Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) operators stand for remote pilots of autonomous observation aircraft, such as drones, for example, that collect intelligence information. Space Systems operators functions include support of the space-related missions via air traffic controller. The current paper provides a comparison of situational awareness experienced by these two operators, their concerns on the issue of safety. The essay also discusses how the application of C3 technologies could assist in increasing situational awareness for the operators.
First of all, situational awareness implies that an operator perceives environmental elements and events that are happening in a particular time or space. This term also means the necessity to understand the meaning of these events not only for the current situations but also for the ones in the future. Most commonly, the assessment of the degree of situation awareness experience by UAS operators is measured via Situation Awareness Linked Indicators Adapted to Novel Tasks (SALIANT) methodology (Cuevas & Aguiar, 2017). The procedure of measurement includes the following criteria: consciousness of location in space, availability of information resources, provision of information beforehand, and notification of all actions taken by an observed object. Apart from the previously mentioned factors, an operator also should check the internal and external environment for unusual changes and conditions. SALIANT also tests whether an operator is able to anticipate the consequences of decisions and actions. From these criteria, it could be inferred that the checklist includes both qualitative and quantitative evaluations.
In the recent decade, the use of UAS became more popular. These systems could be used for the exploration of oil and gas, mapping of natural disasters such as wildfire and flood, monitoring of weather, and management of agricultural activities. Thus, Cuevas and Aguiar (2017) indicate that humans who exploit UAS face numerous challenges. For instance, operators have to go through extensive training, they also have to design the most suitable control interfaces “to minimize errors and avoid costly accidents” (Cuevas & Aguiar, 2017, p. 3). The research conducted by Cuevas and Aguiar (2017) reveals that the operators who have experience in flight, teamwork, and gaming show higher results in the assessment of the situation awareness. Therefore, it could be concluded that situational awareness is hard to measure as some criteria are qualitative and subjective. However, the real-life experience assists the operators to perform better if compared to those who do not have such a practice.
The importance of an excellent situational awareness of Space Systems operators is connected with the necessity to anticipate collisions of space crafts with other objects. Oltrogge and Alfano (2019) claim that the number of clashes is continuously rising. Therefore, it becomes apparent that the measures taken by Space Systems operators are insufficient, which denotes law situation awareness. Oltrogge and Alfano (2019) suggest that it happens because the operators do not “have a truly comprehensive set of conjunctions against all objects larger than 1 cm” (p. 75). Because of this shortage, they cannot conduct avoidance maneuvers in order not to run out of fuel (Oltrogge & Alfano, 2019). Consequently, collision probability could be minimized if Space System operators awareness of objects that should be evaded was higher.
Undoubtedly, the safety of personnel, assets, and vehicles are the primary concerns both for UAS and Space Systems. Denney and Pai (2016) suggest the following recommendations that could help to increase the safety of UAS. They claim that the team that controls the performance of UAS should consist, as the minimum, of a radar operator, visual observers, and a safety authority (Denney & Pai, 2016). This way, a crew that is comprised of different specialists who would interpret information on displays, detect potentially dangerous objects and situations, and pilot a UA could protect an aircraft from damage more efficiently. The authors also believe the vehicles themselves should be improved in order to increase their safety. They advise equipping UAs with more surveillance sensors so that the operators will get more detailed information and could better control a vehicle. In addition, the number of displays should also be increased so that the visualization in three dimensions could be achieved (Denney & Pai, 2016). Thus, the primary safety concerns for UAS deal with the composition of a team and the technical equipment of vehicles.
Similarly, to UAS, Space Systems occur to have some technical weaknesses as well as a lack of training of people who control these systems. The primary safety concerns for Space Systems also include the human factor (Sgobba, 2017). Besides, as has already been mentioned in the previous paragraph, Space Systems has a low level of operators situational awareness. Controlling specialists do not possess proper technologies that enable them to notice even minor threats to space vehicles. Thus, the increase in safety depends on the improvement in developments that could provide more detailed and accurate information on the environment around a vehicle and its internal working condition.
The situation with the law situation awareness of UAS and Space Systems operators could be improved through the implementation of C3 technologies that include ones of command, control, and communication. These technologies could be used both in line-of-sight and line-beyond-sight UAS operations (Stansbury, Vyas, & Wilson, 2008). Under the implementation of C2 technologies, the loss of link between a vehicle and an operator generally results in either automatic landing or passage of control to another operator. C3 technologies are aimed at the re-establishment of communication between a control station on the ground and a UA (Stansbury et al., 2008). Thus, the aircraft is always under control, and the chances of an operator losing awareness of the situation are lower. According to Stansbury et al. (2008), the same usage of C3 technologies is applicable for operations in space. This means that in case of an emergency, an operator does not lose the ability to communicate with a spacecraft via controlling systems.
In conclusion, it should be noted that the potential danger for UAS lies in the fact that there is a linkage between a pilot or an aircraft and the operator. Consequently, a hacker could create false signals, break the initial link, and gain control over a UA. This is true both for C2 and C3 technologies and depends on the quality and appropriateness of data links (Stansbury et al., 2008). Consequently, hacker attacks affect the situation awareness of UAS and Space Systems operators. The connection between an operator on the ground and a vehicle in the air or in space could be strengthened via the implementation of C3 technologies. Apart from it, the better technical equipment of aircraft and spaceships and more efficient distribution of responsibilities in a team could improve the safety and security of personnel, vehicle, and assets.
References
- Cuevas, H. M., & Aguiar, M. (2017). Assessing Situation Awareness in Unmanned Aircraft Systems Operations. International Journal of Aviation, Aeronautics, and Aerospace, 4(4), 1-15.
- Denney, E., & Pai, G. (2016). Safety considerations for UAS ground-based detect and avoid.
- Oltrogge L.D., & Alfano S. (2019). The technical challenges of better Space Situational Awareness and Space Traffic Management. Journal of Space Safety Engineering, 6(2), 72-79.
- Sgobba, T. (2017). Space Safety and Human Performance. Kidlington, UK: Butterworth-Heinemann.
- Stansbury, R. S., Vyas, M. A., & Wilson, T. A. (2008). A survey of UAS technologies for command, control, and communication (C3). In K.P. Valavanis, P. Oh, & L.A. Piegl (Eds.), Unmanned Aircraft Systems (pp. 61-78). Springer.