231
Application of Sensemaking
in middle position on camera mode and then switched over to flight mode, then the
condition lever controls the UAS fuel and can shut down its engine midflight, leading
to catastrophic results.
Based on this newfound information, one can argue that the AIB mishap report
is accurate. Nevertheless, the condition lever mode information cannot be simply
ignored. This significantly highlights the fact that such a safety-critical function of
controlling the fuel flow to the engine shall not be tied to a condition lever which is
being used for other nonflight essential purposes in another modes.
When trying to apply ANSI/ H FES-100 as it currently stands, there is no direct reference to condition lever. Although the standard does state that when keys have collateral function, their mode of operation shall be clearly indicated ( ANSI/ H FES-100,
2007). Therefore, the combined application of sensemaking and ANSI/ HFES-100
standard can not only capture the hidden HF/ E in the GCS but may also find a viable
solution for such issues.
That is, the application of sensemaking to highlight the hidden control lever
mode-based HF/ E shortfalls in the GCS design, coupled with the application of
ANSI/ HFES-100 IO category of the standard to remedy such shortfalls, thus, possibly leading to a reduction of HF/ E in GCS and may reduce HF/ E-associated UAS
mishaps.
Therefore, with the validation of H3 and H2 in phases I and II, respectively, along
with the findings in phase III, we can conclude that the H1 is also accepted.
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.
CONCLUSION
This study was conducted in three phases:
The purpose of the first two phases ( phase I and phase II) was to reaffirm the
findings of a previous similar study of 20 UAS GCS by increasing the number of
UAS GCS studied to 36. It appears that the general findings of this study did not significantly deviate from the previous study. Both studies found that ANSI/ HFES-100
provides HF/ E specifications when six of the IO devices were found to be utilized
in ( CW based) UAS GCS from Groups 2 to 5. These IO devices allow operators to
remotely support the UAS flight mission from takeoff to landing. Since, there is no
direct flight control or a cockpit on board the UAS, any errors made while using these
relatively inexpensive IO devices could be amplified several thousand folds. Many
of the UAS from Group 4 or 5 have a multimillion-dollar price tag, resulting in a
significant monetary loss. Both studies confirmed that 98% of all UAS IO devices
are covered by the ANSI/ H FES-100 standard. The average number of IO devices use
per GCS was slightly lower at 6.25 compared with 6.35 devices per UAS in previous
study, which was explained by the increase in the use of touch panels in GCS to 44%
compared to the 25% in previous study. When touch panels are used, the need of a
point and click device ( i.e., trackball) drops. Although, not all errors are avoidable,
they can be minimized by simply designing the UAS GCS in accordance with ANSI/HFES-100 standard.
Application of Sensemaking
in middle position on camera mode and then switched over to flight mode, then the
condition lever controls the UAS fuel and can shut down its engine midflight, leading
to catastrophic results.
Based on this newfound information, one can argue that the AIB mishap report
is accurate. Nevertheless, the condition lever mode information cannot be simply
ignored. This significantly highlights the fact that such a safety-critical function of
controlling the fuel flow to the engine shall not be tied to a condition lever which is
being used for other nonflight essential purposes in another modes.
When trying to apply ANSI/ H FES-100 as it currently stands, there is no direct reference to condition lever. Although the standard does state that when keys have collateral function, their mode of operation shall be clearly indicated ( ANSI/ H FES-100,
2007). Therefore, the combined application of sensemaking and ANSI/ HFES-100
standard can not only capture the hidden HF/ E in the GCS but may also find a viable
solution for such issues.
That is, the application of sensemaking to highlight the hidden control lever
mode-based HF/ E shortfalls in the GCS design, coupled with the application of
ANSI/ HFES-100 IO category of the standard to remedy such shortfalls, thus, possibly leading to a reduction of HF/ E in GCS and may reduce HF/ E-associated UAS
mishaps.
Therefore, with the validation of H3 and H2 in phases I and II, respectively, along
with the findings in phase III, we can conclude that the H1 is also accepted.
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.
CONCLUSION
This study was conducted in three phases:
The purpose of the first two phases ( phase I and phase II) was to reaffirm the
findings of a previous similar study of 20 UAS GCS by increasing the number of
UAS GCS studied to 36. It appears that the general findings of this study did not significantly deviate from the previous study. Both studies found that ANSI/ HFES-100
provides HF/ E specifications when six of the IO devices were found to be utilized
in ( CW based) UAS GCS from Groups 2 to 5. These IO devices allow operators to
remotely support the UAS flight mission from takeoff to landing. Since, there is no
direct flight control or a cockpit on board the UAS, any errors made while using these
relatively inexpensive IO devices could be amplified several thousand folds. Many
of the UAS from Group 4 or 5 have a multimillion-dollar price tag, resulting in a
significant monetary loss. Both studies confirmed that 98% of all UAS IO devices
are covered by the ANSI/ H FES-100 standard. The average number of IO devices use
per GCS was slightly lower at 6.25 compared with 6.35 devices per UAS in previous
study, which was explained by the increase in the use of touch panels in GCS to 44%
compared to the 25% in previous study. When touch panels are used, the need of a
point and click device ( i.e., trackball) drops. Although, not all errors are avoidable,
they can be minimized by simply designing the UAS GCS in accordance with ANSI/HFES-100 standard.