We report a study that examines performance of pilots flying a simulated UAV in a high-fidelity environment while using different types of perfect and imperfect automation aids. Fifty-six student pilots carried out simulated UAV missions containing a 3D view of terrain, a 2D top-down navigational map, system parameter gauges, and a message box. Trajectory and manipulation of a 3D camera was controlled by a multi-axis joystick. The pilots reported enemy activity and placement at specific coordinates, monitored UAV system parameters and monitored the terrain beneath their flight path for unexpected ground targets. These missions were carried out under seven different conditions: one baseline condition with no automation support; one condition with perfectly reliable auto-alerts (i.e., auditory alarms) for system failures, two conditions with imperfect auto-alerts for system failures (one condition with added false alarms, and the other with added misses; both at 67% reliability), one condition with a perfect auto-pilot flight control, one mission with an imperfect auto-pilot (at 67% reliability), and one condition with both perfectly reliable auto-alerts and a perfectly reliable auto-pilot flight control.
Imperfect Automation in Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Flight Control
2003
80 pages
Report
No indication
English
European Patent Office | 2022
|FLIGHT CONTROL METHOD AND UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLE FLIGHT CONTROL DEVICE AND UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLE
European Patent Office | 2020
|UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLE AND FLIGHT CONTROL METHOD FOR UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLE
European Patent Office | 2024
|