UAS Human Factors, Ethics and Morality

    The introduction of unmanned aircraft into the battlefield has dramatically changed the future of warfare. Unmanned aircraft technology has seen tremendous growth since the humble beginnings in WWII to the current iterations of the technology. However, as with the evolution of any new technology, there are some concerns. Therefore, in order to best know if unmanned aircraft should be used for remote warfare, there are a few things that must be explored. They are the advantages as well as disadvantages of unmanned aerial combat over manned aerial combat, and the projected future of unmanned aerial systems, or UAS. It is clear that UAS platforms bring a capability to the battlefield lacking in previous generations of warfare.
    From the dawn of its existence, UAS platforms have strived to alleviate the dull, dangerous, and difficult tasks away from manned platforms. Especially of recent, with the emergence of many types of UAS platforms, we have seen a significant evolution in the operational concept of UAS platforms, giving battlefield commanders more flexibility and options. The current conflicts in which the U.S. and coalition partners engage in is a type of counter-insurgency warfare. As such the surveillance and even engagement of enemy combatants is difficult due to the limitations manned aircraft have by having a pilot in the seat. These aircraft, while highly capable war machines… are incapable of persistent stare, to include before and after enemy combatant engagement (Neil, 2011). Furthermore, the technology in the majority of the military’s UAS platforms allows commanders to reduce the decision time between target acquisition and enemy engagement. For example, during Desert Storm, it would take at least five days and multiple aircraft to detect, relay, confirm, and engage a target (Callam, 2010). Today one MQ-1 Predator could accomplish that task in 5 minutes. These are only a few of the benefits gained from UAS platforms. Despite the benefits, removing the pilot from the flight deck does not make a perfect combat platform.
    As is seen regularly on the news, UAS platforms have some downsides. One of the largest issues is the high probability for crashes. According to the Elliott school of International Affairs at George Washington University, the Predator crashes 43 times per 100K flying hours compared to typical manned aircraft which crashes 2 times per 100K (Callam, 2010). Although the price of most UAS platforms is relatively cheaper than manned aircraft; the number of crashes does end up costing the government more in the long run. Another issue plaguing, UAS platforms are the handoff or aircraft control migration issues. Most UAS platforms have the capability to be controlled via beyond-line-of-sight communication links. The issue that arises is that these links are not 100% reliable. They can be jammed or lost due to terrain or weather (Callam, 2010). In the end, as pilots transfer control of aircraft between one ground control station to another, the loss of signal can and often does lead to mishaps. However, these are all known issues and engineers are actively working to find solutions.
    One such solution is to revolutionize what a UAS is. Up until recently, UAS platforms were relatively slow, had a limited range and were barely capable of thinking and acting for themselves. A new wave of UAS platforms aims to change all of this. They are called unmanned combat aerial vehicles, or UCAVs. These new platforms are faster and smarter than the previous generation. Furthermore, these UCAVs are only the beginning. In the next few years, we may see fleets of unmanned systems designed to operate together, bridging the gap where there may be vulnerabilities. For example, a squadron of UCAVs may be flying in an area controlled by a long-endurance UAS whose mission is to bridge the potential communication link gap between the UCAVs and the satellites in orbit. If these future technologies hold true the use of unmanned aircraft for remote warfare makes sense.
    As one can imagine, the use of new technology does bring fears and concern. What we need to be most concerned with is if these fears are valid or if they are simply fears of change. Unmanned aviation is at an evolutionary crossroads, similar to manned aircraft after WWII. We have the technology and the maturity to ensure that the next 50 years sees positive growth in the variation of technological evolution.

References
Callam, A. (2010). Drone Wars: Armed Unmanned Aerial Vehicles. International Affairs Review. George Washington University's Elliott School of International Affairs. Retrieved from http://www.iar-gwu.org/node/144
Neil, G. (2011, October 8). Why the future of air power belongs to unmanned systems. Retrieved from The Economist.com: http://www.economist.com/node/21531433

Case Analysis Effectiveness

As this ASCI 638 – Human Factors in Unmanned Aero Systems class comes to an end, I have realized that I have honestly learned the most about human factors of UAS through the Case Analysis tool. While the discussion and research topics were intriguing and thought-provoking; for an online class they don’t compare to what I would have gained from a face-to-face experience… the true perspectives of my peers. With that said, the Case Analysis tool essentially gave me a deep, well-rounded knowledge, comprehension, and application of UAS concepts. The Case Analysis tool allowed me to explore not only my topic handoff issues in UAS but the history and future of unmanned aviation. Seeing as though I started my Air Force career in aircraft maintenance (KC-135 Crew Chief) it is only fitting that I attempt to see how this experience will help me now and in the future, as well as, what could be improved upon with the Case Analysis tool to help future students.

Currently, I am a satellite system operator. In other words, I ensure, satellites are healthy and stay in orbit. As the technology of UAS advances and evolves, it will be the use of satellites that will assist along the way. All of the UAS platforms which use beyond line-of-sight commanding, use satellites to relay the signal between the ground control station, or GCS, and the aircraft itself. Right now, I make sure the satellite is there to relay the signal. In the recent years, the accurate position of satellites, as well as the health and safety of the satellite are much more of a concern, especially for constellations such as GPS and the various communication constellations. As an enlisted satellite system operator, it is sometimes challenging to understand the importance the work we do and how it contributes to signal recipients on the ground and in the air. However, like most of my space brethren, we are always looking for a challenge and the recent Air Force introduction of the enlisted unmanned pilot allows us to do just so.

In the next year or so, I plan to transition over and become a pilot of remotely piloted aircraft, or RPA, platforms. As such my Case Analysis tool was purposely steered in the direction of military UAS operations so I can expand my knowledge of the field. Currently, the Air Force is attempting to remedy the lack of interest and retainability in the RPA field by allowing the enlisted member to operate unmanned aircraft. What is particularly attractive to me is the desire to model the enlisted pilot program after the enlisted space operator program, of which I have extensive experience. With the knowledge gained from ASCI 638, especially the Case Analysis tool, my hope is I can be a sounding board for evolution and advancement of RPA operations for the Air Force. However, there are a few things that I feel that could be added to ASCI 638, which would have better prepare me for what is to come.

It is an honor to be able to provide recommendations to make ASCI 638 truly better for future students. If given the opportunity to improve the Case Analysis tool process, I would remove the multimedia project and add more peer-to-peer collaboration. The multimedia project was an interesting way for me to regurgitate my extensive Case Analysis project onto PowerPoint slides. But in the end… it did not add to the learning process. One thing that could be added in its place to greatly enhance the learning process is the collaboration with classmates. While I’m not entirely sure what this would look like, I do know I really appreciated the feedback from my peers on the Case Analysis tool draft. Additionally, I liked being able to read their drafts. This allowed me to increase my knowledge of UAS issues and gain some innovative perspectives on solutions.

All in all, I liked the Case Analysis tool. The project allowed me to explore UAS in a way I would not have without the structure and guidance. There are two minor things I would recommend in the future: remove the multimedia project and include more peer-to-peer collaboration. With these recommendations, ASCI 638 will hopefully be a very popular class.

UAS Crew Member Selection

            As is well known by most companies seeking entry into the National Airspace System, or NAS, any aircraft wishing to operate in the NAS must have a certified and registered aircraft, pilots who are licensed, and have operational approval by the FAA.  In the effort to remain in line with current and future federal law regarding the operation of unmanned aerial systems, or UAS, in the NAS; it is the recommendation of Brown Consulting Inc. that the Oceanic Environmental Research Consolidated seek Section 333 Exemption in order to operate civil UAS in the NAS. The Section 333 Exemption, is a request to the U.S Sectary of Transportation asking for permission to operate in the NAS for commercial purposes (Federal Aviation Administration, 2016). Once requested, Oceanic Environmental Research Consolidated can begin to seek qualified members to operate its UAS platforms.

            Each platform, the Insitu Scan Eagle and the Ikhana UAS, will each need a logistics support team, consisting of aircraft maintenance and equipment transportation. As for the operational crews, there will need to be enough operators to support the desired mission requirements, especially if round-the-clock operations are necessary. Each platform will have different operator hire requirements, however, prior to employment potential members must complete company CRM training and mission familiarization. Furthermore, prior to qualification both series of operational crews must be physically fit in order to reduce health related incidents during future active missions. Between the two UAS platforms, the Insitu Scan Eagle will need the least amount of experience but require the most company training.

            The Insitu Scan Eagle is a simple yet flexible unmanned aircraft, capable of many payload configurations. However, regardless of the all the aircraft configurations, Insitu’s Common open-mission Management Command and Control, or ICOMC2, allows one operator to control one or multiple vehicles from a single laptop workstation (Institu Inc., 2016). This means that Oceanic Environmental Research Consolidated can keep this platform’s crew size to a maximum of one person. In order to hire the correct person for this operator position, a particular set of skills and requirements are needed. The minimum set of skills and requirements needed are:

·         A third-class Airman Medical Certificate

·         Bachelor’s degree in the aviation field

·         Experience and proficiency with basic Pilot/ATC phraseology

·         Excellent planning skills, including flight operations and airspace de-confliction

·         Experience with aviation safety rules and procedures

·         Excellent verbal and written communication skills

·         Be able to read, speak, write, and understand the English language.

These requirements were selected in order to attract the most capable individuals while adhering to FAA pilot regulations. Once individuals are identified as a potential hire, the Oceanic Environmental Research Consolidated will need to conduct a basic to moderate flight aptitude test. This is to ensure the potential pilot operator has enough of an understanding of aviation principles in order to aid the automation conducted by the ICOMC2. Furthermore, based on the requirements Oceanic Environmental Research Consolidated will need to work with or contract help from Insitu, or another capable agency, to train the selected aircraft operators on the initial operation of the Scan Eagle. Once trained by Insitu, Scan Eagle operators would then undergo a series of evaluations by Oceanic Environmental Research Consolidated to ensure the operator is capable of operating the aircraft for environmental research needs. Lastly, as mentioned in the previous paragraph, it is highly recommended that Oceanic Environmental Research Consolidated educate operators in CRM, pertinent operator refresher courses (e.g. simulator time, advanced operational courses, etc.) and any other professional development deemed necessary. In order to maximize the range and capability of the environmental research, Oceanic Environmental Research Consolidated will also need to seek and hire capable Ikhana UAS operators.

            The Ikhana UAS is an unarmed variation of the MQ-1 Predator B, also known as the MQ-9 Reaper, UAS platform. This UAS is an extremely advanced platform, capable of carrying over 2K lbs. in payload equipment. Additionally, just like the Insitu Scan Eagle, the Ikhana is a flexible system capable of many scientific sensor and instrument configurations. However, because the Ikhana UAS at its core is still a MQ-1B/MQ-9, it utilizes a similar ground control station or GCS. The typical MQ-1B/MQ-9 GCS consists of two main operator positions, a pilot operator in the left seat and a sensor ball operator in the right seat. In some variations of the MQ-1B/MQ-9 GCS set up, an engineer or communication equipment expert sits toward the back of the GCS to aid in potential communication issues with the aircraft. For Oceanic Environmental Research Consolidated’s purposes it is the recommendation of Brown Consulting Inc. that the engineer or communication equipment expert be part of the aforementioned logistics team and not part of the Ikhana UAS crew. Therefore, the conscious crew for Ikhana missions will be comprised of two people… the pilot operator and the sensor ball operator. In order to hire the most effective members for these positions, a particular set of skills and requirements will be needed. The minimum set of skills and requirements needed are:

·         Private pilot’s license w/ IFR ratings

·         A first-class medical certificate

·         At least 500 flight hours

·         Experience and proficiency with basic Pilot/ATC phraseology

·         Excellent planning skills, including flight operations and airspace de-confliction

·         Experience with aviation safety rules and procedures

·         Excellent verbal and written communication skills

·         Be able to read, speak, write, and understand the English language.

Due to the fact that the Ikhana UAS is capable of operating at 40,000 ft. above ground level, or operate in a Class A airspace, the pilot operator will need to have the appropriate training and flight ratings to operate in this airspace. Additionally, the pilot operator may potentially operate the aircraft using beyond line-of-sight satellite links, requiring much more flight experience to communicate with the applicable air traffic controllers. As for training on the Ikhana UAS platform, the same training and certification methods for the Insitu Scan Eagle will be applicable here. Oceanic Environmental Research Consolidated will need to work with, contract, or employ assistance from General Atomics, or another agency (i.e. the U.S. Air Force), to train the selected aircraft operators on the initial operation of the Ikhana UAS. However, prior to attending the aircraft familiarization, potential Ikhana UAS pilot and sensor operators should undergo a series of evaluations by Oceanic Environmental Research Consolidated to ensure the operator is capable of operating the aircraft for environmental research needs. This will screen each member to determine who may succeed in the instructional courses on how to operate the aircraft. Furthermore, because the Ikhana UAS will operate beyond line-of-sight and require sound coordination between crew members, it is highly recommended that Oceanic Environmental Research Consolidated educate operators in CRM, especially communication and problem solving.

            In the end, both platforms will require specific operation training from the respective manufacturers. Additionally, both will require an examination of the crew’s ability to operate the aircrafts while conducting the specific missions of Oceanic Environmental Research Consolidated. Lastly, each UAS operator will need to earn and maintain all applicable pilot licenses, certificates, and ratings in order to effectively and legally fly in the NAS.

References

Conner, M. (2015, November 16). NASA Armstrong Fact Sheet: Ikhana Predator B Unmanned Science and Research Aircraft System. Retrieved from NASA.gov: http://www.nasa.gov/centers/armstrong/news/FactSheets/FS-097-DFRC.html

Federal Aviation Administration. (2016, May 12). Section 333. Retrieved from FAA.Gov: http://www.faa.gov/uas/legislative_programs/section_333/

Institu Inc. (2016). Command and Control. Retrieved from Insitu.com: https://insitu.com/information-delivery/command-and-control/icomc2

Medical certificates: Requirement and duration. (2016, May 10). 14 C.F.R. pt 61. Retrieved from http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?type=simple;c=ecfr;cc=ecfr;sid=85f2f758c7572cf6fd784c355d1c55a1;idno=14;region=DIV1;q1=61.23;rgn=div8;view=text;node=14%3A2.0.1.1.2.1.1.17

National Transportation Safety Board. (n.d.). NTSB Identification: CHI06MA121. Retrieved from NTSB.gov: http://www.ntsb.gov/about/employment/_layouts/ntsb.aviation/brief2.aspx?ev_id=20060509X00531&ntsbno=CHI06MA121&akey=1

UAS Operational Risk Management

            The rapid rise of unmanned aerial systems, or UAS, into the Earth’s airspace is being led by companies like Lockheed Martin. Currently, Lockheed Martin has developed a new generation of UAS which is smaller, lighter and more agile than previous generations. Lockheed Martin is calling their new type of small UAS, or sUAS, the Indago sUAS. This platform is a quadrotor aircraft, which allows military, law enforcement, and commercial users a quick way to see what’s going on within an area through its versatile payload options (Lockheed Martin, 2016). However despite the new capabilities, the Indago sUAS platform is still requires users be aware of potential hazards and risks during operations. In the effort to aid users in the safety assessment of the Indago sUAS during a military disaster relief operation, a few safety assessment tools will be discussed and used. They are the preliminary hazard list/assessment, the operational hazard review and analysis, and lastly, the sUAS risk assessment form. To truly understand the risks associated with operating the Indago sUAS during a disaster relief operation; users must start with the preliminary hazard list/assessment.

            The preliminary hazard list/assessment, or PHL/A, should be the starting tool in any operation. This tool is designed to be a forum in which the users brainstorm potential hazards and the risks associated with those hazards. To be comprehensive, users should be conducting the PHL/A tool for each of the five phases of a sUAS operation (Shappee, 2012). For the purposes of comprehension, we will complete a PHL/A list for a simulated hurricane disaster relief operation on the island of Oahu, in the state of Hawaii. We will be specifically looking at the staging phase of the operation.

	PRELIMINARY HAZARD LIST/ANALYSIS (PHL/A)
DATE: ________		PREPARED BY: ______________________				Page ___ OF ____
Operational Stage:		□ Planning       □ Staging        □ Launch       □ Flight        □ Recovery
Track #	Hazard	Probability	Severity	RL	Mitigating Action	RRL	Notes
1	Birds	Improbable	Marginal	4	Avoid clusters of trees	2
2	Other Aircraft	Remote	Catastrophic	6	Contact local ATC when operating near used airspace	4
3	Poor lighting	Remote	Marginal	4	Ensure payload camera backlight feature is functional	2
4	Difficult terrain	Frequent	Critical	9	Use onboard cameras and sound communication with ground personnel to avoid hazards	7

Table 1: Preliminary Hazard List/Analysis (PHL/A) Tool

            With the PHL/A tool complete; now is the time to investigate hazards through the entire operation.  The operational hazard review and analysis, or OHR&A, is a vital step in operations which are underway because it provides immediate insight to figure out if the actions taken to reduce hazards and risks have worked (Shappee, 2012). The OHR&A tool looks almost identical to the PHL/A tool and in fact it appears to have been designed that way. Risks and hazards listed on the PHL/A tool are still monitored and tracked on the OHR&A tool, and as such should, have tracking numbers which match up. To continue with the comprehension of the OHR&A tool, Table 2: Operational Hazard Review & Analysis Tool below, is a filled out OHR&A sheet for a simulated hurricane disaster relief operation on the island of Oahu, in the state of Hawaii.

	OPERATIONAL HAZARD REVIEW & ANALYSIS (OHR&A)
DATE: ________		PREPARED BY: ______________________				Page ___ OF ____
Operational Stage:		□ Planning       □ Staging        □ Launch       □ Flight        □ Recovery
Track #	Action Review	Probability	Severity	RL	Mitigating Action	RRL	Notes
1	Lost comms	Remote	Catastrophic	7	Establish an alternate line-of sight link	5
2	Long flight hours (CRM)	Probable	Critical	9	Enforce proper crew rest, ensure adequate number of crews	3
3	Difficult terrain	Occasional	Critical	5	Survey area before proceeding into hazardous area	2

Table 2: Operational Hazard Review & Analysis Tool

            Now that the OHR&A tool is complete, Indigo sUAS users can now apply a risk assessment tool to aid in determining if they should go ahead with the operation, reschedule, or call it off. Additionally, if the crew decides to proceed with the operation, the risk assessment tool will be a crucial element in briefing the oncoming crew as well as, a useful starting point in the avoidance of risks and hazards (Shappee, 2012). Table below is a replica of the tool used by the military and the airline industry applied to our scenario of a simulated hurricane on the island of Oahu, in the state of Hawaii.

sUAS RISK ASSESSMENT
UAS Crew/Station	_______________/_____			_______________/_____
	_______________/_____			_______________/_____
Mission Type	SUPPORT 1	TRAINING 2	PAYLOAD CHECK 3	EXPERIMENTAL 4
Hardware Changes	NO 1			YES 4
Software Changes	NO 1			YES 4
Airspace Of Operation	Special Use 1	Class C 2	Class C 3	Class E, G 4
Has PIC Flown This Type Of Aircraft	YES 1			NO 4
Flight Condition	DAY 1			NIGHT 4
Visibility	> 10 MILES 1	6-9 MILES 2	3-5 MILES 3	< 3 MILES 4
Ceiling In Feet AGL	> 10,000 1	3000-4900 2	1000-2900 3	< 1000 4
Surface Winds		0-10 KTS 2	11-15 KTS 3
Forecast Winds		0-10 KTS 2	11-15 KTS 3
Weather Deteriorating	NO 1			YES 4
Mission Altitude In Feet AGL		<1000 2	1000-2900 3	> 3000 4
Are All Crew Members Current	YES 1		NO 3	CURRENCY FLIGHT REQUIRED
Other Range/Airspace Activity	NO 1			YES 4
Established Lost Link Procedures	YES 1			NO NO FLIGHT
Observation Type	Line of Sight & Chase 1		Chase Only 3	Line of Sight & Only 4
UAS Grouping	GROUP I 1	GROUP II 2	GROUP III 3	GROUP IV 4
Total	8	6	12	8	34
	RISK LEVEL
	20-30	31-40	41-50	51-64
	LOW	MEDIUM	SERIOUS	HIGH

            As the risk analysis shows, the risk level for sending the Indago sUAS out to aid in disaster relief of a hurricane in Oahu, Hawaii carries a medium level of risk. However, users need to be aware of and fully engaged with looking for and mitigating risks as they arise. In either case, the use of all these tools will greatly enhance the capabilities of the users in determining risks and hazards.

References

Lockheed Martin. (2016). Indago UAS. Retrieved from Lockheed Martin.com: http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/products/procerus/indago-uas.html

Shappee, E. J. (2012). Safety Assessments. In R. K. Barnhart, S. B. Hottman , D. M. Marshall, E. Shappee, R. K. Barnhart, S. B. Hottman, D. M. Marshall, & E. Shappee (Eds.), Introduction to Unmanned Aircraft Systems (pp. 123-136). Boca Raton, Florida, United States of America: CRC Press.