Development of a Human Performance Model of a UAV Sensor Operator: Lessons Learned

Abstract

Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing this collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information , 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number. PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ADDRESS. REPORT DATE (DD-MM-YYYY)2. REPORT TYPE 3. DATES COVERED (From -To) Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES ABSTRACTThis report consists of five parts. Part one introduces the concepts of human-in-the-loop (HITL) virtual simulation, modeling and constructive simulation, and the human as an information processor. Part two introduces the constructive modeling tool used in the current study, the Combat Automation Requirements Testbed (CART), and briefly reviews two recent case studies where it was applied. Part three describes the effort to develop an in-house constructive simulation capability. Part four documents the development of a human performance model (HPM) for an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) sensor operator (SO) . HPM development activities included the creation of a mission scenario, identification of functions and tasks performed by a UAV SO on a typical mission, and model development (e.g., function and task decomposition, workload and response time estimation, and modeling). Part five summarizes lessons learned and proposes potential future activities. SUBJECT TERMSConstructive simulation, unmanned aerial vehicles, human performance models virtual simulation, modeling and constructive simulation, and the human as an information processor.Part two introduces the constructive modeling tool used in the current study, the Combat AutomationRequirements Testbed (CART), and briefly reviews two recent case studies where it was applied. Part three describes the effort to develop an in-house constructive simulation capability. Part four documents the development of a human performance model (HPM) for an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) sensor operator (SO). HPM development activities included the creation of a mission scenario, identification of functions and tasks performed by a UAV SO on a typical mission, and model development (e.g., function and task decomposition, workload and response time estimation, and modeling). Part five summarizes lessons learned and proposes potential future activities.

UAV Operator Human Performance Models

“…The target aircraft at a commercial airport (Petkosek et al, 2005) Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) are being employed in increasing numbers in military airspaces and are anticipated to begin to find a role in commercial airspaces as well. From a controls perspective, today's UAVs are idiosyncratic with each UAV type presenting a unique set of operating instruments and procedures to their operators.…”

“…In the scenario selected for the use case, the UAV team conducted a surveillance operation at a commercial airport where several armed agents were loading and fueling an aircraft (referred to hereafter as the target aircraft) in preparation for their departure. The scenario was derived from related UAV crew modeling research effort by Petkosek, Warfield, and Carretta (2005). Figure 1 reproduced from Petkosek et al (2005) provides a view of the scene at the airport.…”

“…The scenario was derived from related UAV crew modeling research effort by Petkosek, Warfield, and Carretta (2005). Figure 1 reproduced from Petkosek et al (2005) provides a view of the scene at the airport. Figure 1 The target aircraft at a commercial airport (Petkosek et al, 2005) The implementation of the scenario required models for the various human players and active vehicles some of which are seen in Figure 1.…”

“…Figure 1 reproduced from Petkosek et al (2005) provides a view of the scene at the airport. Figure 1 The target aircraft at a commercial airport (Petkosek et al, 2005) The implementation of the scenario required models for the various human players and active vehicles some of which are seen in Figure 1. The human players included the armed agents controlling operations related to the target aircraft, the personnel fueling and loading or unloading the aircraft, the aircrews for the target aircraft as well as the other aircraft at the adjacent terminals, and the air traffic controllers managing local aircraft operations including that of the departing target aircraft.…”

“…Previous work provided a model for the Charlotte/Douglas International Airport that included runways and taxiways to which we added two terminals to create an airport environment similar to that as outlined in Petkosek et al (2005). Figure 2 provides a D-OMAR screen view of the airport's terminals, runways, and taxiways.…”