Research Assignment: UAS Integration in the NAS

Gabriel P. Riccio

ASCI 638 Human Factors in Unmanned Systems

Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University-Worldwide

25 January 2018 

 Research Assignment: UAS Integration in the NAS

Introduction

            Public law 108-176 titled “Vision 100 - Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act” published in December 2003 laid the foundation for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Next Generation Air Transportation System; referred to as NextGen (Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University [ERAU], 2017).  In December 2004 the Department of Transportation (DOT) presented its NextGen integration system creation plan that cited the programs “goals, objectives, and requirements” (ERAU, 2017).  The purpose of NextGen is to combine newer and innovative technologies that work collectively to make flying not only more efficient, but safer (Federal Aviation Administration [FAA], 2017a).

NextGen Goals

According to the FAA website “What is NextGen”, the goals are to “increase the safety, efficiency, capacity, predictability, and resiliency of American aviation” (FAA, 2017b).  These goals will be accomplished through improvements to commercial airline passenger travel (better experience), operational fuel savings, direct flying routes which not only reduce travel time but lower environmental emissions, reduced aircraft congestion, better communication between controllers and airspace users, standardized weather information access, and improved on-board aircraft technologies (Houston, 2017).  Some of the technologies that will help the FAA achieve the goals of NextGen include the following:

·         Automatic Dependent Surveillance–Broadcast (ADS-B) – When equipped, aircraft can broadcast their location, speed, altitude, and other pertinent information to air traffic control as well as other aircraft.

·         System-Wide Information Management (SWIM) – Improved FAA system to efficiently manage, standardize, secure and control data.

·         Data Communications (Data Comm) – Allows pilots and controllers to communicate via digital text; such as clearances and other instructions.

·         Common Support Service–Weather (CSS-Wx) – One source standardized weather information.

·         Other technologies include the sharing of aviation safety reports, reducing aircraft separation standards due to improved systems, ATC shift from clearance based to trajectory-based operations, and improved flight deck enchantments (Houston, 2017).

NextGen and UAS

            The FAA has targeted the integration of UAS into NextGen in by the year 2025 (Shah, 2013).  In an effort to address the challenges and issues with UAS integration, the U. S. Department of Transportation (DOT) Joint Planning Development Office (JPDO) has created the UAS Research, Development, and Demonstration (RD&D) Roadmap as well as the UAS Comprehensive Plan (Shah, 2013).  The JPDO has identified communications, airspace operations, unmanned aircraft, and human systems integration as the challenge areas (Shah, 2013).  Within each of these identified integration challenge areas, there are a multitude of issues and sub-issues that must be overcome to realize effective UAS integration into the NAS; this is a complex problem that involves several stakeholders along with further research and testing (JPDO, 2012).  There are currently many significant questions yet to be answered such as what are the baseline performance requirements, what are the metrics to determine a baseline performance, what regulatory gaps currently exist, and what technology gaps currently exist (JPDO, 2012).

Human Factors

            UAS integration into the NextGen NAS cannot be accomplished without serious consideration to human factors.  The JPDO identified in its 2012 report several human systems integration issues; these include display of traffic airspace information, effective interaction between humans and automation, a pilot-centric ground control station, clear definition of human roles and responsibilities during UAS operations, predictability of operations, contingency operations, training and qualifications, and support for future operations (JPDO, 2012).  Experts in the field of human factors have also identified some potentially problematic areas of concern relating to NextGen integration.  These concerns center around the unintentional or unforeseen consequences of integration, the underestimation of human-in-the-loop simulations, and non-acceptance on behalf of the users (Beard, Seely, Holbrook, Galeon, 2013).  Some solutions that address the shortcomings of human factors include a FAA budget that supports human performance metrics, access to data that measures human performance so as to make better decisions, and effective collaborations between the FAA and human factor experts (Beard et al., 2013).

  References

Beard, B. L., Seely, R., Holbrook, J., & Galeon, M. (2013). The insertion of human factors concerns into nextgen programmatic decisions. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 57(1), 91-95. 10.1177/1541931213571022

Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University. (2017). What is NextGen. Retrieved from https://nextgen.erau.edu/what-is-nextgen/

Federal Aviation Administration. (2017a, December 6). Modernization of U.S. Airspace. Retrieved from https://www.faa.gov/nextgen/

Federal Aviation Administration. (2017b, November 21). What is NextGen? Retrieved from https://www.faa.gov/nextgen/what_is_nextgen/

Houston, S. (2017, June 25). NextGen in a nutshell: The next generation air traffic system. Retrieved from https://www.thebalance.com/nextgen-in-a-nutshell-282561

Joint Planning and Development Office. (2012). NextGen UAS research, development and demonstration roadmap. Version 1.0 (ADA561097). Retrieved from http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a561097.pdf

Shah, Y. (2013, April). Joint planning and development office (JPDO) Unmanned aircraft systems (UAS). Paper presented at Integrated Communications, Navigation and Surveillance Conference, Herndon, VA. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ICNSurv.2013.6548689

Research Assignment: UAS GCS Human Factors Issue

Gabriel P. Riccio

ASCI 638 Human Factors in Unmanned Systems

Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University-Worldwide

17 January 2018

Introduction

            The primary purpose of the unmanned aerial system (UAS) ground control station (GCS) is to provide the interface between the human in-the-loop and the air vehicle; its complexity is dependent on the overall UAS command, control, and communication requirements (Austin, 2010).  The GCS could be a simple hand-held device from which the operator does mission planning, then executes the mission or part of a sophisticated network-centric system architecture (Austin, 2010).  No matter how the GCS is designed and engineered it must be functional, not only from the perspective of the air vehicle but from the perspective of the operator. The GCS design must consider both human factors and pilot ergonomics.  Currently, most UAS GCSs are responsible for the operation of only one air vehicle at a time.  As UAS gain greater autonomy and develop greater interoperability capabilities it is likely that the GCS operator will be able to effectively control a multitude of unmanned air vehicles at any given time (Bhalla, 2015). 

Multi-UAS GCS

            The paper titled “A Ground Control Station for a Multi-UAV Surveillance System: Design and Validation in Field Experiments” by D. Perez, I. Maza, F. Caballero, D. Scarlatti, E. Casado, A. & Ollero (2013) examines a GCS that was designed for an operator to simultaneously manage multiple small UAS (sUAS) at any given time for the purpose of surveillance missions.  The primary design goal was to reduce the workload of the pilot who directly supervises multiple unmanned air vehicles that coordinate and interact with one another to a manageable level by simplifying GCS command and control functionality (Perez, Maza, Caballero, Scarlatti, Casado, & Ollero, 2013).  During the GCS design process, several necessary attributes were identified:

·         The GCS is capable of autonomously knowing when an air vehicle enters or departs the environment.

·         The GCS has built-in visual alerts to inform the pilot of any system advisories such as a low battery or cautions associated with malfunctioning equipment.

·         The GCS gives the operator the capability to display air vehicle status; the operator gets to choose what vehicles and the number of vehicles; to prevent information overload but maintain situational awareness.

·         The air vehicles themselves in this scenario possess some decisional autonomy, which do not require constant direct supervision (Perez et al., 2013).

The hardware that makes up the GCS is a mobile laptop computer that communicates to the air vehicles via a wireless local area network (WLAN) and router (Perez et al., 2013).  During testing of the GCS, the researchers used two additional laptops for improved platform supervision; two platforms were used during testing but it must be noted that a single computer with its associated software is capable of managing all aircraft (Perez et al., 2013).  The computer screen layout of the GCS has four main areas: an air vehicles selector, selected air vehicle information, interactive map, and application widgets (Perez et al., 2013).

            The researchers’ concluded that the GCS system architecture proved to be capable of command, control, and effective communication with multiple sUAS conducting surveillance missions. The GCS also worked well with the autonomous features integrated into the air vehicles (Perez et al., 2013).  In the future, the researchers’ hope to locate the GCS to a remote location and control all activities via the internet (Perez et al., 2013).

Negative Human Factors

            Two negative human factors issues can be associated with this GCS.  The first is the potential for information overload which could potentially confuse the operator or cause them to make a poor decision.  When everything is working, operator workload is low, this is mostly due to the autonomous behaviors of the individual platforms.  If the operator has to manage more than one problem at a time, they could easily become distracted and lose mission situational awareness.  The second issue is information overload.  A single operator could easily become task saturated trying to monitor several sUAS, especially during a surveillance mission and may have difficulty prioritizing the work.  During field testing experiments, only two sUAS were utilized but there is most likely is a point in which one single GCS operator can manage so many sUAS at any given time while still carrying out the mission.  As in manned aircraft, system failures and emergencies can easily overwhelm the pilot or pilots.  It is important to ensure each mission has the appropriate number of fully trained pilots and support personnel.

References

Austin, R. (2010). Unmanned aircraft systems: uavs design, development and deployment. Chichester: Wiley. Retrieved from https://ebookcentral-proquest-com.ezproxy.libproxy.db.erau.edu/lib/erau/detail.action?docID=514439

Bhalla, P. (2015). Emerging trends in unmanned aerial systems. Scholar Warrior, Autumn 2015, 86-94. Retrieved from www.claws.in/images/journals_doc/1119543205_Emergingtrendsinunmannedaerialsystems.pdf

Perez, D., Maza, I., Caballero, F., Scarlatti, D., Casado, E., & Ollero, A. (2013). A ground control station for a multi-UAV surveillance system: Design and validation in field experiments. Journal of Intelligent & Robotic Systems, 69(1), 119-130. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10846-012-9759-5