Journal of Intelligent & Robotic Systems

, Volume 65, Issue 1–4, pp 27–42 | Cite as

FMS for Unmanned Aerial Systems: HMI Issues and New Interface Solutions

  • Luca Damilano
  • Giorgio Guglieri
  • Fulvia Quagliotti
  • Ilaria Sale
Article
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

To integrate UASs in the NAS, an improvement in navigation, planning, communication and 4D trajectory control capabilities is mandatory. A way to obtain this enhance is to adopt a Flight Management System. A FMS for an UAS has some differences with respect to one for a manned aircraft, in terms of architecture and performed functions. In particular, from HMI point of view, the specific UAS human factor issues shall be added to the current manned FMS interface lacks. Starting from these considerations, a new FMS HMI for the Alenia Aeronautica TCS has been developed, using as data entry devices two touch screens.

Keywords

FMS UAS Touch screen GUI HMI 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Croft, J.: Unmanned flight tests to advance airline reduced-crew concepts. www.flightglobal.com (2009)
  2. 2.
    Shively, J.: Pilot aircraft interface objectives/rationale. In: Meeting of Experts on NASA’s Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) Integration in the National Airspace System (NAS) Project (2010)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Johnson, C.: UAS Integration in the NAS Project. NASA, Washington, DC (2010)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    STANAG 4586 (Edition 2) Standard Interfaces of UAV Control System (UCS) for NATO UAV Interoperability (2007)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Israel, K., Nesbit, R.: Defense Science Board Study on Unmanned Aerial Vehicles and Uninhabited Combat Aerial Vehicles. Office of the Under Secretary of Defense For Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, Arlington (2004)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cambone, S., Krieg, K., Pace, P., Wells, L. II: Unmanned Aircraft Systems Roadmap 2005–2030. Office of the Secretary of Defense, Arlington (2005)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Williams, K.: A Summary of Unmanned Aircraft Accident/Incident Data: Human Factors Implications. FAA Civil Aerospace Medical Institute, Oklahoma (2004)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Nisser, T.: Human Factors Challenges in Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV): A Literature review. School of Aviation of the Lund University, Ljungbyhed (2006)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hopcroft, R., Burchat, E., Vine, J.: Unmanned Aerial Vehicles for Maritime Patrol: Human Factor Issues. Defense Science and Technology Organization, Australian Government Department of Defense, Sydney (2006)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wickens, C.: Multiple resources and mental workload. Hum. Factors 50(3), 449–455 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Williams, K.: Human Factors Implications of Unmanned Aircraft Accidents: Flight-Control Problems. Civil Aerospace Medical Institute, Oklahoma (2006)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gean, J.: Teaching Non-Pilots to Fly Predators Require More Cockpit Hours in Manned Aircraft. National Defense Magazine (2010)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cummings, M., Kirschbaum, A., Platts, J.: STANAG 4586 Human Supervisory Control Implications. MIT, DP Associates, Muretex Ltd, Air and Weapon System Department, Dstl Farnborough and Office of Naval Research (2008)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cummings, M., Platts, J., Sulmistras, A.: Human Performance Considerations in the Development of Interoperability Standards for UAV Interfaces. Moving Autonomy Forward Conference (2006)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cummings, M., Bruni, S., Mercier, S., Mitchell, P.: Automation Architecture for Single Operator Multiple UAV Command and Control. Int. C2 J. 1(2), 1–24 (2007)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Galster, S., Barnes, M., Cosenzo, K., Hollnagen, E., Miller, C., Parasuraman, R., Reising, J., Taylor, R., van Breda, L.: Chapter 7-Human Automation Integration—Uninhabited Military Vehicles (UMVs): Human Factors Issues in Augmenting the Force (RTO-TR-HFM-078–07) (2007)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mejdal, S., McCauley, M., Beringer, D.: Human Factors Design Guidelines for Multifunction Displays. DOT/FAA/AM-01/17 (2001)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rosenkrans, W.: Autoflight Audit—Flight Safety Foundation. AeroSafety World Magazine (2008)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lyall, B.: Autoflight Modes Awareness Issues: An Overview. FAA Mode Awareness Workshop (1997)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lee, K., Sandford, B., Slattery, R.: The Human Factors of FMS usage in the terminal area. AIAA, New Orleans (1997)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sherry, L., Polson, P., Feary, M.: Designin User-Interface for the Cockpit: Five Common Design Errors and How to Avoid Them. Society of Automotive Engineers (2001)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sherry, L., Polson, P., Feary M., Palmer, E.: When does the MCDU Interface Work Well? Lesson Learned for the Design on New Flightdeck User-Interfaces. Honeywell, Institute of Cognitive Science University of Colorado, NASA Ames Research Center (2003)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    MIL-STD-1472F Human Engineering—Department of Defense Design Criteria Standard (1999)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    STANAG 4671 (Edition 1)—Unmanned Aerial Vehicles Systems Airworthiness Requirements (USAR) (2009)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    EASA Policy Statement Airworthiness Certification of Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS)—E.Y013–01 (2009)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Luca Damilano
    • 1
  • Giorgio Guglieri
    • 1
  • Fulvia Quagliotti
    • 1
  • Ilaria Sale
    • 2
  1. 1.Dipartimento di Ingegneria Aeronautica e SpazialePolitecnico di TorinoTurinItaly
  2. 2.Avionic Systems and LaboratoriesAlenia Aeronautica SpaTurinItaly

Personalised recommendations