Human Factors, Ethics and Morality

There are many benefits to UAS operations. Some benefits include reduced number of military personnel in the field, lower maintenance than manned aircraft, and lower risk than manned aircraft. While the use of UAS has its benefits, there are also ethical and moral issues surrounding the use of UASs. One of the major issues centers on safety and loss of life. The UAS has been targeted for significant loss of life on the ground in combat zones. Casualties of war are not uncommon and it is no secret that innocent people have been killed in the war in Afghanistan, many due to U.S. drone strikes. The collateral damage is an unfortunate disadvantage of UAS operations and an aspect that is rightfully debated due to the safety and morality concerns.

Photo: Inside Unmanned Systems

Safety is not the only concern in the use of UAS in remote warfare. The ethical and moral concerns also extend to privacy and it relates to intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance. The UAS has the ability to provide constant imagery of the enemy while bridging together different forms of data in combat. They carry technology that can transmit electronic communications from radios, cell phones and other devices. It can also link a telephone call with a video or provide the GPS coordinates of the individual using the device (Gordon, 2015). The general concern from the public is that everyone is monitored and somehow innocent civilians get lumped in with enemy combatants. Transparency in operations and increased knowledge and awareness for the public can dispel this misconception.

Human factor concerns are a part of UAS operations, as the system is not completely autonomous and requires input and some manual operation from the operator. Daniel Suarez makes a great argument in his Ted Talk on the future of autonomous robots. He notes several possible scenarios presenting human factor concerns by taking the decision making away from the operator. One concern is visual overload in which endless video footage will make it difficult for humans to review. Electro-magnetic jamming or severed connection between UAS and operator is another possible human factor issue. The directive that a human-being should be present is a great way to ensure the decision making process is a morally responsible one.

The application of UAS is very similar to manned aircraft. The uses include environmental monitoring, search and rescue, logistics, and agriculture support. One significant difference is the use of UAS in situations where manned flight may be too risky or difficult. The debate regarding the ethics of using remotely piloted vehicles in combat operations is on-going. Guy Ben-Ari, a defense expert at the Center for Strategic International Studies says, “…as long as a human is making the decisions behind a weapon's actions, regardless of location, the ethics should be viewed through the same lens that's used for other weapons (Schwappach & Smith, 2011).” The advantages outweigh the disadvantages and continued use of UAS in warfare is necessary to achieve the desired results. By keeping a human in the decision making process the military is working against any sort of misuse of these systems. 

References

Gordon, N. (2015, January 23). Drones and the new ethics of war. Retrieved from         http://www.commondreams.org/views/2015/01/23/drones-and-new-ethics-war

Schwappach, A., & Smith, A. (2011, December 8). The ethics of unmanned vehicle warfare. Retrieved from http://www.upi.com/Top_News/Special/2011/12/08/The-ethics-of-unmanned-vehicle-warfare/26071323344040/

Suarez, D. (2013, June). The kill decision shouldn't belong to a robot. Retrieved from https://www.ted.com/talks/daniel_suarez_the_kill_decision_shouldn_t_belong_to_a_robot

UAS Crew Member Selection

Insitu ScanEagle

The Insitu ScanEagle is a small, long-endurance UAS built by Insitu, which is a subsidiary of Boeing. The Insitu ScanEagle being a smaller UAS only requires two operators. One main pilot and the other crew member serves as support or a back-up operator. The ScanEagle uses a launcher that thrust it into flight and captures it with a hook or net. The Scaneagle system is simple enough to fly that an operator can view and track static or moving targets in flight with minimum need for flight control corrections or adjustments (Army Recognition, 2011). Ideally the Model Aircraft (and Small UAS) FAA Guidance would work best. Since the FAA almost always requires the pilot in command of the UAS to possess a private pilot’s license for operations conducted above 400 feet, a private pilot’s license would be adequate for this UAS and mission (Barnhart, Shappee, Marshall, 2012). The licensing and certification would be up to the discretion of the military or manufacturer.

Proper training is a major factor in safe and successful operation. New UASs and technologies do not fit neatly into the currently accepted training programs, and these flight systems are being produced faster than the existing flight-training regime can react to them (Barnhart, Shappee, Marshall, 2012). The training segment allows the manufacturer, purchaser, and pilot to interface creating a critical point in developing safe and efficient operations. Job aids, checklists and other important training materials can be implemented at that time. Given the unique design and operations of the Insitu Scaneagle, specific skills will be required to safely operate the UAS. The UAS will require operators to hold a second class medical certificate, as deemed necessary by the FAA (Williams, 2007).

General Atomics Ikhana

The General Atomics Ikhana is a UAS capable of remote controlled or autonomous flight operations, developed by General Atomics Aeronautical Systems. While the UAS is larger and more expensive than the ScanEagle, it only requires a two member flight crew. The pilot in command controls the takeoff, flight and landing operations, and the co-pilot serves as sensor operator/co-pilot ready to take control if the pilot in command needs to perform a hand-off. The Ikhana will conduct Beyond Line of Sight (BLOS) missions over the open ocean, which requires greater systems understandings and operations for the satellite communication uplink and downlink.

The UAS manufacturer requires the co-pilot or sensor operator to own a commercial pilots license along with at least 300 pilot-in-command flight hours. The flight hour requirement for the pilot-in-command is even higher. Given the need for greater systems understandings and operations the skill level and knowledge requirements greatly impact Ikhana crewmember training. The training must meet the manufacturer standards. In addition, the flight crew should be cross trained and prepared to handle either sensor operator or pilot-in-command position at any given time. Virtually all organizations involved in training realize that flying a UAS in today's environment is a team task. Crew resource management will be an important piece of additional training for Ikhana operators.

References

Army Recognition. (2011). ScanEagle. Retrieved from http://www.armyrecognition.com/us_american_unmanned_aerial_ground_vehicle_uk/scaneagle_uas_uav_unmanned_aerial_vehicle_system_data_sheet_specifications_information_description.html#description

Barnhart, R. K., Shappee, E., and Marshall, D. M. (2012). Introduction to unmanned aircraft systems. New York, NY: CRC Publishing.

Williams, K. (2007). Unmanned Aircraft Pilot Medical Certification Requirements. DOT/FAA/AM-07/3, Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Aerospace Medicine, Washington D.C.

Automatic Takeoff and Landing

The RQ-4 Global Hawk is a UAS high-altitude, unmanned, multi-intelligence, persistent maritime Intelligence Surveillance Reconnaissance (ISR) system designed to provide the fleet with an experimentation and demonstration capability to support the Navy’s transformational initiatives of SeaPower 21and FORCEnet, through the sea trial process (Northrop Grumman, n.d.). The Mission Control Element (MCE) personnel operate the command and control, mission planning, imagery quality control, and communications functions of the system. Personnel in the Launch and Recovery Element (LRE) of the ground segment load the autonomous flight mission plan and monitor the operation during automatic takeoff and landing. The Differential Global Positioning System (DGPS) of the UAS is used to aid in this process.

Photo: Northrop Grumman

The Global Hawk is more dependent on satellite uplink to maintain flight than a manned plane. Automation is often thought of as an all-or-none proposition, but as the variety in current UASs demonstrates, automation occurs at many levels and in many varieties (Barnhart, Shappee, & Marshall, 2012). The Global Hawk’s abilities are limited without continuous connection to pilots on the ground. This is a serious limitation affecting the UAS automated system and safe operations. It could be even more detrimental during combat with enemies using cyber attacks and anti-satellite warfare to compromise operations. An enhancement to the RQ-4 Global Hawk’s automation level includes the use of multiple satellite and line-of-sight data links provide numerous communication paths to the Global Hawk Maritime Demonstration MCE and the LRE, with broadband communications via commercial satellites serving as the primary data link for imagery transmission.

The Boeing 777 has autonomous flight capabilities that are similar to the RQ-4 Global Hawk. The pilot-airplane interface is enhanced with integrated displays, controls, and automation working together for efficient flight deck operations. The Boeing 777 uses both the Airplane Information Management System (AIMS) and the Electronic Flight Bag (EFB) for its autonomous functions. The AIMS manages the approach and departure procedures, system feedback, as well as in-flight controls. The EFB is used to manage flight operations and streamline cockpit and crew efficiencies to include but not limited to; flight checklists, ATC approach information and electronic flight plans (Boeing, 2014). The flight deck and flight management system of the Boeing 777 provide provision for future enhancements, more notably those made possible by the Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen).

Manned aircraft have the advantage of situational awareness. They are more responsive to unexpected threats than UASs. While they have the automatic takeoff and landing systems, there are safeguards in place in case the automatic system experiences a malfunction. The Global Hawk has the advantage of not having a human on board, but it has the disadvantage of limited situational awareness. The UAS is dependent on remote pilots to conduct operations. By using a fully autonomous system to remove human error, this eliminates possible threats to operational safety. An autonomous system can perform as programmed, but not always as anticipated. The most efficient systems are those that allow autonomous flight, with the capability to switch flight to manual control on demand. The Boeing 777 with its onboard flight crew presents the better situation for manual override than the RQ-4 Global Hawk.

References

Barnhart, R. K., Shappee, E., and Marshall, D. M. (2012). Introduction to unmanned aircraft systems. New York, NY: CRC Publishing.

Boeing. (2014). New Airplace 777. Retrieved from http://www.newairplane.com/777/#/design-highlights/technology/flight-deck/

Northrop Grumman. (n.d.).  RQ-4 Global Hawk Maritime Demonstration System. Retrieved from http://www.northropgrumman.com/Capabilities/RQ4Block10GlobalHawk/Documents/GHMD-New-Brochure.pdf

Thompson, L. (2014, February 20). U-2 Vs. Global Hawk: why drones aren't the answer to every military need. Forbes. Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthompson/2014/02/20/u-2-vs-global-hawk-why-drones-arent-the-answer-to-every-military-need/

Shift Work Schedule

As a human factors consultant for an MQ-1B Medium Altitude, Long Endurance (MALE) UAS squadron of the United States Air Force (USAF) my first responsibility would involve adjusting the shift work schedule to provide more time off for each team. An increase in work days or work hours can be taxing on the body, and does not allow the body time to rest and function properly. With the UAS teams reporting fatigue while conducting operations and siting inadequate sleep due to their current shift schedule as the root cause; it is definitely necessary to review the schedule and make adjustments. The work hours per shift are still the same with the assumption that appropriate break times are in place. The UAS crews are now divided into 5 teams instead of 4 and put onto a continuous shift work schedule of 5 days on, 3 days off for 4 teams and 4 days on, 4 days off for the additional team. This is a major shift from the original 6 days on, 2 days off.

The teams provide Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR) to ground forces in conflict zones year round and it is important that they are fit to fly. Fatigue is a progressive decline in man's ability to carry out his appointed task, which may become apparent through deterioration in the quality of work, lack of enthusiasm, inaccuracy, etc. (Orlady & Orlady, 1999).  The new schedule design will allow optimization of operations, while improving the fatigue issues. Maintaining optimal alertness and neurobehavioral functioning in operational environments is critical for achieving high levels of safety, efficiency, and success (FAA, 2010).

Two principal sources of fatigue in aviation are sleep loss and circadian disruption. Both are related but not co-dependent. The course materials teach us that there is no single easy way to resolve sleep problems resulting from operational demands; however providing additional days off will help support circadian rhythm and sleep irregularities. Both of which can create performance problems. Excessive fatigue or chronic/acute stress that alters performance significantly means the individual is not fit to fly. Operational countermeasures that can be used include physical activity, strategic caffeine use, and operationally feasible social conversations with other cockpit crew members and the flight attendants (Orlady & Orlady, 1999).  The proposed changes to the schedule will provide some relief, however it involves making the teams smaller or adding additional support. This may or may not be feasible.

  

References

Federal Aviation Administration. (2010). Basics of Aviation Fatigue. Retrieved from http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC%20120-100.pdf

Orlady, H., & Orlady, L. (1999). Human factors in multi-crew flight operations. Burlington, VT:

Ashgate Publishing Company.

UAS Beyond Line of Sight Operations

The PrecisionHawk is a UAS that operates beyond line-of-sight. The PrecisionHawk’s mission is to serve in diverse markets such as agriculture and information. The UAS can contribute largely to improved business through data processing and remote sensing. Beyond line-of-sight (BLOS) operations refer to operating the RPA via satellite communications or using a relay vehicle, usually another aircraft (Barnhart, Shappee, & Marshall, 2012). Typically UASs conduct missions within line of sight and do not have the ability to operate BLOS.

Photo: Redherring.com

Line-of-sight (LOS) operations allow instruction of the RPA via direct radio waves. One disadvantage is ISM frequency bands widely used making them susceptible to frequency congestion, which can cause the UAS to lose communication with the ground station due to signal interference (Barnhart, Shappee, & Marshall, 2012). Similar disadvantages exist with beyond line-of-sight. There are often signal blockages by terrain and on-the-move impairments. The size and low altitudes of flight make locating and tracking drones quite difficult. This deficiency in current technology makes it challenging to manage an increasing number of recreational drones. Advances in airborne broadband technology hold the promise of enabling cost-effective communications to aid situational awareness on the ground for military reconnaissance, border patrols, and other government and commercial applications (Hughes, 2013).

The PrecisionHawk announced its LATAS (Low Altitude Tracking and Avoidance System) solution for UASs earlier this year at the Academy of Model Aeronautics Expo. The LATAS system can provide flight planning, tracking, and avoidance for all airborne UASs. Its requirements for operation include nothing more than the use of existing cellular networks. The system size is that of a small chip in the UAS's circuit that would allow verification safety of flight paths and report information to the FAA. It would also enable UAS operation beyond line of sight without the fear of crashing. The PrecisionHawk along with the LATAS technology definitely offer commercial application. The company has been touring the country showcasing its technology at events like the Ohio State Farm Science Review. The UAS flew over Molly Caren Agricultural Center in London, Ohio, in live demonstrations during FSR, which is an expo for displaying cutting-edge farm equipment (PrecisionHawk, 2014). PrecisionHawk was advertised as a new tool for farmers to survey land.

There are some human factor concerns with the use of LOS and BLOS. The launch phase for a particular UAS can be conducted using LOS, transferred to BLOS, then transferred back to LOS for recovery. This can be quite concerning as BLOS operations often have a delay that can last several seconds once a command is sent to the aircraft. Decreased situational awareness is a human factor issue that can arise when switching control from LOS to BLOS. In addition, the increased potential for mode errors becomes a factor during this process. The handoff from LOS to BLOS or vice versa is full of potential for error and communication or control breakdowns.

References

Barnhart, R. K., Shappee, E., and Marshall, D. M. (2012). Introduction to unmanned aircraft systems. New York, NY: CRC Publishing.

Higgins, S. (2015). Taking UAVs Beyond Line of Sight. SPAR Point Group. Retrieved from http://www.sparpointgroup.com/sean-higgins/vol13no2-taking-uavs-beyond-line-of-sight

Hughes. (2013.). Communications beyond line of sight. Retrieved from  http://defense.hughes.com/resources/communications-beyond-the-line-of-sight

PrecisionHawk. (2014, July 16). From military strikes to farming, drones segueing into rural America. Retrieved from http://media.precisionhawk.com/topic/from-military-strikes-to-farming-drones-segueing-into-rural-america/

UAS Integration in the NAS

The Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen) is a new digital technology designed to make air travel more convenient, predictable, and environmentally friendly. This satellite-based system is transforming the National Airspace System by providing technology that can be used to reduce traffic delays, save time and fuel, increase capacity, and allow air traffic controllers to monitor and manage aircraft with greater safety margins. Every day the US continues to build upon the NextGen infrastructure by working with aviation community partners around the world to introduce new capabilities and provide additional benefits (U.S. Department of Transportation, 2014). The major goal of NextGen is to significantly increase the safety, security, and capacity of National Airspace System operations.

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has often relied on human pilot eyesight to avoid midair collisions even when transponders or radar systems are present. With the FAA's new Data Communications (Data Comm) techonology, controllers can send digital messages to pilots in the cockpit. As with voice, these messages instruct pilots to fly a particular route, climb or descend to a particular altitude, contact a new air traffic control facility or follow other guidance (FAA, n.d.a). Flight crew requests and reports can be transmitted through digital messages to controllers on the ground.

The FAA ensures an equivalent level of safety to UAS as that of manned aircraft. The FAA Data Communications technology can support the UAS operators with lost link scenarios as well. Autopilot systems perform a “lost-link” procedure if communication becomes disconnected between ground control and the UAS. This process usually involves creating a lost-link profile where the UAS can fly a pre-programmed contingency route based on its current state of flight altitude, orientation, etc. The NAS Voice System (NVS) uses Voice over Intranet Protocol (VoIP) to take advantage of cost-effective commercial routers and computer systems. NVS will enable air traffic controllers to talk to UAS operators on the ground no matter where they are located (FAA, n.d.b). This exciting technology can possibly limit the amount of human factor errors caused by lost link scenarios.

The implementation of automation into a role that is cognitively demanding can be quite concerning from a human factors perspective. One common concern among pilots and avionics makers is the development of user-friendly and connected flight decks. The goal of creating next-generation flight decks that are safer and more efficient require examination of today’s integrated system. The capabilities deemed necessary to achieve this goal will bring major changes to the flight deck, including Internet-like information services, access through them to a common weather picture, integration of weather information into flight deck decision making, negotiated four-dimensional aircraft trajectories, means for equivalent visual operations in low visibility conditions, delegated self-separation, and equipment and procedures for super-density arrival and departure operations (Funk, Mauro, Barshi, 2009). Pilots will become more tightly coupled to their aircraft via a growing number of man-machine interfaces, known in human factors circles as modalities (Croft 2013). The increasingly complex automation systems will require flexibility to limit human factor errors.

References

Barnhart, R. K., Shappee, E., and Marshall, D. M. (2012). Introduction to unmanned aircraft systems. New York, NY: CRC Publishing.

Croft, J. (2013, April 22). Connectivity, human factors drive NextGen cockpit. Aviation Week. Retrieved from http://aviationweek.com/awin/connectivity-human-factors-drive-next-gen-cockpit

FAA. (n.d.a). Data communications. Retrieved from https://www.faa.gov/nextgen/update/progress_and_plans/data_comm/

FAA. (n.d.b). NAS voice system. Retrieved from https://www.faa.gov/nextgen/update/progress_and_plans/nas_voice_system/

Funk, K., Mauro, R., & Barshi, I. (2009). 2009 International symposium on aviation psychology. International Symposium on Aviation Psychology (ISAP), Dayton, Ohio.

U. S. Department of Transportation. (2014). The Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen). Retrieved from https://www.transportation.gov/mission/sustainability/next-generation-air-transportation-system-nextgen

UAS GCS Human Factors Issue

The Raven is one of the most popular unmanned aircraft systems in the world. It can be programmed for autonomous operation or operated manually. The system uses advanced avionics and precise GPS navigation for autonomous operation. The Raven was originally developed as the FQM-151 in 1999. The US Army was in need of a system that offered real time coverage, as well as over-the-horizon views for difficult areas. The army acquired a number of FQM-151 Pointer UAVs for military operations.

The Raven is a smaller version of the FQM-151 created later as the RQ-11 Raven in 2002. The Raven is priced at $35,000. A UAV includes all of the associated support equipment, control station, data links, telemetry, communications and navigation equipment necessary for operations, therefore the total system cost of a Raven is approximately $250,000. Upgraded versions of the Raven have been created since its initial development. In October 2013, AeroVironment secured a $20 million order from the US Army to provide Mantis i23 gimbaled sensor payloads for upgrading the RQ-11B Raven with an order for the Raven spare parts being placed by the US Army in September 2014 (Army-Technology, n.d.).

The RQ-11B Raven features a wingspan of 4.5 feet and a weight of 4.2 pounds. The hand-launched Raven can perform day or night aerial observation. Its line-of-sight ranges up to 10 kilometers and the system offers real-time color or infrared imagery. According to AeroVironment, the GCS interfaces with all of its tactical ISR air vehicles reducing the level of training required and decreasing the time and cost involved (Army-Technology, n.d.). The Raven is currently used by the United States Army, Air Force, Marine Corps, and Special Operations Command.

While the Raven comes with many useful features, there are some human factor issues that must be taken into consideration prior to use. One of those issues includes use of the Raven in urban environments. Urban operations include all military actions performed on terrain where manmade construction affects tactical options. During operations in urban areas the army determined that the Raven was most useful during daylight hours even though the system featured a high-resolution infrared camera for night use. The Raven systems were typically used during times of day when the solar radiation energy levels were lowest. Solar radiation reflection on uneven surface causes varying wind speeds and temperature. Though these differentials have little effect on large platforms, the small Raven is affected by increased levels of insolation, as it will gain/drop altitude, change direction, and drain the system’s on-board battery life as the Raven adjusts in response (Krause, 2012). This knowledge of the Raven system weakness is a deterrent among commanders.
The Raven’s ground control station is strength and a weakness for the UAV. The system is advertised as a benefit due to its simplicity; however the limited number of control options also limits the amount of information provided to the operator. The UAVs altitude, airspeed, and other important details are not always easily viewable. This greatly contributes to the problem of the Raven flying out of range from the ground control station and the operator losing control of the UAS due to a lack of situational awareness (Krause, 2012). Upgrading the technology for the ground control station has been an improvement and greatly affected the information provided to the user. 

References

AeroVironment. (n.d.). UAS: RQ-11B Raven. Retrieved from http://www.avinc.com/uas/small_uas/raven/
Army-Technology. (n.d.). RQ-11 Raven unmanned aerial vehicle, United States of America.Retrieved from http://www.army-technology.com/projects/rq11-raven/
Krause, J. J. (2012, October-December). T-UAS operations within urban contingency operations.Military Intelligence Professional Bulletin, 30(4), 21-24.