Search results

The editors of this volume would like to thank the authors whose contributions to this area have broken new ground for human considerations in a system that is often mistaken as unmanned. We would also like to thank the attendees of our two workshops on human factors of UAVs who shared their insights and scientific accomplishments with us as well as for those from the development community who conveyed to us the constraints and needs of their community. Thanks also to the sponsors of these workshops who include the Air Force Research Laboratory, the Air Force Office of Scientific Research, NASA, US Positioning, FAA, and Microanalysis and Design. We also thank the many individuals including Leah Rowe, Jennifer Winner, Jamie Gorman, Preston Kiekel, Amanda Taylor, Dee Andrews, Pat Fitzgerald, Ben Schaub, Steve Shope, and Wink Bennett who provided their valuable time and energy to assist with the workshops and this book. Last but not least, we wish to thank ROV operators, those who have attended our workshops, those who we have come to know only through anecdotes, and those who we will never know. It is this group that truly inspired the workshops and the book. We dedicate this effort to them.

To understand the importance of coordination and collaboration for ROV teams, let us examine some of the typical tasks that ROV operators might be required to perform (Cooke & Shope, 2004; Gugerty, DeBoom, Walker, & Burns, 1999). To do so, we will use the members of a U.S. Air Force Predator crew as an example. The team consists of three members: an Air Vehicle Operator (AVO) who pilots the aircraft, a Payload Operator (PLO) who operates the surveillance equipment, and a Data Exploitation, Mission Planning, and Communications Operator (DEMPC) who is responsible for mission planning. In the course of a mission, the AVO is responsible for the take off and landing of the aircraft. Because they fly the aircraft from a remote location, AVOs are generally required to use visual input from a camera mounted on the nose of the aircraft to guide their flight. Once in the air, the PLO can operate cameras and sensors mounted on the belly of the plane to gather information. The DEMPC, who is in contact with the upper echelons of the organization, provides the AVO with the desired heading and the PLO with target coordinates.

The heart of the CERTT Laboratory, shown in Fig. 1, is a flexible Synthetic Task Environment (STE) that is designed to study many different synthetic tasks for teams working in complex environments. STEs provide an ideal environment for the study of team cognition in complex settings by providing a middle-ground between the highly artificial tasks commonly found in laboratories and the often uncontrollable conditions found in the field or high fidelity simulations.

Computer simulation is a test-bed for research that began in the 1970s, grew tremendously in popularity in the 1990s, and has since continued to mature in complexity and realism. When computer simulations were in their infancy, their biggest advantage was the ability to have complete control over the environment in which the simulation took place. Missions could be changed from daylight to twilight with a few keystrokes. Weather conditions could be altered or inserted based on the needs of the experiment. Perhaps most importantly, the landmasses in which the simulations took place were boundless, in their cyber world.

Wide area search munitions (WASMs) are a cross between an unmanned aerial vehicle and a munition. With an impressive array of onboard sensors and autonomous flight capabilities WASMs might play a variety of roles on the modern battle field including reconnaissance, search, battle damage assessment, or communications relay.

The goal of our initial study was to assess the usability of the prototype OCU and establish associated training issues. Seven participants completed self-paced training, guided by a training manual produced by ARI. Training was divided into three modules: (1) introduction and autonomous control, (2) manual control, and (3) creating and editing autonomous missions. Primary focus was on how to use the OCU to fly the MAV. Modules did not include elements such as fueling, setup, or tactics. A facilitator was present at all times to observe user interaction with the system and to manage the software. Data captured included time to complete each training module and related practical exercises, user feedback on questionnaires, and a written test on training content. Participants had either graduate-level experience in human factors psychology, prior military experience, or both. They were, therefore, able to provide valuable insights while they learned to operate the simulated MAV.

As they are currently conducted, missions by single ROVs consist of several sub-tasks. After a vehicle has been launched, a human operator or a small team is responsible for controlling the flight, navigation, status monitoring, flight and mission alteration, problem diagnosis, communication and coordination with other operators, and often data analysis and interpretation. These tasks are similar in terms of their locus of control (e.g., keyboard and mouse input, joystick, trackball, visual display).

The ROV ground control simulator (Fig. 1) used in this multi-sensory research consists of two workstations: pilot and SO. At the left workstation, the pilot controls ROV flight (via stick-and-throttle inputs as well as invoking auto-holds), manages subsystems, and handles external communications. From the right workstation, the SO is responsible for locating and identifying points of interest on the ground by controlling cameras mounted on the ROV. Each station has an upper and a head-level 17″ color CRT display, as well as two 10″ head-down color displays. The upper CRT of both stations displays a ‘God's Eye’ area map (fixed, north up) with overlaid symbology identifying current ROV location, flight waypoints, and current sensor footprint. The head-level CRT (i.e., “camera display”) displays simulated video imagery from cameras mounted on the ROV. Head-up display (HUD) symbology is overlaid on the pilot's camera display and sensor specific data are overlaid on the SO's camera display. The head-down displays present subsystem and communication information as well as command menus. The simulation is hosted on four dual-Pentium PCs. The control sticks are from Measurement Systems Inc. and the throttle assemblies were manufactured in-house.