Unmanned Aerospace Systems Ground Control Station Human Factors Issue

             Ground Control Stations (GCS) come in many different sizes and shapes. The DJI Company, who is one of the largest commercial UAS makers, often relies on smart phones, tablets, and laptop computers to function as GCSs for their most capable UASs (DJI, 2016). Larger UASs that are used by the Military tend to have much more complex and intricate GCSs that provide multiple positions for multiple crew members. The one GCS that stands out due to both its complexity and its uniqueness is the GCS of the MQ-5B Hunter UAS, which was operated by the US Army, and still operated by the Department of Defense. The Hunter’s GCS was officially called the GCS-3000 and was designed and built by Israel Aerospace Industries Ltd (Armytechnology.com. 2016). The unique aspect of this UAS is that it needed to be manually launched and recovered via a separate GCS called the Launch and Recovery Station (LRS). This was a GCS with the same power generation requirements, antenna requirements, and crew requirements as the inflight GCS, but it had a 100 foot cable that connected a hand held remote control that was used by an external operator (EO) to launch and land the aircraft. The EO would need to stand mid field directly adjacent to the runway in order to conduct the launch and recovery which was very dangerous, and caused major delays in airfield operations (Armytechnology.com. 2016).

            When analyzing the functional operation of the GCS-3000, an in-depth analysis of the launch and recovery process and remote control provides a strong example of a system that was designed with minimal though into human factors. The EO would have to stand parallel to the runway and use a small remote that was similar to a model airplane remote to control the aircraft. The aircraft would land and need to catch arresting cables in order to make a safe and secure stop due to the fact that the aircraft did not have a steerable nose wheel (Armytechnology.com, 2016).

              The first major human factor issue was that the pilot could not concentrate on the controls while observing the aircraft at the same time.

Figure 1: External Operators are conducting launch and recovery of the MQ-5B Hunter via the EO Remote. Retrieved from: http://www.northropgrumman.com/Photos/pgM_HU-40005_002.jpg

In figure 1, the EOs are unable to maintain aircraft observation and controller observation at the same time. The controller had a very simple stick style that did not differentiate the different control inputs. This caused many issues due to the fact that EOs could not look down during the launch and recovery sequence.  Without tactile cues to ensure the proper control sticks were being manipulated, the chances of human error due to inadvertent switch manipulations were increased (Cooke, Rowe, Bennett, & Joralmon 2017).

            The second major issues is that during recovery and landing, the EO would observe the aircraft from the front as it was approaching him and then the aircraft would actually pass the EO and the perspective would transition to looking at the rear of the aircraft. The rapid switch in perspective would also cause the EO to have to alter his control inputs. When the aircraft is approaching the EO would use reverse control inputs, but when looking at the rear of the aircraft, normal control inputs would be needed. This quick transition between perspectives at the final moments of landing caused many EOs to either not make it successfully through the EO training, or actually cause mishaps in the operational force (Cooke, Rowe, Bennett, & Joralmon 2017).   

            The two factors mentioned above were both related to the fact that the system needed to be landed manually. From 2012 till today, Northrop Grumman has worked to fully automate the landing process for the MQ-5B (Northrop Grumman, 2016). The transition to more autonomous control and landing is the main mitigating solution to these human factor hurtles. The issue associated with the tactile feel of the remote control does correlate to manned aviation. When pilot workload is high, it’s hard for the pilots to look at every single switch every time it needs to be manipulated. In manned aviation, most cockpits ensure switch placement, shape and size correlate to what the switch does. The best examples of this is that in a cockpit, the landing gear switch is usually round like a wheel and the flaps switch is usually shaped like an airfoil. These tactile expressions of what the switches do help the pilots reduce the probability of inadvertently flipping the wrong switch during high workload situations (DVI Aviation, n.d.).    

References

ArmyTechnology.com. (2016). Hunter RQ-5A / MQ-5B/C UAV. Retrieved November 29, 2016, from http://www.army-technology.com/projects/hunter/

Cooke, N. J., Rowe, L. J., Bennett, W., & Joralmon, D. Q. (2017). Remotely piloted aircraft systems: A human systems integration perspective. Chichester, West Sussex, United Kingdom: John Wiley & Sons.

DJI Inc. (2016). Your first stop for DJI drones and camera technologies | DJI Store. Retrieved November 29, 2016, from http://store.dji.com/

DVI Aviation. (n.d.). Aircraft Cockpit Design Experts. Retrieved November 29, 2016, from http://www.dviaviation.com/aircraft-cockpit-design.html

Northrop Grumman. (2016). MQ5B Hunter. Retrieved November 29, 2016, from http://www.northropgrumman.com/Capabilities/MQ5BHunter/Pages/default.aspx

An Analysis of Case Studies as a Teaching Method

Case studies in General:

     Case studies are an excellent method of achieving detailed qualitative research. One of the challenges of online instruction is the lack of labs and lack of hands on experiences. Without being able to conduct hands on research, the use of case studies helps enrich the class experience by utilizing the benefits of hands on research that was conducted by others. In the UNSY track, there are many classes that require design projects, which are a very fun way of spurring research, understanding, and creativity, but there is less of a focus on academic research. For case studies, the focus on peer reviewed and governmental sources provide a very grounded and precise type of research that helps build a depth of knowledge in a particular subject.

Case Studies in Real Life 1:

     As a military officer that is involved in UAS operations, the process of case studies has been the standard in terms of how to execute my mission. A great example is submitting a Certificate of Authorization (COA) for flight operations of MQ-1Cs at Fort Huachuca. Essentially, I used the experiences and written procedures of the training unit located at the same airfield to build and develop my COA. At the time, I was just utilizing the resources at hand, but in reality, I was doing a case study of that unit and its experience in obtaining a COA in order to support my unit’s mission.

Case Studies in Real Life 2:

     As a military aviator we use case studies on an annual basis in order to train on crew coordination. Every year when I am within three months of my birth month I conduct training called Aircrew Coordination Training Enhanced (ACT-E). This is essentially a series of case studies of accidents and mishaps that have occurred in the last few years. Each one of these case studies utilizes crash records and recording devices to recreate the steps leading up to the crash in order to help aircrew see from the outside how the accident occurred. It is sometimes depressing to see case studies where fellow aviators have died, but it’s vital to study these scenarios in order to ensure we don’t make the same mistakes.

Recommendation:

     Case studies are a great method of making students look deep into a topic, but without proper guidance and experience, the case study process can be overwhelming and confusing. While I was going through this course I starting taking RSCH670. This class teaches students how to conduct research and how to format and build a solid paper. The research paper format provided in this class is helpful, but armed with the knowledge of RSCH670, I felt I could have done a better job on my case study. I feel that RSCH670 should be a prerequisite for any class that requires a case study such as this class. 

References: 

Katz, L. (2003, May). Enhancing Army Aircrew Coordination Training. Retrieved November 7, 2016, from http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a415767.pdf