Analysis of a Common UAV Ground Control Station
Robert N. Short II
Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University – Worldwide
In Partial Fulfillment of MAS
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.
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
