload incorporates a system for light detection and ranging (LiDAR) imagery and the newest solutions for electro-optical and infrared (EO/IR) sensors (Pulse Aerospace, 2018).

Even though different from a multirotor system, the Pulse Vapor is also far from the likes of a military system, e.g. MQ-9 Reaper. However, the supporting systems allows it to fly BLOS. The reliable communication links between its Ground Control Station (GCS) and the vehicle support the previously mentioned operations. The GCS consists out of a touchscreen managed by the operator. It does not require any additional personnel, although the assistance of another operator has proven efficient. Many of the systems flight controls are preprogrammed, but with the use of the GCS, it is possible to allow the users to perform custom modifications and input data.

Even though the system is similar to one that is flown within Line of Sight (LOS), it is flexible and effortless in switching between the two methods. Due to the size of the vehicle and the limit of its payload, operators are able to transition smoothly. This could be considered a great advantage. Although this may be true, the operators situation awareness could distorted. Endsley (1995) defines situation awareness through three levels: (1) the perception of the essential features in the environment; (2) the comprehension of the situation in that given moment; and (3) the projection of foreseeable condition. Applying these definitions to an operator managing an UAS from a GCS, we might say that BLOS allows for more precision and accurate data awareness.

Furthermore, a crucial human factor that increases while operating from a touchscreen is workload. Additional parameters, such as altitude, attitude, airspeed and the high-level velocity commands contribute to an overload situation. Consequently, the position of the screen may also affect the operators work environment (Fostervold, Aaras, & Lie, 2006).

Operating an UAS poses as a stressful task, whether it be LOS or BLOS. It is a challenge for the cognitive domain and designing a better “human-centered system” can greatly surmount behavioral issues related to the operators’ performance (Mouloua, Gilson & Hancock, 2003).  

The Pulse Vapor or any system similar to it, is one worth considering for implementation into the private sectors for commercial use. Of course, many conditions need to be complied with, prior to this action. Although we have seen progress with numerous UASs, integrating detect and avoid, improving the technology that allows BLOS and airworthiness, the UAS industry is still abiding to any and all regulations enforced by the authorities.

References

Endsley, M. R. (2015). Situation awareness misconceptions and misunderstandings.  Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making, 9, 4-32, doi:10.1177/1555343415572631

Fostervold, K. I., Aaras, A., & Lie, I. (2006). Work with visual display units: Long-term health effect of high and downward line-of-sight in ordinary office environments. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 36, 331-343. doi:10.1016/j.ergon.2005.05.003

Mouloua, M., Gilson, R., & Hancock, P. (2003). Human-centered design of unmanned aerial vehicles. Ergonomics in Design: The Quarterly of Human Factors Applications, 11(1), 6-11. doi:10.1177/106480460301100103

Pulse Aerospace Specifications. (2018, June 24). Retrieved from http://www.pulseaero.com/uas-products/vapor-55

United States Department of the Interior (2016). Pulse Vapor 55TM Helicopter. Retrieved from https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/uploads/Pulse%20Vapor%2055TM%20Helicopter%20Data%20Sheet.pdf

UAS Integration in the NAS

UAS Integration in the NAS

Simona Teodorovic

June, 2018

Airspace in the United States faces unprecedented challenges at keeping traffic flow and passenger transportation at the required standards. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is well on their way with introducing an improved practice for maintaining them through Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen). This enhanced process, with focus on Performance Based Navigation (PBN) procedures, will comprise out of Required Navigation Performance (RNP) and Area Navigation (RNAV). It will increase the delivery of services to users and flexibility, decrease delays and overall introduce a more adaptable and responsive National Aviation Services (NAS) (Federal Aviation Administration, 2016). According to the FAA (2015), flying PBN allows for increased precision as a direct consequence of navigating “in terms of performance standards” (p. 4). With the inclusion of space and ground-based navigational aids, aircraft can fly on any wanted flight path. Coupled with equipment on board, this procedure meets the specific need of the operation; departure, approach, en route or arrival.

            Fundamental challenges to integrating Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) into the NAS consist of possible security risks, concerns for safety, and any matters regarding restrictions that are present in airspace. A favorable way of strategizing UAS implementation in the NAS would be drawing a parallel to its integration into domestic airspace.

            To uphold safety standards, UAS must demand for standard and technology procedures for detect, sense and avoid scenarios. This also includes signal loss. Given that physical control of the pilot is not achievable, UAS must be equipped with failsafe procedures in case of link loss. The most preferable failsafe for UAS would be an automated recovery (Gupta, Ghonge, & Jawandhiya, 2013). According to Nas, in the event of a loss between control links and command center, the UAS needs to be preprogrammed to re-establish communications for a period of time. Another solution would be completing an operation or mission independently or carrying out a departure from that volume of space (Nas, 2015).

Integrating UAS into the NAS can be accomplished safely by “NAS Voice Systems (NVS), Data Communications (Data Comm) and System Wide Information Management (SWIM)” (Williams, 2015, para. 11). These new technologies will support ground-based pilots to transfer information to air traffic controllers (ATC). This is one of the key NextGen specifications for the integration of UAS in the NAS. Notably, NVS will enhance the accuracy and flexibility of communication between UAS flight crew and ATC. As a result, a major human factor issue, situation awareness improves greatly.

In addition to the NVS, data sharing is another key component to the safe integration of UAS. Outcomes of sharing weather information by means of “same-time access” to both the NAS users and the FAA will allow for decision-making and monitoring as human factors issues to improve significantly (Williams, 2015, para 15).

More noteworthy concentration on human factors examination in the design and operation of UAS and in the improvement of training programs for their operators will advance safety and further the integration of UAS into the NAS. In my opinion, human factor concerns will always exist. However, the FAA completes technological developments safely and successfully, supporting a slow integration of UAS while mitigating human factor issues.  

References

Federal Aviation Administration (2015). U.S. terminal and en route area navigation operations. Advisory Circular 90-100A. Retrieved from https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC_90-100A_CHG_2.pdf

Gupta, S. G., Ghonge, M. M., & Jawandhiya, P. M. (2013). Review of unmanned aircraft system (UAS). International Journal of Advanced Research in Computer Engineering and Technology (IJARCET), 2, 1646-1658.

Nas, M. (2015). Legal Issues Raised by the Development of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles. Retrieved from http://www.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/589441/air-force-releases-strategic-master-plan/

U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration (2016). The future of NAS. Retrieved from https://www.faa.gov/nextgen/media/futureOfTheNAS.pdf

Williams, J. H. (2015). Unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) research and development. Retrieved from U.S. Department of Transportation website https://www.transportation.gov/content/unmanned-aircraft-systems-uas-research-and-development

UAS GCS Human Factors Issue

UAS GCS Human Factors Issue

Simona Teodorovic

June, 2018

All Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) operations include a human–computer team. For this reason, the operations require human-machine interaction (HMI) with improved interfaces. In addition, this brings crucial concerns to the decreasing of the human-computer rate, managing the organizational intricacy of teams, and the increase in team performance (Peschel & Murphy, 2013).

As known from previous literature, Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) can be generally categorized into four groups: (1) micro; (2) small; (3) Medium Altitude Long Endurance (MALE); (4) High Altitude Long Endurance (HALE). For the purpose of this analysis, we will be focusing on MALE and HALE. In addition to the categorization of the systems, it is imperative to mention two more types of UASs, based on the human teams found operating them: (1) onsite and (2) offsite (Peschel & Murphy, 2013). This brings us to the Ground Control Stations (GCSs) used for operating the systems. Predominately found for operating MALE and HALE, these GCSs tend to be used by team members that have specifically defined roles.

A productive, practical and easily-operated GCS is a pivotal component in any UAS based platform (Perez et al., 2012). Correspondingly, the authors state that the workload operators endure, increases exponentially with the number of vehicles operating in the platform. This illustrates the critical disposition of unmanned flights. As a result, there have been endless efforts to advance the capabilities of the stations that manage numerous UAVs.

According to Peschel and Murphy (2013), the GCS for MALE and HALE UAV systems are most commonly accompanied by the “proprietary user interface technology for command and control” (p. 11). The producer of the Predator UAVs, General Atomics, develops various types of GCSs, varying from fixed, static units to highly mobile. The interaction of team members in the GCS would require the use of video display screens, joysticks, a keyboard and mouse.

For this purpose, the Legacy GCS will be analyzed. This type of GCS has the design that takes up a two-person crew. The reason behind this layout is to allow for sharing of information between the members of the station, the pilot and operator. This increases the team performance, team situation awareness and crew communication.

 Issues related to the design of this type of GCS are be threefold. First, the position of the screens is vertical, with them being “stacked” one onto another. As a comparison, in manned flight, display screens are most commonly found to be placed horizontal, one next to the other. This might lead to operators paying less attention to information provided on the top screens. According to Liu, Li, and Xi (2013), the best view for human vision is the top left. Following next is the top right, the bottom left and bottom right section of the screen. For this reason, the information provided on the screens would need to be reorganized based on priority. Given that the nature of this GCS is to allow for quick judgment, the significance of this proposed solution would be reflected through new automation functions and design.

The second issue related to the design of Legacy GCS is in regards to the specific information provided on the screens or panels. A matter of changing the font, color or size of the displayed information might prove to be essential and crucial for these high-workload environments. Colors that are highly contrasted might divert the attention of the operator and pilot and it is best using colors that are consistent with the environment. As an example, Yang, Lu, Zhang and Yu (2010) state that using colors that stand out should only be used for information and/or buttons “which need reminding of something” (p. 591).

The third issue is one not directly related to this type of GCS. However, based on previous research and literature, it does show up as a need for many stations. This would be a more common and general design of the work environment. Jovanovic M., Starcevic and Jovanovic Z. (2010) even go on to propose an improved design of the software which would be “reusable, adaptable, maintainable and more productive” (p. 71).

During the period of the past decades, an immense amount of attempts and achievements has been spent on demonstrating the specialized practicality and the progress of the operational applicability of Remotely Piloted Aircraft (RPAs) (Tvaryanas, Thompson, & Constable, 2006). The proposed solutions can be applied to numerous UASs and could decrease cognitive fatigue and response time.

References

Jovanovic, M., Starcevic, D., & Jovanovic, Z. (2010). Improving Design of Ground Control Station for Unmanned Aerial Vehicle: Borrowing from Design Patterns. 36th EUROMICRO Conference on Software Engineering and Advanced Applications, pp. 65-73. doi:10.1109/SEAA.2010.31

Liu, A. Z., Li, B. A., & Xi, A. M. (2013). Ergonomic and general ground control station design for unmanned aerial vehicles. Applied Mechanics and Materials, 390, 388. doi:http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.libproxy.db.erau.edu/10.4028/www.scientific.net/

Peschel, J. M., Murphy, R. R. (2013). On the human-machine interaction of unmanned aerial system mission specialists. IEEE Transactions on Human-Machine Systems, 43(1), 53-62. doi:10.1109/TSMCC.2012.2220133

Tvaryanas, A. P., Thompson, W. T., & Constable, S. H. (2006). Human factors in remotely piloted aircraft operations: HFACS analysis of 221 mishaps over 10 years. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine, 77(7), 724-732.

Yang, X., Lu C., Zhang D., & Yu S. (2010). Design of controller panel based on ergonomics. 2010 IEEE 11th International Conference on Computer-Aided Industrial Design & Conceptual Design 1, pp. 589-594. doi:10.1109/CAIDCD.2010.5681279