Skip to main content

Module 6 Recap: UAS and Manned Aircraft Autonomy


Levels of automation and how they are applied to UAS Operations.

Levels of autonomy in UAS operations are variable and transformable.  The amount of automation is based on the system architecture.  The most sophisticated UAS are highly autonomous but may need manual control when necessary.  Handing off manual operation of an aircraft can allow pilots and sensor operators to focus on mission objectives.

The range in automation can go from 0 to 100 percent.  Although I said 0%, even at full manual control, an aircraft takes manual inputs and converts them into tilting the quadcopter by changing rotor speeds, or moves flight control surfaces.  This part is still automated.

Full autonomy can be achieved when a UAS can take off, perform its mission, return to home and auto-land.  In this objective control flight plan and waypoints are set and the pilot intervenes only to update flight objectives.  I like this description below for the in-betweens for manual and objective control; throughout a mission there could be many changes in the amount of control the human has.   The level of autonomy should adjust without confusion.

Text Box: Figure 1. Level of control (Pankok, 2017)

 

Different considerations for manned versus UAS operations.

Regarding automation, both manned an unmanned make use of automation for similar and different reasons.  A UAS may turn to automation in an emergency such as lost data link while in manual mode.  A manned aircraft will revert to manual operation when autopilot fails.

Can a pilot Autoland an aircraft?  Yes, but for many pilots, it is much easier to land the aircraft manually, as monitoring the auto pilot in the autoland stage of flight is itself very demanding with a high level of vigilance required at all stages.  For takeoff, autopilot usually engages around 1000 feet. Airbus and Boeing aircraft do not currently have an auto-takeoff.  In-flight automation for UAS and manned aircraft is similar as waypoints are inputted, the autonomy flies to that location with pilot monitoring.

 

Current aviation industry using appropriate amount, too little, or too much automation?

The cockpit can still be a very busy place. Pilots are consistently having to command, manipulate and manage various parts of the flight computer system which requires their full attention.  Will too much automation cause trouble for pilots when automation fails? 

In the 737 Max crashes, incorrect data caused the automation to fail by trusting that data as good.  Switching from automation to manual control is not straightforward. Flight-control systems may not disengage entirely. Instead, they might continue to assist the pilot to prevent a dangerous maneuver. 

Studies have linked incidents or near misses to breakdowns of automated systems or automation induced errors.  Automation can place added and unexpected demands on pilots during moments of crisis.  Researchers describe automation paradox when the pilot needs to interpret computerized alarms, input data, and scan information displays as they’re struggling to take manual control of the aircraft and orient themselves to the situation.  Those tasks increase the odds of mistakes.  Is there too much automation in aviation?  In some unusual circumstances this may the case

 

References

Pankok, C., & Bass, E. J. (2017). A Decadal Revisiting of the Assessment of Pilot Control Interfaces for Unmanned Aircraft Systems. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 61(1), 63–67. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541931213601482

 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

ADS-B Detect, Sense and Avoid Sensor Selection for Unmanned Aerospace Systems

Introduction There is a need for a more efficient and safer environment in support of existing aeronautical operations that reduce the risk of collisions for manned and unmanned aircraft.  Operators of Small Unmanned Aerospace Systems (sUAS) under 55 pounds hold a responsibility to safe flight in the airspace in which they are permitted.  Payload weight on aircraft this small is significant and should be kept to a minimum for operating efficiency.  Weight requirement and cost effectiveness are key factors for Sense and Avoid (SAA) sensor selection.  A Traffic Collision and Avoidance System (TCAS) are too large and heavy for sUAS.  SAA technology for UAS is part of a much bigger picture.  Each development brings UAS closer to their consent in the National Airspace System (NAS).  NASA conducts collaborative research “with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the Radio Technical Commission for Aeronautics (RTCA) and commercial aerospace enti...
Post a Comment
Read more

Complimenting Sensors for Navigation in Urban Canyons

Unmanned Aircraft System Navigation in the Urban Environment: A Systems Analysis Journal of Aerospace Information Systems             This article from the Journal of Aerospace Information Systems analyzes alternative methods for Unmanned Aerospace Systems (UAS) navigation within urban environments.   Navigation accuracy by Global Positioning System (GPS) is severely degraded due to urban canyons, where accuracy is particularly poor.   An urban canyon is best described as area flanked by tall buildings.   Although Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) is unreliable in the vicinity of dense urban structure it can be used in combination with other complimentary sensors to provide position and velocity measurement.             Urban UAS missions related to law enforcement, traffic surveillance, riot control, and anti-terrorism are all challenged b...
Post a Comment
Read more