1Running head TITLE OF YOUR PAPER (50 characters max)4.docx

1
Running head: TITLE OF YOUR PAPER (50 characters max)
4
TITLE OF YOUR PAPER
Title of Your Paper
Your Name
Independence University
Abstract
An abstract is optional and is a general overview of the content
covered in your paper. The abstract should be no more than 250
words. In general class assignments, the abstract may not be
required. Please check with you instructor regarding this
requirement. For the running head above, the words Running
head: should be in the same 12-point font as the rest of the
paper, only appear on the cover page, be on the same line as the
page number, and be aligned with the left 1” margin. The paper
title portion should be in all caps. For the second page and
beyond, the running head should only include the paper title in
all caps. The page numbers should be aligned at the right 1”
margin.

Title of Your Paper
The initial paragraph is assumed in APA to include the
introduction to your paper, and therefore does not require the
heading of “Introduction”. Use the paper title as the initial
paper heading, centered, not in bold, with major words
capitalized. The heading and content should start at the top of
the page with no extra spacing. The entire paper should be
double-spaced with no extra spacing between headings or
paragraphs. The first line of every paragraph should be indented
5-7 spaces, or .5” by default. This includes paragraphs
following numbered lists and images. This section should
“introduce” the reader to the content covered in your paper. In
many ways, the introduction serves as a mini-outline for the rest
of the paper. So, as you continue to write the remaining
sections, make sure to only include the information related to
what you have “introduced” in your introduction paragraph. To
sum it up, this section should tell the audience what you are
going to talk about in the Body.
Body
Use a level 1 APA heading appropriate for the content to
introduce this section, centered and in bold. Do not use the
Body heading. The “body” of your paper should expand on the
concepts covered in your introduction. It is appropriate to have
main and subtopics in this section. The main and subtopics
should be identified by using the appropriate Level Heading.
To sum it up, this section should talk about what you told the
audience you were going to talk about in your Introduction. Use
additional APA heading levels following an outline format for

each new concept section in your paper. Level 1 is centered and
in bold. Level 2 is left-aligned and in bold, level 3 is in the first
line of the paragraph, in bold, and ending with a period., etc.
Each heading should be appropriate for the content contained in
the paragraphs under the heading.
Citing Your Sources
When using information from outside sources in your writing,
you must cite those sources appropriately. As an example, if
you are paraphrasing, follow the end of the information with a
citation, then follow with the period to end the sentence. The
citation must include the author and year, like this (Lodico,
Spaulding & Voegtle, 2010). The citations must match the
references provided at the end of the paper. Only provide the
author’s initials in the full references at the end of the paper,
not within the citations. A quote would be followed with a
citation containing the page or paragraph number for the quoted
content. An example would be, “This is a hypothetical quote”
(Scaduto, Lindsay, & Chiaburu, 2008, p. 27). If you introduce
the authors in your sentence, immediately follow their names
with the year in parentheses. For example, Lodico, Spaulding
and Voegtle (2010) wrote a paper discussing educational
research methods.
Conclusion
This section should cover the highlights of the previous
content. The conclusion should “briefly” remind your
reader/audience about what is included in the previous sections.
Refrain from introducing new topics or ideas in this section,
unless you want to revisit and rework/rewrite previous sections
to include them. To sum it up, this section is going to remind
your audience of what you just told them in the Body, while
making a final point. Once you have completed this section, you
need to complete the References page. An outline of the
Reference page is below.

References
Lodico, M.G., Spaulding, D.T., & Voegtle, K.H. (2010).
Methods in educational research: From theory to practice. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Scaduto, A., Lindsay, D., Chiaburu, D.S. (2008). Leader
influences on training effectiveness: motivation and outcome
expectation processes. International Journal of Training and
Development, 12(3), 158-170.
This is where all the references you used will be listed
alphabetically by author’s last name. The reference page needs
to be double-spaced and the second line of the same reference
should be added as a “hanging” indent. All references should
also be double-spaced with no extra spacing between them. All
references should be in the same font as the rest of the paper.
The content of this page should begin at the top of the page with
no extra spacing. Once you have added your references, please
delete this section and the information below from the template.
Additional APA resources are below:
Purdue Online Writing Lab APA
Son of Citation Machine APA
How to cite and reference just about any type of source, with
examples
APA 6 writing instructions and example
Rough Draft Peer Review Forum
In this activity, each student will conduct two peer reviews.
Your instructor will assign your reviews to you. Be sure to
check the announcements to see whose work you have been
assigned to review. Your job as a reviewer is to follow the
checklist below and give cogent, professional feedback to the
students whom you are assigned to review.

Note: if you do not have two rough drafts to peer review, please
contact your instructor.
Please write at least 1 to 1 ½ page of peer review per
assignment.
Refer to the list below and make sure you have covered all of
the points in your review.
Peer Review Guidelines
· Professional review that looks at the submitted material from
the perspective of assessing the concept as if it could work.
· The reviewer may agree or disagree with the submitted
material.
· This is not an argument. Consider that you both want to see
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.
· Do not focus on grammar, spelling, or format (instructor will
do this).
· Focus on content as aligned with the topic at hand and
supporting their concept.
· Assertions made by the reviewer must be accompanied by an
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 to refine a project or identify 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.
When reviewing the original submitted material, either add your
comment/question as a tracked change comment to a new
version of the document or compile your comments in a separate

document that clearly identifies where the comment is to be
applied (e.g., section 3, p. 2, para.1: you assert that UAS are
superior to manned assets in agriculture, but do not provide a
reference supporting this assertion). Keep in mind the purpose
of this assignment is to help refine and improve the student’s
project while gaining experience performing peer review.
Running head: UAS HUMAN FACTORS 1
1
HUMAN FACTORS ISSUES IN USAF MQ-9 GROUND
CONTROL STATIONS
Research Paper
Human Factors Issues in USAF MQ-9 Ground Control Stations
Student
Human Factors in Unmanned Aerospace Systems
Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University
1 December 2019

Abstract
In most recent years, the rapid advancement of aviation
technology has led to the establishment of a new type of aerial
platform known as Unmanned Aerospace Systems (UAS),
however, even though many various sectors such as military,
agriculture, law enforcement, aerial photography have benefited
tremendously from their usage and advantages, many major
human factors issues continue to exist to this day. The
relationship between human-machine interface has long been a
controversial topic specifically in military UAS environments.
Here, researchers demonstrated the effects caused by poorly
designed MQ-9 Ground Control Stations (GCS) and the impact
to pilots and sensor operators. Fifty consenting Air Force MQ-9
pilots and sensor operators from Creech Air Force Base, NV
were asked to participate in a study involving GCS design
limitations. Overall, the study concluded that poor cockpit
design, fatigue, limitations to see-and-avoid capability, and lack
of auditory cues were among the most significant human factors
that affected performance. Additionally, further research is
required in the area of GCS design improvement in order to
provide a more user-friendly interface between operators and
the UAS itself.
Keywords: Unmanned Aircraft Systems, human factors, MQ-9,
GCS

Summary
The history of unmanned aviation can be tracked all the
way back to the early 1900s, when Orville Wright and Charles
Kettering were placed in charge of supervising a secret project
that helped develop the world’s first self-flying aerial torpedo -
deemed the “Kettering Bug” - which could fly autonomously to
a pre-determined target and detonate. As the years passed by
and technology advanced, so did Unmanned Aircraft Systems
(UAS). Just like civilian aviation has come a long way since the
Wright Brothers’ first flight in 1903, so has military aviation,
and the same can be said about unmanned aviation. More
specifically, the US military has relied heavily upon UAS to
conduct Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR)
missions around the globe so much, that most operations
nowadays are 24/7. In the Air Force, one such platform is the
MQ-9 Reaper. Built by General Atomics and first flown in
2001, the MQ-9 is considered a medium-altitude Remote Piloted
Aircraft (RPA) with a turboprop engine, 66-foot wingspan, and
loiter time of over 25 hours. Capable of carrying a mixed load
of armament weighing up to 3,800 pounds, the MQ-9 is
considered an extremely reliable aircraft that in many cases
meets or even exceeds manned aircraft reliability standards. The
crew requirement for operating an MQ-9 Reaper is two - one
pilot that is responsible for flying the aircraft and one Sensor
Operator (SO) that operates all sensors and payloads on board.
To do this, the crew operates from a Ground Control Station
(GCS), which can either be inside a fixed facility such as a
typical room in a building, or in a separate, mobile structure
that resembles a container - some of which can be configured to
house two crews inside that can operate two separate aircraft at
any given time. The GCS, however, comes with its own set of
limitations, most of which can be attributed to human factors.
Issue
In a study conducted on 25 November, 2019 at Creech Air

Force Base, Nevada, 50 pilots and SOs from the same squadron
were tasked to list the human factors challenges they faced in
the GCS that negatively interfered with the performance of their
duties. Of note, the sample size taken had an average experience
level of 1,000 flight hours and 50% of the pilots polled had
previous experience in flying manned aircraft; this specific
statistic helped provide an effective comparison between
manned and unmanned human factors issues. Overall, the study
concluded that MQ-9 crews are experiencing multiple human
factors issues in the GCS, ranging from design limitations and
lack of sensory cues that need to be addressed and mitigated
properly in order to ensure the high productivity of the crew and
the success of the mission.
Significance of Issue
The study revealed that MQ-9 crews are experiencing
multiple human factors issues that range from poor GCS design,
fatigue, limited visibility, and lack of auditory cues. Crews
stated that the design of the Pilot/SO (PSO) workstations is not
user-friendly, as the two major complaints were poorly
positioned aircraft controls and auxiliary display monitors too
far apart from the central heads-up-display (HUD).
Furthermore, the condition lever on the PSO workstation is in a
position that could easily cause an engine shutdown if the
operator is not careful with proper hand placement. The study
also revealed that the lack of the seat-of-the-pants feel makes it
harder for crews to analyze a situation such as turbulence,
compared to manned flying. While manned pilots can more
easily detect a stall or unusual attitude, unmanned pilots have to
rely solely on electronic information, as there are no mushy
feelings of the controls, buffeting, or kinesthesia present in the
GCS that will warn them.
The Air Force currently uses two different types of GCSs
for the MQ-9: the Block 15 and the Block 30. The Block 15 is
the older version and is not as advanced as the Block 30,
however, this paper focuses on the Block 15 since many units
have not yet transitioned to the newer version and the

differences between the two are minute. A typical MQ-9 GCS is
configured with two identical PSO racks with the pilot in the
left seat and the SO in the right. As pictured in Figure 1, the
center screen on each rack is the aircraft HUD which displays
telemetry such as airspeed, altitude and engine gauges. It is
through this screen that the pilot primarily operates the aircraft
- it is the central hub for the instrument crosscheck. Above the
HUD is another screen called the tracker display that shows the
aircraft on a constantly updated moving map. Additional
settings can be found on this screen such as link status and
aircraft radio frequencies. Directly below the HUD are two
smaller touch-screens called the Heads-Down-Displays (HDDs)
that show various aircraft system parameters such as engine,
electrical, fuel, and weapons data. The crew can select different
displays by typing in a corresponding number to that display.
For instance, if the pilot wishes to see the status of all fuel
tanks and the quantity in each one, then they would type 48 (48
is the fuel status menu) and all parameters would show up on
the HDD. Two additional screens on the left side of the pilot
rack and right side of the SO rack respectively, display
information such as maps with other active aircraft in the
airspace, secure internet chat rooms that enable communication
through written means, and aircraft checklists. Finally, two
screens in between the two racks display information such as
landing times, fuel consumption rates, and other mission
planning tools. A telephone is also located in between the racks,
as well as the aircraft and ground radios. As seen, there is a lot
of information readily available to the crew, however, this
increases the amount of time spent crosschecking all the data
which can be distracting at times.
Figure 1. General Atomics Legacy Ground Control Station.
Adapted from “Legacy GCS,” 2014, General Atomics
Aeronautical Systems. Retrieved from http://www.ga-
asi.com/legacy-gcs

Each workstation encompasses a keyboard, mouse, control
stick (joystick) on the right side and four levers on the left side.
Both workstations are identical design-wise in case the pilot
side rack malfunctions and has to use the SO side. The
functions of each workstation’s controls are different as the
pilot’s side controls the aircraft while the SO side controls
payload operation and settings such as iris, camera type, and
camera zoom. Specifically, the condition lever, which is located
between the flap and throttle lever on the pilot’s side, controls
the engine and allows fuel flow to the engine when in the
forward position, closes or stops fuel flow (shuts the engine
down) in the middle position, and feathers the propeller blades
to reduce drag in the aft position (Carrigan, 2015). Having that
said, out of all the levers and switches in the GCS, the condition
lever is the most critical one since it directly affects engine
operation. The research, however, revealed that the location of
the condition lever is in a poorly chosen area since pilots can
accidentally bump the lever with their arm when trying to
manipulate the auxiliary screen on the left-hand side of the PSO
rack. One pilot even revealed that his sleeve got caught on the
lever as which moved it full aft, however, he was quick to react
and immediately placed it back in the forward position before
the command link could reach the aircraft. Furthermore, the
study revealed that the condition lever can be easily mistaken
for the flap lever due to its close proximity and same color. In
certain cases, such as an in-flight emergency that requires
engine shutdown either due to an engine fire or failure, the
checklist will direct crews to place the condition lever in the aft
position in order to feather the propeller blades and reduce drag.
This provides the pilot with a better glide ratio and preserves as
much altitude as possible. However, due to the close proximity
and same color of the flap lever, the pilot can easily mistake it
with the condition lever which can be detrimental during an
emergency where time is of the essence. If the condition lever is
not pulled in time, the propeller will not feather and the high
drag that is created will severely impact the glide ratio. In other

words, the aircraft will quickly descend out of the sky, losing
much-needed altitude. Interestingly enough, only the speed
lever knob - which is located to the right of the throttle and
controls engine revolutions-per-minute - is painted red; all the
other levers are painted black. This can further enhance the
confusion between the flap and condition lever. As seen in
Figure 2, the location of the condition lever in close proximity
to the flap lever and the similarity in color make it easier for
crews to confuse the two which, in emergency situations can
prove to be costly.
Figure 2. PPO Setup with Condition Lever. Adapted from
Human Factors Analysis of Predator B Crash. Retrieved from
https://hal.pratt.duke.edu/sites/hal.pratt.duke.edu/files/u13/Hum
an%20Factors%20Analysis%20of%20Predator%20B%20Crash%
20.pdf
Another human factor issue is the relatively colder
temperature inside the GCS compared to outside ambient
temperature. Due to the various amount of equipment such as
communication boxes, electrical panels, and displays that
require constant, adequate cooling, the indoor temperature of a
GCS is lower than what most humans are comfortable with; in
some cases, around 64 - 67 degrees. Vimalanathan and Babu
(2014) concluded that indoor room temperature has a 38 percent
effect on performance, health, and productivity of office
workers (Vimalanathan & Babu, 2014). Furthermore, the
equipment also produces constant noise that creates distractions
and makes it difficult to listen to the radio. Research has also
shown that daytime noise exposure had a sustained effect on
nighttime sleep, including shorter deep sleep and lower sleep
efficiency (Guo, et al., 2017). Because of this, crews noted that
the GCS causes fatigue which negatively affects performance.
Due to the large amount of displays and long periods of
endurance in the seat, research revealed that eye strain, shoulder
and lower back pain, and headaches were some of the side

effects. Because the displays are not located closely to the main
HUD, crews have to constantly move their eyes back and forth
as part of their normal crosscheck. According to human factors
engineers, the three zones (i.e. “cones”) of visual location are
“Easy Eye Movement” (foveal movement), “Maximum Eye
Movement” (peripheral vision with saccades), and “Head
Movement” (Kamine, 2008). In a study conducted by NASA’s
Dryden Flight Research Center, Kamine & Haber (2018)
measured instrument display visual angles to determine how
well conventional aircraft and the MQ-9 ground control station
(GCS) complied with these standards, and how they compared
with each other (Kamine & Haber, 2018). It was discovered that
all conventional vertical and horizontal visual angles lay within
the cone of “Easy Eye Movement” and some in the “Maximum
Eye Movement”, however, most instrument vertical visual
angles of the MQ-9 GCS lay outside the cone of “Easy Eye
Movement” (Kamine & Haber, 2018). In other words, the
majority of MQ-9 GCS visual displays lay outside the cone of
“Easy Eye Movement” which can cause eye strain. Reduced
blinking rate and symptoms of eyestrain in operators of Visual
Display Terminals (VDT) is not something new. Yakaishi and
Namada (1999) concluded that reduced blinking rate, eyestrain,
and uncomfortable eyes are more prevalent among VDT
operators compared with office workers doing comparative jobs
not involving VDTs (Yakaishi & Namada, 1999).
Compared to a manned aircraft where the pilot is
physically located in the seat, UAS operators are located
hundreds or even thousands of miles away from the aircraft and
lack several sensory cues such as ambient visual input,
kinesthetic, vestibular, and auditory information (Damilano, et
al., 2012). The limited field of view, image resolution, and
refresh rate - constrained by the data-link bandwidth - make it
difficult for a UAS operator to see-and-avoid other aircraft in
the sky. Additionally, since there is no seat-of-the-pants feel,
crews indicated that the lack of sensory cues limits their ability
to detect turbulence or erratic engine operation/vibration. As

opposed to a manned pilot that can easily sense turbulence,
erratic engine operation, unusual attitudes, or vibrations, UAS
operators must rely on other sources of information - mainly
electronic; the sense of balance and equilibrium provided by the
inner ear is absent.
Recommendations
It is evident that many human factors challenges exist in MQ-9
Block 15 GCSs, however, there are many recommendations that
could be implemented in order to improve crew performance.
One recommendation is that the condition lever should be
placed in a position that will allow quicker identification and
separation from the other levers. Given the importance of this
lever, it should be placed in an isolated location on the
workstation, away from other controls. Also, installing a guard
switch over it will ensure that it is not inadvertently pulled back
by the pilot’s arm or sleeve. Additionally, color-coding the
condition lever such as bright yellow and black will ensure that
in times of emergencies, less time is spent trying to identify the
lever and more time is spent trying to handle the emergency.
A second recommendation is that auxiliary display
monitors should be placed as close to the HUD as possible. This
will allow for an easier and quicker crosscheck for the crews, as
well as alleviate any eye strain caused by excessive eye
movement. The HUD itself should also be modified to provide a
wider field of view width that will increase situational
awareness. By displaying a wider horizon, crews can more
easily detect and avoid other aircraft in the sky and weather
phenomena such as potential cloud formations, lightning, and
thunderstorms.
A third recommendation would be to include warnings of
critical anomalous events that
involve more than one type of sensory mode such as both an
auditory and visual warning of critical anomalous events
(Williams, 2008). For example, in addition to a visual
indication of engine RPM, providing the pilot with the option of
listening to the actual engine noise would tremendously assist

with detecting any unusual sounds. That option could be as
simple as clicking a button and instantly listening to the aircraft
engine whenever the pilot choses to do so.
Lastly, similar to manned aircraft, installing a stick shaker can
help aid the pilot in recognizing an impending stall.
Conclusion
The MQ-9 GCS has come a long way since its original
inception by incorporating various changes to its design,
however, research has shown that there are still many human
factors challenges that crews are facing. Therefore, additional
research on human factor implications on MQ-9 GCSs must be
conducted that will allow for continuous updating and
refinement of cockpit design, monitor placement, audio-sensory
cueing, and human-machine interaction. This would require
additional funding, however, it is an absolute necessity if crews
are expected to perform at their highest. As technology
continues to improve, GCSs must be constantly refined, while
always taking human factors considerations into account, in
order to keep up with the constant demands placed on UAS
operators.
References
Bendrick & Kamine (2019). Instrument Display Visual Angles
for Conventional Aircraft and the MQ-9 GCS. Retrieved from
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20080022357
Damilano, Guglieri, Quagliotti, & Sale (2012). FMS for
unmanned aerial systems: HMI issues and new interface
solutions. Journal of Intelligent & Robotic Systems, 65(1-4),
27-42.
doi:http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.libproxy.db.erau.edu/10.1007
/s10846-011-9567-3

General Atomics Aeronautical Systems Inc. (2019). Predator B
RPA. Retrieved from http://www.ga-asi.com/predator-b
Guo, Lin, Tsai, Lin, Chen, Chung, & Wu (2017). 0429 Daytime
workplace noise exposures lower than occupational criteria
can disturb nighttime sleep. Occupational and
Environmental Medicine, 74
/oemed-2017-104636.354
Haber, J., & Chung, J. (2016). Assessment of UAV operator
workload in a reconfigurable multi- touch ground control station
environment. Journal of Unmanned Vehicle Systems, 4(3),
203+. Retrieved from https://link-gale-
com.ezproxy.libproxy.db.erau.edu/apps/doc/A463514960/A
ONE?u=embry&sid=AONE &xid=1d00ac6c
Nakaishi, H., & Yamada, Y. (1999). Abnormal tear dynamics
and symptoms of eyestrain in operators of visual display
terminals. Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 56(1), 6.
doi:http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.libproxy.db.erau.edu/10.1136/oem.
56.1.6
Perez, D., Maza, I., Caballero, F., Scarlatti, D., Casado, E., &
Ollero, A. (2013). A ground control station for a multi-UAV
surveillance system: Design and validation in field experiments.
Journal of Intelligent & Robotic Systems, 69(1-4), 119-130.
/s10846-012-9759-5
Vimalanathan, K., & Babu, T. R. (2014). The effect of indoor
office environment on the work performance, health and
well-being of office workers. Journal of Environmental Health
Science & Engineering, 12, 1-8. Retrieved from
http://ezproxy.libproxy.db.erau.edu/login?url=https://searc
h-proquest-
com.ezproxy.libproxy.db.erau.edu/docview/1559854911?ac
countid=27203
Williams, K. (2008). Documentation of Sensory Information in
the Operation of Unmanned Aircraft Systems. Retrieved from
https://libraryonline.erau.edu/online-full-text/faa- aviation-

medicine-reports/AM08-23.pdf
Running Head: LACK OF STANDARDIZATION IN GROUND
CONTROL STATIONS 1
LACK OF STANDARDIZATION IN GROUND CONTROL
STATIONS
2
Lack of Standardization in Ground Control Stations for

Unmanned Aerial Systems
Student
Embry Riddle Aeronautical University
Abstract
Manned and unmanned aircraft originated around the same time
period,yet manned advanced significantly in the past century.
Throughout that timeframe, many lessons were learned and
implemented, such as human factors via regulations and
industry standards. In aviation, human factors date back to early
World War II, where Paul Fitts and Air Force Captain Richard
Jones investigated pilot errors involving flightdeck
configurations on manned aircraft. The end goal of the Fitts and

Jones investigation was to create a safer and more efficient
flight deck for pilots (Human Factors FAA Safety, 2008).
Currently Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) are faced with many
human factor challenges. The lack of standardization in ground
control stations has led to accidents and loss of UAS.
Challenges on ground control stations are related to the
surrounding environment, prioritization of information,
legibility of fonts, and tasks taking several steps that can be
done in one on manned aircraft (Landry, 2018). Conducting a
study similar to the Fitts and Jones one in 1947 could bring
standardization of ground control stations on Unmanned Aerial
Systems one step closer. Examining accident reports and
utilizing direct operator feedback on unmanned aircraft would
assist in the design standardization for ground control stations,
resulting in safer and more efficient operations.
Lack of Standardization in Ground Control Stations for
Unmanned Aerial Systems
Human factors in aviation date back to early World War II. Paul
Fitts and Air Force Captain Richard Jones were among the first
to investigate different flight deck aircraft configurations with
the end goal of reducing accidents (Human Factors FAA Safety,
2008). The purpose of this paper is to describe the study in
detail followed by a recommendation of how this research can
be applied to unmanned aircraft. Applying these findings to
unmanned aircraft would pave the way for standardization of
ground control stations.
On December 17th, 1903 near Kitty Hawk, North Carolina,
aviation history was made. Orville and Wilbur Wright
conducted the first successful manned aircraft flight. The
gasoline-powered, self-propelled aircraft stayed in the air for 12
seconds and covered 120 feet. Three additional flight tests were
conducted that same day. On the last one, the aircraft lasted for
59 seconds and covered 852 feet. The Wright brothers were
fueled by innovation and the desire to make their vision a

reality. By 1905, they had accomplished creating an aircraft
capable of performing complicated maneuvers and flying for 39
minutes (First Airplane Flies, 2009). In 2017, Qatar flew from
Auckland to Doha in 17 hours and 30 minutes (Longest Flights
in the World, 2017). Clearly, the aviation industry has come a
long way from the first 12 seconds of flight. Not only has flight
duration increased, but the technology changes have been
revolutionary.
The industry has entered a new era where unmanned aerial
systems (UAS) have begun to enter the National Airspace
System (NAS). A UAS can be utilized in many aspects, and they
come in all shapes, sizes, and designs. The birth concept for an
unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV), formerly known as remotely
controlled aircraft, began with Nikola Tesla in the late 1800ss.
Although manned and unmanned aircraft originated in the same
era, they did not evolve in the same capacity. Manned aircraft
advanced in quantity from a few to tens of thousands, while
unmanned had limited production. Critical technologies such as
autonomous navigation, remote control, and automatic
stabilization were not ready and as a result limited the growth
of unmanned aircraft (Newcome, 2004).
As technologies evolved, unmanned aircraft frequented the
airspace on a more regular basis. Since the 1990s, the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) has allowed UAVs to be utilized
for, “important public missions such as firefighting, disaster
relief, search and rescue, law enforcement, border patrol,
scientific research, and testing and evaluation” (Fact Sheet -
UAS, 2014). Recently in 2015, the FAA and Department of
Transportation proposed a set of regulations for small UAS,
under 55 lbs, to enter the National Airspace (Fact Sheet, 2015).
These regulations would allow for the safe everyday use of
unmanned vehicles. In June of 2016, the FAA released
operating requirements, known as Part 107, for non-hobbyists’
unmanned aerial systems under 55 lbs. Part 107 lists regulations
for operators such as airspace limitations, visibility, and cargo.
In addition for individuals to operate a UAV per Part 107, they

must also obtain a remote pilot airman certification with a small
UAS rating (FAA, 2016).
Unmanned systems were initially conceptualized with military
applications in mind. During World War I, military leaders saw
an opportunity for certain missions to minimize casualties in
war if unmanned aircraft were in existence. In present day,
UAVs are utilized in the military for reconnaissance due to the
vast amount of information they can collect on an enemy, an
actual weapon itself, or a simulated target (Palik and Nagy,
2019). Although these unmanned systems have advanced in
military applications, the market for UAS has grown into the
commercial industry.
In the early 2000s, commercial applications evolved for
unmanned systems. The utilization of drones in photography,
site surveillance and security, package delivery, and recreation
took off. As a result of the rapid growth in consumer fields,
UAVs have been created by many manufacturers. With many
manufacturers in the booming market, these systems have been
created on a shorter time frame and with many advancements.
These advancements range from size and weight to capability
and affordability (Giones and Brem, 2017). With the growth
into commercial applications, “the global drone market is
estimated to grow from $2 billion in 2016 to nearly $127 billion
in 2020” (Moskwa, 2016). As technology develops, unmanned
systems will continue to grow into everyday use and eventually
become the norm in a vast variety of industries.
Challenges
As with any growing technology, there are a large number of
challenges to overcome. These challenges range from detecting
and avoiding other aircraft, to figuring out how to fully
integrate UAS into the National Airspace. An ongoing challenge
that dates back to early World War II is the effects of poor
human factor design. Pioneers of human factors changed the
way many view research and design for human-machine
interaction (Marshall, Barnhart, Hottman, Shappee, and Most,
2011). Although many improvements have been made in the

aviation industry with respect to human factors, there are new
challenges arising with the latest technologies.
Human factors is the gathering of knowledge, skills, and
abilities necessary to perform an operation in a safe, efficient,
and effective manner. In order to achieve the overall goal in any
given situation, the field of human factors stresses the
awareness of human characteristics and limitations. Humans are
very capable of responding to situations, processing
information, and overall learning, but they do have limitations.
These limitations can include fatigue, disorientation, and
communication failures. The mission of human factors is to
address these issues via training programs, awareness, and
effective design. In the end, the overall mission of human
factors is to not only eliminate but optimize for effectiveness
and efficiency (Marshall et al, 2011).
According to Marshall et al., nearly half of UAV accidents
are due to human error (2011). Human factor studies aim to
eliminate errors and truly understand the operation and systems
at hand. Since humans are prone to errors, McLay and Anderson
state that systems must be designed and developed with these
human errors in mind (2018). The study of human factors is
important because it analyzes how limitations can affect human
performance, recognition, and cognizance. Human factor
engineers look into how individuals pay attention, allocate
concentration, perceive warnings and cautions, and investigate
historic human interaction with the system. An example of
human factor issues resulting in negative consequences is the
Avianca Flight 410. In March of 1988, an Avianca flight
crashed into mountainous terrain due to “poor crew teamwork
and cockpit distractions, including non-flying personnel present
in the cockpit” (Salas and Maurino, 2010). As a result of this
accident and subsequent studies, it was found that crew
interactions were critical to the operations of an aircraft.
Therefore, subpar interactions can contribute to human errors in
the skies as seen in Avianca Flight 410.
Unmanned aerial systems face numerous human factor

challenges. When examining the system as a whole, there are
many ways safety can be compromised. Issues impacting UAS
safety are a reduction in sensory data, loss of datalink, and a
lack of standardization in design for the ground station control.
Currently, no regulations exist for the ground control centers
for unmanned aerial vehicle. Conversely, for manned aircraft,
there are very strict cockpit industry standards. According to
Landry, “the cockpits of conventional aircraft evolved gradually
over the decades, incorporating principles learned from
accidents and incidents” (2018, p. 388). There are many aspects
that need to be considered when designing an efficient cockpit
whether used in a manned or unmanned aircraft. According to
Howe, factors that need to be taken into consideration are the
familiarity of setup of the displays and controls, visual
indications, cabin temperature, and emergency activation
(2017). All these indications and visual displays provide the
essential information for the operator to accomplish the mission
safely and efficiently.
The ground control station is where the operator and
potentially other personnel such as the payload operator work to
accomplish the mission’s objectives. The ground control station
is the equivalent of the cockpit on a manned aircraft. Although
both these environments have the potential to significantly
affect the operation, they have different regulations on who can
be in the cockpit. In the case of manned aircraft, Sec. 121.542
states that it is a flight crew member's responsibility to not
engage “in nonessential conversations within the cockpit and
nonessential communications between the cabin and cockpit
crews” (FAA, n.d.) among other things like eating or reading
publications not related to safety. According to Landry, the
ground station control environment is very different, people
come and go and conversations are held on a constant basis. The
silence and concentration needed to perform certain critical
tasks such as takeoffs and landings are often distrubed (2017).
On the other hand, applying a sterile cockpit rule may create
other issues such as difficulty concentrating during low

workload phases (Landry, 2017). In summary, ground control
stations need a balance between minimizing distractions during
critical phases of flight but being careful to not create
environments that induce fatigue.
The challenges continue for unmanned vehicles in the
displays of the ground control station. In many cases, operators
experience confusion based on the lack of prioritization of
information. For example, a warning may appear on the display,
but the operator cannot identify it due to other non-crucial
information being presented first. Additionally, difficult to read
fonts and the lack of consistency in displays makes it difficult
to adjust to the system, resulting in overload. In some cases,
routine tasks that take one step on a manned aircraft end up
taking several steps to accomplish the same action (Landry,
2018). These challenges make the operators job more difficult
and strenuous. As a result, operators are more likely to commit
errors that can result in fatalities, making unmanned aerial
vehicles unreliable.
Recommendations
Manned and unmanned aircraft both originated around the same
time frame. However, while manned aircraft took off, unmanned
aircraft continued development in the labs. During the last
century of aviation, many studies have been conducted for
manned aircraft that provided valuable lessons learned. These
lessons and studies can be applied in some way or another to
unmanned aircraft. In 1947, psychologist Paul Fitts and Air
Force Captain Richard Jones conducted a study examining the
effects of different configuration of flight decks on aircraft.
Their end goal was to minimize distraction and provide an
efficient and user-friendly flight deck (Human Factors FAA
Safety, 2008). In the following paragraphs, the study is
described in detail followed by a recommendation of how this
research can be applied to unmanned aircraft.
Fitts and Jones conducted analysis on pilot error with the end
goal of determining the best methods to design a flight deck that
would eliminate accidents due to pilot error and improve the

overall efficiency. They believed that these pilot errors were a
result of poor design characteristics of the flight deck.
The Fitts and Jones study examined 270 pilot errors. The
accounts of the errors were collected via reports and interviews.
The pilots involved in these 270 errors ranged from the Army
Air Force Institute of Technology to former pilots in civilian
universities. The accounts were either received from the pilot
that directly committed the error or by an eyewitness. Following
the review of all the errors, 50 pilots were individually
interviewed and asked to describe in detail an account in which
they committed an error due to misunderstanding a situation
involving an instrument, signal, and/or instructions. Fitts and
Jones then proceeded to have 50 other pilots interviewed in
groups of five to 10 individuals. The results of the discussions
were then categorized these errors into 9 categories:
misinterpreting instruments that had more than one indication,
reversing an instrument, signal interpretation, legibility,
mistaking one instrument for another, instruments that were
inoperative, scale interpretation, illusions, and forgetting to
check an instrument before takeoff (Fitts and Jones, 1947).
Fitts and Jones concluded that although not all accidents can be
eliminated, the amount can be decreased if instrumentation is
designed with the pilot’s perception in mind. In order to
accomplish this challenge, human requirements for an
instrument’s display needed to be researched. Instrumentation
errors affected everyone regardless of experience level. Simple
fixes that were recommended that would make a difference
included utilizing uniform direction-of-motion for all
instruments, auditory signals for cautions/warnings, legibility of
instrumentation, and consistent scale for dials throughout flight
deck (Fitts and Jones, 1947). As the study made clear,
instrumentation and displays posed a great challenge for
manned aircraft back in the 1950s. As a result of these
difficulties and their potential negative consequences,
regulations were created that resulted in a standardized flight
deck, checklists for critical phases of flight, and overall safer

and more efficient flight for manned aircraft.
As George Santayana famously quoted, “Those who fail to study
history are doomed to repeat it” (Newcome, 2004). With the
lessons learned by manned aircraft in the past century, there is a
huge opportunity to implement them on unmanned aerial
systems and prevent past mistakes from being repeated. A study
like the one previously done by Fitts and Jones focusing on
unmanned aircraft would help identify issues in ground control
stations. Identifying these issues would minimize errors and as
a result increase reliability of unmanned aircraft. The end goal
for the ground station control should be to have regulations that
require standardization. With standardization, operators are
more likely to accomplish missions safely and efficiently.
Conclusions
In conclusion, Fitts and Jones were among the first to
investigate how the challenges of human factors can affect a
pilot on a manned aircraft. Although, manned and unmanned are
not the same there are many lessons that can be learned from
the last century, such as Fitts and Jones study. Their study into
how flight deck configurations affected pilots provided great
insight into the lack of design with pilot perception in mind. A
study similar to this one conducted on unmanned aircraft would
help identify issues that operators are experiencing. Gathering
accident reports and pilot feedback would be instrumental in
designing a ground control station that operators could work
safely and efficiently. These findings would pave the way for
standardization of ground control stations.
References
Federal Aviation Administration. (n.d.). Retrieved from
http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgFAR.nsf
/0/dd19266cebdac9db852566ef006d346f!OpenDocument.
Fact Sheet – Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS). (2015,

February 15). Retrieved from
https://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/news_story.cfm?newsId=
18297.
Fact Sheet – Small Unmanned Aircraft Regulations (Part 107).
(2016, June 21). Retrieved from
https://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/news_story.cfm?newsId=
20516.
First Airplane Flies. (2009, November 24). Retrieved from
https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/first-airplane-flies.
Fitts, P. M. & Jones, R.E. (1947) Psychological aspects of
instrument display. H. W. Sinaiko (Ed.), Selected papers on
human factors in the design and use of control systems. (p. 359-
396). New York: Dover Publications.
Giones, F., & Brem, A. (2017). From toys to tools: The co-
evolution of technological and entrepreneurial developments in
the drone industry. Business Horizons, 60(6), 875-884.
doi:10.1016/j.bushor.2017.08.001
Howe, S. (2017). The leading human factors deficiencies in
unmanned aircraft systems. Hampton: NASA/Langley Research
Center.
Human Factors FAA Safety. (2008). Chapter 14 Human Factors
[PDF file]. Retrieved from
https://www.faasafety.gov/files/gslac/courses/content/258/1097/
AMT_Handbook_Addendum_Human_Factors.pdf
Landry, S. J. (2017;2018;). Handbook of human factors in air
transportation systems (1st;1; ed.). Milton: CRC Press.
doi:10.1201/9781315116549
LONGEST FLIGHTS IN THE WORLD. (2017). Accountancy

SA, , 8. Retrieved from
http://ezproxy.libproxy.db.erau.edu/login?url=https://search-
proquest-
com.ezproxy.libproxy.db.erau.edu/docview/1903042066?accoun
tid=27203
Marshall, D. M., Barnhart, R. K., Hottman, S. B., Shappee, E.,
& Most, M. T. (Eds.). (2011). Introduction to unmanned aircraft
systems. Retrieved from https://ebookcentral.proquest.com
McLay, R. W., & Anderson, R. N. (Eds.). (2018). Engineering
standards for forensic application. Retrieved from
https://ebookcentral.proquest.co
Moskwa, W. (2016, May 9). World drone market seen nearing
$127 billion in 2020, PwC says. Available at
https://www.moneyweb.co.za/news/tech/world-drone-market-
seen-nearing-127bn-2020-pwc-says/
Newcome, L. R., & Books24x7, I. (2004). Unmanned aviation:
A brief history of unmanned aerial vehicles. Reston, Va:
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc.
doi:10.2514/4.868894
Palik, M., & Nagy, M. (2019). BRIEF HISTORY OF UAV
DEVELOPMENT. Repulestudomanyi Kozlemenyek, 31(1), 155-
165.
doi:http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.libproxy.db.erau.edu/10.32560/rk.
2019.1.13
Salas, E., & Maurino, D. (Eds.). (2010). Human factors in
aviation. Retrieved from https://ebookcentral.proquest.com

Title of Your Paper
The initial paragraph is assumed in APA to include the
introduction to your paper, and therefore does not require the
heading of “Introduction”. Use the paper title as the initial
paper heading, centered, not in bold, with major words
capitalized. The heading and content should start at the top of
the page with no extra spacing. The entire paper should be
double-spaced with no extra spacing between headings or
paragraphs. The first line of every paragraph should be indented
5-7 spaces, or .5” by default. This includes paragraphs
following numbered lists and images. This section should
“introduce” the reader to the content covered in your paper. In
many ways, the introduction serves as a mini-outline for the rest
of the paper. So, as you continue to write the remaining
sections, make sure to only include the information related to
what you have “introduced” in your introduction paragraph. To
sum it up, this section should tell the audience what you are
going to talk about in the Body.
Body
Use a level 1 APA heading appropriate for the content to
introduce this section, centered and in bold. Do not use the
Body heading. The “body” of your paper should expand on the
concepts covered in your introduction. It is appropriate to have
main and subtopics in this section. The main and subtopics
should be identified by using the appropriate Level Heading.
To sum it up, this section should talk about what you told the
audience you were going to talk about in your Introduction. Use
additional APA heading levels following an outline format for
each new concept section in your paper. Level 1 is centered and
in bold. Level 2 is left-aligned and in bold, level 3 is in the first

line of the paragraph, in bold, and ending with a period., etc.
Each heading should be appropriate for the content contained in
the paragraphs under the heading.
Citing Your Sources
When using information from outside sources in your writing,
you must cite those sources appropriately. As an example, if
you are paraphrasing, follow the end of the information with a
citation, then follow with the period to end the sentence. The
citation must include the author and year, like this (Lodico,
Spaulding & Voegtle, 2010). The citations must match the
references provided at the end of the paper. Only provide the
author’s initials in the full references at the end of the paper,
not within the citations. A quote would be followed with a
citation containing the page or paragraph number for the quoted
content. An example would be, “This is a hypothetical quote”
(Scaduto, Lindsay, & Chiaburu, 2008, p. 27). If you introduce
the authors in your sentence, immediately follow their names
with the year in parentheses. For example, Lodico, Spaulding
and Voegtle (2010) wrote a paper discussing educational
research methods.
Conclusion
This section should cover the highlights of the previous
content. The conclusion should “briefly” remind your
reader/audience about what is included in the previous sections.
Refrain from introducing new topics or ideas in this section,
unless you want to revisit and rework/rewrite previous sections
to include them. To sum it up, this section is going to remind
your audience of what you just told them in the Body, while
making a final point. Once you have completed this section, you
need to complete the References page. An outline of the
Reference page is below.
References

Lodico, M.G., Spaulding, D.T., & Voegtle, K.H. (2010).
Methods in educational research: From theory to practice. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Scaduto, A., Lindsay, D., Chiaburu, D.S. (2008). Leader
influences on training effectiveness: motivation and outcome
expectation processes. International Journal of Training and
Development, 12(3), 158-170.
This is where all the references you used will be listed
alphabetically by author’s last name. The reference page needs
to be double-spaced and the second line of the same reference
should be added as a “hanging” indent. All references should
also be double-spaced with no extra spacing between them. All
references should be in the same font as the rest of the paper.
The content of this page should begin at the top of the page with
no extra spacing. Once you have added your references, please
delete this section and the information below from the template.
Additional APA resources are below:
Purdue Online Writing Lab APA
Son of Citation Machine APA
How to cite and reference just about any type of source, with
examples
APA 6 writing instructions and example

1Running head TITLE OF YOUR PAPER (50 characters max)4.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to 1Running head TITLE OF YOUR PAPER (50 characters max)4.docx

Similar to 1Running head TITLE OF YOUR PAPER (50 characters max)4.docx (15)

More from aulasnilda

More from aulasnilda (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

1Running head TITLE OF YOUR PAPER (50 characters max)4.docx