Unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) present significant security threats that require mitigation to ensure public safety. Recent incidents involving rogue drones disrupting major airports cost airlines tens of millions of dollars in losses. While technological solutions exist to detect, track, and control UAS, current regulations are inadequate and there is no harmonized framework across authorities. This research aims to holistically explore UAS security threats, evaluate existing controls, and recommend amendments to regulations and rationalization of technological solutions to proactively address threats in the safest and most efficient manner through industry-wide collaboration.

1. List of Approved MoviesComment by Narbona Jerez, Pamela:
Title, author names, and year added by QA based on the
reference entry that was provided for this source. Authors
cannot be acknowledged and a publication date cannot be
included in the reference entry if these items are not displayed
in the document the entry refers to.
Created by Nathan Pritts and James Meetze (2019)
Throughout this class, you will be able to select a film to use as
the basis for your analysis. This is a list of approved choices.
NOTE: If you would like to write about a film that is not on this
list, you must email your professor in advance. If you write
about an unapproved film option in this class you may not
receive credit.
Many of the films on these lists are sourced from the Ten AFI
Top 10 lists, where you will find additional information and
resources. Please note, though, that the different AFI Top 10
lists include films that are not approved.
Courtroom drama
AFI defines "courtroom drama" as a genre of film in which a
system of justice plays a critical role in the film's narrative.
Film
Year
To Kill a Mockingbird
1962
12 Angry Men
1957
Kramer vs. Kramer
1979
The Verdict
1982
A Few Good Men

2. 1992
Witness for the Prosecution
1957
Anatomy of a Murder
1959
In Cold Blood
1967
A Cry in the Dark (Evil Angels)
1988
Judgment at Nuremberg
1961
Epic
AFI defines "epic" as a genre of large-scale films set in a
cinematic interpretation of the past.
Film
Year
Lawrence of Arabia
1962
Ben-Hur
1959
Schindler's List
1993
Gone with the Wind
1939
Spartacus
1960
Titanic
1997
All Quiet on the Western Front
1930
Saving Private Ryan
1998
Reds
1981
The Ten Commandments
1956

3. Fantasy
AFI defines "fantasy" as a genre in which live-action characters
inhabit imagined settings and/or experience situations that
transcend the rules of the natural world.
Film
Year
The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring
2001
It's a Wonderful Life
1946
King Kong
1933
Miracle on 34th Street
1947
Field of Dreams
1989
Harvey
1950
Groundhog Day
1993
The Thief of Bagdad
1924
Big
1988
Gangster
AFI defines the "Gangster film" as a genre that centers on
organized crime or maverick criminals in a modern setting.
Film
Year
The Godfather
1972
Goodfellas
1990
The Godfather Part II

4. 1974
White Heat
1949
Bonnie and Clyde
1967
Scarface
1932
Pulp Fiction
1994
The Public Enemy
1931
Little Caesar
1931
Scarface
1983
Mystery
AFI defines "mystery" as a genre that revolves around the
solution of a crime.
Film
Year
Vertigo
1958
Chinatown
1974
Rear Window
1954
Laura
1944
The Third Man
1949
The Maltese Falcon
1941
North by Northwest
1959
Blue Velvet
1986

5. Dial M for Murder
1954
The Usual Suspects
1995
Romantic comedy
AFI defines "romantic comedy" as a genre in which the
development of a romance leads to comic situations.
Film
Year
City Lights
1931
Annie Hall
1977
It Happened One Night
1934
Roman Holiday
1953
The Philadelphia Story
1940
When Harry Met Sally...
1989
Adam's Rib
1949
Moonstruck
1987
Harold and Maude
1971
Sleepless in Seattle
1993
Science fiction
AFI defines "science fiction" as a genre that marries a scientific
or technological premise with imaginative speculation.
Film
Year
2001: A Space Odyssey
1968

6. Star Wars
1977
E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial
1982
A Clockwork Orange
1971
The Day the Earth Stood Still
1951
Blade Runner
1982
Alien
1979
Terminator 2: Judgment Day
1991
Invasion of the Body Snatchers
1956
Back to the Future
1985
Sports
AFI defines "sports" as a genre of films with protagonists who
play athletics or other games of competition.
Film
Year
Raging Bull
1980
Rocky
1976
The Pride of the Yankees
1942
Hoosiers
1986
Bull Durham
1988
The Hustler
1961
Caddyshack

7. 1980
Breaking Away
1979
National Velvet
1944
Jerry Maguire
1996
Western
AFI defines "western" as a genre of films set in the American
West that embodies the spirit, the struggle, and the demise of
the new frontier.
Film
Year
The Searchers
1956
High Noon
1952
Shane
1953
Unforgiven
1992
Red River
1948
The Wild Bunch
1969
Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid
1969
McCabe & Mrs. Miller
1971
Stagecoach
1939
Cat Ballou
1965

8. 7
SECURITY THREATS DUE TO THE PROLIFERATION OF
UAS
Key Requirements and Considerations for Mitigating Security
Threats Due to the Proliferation of Unmanned Aircraft Systems
ASCI 530 – Unmanned Aerospace Systems
Research Project
Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University-Worldwide
October 22, 2019
Abstract
This research project aims to holistically explore a wide range
of security threats presented by Unmanned Aircraft Systems
(UAS) to respective civilian and military entities as well as the
potential consequences that could arise in case of negligence.
Furthermore, the viability of the current traffic management
system as well as potential loopholes within existing regulations
and policies will be evaluated to identify whether any

9. amendments to the current framework could be made. In
addition, various technological solutions that could help enforce
anti-UAS measures such as geofencing, radio-frequency signal
jamming and use of predatory interceptors will also be
rationalized as it is critical they are not only cost-effective but
also do not create unintended safety hazards.
Keywords: Drones, Risk Mitigation, Security, Unmanned
Aircraft Systems
Summary
Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) present an expansive range
of security threats within the overarching air transportation
system that need to be effectively mitigated in order to ensure
public safety and business continuity. In recent years, there
have been several examples of rogue UAS being utilized in
malicious and irresponsible ways resulting in severe safety and
financial related consequences. Recent cases such as the major
disruptions caused by rogue drones operating in restricted
airspace at key airport hubs such as London Gatwick (LGW) not
only resulted in unrealized revenues in excess of $20 million for
operators such as easyJet, but also the cancellation of over
1,000 flights which impacted roughly 140,000 passengers in the
region (Selinger, 2019). Other security threats in the form of
terrorist attacks, cybersecurity, illegal surveillance,
reconnaissance, smuggling, and mid-air collisions present
further cause for concern for the relevant authorities
(Sathyamoorthy, 2015).
Given the unique challenges presented by UAS and the relative
infancy of the industry itself, an exploratory research design
will be implemented to analyze the related threats and provide a
deeper insight into the root causes and consequences of
regulators not being adequately prepared for such risks. In
addition, the research design fosters a platform for generation
of new thinking and methodologies that will be pivotal in

10. addressing future research problems in the domain. Given the
global nature of these security concerns and the far-reaching
effects not only on the entire aviation ecosystem but also on
national safety, state authorities and militaries simply cannot
afford to neglect this critical area (Sims, 2018). A variety of
internal and external factors contribute to the complexity of the
issue when it comes to mitigating the relevant threats while
current controls in the form of contingency strategies and
regulations in place are inadequate in solving these issues
efficiently (Solodov, Williams, Hanaei and Goddard, 2018).
Thus, it will take a collaborative industry-wide effort to
transition beyond the current reactive measures in place to a
more proactive system which has strategic contingencies for
such extenuating circumstances.
Problem Statement
Several studies have highlighted the threat posed due to the
proliferation of UAS and the resulting security related risks to
society. With rapid technological advancement and economies
of scale, UAS are now more affordable and accessible to the
general public and their increasing functionality present a
viable alternative for illegal purposes either due to irresponsible
use or rogue actors. Card (2014) details the potential threats
from a terrorist perspective to a highly developed country such
as the United States and the need for government to utilize
several strategies to address such a fast-emerging threat.
Wiesbeck (2015) highlights the current technological solutions
that can be applied to detect, track and control UAS from a
regulatory perspective. However, depending on the situation,
careful consideration needs to be given for each alternative to
avoid spillover effects in the form of additional safety
implications.
The specific problem is that there while there are several
piecemeal solutions available to counter the security risks posed
by UAS, there is a lack of a harmonized framework that enable
authorities to employ contingency plans which systematically
mitigate these threats in the safest, most proactive and efficient

11. manner. In most cases, threats are identified too late and the
risk for collateral damage is extremely high. These are
highlighted by the recent UAS related security breaches in
Europe and the Middle East (Solodov, Williams, Hanaei and
Goddard, 2018). The findings of this research paper could
provide the foundation for a formalized framework between
regulators and help support future use cases and operational
trials that aim to identify optimal response and mitigation
strategies pertaining to UAS related threats.
Significance of the ProblemComment by Rohan Lucas: Rough
draft version – to be expanded upon for final draft
Background
In recent years, several anonymous UAS security incidents have
given state authorities some serious food for thought when it
comes to the management and policing of rogue unmanned
aircraft. This is an issue that is two-fold with the first issue
being a severe lack of awareness and knowledge of how to
safely operate UAS, particularly among recreational users. From
smaller UAS that are operated in congested urban environments
that could pose a risk to the general public in the form of
collision or privacy invasion, to more serious incidents such as
operation near airport terminals. Incidents in Dubai, London
Gatwick and Heathrow airports have already resulted in losses
in the tens of millions of dollars and consequently impacted
hundreds of thousands of passengers. Airlines alone were
reported to have suffered over $64.5 million from Gatwick’s 33-
hour closure alone (Detrick, 2019) and aviation stakeholders
risk losing much more if prevention measures are not put in
place.
The second serious and more pressing issue is the intentional
utilization of rogue UAS for terrorism and related criminal
activities with several close calls already taking place in public
events which draw huge crowds. Significant examples include
UAS crash landings at campaign rallies in Germany held by
Chancellor Angel Merkel and a University of Texas game in

12. August 2014 where a unidentified drone hovered over nearly
100,000 football fans. Perhaps the most concerning incident was
in January 2015 where a UAS was able to breach White House
radar and surveillance systems before crash landing into a
connected compound highlighting the ease at which a third
party could penetrate a supposedly secure public vicinity with
lives of the mass public at stake (Sathyamoorthy, 2015). In
addition, drone strikes on nuclear facilities in France and more
recently on Saudi Arabian oil facilities in September 2019 have
raised concerns of international espionage and political agendas
that aim to target opposition states as well. This supports the
initial analysis carried out by Bhattacharjee (2015) who not
only notes the increasing number of countries equipping for
‘modern warfare’ using UAS for counter terrorism but also the
transition of malicious third parties gradually being able to
replicate these systems for illegal purposes.
Related Research and Development
Although majority of related research and development has been
mostly exploratory in nature given the recent proliferation of
UAS, the underlying theme has centered on the steadily
increasing number of security threats and the lack of a
formalized contingency plan. Selinger (2019) acknowledged the
need of several counter measures consisting of various systems
and sensors to be seamlessly integrated in order to build a
robust security framework that is capable of nullifying different
types of threats. Despite several initiatives between regulators
and corporate entities, the study came across similar limitations
due to no industry consensus on what is the optimal strategy in
mitigating UAS security threats.
Analysis by Sims (2018) concluded that militaries need to
continue to dedicate resources in combating militant and
espionage threats especially as non-state actors continue to
refine their UAS capabilities. A potentially effective avenue to
explore would be the possibility of coordination between
military and commercial entities to delve further into research
with the common objective of enhancing technological solutions

13. geared to counter UAS. The author refers to previous research
undertaken by The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
who have investigated UAS counter measures for the US
military with transferable use in complex urban environments.
However, considering the confidentiality pertaining to military
projects, sharing of information would be a major hurdle that
would need to be overcome.
Technological AdvancementsComment by Rohan Lucas: To be
finalized for final draft including analysis of applicability,
affordability and effectiveness of each solution
Technological advancements hold the key to ensuring
contingency plans are robust enough to respond to unforeseen
security threats posed by UAS. In this regard, technology-based
solutions can be categorized based on their functionality of
either detection, tracking or control. Additional analysis on
studies such as those previously carried out by Wiesbeck (2015)
cover a range of solutions including:
· Radio-frequency signal analyzer
· Location tracking of position link and GPS spoofing
· Audio/video detection
· Uncooperative radar (primary surveillance, holographic and
multi-illuminators)
· Electro-optical tracking
· Dynamic Geofencing
· Radio-frequency signal jamming
· WLAN interruptions
· UAS predatory birds and interceptors
· UAS registry database for identification and tracking purposes
· Cybersecurity related measures
Alternative ActionsComment by Rohan Lucas: To be finalized
for final draft.
Further analysis including pros/cons will be added later
There is general consensus that a change to the current security
framework is essential in order to accommodate the
proliferation of UAS in the safest possible way. To address the

14. challenges ahead, two alternative actions have been proposed in
a hybrid approach to ensure adequate mitigation of security
risks.
Amendments to Current Regulatory Framework and Future
Mandates
Regulators need to integrate UAS security related measures into
current policy and regulations to offset domestic and
international threats. This includes mandates that aid regulators
in detection, control and tracking of UAS via different
initiatives such as drone registry databases for example. In
addition, given the potential of international cross border UAS
operations in the near future, building upon best practices,
lessons learned and fostering a collaborative decision-making
culture that aids information management will be key factors
down the line.
Rationalization of Anti-UAS Technological
Solution
s
Given the the range of different threats, a technology agnostic
approach should be taken to ensure the optimal solution is
selected based on the specific conditions and environment as
there is no one size fits all. By ensuring a clear cost benefit
analysis along with guidance would enable the most cost
effective, efficient solution that creates the least number of
unintended safety hazards to be selected more often than not. In
addition, an added benefit is that it would enable the relevant
authorities to enforce manufacturers to follow certain

15. requirements when it come to UAS design as well as the related
security features that could be pre-installed as opposed to
relying on generic commercial off-the-shelf (COTS)
alternatives.
RecommendationsComment by Rohan Lucas: To be finalized for
final draft
Based on the multi-faceted nature of UAS related security
threats, a hybrid approach that extracts the best of the proposed
alternative solutions appears to be the way forward. However,
as UAS operations become increasingly globalized and
sophisticated, it is paramount that security measures in place
are harmonized and technological solutions are interoperable
across different regions. While this will require a gradual
transition due to the infrastructure limitations and resources
available in different parts of the world, counter measures
would not be as effective if governments opt to work in silos
and implement fragmented policies to counter security threats.
ConclusionComment by Rohan Lucas: To be finalized upon
final completion of research draft and preceding sections
To be finalized upon final completion of research draft and
preceding sections
References
Bhattacharjee, D. (2015, April 29). Unmanned Aerial Vehicles
and Counter Terrorism Operations. Retrieved from

16. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/314535499_Unmanned
_Aerial_Vehicles_and_Counter_Terrorism_Operations.
Card, B. (2014, November 12). The Commercialization of
UAVs: How Terrorists Will Be Able to Utilize UAVs to Attack
the United State. Retrieved from
https://www.utep.edu/liberalarts/nssi/_Files/docs/Capstone
projects1/Card_Commercialization-of-UAVs.pdf.
Detrick, H. (2019, January 22). Gatwick's December Drone
Closure Cost Airlines $64.5 million. Retrieved from
https://fortune.com/2019/01/22/gatwick-drone-closure-cost/.
Humphreys, T. (2015, March 16). STATEMENT ON THE
SECURITY THREAT POSED BY UNMANNED AERIAL
SYSTEMS AND POSSIBLE COUNTERMEASURES. Retrieved
from
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/5452/8b7056e924a3cb368dc87
4fdc11a289d8edf.pdf.
International Air Transport Association. (2018). Key
considerations when protecting manned aviation from drones.
Key considerations when protecting manned aviation from
drones. . International Air Transport Association. Retrieved
from https://www.iata.org/whatwedo/ops-infra/air-traffic-
management/Documents/11 June_Information IATA Position on
Anti-Unmanned Aircraft System (Anti-UAS) Measures.pdf
Lester, E. and Weinert, A. "Three Quantitative Means to
Remain Well Clear for Small UAS in the Terminal Area," 2019

17. Integrated Communications, Navigation and Surveillance
Conference (ICNS), Herndon, VA, USA, 2019, pp. 1-17. doi:
10.1109/ICNSURV.2019.8735171http://ieeexplore.ieee.org.ezpr
oxy.libproxy.db.erau.edu/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=8735
171&isnumber=8735100
Rani, C., Modares, H., Sriram, R., Mikulski, D., & Lewis, F. L.
(2016). Security of unmanned aerial vehicle systems against
cyber-physical attacks. The Journal of Defense Modeling and
Simulation, 13(3), 331–342.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1548512915617252
Sathyamoorthy, D. (2015). A REVIEW OF SECURITY
THREATS OF UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLES AND
MITIGATION STEPS. The Journal of Defence and Security,
6(1), 81-II. Retrieved from
http://ezproxy.libproxy.db.erau.edu/login?url=https://search-
proquest-
com.ezproxy.libproxy.db.erau.edu/docview/1768942810?accoun
tid=27203
Selinger, M. (May 2019). COUNTERDRONE CHALLENGES.
Aerospace America. Retrieved from https://advance-lexis-
com.ezproxy.libproxy.db.erau.edu/api/document?collection=new
s&id=urn:contentItem:5W63-XFJ1-DYRW-V4FB-00000-
00&context=1516831.
Sims, A. (2018). The rising drone threat from terrorists.
Georgetown Journal of International Affairs, 19, 97. Retrieved

18. from
http://ezproxy.libproxy.db.erau.edu/login?url=https://search-
proquest-
com.ezproxy.libproxy.db.erau.edu/docview/2164974307?accoun
tid=27203
Solodov, A., Williams, A., Hanaei, S. A., & Goddard, B.
(2018). Analyzing the threat of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV)
to nuclear facilities. Security Journal, 31(1), 305-324.
doi:http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.libproxy.db.erau.edu/10.1057/s412
84-017-0102-5
Wiesbeck, W. (2015, June 17). Unmanned Aerial Vehicles –
UAV, Drones Detection, Tracking, Control. Retrieved from
http://www.terjin.com/dl/summit/Summit2015_10Wiesbeck.pdf.
Running head: BRAIN BASED HUMAN AUTOMATION
DESIGN IN EFFECTIVE UAS OPERATION
2
BRAIN BASED HUMAN AUTOMATION DESIGN IN
EFFECTIVE UAS OPERATION

19. Brain-Based Human Automation Design in Effective UAS
Operation
ASCI 530 – Unmanned Aerospace Systems
Research Project
Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University-Worldwide
October 13, 2019
Abstract
The unmanned aircraft system (“UAS”) is of developing

20. significance in aviation. Congruent with this development, UAS
design has encountered design, safety and operational
challenges and brain-based human automation is at the center of
these challenges. Indeed, human factors are transcendent in fact
key to UAS design, even among such critical variables as UAS
maintenance, regulatory issues and safety. Human factors or
human-made errors in UAS design and operation, particularly in
the form of over reliance on automation, can be avoided if they
are foreseen and are well managed. Therefore, through the
deployment of case study analysis and exploratory
investigation, this research paper proposes that brain-based
human automation design in UAS operation can effectively
minimize accidents and incidents caused by human error.

21. Summary
Automation can be defined as the execution by a
machine of a function previously carried out by a human
(Parasuraman & Riley, 1997). The extensive utilization of
automation in complicated applications in the fields of
transportation, process control, decision support systems, and
quality control and maintenance have encouraging
enhancements in system performance, efficiency, and safety
(Bailey et al., 2006). Unmanned aircraft systems (“UAS”) are a
rapidly developing [technology device] which will continue to
develop over time and with the introduction of innovative
technologies. However, with the growth and development of
UAS, comes design and safety challenges. Through the
deployment of case study analysis and exploratory
investigation, this research paper will concentrate on UAS
design and operation and will examine how brain-based human
automation can effectively aid and minimize accidents caused
by human error. In effect, brain-based human automation design
means the assimilation of a human brain interface into the drone
operational system.
In 1996, the Air Force Scientific Board (AFSAB)
identified the human-machine interface as the facet of UAS
design that required the most improvement and development
(Worch et al., 1996). Commercial UAS operational data is

22. poorly recorded and in fact the most substantial source of data
for UAS accident cases comes from the U.S. military. This data
shows that human error has accounted for approximately half of
all UAS mishaps. UAS accidents account for between 28% to
79% of incidents across the U.S. military and 21% to 68%
across all UAS types (Marshall et al., 2016).
There is an integral connection between automation
innovation and human factors in aviation. Human involvement
plays an indispensable role in aviation operating systems,
regardless of whether it in general aviation or automation. The
ability to “detect and avoid” accidents is one of the leading
technical challenges restricting the general operation and
advancement of UAS in non-segregated airspaces (Giovanni et
al., 2016). Accordingly, the human brain-based design is an
exciting arena for analysis since the broad eradication of
human-related errors offers universal benefits, not least in the
areas of work efficiency and safety. Furthermore, in the context
of ATC systems, civil and military UAS operations are currently
subject to restrictions that put significant limits on their
deployment due to safety concerns (Brooker, 2016). The
examination of actual and potential UAS design problems brings
substantial benefits across various governmental agencies who
operate UAS as well as the growing demand for UAS in
commercial aviation.

23. Issue Statement
Human intervention is an indispensable element in aviation,
whether in manned aviation or UAS. The human brain machine
interface is the element of UAS that requires the most
improvement and development (Worch et al., 1996). Therefore,
the specific issue for this research paper is how human error in
UAS operations can be mitigated through design and operational
changes and what recommendations can be put forth to improve
operational safety in the UAS industry as a whole.
Significance of the Issue

24. Unmanned UASs are quickly becoming a part of the national
airspace system (NAS). As UAS begin the transition from
military and hobbyist platforms to commercial applications,
including security monitoring, satellite transport, and cargo
hauling, UAS are naturally becoming part of the national
airspace system (NAS). The development – and indeed the full
realization of UAS in the NAS – mandates careful UAS design
and development in conjunction with the creation of FAA
standards and regulations for UAS operations. The U.S.
military’s experience that mishap rates for UASs are many
times higher than for manned aircraft (Williams, 2004), in fact
over thirty times higher, (Department of Defense, 2001), the
importance of design and operational standards in UAS is clear,
which in turn spotlights human factors in UAS design and
operation.
Human factors are of particular importance in the creation of
UAS flight guidelines. As noted by (Gavron, 1998), UAS flight
presents significant challenges in human factors that transcend
those of manned flight. Such challenges emanate from the fact
that operator and aircraft are not co-located. In other words, the
physical separation of operator and UAS creates noteworthy
impediment to optimum human performance. These
impediments comprise a loss of sensory cues valuable in-flight
control, delays in control and communication, and barriers to
observing the visual environment surrounding the UAS.

25. Moreover, UAS operation poses the challenge of simultaneous
multiple UAS operation by a single operator, a daunting task
which surely places unique and heavy demands on the operator.
Humans factors in UAS operations becomes an issue of
importance as consideration is applied to the nexus between
commercial and military UAS operation. Proposed commercial
uses for UASs include meteorological data collection; border
surveillance; search and rescue; disaster monitoring; traffic
monitoring; and telecommunications relay. This increased
density of commercial UAS must be seen in light of the current
reality that military UASs increasingly traverse through civilian
airspace during the course of their deployment. The varied
nature of UAS military mission characteristics (from line-of-
sight communications to over-the-horizon communications, for
example) raise the specter of communications delays between
operator and vehicle with a corresponding impact on UAS
human factors. UAS operators will likely be required to make
frequent control inputs, adjusting flight scope or selecting new
waypoints in response to developing mission strategy or flight
conditions in some applications, whereas in others, UAS flight
path will be predetermined and modification less common,
reducing the frequency for operators to intervene in flight
control operations, which in turn allows for greater reliance on
automated vehicle guidance.
Background

26. To understand the importance of human brain automation in
UAS, it is important to step back and consider some
fundamentals in human error and ways in which the risks posed
by such human factors can be mitigated. As we apply these
fundamentals to risk in UAS operation, some understanding of
the use of management systems to obviate such risk is pertinent
to my research topic.
Nearly all accidents result from human error. This phenomenon
arises from the fact that humans govern and accomplish all of
the activities necessary to control the risk of accidents. Not
only do humans cause accidents by making errors directly
related to the UAS operation process itself, but such errors are
caused by the creation of in the design and the implementation
of management systems (such as chain of authority,
accountability, procedures, feedback and continual improvement
provisions). Ultimately these management systems govern the
human error rate directly contacting or directly influencing the
process. The process-related activities where errors have the
most influence include process design, engineering and
operation, predicting safeguards necessary to control the risk at
an acceptable level and sustaining these safeguards for the life
of the process, maintaining, inspecting and repairing the process
and managing process changes.
At its most basic, there are two types of human error: errors of
omission and errors of commission. These errors can occur

27. inadvertently or because the worker believes his way is a better
way. Intentional errors are considered as errors in judgment.
While some may believe a lack of risk awareness causes such
errors, the reality is that the operator who commits an
intentional error is well aware of the risk. In other words, the
operator believes they know a better way to accomplish a task.
Within UAS operational systems, management process is a
valuable way to manage risk of human factor error. Management
systems control the interaction of people with each other and
with processes and are high level procedures used to control
major operational activities such writing operating procedures,
training employees, evaluating fitness for duty, conducting
incident investigations, etc. If management systems are weak,
layers of protection will fail and accidents will happen. As we
have established, UAS accidents are caused by human error and
Process Safety Management (PSM) is a tool which is focused on
maintaining such human errors at an acceptable degree because:
(1) all accidents happen due to errors made by humans,
premature failure of equipment for example. There is a surfeit
of management systems to control such human error and limit
their safety impact; (2) when management systems have
weakness, near misses can take place occur; and (3) when
enough near misses occur, accidents/losses occur.
Figure 1-1. Controlling Risk Triangle. Reprinted from Process

28. Improvement Institute, Inc. Retrieved October 13, 2019.
Copyright 2019 by PII. Reprinted with permission.
As this graphic illustrates, if an organization does not directly
control risk, the organization cannot directly control quality,
safety, environmental impact, or production to acceptable
levels. An organization must sustainably control Human factors
must be controlled to manage the risk of accidental losses,
which in turn impact UAS safety and operations
Related Research and Development
There are a number of published papers that have engaged in
research similar to my undertaking. These papers, together with
a short analysis of their research and their results is as follows:
Gavron, V.J. (1998). Human factors issues in the development,
evaluation, and operation of uninhabited aerial vehicles. AUVSI
'98: Proceedings of the Association for Unmanned Vehicle
Systems International, 431-438.
The author discusses a number of unique human factors
concerns unique to UAS flight. These include: Data link
dropouts which may unnoticeable to the operator; UAS mission
times may exceed human vigilance capability; Humans can
observe only one stream of images at a time, while many UASs
provide multiple image streams; Operators are sometimes given
with unprioritized lists of multiple of targets (Gavron, 1998).
This may be especially problematic in circumstances where the
operator is asked to control multiple UAVs simultaneously;

29. Manual control of vehicles with time delays is difficult; Control
interface on some systems is poorly designed; Software is not
standardized, even among similar UAS systems (Gavron, 1998).
Proposed military uses for UASs include special operations;
point reconnaissance, cued surveillance, and target acquisition
(Gavron, 1998). Non-military uses are possible in the fields
such as law enforcement, firefighting, agriculture, construction,
archaeology, geology, and postal delivery (Gavron, 1998).
Gunn, D.V., Nelson, W.T., Bolia, R.S., Warm, J.S., Schumsky,
D.A., & Corcoran, K.J. (2002). Target acquisition with UAVs:
Vigilance displays and advanced cueing interfaces. Proceedings
of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 46th Annual
Meeting, 1541-1545.
The authors note that UAV operators will probably spend much
of their time in supervisory control mode but will be required to
switch to manual control suddenly in response to system
malfunctions, target acquisition, enemy actions, and other
intermittent events (Gunn et.al, 2002). In other words, UAS
operation is a form of vigilance. Subjects flew simulated UAV
missions. In supervisory control mode, they were required to
monitor a stream of digit pairs for a threat warning indicating
the presence of an enemy aircraft (Gunn et.al, 2002). In the
sensory task, the threat warning was signaled by a size
difference between the two digits (Gunn et.al, 2002). In the
cognitive task, the threat warning was signaled by an even-odd

30. digit pairing. False alarms were lower for cognitive than for
sensory displays (Gunn et.al, 2002). Target acquisition times
were shorter for sensory displays than for cognitive. Subjective
workload was higher with cognitive than with sensory displays
(Gunn et.al, 2002).
Nelson, W. T., Anderson, T.R., McMillan, G.R. (2003).
Alternative control technology for uninhabited aerial vehicles:
Human factors considerations. Book chapter.
This research chapter discusses potential alternative control
technologies for UAVs. These include position and orientation
tracking, eye-position tracking, speech recognition, gesture
recognition, and electrophysiological measures (Nelson et.al,
2003). The authors advocate increasingly immersive
environments for UAV pilots, with eventual possibility that
alternative control technologies will replace traditional controls
(Nelson et.al, 2003).
Van Erp, J.B.F., & Van Breda, L. (1999). Human factors issues
and advanced interface design in maritime unmanned aerial
vehicles: A project overview. TNO report TM-99-A004.
Soesterberg, The Netherlands: TNO Human Factors Research
Institute. Report presents a summary of human factors issues in
UAV control, and an overview of relevant research conducted at
the TNO Human Factors Research Institute. The authors assume
that vehicle control will generally be highly automated, and so
focus their discussion on manual control (VanErp et.al, 1999).

31. The authors note that the perceptual information the operator
receives from the remote environment is likely to be degraded
in several ways. Possible consequences for human performance
include poor tracking; difficulty in judging camera, platform,
and target motion; confusion about direction of platform flight;
confusion about viewing direction of camera; disorientation;
degraded situation awareness (VanErp et.al, 1999).
Technological advancements
For the purposes of this research paper, there are two advances
in technology which deserve consideration, Artificial
Intelligence (AI) together with Deep Learning (DL) and human-
machine interfaces (HMIs).
AI is the science and engineering of making intelligent
machines. It is the utilization of computer science to understand
human intelligence and make tasks which would have otherwise
been complex easy to technologically perform (Alan, 2017). In
the context of UAS development, a segment of AI this is
growing in importance is DL. DL is an AI technique that
acquires knowledge through neural network development; a
computer system designed to process information in a manner
similar to the human brain (Alan, 2017). Neural networks can be
taught to identify objects when it is shown many images of a
single type of object. Accordingly, UASs can be trained to
recognize a particular object and distinguish it from other
objects (Alan, 2017).

32. AI reduces redundancies in UAS operation. Conventionally, a
UAS operator travels around an object of interest recording data
in form of pictures to be later reviewed by an expert. In all
likelihood, there is a data shortfall forcing the UAS to perform
multiple missions to capture all the requisite data. With the
evolution in AI, however, this redundancy can be removed.
Platforms such as ANRA’s DroneOSS platform allows the UAS
operator to simply activate the UAS and the platform does the
rest (Alan, 2017). It provides a complete end to end solution
where optimum flight path is designed in order to optimally
capture the most complete digest of data. In turn, this this
allows the UAS to generate and analyze thorough 3D models
based on the captured flight data (Alan, 2017).
In theory, AI in conjunction with numerous sensors can
manipulate a UAS to gather required data while maintaining
safety protocols (Alan, 2017). The UAS can autonomously
employ AI to understand its operational objective independently
of human factors. The UAS can then generate an initial report
midflight right there or upload it consistent with the operator’s
requirements and specifications. Of course, in the context of
human error in UAS operation, the author is not satisfied that
AI offers complete solutions.
HMIs are traditionally considered in the arenas of mobile
entertainment and productivity. HMI innovation has extended to
extend functionality to include interface with and control a wide

33. range of devices and networks, including UAS. Perhaps because
the low cost to entry and network security concerns, hobbyists,
rather than military or commercial uses, have been at the
vanguard of integrating this technology (Dennis et.al, 2015).
The benefits include intuitive use, low cost, supportable using
widely available commercially-off-the-shelf software and
hardware, and capability to provide real-time and low latency
data exchange supporting improved functionality (Dennis et.al,
2015). The limitations on such integration are formidable,
however. The current regulatory landscape in the U.S. is a
considerable barrier to widespread development. Until the
regulatory environment is perfected, progress in HMI research
and testing is uncertain. As the paradigm shifts from complex
software and hardware interactions to simple, ready-to-use
technologies in UAS operation, all options available to
operators must be evaluated (Dennis et.al, 2015).
Alternative Actions
Recommendation

34. References
Alan Phillips (2017). Drones and the Age of Automation.
Retrieved on October 13, 2019,
from https://dronelife.com/2017/09/20/drones-age-
automation/
Bailey, N. R., Scerbo, M. W., Freeman, F. G., Mikulka, P. J., &
Scott, L. A. (2006).
Comparison of a brain-based adaptive system and a
manual adaptable system
for invoking automation. Human Factors, 48(4), 693-

35. 709. Retrieved
from
http://ezproxy.libproxy.db.erau.edu/login?url=https://search-
proquest
-
com.ezproxy.libproxy.db.erau.edu/docview/216459464?accounti
d=27203
Brooker, P. (2016). Introducing unmanned aircraft systems into
a high reliability ATC
system. The Journal of Navigation, 66(5), 719-735.
doi:
http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.libproxy.db.erau.edu/10.1017/S037346
3313000337
Dennis A. Vincenzi, Brent A. Twreilliger, David C. Ison
(2015). Unmanned Aerial
System Human-machine Interfaces: New Paradigms in
Command and
Control. Retrieved on October 13, 2019,
from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2015.07.139
Department of Defense (2001). Unmanned aerial vehicles
roadmap, 2002-2025. Office of
the Secretary of Defense, Department of Defense,
Washington, DC, April 2001.
Gavron, V.J. (1998). Human factors issues in the development,
evaluation, and operation

36. of uninhabited aerial vehicles. AUVSI '98:
Proceedings of the Association
for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International, 431-
438.
Giovanni Migliaccio, Giovanni Mengali and Roberto Galatolo
(2016). A solution to detect
and avoid conflicts for civil remotely piloted aircraft
systems into non-
segregated airspaces. Retrieved on September 6, 2019,
from https://
doi-
org.ezproxy.libproxy.db.erau.edu/10.1177/0954410015625664
Gunn, D.V., Nelson, W.T., Bolia, R.S., Warm, J.S., Schumsky,
D.A., & Corcoran, K.J.
(2002). Target acquisition with UAVs: Vigilance
displays and advanced
cueing interfaces. Proceedings of the Human Factors
and Ergonomics
Society 46th Annual Meeting, 1541-1545.
Marshall, D. M., Barnhart, R. K., Hottman, S. B., Shappee, E.,
& Most, M. T.
(Eds.). (2016). Introduction to unmanned aircraft
systems. Retrieved
from https://ebookcentral.proquest.com
Nelson, W. T., Anderson, T.R., McMillan, G.R. (2003).

37. Alternative control technology
for uninhabited aerial vehicles: Human factors
considerations. Book chapter.
Parasuraman, R., & Riley, V. (1997). Humans and automation:
Use, misuse, disuse,
abuse. Human Factors, 39, 230-253.
Van Erp, J.B.F., & Van Breda, L. (1999). Human factors issues
and advanced interface design
in maritime unmanned aerial vehicles: A project
overview. TNO report TM-99-
A004. Soesterberg, The Netherlands: TNO Human
Factors Research Institute.
Williams, K. W. (2004). A summary of unmanned aircraft
accident/incident data: Human
factors implications. (Technical report DOT/FAA/AM-
04/24). Washington, DC:
Office of Aerospace Medicine, FAA
Worch, P., J Borky, R Gabriel, W. Hesider, T Swalm, and T.
Wong. (1996). U.S. Air
Force Scientific Advisory Board Report on UAV
Technologies and Combat
Operations (Technical report SAB-TR-96-01).
Washington, DC:
General Printing Office.

38. Your job as a reviewer is to follow the checklist below to give
cogent, professional feedback to
the students whose works you are assigned to review. The
following elements make your
review successful.
the perspective of assessing
the concept as if it could work.
material.

39. the author succeed in this
endeavor. The reviewer should provide additional information
or countering information
from the perspective that more may need to be done or other
angles considered.
will do this).
supporting their concept.
appropriate citation
reference (or references).
The peer review process is intended to mirror constructive
feedback you will be expected to
provide and respond to in the real world, whether you are
refining a new project or identifying

40. new unexplored options. Please perform this review with an
open mind as a professional and
with consideration of how you state your questions or
comments. This process of review and
defense is almost as valuable a learning opportunity as the
assignment.
Rough Draft Peer Review Submission
complete two peer reviews by the following actions:
· "Claim" reviewer responsibility by replying to the
post indicating you will provide review (do this two times). I
already did this…
· Evenly distribute claims on others' work; if a peer already has
several claims, look for those with the fewest to claim yourself.
· Utilize this Peer Review Checklist for points to keep in
mind.(Will upload the checklist)

41. You must complete the two peer reviews by the end of the next
module week (Module 6). Prompt submission of assignments is
of utmost importance.
Each peer review should be at least 250 words with references
to support your point of view.
In your paper,
· Identify your selected film, including writer, director, year of
release, and genre.
· Briefly summarize the film in which you apply your
knowledge of the difference between the film’s story and its
plot.
· Describe one of the broad theories you have learned about in
class (auteur theory, genre theory, formalist theory) and analyze
your selected film through that lens.
· Evaluate the use of three specific techniques and design
elements employed in the film as they contribute to the
overarching narrative and theme of the film. This can include
elements of mise-en-scène (e.g., lighting, sound, composition of
frame, costuming, etc.) and editing (e.g., cuts and transitions,
shots used, angles, etc.).
· Describe the connection between this film and society (i.e.,
politically or culturally, positive or negative) and draw

42. conclusions about its impact.
The Final Film Analysis paper
· Must be five to six double-spaced pages in length (not
including title and references pages) and formatted according to
APA style as outlined in the Ashford Writing Center’s APA
Style (Links to an external site.) resource.
· Must include a separate title page with the following:
· Title of paper
· Student’s name
· Course name and number
· Instructor’s name
· Date submitted
For further assistance with the formatting and the title page,
refer to APA Formatting for Word 2013 (Links to an external
site.).
· Must utilize academic voice. See the Academic Voice (Links
to an external site.) resource for additional guidance.
· Must include an introduction and conclusion paragraph. Your
introduction paragraph needs to end with a clear thesis
statement that indicates the purpose of your paper.
· For assistance on writing Introductions & Conclusions (Links
to an external site.) as well as Writing a Thesis Statement
(Links to an external site.), refer to the Ashford Writing Center
resources.
· Must use at least three scholarly sources in addition to the

43. course text.
· The Scholarly, Peer-Reviewed, and Other Credible Sources
(Links to an external site.) table offers additional guidance on
appropriate source types. If you have questions about whether a
specific source is appropriate for this assignment, please contact
your instructor. Your instructor has the final say about the
appropriateness of a specific source for a particular assignment.
· To assist you in completing the research required for this
assignment, view this Ashford University Library Quick ‘n’
Dirty (Links to an external site.) tutorial, which introduces the
Ashford University Library and the research process, and
provides some library search tips.
· Must document any information used from sources in APA
style as outlined in the Ashford Writing Center’s Citing Within
Your Paper (Links to an external site.) guide.
· Must include a separate references page that is formatted
according to APA style as outlined in the Ashford Writing
Center. See the Formatting Your References List (Links to an
external site.) resource in the Ashford Writing Center for
specifications.