Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Effects of System Automation Management Strategies and Multi-mission Operator-to-vehicle Ratio on Operator Performance in UAV Systems

  • Unmanned System Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Intelligent and Robotic Systems Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

It has been documented that the military intends to increase the number of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) in service while at the same time reducing the number of operators (Dixon et al. 2004). To meet this demand, many of the current UAV operator function will need to be automated. Levels of automation exist along a continuum from fully manual to fully automatic. Different automation strategies have been applied widely in UAV systems. Management by Consent (MBC), where the operator selects the task to be executed, and Management by Exception (MBE), where the computer selects the task to be executed are two proposed levels of automation for future UAV systems. Meanwhile, the optimum operator-to-vehicle ratio for future UAV systems is not yet known. It is expected that the optimum operator-to-vehicle ratio will vary with the level of automation applied to the system. Future UAV systems may require the use of adaptive automation to ensure maximum human–machine performance across varying operator-to-vehicle ratios. This study aims to help determine what levels of automation are most appropriate for different operator-to-vehicle ratios and how adaptive automation should be applied in future UAV systems. We investigated the effect of various operator-to-vehicle ratios and the two automation strategies on UAV mission tasks, results were analyzed using Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) and discussed in the last section of the paper.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bainbridge, L.: Ironies of automation. Automatica 19, 775–779 (1983). doi:10.1016/0005-1098(83)90046-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Dixon, S.R., Wickens, C.D., Chang, D.: Unmanned aerial vehicle flight control: false alarms versus misses. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 48th Annual Meeting. Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, Santa Monica (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Draper, M.H., Geiselman, E.E., Liem, L.G., Roe, M.M., Haas, M.W.: Display concepts supporting crew communication of target location in unmanned air vehicles. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 45th Annual Meeting, pp. 85–88. Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, Santa Monica (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Endsley, M.R., Kiris, E.O.: The out-of-the-loop performance problem and level of control in automation. Hum. Factors 37(2), 381–394 (1995). doi:10.1518/001872095779064555

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Endsley, M.R.: Level of automation: humans and automated systems. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomic Society 41st Annual Meeting, pp. 200–204 (1997)

  6. Endsley, M.: The application of human factors to the development of expert systems for advanced cockpits. In: Proceeding of the Human Factors Society 31st Annual Meeting, pp. 1388–1392. Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, Santa Monica (1987)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Ephrath, A., Curry, R.: Detection by pilots of system failures during instrument landings. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. SME-7, 841–848 (1977)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Federal Aviation Administration: Interim operational approval guidance 08-01, Unmanned Aircraft Systems Operations in the National Airspace Systems, Aviation Safety Unmanned Aircraft Program Office Air-160, FAA (2008)

  9. Fitts, P.M. (ed.): Human Engineering for an Efficient Air-Navigation and Traffic-Control System. National Research Council, Washington, DC (1951)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Mouloua, M., Gilson, R., Kring, J., Hancock, P.: Workload, situation awareness, and teaming issues for UAV/UCAV operations. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomic Society 45th Annual Meeting, pp. 162–165 (2001)

  11. Nelson, J.T., Lefebvre, A.T., Andre, S.T.: Managing multiple uninhibited aerial vehicles: changes in number of vehicles and types of target symbology. In: Proceedings of the 26th Interservice/Industry Training, Simulation, and Education Conference. Orlando, FL (2004)

  12. Newcome, L.: Unmanned Aviation: A Brief History of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Reston (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Parasuraman, R.: Human use and abuse of automation. In: Proceedings of the Second Automation Technology and Human Performance Conference, pp. 42–47. Cocoa Beach, FL (1997)

  14. Prabhala, S.V., Gallimore, J.J., Narayanan, S.: Human effectiveness issues in simulated uninhabited combat aerial vehicles. In: Proceedings of the 2003 Winter Simulation Conference. New Orleans, LA (2003)

  15. Ruff, H.A., Narayanan, S., Draper, M.H.: Human interaction with levels of automation and decision-aid fidelity in the supervisory control of multiple simulated teleoperated air vehicles. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, Special Issue on Virtual Environments and Mobile Robots: Control, Simulation, and Robot Pilot Training, vol. 11(4), pp. 335–351, August (2002)

  16. Ruff, H.A., Calhoun, G.L., Draper, M.H., Fontejon, J.V., Guilfoos, B.J.: Exploring automation issues in supervisory control of multiple UAVs. In: Proceedings of the Human Performance, Situation Awareness, and Automation Technology Conference. Daytona Beach, FL (2004)

  17. Sheridan, T.B., Verplank, W.: Human and computer control of undersea teleoperators. Man–Machine Systems Laboratory, Department of Mechanical Engineering, MIT, Cambridge (1978)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Sheridan, T.: Humans and Automation: System Design and Research Issues. Wiley, New York (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Tsang, P., Wilson, G.: Mental workload. In: Salvendy, G. (ed.) Handbook of Human Factors. John Wiley, New York (1997)

    Google Scholar 

  20. Tso, K.S., Tharp, G.K., Tai, A.T., Draper, M.H., Calhoun, G.L., Ruff, H.A.: A human factors testbed for command and control of unmanned air vehicles. 22nd Digital Avionics Systems Conference, Indianapolis, IN (2003)

  21. Tso, K.S., Tharp, G.K., Zhang, W., Tai, A.T.: A multi-agent operator interface for unmanned aerial vehicles. In: Proceedings of the 18th Digital Avionics Systems Conference. St. Louis, MO (1999)

  22. Wiener, E.L.: The impact of automation on aviation human factors. In: Proceedings of the FAA/NASA Advanced Workshop on Artificial Intelligence and Human Factors in Air Traffic Control and Aviation Maintenance, Daytona Beach, FL (1993)

  23. Wierwille, W.W., Casali, J.G.: A validated rating scale for global mental workload measurement applications. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 27th Annual Meeting, pp. 129–133. Human Factors Society, Santa Monica (1983)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Human Factors and Systems, Embry–Riddle Aeronautical University, Daytona Beach, FL, 32114, USA

    Dahai Liu & Ryan Wasson

  2. Training Systems Division, Naval Air Warfare Center, 12350 Research Parkway, Orlando, FL, 32826, USA

    Dennis A. Vincenzi

Authors
  1. Dahai Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ryan Wasson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Dennis A. Vincenzi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dahai Liu.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Liu, D., Wasson, R. & Vincenzi, D.A. Effects of System Automation Management Strategies and Multi-mission Operator-to-vehicle Ratio on Operator Performance in UAV Systems. J Intell Robot Syst 54, 795–810 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10846-008-9288-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10846-008-9288-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation