220
Sensemaking in Safety Critical and Complex Situations
goalS anD objectiveS
• Establish similarity between CW and UAS GCS IO devices.
• Establish similarity of IO device usage between CWs and UAS GCS.
• Establish applicability of sensemaking data/f rame model and ANSI/HFES-100 to AIB reports to capture the HF/ E in UAS GCS IO interface to
reduce UAS mishaps.
hyPotheSiS
The following three hypotheses were formed:
• H 1 : The application of sensemaking coupled with “ ANSI/ HFES-100”
standard to help identify and resolve HF/ E in GCS IO interface design
for Groups 2 through 5 UAS GCS could minimize HF/ E impact on UAS
operation.
• H 2 : The “A NSI/ H FES-100 2007” standard’s IO category applies to Groups
2 through 5 UAS GCS IO interfaces.
• H 3 : The IO devices used by Groups 2 through 5 of UAS GCS are similar to
those listed in the CW “ ANSI/ HFES-100” standard’s IO category.
If both hypotheses H2 and H3 apply, then H1 may also apply. The relationship between
research questions and hypotheses is illustrated in Figure 13.5.
reSearch DeSign
The CW IO devices are relatively similar to the ones used in UAS GCS. Waraich
(2 013) studied 20 GCS and found that 98% of IO devices and their usage in the GCS
were similar to that of CWs (W araich, Mazzuchi, Shahram, & Rico, 2013). The study
was limited to U.S. DoD UAS. Since then, great strides have been made in civilian
side of UAS industry. Therefore, it is imperative to update 2013 study to reassess its
findings and to include UAS from the civilian sectors as well.
To update this study, a research in public domain resulted in 75-candidate UAS
from Groups 2 through 5 (2 018 RPAS Yearbook, 2018). Further research eliminated
30 of the UAS due to their noncompliance with fixed GCS requirement. This resulted
with 45 UAS GCS on a shortlist for this study; program managers, engineers, and
operators were contacted to evaluate their willingness to support this study.
This study will be conducted in three phases described below:
Phase I (Q uantitative): Identifies IO devices used in study of UAS GCS. The
data collected will be utilized in phase II.
Phase II (Q uantitative): List of GCS IO devices from phase I, will help generate
phase II questioner to help evaluate the similarities of IO devices usage between the
GCS and CW. Under both “ normal operation” and “ emergency operations.”
Phase III ( Quantitative/ Qualitative): Sensemaking data/f rame model will
be applied both quantitatively and qualitatively to the AIB report’s HF/ E section.
It may help extract information overlooked by the taxonomy used for AIB report
Sensemaking in Safety Critical and Complex Situations
goalS anD objectiveS
• Establish similarity between CW and UAS GCS IO devices.
• Establish similarity of IO device usage between CWs and UAS GCS.
• Establish applicability of sensemaking data/f rame model and ANSI/HFES-100 to AIB reports to capture the HF/ E in UAS GCS IO interface to
reduce UAS mishaps.
hyPotheSiS
The following three hypotheses were formed:
• H 1 : The application of sensemaking coupled with “ ANSI/ HFES-100”
standard to help identify and resolve HF/ E in GCS IO interface design
for Groups 2 through 5 UAS GCS could minimize HF/ E impact on UAS
operation.
• H 2 : The “A NSI/ H FES-100 2007” standard’s IO category applies to Groups
2 through 5 UAS GCS IO interfaces.
• H 3 : The IO devices used by Groups 2 through 5 of UAS GCS are similar to
those listed in the CW “ ANSI/ HFES-100” standard’s IO category.
If both hypotheses H2 and H3 apply, then H1 may also apply. The relationship between
research questions and hypotheses is illustrated in Figure 13.5.
reSearch DeSign
The CW IO devices are relatively similar to the ones used in UAS GCS. Waraich
(2 013) studied 20 GCS and found that 98% of IO devices and their usage in the GCS
were similar to that of CWs (W araich, Mazzuchi, Shahram, & Rico, 2013). The study
was limited to U.S. DoD UAS. Since then, great strides have been made in civilian
side of UAS industry. Therefore, it is imperative to update 2013 study to reassess its
findings and to include UAS from the civilian sectors as well.
To update this study, a research in public domain resulted in 75-candidate UAS
from Groups 2 through 5 (2 018 RPAS Yearbook, 2018). Further research eliminated
30 of the UAS due to their noncompliance with fixed GCS requirement. This resulted
with 45 UAS GCS on a shortlist for this study; program managers, engineers, and
operators were contacted to evaluate their willingness to support this study.
This study will be conducted in three phases described below:
Phase I (Q uantitative): Identifies IO devices used in study of UAS GCS. The
data collected will be utilized in phase II.
Phase II (Q uantitative): List of GCS IO devices from phase I, will help generate
phase II questioner to help evaluate the similarities of IO devices usage between the
GCS and CW. Under both “ normal operation” and “ emergency operations.”
Phase III ( Quantitative/ Qualitative): Sensemaking data/f rame model will
be applied both quantitatively and qualitatively to the AIB report’s HF/ E section.
It may help extract information overlooked by the taxonomy used for AIB report