Design and Simulation-Based Verification of a Training Instrumentation Framework for Long-Endurance Hybrid-Electric VTOL UAS Operations

Authors

  • Pannapat Suwisutthimontree
  • Cattleya Delmaire
  • Soemsak Yooyen

Keywords:

Flight training instrumentation, Human-automation interaction, Operator assessment, Synthetic verification, Telemetry, Unmanned aircraft systems

Abstract

Long-endurance hybrid-electric vertical-takeoff-and-landing unmanned aircraft systems combine automated flight modes, energy constraints, payload control, and extended mission monitoring. Conventional training records commonly show completion outcomes but do not reconstruct how an operator recognized an event, selected a procedure, and maintained the aircraft within a safe envelope. This study develops a product-neutral training instrumentation framework that converts time-aligned telemetry and operator-event records into reproducible performance evidence. The framework monitors flight mode, navigation integrity, command-and-control status, energy state, environmental limits, payload state, acknowledgments, checklist actions, and recovery outcomes. A four-component score represents procedural accuracy, response timeliness, flight-envelope compliance, and safety outcome, with non-compensatory gates for critically weak procedural, envelope, or safety evidence. Functional verification used 1,600 reproducible seeded synthetic traces across eight abnormal-event scenarios. The framework classified 95.4% of traces consistently with their injected labels, with a macro-averaged F1 score of 0.946. Additional tests examined missing measurements, bounded noise, weight and threshold changes, and deliberately conflicting component patterns. A competency audit covered 87% of the independently defined weighted requirements and identified assembly and configuration, post-flight data integrity, and field maintenance as requiring separate assessment. Because the injected labels determined the generating distributions, the agreement result verifies internal implementation consistency rather than predictive validity. The results do not demonstrate training effectiveness or human performance.

References

A. Hobbs and B. Lyall, "Human factors guidelines for unmanned aircraft systems," Ergonomics in Design, vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 23-28, 2016.

A. Hobbs, "Unmanned aircraft systems," in Human Factors in Aviation, 2nd ed., E. Salas and D. Maurino, Eds. Burlington, MA, USA: Academic Press, 2010, pp. 505-531.

K. W. Williams, "A summary of unmanned aircraft accident/incident data: Human factors implications," Federal Aviation Administration, Oklahoma City, OK, USA, 2004.

M. R. Endsley and D. B. Kaber, "Level of automation effects on performance, situation awareness and workload in a dynamic control task," Ergonomics, vol. 42, no. 3, pp. 462-492, 1999.

R. Parasuraman and V. Riley, "Humans and automation: Use, misuse, disuse, abuse," Human Factors, vol. 39, no. 2, pp. 230-253, 1997.

L. Onnasch, C. D. Wickens, H. Li, and D. Manzey, "Human performance consequences of stages and levels of automation: An integrated meta-analysis," Human Factors, vol. 56, no. 3, pp. 476-488, 2014.

S. G. Hart, "NASA-Task Load Index (NASA-TLX); 20 years later," Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, vol. 50, no. 9, pp. 904-908, 2006.

G. G. de la Torre, M. A. Ramallo, and E. Cervantes, "Workload perception in drone flight training simulators," Computers in Human Behavior, vol. 64, pp. 449-454, 2016.

A. Somerville, T. Lynar, K. Joiner, and G. Wild, "Use of simulation for pre-training of drone pilots," Drones, vol. 8, no. 11, 2024.

A. Tabassum, H. Bai, and N. Fala, "A study on workload assessment and usability of wind-aware user interface for small unmanned aircraft system remote operations," in HCI International 2023 - Late Breaking Papers, M. Kurosu et al., Eds., LNCS 14054. Cham, Switzerland: Springer, 2023, pp. 444-460.

M. R. Endsley, "Toward a theory of situation awareness in dynamic systems," Human Factors, vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 32-64, 1995.

J. Y. C. Chen, K. Procci, M. Boyce, J. Wright, A. Garcia, and M. Barnes, "Situation awareness-based agent transparency," U.S. Army Research Laboratory, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD, USA, Apr. 2014.

K. van de Merwe, S. Mallam, and S. Nazir, "Agent transparency, situation awareness, mental workload, and operator performance: A systematic literature review," Human Factors, vol. 66, no. 1, pp. 180-208, 2024.

International Civil Aviation Organization, Manual on Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems (RPAS), Doc 10019, 1st ed., Montreal, Canada, 2015.

“ISO 21384-3:2023 Unmanned Aircraft Systems - Part 3: Operational Procedures,” 2nd ed., 2023.

“IEEE Standard for System, Software, and Hardware Verification and Validation,” IEEE Std 1012-2024, 2025.

“ISO/IEC/IEEE 29119-4:2021 Software and Systems Engineering - Software Testing - Part 4: Test Techniques,” 2021.

R. Parasuraman, T. B. Sheridan, and C. D. Wickens, "A model for types and levels of human interaction with automation," IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics - Part A, vol. 30, no. 3, pp. 286-297, 2000.

M. S. Politowicz, E. T. Chancey, and L. J. Glaab, "Effects of autonomous sUAS separation methods on subjective workload, situation awareness, and trust," AIAA SciTech 2021 Forum, Virtual Event, Jan. 2021, Paper AIAA 2021-1176.

C. R. Harris et al., "Array programming with NumPy," Nature, vol. 585, pp. 357-362, 2020.

M. Sokolova and G. Lapalme, "A systematic analysis of performance measures for classification tasks," Information Processing & Management, vol. 45, no. 4, pp. 427-437, 2009.

Published

2026-10-08

Issue

Section

Articles