A consortium of government, industry and academia is currently working to establish minimum operational performance standards for Detect and Avoid (DAA) and Control and Communications (C2) systems in order to enable broader integration of Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) into the National Airspace System (NAS). One subset of these performance standards will need to address the DAA display requirements that support an acceptable level of pilot performance. From a pilot's perspective, the DAA task is the maintenance of self separation and collision avoidance from other aircraft, utilizing the available information and controls within the Ground Control Station (GCS), including the DAA display. The pilot-in-the-loop DAA task requires the pilot to carry out three major functions: 1) detect a potential threat, 2) determine an appropriate resolution maneuver, and 3) execute that resolution maneuver via the GCS control and navigation interface(s). The purpose of the present study was to examine two main questions with respect to DAA display considerations that could impact pilots' ability to maintain well clear from other aircraft. First, what is the effect of a minimum (or basic) information display compared to an advanced information display on pilot performance? Second, what is the effect of display location on UAS pilot performance? Two levels of information level (basic, advanced) were compared across two levels of display location (standalone, integrated), for a total of four displays. The authors propose an eight-stage pilot-DAA interaction timeline from which several pilot response time metrics can be extracted. These metrics were compared across the four display conditions. The results indicate that the advanced displays had faster overall response times compared to the basic displays, however, there were no significant differences between the standalone and integrated displays. Implications of the findings on understanding pilot performance on the DAA task, the development of DAA display performance standards, as well as the need for future research are discussed.
[1]
Kim-Phuong L. Vu,et al.
Influence of UAS pilot communication and execution delay on controller's acceptability ratings of UAS-ATC interactions
,
2013,
2013 IEEE/AIAA 32nd Digital Avionics Systems Conference (DASC).
[2]
Mark H. Draper,et al.
UAS Sense and Avoid System Interface Design and Evaluation
,
2014
.
[3]
Eric R. Mueller,et al.
Pilot Evaluation of a UAS Detect-and-Avoid System's Effectiveness in Remaining Well Clear
,
2015
.
[4]
S. Hart,et al.
Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of Empirical and Theoretical Research
,
1988
.
[5]
Lisa Fern,et al.
Airspace Deconfliction for UAS Operations
,
2011
.
[6]
Thomas Prevot.
Exploring the Many Perspectives of Distributed Air Traffic Management: The Multi Aircraft Control System MACS
,
2002
.
[7]
S. Estes,et al.
GDTI: A ground station display of traffic information for use in sense and avoid operations
,
2012,
2012 IEEE/AIAA 31st Digital Avionics Systems Conference (DASC).
[8]
Lisa Fern,et al.
Designing Airspace Displays to Support Rapid Immersion for UAS Handoffs
,
2011
.
[9]
R. Conrad Rorie,et al.
UAS Measured Response
,
2014
.
[10]
Ferne Friedman-Berg,et al.
Minimum Visual Information Requirements For Detect and Avoid in Unmanned Aircraft Systems
,
2014
.
[11]
Kim-Phuong L. Vu,et al.
Unmanned Aircraft System Response to Air Traffic Control Clearances
,
2013
.
[12]
Gregory L Feitshans,et al.
Vigilant Spirit Control Station (VSCS) "The Face of COUNTER"
,
2008
.
[13]
Mark H. Draper,et al.
Human-Machine Interface Development for Common Airborne Sense and Avoid Program
,
2014
.
[14]
Vernol Battiste,et al.
A Cockpit Display Designed to Enable Limited Flight Deck Separation Responsibility
,
2013
.