Robert N. Short II
Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University – Worldwide
April 5, 2015
The use of Unmanned Aerial
Vehicles (UAV) for military operations is nothing new. As early as World War One, the development
and use of UAVs for use in combat was seen, however they lacked the
capabilities and sophistication of the ones in use today. It wasn’t until the millennium that we begin to
see and exponential growth in both the development and use of UAVs in combat
due to the Afghanistan and Iraq wars.
This has also changed from being primarily a single service (United
States Air Force) that used a traditional size aircraft equivalent to manned
aircraft, to each service branch having their own unique type (surveillance or
tactical weapons employment) and size (micro to full size). In our readings this week we were introduced
the multiple types of UAV ground control stations (GCS) available to operate
these UAVs. However each of these GCS
varied greatly in size, function and equipment.
This also meant that each had a different way in which they were
controlled and the amount of training required to operate them. For this very reason, military leaders
started inquiring in 2011 for the development of a single or “common UAV GCS”
that each service can use regardless of the type of UAV being flown in order to
“save money in training and development cost” (McHale, 2010). The main functionality of this common system
is that it would employ “open systems architecture”; simply meaning that it can
be modified quickly by use of “software modules” that are specific to each UAV
system, “independent from the hardware” (McHale, 2010). These article theories with the concept that
one type of user can use the system one moment and then when completed, another
different type of user can then use the same system following a quick equipment
swap out. In addition to the open
architecture, the new GCS designed is also expected to have a more advanced
cockpit design. For example, this new
type would permit an increase in situational awareness by means of a
high-definition display that would allow a pilot to have a “120 degree field of
view” (McHale, 2010).
However this may not work for all types of UAVs. For example, large surveillance aircraft such as the USAF Global Hawk may operate on 24 hours bases and therefore may require a more flexible time schedule in regards to GCS operating time. Furthermore, the Global Hawk system for the most part is a preprogramed based system (static navigation flight plan), which is monitored throughout the mission and may only need inputs during the critical phases of flight (landing and takeoffs). Therefore a single GCS would not function well in this type of environment if its purpose is for use by multiple UAVs during a given operation.
The most likely human factors issues that may result from the use of a “common GCS” system like this would be in the form of fatigue and ergonomics. The fatigue element can be a result of multiple factors. The likely for fatigue can simply occur from the prolong flight duration and continuous monitoring of sensor and flight information. Unfortunately this is one area that is not easily “fixed”. Rather the military has discovered that one of the best way to mitigate fatigue in regards to long duration UAVs is to first utilize a crew operation; one being the pilot and the other being a system operator and may include a second crew for excessively long direction flights. The second one, requiring the same regulations governing manned flight in regards to flight duty day period as outlined in the Air Force Instruction 11-202V3. Another possible way to further mitigate fatigue is how the displays are situated along with combining as much information in as few screens as possible in order to reduce the amount of head movements and scanning of systems. This of course is directly related to the issues of ergonomics which will be discussed in more detail later on. Addressing the fatigue element further through ergonomics there are many solutions. First off developers need to carefully consider how information is laid out on the screen as well as to which colors to use. For the most part there are already standards in regards to color and layout. For example, green indicates normal or safe operation, yellow would indicate caution or advisory and red would indicate warning. Additionally they must maintain the standardized layout of all basic displays such as the Attitude Director Indicator (ADI), Horizontal Situation Indicator (HIS), Altimeter, and Airspeed Indicator. These are the primary displays in which all pilots would expect to see in any aircraft and have been trained to read in a particular way. In other words, a pilot would expect to see an ADI that shows the ground as either black or brown and the sky as either blue or white. In addition, the ADI would have a set spacing in degrees for turn and climb indications. Another possible solution is the use of tactile interface in order to alert pilots and sensor operators to important information. Report findings indicated that tactile interface combined with the visual indicators can improve overall performance even if the operator was not actively monitoring the system (Cooke, Pringle & Pedersen, 2006).
Expanding further on ergonomics solutions, it is imperative that the GCS designers need to consider module placement in regards to pilot and sensor operator position. Even with the use of removable modules the design of this nature can be complicated due to the complexity of having multiple UAVs that use the same basic GCS layout. The first part towards a solution is identifying the number of personal required to operator the particular UAV. Next, the type of equipment required to operate it. The last major step is an in-depth analysis of operator and equipment interaction. With today’s technology, this last step can be computer simulated through the use of ergonomics layout assessment in a virtual design of cockpit or GCS (Lijing, Wei, Xueli, Xiaohui, Jinhai, Lin & Gaoyong, 2009). The key to reducing ergonomics issues is taken from historical data of aircraft and systems design, feedback from users and testing.
References
Cooke,
N., Pringle, H., & Pedersen, H. (2006). Human
factors of remotely operated vehicles. (Vol. 7, pp. 149-162). New York:
JAI Press. Retrieved from http://site.ebrary.com.ezproxy.libproxy.db.erau.edu/lib/erau/reader.action?docID=10139446&ppg=4
Lijing, W., Wei, X., Xueli, H., Xiaohui, S., Jinhai, Y., Lin, Z., & Gaoyong, S. (2009). The virtual evaluation of the ergonomics layout in aircraft. Computer-Aided Industrial design & conceptual Design, 1438-1442. doi: 10.1109/CAIDCD.2009.5375353
McHale, J. (2010). Common uav ground control
station for multiple UAV programs in the work. Intelligent aerospace,
Retrieved from http://www.intelligent-aerospace.com/articles/2010/08/common-uav-ground.html
No comments:
Post a Comment