Hazard analysis for human-on-the-loop interactions in sUAS systems

Abstract

With the rise of new AI technologies, autonomous systems are moving towards a paradigm in which increasing levels of responsibility are shifted from the human to the system, creating a transition from human-in-the-loop systems to human-on-the-loop (HoTL) systems. This has a significant impact on the safety analysis of such systems, as new types of errors occurring at the boundaries of human-machine interactions need to be taken into consideration. Traditional safety analysis typically focuses on system-level hazards with little focus on user-related or user-induced hazards that can cause critical system failures. To address this issue, we construct domain-level safety analysis assets for sUAS (small unmanned aerial systems) applications and describe the process we followed to explicitly, and systematically identify Human Interaction Points (HiPs), Hazard Factors and Mitigations from system hazards. We evaluate our approach by first investigating the extent to which recent sUAS incidents are covered by our hazard trees, and second by performing a study with six domain experts using our hazard trees to identify and document hazards for sUAS usage scenarios. Our study showed that our hazard trees provided effective coverage for a wide variety of sUAS application scenarios and were useful for stimulating safety-thinking and helping users to identify and potentially mitigate human-interaction hazards.

Reconstruction of Aleppo, Syria: A Design Studio at the University of Notre Dame, Usa

“…• Safety Analysis: A previous study by Vierhauser et al [63] reviewed over 100 publications in order to identify hazardous human interaction errors. They ascribed the errors to three main categories: (1) human-initiated (i.e., for example, an RPIC behaving in a reckless manner), (2) loss of situational awareness (e.g., the system not providing sufficient information through the user interface to rectify/prevent an accident from occurring), and (3) a lack of empowerment (e.g., interfaces limiting the actions of the human, preventing them to intervene when needed).…”