An Assessment of Pilot Control Interfaces for Unmanned Aircraft
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
DOT/FAA/AM-07/8 Office of Aerospace Medicine Washington, DC 20591 An Assessment of Pilot Control Interfaces for Unmanned Aircraft Kevin W. Williams Civil Aerospace Medical Institute Federal Aviation Administration Oklahoma City, OK 73125 April 2007 Final Report NOTICE This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The United States Government assumes no liability for the contents thereof. ___________ This publication and all Office of Aerospace Medicine technical reports are available in full-text from the Civil Aerospace Medical Institute’s publications Web site: www.faa.gov/library/reports/medical/oamtechreports/index.cfm Technical Report Documentation Page 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No. DOT/FAA/AM-07/8 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date An Assessment of Pilot Control Interfaces for Unmanned Aircraft April 2007 6. Performing Organization Code 7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No. Williams KW 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) FAA Civil Aerospace Medical Institute P.O. Box 25082 11. Contract or Grant No. Oklahoma City, OK 73125 12. Sponsoring Agency name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered Office of Aerospace Medicine Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Ave., S.W. Washington, DC 20591 14. Sponsoring Agency Code 15. Supplemental Notes Work was accomplished under approved task AM-AHRR521 16. Abstract An inventory of control systems for unmanned aircraft was completed for 15 systems from nine separate manufacturers. To complete the inventory, a taxonomy of control architectures was developed. The taxonomy identified four levels of horizontal aircraft control, four levels of vertical control, and three levels of speed control. The most automated level of control was a waypoint-level that was found to be present in all of the systems inventoried. Implications of these levels of control on design are discussed. 17. Key Words 18. Distribution Statement Unmanned Aircraft, UA, UAV, Control Station, Controls, Document is available to the public through the Defense Technical Information Center, Ft. Belvior, VA Cockpit Design 22060; and the National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161 19. Security Classif. (of this report) 20. Security Classif. (of this page) 21. No. of Pages 22. Price Unclassified Unclassified 16 Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized i EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The four questions addressed by this research were: The analysis of control levels that was accomplished What kinds of control architectures are being used in this research suggests that the manner in which flight in current systems? commands are entered is not as important as the level of the For horizontal and vertical control of the aircraft, four command that is entered. Lower levels of control provide levels of control were identified. The lowest level imposes more immediate access to aircraft attitude but require more direct control of the aircraft surfaces through the use of a integration by the pilot to achieve a particular flight goal. joystick. The highest level imposes control of the aircraft Higher levels of control require less integration but do through the use of programmed waypoints that determine not allow immediate access to lower-level control needs. the location and altitude of the aircraft at a given point in For example, a control system that allows direct input of time. Waypoint programming is accomplished through vertical speed means various values of vertical speed can a “point and click” computer interface. Two intermedi- be achieved but requires the pilot to monitor changes in ate levels of control allow the command of either bank altitude to establish a particular altitude goal. In other angle/turn rate or heading (for horizontal control) and words, the pilot has to fly the aircraft to an altitude using vertical speed or altitude (for vertical control). Intermediate changes in vertical speed. On the other hand, a control levels of control use physical controls for some systems system that allows direct input of altitude does not require like a joystick or knob, or a computer interface that ei- the pilot to fly the aircraft to that altitude but also does ther requires a pull-down menu selection or interaction not allow a range of vertical speeds to be input. Higher with a virtual control using a computer pointing device levels of control make flying the aircraft easier but restrict like a mouse or trackball. All of the systems inventoried the flight options available. allowed waypoint control of the aircraft. Those systems that allowed direct control of aircraft surfaces only used Is there a lowest level of flight control that can this control level during takeoffs and landings. En route be mandated for certain systems? In other words, portions of flights were handled using a higher (more au- what level of automation should be required for UA tomated) level of control. There is a trend in the industry systems? to replace manual control of aircraft during takeoff and Previous research indicates that the performance-level landing with automation. control joystick, which commands bank angle and vertical speed, is more effective than the direct control of aircraft What is a common control architecture for control- surfaces. There is no need to allow control inputs below ling UA through visual line-of-sight? this level of control because there is no need to perform Direct line-of-sight control is most commonly ac- aerobatic maneuvers with these aircraft. In addition, complished using an interface similar or identical to a benefits accrue to the pilot due to not requiring the inte- radio-controlled hobbyist control box. Some systems (e.g., gration of lower levels of inputs (see the report for more Aerostar) have a modified control box that commands details). Whether control at this level is accomplished bank and vertical speed rather than controlling the aircraft using a joystick or some other method is not relevant. surfaces directly. Only 3 of the 15 systems inventoried The question of whether higher levels of control should use direct line-of-sight control. Other systems, such as be allowed as a minimum depends on the type of flight the Bell Eagle Eye, have a control box available for test- activities anticipated for the system. Perhaps as important ing the movement of aircraft surfaces, but it is not used as the level of automation is the question of how many during normal flight. modes a system should contain. Because mode confusion has been shown to be problematic with many automated How do different control systems (i.e., stick, menu, systems (Sarter & Woods, 1997), a modeless control knobs, etc.) affect the pilot regarding basic flight and architecture is recommended. navigation parameters? iii AN ASSESSMENT OF PILOT CONTROL INTERFacES FOR UNMANNED AIRCRAFT INTRODUCTION methods might impact or be impacted by conventional flight operations within the NAS. The phenomenal growth of the unmanned aircraft To assist in this effort, this research study was de- (UA) industry has not been without a certain number signed to assess the state of pilot control interfaces for of growing pains. One outcome of the rapid growth rate unmanned aircraft being flown in the United States. An has been the creation of a dazzling variety of pilot control inventory of control architectures was completed that interfaces to allow a pilot outside of the aircraft to control encompassed a wide range of UAS. A taxonomy was the flight of the aircraft from a distance. Because of the created to characterize these various control architectures similarity to radio-controlled aircraft, many unmanned based on the different levels of control of the aircraft that aircraft systems (UAS) make use of a joystick to control were found among the systems. The first portion of this the flight. However, any casual survey of systems reveals paper describes the development of the inventory and the a number of other methods for control, including knobs, control-level taxonomy. The next portion of the paper buttons, menus, and various mouse-driven interfaces. Fig- presents the results of the inventory. The final portion ure 1 shows the control station for the Shadow UAS. of the paper discusses research questions that arise from As the UA industry continues to expand, it is inevi- the review of control architectures and suggests possible table that these aircraft will eventually become part of future avenues of research. the National Airspace System (NAS). As this occurs, it is important that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Completing the Inventory has standards and guidelines in place that will protect One difficulty in accomplishing an inventory of control the safety and efficiency of those involved in flying in architectures for UAS is that many of the manufacturers the NAS, as well as protecting the non-flying public. To of these systems are averse to revealing very much about develop these standards and guidelines, it is important their interfaces to the general public. Simply calling that we understand the methods of controlling unmanned up a manufacturer on the phone or contacting one via aircraft that are currently in existence and how those email and asking for a description of the pilot interface Figure 1. Control station for the Shadow UAS. 1 Table 1. Manufacturers and systems included in the inventory. Manufacturer System