Model-Driven Sensor Operation Assistance for a Transport Helicopter Crew in Manned-Unmanned Teaming Missions: Selecting the Automation Level by Machine Decision-Making

One of the research fields at the Institute of Flight Systems (IFS) of the University of the Armed Forces (UniBwM) focuses on the integration of reconnaissance sensor operation support in manned-unmanned teaming (MUM-T) helicopter missions. The purposive deployment of mission sensors carried by a team of unmanned aerial vehicles (multi-UAV) in such missions is expected to bring in new and impactful aspects, especially in workload-intensive situations. Paradigms of variable automation in the sensor domain and cognitive assistant systems are intended to achieve an operationally manageable solution. This paper provides an overview of the sensor assistant system to be deployed in a MUM-T setup. To manage sensor deployment automation functions, a machine decision making process represented by an agent system will be described. Depending on a workload state input, a suitable level of automation will be chosen from a predefined set. A prototype system of such agent with its capability to react on varied stimuli will be demonstrated in a reduced toy problem setup.

[1]  James Llinas,et al.  Handbook of Multisensor Data Fusion : Theory and Practice, Second Edition , 2008 .

[2]  Axel Schulte,et al.  Managing Cockpit Crew Excess Task Load in Military Manned-Unmanned Teaming Missions by Dual-Mode Cognitive Automation Approaches , 2011 .

[3]  Axel Schulte,et al.  Concept, Design and Evaluation of Cognitive Task-based UAV Guidance , 2012 .

[4]  Christopher D. Wickens,et al.  A model for types and levels of human interaction with automation , 2000, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. Part A.

[5]  Axel Schulte,et al.  System-Ergonomic Design of Cognitive Automation: Dual-Mode Cognitive Design of Vehicle Guidance and Control Work Systems , 2010, Studies in Computational Intelligence.

[6]  Bonnie M. Muir,et al.  Trust in automation. I: Theoretical issues in the study of trust and human intervention in automated systems , 1994 .

[7]  Mica R. Endsley,et al.  The Out-of-the-Loop Performance Problem and Level of Control in Automation , 1995, Hum. Factors.

[8]  Michelle R. Murphy,et al.  A Systematic Approach to , 2013 .

[9]  Peter Stütz,et al.  Airborne sensor and perception management: Experiments and Results for surveillance UAS , 2013 .

[10]  Raja Parasuraman,et al.  Humans and Automation: Use, Misuse, Disuse, Abuse , 1997, Hum. Factors.

[11]  Thomas B. Sheridan,et al.  Adaptive Automation, Level of Automation, Allocation Authority, Supervisory Control, and Adaptive Control: Distinctions and Modes of Adaptation , 2011, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics - Part A: Systems and Humans.

[12]  Charles E. Billings,et al.  Aviation Automation: The Search for A Human-centered Approach , 1996 .

[13]  Karl Rohr Landmark-Based Image Analysis: Using Geometric And Intensity Models , 2010 .

[14]  Peter Stütz,et al.  Airborne sensor and perception management: A conceptual approach for surveillance UAS , 2012, 2012 15th International Conference on Information Fusion.

[15]  Earl L. Wiener,et al.  Human factors of advanced technology (glass cockpit) transport aircraft , 1989 .

[16]  M R Endsley,et al.  Level of automation effects on performance, situation awareness and workload in a dynamic control task. , 1999, Ergonomics.