Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems Panel (RPASP) Working Paper: Autonomy and Automation

A significant level of debate and confusion has surrounded the meaning of the terms "autonomy" and "automation". Automation is a multi-dimensional concept, and we propose that RPAS automation should be described with reference to the specific system and task that has been automated, the context in which the automation functions, and other relevant dimensions. In this paper, we present a definition of "automation". We recommend that autonomy and autonomous operations are out of the scope of the RPAS panel. WG7 proposes to develop, in consultation with other workgroups, a taxonomy of "Levels of Automation" for RPAS

Flight Test 6 VIP Day: A Little Bit of How We Got Here

This presentation provides an overview of the Detect and Avoid subproject of the Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Integration in the National Airspace System (NAS) Project. It discusses efforts and contributions for Phase 1 and on-going work for Phase 2

Human Factor Challenges of Remotely Piloted Aircraft

The control stations of many unmanned systems have been characterized by inadequate human-system interfaces. Some of the interface problems may have been prevented had an existing regulation or cockpit design principle been applied. In other cases, the design problems may indicate a lack of suitable guidance material. The human factors of unmanned operations will be reviewed, and a NASA program to develop human-factor guidelines for control stations will be described. To be effective, guidelines must be relevant to a wide range of systems, must not be overly prescriptive, and must not impose premature standardization on evolving technologies. Several types of guidelines are described. These relate to required capabilities, information requirements, properties of the human machine interface, and general cognitive engineering principles

Human Factors Guidelines for UAS in the National Airspace System

The ground control stations (GCS) of some UAS have been characterized by less-than-adequate human-system interfaces. In some cases this may reflect a failure to apply an existing regulation or human factors standard. In other cases, the problem may indicate a lack of suitable guidance material. NASA is leading a community effort to develop recommendations for human factors guidelines for GCS to support routine beyond-line-of-sight UAS operations in the national airspace system (NAS). In contrast to regulations, guidelines are not mandatory requirements. However, by encapsulating solutions to identified problems or areas of risk, guidelines can provide assistance to system developers, users and regulatory agencies. To be effective, guidelines must be relevant to a wide range of systems, must not be overly prescriptive, and must not impose premature standardization on evolving technologies. By assuming that a pilot will be responsible for each UAS operating in the NAS, and that the aircraft will be required to operate in a manner comparable to conventionally piloted aircraft, it is possible to identify a generic set of pilot tasks and the information, control and communication requirements needed to support these tasks. Areas where guidelines will be useful can then be identified, utilizing information from simulations, operational experience and the human factors literature. In developing guidelines, we recognize that existing regulatory and guidance material will, at times, provide adequate coverage of an area. In other cases suitable guidelines may be found in existing military or industry human factors standards. In cases where appropriate existing standards cannot be identified, original guidelines will be proposed

Human-Autonomy Teaming: Supporting Dynamically Adjustable Collaboration

This presentation is a technical update for the NATO-STO HFM-247 working group. Our progress on four goals will be discussed. For Goal 1, a conceptual model of HAT is presented. HAT looks to make automation act as more of a teammate, by having it communicate with human operators in a more human, goal-directed, manner which provides transparency into the reasoning behind automated recommendations and actions. This, in turn, permits more trust in the automation when it is appropriate, and less when it is not, allowing a more targeted supervision of automated functions. For Goal 2, we wanted to test these concepts and principles. We present findings from a recent simulation and describe two in progress. Goal 3 was to develop pattern(s) of HAT solution(s). These were originally presented at HCII 2016 and are reviewed. Goal 4 is to develop a re-usable HAT software agent. This is an ongoing effort to be delivered October 2017

If Human Error Is the Cause of Most Aviation Accidents, Then Shouldn't We Remove the Human?

Human error is listed as the primary factor of 75 of aviation accidents. This has helped drive the adoption of automation on the flight deck. This presentation suggests that humans should not be kept entirely out of the loop in the cockpit, and provides examples to support the claim

Single Operator Control of Multiple UAS: A Supervisory Delegation Approach

This presentation will be given as part of the UAS EXCOM Science and Research Panel's (SARP) workshop on multiple UAS controlled by a single operator. Participants were asked to identify public use cases for multiple Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) control and identify research, policy, and technical gaps in those operations. The purpose of this workshop is to brainstorm, categorize, and prioritize those use cases and gaps. Here, I will discuss research performed on this topic when I worked for the Army and on-going work within the division and a NATO working group on Human-Autonomy Teaming

Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Integration in the National Airspace System (NAS) Project: Project Overview

NASA's Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Integration in the National Airspace System (NAS) Project (UAS-NAS) and the UAS Executive Committee (EXCOM) Science and Research Panel (SARP) invite you to attend the 2nd Workshop on Human-Automation Interaction Considerations for UAS Integration. A follow on to the workshop hosted by the National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine, this two-day workshop aims to tackle two critical issues for UAS integration in the NAS being addressed by NASA and the SARP: control of multiple UAS by a single, or multiple, operators (multi-UAS), and automatic collision avoidance (auto-CA). Attendees will be asked to generate real humanautomation architecture and human machine interface solutions for these problems during interactive breakout sessions. Attendance is limited to select government and academia invitees only. This presentation is an overview to the project

Pilot Aircraft Interface Objectives/Rationale

Objective: Database and proof of concept for guidelines for GCS compliance a) Rationale: 1) Provide research test-bed to develop guidelines. 2) Modify GCS for NAS Compliance to provide proof of concept. b) Approach: 1) Assess current state of GCS technology. 2) Information Requirements Definition. 3) SME Workshop. 4) Modify an Existing GCS for NAS Compliance. 5) Define exemplar UAS (choose system to develop prototype). 6) Define Candidate Displays & Controls. 7) Evaluate/ refine in Simulations. 8) Demonstrate in flight. c) Deliverables: 1) Information Requirements Report. 2) Workshop Proceedings. 3) Technical Reports/ papers on Simulations & Flight Demo. 4) Database for guidelines

Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Integration in the National Airspace System (NAS) Project: Detect and Avoid

This presentation is a review of detect and avoid (DAA) research conducted over the last five years in support of RTCCA SC 228