Authority Pathway: Intelligent Adaptive Automation for a UAS Ground Control Station

  • Derek McCollEmail author
  • Kevin Heffner
  • Simon Banbury
  • Mario Charron
  • Robert Arrabito
  • Ming Hou
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10275)


Defence Research and Development Canada has conducted a number of human factors analysis tasks and experiments to support the Canadian Armed Force’s acquisition of an unmanned aircraft system for domestic and international operations. Experiments were run on a simulation-based UAS mission experimentation testbed. Results promoted the design and development of an intelligent adaptive interface called Authority Pathway that assists crew members with maintaining situational awareness and to adhere to rules of engagement when targeting. The Authority Pathway uses intelligent adaptive automation technology to adapt to dynamically changing mission goals, provide a variety of views for different users, and allow for varying levels of automation to be consistent with future requirements. Advantages and disadvantages of the Authority Pathway are discussed.


Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Unmanned Aircraft System Ground Control Station Human machine interface Intelligent Adaptive Interface Intelligent Adaptive Automation Systems requirements 


  1. 1.
    Huang, R., Tan, P., Chen, B.: Monocular vision-based autonomous navigation system on a toy quadcopter in unknown environments. In: IEEE 2015 International Conference on Unmanned Aircraft Systems, pp. 1260–1269. IEEE Press, New York (2015). doi: 10.1109/ICUAS.2015.7152419
  2. 2.
    Billingsley, T.B.: Safety analysis of TCAS on Global Hawk using airspace encounter models. Master’s thesis. Massachusetts Institute of Technology (2006)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cook, K.: The silent force multiplier: the history and roles of UAVs in warfare. In: IEEE 2007 Aerospace Conference, pp. 1–7. IEEE Press, New York (2007). doi: 10.1109/AERO.2007.352737
  4. 4.
    Magnuson, S.: The human factor in autonomous machines. National Defense, CI(755), 8 (2016)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Garrett-Rempel, D.: Will JUSTAS prevail? Procuring a UAS capability for Canada. R. Can. Air Force J. 4(1), 19–31 (2015)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hou, M.: Testbed for integrated GCS experimentation and rehearsal (TIGER) development summary I. DRDC Technical report, DRDC-RDDC-2015-L282 (2015)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Canadian Air Division: JUSTAS Concept of Operations (CONOPS), Canadian Armed Forces (2013)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    North Atlantic Treaty Organization: NATO Standardization Agreement 3994: Application of Human Engineering to Advanced Aircrew Systems (2007)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Schraagen, J., Chipman, S.F., Shalin, V.: Cognitive Task Analysis. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc., Mahwah (2000)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    McColl, D., Banbury, S., Hou, M.: Test-bed for integrated ground control station experimentation and rehearsal: crew performance and authority pathway concept development. In: Lackey, S., Shumaker, R. (eds.) VAMR 2016. LNCS, vol. 9740, pp. 433–445. Springer, Cham (2016). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-39907-2_42 Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hou, M., Zhu, H., Zhou, M.C., Arrabito, R.: Optimizing operator-agent interaction in intelligent adaptive interface design. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. Part C Appl. Rev. 41(2), 161–178 (2011). doi: 10.1109/TSMCC.2010.2052041 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hou, M., Banbury, S., Burns, C.: Intelligent Adaptive Systems: An Interaction-Centred Design Perspective. CRC Press, Boca Raton (2015)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    NATO STO SAS 085: C2 agility – task group SAS-085 Final report (STO Technical report STO-TR-SAS-085). NATO Science and Technology Organization, Brussels, Belgium (2013)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Heffner, K., Hassaine, F.: Toward intelligent operator interfaces in support of autonomous UVS operations. In: 16th International Command and Control Research and Technology Symposium (ICCRTS), pp. 1–52. Defence Technical Information Centre Report (2011). ADA547392Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Centinkaya, O.: Architecture concerns of time sensitive targeting (TST) and NATO TST tool. In: 18th International Command and Control Research and Technology Symposium (ICCRTS), pp. 1–10. Defence Technical Information Centre Report (2013). ADA588337Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Taylor, R.M.: Capability, cognition and autonomy. In: NATO RTO-HFM Symposium on the Role of Humans in Intelligent and Automated Systems, pp. 1–27. Defence Technical Information Centre Report (2002). ADA422249Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, as represented by the Minister of National Defence 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Derek McColl
    • 1
    Email author
  • Kevin Heffner
    • 2
  • Simon Banbury
    • 3
  • Mario Charron
    • 4
  • Robert Arrabito
    • 1
  • Ming Hou
    • 1
  1. 1.Defence Research and Development Canada - Toronto Research CentreTorontoCanada
  2. 2.Pegasus Research and TechnologiesMontrealCanada
  3. 3.C3 Human Factors Consulting Inc.MontrealCanada
  4. 4.Department of National DefenceOttawaCanada

Personalised recommendations