Predator Unmanned Aerial System Ground Control Station Human Factors Issue

Abstract

The General Atomics MQ-1 Predator is a battle proven asset that has demonstrated itself to be an unmatched combination of EO/IR & weapons delivery platform for the U.S. Air Force.  It  meets all three of the Ds for which Unmanned Aerial Systems have been designed to accomplish; it handles the dull, dirty, and dangerous long endurance missions, making them seem to the layman almost unchallenging.  The reality is exactly the opposite.  The design of the Ground Control Station is hardly a place for relaxation.  The challenges of the pilot in command and sensor operators cannot be understated, and a simple look at the layout offers a clue as to the magnitude of those challenges these people must face.  The GCS includes the same controls and displays you would find in a manned aircraft and then some.  One can only imagine the stresses these  individuals must endure while accomplishing the missions they face, and the focus they must maintain.  This paper will look at the layout of the ground control station, and the communications limitations of the MQ-1 Predator.

Predator Unmanned Aerospace System, Ground Control Station Human Factors Issue

 

The MQ-1 Predator Ground Control Station

            An aircraft is typically designed to provide a specific capability.  The MQ-1 Predator Unmanned Aerial System (UAS) seems to have evolved into a platform that offers multiple capabilities and does so exceptionally well.  It’s does this not only through an effectively designed aircraft, but an exceptionally well built Ground Control Station (GCS).  It is within that GCS that the pilot in command (PIC), sensor operator, and other aircrew must work together to meet their mission objectives.

Controls and Displays; The Remote Cockpit

Anyone who has attempted to watch a television with Picture in Picture can attest to the fact that it is not easy to focus on two scenes at one time.  Imagine looking at four or five monitors at once.  The amount of information that is received into a larger UAS GCS includes the system status, payload data, map displays for mission planning and execution, navigational data, communications link status, and video imagery (Fahlstrom, P., Gleason, T., 2012).  Figure 1 illustrates the MQ-1 GCS and the multiple displays included, as well as the communications interfaces and mechanisms used to control the vehicle.

Figure 1. Predator GCS (Retrieved 11/26/15 at www.daegal.com).

One benefit provided by a remote cockpit is the ability to display more information in a readable format than could be possible in a small manned aircraft the size of the MQ-1 Aerial Vehicle (AV).   It also presents the potential for information overload.  Barnhart and Hottman discuss the human-machine interface as the UAS subsystem component for which most mishaps can be attributed (Barhnart, R., & Hottman, 2012).  The MQ-1 exemplifies the potential for that information overload.

Communications Links

The MQ-1 Predator UAS utilizes multiple communications channels including UHF and VHF radio links, C-band Line of Sight (LOS), as well as the Ku-band satellite data links (Defense Industry Daily, 2011).  This not only allows for redundancy, but different control channels at different segments of the mission, UHF and VHF at close LOS range, and Ku-band at huge distances as far as thousands of miles away.  Additionally, the greater bandwidth of Ku-band allows for the transmission of video, which is a critical capability of the Predator.

Conclusion

            The Predator offers an unmatched capability, but presents challenges that have resulted in a significant accident/incident rate as can be seen on the web site Drone Wars UK.  In it, the reader can see the majority of incidents are attributed to pilot error, and communications lost-link.  As the U.S. military migrates to a common GCS, this rate will hopefully go down (Defense Industry Daily, 10/3/15).  Overcoming these systems failures will ensure the great legacy of the MQ-1 Predator in U.S. Air Force history. 

 

 

References

 

1. Barnhart, R.K., Hottman, S.B., Marshall, D. M., & Shappee, E, Introduction to Unmanned Aircraft Systems, p. 166, (2012), CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group, Boca Raton, FL.
2. Defense Industry Daily Staff, (10/03/2011), It’s Better to Share: Breaking Down UAV GCS Barriers, Defense Industry Daily, Retrieved 11/25/15: http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/uav-ground-control-solutions-06175/
3. Drone Wars UK, nd, Retrieved 11/26/15: http://dronewars.net/drone-crash-database/
4. Fahlstrom, P., Gleason, T., (2012), Introduction to UAV Systems, Fourth Edition, Wiley & Sons Ltd., West Sussex, UK.