최근 무인항공기(RPA; Remotely Piloted Aircraft, 이하 RPA) 조종사는 소요가 급격하게 증가하고 있고 RPA조종사가 되기 까지 많은 교육과 훈련을 요구하고 있다. RPA조종사가 비행훈련 중 부적격인원으로 판정되어 탈락하는 경우 후보인원의 노력과 많은 비용이 낭비된다. 이와 같은 이유로 여러가지 과학적인 방법을 통하여 RPA조종사로서 부적합한 요소를 가진 사람을 사전에 확인하는 사전 조종적성검사를 통하는 방법론은 비행훈련 중 탈락되는 인원를 감소시켜 불필요한 시간과 비용을 줄이는 의미가 있다 하겠다. RPA조종사 적성검사 항목선정을 위한 방법론으로는 RPA조종사 직무분석에 대한 선행연구 고찰, 고찰내용을 바탕으로 적성검사 항목 선정하였다. 이 항목을 실험을 통하고 실험결과의 적합성을 검증하였다. 유효성 검증을 위하여 자료의 분석과 각 변수들 간의 관계를 분석하였다. 본 논문을 통하여 RPA조종사 비행훈련 입과 전 조종적성 판단정보를 제공하여 비행훈련의 효율성과 비행안전을 제고시킬수 있을 것으로 기대된다.
The need for Remotely Piloted Aircraft (RPA) pilots are rapidly increasing as RPA varying from super lightweight RPA to middle, high altitude RPA are recently being developed and implemented. In the military, many training and education courses are necessary for a candidate RPA pilot to become a beginner RPA pilot. These include basic flight training., instrument flight qualification training, and aircraft transition training. During this process, if the candidate pilot is deemde inappropriate and is disqualified, the work of the candidate and the associated costs will be put to waste. The work assigned to a RPA pilot resembles that of an aircraft pilot. But because RPA pilots execute missions at locations far away from the aircraft, they do not experience the physical and physiological effects of an aircraft pilot, and they are not exposed to physical threats while operating. In order to accommodate the unique characteristics of RPA piloting, an approoriate adequancy test is necessary. For this purpose, this paper selects examination items for domestic RPA pilot adequancy test tool development, and developed adequancy test tools based on selected items. These items were individually tested for appropriateness. In order to select items for the adequancy test, reports and paper for Ais Vehicle Operators (AVO), External Pilots (EP), Internal Pilots (IP), and Mossion Package Operators such as sensor operators were analyzed. These are directly related with piloting, and are preceding research material related to RPA pilot work analyzing. The analyzed papers are ability list, Fleishman and Qiaintance (1984), ability and quality list, Crumley and Bailey (1979), ability list, Barnes etc. (2000), ability list, Phillips etc. (2003), ability and quality list, Bruskiewicz etc. (2007), and ability and quality list, Chappelle etc. (2011). The research result of these papers were gathered and organized, and a survey was made in order to select items. For research planning and model construction, RPA pilot adequacy test items were analyzed. The adequacy test items were selected by survey, which were consisted of two stages. The first stage was intended to classify importance, and the second stage was to identify weight. The first survey was given to 79 RPA pilots and 44 aircraft pilots, and Analytic Hierarchy Process techniques was used to classify importance of the adequacy factors of RPA pilots selection. The second survey was given to 26 domestic RPA pilots and 22 aircraft pilots. Items which received high importance were visual and audio abilities, cognitive abilities, adaptability, and were chosen for RPA pilot selection adaptability test items as the result of the survey. The RPA pilot adequacy test item experiment were conducted by selecting experiment subjects and items, and by developing experiment equipment, procedures, and content. The selection of experiment items were based on visual and audio abilities, cognitive abilities, and adaptability, which showed high importance in the survey. The experiment subjects were consisted of 51 ''H''university students in the UAV department, 44 aircraft pilots, and 34 RPA pilots. Computers were used for the experiment. The distribution of each factors were tested for homogeneity in the use of empirical study. First, one-way ANOVA was used to determine differences between the adequacy test scores between the groups, and individual results were enumerated and analyzed for significance. The three groups were tested for peer groups, and while utilizing two-way ANOVA to research the independent variables of the two pilot groups and how the interact, cross design was selected. The test results are shown below. As the result of one-way ANOVA, instrument reading showed significant difference between each groups. Also, Gane-Howell method was used to test the appropriateness of the adequacy test for each groups. The UAV department students showed significant difference from the RPA and aircraft pilots, and the RPA pilots showed no significant difference from the RPA and aircraft pilots. In the cross design test, flight experience months had no individual effect, but as the result of analysis for additional information, instrument reading was deemed appropriate as a RPA adequacy test item. As the result of one-way ANOVA, measurement reading showed significant difference between each groups. Also, Games-Howell method was used to test the appropriateness of the adequacy test for each groups. The UAV department students showed significant difference from the RPA and aircraft pilots, and the RPA pilots showed no sigcificant difference from the aircraft pilots. In the cross design test, flight experience months showed individual effect, and measurement reading was deemed appropriate as a RPA adequacy test item. As the result of one-way ANOVA, location cognition showed significant difference between each groups. Also, Games-Howell method was used to test the appropriateness of the adequacy test for each group. The UAV department students showed significant difference from the RPA and aircraft pilots, and the RPA pilots showed no significant difference from the aircraft pilots. In the cross design test, flight experience months showed individual effect, and location cognition was deemed appropriate as a RPA adezuacy test item. As the result of one-way ANOVA, altitude recognition and obstacle evasion did not show significant difference between each groups. Also, Games-Howell method was used to test the appropriateness of the adequacy test for each groups. The UAV department students showed significant difference from the RPA and aircraft pilots. In the cross design test, flight experience months (accumulated experience) showed no individual effect, and measurement reading was deemed appropriate as a RPA adequacy test item. As the result of one-way ANOVA, flight location and altitude calculation showed significant difference between each groups. Also, Games-Howell method was
목차
제1장 서 론 11.1. 연구배경 및 목적 11.2. 연구범위 및 방법 2제2장 연구의 이론적 배경 42.1. 적성의 개념 42.2. 적성의 특징 52.3. 적성검사의 의의 52.4. 적성검사 관련 선행연구 고찰 62.5. 원격조종항공기조종사 적성검사 고찰 132.5.1. 원격조종항공기 (RPA, Remotely Piloted Aircraft) 사용 용어 132.5.2. RPA 조종업무의 개념 152.5.3. RPA조종사 직무분석 152.5.4. RPA조종사 적성검사 선행연구 20제3장 연구설계 및 모형 구축 433.1. 연구개요 433.2. 능력 및 특성항목 중요도 구분 설문 433.2.1.설문지 구성 433.2.2. 조사 및 분석 443.2.3. 표본의 특성 443.2.4. 측정항목의 평가분석 453.2.5. RPA조종사 적성요소 항목 요인분석 463.2.6. RPA조종사 적성검사 항목 설계 553.2.7. RPA조종사 적성요소 가중치 설문 573.3. RPA조종사 적성검사 항목 선별 58제4장 RPA조종사 적성검사 항목실험 594.1. 실험항목 594.2. 피 실험자 624.3. 실험장비 및 실험절차 624.4. 실험내용 및 실험진행 634.4.1. 시각능력 644.4.2. 인지능력 664.4.3. 적응성 67제5장 실증적 연구분석 695.1. 조사대상의 특성 695.2. 가설의 설정 695.2.1. 연구가설(1) 695.2.2. 연구가설(2) 705.3. 자료의 분석 705.3.1. 변수의 타당성과 신뢰도 705.3.2. 각 집단 간 평균 차이 검증 725.4. 각 변수들 간의 분산의 동질성 검정 735.5. 가설의 검증 745.5.1. 연구가설 1 (세 집단 간 차이 검증) 745.5.2. 연구가설 2 (두 집단 간 차이 검증) 86제6장 결 론 956.1.연구 결과............................................................................................................956.2.연구의 시사점....................................................................................................986.3.향후 연구방향....................................................................................................99참고문헌...................................................................................................................................100ABSTRACT..........................................................................................................................103
