Human Factors, Ethics and Morality

Human Factors, Ethics and Morality

Traditionally, manned aircraft warfare has presented itself with the inherent risk of losing the lives of the flight crews in the performance of their duties. While this is not always deterrence to swift action, it is a consideration that must be addressed prior to execution of missions. One key aspect that is always a significant input, is the role that human intervention and situational insertion of our moral consideration play in our decision making process.

Just War theory utilizes the notions that certain principles should guide our conduct, even in extreme situations. As described in Just War Theory and the Ethics of Drone Warfare, four main principles make up Jus in Bello (Freiberger, 2013). The principle of military necessity, the principle of distinction (between military and civilians), the principle of proportionality (action must be proportionate to objective), and the principle of humanity (care should be taken to ensure no undue suffering or action is taken upon civilians or their property) (Freiberger, 2013).

The Law of Armed Conflict seeks to align these same principles and identify the moral and ethical considerations that member countries agree are necessary to ensure that was that is fought is done so in an acceptable manner by outlying what are legal and illegal actions and combatants. Unfortunately, as populations increase and technologies become increasingly advanced, we are further removed from the actions of war, and actions have become closer to large civilian populations. Thus, “this trend has blurred the line between combatants and civilians and made it difficult to distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate targets” ( Kreps & Kaag, 2012).

While manned aircraft operations may offer a larger picture of surroundings and allow for consideration of more variables, UAS operations have typically been limited by their onboard sensor and camera capability. Being removed from the action may perhaps reduce the internal turmoil that may typically be encountered when determining targets and making the kill decision. Also, target acquisition and tracking may be hindered by the low quality of the video streams typically associated with UAS cameras.

Conversely, utilization of UAS can also improve the chances of getting actionable and valid information regarding targets. UAS are able to hover and track for extended periods of time from extended heights, allowing for determination of the best point of mission execution. As one pilot explains, “I see mothers with children, I see fathers with children, I see fathers with mothers, I see kids playing soccer, before the call comes to fire a missile and kill the target” (Bumiller, 2012).

I do think that although there is a physical separation between the UAS operator and the targets in warfare, that there is still the emotional connection to a kill action similar to that of manned aircraft operations. Operators still know that their actions have a consequence that ends the life of another human. As with any military action, there is always the possibility of bad intelligence leading to the realization of action taken that negatively affects civilians or results in collateral damage. As technology in sensor and cameras becomes more sophisticated, such as in the ARGUS system, the ability to monitor and get a bigger picture of situations with greater clarity and scope will improve the ability to make more informed decisions on the battlefield.

References

Bumiller, E. (2012, July 29). A Day Job Waiting for a Kill Shot a World Away. Retrieved from    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/us/drone-pilots-waiting-for-a-kill-shot-7000-miles-away.html?_r=0

Freiberger, E. (2013, July 18). Just War Theory and the Ethics of Drone Warfare. Retrieved from http://www.e-ir.info/2013/07/18/just-war-theory-and-the-ethics-of-drone-warfare/

Kreps, S., & Kaag, J. (2012, April). The Use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles in Contemporary Conflict: A Legal and Ethical Analysis. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.libproxy.db.erau.edu/docview/992898373

UAS Crew Member Selection Consultant

UAS Crew Member Selection

The Insitu ScanEagle was originally developed by Insitu Inc. to track dolphins and tuna to ensure dolphin safe catches for fishermen. The ScanEagle UAS is a small, salt water tolerable, low infrastructure launch and recovery aircraft, capable of 20 hour long automated flight. The ScanEagle is launched via a catapult, and recovered utilizing a skyhook and catch line (Defense Industry Daily, 2014).

The General Atomics Ikhana UAS is a modified MQ-9 Predator B aircraft, initially developed by NASA at the Ames Research Center at Moffett Field in California. Ikhana has a 66 foot wingspan, and is 36 feet long. Due it size, up to 400 pounds of sensors can be utilized internally, and approximately 2,000 pounds in external wing pods (General Atomics, 2007). The UAS was designed for high altitude, long endurance missions Beyond-Line-of Sight (BLOS), operating at altitudes up to 40,000 feet for up to 30 hours duration (General Atomics, 2007).

While the Insitu ScanEagle is a smaller catapult launched aircraft operating at lower altitudes, and the General Atomics Ikhana is a high altitude BLOS UAS, they will both utilize crews comprised of two personnel, a pilot and a scanner/sensor/payload operator. As the Ikhana will be a long duration aircraft, crews will need to rotate in accordance with established crew duty day restrictions per the FAA.

The Scan eagle operates at lower altitudes, and will be performing scanning duties in a visual area. Operating over the ocean at an altitude of under 400 feet and within a one mile distance, per the FAA, the ScanEagle operators are not required to hold a pilot’s license (Barnhart, Shappee & Marshall, 2011). The Ikhana on the other hand, conducts BLOS operations at high altitude where they pose a risk to other aircraft, and requires that pilots do hold a commercial pilots license.

In February of 2007, the Office of Aerospace Medicine division of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) published a report titled: Unmanned Aircraft Pilot Medical Certification Requirements (Williams, 2007).This report utilized a literature review of previous work accomplished regarding this topic, as well as the inclusion of an FAA meeting on 26 July, 2005 with a diverse field of subject matter experts in an attempt to determine what the best possible solution would be to the issue of medical certification requirements for commercial and civil UAS operations.

During the initial subject matter expert meeting, the decision was made that a third class medical would suffice for UAS operation. Following the meeting however, it was determined that a second class medical certificate would be more appropriate for commercial UAS pilots, as the vision restrictions are more stringent. In some situations, UAS pilots are required to maintain visual contact with the aircraft, necessitating a stricter vision requirement. Additionally, no other commercial pilots are required to hold less than a class two medical certificate, which was another determining factor (Williams, 2007).

Per the FAA, in accordance with a second class medical certificate, the following medical standards are deemed a requirement:

·       “Distant Vision- 20/20 or better in each eye separately, with or without correction.

·       Near Vision- 20/40 or better in each eye separately (Snellen equivalent), with or without correction, as measured at 16 in.

·       Intermediate Vision- 20/40 or better in each eye separately (Snellen equivalent), with or without correction at age 50 and over, as measured at 32 in.

·       Color Vision- Ability to perceive those colors necessary for safe performance of pilot duties.

·       Hearing- Demonstrate hearing of an average conversational voice in a quiet room, using both ears at 6 feet, with the back turned to the examiner or pass one of the audiometric tests.

·       Audiology- Audiometric speech discrimination test (Score at least 70% discrimination in

one ear):

                  500Hz 1,000Hz 2,000Hz 3,000Hz

Better Ear   35Db     30Db      30Db      40Db

Worse Ear  35Db     50Db      50Db       60Db

·       Ear Nose and throat- No ear disease or condition manifested by, or that may reasonably be expected to be manifested by, vertigo or a disturbance of speech or equilibrium.

·       Blood Pressure- No specified values stated in the standards. 155/95 Maximum allowed.

·       Electrocardiogram- Not routinely required.

·       Mental- No diagnosis of psychosis or bipolar disorder or severe personality disorders.

·       Substance Dependence and Substance Abuse- A diagnosis or medical history of substance dependence is disqualifying unless there is established clinical evidence, satisfactory to the Federal Air Surgeon, of recovery, including sustained total abstinence from the substance(s) for not less than the preceding 2 yrs” (Williams, 2007).

References

Barnhart, Richard K., Shappee, Eric, and Marshall, Douglas M.. Introduction to Unmanned Aircraft Systems. London, GBR: CRC Press, 2011. ProQuest ebrary. Web. 4 March 2015.

Defense Industry Daily. (2014, November 9). From Dolphins to Destroyers: The ScanEagle UAV. Retrieved from http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/from-dolphins-to-destroyers-the-scaneagle-uav-04933/

General Atomics. (2007, March 29). Ikhana UAS Gives NASA New Science and Technology Capabilities. Retrieved from http://media.ga.com/2007/03/27/ikhana-uas-gives-nasa-new-science-and-technology-capabilities/

Williams, K. (2007, February). Unmanned Aircraft Pilot Medical Certification Requirements. Retrieved from http://fas.org/irp/program/collect/ua-pilot.pdf

Operational Risk Management

Operational Risk Management

The Fury 1500 was originally designed and built by AeroMech Engineering in San Luis Obispo CA, but the company was subsequently bought out by Chandler in 2009, and again by Lockheed Martin in 2012. The Fury is a small tactical Unmanned Aerial System (UAS) designed for intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance. The Fury boast a maximum altitude of 18,000 feet, while providing real time intelligence data for a maximum flight/loiter time of 16 hours (Kable Intelligence Limited, n.d.). Fury 1500 can be launched on land or shipboard, using a pneumatic launcher, and is recovered either with the use of a net recovery system or water connectors for water recovery (Tarantola, 2014). With the capability of both Line of Sight (LOS) and Beyond Line of Sight) BLOS) operations, the Fury 1500 is capable of expeditionary operations utilizing an Expeditionary Ground Control Station (xGCS) built form commercial off the shelf components (Hemmerdinger, 2014).

Preliminary Hazard List/Preliminary Hazard Analysis PHL/PHA for flight stage-

Ø  The first item on the hazard list is environmental conditions. The risk probability of this is moderate (depending on operating environment), and the severity would be moderate as well. Link can be lost, or there can be damage to the UAS during operations.

-To mitigate this risk, weather inputs should be reviewed prior to and during flight planning, and mission abortion should be considered for unacceptable operating conditions.

Ø  The second item on the hazard list is lost data link. The risk probability of this is moderate (depending on operating environment), and the severity would be severe.

-To mitigate this risk, redundant link systems should be considered as long as the weight requirements are not exceeded.  Additional training and procedure reviews should be accomplished to ensure operational control does not contribute to this condition.

Ø  The third item on the hazard list is crew member disorientation. The risk probability of this is low (depending on operating environment), and the severity would be moderate.

-To mitigate this risk, additional training, improved instrumentation and enhanced interactive displays, wider frame and additional cameras and sensors as ground station control layout and lighting awareness are all methods to help combat disorientation.

Operational Hazard Review and Analysis (OHR&A)

Ø  The first item on the hazard list is environmental conditions. The action review for this hazard has changed the risk probability level to low, and the severity remains moderate.

-To further mitigate this risk, operational environments and unique hazards experienced in these environments should be information passed on to and reviewed by crew members.

Ø  The second item on the hazard list is lost data link. The risk probability of this remains moderate, and the severity remains severe.

-To further mitigate this hazard, operational conditions should be observed and evaluated prior to mission start. 

Ø  The third item on the hazard list is crew member disorientation. The risk probability of this remains low, and the severity remains moderate.

-To further mitigate this risk, reviews of the effectiveness of corrective actions and procedures should continue.

The finished risk assessment tool would be similar to the one identified in figure 8.3 in Introduction to Unmanned Aircraft Systems, identifying the planning/operational stages and flight segments, as well as the varying previously identified risks and hazards developed in the PHL/A and OHR&A (Barnhart, Shappee & Marshall, 2011). The risk assessment helps to identify operational conditions are acceptable and identified hazards have been reviewed and considered prior to flight. Each item will be numerically ranked as to the risk involved, and operation crews will complete prior to flight, and management and safety personnel will be able to  utilize to verify safety conditions and personnel awareness. 

References

Barnhart, Richard K., Shappee, Eric, and Marshall, Douglas M.. Introduction to Unmanned Aircraft Systems. London, GBR: CRC Press, 2011. ProQuest ebrary. Web. 1 March 2015.

Hemmerdinger, J. (2014, May 13). AUVSI: Lockheed integrates xGCS with Fury UAV - 5/13/2014 - Flight Global. Retrieved from http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/auvsi-lockheed-integrates-xgcs-with-fury-uav-399069/

Tarantola, A. (2014, May 16). This Furious High-Flying Drone Can Spy Overhead For 15 Hours. Retrieved from http://gizmodo.com/this-furious-high-flying-drone-can-spy-overhead-for-15-

Automatic Takeoff and Landing

                                                   Automatic Takeoff and Landing

Automation of aircraft and associated systems is advancing at a very fast rate. Technological advancements have made it possible to incorporate significant upgrades to aerospace systems, with new changes occurring frequently. One of these fascinating new capabilities that have recently been utilized in both the commercial and military aviation sectors is auto-land.

The Northrop Grumman Fire Scout is one such military aircraft that has incorporated automation capability into its landing phase on board U.S. Naval ships. The MQ-8C Fire Scout model is the newest rendition of its Vertical Take-off and Landing (VTOL) Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) line. The MQ-8C is based off of the Bell 407 helicopter, which is bigger than its predecessor models which were based on the Schweitzer 333 (Naval-technology.com, n.d.).  With the increase in size, the MQ-8C brings an increase in systems capability as well as increased payload. The data link, system control station, associated hardware and software have had significant upgrades which will allow this UAV to effectively carry out a wide range of operation missions while supporting a wide array of capabilities for its Navy customer.

The Fire Scout utilizes a UCARS system that provides positioning information for use in the automated take-off and landing portions of flight. UCARS is composed of three major subsystems:

·       The Airborne Subsystem (AS) providing a UAV point source for precise position data

·       The Track Subsystem (TS), locating and tracking the UAV relative to the chosen landing point. A motion sensing system is also employed.

·       The Recovery System (RS) provides guidance and control functions utilizing the data link and provides for the human integration and control interfaces within the system. Several launch, control and monitoring functions are also completed by the recovery system (Ferrier, Sehgal, & Ernst, 2014).

The UCARS system operates as a “transponder based millimeter wave radar tracking system”, to track and provide location and position inputs (Ferrier, Sehgal, & Ernst, 2014). The Fire Scout does have safeguards in place allowing for manual landings and override when needed, controlled via the data link in the ground control station.

 A manned commercial aircraft that also has the capability to autonomously land is the Boeing MD-11. The MD-11 incorporates auto throttle control concurrently when its autopilot functions are enabled.  These systems “are completely unified and essentially operate as a combined system until disengagement at landing” (PMDG, 2010).

Auto land in initiated by pushing the APPR/LAND button, and provided an ILS frequency is being utilized that uses both a localizer and glide scope (automatically done by the Flight Management System (FMS), the aircraft will auto land unless manually overridden. Autopilot remains engaged after landing to ensure the aircraft remains aligned with the runway, requiring disconnection following the end of the landing rollout  (PMDG, 2010)

Three types of MD-11 auto land are identified below-

•           “If all your systems are operating normally you will see a green DUAL LAND annunciation on the PFD FMA indicating a full CAT III auto land” (PMDG, 2010).

•           “If you have failures that are not critical for the auto land (for example, one of the two autopilots inoperative or one HYD system failed) a white SINGLE LAND will be annunciated and a CAT II auto land will apply” (PMDG, 2010).

•           “If you have critical system failures, or excessive deviation from LOC or GS a white APPR ONLY will be annunciated and the auto land function will not be available. The aircraft will continue to track LOC and GS, but autopilot will disconnect at 100 ft AGL” (PMDG, 2010).

Crews of both aircraft have to receive initial qualification training, as well as subsequent periodic scheduled currency requirements.

                                                                References

Ferrier, B., Sehgal, A., & Ernst, R. (2014). Retrieved from http://www.auvsishow.org/auvsi2014/Custom/Handout/Speaker1851_Session767_1.pdf

Naval-technology.com. (n.d.). Fire Scout VTUAV - Naval Technology. Retrieved from http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/fire-scout-vtuav/

PMDG. (2010, February 19). Tips for Boeing pilots learning the MD-11 - PMDG Simulations. Retrieved from http://support.precisionmanuals.com/kb/a18/tips-for-boeing-pilots-learning-the-md-11.aspx