Research Assignment: Human Factors, Ethics and Morality

Gabriel P. Riccio

ASCI 638 Human Factors in Unmanned Systems

Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University-Worldwide

8 March 2018

Human Factors, Ethics and Morality

UAS Warfare

            The ideal of Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) operating in a combat environment has been realized by militaries throughout the world; the United States (U.S.) has been weaponizing UAS since 2001 (O'Connell, 2010).  Initially the military primarily used UAS for reconnaissance operations; however, since the 9/11 attacks on U. S. soil, the Department of Defense has used UAS as attack platforms in several countries, including Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Ethiopia, and Pakistan (O'Connell, 2010).  The use of UAS as attack platforms is viewed as an “unqualified success” by U. S. leadership (O'Connell, 2010, p. 10).

Human Factors

            Even though UAS pilots operate armed air vehicles from remote Ground Control Stations (GCS) they can suffer from the effects of depression and Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome (PTSD); similar to that of any other soldier on the battlefield (Pilkington, 2015).  To cope with the human factors stresses associated with killing, one UAS pilot remarked that he had to not think of the enemy targets as humans but just images on a screen or ants (Pilkington, 2015).  A study completed by the Armed Forces Health Surveillance Center concluded along with other experts that UAS pilots may suffer from higher mental health issues due to the human factors associated with the job (Dao, 2013).  Some specific reasons for the mental issues are a result of the extreme stresses of combat, viewing the violence and carnage for days at the same location, isolated working environment, along with demanding work schedules and shift hours (Dao, 2013).  Other human factors UAS pilots deal with are problems with automation, situational awareness, trust, mode confusion, system observability, and complacency (Kiernan, 2015). 

Ethical and Moral Issues

            The U.S government legally justifies the use of armed UAS as attack platforms if the mission meets the following criteria; there is an imminent threat, capturing the targets are not a reasonable option, and the mission is a military objective consistent with the law of war (Freilberger, 2013).  Arguments against the utilization of armed UAS reference the “Just War Tradition” or in other words, fighting a war ethically (Johansson, 2011).  The tenants of ethical and moral warfare are summed up as being a just cause, for the right intentions, it must be of legitimate authority, all other options have been exhausted, there is a reasonable chance of winning, the methods used are proportionate, only military targets are attacked, attacks are carried out as a necessity, and the use of weapons is in accordance with international laws (Johansson, 2011).  The ethical and moral argument is made that attack UAS can be a catalyst to start a war since they are unmanned, their use is unfair to the enemy, promotes secret wars, they do not follow the “Just War Tradition”, and the technological errors associated with their use is too risky (Johansson, 2011).  Manned aircraft may mitigate some but certainly not all of the ethical and moral arguments against attack UAS.  Since they are manned, there may be debate among leaders if the risks to human pilots warrant an aerial attack and there may be more restraint in attacking targets; other than that, the ethics and morals are essentially the same.

Continued Use of Attack UAS

            Attack UAS should continue to be used by the military.  The decisions to attack should be carefully analyzed and legal.  At no time should the rules of engagement be contrary to society’s standard for norms nor violate the rules of warfare.  Collateral damage is of great concern and every effort should be made to reasonably mitigate it to the lowest possible level and every mission should be weighed in terms of importance, risk, and damage.  Concerted efforts must continue to improve UAS technologies to ensure there are minimal mistakes in UAS attacks.  Eventually, UAS will be fully autonomous and should be embedded with algorithms that enable the system to effectively communicate with the human-in-the-loop so as to make informed decisions and select the best course of action before attacking an enemy target.

References

Dao, J. (2013, February 22). Drone pilots found to get stress disorders much as those in combat do. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/23/us/drone-pilots-found-to-get-stress-disorders-much-as-those-in-combat-do.html?_r=0References

Freilberger, 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/

Johansson, L. (2011). Is it morally right to use unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) in war? Philosophy & Technology, 24(3), 279-291. 10.1007/s13347-011-0033-8

Kiernan, K. M. (2015, January). Huma factors considerations in autonomous lethal unmanned aerial systems. Paper presented at Aviation/Aeronautics/Aerospace International Research Conference, Phoenix, AZ.. Retrieved from https://commons.erau.edu/aircon/2015/Friday/22/

O’Connell, M. E. (2010). Unlawful killing with combat drones. A case study of Pakistan, 2004-2009 (09-43). University of Notre Dame Law School. Retrieved from https://www.law.upenn.edu/institutes/cerl/conferences/targetedkilling/papers/OConnellDrones.pdf

Pilkington, E. (2015, November 19). Life as a drone operator: 'Ever step on ants and never give it another thought?'. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/18/life-as-a-drone-pilot-creech-air-force-base-nevada

 

Research Assignment: UAS Crew Member Selection

Gabriel P. Riccio

ASCI 638 Human Factors in Unmanned Systems

Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University-Worldwide

2 March 2018

UAS Crew Member Selection

Basic Qualifications

            The purpose of this paper is to identify and establish hiring, qualification, training, and certification requirements for Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) crew positions that will be piloting/operating the Insitu Scan Eagle and the General Atomics Ikhana.  Any candidate that applies for either position must meet at a minimum the following three requirements:

·         Must possess at the time of employment, a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Medical Certificate (any Class) for the purpose of determining medical fitness for flight operations.

·         Hold an FAA Part 107 sUAS remote pilot airman certificate.

·         Meet the aeronautical knowledge 24 calendar month recency requirements of FAA Flight Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 107 Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems as described in Part 107.65 (U.S. FAA, 2018).

The three basic qualifications for these positions establish a common baseline of health and aeronautical knowledge for the purpose of operating UAS within the National Airspace System (NAS).

ScanEagle

            The ScanEagle is considered a sUAS based on its max gross weight of 44 pounds (Wilke, 2007).  The system consists of the Ground Control Station (GCS), air vehicle, payload subsystem, command, control, communications (C3) subsystem, pneumatic launcher, and skyhook recovery system (Wilke, 2007).  Since this is a sUAS it can be operated under Part 107 of the FARs (U.S. FAA, 2018).  In accordance with Part 107, a remote pilot in command must be designated for the flight (U.S., 2018).  Additionally, due to the complexity of operations, an additional remote pilot of equal qualifications will be physically present during all operations to serve as a visual observer and backup pilot if required.  The ideal candidate will have previous experience as a military ScanEagle remote pilot with a minimum of 250 hours, an FAA private pilot or commercial certificate along with a Class II medical.

Ikhana

            The Ikhana is a complex UAS that is part of the MQ-9 UAS Reaper family with a maximum gross takeoff weight of 10,000 pounds (Merlin, 2009).  Aside from maintenance and support personnel; operation of the Ikhana in this oceanic environmental study will require two qualified pilots at all times; one person will be piloting the air vehicle while the other performs duties as payload/sensor operator, and pilot support for communications, checklist, contingency operations, and backup pilot (Merlin, 2009).  Minimum qualifications for the pilot positions other than the three basic requirements are as follows:

·         Previous flight experience as an Ikhana, Reaper, Predator, Global Hawk pilot or remote pilot flight experience performing UAS beyond line-of-sight Operations (BLOS).

·         Hold a private pilot certificate with an instrument rating.

The ideal candidate will possess an FAA commercial or an Airline Transport certificate along with a FAA Class 1 Medical.  They will also have a minimum of 500 hours as an Ikhana, Reaper, Predator, or Global Hawk Pilot.

Training and Certification

            Once hired all crew members will be trained and tested in the following general knowledge areas applicable to their UAS; see Table 1 below.

Table 1

Crew academic training and testing topics.

System Overview	Landing/Recovery Procedures
Flight Information Publications and Maps	Engines and Related systems
Crew Risk Management	Propellers
Company Standard Operating Procedures	Fuel System
Map Reading and Interpretation	Navigation Equipment
Visual Flight Rules Operations and Planning	Electrical System
Weight and Balance	Performance Data and Charts
Forms and Records	Payloads and Sensors
Required Publications	Weather Analysis, Brief, and Planning
Instrument Flight Rules and Planning	Human/Aeromedical Factors
Operating limitations and Restrictions	Aerodynamics
Emergency Procedure and Contingency Training	Ground Control Station

Note: Adapted from MQ–1C Unmanned aircraft system commander’s aircrew training program and aircrew training Manual (TC 3-04.63).

Upon completion of academic training and testing, each newly hired remote pilot will receive a minimum of 5 hours of actual flight training not to exceed 15 hours based on proficiency.  If after 15 hours of flight training the remote pilot cannot complete assigned tasks, their employment will be terminated. The remote pilots must show proficiency in the following tasks, see table 2.

Table 2

Remote pilot tasks.

Task No.	Task
001	Conduct Crew Mission Brief
002	Plan the Flight
003	Evaluate Performance Data
004	Correctly Analyze Weather Data
005	Perform Pre-flight Inspection
006	Perform Start, Run-Up Checks
007	Perform Takeoff/Launch Operations
008	Perform Fuel Management Procedures
009	Manually Maintain Assigned Airspeed, Altitude, and Heading
010	Operate autopilot and automatic functions
011	Perform Sensor/Payload Operations
012	Perform Assigned Mission Tasks
013	Correctly React to Emergency Procedures
014	Perform Landing/Capture Operations

Note: Adapted from MQ–1C Unmanned aircraft system commander’s aircrew training program and aircrew training Manual (TC 3-04.63).

Once a pilot completes their initial training and evaluation they will be marked as fully certified for UAS flight operations.  All pilots will be required to maintain proficiency in all flight tasks and are considered current if they fly at least one mission every 60 days, meet the FAA knowledge recency requirements per FAR Part 107.65, and pass an annual company knowledge and flight evaluation.

References

Department of the Army. (2014). MQ–1C Unmanned aircraft system commander’s aircrew training program and aircrew training Manual (TC 3-04.63). Retrieved from http://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/DR_pubs/DR_a/pdf/web/tc3_04x63.pdf

Merlin, P. W. (2009). Ikhana unmanned aircraft system western states fire missions. Retrieved from National Aeronautics and Space Administration website: https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/601239main_Ikhana-ebook.pdf

United States. Federal Aviation Administration. (2018). eCFR — Code of Federal Regulations. Retrieved from https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=1d38e662c3c5f3d62e4f20fa1504a954&mc=true&node=pt14.2.107&rgn=div5

Wilke, C. (2007, March). ScanEagle overview. Paper presented at SAE Aerospace Control and Guidance Systems Committee, Boulder, CO.. Retrieved from http://www.csdy.umn.edu/acgsc/Meeting_99/SubcommitteeE/SEpubrlsSAE.PDF

Research Assignment: Operational Risk Management

Gabriel P. Riccio

ASCI 638 Human Factors in Unmanned Systems

Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University-Worldwide

23 February 2018

Operational Risk Management

Introduction

            The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has been working diligently over the past few years in an effort to efficiently integrate small Unmanned Aerial Systems (sUAS) into our country’s National Airspace System (NAS).  According to the FAA, they expect to see sUAS used in agricultural applications, research and development projects, academic uses, inspections of bridges, power lines, pipelines and antennas, reach and rescue operations, and environmental and wildlife monitoring (United States. Federal Aviation Administration [U.S. FAA], 2016).  With the growth of UAS operations, the FAA has taken notice of the unique risks associated with their operations; two areas of concern are “see and avoid” operations as well as the potential for “loss of positive control (U.S. FAA, 2016).  Therefore, the FAA expects operators of sUAS perform a preflight assessment which considers methods to mitigate risk associated with unmanned flight operations (Wackwitz & Boedecker, 2015).  An Operational Risk Management (ORM) assessment quantifies risks for the purpose of mitigation and control (Wackwitz & Boedecker, 2015).  The development of an ORM assessment includes a Preliminary Hazard List (PHL), Preliminary Hazard Analysis (PHA), and Operational Hazard Review and Analysis (OHR&A) (Safety Assessments, 2011).

sUAS Agricultural Crop Spraying

            As stated previously the FAA is expecting and it has come to be true in all cases that sUAS are being used across a variety of applications; one of which is for the agricultural spraying of crops.  The small unmanned octocopter Agras MG-1 built by DJI is designed to precisely apply liquid pesticides, fertilizers, and herbicides (DJI, 2018).  This sUAS can spray up to 22 pounds of payload and spray seven to ten acres per hour (DJI, 2018).  The platform utilizes an intelligent spraying system that regulates payload application so as to reduce over-spraying thus protecting the environment while cutting operating costs (DJI, 2018).  The Agras MG-1 is a high-tech state of the art platform but it is imperative the commercial operator prior to flight develop an ORM assessment tool for the purpose of managing the safety of operations and aid in the “go/no-go decision” making process (Safety Assessments, 2011).

ORM Assessment Tool

            The first step in developing an ORM assessment tool is the development of a PHL.  The purpose of the PHL is to identify the initial safety issues associated with operations (Safety Assessments, 2011).  Once the risks have been identified, they need to be analyzed for the sole purpose of developing strategies to mitigate that particular risk/hazard (Safety Assessments, 2011).  In the development of the PHL; probability, severity, and risk are defined per “MIL-STD-882D/E Department of Defense Standard Practice System Safety” dated 11 May 2012.  See Tables 1, 2, and 3 below. See Table 4 for completed PHL/A table.

Table 1

   DOD severity categories.

Note:  Reprinted from Standard practice for system safety (MIL-STD-882E), U.S. DOD, 2012.

Table 2

 DOD probability levels.

Note:  Reprinted from Standard practice for system safety (MIL-STD-882E), U.S.  DOD, 2012.

Table 3

DOD risk level matrix.

Note:  Reprinted from Standard practice for system safety (MIL-STD-882E), U.S. DOD, 2012.

Table 4

PHL and PHA assessment.

Preliminary Hazard List/Analysis
Track#	Operational Stage	Hazard	Probability	Severity	RL	Mitigating Actions	RRL	Notes
001	Planning	Weather	Frequent	Marginal	Serious	Obtain a weather briefing	LOW	Continue to monitor
002	Planning	Airspace Violation	Improbable	Marginal	Medium	Operate IAW FAA/COA	LOW	Review airspace rules
003	Planning	Human Factors	Occasional	Marginal	Medium	Self-evaluate	LOW	Fatigue, Stress
004	Staging	Improper Pre-flight	Improbable	Marginal	Medium	Pre-flight IAW operators manual	LOW
005	Launch	Obstacles	Frequent	Marginal	Serious	Choose alternate launch location	LOW	Check for towers, wires, tree, etc.
006	Flight	Loss of Control	Remote	Marginal	Medium	Follow operating procedures	LOW	Check antennas
007	Fight	Loss of visual sight	Remote	Critical	Medium	Execute Lost Link Procedures	LOW	Use observer
008	Flight	Collision with other aircraft	Improbable	Critical	Medium	Operate IAW FAA/COA	LOW
009	Flight	Spray Drift	Remote	Marginal	Medium	Weather, winds, equipment	LOW	Update winds
010	Flight	Spray Off Target Damage	Improbable	Marginal	Medium	Pre-flight, Monitor Flight	LOW
011	Recovery	Improper Post-Flight	Improbable	Negligible	LOW	Post-Flight IAW operators manual	LOW
RL (Risk Level), RRL (Residual Risk Level)

The third step is to perform an OHR&A.  The OHR&A is used to evaluate the hazards that were not foreseen during operations from beginning to end; additionally, the OHR&A will validate the PHL and the PHA (Safety Assessments, 2011). See Table 5 below.

 Table 5

OHR&A tool.

Operational Hazard Review & Analysis (OHR&A)
Track#	Operational Stage	Action Review	Probability	Severity	RL	Mitigating Actions	RRL	Notes
001	Planning	Not Adequate	Occasional	Marginal	Medium	Update weather during flight operations	LOW	Constantly monitor
002	Planning	Adequate	Improbable	Marginal	Medium	Operate IAW FAA/COA	LOW
003	Planning	Not Adequate	Occasional	Marginal	Medium	Ensure operator is fully pre-pared and trained	LOW	USE FAA IMSAFE acronym
004	Staging	Adequate	Improbable	Marginal	Medium	Pre-flight IAW operators manual	LOW
005	Launch	Adequate	Frequent	Marginal	Serious	Choose alternated launch location	LOW
006	Flight	Adequate	Remote	Marginal	Medium	Follow operating procedures	LOW
007	Flight	Not Adequate	Occasional	Critical	Serious	Additional operator training	LOW	Strategically position observers
008	Flight	Adequate	Improbable	Critical	Medium	Operate IAWS FA/COA	LOW
009	Flight	Not Adequate	Remote	Marginal	Medium	Monitor Winds	LOW	Weather updates
010	Flight	Adequate	Improbable	Marginal	Medium	Pre-flight, Monitor Flight	Low
011	Recovery	Adequate	Improbable	Negligible	Low	Post-Flight IAW operators manual	LOW
RL (Risk Level), RRL (Residual Risk Level)

            The last step is the development of the ORM assessment tool.  The tool should be filled out prior to every flight and briefed to all mission participants (Safety Assessments, 2011). ORM factors should include the weather, human factors (crew rest, mission timeline), airspace, and any items on the PHL/A that may change for that particular mission (Safety Assessments, 2011). See Table 6 below.

Table 6

ORM assessment tool.

ORM Assessment Tool DJI Agras MG-1 Spraying Operations
Operational Factors	Risk Factor 1	Risk Factor 2	Risk Factor 3	Risk Factor 4
System Hardware/Software changes			YES
Battery Charge	100%	100% - 75%	75% - 50%	< 50% NF
Airspace Operations	Uncontrolled		Controlled
Pilot’s Last Flight	< 30 days	30 - 60 days	60 - 90 days	> 90 days
Visibility	> 5 miles	5 - 3 miles	3 - 1 mile	< 1 mile NF
Ceiling AGL	> 5,000’	5,000 – 3,000’	3,000’ – 1,000’	<1,000’
Surface Winds	Calm	0-10 Knots	10-15 Knots	> 15 Knots NF
Crew Rest	> 12 hours	12 - 8 hours	8 – 6 hours	< 6 hours NF
Previously Sprayed Current Location	< 30 days	30 - 60 days	60 - 90 days	> 90 days
Obstacles >150’	>  100 yards	100 – 75 yards	50 – 75 yards	< 50 yards
Note: NF (No Flight is Permitted)
Risk Level			TOTAL
< 6 is LOW	6 – 10 is Medium	>  10 is High

References

DJI. (2018). AGRAS MG-1. Retrieved from https://www.dji.com/mg-1

Safety Assessments. (2011). In R. K. Barnhart, S. B. Hottman, D. M. Marshall, & E. Shappee (Eds.), Introduction to unmanned aircraft systems (pp. 123-135). Retrieved from https://ebookcentral-proquest-com.ezproxy.libproxy.db.erau.edu/lib/erau/reader.action?docID=1449438&query=

United States. Department of Defense. (2012). Standard practice for system safety (MIL-STD-882E). Retrieved from website: https://www.system-safety.org/Documents/MIL-STD-882E.pdf

United States. Federal Aviation Administration. (2016). Operation and certification of small unmanned aircraft systems (RIN 2120–AJ60). Retrieved from https://www.faa.gov/uas/media/RIN_2120-AJ60_Clean_Signed.pdf

Wackwitz, K., & Boedecker, H. (2015, November). Safety risk assessment for UAV operation. Retrieved from http://miningquiz.com/pdf/Drone_Safety/Safety-Risk-Assessment-for-UAV-Operation-Rev.-1.1.compressed.pdf