211
Application of Sensemaking
include American National Standards Institute (A NSI)/H FES-100 for human factors Engineering of computer workstation, NASA- STD-3000 for Man-System
Integration, ISO 6385 for Ergonomic Design of Control Systems ( that sets out the
broad principles of ergonomics), ISO 26800 Ergonomics, ISO 11064 for Ergonomic
Design of Control Centres, ISA SP101 for Human–Machine Interface, and ISO 9241
covering ergonomics of human–computer interaction.
Similarly, the UAS mishap investigation lacks proper unmanned specific tools
( and sometimes competencies) to uncover HF/E i ssues in the UAS GCS input/ output
(I O) interface to provide a long-lasting solution by eliminating HF/ E issues and adding resilience to its design. Therefore, the manned aircraft investigation taxonomies/
models are being used to prepare the Accident Investigation Board (A IB) reports for
UAS mishaps.
Over the years, a large majority of UAS GCS are looking more and more like
the computer workstation ( CW) setup; therefore, the application of ANSI/ H FES-100
may help reduce the HF/ E -related mishaps ( Waraich, Mazzuchi, Shahram, & Rico,
2013). This study was conducted more than 7 years ago, but there continues to be
some complacency related to HF/E i ssues that continue to persist. If GCS are resembling CW, then HF/E s tandards for CW (i .e., ANSI/H FES-100) shall be applicable
to the UAS GCS.
This study takes a t wo-part approach: first, to reconfirm whether ANSI/ HFES-100
still applies and second to explore the possibility of applying sensemaking to uncover
the hidden HF/ E listed in the AIB reports, along with the application of ANSI/ -
HFES-100 to mitigate such HF/ E.
The term sensemaking refers to simply making sense of the situation at hand, both
in terms of system expectations and reality. Sensemaking allows viewing human
error as a symptom of the problem rather than being the cause (K ilskar, Danielsen, &
Johnsen, 2020). It may help improve the focus on HF/ E in control of UAS (t hrough
GCS) and add the much-needed resilience to the UAS and GCS design.
BACKGROUND
uaS hiStory
Majority of human history is marred with conflicts. Gaining superiority over one’s
enemy led to research for such superior weapon. The oldest know unmanned aerial
penetration had been attempted more than a century prior to the infamous Wright
Brother’s aircraft flight at Kitty Hawk, with varying levels of ground control.
• In 1806, Lord Thomas Cochrane flew kites from the decks of Royal Navy
frigate HMS Pallas (1 757–1783) to drop propaganda leaflets, no ground controls were used.
• In 1849, General Uchatius bombarded the city of Venice, Italy, with balloon
bombs, no ground controls were used.
• In 1898, the unmanned systems control mechanism improved substantially
when Nikola Tesla wirelessly controlled a small boat ( Miessner, 1916; Tesla,
1898)
Application of Sensemaking
include American National Standards Institute (A NSI)/H FES-100 for human factors Engineering of computer workstation, NASA- STD-3000 for Man-System
Integration, ISO 6385 for Ergonomic Design of Control Systems ( that sets out the
broad principles of ergonomics), ISO 26800 Ergonomics, ISO 11064 for Ergonomic
Design of Control Centres, ISA SP101 for Human–Machine Interface, and ISO 9241
covering ergonomics of human–computer interaction.
Similarly, the UAS mishap investigation lacks proper unmanned specific tools
( and sometimes competencies) to uncover HF/E i ssues in the UAS GCS input/ output
(I O) interface to provide a long-lasting solution by eliminating HF/ E issues and adding resilience to its design. Therefore, the manned aircraft investigation taxonomies/
models are being used to prepare the Accident Investigation Board (A IB) reports for
UAS mishaps.
Over the years, a large majority of UAS GCS are looking more and more like
the computer workstation ( CW) setup; therefore, the application of ANSI/ H FES-100
may help reduce the HF/ E -related mishaps ( Waraich, Mazzuchi, Shahram, & Rico,
2013). This study was conducted more than 7 years ago, but there continues to be
some complacency related to HF/E i ssues that continue to persist. If GCS are resembling CW, then HF/E s tandards for CW (i .e., ANSI/H FES-100) shall be applicable
to the UAS GCS.
This study takes a t wo-part approach: first, to reconfirm whether ANSI/ HFES-100
still applies and second to explore the possibility of applying sensemaking to uncover
the hidden HF/ E listed in the AIB reports, along with the application of ANSI/ -
HFES-100 to mitigate such HF/ E.
The term sensemaking refers to simply making sense of the situation at hand, both
in terms of system expectations and reality. Sensemaking allows viewing human
error as a symptom of the problem rather than being the cause (K ilskar, Danielsen, &
Johnsen, 2020). It may help improve the focus on HF/ E in control of UAS (t hrough
GCS) and add the much-needed resilience to the UAS and GCS design.
BACKGROUND
uaS hiStory
Majority of human history is marred with conflicts. Gaining superiority over one’s
enemy led to research for such superior weapon. The oldest know unmanned aerial
penetration had been attempted more than a century prior to the infamous Wright
Brother’s aircraft flight at Kitty Hawk, with varying levels of ground control.
• In 1806, Lord Thomas Cochrane flew kites from the decks of Royal Navy
frigate HMS Pallas (1 757–1783) to drop propaganda leaflets, no ground controls were used.
• In 1849, General Uchatius bombarded the city of Venice, Italy, with balloon
bombs, no ground controls were used.
• In 1898, the unmanned systems control mechanism improved substantially
when Nikola Tesla wirelessly controlled a small boat ( Miessner, 1916; Tesla,
1898)