9.7: Case Analysis Effectiveness

9.7: Case Analysis Effectiveness

Joseph Younts 

Embry Riddle Aeronautical University Worldwide

ASCI 638: Shawn Wynn 

May 2017

Case Analysis Effectiveness

            This is the second graduate course that has required a case analysis to be developed on a specific research topic of this author’s choosing. For the case analysis for ASCI 638: Human Factors in Unmanned Aerial Systems, this author chose to write on the topic of fatigue levels associated with UAS operators, particularly within the military due to commercial UAV flights in the U.S. being limited in the amount of flight time that can be achieved. The case analysis for this course allowed this author to look at the issue of fatigue and UAV operators and determine what the issues were, why the issues were significant, alternative actions that could be taken to reduce fatigue levels, and a recommendation of my choosing to prevent fatigue from leading to UAV accidents. This author found the case analysis to be an effective tool when conducting research on the chosen topic. This author also found this case analysis to be easier than the case analysis in ASCI 530 (this author wrote on detect, sense, and avoid technology) due to the relationship between fatigue in manned aircraft pilots and UAV operators. Fatigue is an issue that has been explored in great detail in manned aircraft operations, but this author did spend some time searching for relevant information on the topic of fatigue for UAS operators. Once relevant research was found, the alternative actions and recommendations sections were much simpler to discuss due to the fact that fatigue in unmanned and manned operations can be prevented in a similar manner.

            A case analysis is an excellent tool for not only conducting research on a topic, but also for understanding a decision making process. This author is currently a full time college student working on his Bachelor's and Master's degrees, but this author does see the potential for utility in what will hopefully be his future line of work; a professional pilot. The case analysis tool allows a student to move away from the standard format of a research paper and focus in a relevant issues related to UAS operations. This author did find it hard to write the recommendations section of the case analysis due to the simple fact that the answer to the reduction of fatigue in UAS operators appears to be centered around healthy eating habits, exercise, and proper sleep. These methods can be directly applied to manned aircraft operations and have been for years. This author was able to take some ideas from manned operations such as bunk sleep, cockpit napping (or for UAS operations, ground control station napping), short breaks, social interaction, and even development of new work schedules.

            A case analysis allows a student to look at a problem from different perspectives. There may be different methods to solve a problem, but the student must choose two actions that are most likely to solve the issue in a realistic manner. In the workplace, one worker will not have all the answers to a problem. There will be times in which unique ideas will be the best way to solve a problem. The case analysis tool used in this course allows a student to look at the different perspectives surrounding an issue. As far as utility in this author's future career, this tool will allow the author to logically develop a mental model to solve problems on the ground and potentiality during flight, but checklists that have been developed over time should have the answers to most issues that occur in the cockpit.

            The layout of the case analysis is set in an orderly fashion that flows logically. This author greatly appreciated the peer reviews that were conducted on the abstract and the rough draft. Other students in the class had some interesting ideas that helped this author complete the case analysis. As stated in this authors' last review of the case analysis tool in ASCI 530, this author would recommend a final peer review of the final draft of the case analysis. There does not need to be a defense for this peer review, but having an extra set of graduate school level eyes review the paper can be beneficial. This author also does not feel that 20 pages is necessary for the case analysis, but reaching this page length is dependent upon the chosen topic. As stated previously, this author had trouble reaching the page limit for ASCI 530, but for this class, this author was able to create a case analysis with 27 complete pages of information due to the available information on manned aircraft fatigue and countermeasures for preventing fatigue. For students choosing a topic for the case analysis, a topic with plenty of information readily available should be chosen. This should make the process of reaching the page limit easier.

Activity 8.5 Research: UAS Crew Member Selection

8.5 Research: UAS Crew Member Selection

Joseph Younts

Embry Riddle Aeronautical University Worldwide

ASCI 638- Shawn Wynn

May 2017

UAS Crew Member Selection

            Unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) crew member selection is necessary for safe UAV operations within the national airspace system (NAS). Crewmember selection requirements can differ between the various UAVs used in the military and civilian sectors. Crew size and composition can have a major impact on the ability of the crews to execute missions (Marshall, Barnhart, Hottman, & Shappee, 2012). There are multiple factors that determine how a crew is selected for UAV missions. While some small and micro UAVs can be operated alone, may systems require that the flight crew consist of several operators including external and internal pilots, a payload operator, a reconnaissance operator, and if needed, a mission planner (Marshall et al., 2012). Communication is critical during mission planning, during flight, and during post flight briefings. In order to prevent missions from experiencing difficulties, crew teams should be trained for various situations that could occur during a mission.

            The Insitu ScanEagle is a UAV that is used to provide daytime and nighttime intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance for both government and civilian applications (Boeing, n.d.). The UAV requires at least two operators for flight operations; one operator must manage the flight paths and other systems while the second operator uses the camera systems (Lum, 2009). The ScanEagle can remain in the air for over 24 hours, has a ceiling of 19,500 feet, can fly at a maximum speed of 80 knots, and cruise at 50-60 knots (Boeing, n.d.). The General Atomics Ikhana was developed to support science missions, demonstrate advanced aeronautical technologies, and serve as a testbed to develop new technologies to improve UAVs (NASA, 2014). The Ikhana operates at altitudes greater than 40,000 feet, has over 3,000 pounds of radar, sensors, communications, and imaging equipment on board, and can remain aloft for more than 24 hours (NASA, 2014). The Ikhana requires two operators for takeoffs and landings, but only one operator can fly the aircraft at a time. A single operator can handle the aircraft during flight and the primary operator may only require assistance with takeoffs and landings (Levine, n.d.).

            UAS operators have specific requirements that must be followed before flight. VFR UAS operations may be authorized by using ground-based or airborne visual observers onboard a dedicated chase aircraft (FAA, 2008). During line of sight operations, a visual observer is needed to comply with see and avoid flight rules. Operators of UAVs are responsible for the aircraft in the same manner that manned aircraft pilots are. The pilot in command (PIC) is responsible for the flight operations. The PIC can have supplemental pilots to provide any assistance, but the PIC retains the responsibility of the flight, no matter who is piloting the aircraft (FAA, 2008). The PIC must not perform flight duties for more than one UAS at a time. The PIC is not allowed to perform concurrent duties as a pilot and an observer (FAA, 2008). Not all UAV operations are the same; some operations will require a pilot certificate while others may not. A pilot may need to have a pilot certificate based on certain factors. These factors include the location of the planned operations, mission profile, size of the UAV, and whether the operation is conducted within or beyond line of sight (BLOS) (FAA, 2008). If the PIC does not hold a pilot certificate, the pilot may be allowed to fly smaller UAVs while operating below certain altitudes while the UAV is controlled within line of slight (FAA, 2008). For BLOS operations, the PIC must hold an instrument rating issued by the FAA.

            The following information has been taken from the FAA document “Interim Operational Approval Guidance 08-01” and retrieved from https://www.hsdl.org/?view&did=723339.

Operations requiring a pilot certificate: The PIC shall hold, at a minimum, an

FAA pilot certificate under the following circumstances:

• All operations approved for conduct in Class A, C, D, and E airspace.

• All operations conducted under IFR (FAA instrument rating required).

• All operations approved for nighttime operations.

• All operations conducted at joint use or public airfields.

• All operations conducted beyond line of sight.

• At any time the FAA has determined the need based on the UAS’ characteristics, mission profile, or other operational parameters.

            The PIC must be current before operating a UAV. At a minimum, the PIC must perform three takeoffs and landings to a full stop in the specific UAV within the previous 90 days (FAA, 2008). The same currency requirements are necessary for night flight for UAV operations. The PIC must have a valid Class 2 FAA medical certificate in their possession when acting as the PIC. UAS operators will also go through additional training after the certificate has been issued. For ScanEagle and Ikhana operations, the operator must have manufacturer specific training, demonstrate proficiency in the UAV, and perform testing related to the operation of the UAV (FAA, 2008). Supplemental operators are operators that augment the PIC. There is not a specific rating for supplemental operators to have; however, supplement operators must have completed private pilot ground school and also pass the written test (FAA, 2008). Supplemental operators must maintain currency in the UAS being operated, must have a valid Class 2 FAA medical, and be trained in all specific details of the UAS being operated (FAA, 2008). Observers of UAV operations also have specific requirements that must be followed. Observers are required to have a Class 2 medical and complete training relating to communications in order to remain clear of potential conflicting traffic. Communications training consists of the observer understanding 14 CFR 91.111, 14 CFR 91.113, and 14 CFR 91.155 (FAA, 2008).

            UAV operators of the Ikhana and ScanEagle should be highly qualified for the positions. According to a research study completed by Howse (2011), UAV operators who preferred the air vehicle operator role were described as having an affinity for planning and logic. Those who preferred the sensor operator role had an affinity for uncertainty. Hand eye coordination is an important trait to have when conducting UAV flight. Traits such as physical strength, endurance, hearing issues and color vision were not required at greater than average levels (Howse, 2011). Other traits that were important to have were patience and logic. Operators must have well-developed communication skills in order to properly and effectively communicate with others within the ground control station (GCS). Communication may be one of the most critical components of safe UAV operations.

            An attribute list developed by Chappelle et al., (2011), as cited in Howse (2011) contains 7 abilities that these authors felt were critical for UAV operators to possess. The abilities Chappelle et al., (2011) felt were critical for UAV operators to possess include cognitive proficiency, visual perception, attention, spatial processing, memory, reasoning, and psychomotor processing skills (Howse, 2011).  These authors felt cognitive proficiency is important due to unexpected situations that can arise during UAV flight. Speed and accuracy of information processing is a necessary attribute. Visual perception includes being able to scan and recognize targets during flight. Potential pilots of the Ikhana and ScanEagle must have well-developed attention spans and the ability to remain vigilant when there are multiple sources of visual and auditory information occurring at the same time. Operators should have the ability to mentally process 2 and 4 dimensional images. Memory is a critical skill to have during UAV flight. Visual and auditory memory is necessary due to the constant need to process important information (Howse, 2011). Reasoning means that the operator can process real time information and use deductive reasoning skills to solve problems that may arise during flight. Finally, psychomotor skills are needed and are a preferred trait because reaction time and fine motor dexterity could mean the difference between an accident occurring and the prevention of an accident (Howse, 2011). As a final note, it is critical that UAV operators are familiar with the tools and technology in the GCS and that each operator has the knowledge to operate the UAV.

References

Boeing. (n.d.). ScanEagle Unmanned Aircraft Systems . Retrieved from             http://www.boeing.com/farnborough2014/pdf/BDS/ScanEagle%20Backgrounder%20011 4.pdf

FAA. (2014, March 13). Interim Operational Approval Guidance 08-01. Retrieved from Interim   Operational Approval Guidance 08-01

Howse, W. R. (2011). Knowledge, skills, abilities, and other characteristics for remotely piloted   aircraft pilots and operators (No. DAS-2011-04). DAMOS AVIATION SERVICES INC     GURNEE IL.

Ikhana Performance and Specifications. (2014, March 13). Retrieved from             https://www.nasa.gov/centers/armstrong/aircraft/Ikhana/performance.html

Levine, J. (n.d.). No One on Board: Ikhana Pilots Fly Aircraft from the Ground. Retrieved from             https://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/news/X-Press/stories/2008/07_08_pilots.html

Lum, C. (2009, March 10). Coordinated Searching and Target Identification Using Teams of        Autonomous Agents (Doctoral dissertation, University of Washington, 2009). (UMI No.            3356644 )

Marshall, D.M., Barnhart, R.K., Hottman, S.B., Shappee, E. (2012). Introduction to unmanned    aircraft systems. New York, NY: CRC Publishing.

Activity 7.6 Research: Operational Risk Management

7.6 Research: Operational Risk Management

Joseph Younts

Embry Riddle Aeronautical University Worldwide

ASCI 638: Shawn Wynn

May 2017

Operational Risk Management

            Operational Risk Management (ORM) is a tool used to systematically identify operational risks or benefits for specific situations. There are several goals of ORM. The objectives of the ORM process are “protecting people, equipment and other resources, while making the most effective use of them. Preventing accidents, and in turn reducing losses, is an important aspect of meeting this objective” (FAA, 2000, pg. 2). ORM has been designed to minimize the number of risks before a flight in order to reduce the number of potential mishaps while also safeguarding the lives of people on the ground. For this assignment, the RQ-7 Shadow has been chosen to discuss ORM in relation to safe operation of the unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV).

            The RQ-7 Shadow is a small UAV that is also operated tactically in the military. It is operated by the U.S. Army and the Marine Corps. The Shadow is equipped with electro-optical and infrared sensor turret that has the ability to collect video during the day or night (RQ-7 Shadow UAV, n.d.). The Shadow is used for reconnaissance, surveillance, and target acquisition. The Shadow is powered by a UEL AR-741 rotary engine and has a landing gear that does not retract. The UAV is capable of flying at 15,000 feet and has a flight time of 6 hours (RQ-7 Shadow UAV, n.d.). The UAV is launched from a conventional airstrip from a pneumatic catapult on a trailer that allows the Shadow to be launched at 60 knots in 15 feet. The Shadow can carry several payloads including lightweight electro-optical systems that allow the cameras to capture video in real time. 

            Figure 1. Specifications of the U.S. Army RQ-7 Shadow. Note: Image retrieved from RQ-7 Shadow UAV. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://olivedrab.com/idphoto/id_photos_uav_rq7.php

            ORM was developed to use specific tools to create a logical hazard analysis to prevent incidents and accidents. The first step in completing an ORM is to create a preliminary hazard list (PHL) that is used as a brainstorming tool used to identify initial safety issues early during UAV operations (Shappee, 2012). In order for a PHL to be effective, an organization must have a clear understanding of the issues facing the flight of a UAV. A PHL is broken down into several categories that ease the review of hazards in the surrounding area. These categories are broken down into hazards, probability, severity, and risk level. Hazards such as tress, power lines, poles antennas, or mountainous terrain should be evaluated and listed in the PHL. Probability levels will be listed to determine the likelihood of the hazard being encountered during flight. In the severity column, the seriousness of the hazard is evaluated. Finally, in the risk level column, an initial risk level based on the probability and severity will be calculated (Shappee, 2012). 

            Figure 2: Above is an example of a PHL combined with a PHL/A. Hazards will be identified, probabilities of encountering hazards will be calculated, severity of the hazard will be discussed, and the risk level will be calculated. Note: Reprinted [adapted] from Introduction to Unmanned Aircraft Systems, p. 125, by Shappee, E. (2012).  New York, NY.

            After completion of the PHL/A, the operational hazards review and analysis (OHR&A) is the next step in the process of creating a safe flight environment for a UAV. The OHR&A is used in the same manner as the PHL/A; however, the OHR&A will be used to determine if the identified mitigating actions from the PHL/A will be adequate when determining the safety of UAV flight (Shappee, 2012). If the actions suggested for reducing the hazard are not adequate, the hazard will be listed again. If the hazards have been modified, the OHR&A should have the modified item listed (Shappee, 2012). Following the example of the PHL/A, an analysis of an OHR&A has been completed. For the purposes of this assignment, the following hazards will be assessed in the OHR&A; thunderstorms in the area, trees, mountainous terrain with IFR weather, loss of signal, GCS mishaps, and mechanical failures.

            Figure 3: PHL/A complete with risks, hazards, probability, severity, risk level, mitigating actions, residual risk level, and additional notes before UAV flight. Mishap probability levels, mishap severity levels, and mishap risk assessments can be found in MIL-STD-882D/E. Note: Reprinted [adapted] from Introduction to Unmanned Aircraft Systems, p. 125, by Shappee, E. (2012).  New York, NY.

            Figure 4: Here is an example of a completed OHR&A for a RQ-1 Shadow. Note that risk levels and residual risk levels have changed as a result of the mitigating actions. Note: Reprinted [adapted] from Introduction to Unmanned Aircraft Systems, p. 127, by Shappee, E. (2012).  New York, NY.

            The final analysis needed to determine operational risks is an ORM assessment tool. This tool is designed to provide the operator with an overview of the operations before conducting the flight operation and to allow for safe and manageable information processing in real time (Shappee, 2012). This tool should aid the operator in the decision making process but it should not be the only tool to determine whether or not a flight should be conducted (a go/no-go decision).The RQ-7 Shadow is used during surveillance missions to monitor specific areas of land. For the purposes of this assignment, a Shadow will be conducting surveillance on a specific targeted area. The mission will be of supportive nature, there have been no hardware or software changes, the UAV will be operating in Class E or G airspace, the PIC has flown the aircraft, and the operation is being completed during the day. The weather is cloudy with thunderstorms in the area; visibility is between 6 and 9 miles. The operation will be conducted away from the storms. The winds are 11-15 knots, the winds forcast are greater than 15 knots, the ceiling is 3000 to 4900 feet in the air, and the weather has been deteriorating. The operator of the UAV will fly at an altitude between 1000 and 2900 feet above the ground where winds are light and variable. The crew members are current, the UAV will not operate in other airspaces, lost link procedures have been checked and verified, and the UAV will operate via line of sight.  The total for this mission is 29; this UAV flight will be classified as a low risk level flight according to Figure 8.3 from Shappee (2012). Figure 8.3 is listed below.

            Figure 5: A sUAS risk assessment table for a small UAV such as the RQ-1 Shadow. Operators can calculate the risk level of the flight after reviewing pertinent information relating to the flight. Note: Reprinted [adapted] from Introduction to Unmanned Aircraft Systems, p. 128, by Shappee, E. (2012).  New York, NY.

References

FAA.  (2000, December 30).  Operational risk management.  Retrieved froM https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aviation/risk_management/ss_handbook/media/Chap15_1200.pdf

RQ-7 Shadow UAV. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://olive-drab.com/idphoto/id_photos_uav_rq7.php

Shappee, E. (2012).  Safety Assessments in R. Barnhart, S. Hottman, D. Marshall, & E. Shappee (Eds.), Introduction to Unmanned Aircraft Systems (pp. 123-135).New York, NY: CRC Publishing.

Activity 6.6 Research: Automatic Takeoff and Landing

6.5 Research: Automatic Takeoff and Landing

Joseph Younts

Embry Riddle Aeronautical University Worldwide

ASCI 638: Shawn Wynn

April 2017

Automatic Takeoff and Landing

            The Boeing 737 is a manned aircraft that is capable of automatic landings at airports that are equipped for specific categories of instrument landing system (ILS) approaches. The various categories of ILS approaches have different visibility minimums, and depending of the requirements and certification of the aircraft, automatic landings are an option available to the pilots. General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, Inc., a manufacturer of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) announced in 2012 that the MQ-9 Reaper had successfully completed 106 full stop automatic takeoff and landing capability (ATLC) landings. For manned aircraft, particularly for commercial airliners, automatic landings have proven to be useful in stressful situations, but the system allows the pilot to simply switch the autopilot off if the pilot wants to hand fly the aircraft to landing.

            The Boeing 737 autolanding features are normally completed during low visibility weather conditions. Autolanding was designed as a safety feature to allow an aircraft to be landed under poor weather conditions in which a conventional approach would be hazardous and insufficient (Autoland, 2015). The autopilot system on the 737 does have a feature that allows the pilot to disengage the autolanding feature in order to hand fly the aircraft in the event that the autolanding feature malfunctions. This procedure ensures that the pilot can be the final authority of the aircraft instead of relying on the aircraft computers to do all the work and function correctly 100% of the time. After an autolanding is completed, the pilot will take over the aircraft in order to taxi the aircraft off the runway and park the aircraft. “Some autoland systems require the pilot to steer the aircraft during the rollout phase on the runway after landing, among them Boeing´s fail passive system on the BOEING 737-700 NG, as the autopilot is not connected to the rudder” (Autoland, n.d., para. 2). The operations for autopilot for the 737 will be covered during training. The 737NG has several failsafe systems in the event that the autoland function fails. If the 2 backup systems fail, the system will recognize the issue and will about the autoland function (Autoland, 2015). This is not so much a limitation as much as it is an excellent design to prevent the aircraft from continuing an approach that the system cannot achieve. The pilot can take the aircraft and hand fly the approach, safely landing the aircraft. This author believes future variants of any Boeing aircraft should have the autoland system that is on the 737NG. The failsafe features on the 737 NG can prevent the approach from being continued while the pilot is alerted.

            The General Atomics MQ-9 Reaper is a UAV that was tested for automatic takeoff and landing capabilities in 2012. In 2012, General Atomics announced that the MQ-9 Reaper successfully completed 106 full-stop automatic takeoff and landings. These automatic takeoff and landings were the first for a multi mission aircraft (Predator B Demonstrates Automatic, 2012). General Atomics has stated that the aircraft was able to track the centerline, decelerate smoothly, and apply reverse thrusters and full brakes at the necessary speeds to slow the aircraft without damaging any systems on the aircraft (Predator B Demonstrates Automatic, 2012). After the 106 takeoff and landings, General Atomics began working to expand the abilities of the MQ-9 Reaper. For more effective takeoffs and landings, the Reaper is being designed to operate in higher winds, carry increased payloads, new GPS enhancements, and terrain avoidance systems with adjustable glideslope abilities (Predator B Demonstrates Automatic, 2012). The system being used on the Reaper has been developed from the Gray Eagle UAS which has over 10,000 automatic takeoff and landings.

            The ability to take off and land automatically would allow Reaper operators to use more runways while taking the control link off the frequency band (Drew, 2016). The senior director of strategic development, Chris Pehrson stated that MQ-9 Reapers have the ability to land on 3,000 foot runways. However, due to the UAV being operated manually from a control station, the Air Force requires an extra 1,000 feet of runway on each end of the runway to increase the safety margins during landings (Drew, 2016). This means the Reaper requires at least 5,000 feet of runway to land during manual operations. However, with the ability to take off and land automatically, the Reaper can land in the same position on the runway consistently, reducing the require amount of runway needed to land. This allows the Reaper to land at more airports around the world if the runway has at least 3,000 feet available for landings (Drew, 2016).

            The information regarding automatic takeoff and landings for the Reaper is scarce, but the design for the system would increase safety if the operator could take over the UAV in the event of a system failure during automatic takeoff and landings. However, the issue that arises with this lies with the length of the runway. If the required amount of runway for manual landings is 5,000 feet, an operator may be put into the position of having to fly to another airport which could be many miles away. Similarly to manned aircraft autopilot systems, the operator should be alerted in the event of a malfunction. This would increase safety and ensure that the aircraft does not crash by itself. In addition to standard training procedures, new and current operators will be required to learn the ins and outs of the abilities of the MQ-9 Reaper when it comes to automatic takeoffs and landings.

            Overall, for both manned and unmanned aircraft, the pilot or operator must understand the abilities of the aircraft in regards to takeoffs and landings. As technology changes, manned aircraft will become capable of automatic takeoffs. This will require aircraft manufacturers to create new fail-safe systems to prevent the aircraft from continuing an approach if there is a malfunction. The pilot or operator should be alerted and allowed to hand fly the approach to ensure a safe landing.

References

Autoland. (2015, July 11). Retrieved from http://www.boeing737pilot.net/autoland/

Autoland. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/Autoland

Drew, J. (2016, May 04). USAF to automate MQ-9 takeoffs and landings. Retrieved from     https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/usaf-to-automate-mq-9-takeoffs-and-   landings-               424975/

Predator B Demonstrates Automatic Takeoff and Landing Capability. (2012, September 17).           Retrieved from http://www.ga.com/predator-b-demonstrates-automatic-takeoff-and-landing-capability

Activity 5.5- Research: Shift Work Schedule

5.4- Research: Shift Work Schedule

Joseph Younts

Embry Riddle Aeronautical University Worldwide

ASCI 638: Shawn Wynn

April 2017

Shift Work Schedule

            Fatigue and stress are concepts that are a part of everyone’s lives. Fatigue and stress cannot completely be avoided, especially during aviation related activities. Unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) operators are susceptible to fatigue and stress due to long work shifts, boredom, emotional exhaustion, and burnout. After many hours of continued wakefulness, basic cognitive and physical functions can deteriorate. This is hazardous for UAV flight and is a danger for people on the ground. The United States military will continue to utilize UAVs for surveillance, intelligence gathering, and to carry payloads to use on enemy troops. According to Caldwell (2012), “as fatigue increases, accuracy and timing degrade, lower standards of performance are accepted, the ability to integrate information from individual flight instruments into a meaningful and overall pattern declines, and attention narrows” (Caldwell, 2012, para. 6). In one study conducted on F-117 pilots, when the pilots were deprived one night of sleep and tested on precision instruments, errors based on understanding of the instruments doubled and pilots reported feelings of depression and confusion (Caldwell, 2012). If manned aircraft pilots have these feelings after a single night of sleep loss, what happens to UAV operators when fatigue builds up due to shift work schedules?

            The schedule already provided in this assignment will inevitably lead to fatigue buildup over a short period of time. The teams of operators on the schedule work 6 days on and are off for two days. Each work shift is eight and a half hours. While many professions have work days this long, UAV operators have multiple responsibilities within the ground control station (GCS) that can cause fatigue and stress. In order to reduce the amount of fatigue and stress, the military must first consider the consequences of overworking UAV operators. 6 day work shifts will have a negative impact on the circadian rhythms of the operators. In a study conducted by Thompson, Lopez, Hickey, DaLuz, Caldwell, & Tvaryanas (2006), degradation of reaction times and vigilance performance for UAV operators was greatest over a shift interval for night shifts relative to day and evening shifts. Adverse effects of shift work were most pronounced on day and night shifts relative to evening shifts (Thompson et al., 2006). Part of this issue may be centered around circadian rhythms and the body’s reaction to sleeping during the day and working all throughout the night.

            This author has designed a new schedule that should reduce the amount of stress and fatigue experienced by UAV operators. While a large reduction in stress and fatigue will take time, if the operators are aware of the sources of stress and fatigue, appropriate steps can be taken to mitigate the sources. There is a benefit to the current schedule; having 4 teams helps to keep one team off duty frequently. The new schedule that has been developed is designed to prevent operators from working continuous day, swing, and night shifts. The reasoning behind this schedule change is to give operators plenty of time to recover after a long day. The operators should have time to relax, get adequate amounts of sleep, and spend time with family and friends. Day shifts are from 7:30 A.M. to 4 P.M., swing shifts are from 3:30 P.M. to 12:00 A.M., and night shifts are from 11:30 P.M. to 8:00 A.M. With teams working day shift one day, swing shift the next day, and the night shift the following day, operators have ample amounts of time to recover. With these changes, one team always has a day off while the other 3 teams work day, swing, and night shifts.

            The previous schedule only allowed each team to work 6 days on the same shift. This allows for disruptions in the circadian rhythms of each operator. With this new schedule, each team has a shift 3 days in a row with 1 day off in between the next shift date. Unlike other potential schedules that could have scattered work shifts, each team will work all 3 shifts with a guaranteed full day off. The sequence for this author’s schedule also allows for each team to work 3 shifts, take a day off, and then start the next set of work shifts during the day. By creating this schedule, operators should not have to worry about odd shift work that jumps from day to day. For example, each team will not have to worry about working a night shift, day shift, then a swing shift that could potentially interrupt circadian rhythms. By using this schedule, operators working a day shift will have a sufficient amount of time to relax, spend time with family, and get at least 8 hours of sleep. The same can be said for swing and night shift operators. The disadvantage of this schedule compared to the original schedule is that the shifts do change around every three days. Where the original schedule had consecutive work days, this author’s schedule rotates every day. Some operators may prefer to work 6 days on a specific shift and may feel that their personal fatigue levels are not high with a 6 on 2 off schedule. Another potential issue with both schedules is the shift work itself. Research conducted in 2003 found that in a 32 month study of fatigue and shift work schedules, rotating shift workers fatigue levels were 24 to 29 percent when compared to 18 percent for day shift workers and 19 percent for irregular shift workers (Jansen, Van Amelsvoort, Kristensen, Van den Brandt, & Kant, 2003).

            Overall, this author believes that the original shift work schedule did not allow for operators to have a sufficient amount of time to relax, eat, and achieve recommended amounts of sleep. Operators may also want to exercise and the new shift schedule will give operators that chance. With each team working a day, swing, and night shift in consecutive order, the days off will be spread out and each team can optimize rest time while reducing fatigue through rest and relaxation. While shift work has been identified to have mixed results in regards to fatigue, this shift work schedule should relieve each team of some stress and fatigue throughout the month.

            Below is an example of the schedule I have developed for this research paper. 

References

Caldwell, J. A. (2012, April 24). Crew Schedules, Sleep Deprivation, and Aviation Performance. Retrieved from https://www.psychologicalscience.org/news/releases/crew-schedules-sleep-deprivation-and-aviation-performance.html#.WPfnGvnyvIU

Jansen, N. W. H., Van Amelsvoort, L. G. P. M., Kristensen, T. S., Van den Brandt, P. A., &   Kant, I. J. (2003). Work schedules and fatigue: A prospective cohort study. Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 60(Suppl 1), i47-i53.

Thompson, W. T., Lopez, N., Hickey, P., DaLuz, C., Caldwell, J. L., & Tvaryanas, A. P. (2006).        Effects of Shift Work and Sustained Operations: Operator Performance in Remotely Piloted Aircraft (OP-REPAIR). 1-53. Retrieved from http://www.dtic.mil/docs/citations/ADA443145