UAS Crewmember/Operator Requirements

 

What do you think are the most important factors when selecting, certifying, and training UAS operators?  

            Flexibility, adaptability, and top multi-tasking abilities are three of the most important factors to look for when selecting, certifying, and training UAS operators. UAS and the airspace within which they are flown change often, so pilots and operators must be able to adjust accordingly (U.S. Air Force and Space Force Recruiting, 2019). Top multi-taskers present high measures in ability and knowledge (Williams et al., 2014). During selections, pilots/operators should be able to perform multiple tasks in order of importance and redirect attention to tasks when priorities change.

How much does the size and capability of the UAS drive the requirements for crewmember/operator qualification?

            Bailey et al. (2017) evaluated a pilot’s contribution to safe flights. Their data backed the theory that a human’s adaptability is instrumental in overcoming non-normal conditions. Their research concluded that pilots were able to shed workloads, ask for help, and perform actions in enough time to safely complete the operation within acceptable flight performance limits (Bailey et al., 2017). Additionally, the data supported the theory that, due to the complexity of operations and task demands, single pilot operations were not good. The conclusion is especially true in emergency situations.

How much training do you think is required to safely operate a UAS in the NAS?

            I couldn’t quote an actual time limit (hours or months). The amount of training the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the Air Force requires of a pilot to safely operator a UAS can take a while. The FAA requires first-time pilots to be at least 16 years old, be able to read, write, and understand English, be in good physical and mental condition for safe flying, and pass the aeronautical knowledge exam (Federal Aviation Administration, n.d.). The training appears to be self paced; depending on the diligence of the trainee. The Air Force’s UAS pilot training can take seven to nine months; depending on the assigned airframe (U.S. Air Force and Space Force Recruiting, 2017). Both FAA and Air Force training requirements are good starts; as long as they adapt with technology, environment, and the pilots/operators.

Reference

Bailey, R. E., Kramer, L. J., Kennedy, K. D., Stephens, C. L., & Etherington, T. J. (n.d.). An assessment of reduced crew and single pilot operations in commercial transport aircraft operations. IEEE Xplore. https://ieeexplore-ieee-org.ezproxy.libproxy.db.erau.edu/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=8101988

Federal Aviation Administration. (n.d.). Become a drone pilot. https://www.faa.gov/uas/commercial_operators/become_a_drone_pilot/

U.S. Air Force and Space Force Recruiting. (2017). U.S. Air Force remotely piloted aircraft (RPA) pilot training. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cs5GGk_2mpA

U.S. Air Force and Space Force Recruiting. (2019). Remotely piloted aircraft (RPA) sensor operator-What are some challenges? YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-oMOxu6S9us 

Williams, H., Carretta, T., Kirkendall, C., Barron, L., Stewart, J., & Rose, M. (2014). Selection of UAS personnel (SUPer) phase I report: Identification of critical skills, abilities, and other characteristics and recommendations for test battery development (No. NAMRU-D-15-16). Naval Medical Research Unit, Dayton. https://ryanblakeney.com/uas-crewmember-operator-requirements/

UAS Mishaps and Accidents

             According to the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) hazard is defined as “a condition that could cause or contribute to an aircraft incident or accident” (International Civil Aviation Organization, 2014). Failure to identify and/or mitigate hazards results in risk taking. Some hazards, such as the use of aircraft oils and lubricants, cannot be eliminated. However, actions can be taken to minimize the risk (of skin contamination) by employing sufficient countermeasures (like nitrile glove).

              The same theory of mitigation and minimization holds true for beyond visual line of sight (BVLOS) operations. One way to mitigate risks during BVLOS operations is to have a hazard, risk, and mitigation contingency plan. Data from previous flights can assist in the understanding of threats, vulnerabilities, and consequences of specific flight scenarios. Further, surveying the environment can also help in building a plan. The plan should describe operations and procedures taken to prevent mishaps and taken in case of emergencies.

            Mishaps and emergencies are inevitable occurrences within the aviation community. However, for the UAS community technology appears to be as great of a contributor to mishaps and accidents as human factors. Wild et al. (2016) presented a significant finding that contrary to popular belief, human factors was not the key contributor to UAS mishaps and accident rates (figure 1). It was noted that operational damage and loss-of-control in flight events were more common, which significantly related to equipment problems (EP) and not human factors. However, when analyzing deeper into equipment problems human factors could possibly be discovered in design or manufacturing.

Figure 1.

Breakdown of data collected from 152 accident and incident cases that occurred between 2005 and 2014.

Note. Image retrieved from Wild et al., (2016).

Thank You

References

International Civil Aviation Organization. (2014). Hazard; Definitions and usage notes. From https://www.icao.int/SAM/Documents/2017-SSP-BOL/CICTT%20Hazard%20Taxonomy.pdf

Wild, G., Murray, J., & Baxter, G. (2016). Exploring civil drone accidents and incidents to help prevent potential air disasters. Edith Cowan University Publications Post 2013. https://ro.ecu.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=3421&context=ecuworkspost2013

UAS and Manned Aircraft Autonomy

 

            There are ten levels ascribed to human-centric automation design capabilities. The levels of automation (LOA) refer to automation’s ability to work independent of human interaction with mission complexity and environmental complexity providing context (Huang et al., 2007). Level zero (0) is the lowest level and is completely controlled by the human operator (Elliott & Stewart, 2011). An example of level zero is a remote controlled airplane where the human has total control over the flight control actuators. Levels 1 - 3 are low LOA. Human interaction is a main component in levels 1-3, but servos are in the loop to receive human commands and execute them, accordingly. Environment complexity (terrain, surrounding changes, and hazards) and mission complexity (very little situational awareness) remain simple (Elliott & Stewart, 2011). Levels 4-6 are mid LOA. In mid LOA, human interaction is 50 percent, environment complexity is moderate, and mission complexity involves multifunctional automation. Mid-LOA systems have limited planning abilities; they receive a goal, figure out a plan, and wait for human approval to carry out the plan. High LOA systems don’t need human approval to execute the plan. High LOA systems have high fidelity situation awareness, the environment has a high risk of failure, and the mission complexity is focused on teams of manned and unmanned systems (Elliott & Stewart, 2011). Level 10 systems are human-like. They are able to overcome situations at the highest levels of mission and environmental complexity.  

            In addition to levels of autonomy that can be applied to UAS operations, there are different considerations for unmanned automated operations over and above considerations necessary for manned operations. Take for instance, the autopilot systems. In manned aircraft systems, autopilot systems have redundancies in fault monitoring. To maintain reliability, usually three autopilot computers, possibly from different companies and with different software, run in collaboration and compare results (Aviation Stack Exchange, 2017). The operation is maintained when at least two of the three agree on an output. Plus, if autopilot fails, the pilot can recover the aircraft. In some UAS systems, the autopilot system performs lost link procedures for its safety feature. In most cases, lost link profiles are programmed into the aircraft’s memory prior to launch, allowing the aircraft to return and land, if the link is not reestablished (Brungardt & Barnhart, 2016). Autopilot system redundancies are also available for UAS. After all, UAS pilot recovery would be near impossible without linked communications to the ground station.

            Automation is a great product and service. Most report that automation makes pilots lazy and pilots rely too heavily on automation. Really, pilots should take measures to maintain their technique and training and not allow it to falter. Further, automation applies accuracy and system collaboration to the aviation industry. This author feels the aviation industry currently uses the appropriate amount of automation. 

Thank you

Reference

Aviation Stack Exchange. (2017). Why are critical flight computers redundant. https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/13447/why-are-critical-flight-computers-redundant

Brungardt, J., & Barnhart, R. K. (2016). The "system" in UAS. In R. K. Barnhart, D. M. Marshall, E. Shappee, & M. T. Most, Introduction to unmanned aircraft systems (2nd ed., pp. 46-47). New York: Taylor & Francis Group.

Elliott, L. J., & Stewart, B. (2011). Automation and autonomy in unmanned aircraft systems. In D. M. Marshall, R. K. Barnhart, S. B. Hottman, E. Shappee, & M. T. Most, Introduction to unmanned aircraft systems. New York, New York: CRC Press LLC

Huang, H.-M., Messina, E., & Albus, J. (2007). Unmanned levels for unmanned systems (ALFUS) framework. National Institute of Standards and Technology. https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/Legacy/SP/nistspecialpublication1011-II-1.0.pdf#:~:text=The%20Autonomy%20Levels%20for%20Unmanned%20Systems%20%28ALFUS%29%20Ad,have%20formed%20close%20collaborative%20relationships%2C%20including%20the%20U.S.

Physiological Issues in UAS

 

Medications with Significant Risks

            Over-the-counter medications pose significant risk to the proper performance of UAS operations. Some medications, such as allergy and cold products, have sedating antihistamines. Sedating antihistamines can lead to drowsiness, impaired thinking, and bad judgment (Federal Aviation Administration, 2019). Sedating antihistamines have a few other names like chlorpheniramine, ketotifen, and doxylamine. Another medication that can pose a significant risk is medication containing sudafed. Even though medications containing sudafed are allowed, the Federal Aviation Administration (2019) recommends caution with use. Sudafed can speed up the heart’s rate. So, the Federal Aviation Administration (2019) advises persons with underlying heart conditions to not consume products containing sudafed. Moreover, if a user with a heart condition is unaware of sudafed’s affect on the heart, the user can put themselves, the flight, and other people in danger. That’s extremely significant.

Effective Mitigation Strategies

            From a human factors perspective, the most effective mitigation strategies that operators can use when conducting UAS operations are the four fundamental principles of risk management. The first principle is do not accept unnecessary risk (Federal Aviation Administration, 2016). Some risks are acceptable, but unnecessary risks are not necessary. The second fundamental principle is practice decision-making at the appropriate level. A small UAS team leader can not make the decisions of a mission commander. As mentioned before, there are times risks can not be avoided, which is the premise of the third principle. Necessary risks, that is risks with benefits that outweight the costs, are the only risks allowed and accepted. Lastly, since risk can not always be avoided, the fourth fundamental principle directs the integration of risk management into planning at all stages of flight (Federal Aviation Administration, 2016).

Fatigue and Stress Affects

            Stress and fatigue can have adverse affects on the body. Stress can affect the body’s respiratory and cardiovascular systems by causing blood vessels to constrict which can ultimately raise blood pressure (Pietrangelo & Legg, 2020). Additionally, stress can affect the central nervous and endocrine systems by keeping the body in the fight response mode and not allowing the body to rest. Lastly, stress can have behavioral affects that can lead to alcohol and/or drug abuse, social withdrawal, and eating disorders. Fatigue is especially hard on the body. Fatigue can affect the body and mind, simultaneously, which can develop into serious conditions (Honor Society of Nursing, n.d.). Fatigue can interrupt concentration and the mind’s ability to recall information. Fatigue can also affect sleep patterns and cause hypertension.

References

Federal Aviation Administration. (2016). Chapter 10: Aeronautical decision-making and judgment. Remote pilot - Small unmanned aircraft systems study guide. https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aviation/media/remote_pilot_study_guide.pdf

Federal Aviation Administration. (2019). What over-the-counter (OTC) medication can I take and still be safe to fly? https://www.faa.gov/licenses_certificates/medical_certification/media/OTCMedicationsforPilots.pdf

Honor Society of Nursing. (n.d.). How does chronic fatigue syndrome affect the body? Sharecare.com. https://www.sharecare.com/health/chronic-fatigue-syndrome/does-fatigue-syndrome-affect-body#:~:text=Fatigue%20can%20cause%20the%20brain%20to%20function%20incorrectly%2C,can%20make%20your%20body%20more%20susceptible%20to%20infection

 

Pietrangelo, A., & Legg, T. J. (2020). The effects of stress onyour body. Healthline. https://www.healthline.com/health/stress/effects-on-body

Risk Management and Aeronautical Decision-Making

 

            Aeronautical Decision-Making (ADM) is training the mind to consistently review circumstances and make the best decisions in response. One essential element to ADM is situational awareness. Situational awareness involves the power of observation. It’s taking into account what’s going on amongst the current surroundings. Another essential element to ADM is the decision maker’s ability to foresee a number of outcomes and choose the one that will be most successful. The ability to make oneself aware of outcomes is gained with training and (direct and/or indirect) experience. Lastly, the decision maker must follow up to make sure no other changes have occurred. Since the opportunity for change consistently exists, the decision maker must reliably verify the previous actions are still successful and future circumstances will flourish, as well. If not, the process starts all over again.

            Risk management and ADM can be applied similarly for manned and unmanned aircraft situations. The risk management and ADM issues in unmanned aerial systems (UAS) that really stood out were the single pilot mindset and the way that pilot had to assess risk for successful outcomes. A lone pilot is not afforded the benefit of other crewmembers for situation and attitude checks and balances. Automation and sharp physical, psychological, physiological, and psychosocial characteristics are the single pilot’s tools for success. The pilot must act as her/his own quality control in decision-making (Federal Aviation Administration, 2016). So, risk assessment will be a supplemental layer of weight added onto the decision-making process.

            Commercial UAS operators certified under CFR 14 Part 107 face some unique challenges. One operator challenge will be staying abreast of the local, state, and federal regulations on operating restrictions. That may include volunteering to continue operations under Section 333 Exemption, if applicable. Since the Secretary of Transportation uses a risk-based analysis to determine airworthiness certifications, it is advisable to continue to consider exemptions placed on operating rules to avoid mishaps. Limited resources and inconsistent procedures are another operator challenge. The FAA has been charged with overseeing aircraft design and the use of the National Airspace System. Some decisions behind the oversight have taken decades to accomplish success. However, the UAS industry brings with it a Silicon Valley pace of design iterations occurring on a yearly or even monthly timeframe (Turner et al., 2016). As technology grows and evolves, so will human factors challenges.

Thanks You

References

Federal Aviation Administration (2016). Chapter 10: Aeronautical Decision-Making and judgment. Remote pilot - Small unmanned aircraft systems study guide. https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aviation/media/remote_pilot_study_guide.pdf

Turner, J. S., Gomez, A. M., Milner, K. J. (2016). 5 major obstacles for unmanned aircraft systems. Wiley Law. https://www.wiley.law/article-5-Major-Obstacles-For-Unmanned-Aircraft-Systems#:~:text=%205%20Major%20Obstacles%20For%20Unmanned%20Aircraft%20Systems,its%20efforts%20to%20safely%20integrate%20UAS...%20More%20

Urban Air Mobility, Unmanned Aerial System Traffic Mngt, and Next Generation Air Transportation System

 

The below information is a summarized reflection of content learned this week:

What do you think are the greatest challenges for integrating Unmanned Aerial System into the Nation Airspace System?

            One of the greatest challenges for integrating unmanned aerial system (UAS) into the National Airspace System (NAS) is not having a pilot that can comply with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) requirements (Consiglio et al., 2012). For safety reasons, all crafts operating within the NAS will be expected to perform “see and avoid” functions. Another challenge will be creating a protected civil radio frequency for command and control links (Consiglio et al., 2012). The major challenge will be making aircraft fully automated enough to handle the frequency and density of missions within the NAS (Gipson, 2017).

How will UAS be incorporated into the FAA’s NextGen initiative?

            UAS will be incorporated into the NAS with the use of technologies deployed by the Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen). NAS Voice System, Data Communication (Data Comm), and Systems Wide Information Management (SWIM) will be used to provide greater communication between NAS users (Heurta, 2015). Further, NextGen proposed major changes to the United States’ NAS, within the next five years. One proposal is to transform the NAS radar-based, radio communication system to a satellite-based system that will increase system capacity by reducing communication link failures (Federal Aviation Administration, 2018). 

What is DSA and how will it affect UAS integration into the NAS?

            DSA stands for Detect, Sense, and Avoid. DSA is a system designed to help drones avoid relatively fast moving objects (McNabb, 2020). The system was also designed to allow UAS to comply with the ‘see and avoid’ requirements for which manned aircraft must comply. According to McNabb (2020) researchers at the University of Zurich, Switzerland developed a method of sense and avoid using event cameras that allow drones to avoid obstacles at very close range by reducing reaction time to within 3.5 milliseconds.

What are the implications for a lost link scenario by a UAS in the NAS? Are there human factors involved in this situation?

            The implication of a UAS lost link event can cause the operator to lose contact with the aircraft. It the lost link is brief, the pilot could regain control of the aircraft. If the lost link is not brief and the pilot cannot regain control, the aircraft can drift off target and possibly become damaged, damage something else, or cause injury to someone (Public Intelligence, 2012).

References

Consiglio, M., Chamberlain, J., Muñoz, C., & Hoffler, K. (2012). Concept of integration for UAS operations in the NAS. International Congress of the Aeronautical Sciences. https://shemesh.larc.nasa.gov/people/cam/publications/ICAS-2012-518.pdf#:~:text=One%20of%20the%20major%20challenges%20facing%20the%20integration,see%20and%20avoid%20other%20aircraft.%20UAS%20will%20be

 

Federal Aviation Administration. (2018). Integration of civil Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) in the National Airspace System (NAS) roadmap; A five-year roadmanp for the introduction of civil UAS into the NAS. https://www.faa.gov/uas/resources/policy_library/media/Second_Edition_Integration_of_Civil_UAS_NAS_Roadmap_July%202018.pdf

 

Gipson, L. (2017). NASA embraces urban air mobility, calls for market study. National Aeronautics and Space Administration. https://www.nasa.gov/aero/nasa-embraces-urban-air-mobility/

 

Heurta, M. (2015). Steps being taken to integrate unmanned aircraft systems into the National Airspace System. U.S. Department of Transportation. https://www.transportation.gov/testimony/steps-being-taken-integrate-unmanned-aircraft-systems-national-airspace-system

 

McNabb, H. (2020). Sense and avoid for drones; New algorithm allows drones to react in 3.5 milliseconds, avoiding fast moving obstacles. Drone Life. https://dronelife.com/2020/06/26/sense-and-avoid-for-drones/

 

Public Intelligence. (2012). Lost-links and mid-air collisions: The problems with domestic drones. https://publicintelligence.net/the-problems-with-domestic-drones/

Examining Human Factor Issues with UAV Configurations

 

            Two scenarios were chosen to examine human factor issues, so two different UAVs were assembled for this exercise. The first UAV was designed to assist in a farm support scenario. The Gadfly quadrotor was chosen for aerial video uses. The quadrotor was also used because the task would take no more than 30-minutes. The mission was to fly across farmed terrain to measure the density of green vegetation. The cameras remained in Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) mode. The video footage would help identify the farmer’s vegetation index. The quadrotor was used with a portable computer because it would remain within the operator’s line of sight. Automated flight plan was used, so the operator’s hands were free to snap and log photos. The UAV was flown at 9 miles per second at an altitude of 50 miles. Two human factor issues came up during this project. One issue was the altitude setting was not high enough, so the UAV either hit foliage or vegetation density videos were unclear. The second issue was the battery signal with ground control was lost. This occurred with either the portable computer or the trailer. Even when the antenna configurations were swapped between single or dipole on the UAV and large dipole or large dish on the trailer, the signal difference turned red at a particular distance away from the controller. This author determined the quadrotor could only be used to survey the farmer’s entire land mass one section at a time or with a moving control station. Moving while taking photos would initiate other human factors issues. The wind conditions were perfect for the flight. However, another human factor with the quadrotor could’ve been the excessive winds affecting stress on the craft’s ability to remain stabilized.

            The second UAV was designed to assist in finding a missing hiker. A fixed wing drone was chosen for it’s extended flight-hour and long distance operation capabilities (figure 3). The Fluke Infrared (FLIR) camera was chosen for its thermal imaging capabilities. The electric motor was considered in lieu of the gas motor with regard to weight. The gas motor was 855 grams heavier than the electric motor, before fuel was added. However, the gas-powered drone could fly up to 16 hours (Circuits Today, 2020). So, the 2-stroke gas powered engine was used. The 100-watt versus the 80-watt generator was installed because the spec differences practically mirrored each other. This author came across three issues while creating the flight plan. One problem was trying to not exceed the craft’s turn radius. Many warning drop downs and red plot points appeared. The second was the same communication problem as the first scenario (figure 4). Then this author read some of the previously posted discussions and saw talk of ground repeaters. Ground repeaters will be further researched. The third was the speed. The craft wouldn’t stay in the air at low speeds, so it crashed a few times. That’s when it was presumed that a fixed wing craft was not good for aerial photography. Speeds necessary to keep the craft in the air would possibly shake too much to get a good image.

 

Reference

Circuits Today. (2020). Types of Drones – Explore the Different Models of UAV’s. Retrieved from https://www.circuitstoday.com/types-of-drones#:~:text=Types%20of%20Drones%20%E2%80%93%20Explore%20the%20Different%20Models,3%20Single%20Rotor%20Dones.%204%20Hybrid%20VTOL.

Introduction to UAS Human Factors

Human factor issues can create situations of great harm if not mitigated. Human-machine interface, monotony, fatigue, and automation reliance have the potential to create human performance errors. The below information highlights what this author learned from this week’s studies:

Human-Machine Interface

Human-machine interface has always been a human factor challenge in the aerospace community. Crewmembers dealt with constantly changing rules, technology, and work environments designed with the intent to improve air travel, since the birth of flight. Some ideas worked and some made user situations worse. As in the manned aircraft environment, simple system designs evolved to increase reliability and reduce crew cognition overload (Dolgov & Hottman, 2012). In the case of many unmanned aircraft, common control station setups have taken on the likeness of an office space with gaming accessories sourced from different commercial companies. That kind of workspace has the ability to introduce outcome inconsistencies and distractions (Hobbs & Lyall, 2016). Monotony and Fatigue

Monotony contributes to fatigue. Whether piloting a manned or unmanned aircraft, passive monitoring of automated systems can be monotonous and can deafen alertness (Thompson et al., 2006). Schneider & Macdonald (2014) point out that unmanned crews have greater potential for mitigating physiological distractions by performing simple tasks such as switching out crewmembers every few hours. The crew change could allow fresh eyes to continue the mission.

Automation Reliance

Aircraft automation is available to support users through all phases of flight. Hobbs (2018) noted that remote pilots with some Detect and Avoid (DAA) systems have a better awareness of traffic than manned aircraft with windows. The inference being that some DAA systems distinguishes aircraft without transponders. However, this author understands the conventional window of a manned aircraft as an additional advantage. Peripherals of the human eye assist with flight orientation and threat awareness (Hobbs & Lyall, 2016).

References

Dolgov, I., & Hottman, S. B. (2012). Chapter 11. Human Factors in Unmanned Aircraft Systems. In R. K. Barnhart, S. B. Hottman, M. D. Marshall, & E. Shappee (Eds.), Introduction to unmanned aircraft systems (pp. 165-180). Taylor & Francis Group.

Hobbs, A., & Lyall, B. (2016, April 27). Human Factors Guidelines for Unmanned Aircraft Systems. Ergonomics in Design. https://human-factors.arc.nasa.gov/publications/Hobbs_Lyall_Ergonomics_Design_prepub.pdf

Hobbs, A. (2018). Chapter 17. Remotely Piloted Aircraft. In S. J. Landry (Ed.), Handbook of Human Factors in Air Transportation Systems (pp. 379-396). Taylor & Francis Group

Schneider, J., Macdonald, J. (2014, June 16). Are manned or unmanned aircraft better on the battlefield? Cicero Magazine. https://ciceromagazine.com/features/manned-unmanned-aircraft-better-battlefield/

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) (Report No. HSW-PE-BR-TR-2006-0001).  https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a443145.pdf