ASCI 638: 2.4 Research- UAS GCS Human Factors Issue

In this research activity, you will select a UAS GCS of your choice and provide an in depth analysis of its functional operation. Next, identify at least two negative human factors issues associated with its design, and identify solutions to mitigate the risks posed by their existence. Are there any common human factors in your UAS that are also present in manned aircraft?

UAS GCS Human Factors Issue

            The RQ-1 Predator unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) is a long endurance, medium altitude UAV designed for surveillance and reconnaissance missions (Predator RQ-1, n.d.). The predator is equipped with video cameras that utilize synthetic aperture radar to create surveillance imagery that can be distributed in real time to soldiers on the ground, the operational commander, and via satellite communication links (Predator RQ-1, n.d.). All the system controls and UAV abilities are controlled through the use of a ground control station (GCS) which houses the pilot and payload operator and the all computer systems and other critical data gathering systems that allow soldiers to gather detailed surveillance information during flight.

            The ground control station for the Predator UAV is housed within a single 30 foot trailer that contains seating for the pilot and payload operator, the consoles for the pilot and payload operator, three Boeing Data Exploitation and Mission Planning Consoles, and two synthetic aperture radar workstations (RQ-1A/MQ-1 Predator, n.d.). The trailer also contains communications equipment such as satellite and line of sight ground data terminals that relay information back to the operators and soldiers (RQ-1A/MQ-1 Predator UAV, n.d.). The ground control station for the Predator UAV can send surveillance imagery to the operators or to a system called the Trojan Spirit data distribution system. The Predator uses C- and Ku Band datalinks. These datalinks are used for line of sight (LOS) and non-LOS communications with the UAV. Using these datalink systems, the UAV can operate at ranges of about 400 nautical miles (General Atomics RQ-MQ-1, n.d.). The Trojan Spirit System used these datalink systems for data dissemination (RQ-1A/MQ-1 Predator, n.d.).

            The GCS within the 30x8x8 trailer is equipped with an integral uninterrupted power supply and environmental control system. The ground control stations allows the pilot and payload operator to conduct data exploitation, create and conduct mission plans, communicate through DEMPC terminals, and contains synthetic aperture radar workstations (Pike, n.d.). Synthetic aperture radar is a critical component of the predator UAV. This radar system allows the operator to map the Earth around the UAV, monitor the environment, and capture complex information that is used to create high resolution imagery (What is SAR, n.d.). The synthetic aperture radar system within the GCS allows the operator to collect imagery at any time of the day or during any kind of sight blocking atmospheric conditions (What is SAR, n.d.). All images collected during the flight of the Predator are sent to the GCS because the Predator does not have an onboard recording system capability (Pike, n.d.). All power supplied to the ground control station is supplied through dual external generators (Pike, n.d.).

            There are several issues that have been identified with the Predator UAV GCS. First, “Rainman,” a major in the USAF who was the first pilot to fly the Predator in 1995 and spent many hours flying the UAV, discovered one major human factor issue with the GCS. According to Rainman, the RQ-1 Predator UAV GCS operator keyboard had keys that turned the lights on and off and the keys to the engine adjacent to each other.  During high workload situations, an operator could easily mistake the keys to the engine for the keys to the light controls. This could easily lead to the destruction of the aircraft during flight (Conner, Cooke, Pedersen, & Pringle, 2006). Another human factors issue Rainman brought to light was the lack of haptic cues and feedback found in manned aircraft. Where a manned aircraft pilot can feel engine failure or on coming stalls, a Predator operator cannot feel these. Rainman highly suggested that the operator be able to see oncoming failures by accessing menus on the interface within the GCS (Conner et al., 2006).

            The simple solution to both of these problems is to redesign the GCS operator control center. Human factors issues dealing with ergonomics can be solved by simply moving the problem area or redesigning the keys into a different shape. For example, in a Cessna 172, the throttle control and the mixture control are different shapes and feel different when a hand is placed on them. This simple design can prevent a pilot from unintentionally pulling the mixture all the way out when the true intention was to pull the power out. The keys for the lights and the engine should be moved away from each other. If the engine keys are placed on the opposite side of the keyboard or even away from the keyboard completely, the operator should not have to worry about accidently killing the power to the UAV. As for the issue with the operator not being able to feel the sensations that a manned aircraft pilot feels, haptic feedback should be installed so the operator can feel when a stall is beginning to occur. It may also be beneficial for the seats within the GCS to vibrate or rotate and bank based on the flight control inputs made by the operator (Conner et al., 2006).

            Human factors exist in both manned and unmanned aircraft operations. Between both unmanned and manned operations, there are common human factors that exist in relation to each other. Technical flight training exists not only to teach pilots and operators about how to fly an aircraft; it is also about training pilots and operators how to react during emergencies. Training also teaches pilots and operators how to prevent human factors issues from causing an accident. The underlying issue is that during flight operations where workloads are high, it is easy to forget crucial steps that should be taken to ensure the safety of the flight operations.  For example, like manned aircraft pilots, error management in UAV GCS is necessary. Error can be managed through the following ways: avoidance, trapping, and mitigating. The process of avoidance allows the operators to recognize traits that lead to weakness which could lead to potential errors during flight operations. Trapping is the process of identifying an error and minimizing the activity affect by an error (Campbell & Bagshaw, 2002). Finally mitigation is the process of determining the consequences of an error and how they can be reduced by taking specific actions that prevent the development of an error (Campbell & Bagshaw, 2002).

            Similarly to manned aircraft operations, flight crews must utilize several critical steps to ensure human factors errors are reduced. Briefing the flight crew (or operators) before the flight allows each member to identify potential errors. Breaking the error in the chain of events can potentially save an aircraft or lives. Preparation allows the flight crew to prepare for the unexpected. Cambell & Bagshaw (2002) describe this step as staying ahead of the aircraft. By staying one step ahead of the aircraft, fast reactions to hazards can be prevented and more time can be taken to properly analyze a situation. The last step is to perform workload management. By establishing responsibilities, each member of the flight crew can avoid overload (Campbell & Bagshaw, 2002). If the following steps are followed and the operators take time to review the objectives and responsibilities of each crew member, human factors can be reduced and safety levels can be increased.

References

Campbell, R. D., & Bagshaw, M. (2002). Human performance and limitations in aviation (3rd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell Science.

Connor, O., Cooke, N.J., Pedersen, H., & Pringle, H. (2006). Human factors of remotely   operated vehicles. Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier Publications.

General Atomics RQ/MQ-1 Predator. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.designation-       systems.net/dusrm/app2/q-1.html

Pike, J. (n.d.). UAV Ground Control Station (GCS). Retrieved from             http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/systems/uav_gcs.htm

Predator RQ-1 / MQ-1 / MQ-9 Reaper UAV. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/predator-uav/

RQ-1A/MQ-1 Predator UAV. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://defense-          update.com/products/p/predator.htm

What is Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR)? (n.d.). Retrieved from    http://www.sandia.gov/radar/what_is_sar/

9.4 Blog: Case Analysis Effectiveness

9.4 – Blog Case Analysis Effectiveness

For your case analysis project you worked collaboratively to research, develop, and present a topic associated with major theme of problems or issues associated with UAS design, operations, or regulations. Discuss the effectiveness of the Case Analysis tool in this course. Focus specifically on the utility of Case Analysis as a tool for decision making and how it has (or does not have) utility in your current line of work, future anticipated career, or past experiences (identify at least two examples). Provide any recommendations for how the process or project (e.g., requirements, format, group interaction, topical focus, etc.) could be improved to better support building and expanding student experience for the eventual or further development of their careers.

            The case analysis designed for this course is an excellent tool to develop a decision making process. This author has never had to complete a case analysis, but after completing the case analysis paper, this author believe his writing skills and critical thinking skills have increased thanks to the layout of the paper. The case analysis paper was broken down into 5 parts; the summary, the issue or problem statement, the significance of the problem, the development of two alternative actions with pros and cons for each alternative, and a unique recommendation to solve the problem. Unlike a standard research paper where the writer simply completes research and writes on the problem, a case analysis requires that the writer spend time thinking about the topic in order to develop well thought out solutions to the problem. A case analysis assists the student by allowing the students to focus on a real issue within the aviation industry while also coming up with unique ways to solve the problem. The real benefit for this author was the development of a unique recommendation to solve the problem. This author chose to write on the lack of detect, sense, and avoid technology to allow full integration of unmanned aerial systems within the National Airspace System. The recommendation section of the case analysis really allowed this author to get creative with a recommendation based on radar systems for UAS. With this recommendation, this author was able to describe the radar system that would solve the issue of UAS not being able to detect, sense, and avoid other aircraft or hazards such as birds or power lines.

            A case analysis allows the student to look at a problem from a different perspective. In the workplace, a worker will not always simply have all the right ideas. There will also be times in which it is important to come up with unique ideas to solve a problem. A case analysis introduces students to these different perspectives. The case analysis paper certainly allowed this author to expand his ideas on the issue of the lack of detects, sense, and avoid technology within UAS computer systems. This author is currently a full time student, so a case analysis has no utility in any job at this point in time. However, this author is an aspiring professional pilot, and the case analysis tool will allow this author to look at a problem and determine alternative actions to solve a problem. During the flight planning process, alternative airports should be chosen in the event of an emergency. Alternative actions must be taken during an emergency during flight. By choosing alternative airports, this author would need to look at the pros and cons of alternative airports. Factors to look at include fuel available, runway lengths, and distances from various positions along the route.

            The overall process of the development of the case analysis for this class is laid out in an orderly fashion. One of the steps in the development of this case analysis project that this author enjoyed completing was the peer reviews for the abstract and rough draft. The first recommendation this author would make to improve the development of the case analysis would be a final peer review of the case analysis during the week it is due. This author greatly appreciated the constructive feedback developed by several classmates. This author took the recommendations into consideration and made changes where applicable. A final peer review of the paper before it is turned in would allow students to gain more confidence after a peer within the same graduate course has reviewed it and made recommendations where necessary. The second recommendation this author would make would be to lower the page requirement for the case analysis. After turning the rough draft in, this author found that he struggled to convey the main points of the paper because of the requirements of meeting the 5 learning outcomes that had to be discussed and having 20 pages of content. This author felt that the message within the case analysis could be well developed in less than 20 pages. In order to reach the 20 page requirement, this author added in more information than what was necessary which made the rough draft confusing and hard to follow. Thanks to the recommendations of the professor and other peers, this author cleaned up the rough draft and was able to convey all the issues, alternative actions, and recommendations for the lack of detect, sense, and avoid technology to facilitate full UAS integration into the NAS. This author greatly appreciates the required development of the case analysis throughout the paper. Unlike many classes where a paper is assigned and has a set date, this course kept this author aware of the project by requiring that work be completed on the paper each week. This fact made the author feel much better about the development of the paper because without weekly work being due for the case analysis, this author would have likely attempted to complete the paper within a few weeks instead of utilizing the entire semester. This author would greatly recommend other courses follow the same format. Weekly completion of parts of the case analysis would keep students on their feet and prevent procrastination. This author also believes that students would walk away from the course better prepared for future courses in the Master’s Degree program.

            This author would like to thank his peers for the excellent recommendations given on the peer review assignments and also for the recommendations and guidance provided by Professor Brazelton during the development of the case analysis.