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