Shively, Robert Jay | Engineering Papers

NASA NTRS2017

Beyond Point Design: General Pattern to Specific Implementations

We have previously laid out a general framework for Human-Autonomy Teaming (HAT) and described how we applied this framework to a specific aeronautic task. In this presentation we demonstrate the applicability of these same principles to two familiar areas, photography and driving directions, focusing on bi-directional communication. We argue that good HAT requires communication of situation variables including operator goals and preferences and threats to meeting them, options including rationale, projected outcomes and confidence, and delegation.

human factors↗

NASA NTRS2016

Demonstration of Human-Autonomy Teaming Principles

Known problems with automation include lack of mode awareness, automation brittleness, and risk of miscalibrated trust. Human-Autonomy Teaming (HAT) is essential for improving these problems. We have identified some critical components of HAT and ran a part-task study to introduce these components to a ground station that supports flight following of multiple aircraft. Our goal was to demonstrate, evaluate, and refine HAT principles. This presentation provides a brief summary of the study and initial findings.

transparency↗

NASA NTRS2014

Air Traffic Controller Performance and Acceptability of Multiple UAS in a Simulated NAS Environment

Previously, we showed that air traffic controllers (ATCos) rated UAS pilot verbal response latencies as acceptable when a 1.5 s delay was added to the UAS pilot responses, but a 5 s delay was rated as mostly unacceptable. In the present study we determined whether a 1.5 s added delay in the UAS pilots' verbal communications would affect ATCos interactions with UAS and other conventional aircraft when the number and speed of the UAS were manipulated. Eight radar-certified ATCos participated in this simulation. The ATCos managed a medium altitude sector containing arrival aircraft, en route aircraft, and one to four UAS. The UAS were conducting a surveillance mission and flew at either a "slow" or "fast" speed. We measured both UAS and conventional pilots' verbal communication latencies, and obtained ATCos' acceptability ratings for these latencies. Although the UAS pilot response latencies were longer than those of conventional pilots, the ATCos rated UAS pilot verbal communication latencies to be as acceptable as those of conventional pilots. Because the overall traffic load within the sector was held constant, ATCos only performed slightly worse when multiple UAS were in their sector compared to when only one UAS was in the sector. Implications of these findings for UAS integration in the NAS are discussed.

measured response↗