The topic of choice is
the RQ-4 Global Hawk Unmanned Aerial Systems and its Ground Control
Stations. The Global Hawk provides field
command with near-real time images in high-resolution using synthetic aperture
radar –SAR, and long-range electro-optical/infrared –EO/IR sensing. It is capable of carrying out various recon
missions for multiple type of operations.
The Global Hawk has a nautical range of over 14,000 miles with a
duration of flight that exceeds 42 hours.
The UAS is operable world-wide through the use of satellite and
line-of-sight communications (RQ-4 Global Hawk, n.d.). The Global Hawk and its variants are
considered as semi-autonomous due to its occasionally required cross-checks and
commands using human interfaces.
The current Ground
Control Stations are the MCE – Mission Control Element and the LRE – Launch and
Recovery Element. These GCS are designed
for mobility and be self-sufficient.
This means that each trailer can function in separate sites and provide
the necessary control needed to ensure mission success. The LRE and the MCE workstations are
generally manned by at least a minimum of three personnel crew.
The Mission Control
Element is the Global Hawks ground control station for recon operations. From within the Mission Control Element crews are able to direct the aircraft
where the UAS should go and what the UAS should do once it reaches its
location. The
MCE contains four computer based work stations that provided human interaction
for mission planning, CCO – Command and Control Operations, Communications, and
sensor data collections and data processing (RQ-4 Global Hawk, n.d.).
The Launch and Recovery
Element does just what it is says, controls the launch and recovery of the
UAS. The LRE is responsible for
“precision differential global positioning system corrections” which provides
the necessary accuracy during mission navigation for landing and take-off of the
Global Hawk. The LRE is also responsible
for “coded GPS” which also incorporates an inertial navigational system for
mission execution (RQ-4 Global Hawk, n.d).
The MCE and LRE pilot
workstations are designed with control and display interfaces similar to an
aircraft cockpit. These workstations
displays UAS health status, and sensors status. The pilot can also alter the
navigational course of the Global Hawk. These workstations also include pilot communications
capabilities with outside command team members allowing the coordination of any
mission. This would include team members
such as air traffic control, airborne controllers, ground controllers, and
additional Intelligence Surveillance and Reconnaissance personnel of value (RQ-4 Global Hawk, 2014).
The workstation
designated for sensor operators furnishes the capability of assigning the sensors
and continuously updating numerous plans during real time operations. This workstation is able to initiate the calibration
of sensors, plus observe and check the progress; event the quality; of sensors
through the mission (RQ-4 Global Hawk, 2014). Additional responsibilities include sensor
operator node exploitation with image quality control allowing the UAS ability
to provide the best image possible (RQ-4 Global Hawk, 2014). The sensor operator is also responsible for target
decking prioritization and the tracking of scenes for fluid operations (RQ-4
Global Hawk, 2014).
Below are figures 1
through 4 which depict the RQ4 Global Hawk and its internal set-up of the MCE
and the LRE. These photo provided to
supply a visual explanation of the confined close quartered, non-ergonomic
arrangements for the UAS pilots which can lead to human factor issues during
flight.
Figure 1.0 An RQ-4
Global Hawk gets prepared for a mission while deployed Nov. 23, 2010, at an air
base in Southwest Asia. The RQ-4 and the Airmen are assigned to the 380th
Expeditionary Operations Group.
Retrieved Jan. 25, 2015 from http://www.af.mil/AboutUs/FactSheets/Display/tabid/224/Article/104516/rq-4-global-hawk.aspx
Figure 2.0, GCS for the
Global Hawk. Retrieved Jan. 25, 2015
from
http://www.af.mil/AboutUs/FactSheets/Display/tabid/224/Article/104516/rq-4-global-hawk.aspx
Figure 3.0 GCS for the
Global Hawk. Retrieved Jan. 25, 2015
from
http://www.af.mil/AboutUs/FactSheets/Display/tabid/224/Article/104516/rq-4-global-hawk.aspx
Figure 4.0, GCS
for the Global Hawk. Retrieved Jan.
25, 2015 from http://www.af.mil/AboutUs/FactSheets/Display/tabid/224/Article/104516/rq-4-global-hawk.aspx
The Global Hawk is capable of automation it still
requires human interfacing for monitor the health and status of the aircraft,
and information exchange between the sensor operators & between the UAS and
the GCS. Although the Global Hawk “Hawk has no cockpit”,
“It flies itself”, “has no joysticks,
throttles, or pedals”, provide no “pilot's-eye view from the plane”, incorporates
no “forward-facing camera” it still requires human interface (Schorr & Weed, 2002). Yes, it is dubbed as the “first man-out-of-the-loop
airplane” during flight but monitoring of missions are left in the hands of the
two on-board computers (Schorr & Weed,
2002). UAS
operations that are long-endurance, such as the Global Hawk require shifting of
work schedules to operate the Ground Control Station 24/7 causing fatigues (McCarley, & Wickens, 2005). These prolong hours for UAS pilots lead to
serious inferences on physical performances and mental stamina of UAS pilots. Discussions have led to “identified
automation as being central to many of the human factors issues that are of
concern in the case of the Global Hawk UAV” (Burchat, Hopcroft, & Vince,
2006). In addition the UAS operators
voiced that they feel “it is difficult to monitor the automated system closely
over extended periods” (Burchat, Hopcroft, & Vince, 2006). In addition, Situational awareness and
resolutions of fault and failures suffer resulting in pilots selectively
monitoring certain cockpit instruments for system performance or being prepared
for unexpected changes.
Although the Global Hawk
has an extremely low crash record this doesn’t mean that the pilots are able to
totally rely upon the system. No matter
what the level of automation, when humans are involved human factors must be
monitored and addressed for continued mission success. One way to continue successful missions would
be to continuously train increasing pilot understanding of the system, and
possible systems failure scenarios cultivating the proper timely respond
required for such a sophisticated technology.
Burchat, E., R. Hopcroft,
& Vince, J. (2006, May). Unmanned
Aerial Vehicles for Maritime Patrol: Human Factors Issues. Retrieved January
25, 2015, from http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a454918.pdf
McCarley,
J., & Wickens, C. (2005). Human
factors implications of UAVs in the national airspace. Savoy, Ill: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Aviation
Human Factors Division. Retrieved January 25, 2015, from http://www.tc.faa.gov/logistics/Grants/pdf/2004/04-G-032.pdf
RQ-4 Global Hawk. (2014,
October 27). Retrieved January 25, 2015, from http://www.af.mil/AboutUs/FactSheets/Display/tabid/224/Article/104516/rq-4-global-hawk.aspx
RQ-4 Global Hawk. (n.d.).
Retrieved January 25, 2015, from http://air-attack.com/page/54/RQ-4-Global-Hawk.html
Schorr, C. & Weed, W.
(2002, August 1). Flying Blind. Retrieved January 25, 2015, from
http://discovermagazine.com/2002/aug/featflying
