Development of an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Piloting System with Integrated Motion Cueing for Training and Pilot Evaluation

  • James T. Hing
  • Paul Y. Oh


UAV accidents have been steadily rising as demand and use of these vehicles increases. A critical examination of UAV accidents reveals that human error is a major cause. Advanced autonomous systems capable of eliminating the need for human piloting are still many years from implementation. There are also many potential applications of UAVs in near Earth environments that would require a human pilot’s awareness and ability to adapt. This suggests a need to improve the remote piloting of UAVs. This paper explores the use of motion platforms to augment pilot performance and the use of a simulator system to asses UAV pilot skill. The approach follows studies on human factors performance and cognitive loading. The resulting design serves as a test bed to study UAV pilot performance, create training programs, and ultimately a platform to decrease UAV accidents.


Unmanned aerial vehicle Motion cueing UAV safety UAV accidents 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Flight International: Belgians in Congo to probe fatal UAV incident. 10 October (2006)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Weibel, R.E., Hansman, R.J.: Safety considerations for operation of unmanned aerial vehicles in the national airspace system. Tech. Rep. ICAT-2005-1, MIT International Center for Air Transportation (2005)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Parrish, R.V., Houck, J.A., Martin, D.J., Jr.: Empirical comparison of a fixed-base and a moving-base simulation of a helicopter engaged in visually conducted slalom runs. NASA Tech. Rep. D-8424, 1–34 (1977)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ricard, G.L., Parrish, R.V.: Pilot differences and motion cuing effects on simulated helicopter hover. Hum. Factors 26(3), 249–256 (1984)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Wiegmann, D.A., Goh, J., O’Hare, D.: The role of situation assessment and flight experience in pilot’s decisions to continue visual flight rules flight into adverse weather. Hum. Factors 44(2), 189–197 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rash, C.E., Leduc, P.A., Manning, S.D.: Human factors in U.S. military unmanned aerial vehicle accidents. Adv. Hum. Perform. Cognit. Eng. Res. 7, 117–131 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Williams, K.W.: Human factors implications of unmanned aircraft accidents: flight-control problems. Adv. Hum. Perform. Cognit. Eng. Res. 7, 105–116 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Schreiber, B.T., Lyon, D.R., Martin, E.L., Confer, H.A.: Impact of prior flight experience on learning predator UAV operator skills. Tech. rep., Air Force Research Laboratory Human Effectiveness Directorate Warfighter Training Research Division (2002)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Tvaryanas, A.P.: USAF UAV mishap epidemiology, 1997–2003. In: Human Factors of Uninhabited Aerial Vehicles First Annual Workshop Scottsdale, Az (2004)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Williams, K.W.: A summary of unmanned aircraft accident/incident data: human factors implications. Tech. Rep. DOT/FAA/AM-04/24, US Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Aerospace Medicine (2004)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Calhoun, G., Draper, M.H., Ruff, H.A., Fontejon, J.V.: Utility of a tactile display for cueing faults. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 46th Annual Meeting, pp. 2144–2148 (2002)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ruff, H.A., Draper, M.H., Poole, M., Repperger, D.: Haptic feedback as a supplemental method of altering UAV operators to the onset of turbulence. In: Proceedings of the IEA 2000/ HFES 2000 Congress, pp. 3.14–3.44 (2000)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Little, K.: Raytheon announces revolutionary new ‘cockpit’ for unmanned aircraft—an industry first. In: Raytheon Media Relations (2006)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sevcik, K.W., Green, W.E., Oh, P.Y.: Exploring search-and-rescue in near-Earth environments for aerial robots. In: IEEE International Conference on Advanced Intelligent Mechatronics Monterey, California, pp. 699–704 (2005)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Narli, V., Oh, P.Y.: Hardware-in-the-loop test rig to capture aerial robot and sensor suite performance metrics. In: IEEE International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, p. 2006 (2006)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ernst, D., Valavanis, K., Garcia, R., Craighead, J.: Unmanned vehicle controller design, evaluation and implementation: from matlab to printed circuit board. J. Intell. Robot. Syst. 49, 85–108 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Defense, D.O.: Unmanned aircraft systems roadmap 2005–2030. Tech. rep., August (2005)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Self, B.P., Ercoline, W.R., Olson, W.A., Tvaryanas, A.: Spatial disorientation in unihabited aerial vehicles. In: Cook, N. (ed.) Human Factors of Remotely Operated Vehicles, vol. 7, pp. 133–146. Elsevier Ltd. (2006)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Reed, L.: Visual-proprioceptive cue conflicts in the control of remotely piloted vehicles. Tech. Rep. AFHRL-TR-77-57, Brooks Airforce Base, Air Force Human Resources Laboratory (1977)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Mouloua, M., Gilson, R., Daskarolis-Kring, E., Kring, J., Hancock, P.: Ergonomics of UAV/UCAV mission success: considerations for data link, control, and display issues. In: Human Factors and Ergonomics Soceity 45th Annual Meeting, pp. 144–148 (2001)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Nahon, M.A., Reid, L.D.: Simulator motion-drive algorithms: a designer’s perspective. J. Guid. Control Dyn. 13, 356–362 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Jang, J.S., Liccardo, D.: Automation of small UAVs using a low cost mems sensor and embedded computing platform. In: 25th Digital Avionics Systems Conference, pp. 1–9 (2006)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Drexel Autonomous Systems Laboratory (DASL)Drexel UniversityPhiladelphiaUSA

Personalised recommendations