Abstract
Unmanned Aircraft
Systems (UAS’s) rely on operational systems that often lack the ability to
adequately convey to its operator feedback of aircraft performance and
associated mechanical issues. If given additional sensory and awareness
enhancing information, these operators may be able to respond to potential
vehicle loss scenarios with enough time to correct issues that would not be
initially identified utilizing only visual indicators. Considering that
unmanned aircraft are significantly more likely to crash than other manned
aircraft, it can be inferred that one potential cause or underlying issue
contributing to this is the lack of situational awareness and feedback relayed
to unmanned aircraft operators. This paper will focus on the lack of
situational awareness unmanned pilots encounter in systems that are limited to
visual indicators of performance or feedback. Additionally, the paper will
identify the awareness enhancing options available for operators of those
systems by utilizing tactile or haptic feedback technology in displays (and/or)
controls, touchscreen or overlaid displays, redesigned workstation layouts and
controls, enhanced sensors and cameras, as well as auditory and multi-sensory
inputs.
UAS
Sensory Enhancement
Unmanned
Aircraft Systems (UAS) can trace their roots more than a hundred years ago
through the history of aviation. One of the first examples of the use of
unmanned craft is that of Eddy’s surveillance kites, which were used as far
back as 1883 to successfully take the first kite mounted aerial
photographs. The phots these kites took
during the Spanish American War of 1898, these surveillance photos provided
crucial information about adversary actions and positions. Fast forwarding to
1917, Dr. Peter Cooper and Elmer A. Sperry invented the first gyroscopic
stabilizer, which was used to convert a U.S. Navy Curtis N-9 trainer into the
world’s first radio controlled UAS. Further developments throughout the early
1900’s resulted in aircraft such as the German V-1, which during the 1940’s was
a flying bomb that was launched via a catapult –type ramp, and could carry a
2,000 lb bomb 150 miles before dropping its payload. Technological and design
developments in the 1960’s through 1990’s have helped form what most consider
today to be a typical UAS. The UAS’s of today offer strategic Intelligence,
Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR), the ability to deliver armed military
response when needed, and also hold the potential to offer significant
contributions to the civil and commercial aviation sectors (Krock, 2002).
The
typical UAS is comprised of three distinct systems; the vehicle, the payload
and the ground control system. The vehicle is the chosen form to deliver the
payload and conduct the mission and includes: the airframe, the propulsion system,
the flight computer and navigation systems, and if applicable, the sense and
avoid system. Differing mission requirements will drive the decisions as to
which vehicle is best suited to the intended role and associated requirements.
The payload is comprised of: Electro-optical Sensing Systems and Scanners,
Infra-Red systems, radar, dispensable loads (Munitions or flares) as well
environmental sensors. Much like the vehicle selection, the payload components
will be chosen based upon the overall mission/role requirements. The ground
control systems houses the operational crew and maintains secure communications
with the UAS, typically consisting of: avionics, navigation, system health and
visual feedback displays, secure communication systems, and vehicle position
mapping. The communication with the UAS can be a Line-of-Sight (LOS) data link,
or a satellite data link for Beyond Line-of-Sight (BLOS) operations (Unmanned
Aerial Vehicle Systems Association, 2015).
Technological
advancements over the years have catapulted the capability of aircraft systems
exponentially. Manned craft are becoming increasingly automated, and the role
of the pilot has become more of a systems monitor in some cases or portions of
flight that an actual operator. Manned aircraft still offer a great deal of
advantage on the battlefield, with the benefit of large scale situational
awareness, 180 degree field of view, a vast array of system and operational
capability, larger potential payload delivery, and speed, maneuverability and visibility
(Schneider & MacDonald, 2014).While UAS’s have the benefit of lower
sourcing and operation costs, no danger to operators, as well sustained flight
free of fatigue, there are many commonalities the two share. Many of the
capabilities and payloads needed on the battlefield can be offered by both
platforms, they share payload accuracy as the systems employed are typically
similar, as are the sensors, image quality and target acquisition components
utilized. In a perfect battlefield environment, neither system would be used
exclusively; they would both offer and execute missions based on operational
requirements (Schneider & MacDonald, 2014).
UAS’s
have come a long way since their inception, and have offered increasingly more
mission execution options for Combatant Commanders on the battlefield thanks to
technological advancements. With these
advancements, capabilities are expanded, as are the support needs of the flight
crews who operate these vehicles. Many factors affect operations, and giving
flight crews better equipment that is able to provide information faster, more
seamless and with greater reliability and definition is crucial to the success
of missions. Another primary need of flight crews, is the ability to better
receive and interpret the different feedback and information relayed, thereby
enhancing the awareness of the operators.
Ways in which technology can offer increased awareness to flight crews
will be addressed in this paper, and the resulting enhancement of crew ability
to successfully execute missions.
Several
issues will be addressed throughout, and will aid in tying the course
objectives to the paper. These issues will be individually addressed and will
apply directly to the course specific Research Learning Outcomes (RLO’s), to
include:
·
Describe the history and evolution of
unmanned aircraft and space systems as they apply to current and future uses in
today’s commercial and military environments.
·
Analyze the commonalities and
differences between manned and unmanned systems, and their different uses,
applications, and associated human factors.
·
Evaluate the advantages and
disadvantages of unmanned systems in relation to their current and future
intended uses as they relate to human factors.
·
Identify and describe the major human
factors issues surrounding the design, use, and implementation of unmanned
systems in today’s commercial and military environments.
·
Evaluate the commonalities and
differences of human factors issues surrounding the design, use, and
implementation of unmanned systems as they are compared to the manned systems.
Issue
Remotely
Piloted Aircraft (RPA’s) or Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAS’s) rely on
operational systems that often lack the ability to adequately convey to its
operator feedback of aircraft performance and associated mechanical issues. If
given additional information or other awareness enhancing options, these
operators may be able to respond to potential vehicle loss scenarios with
enough time to correct issues that would not be initially identified utilizing
only visual indicators. Considering that unmanned aircraft are significantly
more likely to crash than other manned aircraft, particularly in the take-off
and landing phases of flight, it can be inferred that potential causes or
underlying issues contributing to this is the lack of situational awareness and
feedback relayed to unmanned aircraft operators. Unmanned pilots encounter
these drawbacks in the operation of their systems which are limited to visual
indicators of performance or feedback, and the increase in awareness for
operators in those systems utilizing tactile or haptic feedback technology and
other new technological options has the potential to greatly increase
reliability, safety and performance of these systems.
Perception
and external stimuli are extremely important considerations in human
involvement with complex systems, especially in the arena of UAS operations, as
these important senses can be degraded. Our senses play so much a part of our
interaction and understanding of the world around us, and in the case of
aviation one sense stands out among the rest.
“It has been estimated that approximately 80% of all the information
concerning the outside world is obtained visually. The percentage may be even
higher than this in aviation for, in flying, vision is the most important of
our senses” (Orlady, Orlady, & Lauber, 1999, p.179).
In
manned flight, there is a degradation of this vision sense, which results in
the need to compensate with additional instrumentation and is also appeased by
technological developments such as Global Positioning System (GPS). This
degradation of the vision sense is worsened or intensified when you relate it
to the operations for UAS’s and RPA’s. Instead of the standard 180 degree field
of view afforded to manned crews, the unmanned vehicle operators operating
Beyond Line of Sight (BLOS) must be reliant solely on sensors or cameras to
provide them with their vision. This lack of vison severely reduces their
ability to fully be aware of and assess the operating environment around their
air vehicle.
These
sensors and cameras are basically an extension of the visual senses and
capabilities of the operational crew members. While these cameras extend the
capability of the human eye, “the act of sensing is essentially divorced from
the act of perception” (Cooke, Pringle & Pedersen, 2006, p.39). The visual
sense is thereby limited by the capability of the cameras and sensors. If the
frame freezes or becomes pixelated, the perception and resulting actions are
negatively affected.
There
is another issue in that of image transfer delay, which can also reduce the
accurate assimilation of the information that is being relayed to the RPA and UAS
operators. Operating on incorrect or outdated information, even by a few
seconds can mean the difference between successful mission completion of
objectives and failure. “Furthermore, humans tend to underestimate distances
more in photographic quality imagery than in the real world” (Cooke et al.,
2006, p.42).
The
quality of the images relayed to the operations crew may be poor, which may
remove some of the ability of the crews to determine the best course of action
in any given scenario. On most manned aircraft this would merely be the
opportunity to interject new technology into their systems. In unmanned systems
however, many of these vehicles are designed to be lightweight and stay aloft
for long periods of time. Any significant addition of weight to these
lightweight systems has the potential to affect the capability of the aircraft
to meet its mission requirements.
Additionally,
confinement to an operating station robs the UAS and RPA operators of their
other senses. Specifically, the vestibular system is affected. The vestibular
system helps us recognize qualities of our balance and position. Three of the
main things that our vestibular system recognizes are:
·
Static position- The position we are in
when we are not moving around or changing positions.
·
Velocity and direction- The speed of our
motion, as well as our direction of movement.
·
Our acceleration- The speed at which we
are moving or the changes in speed that our body is experiencing (Tamarkin,
2011).
With
so many different senses that are affected, the body and brain can direct
attention where it deems necessary. “The brain can force fixation on what the
brain considers important stimuli. This often leads to tunnel vision or
fixation on one or two elements, ignoring others, which may also be important”
(Orlady et al., 1999, p.180). Fixation on any singular or select few aspects in
an environment that is reliant on the few senses that are unaltered or not
fully degraded can lead to this tunnel vision scenario. This has the potential
to create an opportunity for a dangerous situation to be realized, and possibly
result in the damage or loss of an aircraft, and perhaps even casualties on the
ground.
While
there are many options that can be drawn upon to attempt to correct and
alleviate the issues of sensory deprivation and a lack of situational
awareness, the fact remains that the visual indicators and information relay
occurring in unmanned aircraft operations is exponentially worsened when compared to that of manned aircraft. For
unmanned crews, the need for additional information, better image quality and transfer/refresh
speeds, and other sensory enhancing technologies is necessary to ensure crews
are able to complete and comply with mission objectives and requirements.
Significance of problem
As
the previous section illustrates, operators of UAS’s and RPA’s are subject to
many of the same sensory robbing conditions that face manned pilots. In
addition, many of the key senses that manned pilots rely on for awareness and
perception are also degraded for remote crews that are operating BLOS. These
crews are limited to and reliant on what is conveyed via the aircrafts onboard
sensors and cameras through their data links and interfaces.
These
sensory and perception issues translate into a safety risk, as reduced
awareness creates a scenario where the lack or degradation of information has
the potential to hide issues that would traditionally be of concern. Human
factors play a large part of aviation related incidents, and to this day is a
leading cause of accidents in both manned and unmanned systems. In a hundred
year span covering 1905-2005, “human errors are responsible for 67.57% of
accidents” in the manned aviation world (Asim, Ehsan, & Rafique, 2005).
These accidents claimed the lives of 121,870 people, involved in the 17,369
logged accidents (Asim et al., 2005)
While
these accidents have traditionally resulted in the lost lives of crew members
and passengers, one of the key benefits to UAS’s and RPA’s is their lack of
onboard crew members. For military operations, this reduces the potential
severity of the loss of one of these aircraft, as there is no loss of life.
There are additionally no crew limitations in unmanned aircraft as there are in
manned aircraft, as crews can be swapped out and aircraft are able to
continuously operate seamlessly. Manned aircraft are still constrained to their
pilots’ limitations, as long flights result in fatigue and reduced awareness.
The fatigue and reduced awareness creates a dangerous operational environment
where poor decisions or slow reactions can lead to increased probability of
accident occurrence.
Perhaps
the most dangerous segments of flight for both manned and unmanned aircraft are
that of take-off and landings. These flight segments typically have the most
involvement of the human component in the process, relying the least on
automation. This requires increased
attentiveness of the crews, and creates the potential for an error to be made.
While some newer manned and unmanned systems both have automated take-off
and/or landing systems, situations may still dictate that in some cases humans
may need to override the automatic capability and complete these actions
themselves. While more now than ever pilots are system monitors, the need for
their abilities to remain fresh and skillful remains.
Technological
advancements and increased automation in aviation have significantly helped to
reduce manned accident rates over the past several decades. While these
advancements have helped a great deal, they have also contributed to
inattentiveness, and an increase in distractions (Griffin, 2010). In commercial
aviation over the last five years, the accident rate has flattened. What
remains tends to be a common theme, human error. These factors include
distractions, inadequate training, fatigue, poor communications between pilots
and crews and inattentiveness (Griffin, 2010).
Much
like their manned counterparts, UAS operators and aircraft are also subject to
many of the same issues regarding human factors involvement in accidents, and
seem to have a higher number of human error related accidents than those of
manned aircraft. In a study titled: Probable
causal factors in UAS accidents based
on human factor analysis and classification system, the authors
hypothesized that human factors was not a major contributor in UAS accidents in
the sample population of 56 Army UAS accidents (Asim et al., 2005). These 56 UAS accidents involved aircraft between
the years 1995-2005. Causes of these accidents varied from material failure,
environmental issues and combinations of these items, with approximately 30% of
these accident causes listed as undetermined.
The authors hypothesis was determined to be incorrect, as 18 of these
accidents (or 32%) were directly relatable to human factors issues as a primary
or secondary causal factor (Asim et al., 2005).
As
improved capability, reduced human workload and reduced risk of fatality are
all key goals for the successful integration of UAS’s within military and
commercial aircraft operations, the need to focus on correcting the sources of
these human factors incidents is paramount. While some of these issues may be
corrected utilizing some of the same manned philosophies such as increased
training both at controls and in simulated scenarios, enabling better
communication between crew members, and reducing the workload of individual
operators, there is a need to address some of these issues that are unique to
the UAS and RPA operating environments
Human
errors in UAS and RPA operations are exacerbated by the varying control
mechanisms, “from joysticks to mouse-and-keyboard configurations to touchscreen
interfaces. This variety introduces more opportunities for mistakes, especially
when multiple important controls are placed in close proximity” (Atherton,
2013). One example of how this becomes an issue is illustrated: “a drone
operator, using a joystick, missed the landing gear button and instead killed
the engine, causing the drone to stop flying and plummet out of the sky” (Atherton,
2013).
Manned
aircraft have had over a century of research and design to develop and implement
optimal cockpit and flight deck layouts that consider the best placement for
controls, interfaces and displays. This time and optimization has helped to
increase the ease of systems management and response and control actions by the
pilot and crews. According to Flying
unmanned aircraft: a pilot’s perspective, “the current proliferation of
non-standard, aircraft-specific flight crew interfaces in UAS, coupled with the
inherent limitations of operating UAS without in-situ sensory input and
feedback (aural, visual, and vestibular cues), has increased the risk of
mishaps associated with the design of the “cockpit”” (Pestana, 2011).
This
statement concurs with the notion that much of the human error incidence
involved in UAS and RPA accidents may stem from several preventable issues.
Pestana, also goes on to state, “accidents and mishaps associated with UAS
operations are, to a large extent, related to human error; a closer
examination, however, reveals that many of these human errors are the result of
design shortfalls in the human–machine interfaces” (2011).
Design
of crew stations with ergonomics as a driving force, intuitive and advanced
display interfaces, improved cameras and sensors as well as sensory enabling
devices and technology that restore some of the “feel” and senses in flying are
some of the ways that engineers can help to ensure that statistics for UAS’s
and RPA’s do not highlight human factors as such a causal factor in future
accidents.
Alternative actions
Workstation
Layout
Several
recent UAS mishaps that have occurred have been attributed to GCS interface or
layout designs. In 2006, one mishap occurred that was directly linked to poor
button layout and design. In this particular instance, the landing gear switch
was located on the side of the control stick, and the ignition switch was
located next to several other frequently used in flight buttons and switches.
Because of the design and placement of the landing gear button, the operator
had to release the control stick to actuate the landing gear switch, and while
attempting to simultaneous utilize another button, accidently hit the ignition
switch and killed the engine. This resulted in a $1.5 Million loss. Two other
incidences in 2001 and 2005 respectively were attributed to display mounting
and lighting that created glares. These glares ultimately resulted in a vehicle
loss scenario for both aircraft, as the operators erroneously interpreted the
on-screen data (Waraich, Mazzuchi, Sarkani, & Rico, 2013).
One
option to consider for alleviating some potential for human errors to occur is
through the use of redesigned ground control operator stations. Optimization of
the control and interface layout allows for ease of interaction and monitoring,
and reduces the varied workload of the operator. One such solution utilizes the
following layout: “The Main Display is the primary monitoring device for the
operator (no inputs can be given through it), whereas two touch screens (10
in.) are used as primary data-entry interfaces with secondary monitoring
functions. In particular a Touch Screen is devoted to the safety critical functions
and another to the non-safety critical ones. In the central panel are installed
some hardwired controls that require a quick access by the operator” (Damilano,
Guglieri, Quagliotti, & Sale, 2012). Additional controls are ergonomically
located for ease of use. These stations would be reconfigurable to allow for
changes in requirements.
Ergonomic
design consideration in the GCS developmental process, as well as in the
selection process for display and environmental systems within the GCS may help
to reduce some of the associated human factors risk. Additionally, effective
design may lead to more efficient operation, reducing stress and fatigue
experienced by the UAS operators. Attention to features such as: “displays,
seating design and configuration, control layout, input devices (e.g., buttons,
switches, etc.), and communication methods”, without sacrificing or degrading
the capability and accessibility of other features is vital (Waraich et al.,
2013).
Improved
Displays and Interfaces
Colonel
John Dougherty, a Predator operations commander with the North Dakota Air
National Guard, contends that the Predator has “too many screens with too much
information…” (Freedberg, 2012). Dougherty also points out that as new
capabilities are developed, the end outcome is additional information or
displays that the operational crews have to review and utilize, resulting in
excessive workload additions and, in-turn, additional fatigue. The Predator
system did not initially integrate human factors and ergonomic design
consideration into the initial build. The technology was deemed so valuable
during demonstration that the Aircraft was rushed into operation use (Freedberg,
2012).
Current
displays utilized in smaller UAS’s tend to be engineer focused, as opposed to
being focused on the user. The effects include reduced mission effectiveness,
operator frustration and degraded situational awareness (Stroumtsos, Gilbreath,
& Przybylski, 2013). On these smaller UAS’s, functionality is typically
limited, and requires utilization of different hardware components. In this
case, utilizing a single display and interface with an intuitive touchscreen
alleviates some of the task saturation associated with operations.
Additionally, reducing the required equipment needed for operations has the
potential to reduce the required crew size, alleviating some of the crossed
communication and distractions that may typically occur during operations under
tense conditions.
Another
display/interface solution that may be considered is the use of a single main
display. The research paper titled: Integrating
critical interface elements for intuitive single-display aviation control of
UAVs describes the use of this single display option primarily in the
commercial use of UAS’s that may provide inspection or monitoring tasks,
however the concept may be applied to the military sector as well (Cooper &
Goodrich, 2006). This interface utilizes a georeferenced terrain map populated
by publicly available information such as altitude data and terrain imagery.
Imagery retrieved from the UAS help to provide a stable frame of reference
integrated into the terrain imagery model. Icons are overlaid on the main display
to provide for control and feedback, but fade to a “semi-transparent state when
not in use to avoid distracting the operator’s attention from the video signal”
(Cooper & Goodrich, 2006).
Touchscreen
technology allows for advantages for the operational crew members over
traditional display options when used exclusively, or in conjunction with
additional displays. Touchscreens allow for greater flexibility, as
reconfiguration is easy due to controls that are software generated. New
interactive features may be utilized, to allow for removal of on-screen
keyboards and scroll bars. Uncluttering the display allows for greater display
dimension, and enables the user to utilize additional interface preferences for
control and display options on the touchscreen (Damilano, Guglieri, Quagliotti
& Sale, 2011).
Sensory
Feedback
One
of the major issues with UAS operations for crew members, is the physical
separation that exists between the operators and the aircraft. This separation
results in the sensory deprivation of vestibular and tactile inputs. With the addition of systems that enable the
sensory re-integration of tactile feedback, operators may be able to use this
simulated sense to perceive tactile cues typically absent in UAS systems. This
may allow the operator to sense changes in environmental inputs, mechanical
issues, or alerting crews to the impending situation of stalls and other
maneuvering issues (Mung Lam, Mulder, & Van Passen, 2006).
One
of the most promising ways to improve the awareness of the air vehicles status
and condition is through the use of haptic feedback technology. In a perfect
scenario, a “remote presence” may “enable the operator to perceive the remote
environment as if sensed directly” (Giordano, Deusch, L ̈achele, & B
̈ulthoff, 2011). Haptic feedback has the potential to allow the operations crew
members to sense some of the same things that manned pilots are able to. There
are several methods to achieve this haptic feedback relay to operations crews.
“The first technique considers the addition of an external force offset generated
by an artificial force field, whereas the second technique considers the
addition of an external spring constant” (Mung Lam et al., 2006).
One
reason that may help explain the necessity of sensory systems to help relay
information to UAS operators is that of environmental factor inputs. One such
case is that of wind turbulence. Severe
turbulence in flight is something that manned crews are able to identify and
respond accordingly, however in the UAS system, the only indicator of a
condition such as this may be the presence of video quality interference or
de-stabilization of the video feed. One
study utilized the insertion of control stick force feedback that transmitted
high frequency perturbation that reacted at an appropriate scale commensurate
with the intensity of the encountered disturbance. In this study, pilots
utilizing these systems were able to respond more quickly, resulting in fewer
errors encountered (Cooke et al., 2006, p.155).
Another
method for re-integrating sensory inputs into the operation of UAS systems is
through the use of artificial vestibular enhancing systems. While some of the
traditional methods for introducing sensory inputs back into UAS operations
focus on tactile feedback, vestibular systems also offer an enhanced ability
for UAS crew members to experience the same perception of “self linear/angular
motion through the integration of the inertial information” that are typically
associated with manned flight operations (Giordano et al., 2011). To introduce
these vestibular cues, a motion simulator capable of similar flight maneuvering
performance is utilized in conjunction with the visual feedback received from
the UAS cameras, enabling the crew members to “sense” the performance of the
aircraft (Giordano et al., 2011).
Allowing
for understanding of aircraft maneuvers, mechanical issues and environmental
cues may allow for increased situational awareness not typically afforded to
unmanned crews, which may allow crew members to quickly react to provide needed
inputs.
Auditory and Multi-Sensory Inputs
Another
significant issue that is present in unmanned flight is that of a lack of
auditory inputs for UAS crew members. Auditory cues are crucial in manned
flight, as they may cue the pilot to impending mechanical or other aircraft
issues, as well as alerting them to potential necessary required actions. Utilizing
auditory cues that can help the operator be aware of their surroundings and
enhance their performance is another awareness enhancing option. This option,
like other awareness enhancing technology, has the added benefit of
transferring some of the cognitive processing to other sensory systems, thereby
alleviating some potential fatigue and reducing workload.
Continuous
audio and discrete audio cues are two ways that auditory functions can also
enhance awareness. In continuous audio, a sound is constantly going while a
task is being performed. Once the task has completed, the sound stops playing
and the operator knows the task is finished and he needs to intimate a new task
or perform another new function. Discrete audio is what is typically used in
flight, presenting beeps of other chime sounds to identify items than need
attention form the operational crews (Graham, 2008).
In
research conducted with crew members supervising operation of multiple UAS’s
simultaneously, Spatial audio was utilized. “Spatial audio is 3-dimensional
(3D) audio in which audio is presented so that specific signals come from
specific locations in the 360 degree range around someone’s head. An example is
an audio alert for one UAV presented over a headset directly in front of the
operator, while alerts for another UAV are connected to signals directly behind
the operator” (Graham, 2008). Spatial
audio has been shown to reduce target acquisition time and reduce scanning time
required. This audio system allows the crew members that may be fixated on one
aspect of flight, or involved with scanning for target acquisition to receive
and be aware of important issues or items that need to be brought to their
attention. This increase operational safety and allows for enhanced awareness
(Graham, 2008).
Utilizing
this option in conjunction with haptic feedback may make an ideal situation for
increased awareness for crews. In a study titled: Assessing The Impact Of Haptic Peripheral Displays For UAV Operators, UAS
pilot test subjects operated in environments with simulated auditory
environmental feedback, and received auditory cues that alerted them to
situations (Donmez, Graham, & Cummings, 2008). Overall, the participants
favored the use of auditory cues, however it was noted that “auditory cues must
be integrated in a fashion that the operators will be able to tolerate subjectively,
and these signals must also be integrated with other audio cues to ensure
balanced aural saliency (Donmez et al., 2008).
Cameras
and Sensors
Just as new
technological advancements are introducing a multitude of new UAS aircraft into
the mix with a vast array of new and enhanced capabilities, these technological
advancements are also carrying into the areas of camera and sensor
developments, thereby increasing the awareness of the operational crews.
The Wide Area Aerial
Surveillance (WAAS) concept utilizes high endurance sensor UAS platforms, and
equips them with a WAAS type sensor payload. The payload typically contains
high resolution electro-optical sensors that are mounted in a fixed manner
aimed in multiple directions (Rogoway, 2014).
Onboard software creates a seamless image from the different sensors,
creating a high resolution single image that can be sent in a video feed
directly to the users. Utilizing several different direct video feeds allows
users to stream portions of the video that are applicable directly to their
operations, enabling faster data transfer as the transferred video stream is of
a much smaller data size than that of the whole stitched image (Rogoway,
2014).
A newer Defense Advanced
Research Projects Agency (DARPA) initiative, Autonomous Real-Time Ground
Ubiquitous Surveillance Imaging System (ARGUS) aims to increase the
capabilities of aerial surveillance. ARGUS is a 1.8-gigapixel video
surveillance platform that can resolve details as small as six inches from an altitude
of 20,000 feet (6km) (Anthony, 2013). ARGUS is capable at identifying birds
flying in the sky while observing from an altitude of 20,000 feet, utilizing
368 smaller sensors which enable the overall capability of the system (Anthony,
2013).
Another area that has
seen much technological advancement is in sense and avoid technology. New ideas such as Amazon’s intent to utilize
small drones to complete small package delivery to residential areas, and even
the direction of automation in automobile operations have been driving
technological research and development in the private sector (Black, 2014).
With UAS, the major concern and obstacle to civil operation is that of the lack
of ability for multiple aircraft to operate in a congested area and airspace
without a significant risk to the general public. To make this technology work,
sensors are being developed that are a fraction of the size used on their
larger counterparts, enabling use on smaller UAS that need lightweight
technology to remain efficient and capable.
Two potential
technological options to combat this lack of control are the use of optical
flow sensors and micro radar devices. Optical flow sensors, much like as in use
by computer mice that operate without a trackball, are being adapted to utilize
for collision avoidance. Echo location sensors may be utilized with the optical
flow sensors for operations in foggy scenarios. (Black, 2014). Currently,
companies such as Integrated Robotics Imaging Systems are developing micro
radar systems that weigh between 7-12 ounces, less that 5 percent of their
current commercial counterparts, with a price tag of $7,000 to $10,000 (Black,
2014).
These new camera and
sensor technologies will allow operators to utilize these small UAS in
commercial applications, even in residential areas. The potential for UAS
application in the private, commercial and military sectors is virtually
limitless with the addition of ever evolving technological advancements.
Recommendations
Unmanned systems have come a long way since their
beginnings as kite mounted photographic systems in 1883. Over the years, we
have come to rely on these systems to provide surveillance, payload delivery
and support of military and civilian functions with increasing demand for additional
performance. As manned flight
innovation has brought about changes in their arena, similar changes have also
helped shape the use and direction of UAS operations.
As with any system, there are issues that arise that
have created the need for technological solution to increase the efficiency and
safety of UAS operations. Unlike manned flight, where operators are able to
sense the changes in aircraft performance, and are afforded a 180 degree view
of the environment, unmanned crews are restricted to the information relayed
from their sensors and cameras to make control inputs and operational
decisions. Many solutions are currently in use, or are in developmental stages
that will help to ease the current problems afflicting these UAS.
Specifically, giving the operational crews more
information, faster and more efficiently, while providing additional
information delivery methods are the key to increasing the safety, efficiency
and effectiveness of these systems. Many methods exist for achieving these
desired results, and include advancements and utilization of:
·
Workstation
Layout- Redesign and optimization of
ground control stations layout and control utilization and placement..
·
Improved
Displays and Interfaces- Utilizing integrated touchscreen displays, with either
one primary screen and overlays or multiple customizable screens.
·
Sensory
Feedback- Utilizing either tactile or haptic feedback, or artificial vestibular
enhancing systems.
·
Auditory and
Multi-Sensory Inputs- Utilization of either continuous or discrete audio to aid
operators in performance monitoring, or using auditory and tactile feedback
combinations.
·
Cameras and
Sensors- Utilization of enhanced cameras such as ARGUS, or using optical flow sensors and
micro radar devices.
Using any of these enhancements alone or in
conjunction has the ability to better increase the awareness of the operational
UAS crews, thereby increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of
operations.
References
Anthony, S.
(2013, January 28). DARPA shows off 1.8-gigapixel surveillance drone, can spot
a terrorist from 20,000 feet. Retrieved from
http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/146909-darpa-shows-off-1-8-gigapixel-surveillance-drone-can-spot-a-terrorist-from-20000-feet
Asim, M.,
Ehsan, N., & Rafique, K. (2005). Probable Causal Factors In UAV
Accidents Based On Human Factor Analysis And Classification System. Retrieved
from http://www.icas.org/ICAS_ARCHIVE/ICAS2010/PAPERS/492.PDF
Atherton, K.
(2013, March 4). What Causes So Many Drone Crashes? Retrieved from
www.popsci.com/technology/article/2013-03/human-error-after-all
Black, T.
(2014, June 7). Amazon’s Drone Dream Sets Off Race to Build Better Sensor -
Bloomberg Business. Retrieved from http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-06-06/amazon-s-drone-dream-sets-off-race-to-build-better-sensor
Cooke, N. J.,
Pringle, H., & Pedersen, H. (2006). Human factors of remotely
operated vehicles. Amsterdam: Elsevier JAI.
Cooper, J.,
& Goodrich, M. (2006, May 19). Integrating critical interface elements
for intuitive single-display aviation control of UAVs. Retrieved from
https://faculty.cs.byu.edu/~mike/mikeg/papers/Spie.pdf
Damilano, L.,
Guglieri, G., Quagliotti, F., & Sale, I. (2012, January).
FMS for Unmanned Aerial Systems: HMI Issues and New Interface Solutions.
Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.libproxy.db.erau.edu/pqcentral/docview/911157189/fulltextPDF/58C98063B27849D8PQ/9?accountid=27203
Donmez, B.,
Graham, H., & Cummings, M. (2008, March). Assessing The Impact Of
Haptic Peripheral Displays For UAV Operators. Retrieved from
http://web.mit.edu/aeroastro/labs/halab/papers/HAL2008_02.pdf
Freedberg, S.
(2012, August 7). Too Many Screens: Why Drones Are So Hard To Fly, So Easy To
Crash. Retrieved from breakingdefense.com/2012/08/too-many-screens-why-drones-are-so-hard-to-fly-and-so-easy/
Giordano, P.,
Deusch, H., L ̈achele, J., & B ̈ulthoff, H. (2011, April
10). Visual-Vestibular Feedback for Enhanced Situational Awareness in
Teleoperation of UAVs. Retrieved from
http://www.kyb.tuebingen.mpg.de/fileadmin/user_upload/files/publications/AHS_FORUM66_%5B0%5D.pdf
Graham, H.
(2008, June). Effect of Auditory Peripheral Displays On Unmanned Aerial Vehicle
Operator Performance. Retrieved from http://web.mit.edu/aeroastro/labs/halab/papers/Graham_Thesis.pdf
Griffin, G.
(2010, February 14). Human error is biggest obstacle to 100 percent flight
safety - The Denver Post. Retrieved from http://www.denverpost.com/ci_14398562
Krock, L.
(2002, November). Time Line of UAVs. Retrieved from
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/spiesfly/uavs.html
Mung
Lam, T., Mulder, M., & Van Passen, R. (2006). Haptic
Feedback for UAV Tele-operation - Force offset and spring load modification.
Retrieved from http://www.lr.tudelft.nl/fileadmin/Faculteit/LR/Organisatie/Afdelingen_en_Leerstoelen/Afdeling_C_O/Control_and_Simulation/News/Archive_2007/doc/ieeesmc_mlam_2006_final.pdf
Orlady, H. W.,
Orlady, L. M., & Lauber, J. K. (1999). Human
factors in multi-crew flight operations. Aldershot, England: Ashgate.
Pestana, M.
(2011, March 29). Flying Unmanned Aircraft: A Pilot’s Perspective. Retrieved
from http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20110011979.pdf
Rogoway, T.
(2014, August 18). How One New Drone Tech Finally Allows All-Seeing
Surveillance. Retrieved from
http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/how-one-new-drone-tech-finally-allows-all-seeing-survei-1553272901
Schneider, J.,
& MacDonald, J. (2014, June 16). Are Manned or Unmanned Aircraft
Better on the Battlefield? Retrieved from
http://ciceromagazine.com/features/the-ground-truth-about-drones-manned-vs-unmanned-effectiveness-on-the-battlefield/
Stroumtsos, N.,
Gilbreath, G., & Przybylski, S. (2013). An intuitive graphical
user interface for small UAS. Retrieved from http://www.public.navy.mil/spawar/Pacific/Robotics/Documents/Publications/2013/SPIE2013-Raven.pdf
Tamarkin, D.
(2011). Vestibular Senses. Retrieved from
http://faculty.stcc.edu/AandP/AP/AP2pages/Units14to17/unit16/vestibul.htm
Unmanned
Aerial Vehicle Systems Association. (2015). UAS Components. Retrieved from
http://www.uavs.org/index.php?page=uas_components
Waraich, Q.,
Mazzuchi, T., Sarkani, S., & Rico, D. (2013, January).
Minimizing Human Factors Mishaps in Unmanned Aircraft Systems. Retrieved from
http://erg.sagepub.com/content/21/1/25.full.pdf
