For the past 9 weeks, I have been an active student enrolled in the Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University-WorldWide-ASCI638 Human Factors in Unmanned Systems course. During this time, the other students and I were required to perform and present a case analysis of a subject of our own choosing relating to the numerous human factor issues that are associated with both manned and unmanned operations. The case report needed to demonstrate our understanding of the course topics by analyzing, evaluating, and developing recommendations for addressing an issue associated with human factors in the realm of unmanned aerial systems operations. We were required to retain a connection to a minimum of five course learning outcomes. We needed to identify an underlying issue or problem and propose a recommendation or hypothesis to mitigate the issue. I chose to perform my case analysis on Human Factor Challenges Associated with Maintenance of Unmanned Aircraft Systems.
The foundation of my 35+ years in aviation is maintenance and due in part to my current position as an Airworthiness Inspector assigned to the UAS Integration Office located in Washington, D.C.; I felt the subject matter was something that I could clearly sink my teeth into. During my research I became more familiar with human factors issues surrounding unmanned launch, recovery, long duration operations, fatigue, human performance, Ground Control Station (GCS) design, use of automation, Situation Awareness (SA), Crew Resource Management (CRM), integration into the National Airspace System (NAS), attitudes and perspectives of both government agencies and public entities, use of technology to compensate for no-pilot-onboard, and regulatory issues and solutions.
What I was surprised to learn thru my research was that analysis of maintenance failures associated with Human Factors in unmanned aircraft systems is not on the front table for discussion. I attributed this lack of available information to be directly related to the rapid advancements in technology regarding these systems and the regulators, manufacturers and operators inability to keep up with the continued airworthiness requirements for what is assumed by most of those players and the general public to be either a toy or a mindless drone that requires no additional oversight regarding maintenance activity. In my personal opinion this attitude may prove to be a grave mistake.
Regarding the case analysis as a tool that will benefit my current or future career:
• I found the process of collecting significant data to support my identified problem and proposed mitigation's similar to how I approached resolving issues in my previous two FAA assignments as 1) a manufacturing Inspector and 2) a Maintenance Review Board Chairman assigned to the Aircraft Evaluation Group (AEG). In both of those positions when presented an issue that needed clarification and/or a regulatory response (as would always be the case) I relied on the Regulations, Advisory Circulars, Orders (Inspector guidance) and personal experience to provide a response that was within regulatory guidance and mitigated issues based on a risk based approach.
My only recommendation to enhance the learning experience would be to allow for a final peer review of pre-selected case analysis reports. Not only would it offer feedback to the author on the final/post draft paper, but provide additional theoretical perspectives for the reviewer. Sounds heavy doesn’t it?
No comments:
Post a Comment