The document provides an overview of remote operated vehicles (ROVs) and discusses human factors considerations related to piloting the Panther-XT Plus ROV. It includes: 1) An introduction to ROVs, their components, and typical piloting environment. 2) An analysis of key human factors that impact ROV piloting performance, including situation awareness, mental workload, and trust in automation. 3) Recommendations to improve specific human factors, such as introducing 3D cameras and voice commands to enhance situation awareness, and redesigning the control layout to reduce errors. The document evaluates human factors challenges for ROV pilots and provides suggestions to enhance the pilot experience and performance through improved system

1. presented by:
Vikram Razdan
Advanced Engineering Design
Brunel University
Dec 2013
Human Factors Design Review
Pages 1 – 15: Human Factors Review
Appendix A: Transcript of phone interview with Seaeye’s Technical Sales Engineer
Appendix B: List of Tables and Figures

2. Introduction
What is an ROV?
• A Remote Operated Vehicle, commonly referred to as an ROV, is a tethered underwater vehicle, and is
quite common in underwater/subsea industries. ROVs are unoccupied, highly manoeuvrable and operated
by a person aboard a vessel or ashore. (www.rovs.eu, ROV Training Center).
• ROVs have found increasing use within the subsea oil&gas industry over the last 10 years as oil&gas exploration
and production has entered deep waters (> 500 metres depth), where it is not possible for air and saturation divers
to operate.
• The ROV Pilot is responsible for manual control of the ROV (submersible) based on video feedback from
cameras and sonar.
The ROV System and Piloting
Controller Control
Console
Cable
Tether
Submersible
(ROV)
Video
Monitor
Fig. 1: Basic ROV Layout (Christ and Wernli, 2007)
ROV
Tether
The purpose of this study is to evaluate the Human
Factors involved in the Piloting Panther XTP and suggest
design changes, if any.
Fig. 2: Computer generated image depicting The ROV World, www.cqci.org
1

3. 3281 feet (1000 metres)
Panther-XT Plus ROV
Panther XTP is a robot with
autopilot and obstacle avoidance
sonar. A complex machine operated
by the ROV Pilot in a harsh
underwater environment, based on
work on the concept of Augmented
Reality (Vasilijevic et al. 2013). The
complexity increases since the
ocean restricts the transmission of
electromagnetic waves, including
visible light (Ho et al. 2011)
Technical Information
(Fig. 3: History of ROVs, Oceaneering, 2013)
Forward
(Surge)
Heading or Depth (Heave)
Yaw
x
y
Roll
Pitch
<= 4 knots
Six
degrees
of
freedom
Fig. 4: Six degrees of freedom of an ROV
Manipulator arms
Thrusters
(8 horizontal
and 2 vertical)
2 Buoyancy
tanks
Pan and Tilt
for cameras
4 LED Lights
Additional tooling
bolted to chassis
Compass, Gyro and
Depth Sensors
Umbilical/
Tether
2 Electronics
Pods
Fig. 5: Key details of Panther-XT Plus ROV
2

4. ROV Pilot’s operating environment
Fig. 6: A typical Seaeye Panther-XT Plus Control Cabin
For the purposes of this study, it is assumed that the ROV Pilot has the minimum required competency in
operating an ROV from a sea going vessel, and all tooling, fitments and auxiliary services are as per the
International Marine Contractors Association code of practice (ROV Mobilisation, Sept 2013, IMCA R 009 Rev. 1).
External Environment
Offshore
Sea Vessel
Tether
Management
System (TMS)
Seating
Multiple
Video
Monitors
Surface
Control Unit
ROV Hand
Control Unit
Manipulator
Controller
Keyboard
Manual
Control
Posture
Internal Environment
Footswitch
for TMS
Majority of the 12
hour shift time is
spent in Piloting the
ROV (Fugro, 2013)
Power
Supply
Units
Fig. 7 : Panther-XT Plus ROV’s Pilot’s operating environment
3
ROV Launch and
Recovery
System (LARS)

5. ROV Piloting issues
Risk to ROV from
support vessel’s
thrusters and
propellers
(IMCA Code of
Practice, 2009)
Low visibility due to
fouling of cameras by
pollutants
(IMCA Code of
Practice, 2009)
Maintain top, bottom
and side clearances
when ROV is in close
spaces
(BS EN ISO 13628-
8:2006)
Lag in sonar signal
propagation
underwater
(Ho et al., 2011)
Effect on ROV buoyancy from water
salinity / density variation
(Ho et al. 2011 and IMCA Code of
Practice, 2009)
Poorly designed
automation can negatively
impact operators
(Parasuraman and Riley,
1997).
Multiple Low
visibility due to
fouling of cameras
by pollutants
(IMCA Code of
Practice, 2009)
Potential from
information overload
from multiple display
screens
(Parasuraman, 2000)
Insufficient pan angle
for the cameras
during work tasks
Risk of umbilical
entanglement
(in free swimming
ROVs)
ROV pitch (nose-
up/nose-down) and
roll adjustment errors
Manipulator position
control / accuracy
Acoustic interference
if several vessels are
operating in the area
(IMCA Code of
Practice, 2009)
• ROV Pilot’s objective is to complete the allotted task with a high degree of accuracy and within the
scheduled time.
• ROV Piloting is a difficult task mainly due to reduced sensory cues and poor spatial awareness from being
physically removed from the operating environment (Ho et al., 2011).
ROV Pilot
Piloting a work class ROV like Panther-XT
Plus involves a high degree of complexity
4

6. Evaluation of the Human Factors
Human Factors involved
In ROV Piloting
Importance
Rank
Physical considerations
1. Situation Awareness 5 • Hand Control Unit with
Joystick, Rotary knobs and
Toggles
• Manipulator Master Controller
• Footswitch for TMS (Tether
Management System) shut off
2. Mental workload 5
3. Trust in automation 4
4. Design of controls 4
5. Posture 4 • Seated for long hours with
constant visual input from
displays while using hand
control
6. Anthropometric
dimensions for Seating
and Control Desk
4
7. Visual Display Layout 4
• Multiple video monitors (2 to
6, depending upon cameras
installed)
8. Task workload 3 • 12 hour shift
• Pilot is part of 3 person crew
• Deployed offshore9. Communication 3
Tasks Tooling
Observation Cameras
Inspection Sensors
Survey Sonar
Construction/
Intervention
Robotic arms/Special
attachments
Burial/ Trenching Trenching equipment
Technical considerations
Type of tooling
Free swimming or Tethered
Work or Observation
Shallow or Deepwater
Higher the technical
consideration, higher the
complexity, leading to
LOWER PERFORMANCE
and HUMAN ERRORS!
Task workload and
Communication are operational
Human Factor issues which
depend upon several external
factors (type/size of company,
workforce culture, work contract,
regulations) and are beyond the
scope of this study.
By incorporating Human
Factors based design
changes in the Panther-XT
Plus ROV, the Pilot
performance can be improved
and human errors minimised.
These are Human Factors which
directly influence the design of
the ROV and its Piloting, and will
be the focus of this study
5
Importance rankings (High:5, Low:1) are based on literature review

7. 1. Situation Awareness
Endsley (1995), defined Situation Awareness as "the perception of elements in the environment within a
volume of time and space, the comprehension of their meaning, and the projection of their status in the near
future.“. The crucial issue is the assimilation of the relevant sensory inputs, the processing of information
pertinent to specified user goals, and the translation of the user’s subsequent decisions into effective action
(Oron-Gilad et al. 2006). Jones and Endsley (1996) found out that 76% of errors happen due to shortcomings in
perception of the needed information.
The term ‘Perception Enhancement System’ can be used to describe any device which optimises the feedback
of environmental or vehicle stimuli to the driver (Giacomin, 2013)
Fig. 8: Schema, Mental Models and SA (Jones and Endsley, 2000)
Situation Awareness in Piloting Panther XTP ROV
• In ROV Piloting, situation awareness is essentially
cognition of perception and data cues of the situation
received from visual displays, comprehension of this
situational information, and ability to project future
status, with a view to achieve the desired goal based
on underlying mental models/schema.
• The Panther XTP ROV Pilot performs the task based
on a stream of sensory feedback delivered almost
exclusively through visual displays augmented with
location, depth and orientation information, just like
Visual Augmented Reality (Visual AR).
Factors affecting SA in Piloting the Panther XTP ROV
• The Pilot has to undertake tasks in a 3D environment based on visual 2D video feedback, which severely limits
spatial awareness/perception.
• Insufficient pan angle for the cameras during work tasks when ROV is in locked/stationary position
• Inadequate lighting/illumination essentially during observation tasks.
• Lack of other sensory cues from the real world underwater (hearing, touch, ambient visual information, kinesthetic
and vestibular input - Flaherty et al. 2012)
6

8. Calhoun et al. 2006, presents the findings in the Table 1
on the right hand side, of research conducted over a few
years at AFRL, Patterson Air Force Base, USA.
Sensory Interfaces with strong potential
• Synthetic augmented view (using synthetic vision
technology, where images not captured by the camera are
generated synthetically)
• Force feedback control sticks (such joysticks involve the
use of haptic technology, by applying artificially generated
forces, vibrations, and motions to the user - Flaherty et al.
2012)
• Speech-based input (for invoking simple buttons. Results
showed that speech input was significantly better than
manual input in terms of task completion time, task
accuracy, flight/navigation measures, and pilot subjective
ratings)
1(a). Situation Awareness: Assessment of Multi-Sensory Interfaces
Table 1: Results of the AFRL research at Patterson Air Force Base, USA
7
Use of speech-based input can reduce mental workload on
the ROV Pilot significantly
Recommendations for Improving Situation Awareness in Panther-XT Plus ROV Pilot
• Introduce 3D High Definition cameras to improve visual perception
• Introduce direct voice input (speech recognition) commands as replacement for the existing ‘keyboard’. The text from
the voice input should be displayed on the Video monitor.
• Explore use of Force Feed Joysticks for sense of ‘touch’ while improving tactile perception
• Explore use of Audio Augmented Reality (Audio AR) in tandem with Visual AR to improve comprehension
• Explore the use of Synthetic Vision Technology for underwater imagery, especially for ROV observation work in
areas of low visibility due to pollutants/debris.

9. 2. Mental Workload
Curry et al. 1979, cited defined mental workload as the mental effort that the human operator devotes to control
or supervision relative to his capacity to expend mental effort. The workload is never greater than unity.
During a 12 hours shift, the ROV Pilot has to undertake long duration supervisory control tasks with heavy
mental workload (approaching unity).
CBFV simulation for mental workload analysis
• Satterfield et al. (2012) have used
Transcranial Doppler Sonography (TCD) for
measuring Cerebral blood flow velocity
(CBFV) during supervisory control of
Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) in a
simulated test with varying taskloads
(transitions).
• CBFV results demonstrated that as task
demands increased, operators expended
more cognitive resources to meet this
increase in task demand and vice versa.
• Tests also revealed two important cues: that
the performance degraded significantly
between transitions (change in taskloads) but
improved after transition was completed.
Recommendations for reducing Mental Workload in Panther-XT Plus ROV Pilot
• Explore ways of reducing dual or multiple task handling by ROV Pilots, since performance degradation is maximum
during task transitions.
• Introduce a ‘switchover mechanism’ between the ROV Hand Control Unit and the Manipulator Master Controller so
that the ROV Pilot can only operate one Control unit at a time (Emphasis on task completion to reduce mental
workload and improve performance)
Fig. 9: Graphs showing results of study in Measuring workload during dynamic supervisory control
(Satterfield et al. 2012)
8

10. 3. Trust in Automation
(Madsen and Gregor, 2000): “Trust is the extent to which a user is confident in, and willing to act on the basis of
the recommendations, actions, and the decisions of a computer-based tool or decision aid.” Trust declines
immediately after observing a malfunction in automation. whereas the growth or recovery of trust occurs
relatively slowly (Lee and Moray, 1994). It has been argued (Itoh 2011) that an automated system should provide
information on the purpose of the system and the limit of its capability in a clear manner.
System Trust issue System shortcomings Recommendations for Panther-XT Plus
Autopilot (AHRS/DVL) Overtrust Position errors in mid-waters (not
highlighted by Seaeye)
Introduce ‘out of range’ audio warnings
Obstacle Avoidance
Sonar
Undertrust Acoustic lag/disturbance
underwater (pre-known to Pilots)
Provide audio warning as soon as there is a
‘drop in signal’
Manipulators Overtrust Position accuracy and control (no
data available)
Explore the possibility of intelligent data
capture and mining system to establish
manipulator’s performance limits
Factors affecting ROV Pilot’s Trust in Automation
• Panther XTP ROV pilot has to trust automatic systems (autopilot) and
semi-automatic systems (obstacle avoidance sonar, cameras, sensors,
and manipulators) to perform the task underwater. If the autopilot, the
sonar or the manipulator fails to perform satisfactorily even once,
there would be a tendency to override/reject these systems.
• Panther XTP’s autopilot and navigation system (flux-gate compass and
rate sensor) utilises Attitude and Heading Reference System (AHRS)
and optional Doppler Velocity Logs (DVL) to establish a relative or dead
reckoned position. This system is subject to time and distance based
position errors and only operates accurately close to the seabed. This
means that mid-water operations are conducted via manual control so
real world or relative coordinates cannot be easily used by the ROV pilot
(Sonardyne, 2012).
• Propagation delay of underwater acoustic communications is approx. 10
seconds at a distance of 7 km (Sayers et al., 1998)
Fig. 10, shows results of study involving
impact of Robot failures and Feedback
on Real-Time Trust (Desai et al. 2013). It
confirms findings by Itoh, 2011 that
Humans overtrust automation.
Fig. 10
9

11. 4. Design of Controls
Knobs and switches: Observations, Trends and Standards
• LED lighted push button switches are being preferred again in the aviation industry since touch screens do not
provide tactile feedback (Tech Report, Avionics Magazine, Aug 2005).
• Influence of backlash is negligible in knob control when error tolerance is around (0.18 mm) 0.007’’ (Jenkins and
Connor, 1948)
• NASA (2008) has developed standards and recommendations for design of controls, as under:
i. Continuous position rotary knobs are good for precise settings, but develop a parallax error. Clockwise
movement should indicate increase / ascending order.
ii. Push buttons make efficient use of space, but state of activation is not always obvious. A square x-section is
recommended and surface of the push button should be concave to prevent slippage, and activation should be
indicated by an audible click
iii. Toggle switches make efficient use of space, but require guards or shields to prevent accidental activation.
Length of toggle should be between 19 and 25 mm for single finger operation. Toggle displacement should not
exceed 80°. Spacing between toggles should be at least 15 mm for a toggle switchbank.
iv. 2- position Legend switches are good in low illumination (if self illuminated) and make efficient use of space.
v. 2-position rocker switches make efficient use of space and do not snag clothing, but susceptible to
accidental activation.
Joystick (3-axis)
Push button Toggle switches
Rotary knob
(big)
Rotary knob
(small)
Fig. 11: Panther-XT Plus Hand Control Unit
Inadequacies in Existing Layout of the Hand Control Unit:
Panther-XT Plus ROV
• Toggle switch On/Off positions not consistent (one switch has
reverse On and Off position).
• Positioning of toggle switches is vertical instead of horizontal.
• 6 Rotary knobs (small) positioned around Joystick are
susceptible to accidental movement.
• Status of activation is not obvious on push-button switches.
• Push-button surface is round which cannot prevent slipping of
finger.
• Joystick location is improper since the user can inadvertently
move the toggle switches or the rotary switches
10

12. 4(a). Design of Controls
Proposed Layout of the Hand Control Unit of Panther-XT Plus
Recessed
On/Off toggle
with guard
Rotary knob (25 mm ϕ)
with serrations and digital
counter at bottom
Guards
Square push
button switch
with concave top
3-axis Joystick
6 Rotary knobs
(12 mm ϕ) with
serrations and
digital counter at
bottom
Fig. 12: Proposed Layout of the Panther-XT Plus Hand Control Unit
Recommendations / Proposed changes in Layout of Hand Control Unit
• Displays and/or controls that are functionally related located to be in proximity of one another.
• Discrete position switches to be on the left hand side.
• All rotary knobs except one (big) to be on the right hand side (right handed ROV Pilot).
• Provide recessed toggles with guards to prevent any accidental/inadvertent activation.
• Ensure consistency in On/Off labels on toggles, with Off (up) and On (down).
• Provide square push button switches with concave top surface to prevent finger from slipping.
• Move Joystick to lower centre position towards the ROV Pilot for easy access while standing as well as sitting
• Position the 6 Rotary knobs (small) on a staggered basis with 25 mm clearance between knobs to prevent
accidental/inadvertent activation
11

13. Postural issues and considerations when seated for long hours
• Posture in seating is a static posture (Jones and Barker, 1996). A relaxed sitting posture is when the pelvis is tilted
backwards and lordosis (lumbar curvature) is maintained (Jones and Barker, 1996)
• About 33% of visual display terminal (VDT) users experience back and neck pain (Yoo and Kim, 2006 cited in Daian
et al. 2007)
• Lumbar pain is the most influential on seating comfort, followed by neck and dorsal pain. A key factor
influencing lumbar and dorsal pain is mobility: static postures provoke more pain, while small and quick
movements alleviate it. (Vergara and Page, 2002)
• A minimum trunk-thigh angle of 105° is necessary to preserve lumbar lordosis (Harrison et. Al 2000), whereas the
optimum seat-back angle appears to be 120° from horizontal. The seat height should be less than the distance from
knee to feet to eliminate pressure on the posterior popliteal area, and the lumbar support optimum appears to be 5
cm of protrusion from the seat back (Harrison et al. 1999).
• Harrison et.al (2007) concluded that a 0 to 10° seat bottom, posteriorly inclined, gives the best comfort.
5. Posture
Fig. 13: Group of postures for 6 participants when sitting in a chair (Vergara and Page, 1999)
Fig. 14: Participant with electrodes
measuring contact with backrest
Analysis of the Posture results from Table 2
• Group 3 is the best sitting posture since its gives
the least discomfort for lumbar and neck pain.
• Group 2 sitting posture gives the least dorsal
pain.
Table 2: % Frequency of body part discomfort (Vergara and Page, 1999)
12

14. Head position
• A 30° declined gaze as a result of the horizontal nasion-
opisthion reference line is recommended by ergonomists
as a good working position (Vital and Senegas 1986, cited in
Harrison et al. 1999).
• There should be minimal anterior translation and/or flexion of
the head, since it has been shown to reduce sitting stress
(Harrison et al. 1999)
• By changing the backrest-horizontal angle from 120° to 105°
and thigh-horizontal angle (seat bottom inclination) from 10°
to 0°, head flexion can be reduced from 30° to 15°.
5(a). Posture: Head position and Optimal Seating
Fig. 15: Representation of optimal sitting posture for an ROV Pilot
Optimal seating posture considering lumbar,
dorsal, thigh and head positions
Recommendations for ROV Pilot Posture and Seating
• ROV Pilots should be advised to shift posture at an interval of around 5 minutes.
• The seat backrest should have a limit in flexibility between 105° and 120°.
• The seat bottom should be inclined backwards between 0° and 10°.
• Arm-rests to be provided, and should be adjustable up-down, depending upon the ROV Pilot’s size.
• Lumbar support of 5 cm protrusion to be provided with up-down adjustment as for arm-rests.
• Seat height should be adjustable.
• There should be space below seat bottom to allow backward movement of legs during shifting of posture
13

15. Inadequacies in Seating and Control desk: Panther-XT Plus ROV Pilot
• The Seaeye Panther-XT Plus ROV Pilot sits on a standard ‘operator seat’ with castors, fixed arm rests, adjustable
height and reclining backrest (see Fig. 7, Page 5). Since arm-rests are not adjustable and backrests do not have
adjustable lumbar support with a reclining limit of 120°, there is a likelihood of ROV Pilots developing back and neck
pain.
• The control desk has a flat top surface onto which the Hand Control Unit and/or the Manipulator Master Control Unit are
placed without fixtures, thereby raising the effective working height for the ROV Pilot with no use of arm-rests and
increased discomfort.
• The control desk front side has not been standardised and has a flat panel for some fitments. This hinders free
movement of the Pilot’s legs during shifting of posture.
Table 3: Anthropometric dimensions for chairs (Applied Ergonomics, 1970)
6. Anthropometric dimensions for Seating and Control desk
Seating and Desk height dimensions recommended
(Refer to Table 3)
• Seat width (F) to be 415 mm (95th percentile women)
• Seat bottom length (B) to be 420 mm (5th percentile
women)
• Seat height (A) adjustable from 360 mm to 450 mm (5th
percentile women to 95th percentile men)
• Backrest height (D) to be 635 mm (95th percentile men)
• Arm-rest height (C) adjustable between 180 mm to 265
mm (5th percentile women to 95th percentile men)
• Footrest height to be 60 mm (difference between 50th
percentile women and 95th percentile men)
• The control desk underside height to be 765 mm (95th
percentile men) i.e. be (A + C) plus 50 mm clearance.
Adjustable footrests to be provided for <95th percentile
14

16. 7. Visual Display Layout
Eyes: blind spot
• Each eye has a large blind region, about 4° of
visual angle (Scholarpedia, 2013).
• The blind spot measure in the left eye is
around 10° to the left of optic axis, and the
one in the right eye, equally far out on the
other side (Scholarpedia, 2013)
Fig. 17: Blind spot in Human Eye
The Human Eye has visual acuity up to 9° Visual Angle for each eye
Scovil et al. 2009, mention that the human eye focuses incoming light rays most accurately on the fovea, the retinal area
of the greatest visual acuity (visual angle <2.5°). The surrounding macula (visual angle <9°) also provides high acuity,
beyond which the visual acuity decreases.
586 mm
Recommendations / Proposed Changes in Layout of Visual Displays
• It is important that the centre of the ROV main Video LCD Monitor be at height lower than the eyes considering the 30°
inclination of gaze angle. Additional Monitors should be installed at the same height as the main monitor on either side.
• For a 15 inch LCD Monitor (vertical screen height = 186 mm), the ideal viewing distance is 586 mm
• Ensure that any textual data on the Video Monitors in not line with the blind spots of either eye.
Hand Control
Unit
Manipulator
Master Controller
3 Video LCD Monitors at same level
Fig. 19: Proposed layout of the Video Monitors
70 mm recess
in the Control
Desk
586 mm
Fig. 18: Recommended distance of the Video Monitor from ROV Pilot’s eye
15 inch Video LCD Monitor
with 16:9 aspect ratio
(Screen height 186 mm)
Visual Angle 18°
Arm-rest
15

17. Transcript of phone Interview
(page 1 of 2)
Q1: Is Seaeye involved in Research with Universities?
Ans: No. However, Seaeye were recently contacted by a UK University to do studies on buoyancy control using
Seaeye Falcon ROV
Q2: How many Video Displays are provided with the Panther-XP Plus ROV?
Ans: It depends on the number of Cameras. Two cameras are normally supplied by us (one colour and one black &
white with wide angle).
Q3: Has Seaeye conducted any studies on the Orion 7P and Orion 4R Manipulators to ascertain their
accuracy limits?
Ans: No. Schilling Orion 7P (position type) manipulator is recommended by Seaeye instead of Orion 4R (rate type)
since positional control is easier to manage than rate control. Seaeye have only supplied Orion 7P manipulators till
date.
Q4: How is the Orion 7P Manipulator powered hydraulically?
Ans: For the manipulators, there is a dedicated HPU (powered by thrusters) which supplies hydraulic power. The
sledge-mounted auxiliary HPU is not used for manipulators.
Q5: What type of functions are controlled by the Hand Control Unit? and Is the Manipulator Master Control
Unit linked to the Hand Control Unit?
Ans: The Hand Control Unit has a Joystick (knob type), some rotary switches (0 to 180 °) as standard (for pan and
tilt control, lighting) and switches for safety thruster. The Manipulator Master Control Unit is not controlled by the
Hand Control Unit, and is operated separately. The Manipulator Controller is placed side-by-side to the Hand
Control Unit. Seaeye expects two operators (Pilots) to work at the same time, one for manoeuvring the ROV and
the other for to manipulate the arm (Orion 7P).
Appendix A
Gary Burrows (Technical Sales Engineer, Seaeye). 2013. Panther-XT Plus ROV Piloting. Interviewed by
Vikram Razdan. [Phone] Fareham, Hampshire, 3rd December 2013.

18. Transcript of phone Interview
(page 2 of 2)
Q6: What type of lighting is supplied and are there any options?
Ans: Seaeye supplies ‘white’ light LED lamps with the ROV. Only on one occasion, Seaeye have supplied ‘green’
light LED lamps to a customer. We have had a customer who mentioned about using ‘blue’ LED lighting on other
ROVs.
Q7: What the range of the Avoidance Sonar?
Ans: Cannot remember. Will have to look up the datasheet.
Q8: Have there been any issues with regards to controls on the Hand Control Unit?
Ans: We have had an issue with one ROV Pilot not happy after the ‘lighting intensity’ control was changed recently
from a ‘press-switch’ to ‘rotary knob’ on the Hand Control Unit.
Appendix A

19. Appendix B
Tables
Table 1: Results of the AFRL research at Patterson Air Force Base, USA (Calhoun et al. 2006) ………. Page 7
Table 2: % Frequency of body part discomfort (Vergara and Page, 1999) ………. Page 12
Table 3: Anthropometric dimensions for chairs (Applied Ergonomics, 1970) ………. Page 14
Figures
Fig. 1: Basic ROV Layout (Christ and Wernli, 2007) ………. Page 1
Fig. 2: Computer generated image depicting The ROV World, www.cqci.org ………. Page 1
Fig. 3: History of ROVs, Oceaneering, 2013 ………. Page 2
Fig. 4: Six degrees of freedom of an ROV ………. Page 2
Fig. 5: Key details of Panther-XT Plus ROV ………. Page 2
Fig. 6: A typical Seaeye Panther-XT Plus Control Cabin ………. Page 3
Fig. 7 : Panther-XT Plus ROV’s Pilot’s operating environment ………. Page 3
Fig. 8: Schema, Mental Models and SA (Jones and Endsley, 2000) ………. Page 6
Fig. 9: Graphs showing results of study in Measuring workload during
dynamic supervisory control (Satterfield et al. 2012) ………. Page 10
Fig. 10: The robot’s perceived performance rating and self performance rating
on a semantic differential scale (7=excellent and 1=poor) ………. Page 11
Fig. 11: Panther-XT Plus Hand Control Unit ………. Page 12
Fig. 12: Proposed Layout of the Panther-XT Plus Hand Control Unit ………. Page 11
Fig. 13: Group of postures for 6 participants when sitting in a chair (Vergara and Page, 1999) ………. Page 12

20. Figures
Fig. 14: Participant with electrodes measuring contact with backrest ………. Page 12
Fig. 15: Representation of optimal sitting posture for an ROV Pilot ………. Page 13
Fig. 16: Center of mass and neutral resting head posture ………. Page 13
Fig. 17: Blind spot in Human Eye ………. Page 15
Fig. 18: Recommended distance of the Video Monitor from ROV Pilot’s eye ………. Page 15
Fig. 19: Proposed layout of the Video Monitors ………. Page 15
Appendix B

21. Bibliography
• BP. 2012. ROV Operations – Tools and Resources (pdf). Available at:
<http://www.bp.com/assets/bp_internet/globalbp/globalbp_uk_english/sustainability/safety/STAGING/local_asset
s/downloads_pdfs/ROV_Operations_Tools_Resources.pdf> [Accessed: 28th November 2013]
• Calhoun, G.L., Draper, M.H., 2006. Multi-sensory interfaces for Remotely Operated Vehicles, UAV Human
Factors. In: E. Salas. ed. 2006. Advances in Human Performance and Cognitive Engineering Research: Human
Factors of Remotely Operated Vehicles, Volume 7. London: Emerald Publishing Group. [e-book] pp. 21 – 33.
Available through: Brunel University Library website <http://www.brunel.ac.uk/services/library> [Accessed: 2nd
December 2013]
• Christ, R.D., Wernli Sr, R.S., 2007. The ROV Manual: A User Guide for Remotely Operated Vehicles. 1st ed.
London: Elsevier.
• Daian, I., van Ruiten, A., Visser, A., Zubic, S., 2007. Sensitive chair: a force sensing chair with multimodal real-
time feedback via agent. Proceedings of the 14th European conference on cognitive ergonomics, [e-journal] pp.
163 – 166. Available through: Brunel University Library website <http://www.brunel.ac.uk/services/library>
[Accessed: 6th December 2013]
• De Souza, E.C; De Souza, E.C; Maruyama, N; Maruyama, N., 2007. Intelligent UUVs: Some issues on ROV
dynamic positioning. IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems, [e-journal] Volume 43, Issue 1,
pp. 214 – 226. Available through: Brunel University Library website <http://www.brunel.ac.uk/services/library>
[Accessed: 23rd November 2013]
• Desai, M., Kaniarasu, P., Medvedev, M., Steinfeld, A., Yanco, H., 2013. Impact of robot failures and feedback on
real-time trust. 8th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), [e-journal] pp. 251 –
258. Available through: Brunel University Library website <http://www.brunel.ac.uk/services/library> [Accessed:
2nd December 2013]
• Endsley, M. R., Jones, D. G, (2011), Designing for situation awareness: an approach to user-centered design.
2nd ed. GB: CRC Press
• Flaherty, S. R., Fern, L., Turpin, T., Scheff, S., 2012. Universal Ground Control Station (UGCS) joystick
evaluation. IEEE Aerospace Conference, [e-journal] pp. 1 – 15. Available through: Brunel University Library
website <http://www.brunel.ac.uk/services/library> [Accessed: 10th December 2013].

22. • Giacomin, J,. 2013. Perception enhancement for Automotive Steering Systems. 7th Annual Conference Steering
Systems 2013, Frankfurt, Germany (pdf). Available at:
http://www.perceptionenhancement.com/docs/seminar/Steering%20Systems%202013.pdf [Accessed: 8th
December 2013]
• Giacomin., J., 2013). Human Factors in Design course notes. Brunel University.
• Gurari, N., Okamura, A.M., 2007. Human Performance in a Knob-Turning Task. Second Joint EuroHaptics
Conference and Symposium on Haptic Interfaces for Virtual Environment and Teleoperator Systems (WHC'07),
[e-journal] pp. 96 – 101. Available through: Brunel University Library website
<http://www.brunel.ac.uk/services/library> [Accessed: 10th December 2013]
• Harrison, D.D., Harrison, S.O., Croft, A.C., Harrison, D.E., Troyanovich, S.J.,1999. Sitting biomechanics Part I:
Review of the Literature. Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics, [e-journal] Volume 22, Issue 9,
Pages 594–609. Available through: Brunel University Library website <http://www.brunel.ac.uk/services/library>
[Accessed: 5th December 2013]
• Harrison, D.D., Harrison, S.O., Croft, A.C., Harrison, D.E., Troyanovich, S.J., 2000. Sitting Biomechanics, Part II:
Optimal Car Driver’s Seat and Optimal Driver’s Spinal Model. Journal of Manipulative and Physiological
Therapeutics, [e-journal] Volume 23, Issue 1, Pages 37–47. Available through: Brunel University Library website
<http://www.brunel.ac.uk/services/library> [Accessed: 5th December 2013]
• Ho, G., Pavlovic, N., Arrabito, R., 2011. Human factors issues with operating unmanned underwater vehicles.
Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, [e-journal] vol. 55, no. 1, pp. 429–
433. Available through: Brunel University Library website <http://www.brunel.ac.uk/services/library> [Accessed:
30th November 2013]
• Itoh, M., 2011. A model of trust in automation: Why humans over-trust? SICE Annual Conference, [e-journal] pp.
198 – 201. Available through: Brunel University Library website <http://www.brunel.ac.uk/services/library>
[Accessed: 1st December 2013]
• Jasiobedzki, P., Se, S., Bondy, M., Jakola, R. (2008). Underwater 3D mapping and pose estimation for ROV
operations. OCEANS 2008, [e-journal] pp. 1 – 6. Available through: Brunel University Library website
<http://www.brunel.ac.uk/services/library> [Accessed: 5th December 2013]
Bibliography

23. • Jenkins, L.J., Connor, M.B., 1948. Some design factors in making settings on a Linear scale. In: N. Moray, ed.
2005. Ergonomics, Volume II. Skills, Displays, Controls and Mental Workload. Abingdon, Oxon: Taylor & Francis.
pp. 345-359.
• Jones, K., Barker, K. 1996. Human Movement Explained.1sr ed. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.
• Kreuzer, E., and Pinto, F.C., 1996. Controlling the position of a remotely operated underwater vehicle. Applied
Mathematics and Computation, [e-journal] Volume 78, Issue 2, pp. 175 – 185. Available through: Brunel
University Library website <http://www.brunel.ac.uk/services/library> [Accessed: 23rd November 2013]
• LED Push-Button Switch Lighting: A Successor to Incandescent. 2005. The Tech Report, Avionics Magazine
(pdf). Available at: http://www.aviationtoday.com/Assets/AVS_0805_Aerospace_Tech.pdf [Accessed: 10th
December 2013)
• Lee, J.D., Moray, N., 1994. Trust, self-confidence, and operators' adaptation to automation. International Journal
of Human - Computer Studies, [e-journal] Volume 40, Issue 1, pp. 153 – 184. Available through: Brunel
University Library website <http://www.brunel.ac.uk/services/library> [Accessed: 2nd December 2013]
• Liu H., Costa, R.R., Lizarralde, F., Da Cunha, J.P.V.S., 2000. Dynamic positioning of remotely operated
underwater vehicles. IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine, [e-journal] Volume 7, Issue 3, pp. 21 – 31.
Available through: Brunel University Library website <http://www.brunel.ac.uk/services/library> [Accessed: 24th
November 2013]
• Marine Advanced Technology Education Center. 1999. ROV Technicians, Remotely Operated Vehicles’,
Knowledge and Skill Guidelines for Marine Science and Technology, Volume 3 (pdf). Available
at:<http://www.marinetech.org/files/marine/files/Workforce/KSG_ROV%20techFINAL.pdf> [Accessed: 30th
November 2013].
• Menon, M., Dixon, T., Tena, I. ,2013. Resolving subsea navigation, tracking and positioning issues by utilising
Smart ROV Control system software. MTS/IEEE OCEANS – Bergen, [e-journal] pp. 1 – 8. Available through:
Brunel University Library website <http://www.brunel.ac.uk/services/library> [Accessed: 22nd November 2013]
• Merritt, S.M., Heimbaugh, H., LaChapell, J., Lee, D., 2013. I trust it, but I don't know why: effects of implicit
attitudes toward automation on trust in an automated system. Human factors, [e-journal] Volume 55, Issue 3, pp.
520 – 534. Available through: Brunel University Library website <http://www.brunel.ac.uk/services/library>
[Accessed: 1st December 2013]
Bibliography

24. • Moray, N., Inagaki, T., 1999. Laboratory studies of trust between humans and machines in automated systems.
Transactions of the Institute of Measurement & Control, [e-journal] Volume 21, Issue 4-5, pp. 203 – 211.
Available through: Brunel University Library website <http://www.brunel.ac.uk/services/library> [Accessed: 2nd
December 2013]
• NASA, 2008. Man-System Integration Standards, [online]. Available at
http://msis.jsc.nasa.gov/sections/section09.htm [Accessed 9th December 2013].
• Oceaneering. nd. History of ROVs [Online]. Available at:
http://www.oceaneering.com/oceanmedia/rov/rovtutorial/index.html [Accessed: 24th October 2013]
• Oron-Gilad, T., Chen, J.Y.C., Hancock, P.A. (2006).Remotely Operated Vehicles (ROVs) from the Top-Down and
the Bottom-Up. In: E. Salas. ed. 2006. Advances in Human Performance and Cognitive Engineering Research:
Human Factors of Remotely Operated Vehicles, Volume 7. London: Emerald Publishing Group. [e-book] Volume
7, pp. 37 – 47. Available through: Brunel University Library website <http://www.brunel.ac.uk/services/library>
[Accessed: 4th December 2013]
• Parsuraman, R., 2000. Designing automation for human use: empirical studies and quantitative models.
Ergonomics, [e-journal] Volume 43, Issue 7, pp. 931 – 951. Available through: Brunel University Library website
<http://www.brunel.ac.uk/services/library> [Accessed: 1st December 2013]
• ROV Pilots / Technicians. Fugro Offshore Survey Career Opportunities [Online]. Available at
http://www.fugro.com/careers/msdrovpilots.asp [Accessed: 5th December 2013]
• Satterfield, K., Ramirez, R., Shaw, T., Parasuraman, R., 2012. Measuring workload during a dynamic
supervisory control task using cerebral blood flow velocity and the NASA-TLX. Proceedings of the Human
Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting [e-journal] 56: 163-167. Available through: Brunel University
Library website <http://www.brunel.ac.uk/services/library> [Accessed: 1st December 2013]
• Scovil, C.Y., Scovil, C.Y., King, E.C., King, E.C., Maki, B.E., Maki, B.E., 2009. Determining the Visual Angle of
Objects in the Visual Field: An Extended Application of Eye Trackers. IEEE Transactions on Biomedical
Engineering, [e-journal] Volume 56, Issue 3, pp. 910 – 912. Available through: Brunel University Library website
<http://www.brunel.ac.uk/services/library> [Accessed: 8th December 2013]
Bibliography

25. • Seating in industry (1970), In: Carayon. P and Parsons K.C. ed.nd. Applied Ergonomics: Human Factors in
Technology and Society. London: McGraw-Hill. [e-book] Volume 1, Issue 3, pp. 159 – 165. Available through:
Brunel University Library website <http://www.brunel.ac.uk/services/library> [Accessed: 5th December 2013]
• Sniderman, Z., 2011. How Does 3D Technology Work? [Online]. Available at
<http://mashable.com/2011/02/07/how-does-3d-work/>[Accessed: 5th December 2013]
• Snyder, J.,2010. Doppler Velocity Log (DVL) navigation for observation-class ROVs. Oceans 2010, [e-journal]
pp. 1 – 9. Available through: Brunel University Library website <http://www.brunel.ac.uk/services/library>
[Accessed: 2nd December 2013].
• Sonardyne and Oceaneering demonstrate ROV dynamic positioning capabilities [Online]. Available at:
http://www.sonardyne.com/news-a-events/all-news-articles/992-sonardyne-and-oceaneering-demonstrate-rov-
dynamic-positioning-capabilities.html [Accessed 3rd December 2013]
• The Blind Spot [Online]. http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/The_Blind_Spot [Accessed: 7th December 2013]
• Vasilijevic, A,, Miskovic, N., Vukic, Z., 2013. Comparative assessment of human machine interfaces for ROV
guidance with different levels of secondary visual workload. 21st Mediterranean Conference on Control and
Automation, [e-journal] pp. 1292 – 1297. Available through: Brunel University Library website
<http://www.brunel.ac.uk/services/library> [Accessed: 29th November 2013]
• Vergara, M., Page, A., 2000. System to measure the use of the backrest in sitting-posture office tasks. Applied
ergonomics, [e-journal] Volume 31, Issue 3, pp. 247 – 254. Available through: Brunel University Library website
<http://www.brunel.ac.uk/services/library> [Accessed: 6th December 2013]
• Vergara, M., Page, A., 2002. Relationship between comfort and back posture and mobility in sitting-posture.
Applied Ergonomics, [e-journal] Volume 33, Issue 1, Pages 1–8. Available through: Brunel University Library
website <http://www.brunel.ac.uk/services/library> [Accessed: 6th December 2013]
• Verver, M.M. , de Lange, R., van Hoof, J., Wismans, J.H.S.M., 2005. Aspects of seat modelling for seating
comfort analysis. Applied Ergonomics, [e-journal] Volume 36, Issue 1, Pages 33–42. . Available through: Brunel
University Library website <http://www.brunel.ac.uk/services/library> [Accessed: 5th December 2013]
• What are ROVs? [Online]. Available at:<http://www.rovs.eu/#!what-are-rovs/c9ys> [Accessed: 29th November
2013]
Bibliography