UAS Crew Operator Requirements

In the not so distant future, autonomy and automation will synonomous with commercial transport aviation.  Until then, the chasm that needs to be bridged is the proliferation of unmanned aircraft operations.  This is seemingly a natural progression to the end-state of full autonomous aircrafts but it is not without its hurdles.  The main drivers to facilitate this transition is the global shortage of aircraft pilots and its impact on the ever increasingly demand on international travel.  As such the need to recruit, train and operate with the correct crew for unmanned operations is a vital topic of discussion.




Unmanned aircraft operators are employed in a remote located away from the actual aircraft asset within a ground control station. With the high costs of training traditional pilots coupled with the intuition of the video game millenial generation, I opine that it makes sense to not have a prior manned aircraft flight hours as a pre-requisite in order to become an UAS operator.  Often you hear that UAS operators do not experience the same tactile feedback or noise reverberations as they would within a traditional aircraft.  Well, imagine an untainted UAS candidate operator who would bring their own unbiased intuition to operate within a GCS.  Further, with GCS design interfaces, they are more and more akin to that of video game controller designs.  The hand eye coordination, multi-tasking and multiple interface monitoring are all basically inherent with this new generation of aspiring UAS operators.




The basic requirement to become a UAS operator should come down to a screening process for the potential to handle high work load in stressful situations, absord and intepret multiple sources of information, proficient hand-eye coordination and also understanding the fundamentals of flight dynamics and operations.  They should also be mandated time within a simulator for line of operational simulation scenarios.  This would help train on CRM related scenarios to foster efficient and decisive communications within the GCS. In terms of a medical requirement, a lower threshold would attract a much wider talent pool, as an example, if your body is unable to sustain high gravitational pulls past 3Gs, it would not be a problem given the high performance aircraft flight effects have no impact to the UAS operator within the GCS.


Cheers,

Week 7 - UAS Mishaps and Accidents

Week 7: UAS Mishaps and Accidents

After reviewing this week’s readings and discussing the forum postings provided by our classmates, I notice that the root cause of the sUAS mishaps are due to the operators not taking their role seriously as an aircraft pilot.  The FAA representatives in their presentations repeat this statement time and time again that since the FAA has granted the applicants as licensed operators, that they are treated and should behalf as accredited pilots – much the same as your traditional pilots.  This means that RPAS operators whether small or large, commercial or recreational, should follow their training to adhered to checklists and minimize risk whenever possible.  This is done via stringent processes such as reviewing NOTAMs, conducting pre-mission planning to confirm favourable weather conditions, knowing the lay of the land, alternate LZs and familiarizing themselves with emergency procedures.  There should also be pre-flight walkarounds or inspections conducted as part of each sUAS mission.  In the investigative reports or unofficial findings, there is never any mention of these conventional risk mitigation activities.  It seems as though since technology has evolved to such an easily accessible flight-vehicle, that the responsibilities of the remote pilot has also diverged from their traditional precautionary responsibilities.

It may not be a far stretch to recommend that the FAA in the near future institute random spot-checks or audits to ensure that all risk mitigation activities are considered to minimize UAS mishaps and accident rates.  This will at least increase the vigilance from a human factors perspective to ensure all remote PICs are cognizant of the ramifications should they become relaxed in their approach to risk factors for their sUAS missions.

UAS and Manned Aircraft Autonomy

Assignment 6.5 - UAS and Manned Aircraft Autonomy

Generally speaking there are three main levels of autonomy.  They are your low level, mid-level and high level classes.  The low level rarely involves the system as the human in the loop possesses the overall situational awareness and control.  This would be akin to a UAS that is flown as a FPV mode for hobbyist racers.  The second level is the medium level of autonomy which sees about 50% of the computer providing the input and flight control over the UAS.  This would be akin to a small UAS that provides features such as autopilot so that it lowers workload and provides easy maneuverability for the human operator to fly as they want (ie. if altitude is locked, then the operator is able to just control yaw and turns rather than pitch).  The last level is high autonomy which means that the human interface is very little while the computer itself is providing almost all of the control and decision making.  A pre-programmed flight plan for a large UAV with dedicated GCS would be an illustration of this example.  All flight destinations would be pre-programmed and automatically executed as waypoint navigation.  The only time that the human would be involved is if it explicitly interrupted the system to gain control over the flight controls.

In my opinion the main difference that needs to be considered on the subject of automation for manned operations versus unmanned operations is the ability to adaptively sustain and maintenance situational awareness of the mission.  For manned aircraft operations, you have a crew with you that will provide you constant feedback and input and query to all arrive at the same type of information and decision.  For an unmanned operation, assuming you are the only person in the loop operating the device, then you are left to your own senses when it comes to the mission at hand.  You do not have the luxury to call upon your first officer to confirm your suspicions on navigation issues or troubleshooting in flight emergencies.  This is where I believe automation will help complement the unmanned operator by providing intelligence via updates and adaptive feedback.  Even something as simple as a pre-flight walkaround check may substantially different as in manned operations you have at least 2 or even 3 sets of eyes to ensure that the aircraft is airworthy.  Whereas in unmanned operations, you may only have 1 set of eyes and the rest will rely on automated indications to ensure all systems are sound for operation.  In a remote setting, the launch and recovery team would provide this checkout where as the remotely controlled GCS operator will not even have the opportunity to conduct such a check.  Automation is what will be able to fill this void and enable some level of situational awareness for the remote unmanned operator.

I believe that the current industry under utilizes automation. Looking at the example of the NASA and FAA initiatives for NextGen, we are only seeing the tip of what is to come.  With innovations such as ADS-B and digital datalinks to provide real-time information and flight data, it will help manned and unmanned aircraft operations integrate as the overall demand for air aviation increases over the next few years.  With more precise navigational information, more aircrafts will be able to fly in a denser grid while maintaining safety buffer distances and proper sense and avoid protocols.  Communications among traffic controllers, pilots and unmanned operators will be facilitated via datalinks that help transcend archaic voice communications.  The next few years of air transport will be completely transformed with the migration of these technologies and levels of automation that will only help evolve our status quo achievements!

Reference

Obringer, L. (2017, August 6). NASA. Retrieved from Autonomous System: https://www.nasa.gov/feature/autonomous-systems#adsb

Physiological Issues in UAS

5.4 Blog - Physiological Issues with UAS

Which OTC medications do you think pose the most significant risk to UAS operators? 

It is common sense that people need a restful night’s sleep in order to perform at their peak level the following day.  However, there may be instances where the ability to experience a good sleep is out of reach and some may even strive for OTC sleep aids to help achieve optimal rest.  It is my opinion that sleep aids are the most significant risk to UAS operators as there are many commonly available that contain Diphenhydramine which is an active ingredient that may cause side effects of mental impairment and increased reaction times.  The recommended wait time after taking this active ingredient is 60 hours based on this pharmacologic half-life (FAA, 2017).  Other OTC medications may have an overt label detailing not to operate heavy machinery but some may operators may think they are helping themselves by using OTC sleep aids without fully respecting the prolonged side effects that may ultimately impact their mission within the 60 hour window.

What do you think are the most effective mitigation strategies from a human factors perspective 

that operators can use when conducting UAS operations?

The most effective mitigation strategy when it comes to physiological issues and medication is an honest approach to utilizing a self-assessment tool such as the Aeronautical Decision Making and Operational Risk Assessment Framework that we have learned about (FAA, 2016).  Additionally, if there are any doubts at all, an open-dialogue and approachable relationship with an aviation medical examiner would help provide clarification on any areas needing interpretation of elaboration.

·     

 Describe how fatigue and stress affect the safe operation of UAS.

Fatigue is a human limitation that is often associated with pilot error.  It results in degraded concentration, poor coordination and ineffective communication skills.  While there are physical impacts, there are also cognitive effects as well such as timely decision making.  Fatigue can compound stress which will hamper performance.  Stress is defined in two categories: acute stress and chronic stress.  Acute stress is normal inputs into our physiological system in which we provide a response. Normally a health body will respond adequately such as time constraints to execute a task or make a decision and can be viewed as a motivator for peak performance (see figure 1).  An unhealthy body will succumb to these stimulus and offer an ineffective response such as a delayed decision or an incorrect one.  There is also chronic stress which means over time the stimulus has completely overwhelmed the body.  There are many external factors such as mental state, social welfare, financial welfare or physical health that may cause a chronic condition.  This is viewed as more serious to acute stressors as chronic conditions may be hard to detect until it is too late.  Both types of stressors if deemed to impact the performance on your governance over the UAS should not be allowed for flight operations.  To combat this, operators should always be vigilant to detect, self-assess and address these latent risk items of fatigue and acute and chronic stressors.  Healthy habits of a well-balanced diet, regular exercise and sustaining a strong mental state are all excellent ways to ensure you continue to be a competent and effective UAS operator (FAA, 2016).

Fig 1: Stress versus Performance Curve

References

FAA. (2016, August). Federal Aviation Administration. Retrieved December 17, 2018, from Remote Pilot - Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems

FAA. (2017, May 18). Guide for Aviation Medical Examiners. Retrieved 12 17, 2018, from Federal Aviation Administration: https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/avs/offices/aam/ame/guide/pharm/dni_dnf/

 

4.4 Risk Management and ADM

Describe the essential elements of ADM in your own words.

Aeronautical Decision Making is a cognitive framework for the pilot in command to continuous use throughout all phases of their flight (planning, flight, landing, post-flight, etc) to identify risks and implement risk mitigations based on new information that is received.  This framework is complemented by checklists and tools that help identify/categorize risk and hazards to develop methods of mitigation.

 What ADM and Risk Management issues in UAS operations really stood out to you?

 What really stood out is that fact that there is almost an unlimited amount of risks and hazards that can be considered as a RPIC.  Whether it is physiological (ie. human fatigue, long week of working) to environmental conditions such as high winds, almost any new input or information can impact the operator to make an corresponding decision or action to mitigate it.  The risk appetite for each scenario is also variable since each RPIC has a different risk tolerance.  Also, most of the time, the major factor is based on injury to the general public, so flying over crowds are most likely to be avoided.
 
What are some of the unique human factors challenges faced by commercial UAS operators certified under CFR 14 Part 107?

One of the major unique human factors challenges faced by commercial UAS operators is the fact that they are the sole decision maker in any situation faced with risk.  Traditional manned aircraft pilots will have a support network to help provide feedback to garner consensus on a decision.  The first officer or chief pilot over the radio could help the aircraft commander to rationalize a decision on a certain issue.  This luxury does not exist for the UAS RPIC.  Further, crew resource management does not exist robustly in the UAS world.  In the military, there is often a Mission Acceptance Launch Authority (MALA) framework to ensure that operators are safe and sound of mind to fly.  In the UAS world, you will not have an outside entity or checklist to ensure your body and mind are healthy to operate.  You have to solely rely on yourself to question whether you are of the right attitude (ie. not aggressive or impulsive or macho), well rested (ie. slept and well-nourished) and your aircraft is checked for proper maintenance.  All of these things rely solely on yourself so the overall risk is that much higher as compared to traditional manned aircraft.

3.4 Blog Post on UAS Integration into NAS

Week 3 - UAM, NextGen and UTM and the Overall Integration of UAS into the NAS

UAM is the next evolution of urban transportation options as it targets an untapped market of low to medium airspace that can be exploited to help offset the congestion of traditional ground transportation mediums.  UAM will be faced with numerous challenges such as integration into the national airspace and safety protocols to ensure that the general public is not put to unnecessary risk. The initiatives put forth by NextGen can help facilitate the introduction of certain UAM models such as Uber Air but it will not be a comprehensive solution. Technology such as ADS-B should be mandated in the new UAM models to help precisely track position and other flight details to help de-conflict the airspace. Further Data Communications and Digital Voice will help accommodate the high volume of UAM models to be introduced into the future. This means of communication will introduce scalability in communicating routing changes or conveying flight plan acknowledgements. This also ties into the UAS Traffic Management System (UTM) as the integration of unmanned aircrafts under 400 feet will have to be integrated into the existing framework for managing general aviation traffic. 

Greatest Challenge for UAS integration into NAS

In my opinion, the greatest challenge will be the UAS operators’ actions as it pertains to real-time information that is conveyed whether it be routing changes due to higher priority air traffic or any violation of FAA rules that may occur in flight that cause that UAS to be grounded.  The medium to communicate such information or instructions from an air traffic controller or air traffic network will need to be agile and such that human factors are considered.  Traditional means of dialing a cellular phone would most likely not be feasible given the distraction it may pose to the UAS operator.  It would have to be an interface design that is built into a ground control station that is at all times visible to the operator of that UAS.

Incorporation of UAS into NextGen

I believe that this incorporation is a marriage of complementary convenience.  The NextGen initiatives such as ADS-B components on air vehicles will help increase flight data and overall situational awareness.  This increased awareness will help with distance separations and maintenance of safe buffer within congested air traffic zones.  At the same time, better accuracy allows the exploitation of more air corridors that are traditionally managed conservatively to ensure an expansive buffer zone. You will be able to fit more aircrafts within the air space increasing density while doing it safely.  Digital voice will also complement my earlier concern as communications between air traffic oversights to all remotely piloted operators at greater scale than conventional analog communications.

Detect Sense and Avoid (DSA) for UAS in NAS

DSA will need to be an inherent design for UAS as it integrates into the NAS.  A full spectrum of solutions should be in place from manual flight procedures to ATC surveillance to cooperative ADS-B and TCAS.  Navigation systems on board UAVs should fuse ADS-B and TCAS technology to automatically discern potentially routing conflicts and adhere to established general aviation procedures and maneuvers to de-conflict the situation.  In the situation of manually piloting the UAV to avoid oncoming aircrafts based on TCAS symbology may be troublesome to say the least and may cause certain human factors concerns.  The reinforcement of proper right-of-way flight procedures may provide the solution in most local line-of-sight flights.

Implications of UAS lost-link in NAS

The loss of communications between the unmanned air vehicle and the operator presents a great concern in the context of UAS integration into the NAS.  One of the main priorities that should occur is the immediate identification of a UAS lost-link scenario to all stakeholders such as the air traffic controllers/UAS Service Supplier and nearby general aviation traffic (low altitude or high altitude).  This should be achieved via dissemination via beacon codes on its transponder.  This at least will allow others (who are within control of their manned or unmanned vehicles) to actively avoid and exercise caution to a nearby “rogue” UAS.  Of course the design of UAS in general should have backup communications such as leveraging 4G or soon-to-be 5G technology to come online should traditional RF datalinks fail.  There should also be an inherent failsafe such as ‘fly-home’ features once lost-link conditions are met. The complement to this would be for air traffic controllers to be able to reach out directly to the human operator to understand their intent and extract any other information that may be helpful that did they not include with their filed flight plan.  In terms of human factors concerns, if it was a line-of-sight flight, then visual monitoring would be able to be attained by the human operator.  However, if it was BLOS operations, then they may be able to only relay information of their last known position to air traffic control.  Contingency protocols should be followed to ensure rapid and effective communications are made to local authorities to help issue caution to those that may be nearby.  This may also help set up or quarantine specific areas in anticipation of the worst case scenario such as a crash landing.

UAS Service Supplier to oversee and notify of constraints/instructions