Session 8: Beyond the Typical Player Experience CHI PLAY 2017, October 15–18, 2017, Amsterdam, NL

Understanding Dangerous Play: A Grounded Theory

Analysis of High-Performance Drone Racing Crashes

Amirreza Barin,1 Igor Dolgov,2 Zachary O. Toups1

1
Play & Interactive Experiences for Learning Lab, Dept. Computer Science
2
Perception, Action, & Cognition in Mediated Artificial & Natural Environments Lab, Dept. Psychology
New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, New Mexico, USA
barin@nmsu.edu, id@nmsu.edu, z@cs.nmsu.edu

A. B. C. D.
Figure 1. A crash in the Drone Racing League’s Level 1 competition (Semifinal 2, Heat 3). The drones are flying over empty seats of a stadium,
approaching a glowing green stand gate. Seen from the first-person view video feed from pilot FlyingBear (yellow), pilot Rafa’s drone (red) hits a
hard-to-spot handrail. In (A.), Rafa’s drone is circled. (B.) is just before the crash. In (C.), Rafa crashes (note the leaderboard shows him eliminated).
In (D.), FlyingBear begins to take action to avoid debris. Images ©2016 DRL; used with permission.

ABSTRACT
In drone racing, pilots compete on 3D race courses with quad-
copter drones. A first-person view camera feed displayed
through an immersive head-mounted display, gives them the
sense of directly piloting the remote vehicle. The Drone Rac-
ing League (DRL) operates standardized competitions from
which it produces professional video. In the present research,
we analyze DRL videos to examine the reasons that high-
performance drone pilots crash. The video corpus, combined
with the standardization of the event, enables us to study pi-
lot performance without interfering factors (e.g., customized
drones or interfaces). We present a deep understanding of the
sport of drone racing, a framework for understanding crashes,
and insights into the reasons that pilots crash, exploring how
the HCI community can benefit drone racing through future
user interface augmentations.
Author Keywords
Drone racing; unmanned aircraft systems; UAS; first-person
video; crashes; grounded theory.
ACM Classification Keywords
H.5.1 Information Interfaces and Presentation (e.g. HCI): Ar-
tificial, augmented, and virtual realities
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or
classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed
for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation
on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the
author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or
republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission
and/or a fee. Request permissions from permissions@acm.org.
CHI PLAY ’17, October 15–18, 2017, Amsterdam, Netherlands
© 2017 Copyright held by the owner/author(s). Publication rights licensed to ACM.
ISBN 978-1-4503-4898-0/17/10. . . $15.00
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3116595.3116611
INTRODUCTION
Drone racing is a recent competitive sport in which pi-
lots, equipped with immersive wearable displays, fly un-
manned aircraft systems (UAS, i.e., drones) through com-
plex 3D courses. Pilots don a head-mounted display (HMD)
wirelessly linked to a front-facing camera mounted on their
drones, providing them, and their audience, a first-person
view (FPV) that creates a sense of being on the course (see
video frames in Figure 1). Race courses feature many obsta-
cles, requiring pilots to maneuver quickly and carefully. The
goal of drone racing is to finish the course in the fastest time
to accumulate points; crashes eliminate pilots from a race.
The sport has proliferated among enthusiasts, attracting am-
ateurs and professionals. There are a small number of pro-
fessional drone leagues, including the Drone Racing League
(DRL), which are organized by companies and private in-
vestors. Interest from advertisers and media has been piqued:
ESPN2, a cable network channel devoted to sports, has regu-
larly featured the DRL since 2016 [34].
In this paper, we develop grounded theory of drone crashes.
UAS, in general, experience a much higher rate of crashes
than their manned counterparts [8, 20]. Documented crashes
in drone racing allow scholars to closely investigate causes of
pilot error and better understand drone operation under stan-
dardized, stressful conditions. Thus, it is valuable to study
both human performance and interface design in this domain
[9]. While preventing crashes is important for winning races,
it is vital in non-recreational contexts, where drone crashes
can cause significant damage to people and property.
The present research focuses on races conducted in the DRL,
a professional drone racing league. While other leagues al-

485
Session 8: Beyond the Typical Player Experience
low racers to provide their drones, DRL rules require racers
to pilot a standard drone made by the DRL; there is no drone
customization as a component of play. Thus, pilot skill is the
primary factor in success. This provides a methodological
advantage for our research in that we can study drone pilot
performance and crashes using platforms with identical tech-
nology running on standardized courses.
We gathered numerous drone racing videos provided by the
DRL to identify all crash events. Because these are sporting
events, there are ancillary data sources for crashes (e.g., in-
terviews with pilots, slow-motion replays, professional com-
mentary) that help us triangulate the reasons for crashes. In
this paper we present a synthesis of all of these observations
to help the community understand the sport and see opportu-
nities for design. The research covers one level of DRL racing
events with 168 unique videos totaling 514 minutes. We cap-
tured a total of 18 documented crashes in the dataset. In this
paper, we provide three contributions:
1. a first-of-its-kind description for the research community
of the emerging sport of drone racing;
2. a framework for studying drone crashes; and
3. a grounded theory analysis to understand the reasons for
crashes in drone racing.
It is our expectation that this research will form the founda-
tion of a better understanding of drone interfaces, drone play,
human performance, and opportunities to design for sports.
At the same time, we present a note of caution about chang-
ing the nature of the present sport: while it may be possible to
intervene and provide “better” and “safer” drone interfaces,
they may not be desirable as part of this sport. However,
the lessons learned can translate to non-recreational UAS do-
mains where safety is paramount.
BACKGROUND
Prior research on drone racing is absent from the academic
literature, as it is an emerging sport. However, ample atten-
tion has been paid to other UAS domains in recent decades.
In this section, we briefly cover prior UAS research, elaborate
on the design of UAS pilot interfaces, review visual percep-
tion research, and provide a brief history of drone racing.
Prior UAS Research
While drone racers put speed and maneuverability at a pre-
mium, most UAS not designed for this context are designed
for safety above all else. So, while the standard DRL drone
is bare-bones and consists of a propulsion system, a camera,
and a power supply, a standard UAS is equipped with ad-
ditional technologies to support tracking (e.g., Global Posi-
tioning System (GPS) sensors), stability (e.g., inertial mea-
suring units, accelerometers), and automation (e.g., sensor-
driven autopilot) [2, 4, 46].
Additionally, UAS systems vary greatly in terms of platform
size and crew composition, often needing an on-site, “exter-
nal” pilot for takeoff / landing and a remote, “internal” pilot
responsible for all other phases of flight (in addition to one or
486
CHI PLAY 2017, October 15–18, 2017, Amsterdam, NL
more crew for commanding the mission and managing pay-
loads, such as sensor packages) [8, 20]. Wwhile drone racers
pilot via an FPV camera, the majority of UAS are equipped
with automation that allows pilots to simply indicate way-
points on a map and the drone flies on autopilot [2, 4, 5, 32].
That said, findings gathered from the extant UAS literature
also apply in the context of drone racing.
Unmanned aircraft have incident rates at approximately 10
times greater than their manned counterparts [8, 20]. Al-
though equipment malfunctions and weather contribute to
UAS crashes and mishaps, the primary cause is pilot error
[5,8,20]. Poor pilot performance occurs in various forms and
often stems from lack of situation awareness [10, 11] and /
or high workload [9]. As with most interfaces, while pilots
generally bear the blame, often suboptimal control interface
design and / or training are the true source of error [31, 32].
Despite these challenges, in 2016 the United States Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) issued the Small Unmanned
Aircraft Rule (14 CFR Part 107) [45], which allowed routine
civil operations of small UAS (55 pounds [˜25kg] and less) in
Class G airspace (no more than 400 feet [˜120 meters] above
ground level and not in the vicinity of airports or other desig-
nated areas) [45]. One of the main safety-related stipulations
to this rule is that UAS pilots must effectively accomplish see-
and-avoid duties, keeping well clear of all other aircraft, per-
sons, and property, by maintaining the aircraft within visual
line-of-sight throughout the flight (and occasionally scanning
the sky for incoming air traffic).
In contrast, DRL pilots are not bound by such rules and fly in
close proximity to each other on closed courses. While typi-
cal UAS pilots look at their aircraft during flight, DRL pilots
use a fully enclosed FPV HMD, and cannot see their aircraft.
Furthermore, while typical UAS pilots rely on assistive tech-
nologies to navigate, DRL pilots rely entirely on vision.
UAS Pilot Interfaces
UAS platforms vary greatly in complexity, and thus, crew
composition [2, 4, 5, 8, 20, 46]. Pancock et al. [32] conducted
a literature review investigating UAS control stations, with
special attention to their designs and capabilities. They found
that that small / simple platforms typically solely require a
single external pilot for all phases of flight, whereas big /
complex platforms require an external pilot for takeoff and
landing and an internal pilot for other phases of flight.
During manual flight, UAS pilots use common handheld re-
mote controllers, similar to those used with radio-controlled
(RC) aircraft. These devices are typically fitted with two joy-
sticks and various other functional units, depending on the de-
sign of the specific system [32,48]. On the other hand, for au-
tomated flight, external and internal pilots utilize a computer-
based setup, known as a ground control station. Most ground
control stations use a laptop or desktop with mouse and key-
board input, while some include additional input modalities
(e.g., touch screens, joysticks) [32]. The displays include
some combination of a moving map display, a navigation dis-
play, a system health / status display, and an out-window /
payload display [32, 48].
Session 8: Beyond the Typical Player Experience
Visual Perception while Piloting a UAS
Dolgov [7] notes that, when manually flying UAS, external
pilots use strategies similar to tracking an object on a flat
projection plane, which is based on a target’s (UAS’s) head-
ing angle, optical trajectory, and optical velocity [30, 37–39].
Rather than using depth cues, which are mostly absent at
the altitudes and distances at which UAS are operated, pilots
use 2D planar cues that enable see-and-avoid duties. When
UAS platforms are equipped with a forward-facing camera,
UAS pilots can sometimes rely on an FPV out-the-window
display to manually navigate the aircraft. In such systems,
this mode of control is typically relied upon during takeoff
and landing, whereas the remainder of flight is highly auto-
mated [2, 4, 5, 46]. In contrast, DRL pilots rely entirely on an
FPV wearable display for all parts of flight.
DRL pilots are adept at executing complex tricks with their
drones while maneuvering around obstacles at break-neck
speeds [43]. While this is nothing new in the world of
RC aircraft (whose controls are similar to those of external
UAS pilots), DRL pilots accomplish these feats of control
while using an FPV wearable display and, effectively, looking
“through a straw.” While this greatly limits situation aware-
ness, DRL pilots can still take advantage of perceptual regu-
larities, like depth and time-to-contact cues, as well as other
information available in their optic flow, to safely and speed-
ily maneuver their aircraft around the course.
The concept of optic flow was introduced by Gibson in the
1950s and developed over the next several decades [13, 14].
Optic flow refers to the perceived movement of the optic (vi-
sual) array (the totality of what is seen) as person moves
through the environment (or the environment moves around
them). While DRL pilots are controlling their aircraft re-
motely, they still experience optic flow via their FPV HMD.
Parsimoniously, Gibson originally developed the concept of
optic flow while serving as unit director for the U. S. Army’s
Air Force Aviation Psychology Program, where he had access
to hoards of pilots. Among numerous feats of human perfor-
mance demonstrated by pilots, one particular scenario that
piqued his interest was the ease at which ace pilots land their
jets on the deck of an aircraft carrier, a task that seems nearly
impossible given the physics involved. So, Gibson reasoned
that there must be information available in the optic array that
allows them to achieve such high performance [13, 14].
Gibson’s thinking was later empirically confirmed by Lee and
others [25, 26, 41]. A property of optic flow is that the clo-
sure rate of the gap between an animal and an approach-
ing object is directly proportional to the rate at which the
retinal projection of the object grows, a variable known as
Tau [23, 25, 26, 35, 41]. Tau and its derivative are used by
humans and other animals for planning and executing move-
ments and directly perceiving time to contact (TTC) with an
approaching object [26,41]. Accurate perception of Tau is es-
sential for survival of both predatory and prey species, and re-
quires no complex knowledge. This is best illustrated by the
spectrum of non-human creatures who manage to skillfully
control their locomotion during complex pursuit, avoidance,
appetitive, and herding behaviors [26, 27, 29, 47].
487
CHI PLAY 2017, October 15–18, 2017, Amsterdam, NL
Recently, research has shown Tau may not be the whole
story and that individual and stimulus differences impact TTC
judgment [19]. TTC may be better predicted by image veloc-
ity, rather than Tau [44]. While more research is needed, the
mastery exhibited by drone racers while using an FPV HMD
to navigate complex 3D courses favors the image velocity ac-
count. This is due to the fact that a retinal image originating
from an HMD does not hold the same relationship to Tau that
a bona fide retinal image does. On the other hand, image ve-
locity is unaffected by image source.
History of Drone Racing
The convergence of a number of technologies (e.g., high-
precision sensors for tracking; miniature cameras; high-
resolution displays; shrinking low-power, high-performance
mechanical components) has driven the proliferation of in-
expensive and fast drones, leading to the new sport of drone
racing. Drone racing started in late 2014 as an amateur sport
in Australia. Pilots shared video via social media, which
were welcomed by enthusiasts worldwide [49]. As the am-
ateur play grew in popularity, various organizations helped
cultivate it into a professional sport, resulting in a number of
competitive leagues and race formats.
Professional drone racing is proliferating worldwide. There
are four large U.S.-based drone leagues which provide com-
petitions with cash prizes: the DRL,1 the MultiGP-Drone
Racing League,2 the Drone Sports Association U.S. National
Drone Racing Championships,3 and the Aerial Sport League.
Beyond the U.S., DJI, a Chinese drone maker, has just opened
a similar arena to the Aerial Sport League’s Drone Sports
World entertainment complex, and the International Drone
Racing Association promotes drone racing worldwide.
GROUNDED THEORY METHODOLOGY
We aim to understand the sport of drone racing, in general,
and the reasons for crashes, in specific. Grounded theory
analysis entails collecting a multifaceted corpus of data and
coding it to derive theory [16, 17]. Similar to other research
methods, grounded theory requires that researchers construct
a structured network that identifies the relationships and func-
tionalities of involved participants, data, relevant literature,
and collected data [15].
Grounded theory works well to analyze relationships [6],
which is important when approaching a new field with few es-
tablished frameworks. The data we were able to acquire from
the DRL provided multiple, overlapping perspectives: video
of drone racing events, with commentary, interviews, and re-
plays; documentation; and enthusiast websites. Crashes are
hard to analyze in the wild, but the DRL videos and other doc-
umentation provide multiple perspectives that facilitate trian-
gulation, rendering grounded theory an effective approach.
In the present research, we used ATLAS.ti Windows4 [3] for
analysis. All videos were downloaded into the software for
analysis and segmentation.
1
https://thedroneracingleague.com/
2
http://www.multigp.com/site/index
3
http://dronesportsassociation.com/
4
http://atlasti.com/product/v8-windows/
Session 8: Beyond the Typical Player Experience
Data Collection and Segmentation
In the first step, we collected information about DRL race
terms and conditions, piloting rules, venue operation, official
course dimensions and boundaries, drone parts, technologies,
course timing systems, scoring, pilots, classes, and levels. We
explored websites that report on the sport (e.g., DroneGuru5 )
and websites that sell drone parts (e.g., AtmosphericAdven-
tures6 ) to develop a comprehensive understanding.
In the second step, we acquired our primary data source: one
researcher watched and categorized all available DRL videos.
Collection took place over June–October 2016. At that time,
there was a substantial number of videos available from the
DRL on YouTube for all races that occurred on DRL Level
1: Miami Lights (Sun Life Stadium, Miami, Florida). Ad-
ditional levels were not available on any network to which
the team had access. At the time of this writing, the DRL is
preparing for a new round of events and is obscuring links to
the researched race events.
This initial dataset consisted of 284 videos. Some of these
were subsets of other videos (e.g., a clip showing only an
interview segment that is part of a larger race video); we re-
moved overlapping videos, resulting in a corpus of 168 videos
totaling 514 minutes. The collected videos were all profes-
sional productions and consisted of four types:
1. comprehensive race videos that included commentary,
multiple event perspectives, FPV videos from all pilots,
and interviews (57 videos);
2. separate pilot interviews (34 videos);
3. advertisements for DRL events (which included informa-
tion on levels beyond the first; 48 videos); and
4. instructional videos (29 videos).
The researcher watched all of the videos at least three times
each and simultaneously recorded notes. In this phase, he
split videos with multiple contents, mostly the race videos,
into their component segments (e.g., race event, post-race in-
terviews, commentary from racers, replays). This process
produced a total of 359 documents (i.e., video segments and
unsegmented videos) for further analysis.
In the analysis of the segmented dataset, we categorized
videos according to content: drone crashes, pilot interviews,
piloting techniques, course simulation,7 races, and advertise-
ments. The categorized videos drove our analysis focus.
Analysis Focus
In this research, our aim was to deeply understand the sport of
drone racing and identify how and why pilots crash. This fo-
cused our efforts on understanding the mechanics of the sport
as well as the proximate (e.g., obstacles) and ultimate (e.g.,
errors in perception) causes of crashes. In the remainder of
this section, we explain analysis foci; in the Results section,
we describe what we learned through these foci.
5
http://www.droneguru.net
6
http://atmosphericadventures.com/
7
While the other content types are self-explanatory, course simula-
tions are video clips that explain the race course, rendered in 3D.
488
CHI PLAY 2017, October 15–18, 2017, Amsterdam, NL
Understanding the Sport
The overarching goal of the present research was to under-
stand and communicate to the community the play of drone
racing. Through immersing ourselves in the data, we devel-
oped a deep understanding of drone racing play, pilot and
spectator experience, and tournament and course design.
Investigating Obstacles
Through the race videos it became clear that obstacles, which
are a form of skill test for pilots, are a key part of race course
design and worthy of deeper investigation. We turned to
the sport documentation, looked specifically at obstacles in
our videos, and identified the types of obstacles that racers
face. Through our analysis, we also discovered that obstacles
can be official (constructed) or incidental (i.e., related to the
venue, but not constructed).
Investigating Crashes
The primary driver for the present research was to investigate
how and why drone racers crash. To advance this compo-
nent, we identified crash events in our data, finding 18 events.
From these 18 events, we identified all corroborating evi-
dence across our dataset and linked them to the crash event.
In identifying corroborating documents, the researcher took
notes on the event and wrote down transcripts of all speech
associated with the event. On average, there were 4–5 docu-
ments linked to each of the 18 crashes; the linked documents
included interview videos, race videos, FPV videos of the
crashed drone, other drones’ FPV videos for this crash, notes,
and transcripts.
Through the crash dataset, we sought specific information
from the data, which emerged as we developed our knowl-
edge base. We reviewed the crash dataset multiple times to
develop our schema. Ultimately, we collected the following
information for each crash:
• the pilots(s) involved;
• the race course and location of the crash on the course;
• the type of obstacle involved (if any); and
• environmental conditions (including ambient light).
All these attributes were not always available, but we devel-
oped as much of an understanding as we could.
Using the data points collected from the linked documents
and coding them, we developed a framing to understand
crashes. In some cases, we found that instructional videos
were helpful in understanding the reasons for a crash. The
crash analysis framework synthesizes the information col-
lected and frames each crash in terms of the following fields:
1. Crash Location: Locations are on race courses, described
in terms of an obstacle of that course (e.g., a particular tun-
nel). We have seven crash locations in our dataset.
2. Crash Position: The exact position in / on an obstacle
where a drone crashed (e.g., the exact position of the top
of a particular tunnel).
3. Maneuver Type: Maneuver types describe the activity the
pilot was performing with the drone when it crashed (e.g.,
Session 8: Beyond the Typical Player Experience
turning left or right, climbing). Instructional videos were
especially helpful in understanding and describing maneu-
ver types.
4. Descriptive Reason for Crash: Based on observation
of race video and interviews, we identify the reasons for
crashes.
5. Crash Type: We classified crashes as one of three types
(described in detail later): drone-obstacle collisions, drone-
drone collisions, or stall crashes. Collisions occur when the
drone strikes another object; stall crashes occur due to the
aerodynamics of the drone and performed maneuver.
This framing is potentially useful to analyze any drone race
crash event. For each data field, there are a number of possi-
ble values. Some values are specific to our observed venue,
but can be adapted or expanded as new data are collected.
RESULTS
Our results provide insight into play in the DRL and an under-
standing of the reasons for drone crashes in races. While our
results are specific to the DRL, mostly due to the extensive
number of documents we were able to acquire that were not
available for other leagues or events, we expect that general
understanding can be extrapolated from them.
One contribution is an account of the sport of drone racing
through the lens of the DRL. In this section, we describe
how the sport is played and provide a detailed description
of the context of the sport as derived from our observations
of videos and the sport documentation. The description here
combines elements of multiple races that we observed in DRL
Level 1. We describe an example race, from the data, as well
as a general description of play.
Example Race
The massive [American] football stadium is devoid of spec-
tators and a course has been configured through it: bright
LED strips line the seats, walls, and columns. The lights
roughly mark out a course through the concrete structure.
Aside from pilots’ prior experience flying course, the lights
are the only indication that a pilot is on-course. Throughout,
large, brightly lit open squares make the gates through which
drones will fly to score points.
Up to four drones are set up on illuminated podiums at the
starting line. The surface is angled forward, to ensure that
drones take off flying forward, rather than up. They are in
a staggered formation, minimizing the chances of collision.
Smoke blows across the podiums, giving the effect that the
brightly lit drones are rockets prepared for takeoff.
Nearby, in the safety of a covered VIP area, pilots prepare.
They are seated in a row overlooking the stadium in large,
comfortable seats. The vantage point on the empty space is
irrelevant, they will be wearing fully immersive HMDs.
Radio chatter can be heard, “The course is now closed. We
are clearing the area. Initiating check...”
As chatter continues on the radio, an announcer, pacing in the
VIP area, says, “Alright, pilots, goggles. Arm check.”
489
CHI PLAY 2017, October 15–18, 2017, Amsterdam, NL
The pilots all fit their HMDs over their faces, securing straps
and ensuring a comfortable fit. One-by-one they raise one
hand in a thumbs up, indicating they are set. They are now
fully immersed in the race: their HMD goggles show an FPV
video feed from the front cameras of their resting drones.
They pick up their RC controllers: bulky boxes with two
thumbsticks and various switches; they prepare to race.
“Ten seconds, pilots.” A female voice counts down over the
PA system: “Ten, nine, eight...”
When she reaches “Three”, her voice is replaced by a beep,
another beep, and the starting tone.
The drones lift off, one speeding after the other. One lags
behind as a commentator notes, “The start can be critical!”
The race has begun.
A group of three drones bob along at high speed, their pro-
pellers sounding like a humming swarm of angry bees. They
swoop over empty stands, cornering around glowing pylons
and through the lit, square gates.
The pilots’ “eyes” are the cameras mounted at front of the
drones, experiencing the event as if flying extremely fast
through a giant’s stadium. Their palms sweat as they impart
minute changes to the two sticks with their thumbs, tilting
their drones to change their velocity and attitude.8
The course requires the pilots to deviate from their circular
path around the bowl, sweeping out of the stands and over the
field. The drones, one-by-one, drop down to where a green
illuminated tunnel, normally access for spectators, is the next
segment of the course. One drone swings too far, losing time.
They fly through a concrete concessions area, avoiding fly-
ing too high, lest they hit fans on the ceiling. They dodge
around columns, coming to another tunnel that takes them to
a spectator-queuing area. A spiral ramp takes them up a floor
and another tunnel takes them back out into the bowl, where
they circle over the stands again.
The final stretch aims the drones at the starting point, where
they will encounter the finish box. They pick up speed as
they make the final straightaway, at the end of which is a box
designed to catch the drones and detect who finished first.
One-by-one, the drones smack into the springy back of the
box, falling to its padded floor.
Drone Racing League Play
In this section, we provide further details of play. We start
from our primary data, and generalize to the sport as a whole
from less rigorous observations of online sources. Our foci
on understanding the sport and investigating obstacles drive
our explanations.
Race Environment
DRL races take place on 3D courses inside abandoned build-
ings, around major landmarks, or inside stadiums. Every
DRL event, called a “level” has a unique venue and title (e.g.,
Level 1: Miami Lights, Level 2: L.A.pocalypse). A course
8
Attitude is the angle of the drone relative to horizon.
Session 8: Beyond the Typical Player Experience
that passes through various parts of the venue is identified
and marked out with bright lights and obstacles.
Within the race environment, a safe area for pilots is config-
ured with a protective cover. Each pilot has a specified seat
and may stand up, but they cannot leave the designated pilot
area; it is unclear if this is to preserve fairness or for safety.
The drones start the race at a particular location, resting on
individual podiums that are angled to enable a fast take-off.
Additionally, the drones are clustered together, but spaced far
enough apart to ensure that pilots do not collide immediately.
A key piece of preparation is the installation of necessary
infrastructure. Infrastructure includes specifying the digital
and analog network channels that are used for communicat-
ing with drones and transmitting FPV video. Cameras are lo-
cated throughout the course to capture the race from multiple
angles for the production of race videos.
No spectators are allowed within the DRL race environment.
Similar to the DRL, a few other racing leagues utilize indoor
areas, which place hard constraints on drone maneuverability,
making it probable that some drones will crash. Looking be-
yond, we find that many organized amateur events are held in
open spaces when/where other people are not present. Racers
employ found objects (e.g., trees, playground equipment) as
obstacles or course markers (e.g., to note where pilots should
turn around). Play in open spaces can be relatively safe for the
drones, but trees and other obstacles can still be dangerous.
Live audiences are rare, owing to safety and the fact that
drones are hard to track visually. This contrasts sharply with
automobile racing, in which crowds can safely and easily
watch the large vehicles move around a 2D track [12]. Some-
times, a few spectators watch a race from a safe place, often
using remote video. The video, typically a direct FPV feed
or transmitted online, is often displayed on the large monitor.
In some races, spectators can choose from the various drone
video feeds by tuning their HMDs to the appropriate channel.
Courses
Courses are the path drones need to take around a race envi-
ronment; normally, these are designed to maximize the need
for skillful maneuvering. Drones are free to fly within any
space in the race environment, but to be competitive they need
to pick efficient lines in navigating the course. For any DRL
race, the course is run by pilots one time, accumulating points
by clearing obstacles and finishing quickly.
The starting line for a course includes the podiums for the
drones. Each course consists of a number of obstacles, pri-
marily gates, that drones must pass through. The courses are
lit throughout; in some cases, the lights are the only marker
of where the course actually is. For example, part of Level
1 involves the drones flying out across an open space toward
the football field in the middle; a line of lights marks where
they need to drop down and turn around to enter a tunnel.
Each course concludes with a finish box: a large, padded box
with one open side to catch speeding drones. The design of
the box is such that it allows drones to crash into its interior
somewhat safely, supporting finishing the race as fast as pos-
490
CHI PLAY 2017, October 15–18, 2017, Amsterdam, NL
sible. The box is enclosed, so drones that are stopped (or
disabled from the final impact) are unlikely to escape.
All DRL courses also are designed in with 3D elements. We
are able to gather some data on the design of multiple DRL
courses through simulation videos. We know that they use
gates, tunnels, ramps, windows, stairs and floors as paths and
obstacles, and that bright LED lighting is key to making these
things visible to pilots. Each course makes use of the unique
affordances of the venue in which they are set.
We have the most details on the DRL’s Level 1 course, Miami
Lights (Figure 2). This course includes five 3D illuminated
stand gates. There are also three tunnel segments that create
a tight space for flying. A unique element of this course is the
helix, a long spiraling ramp that rises in elevation.
Course designs take advantage of drones’ unique ability to
move in 3D and prioritize the ability to engage in aerial ac-
robatics as a core skill in the game. In any event, there is an
identified course that often incorporates 3D elements. Some-
times races are set up through spaces that players cannot
physically access, like flying through the windows of aban-
doned buildings. Due to power requirements and cost, only
professional leagues are likely to use large amounts of bright
lights to plot complex pathways.
Obstacles
DRL courses consist of a number of obstacles, spread
throughout a course. Some are official and are configured
as part of the course, others are simply characteristics of the
venue (i.e., incidental obstacles).
The official obstacles in DRL levels are usually gates, tunnels,
ramps, walls, windows, stairs and floors. Official obstacles in
DRL Level 1: Miami Lights include:
• Stand gates are large square or circular frames surrounded
by lights that the drones fly through to score points.
• Tunnels force drones into tight spaces. These tunnels are
often the passageways that are used to enter or exit the bowl
of the stadium. Sometimes smoke machines spread smoke
inside of the tunnels, reducing visibility.
• Louvered wall: Pilots must fly along a wall with a repeat-
ing light pattern on it, then break away at the right time.
• Helix: A winding spiral ramp up which pilots must fly.
In addition, the seats, handrails, ceiling fans, and walls of the
stadium serve as incidental obstacles that pilots must avoid.
For general drone racing, found objects often serve as obsta-
cles to avoid. Inasmuch as the goal of the sport is to demon-
strate acrobatic ability, obstacles serve to engage pilots in dis-
plays of skill.
Equipment
For DRL races, all equipment is standardized, so equipment
customization (including drones) is not a component of play.
DRL funds a special engineering department for developing
drones, video transmission methods, radio frequency technol-
ogy, and race equipment. For each pilot, normal DRL equip-
ment includes a drone, RC controller, and HMD.
Session 8: Beyond the Typical Player Experience
Figure 2. Overview of the DRL Level 1 Miami Lights course in Sun Life
Stadium. A blue flag calls out the starting point and the course follows
the bright blue line around the bowl of the stadium, into the side areas,
along the louvered wall (bottom center), via the three tunnels (one near
Checkpoint A, lower-left; two near Checkpoint B, lower-right), up the
helix (lower-right of image), around the bowl again, and concludes with
the finish box at the black Finish Line flag. Image ©2016 DRL; used
with permission.
Drone. Drones are the primary technology for the DRL
and the focus of its development efforts, which optimize for
speed, agility, and resilience. In the present research, pilots
were using Racer 2 drones, although DRL has recently re-
leased the Racer 3. DRL provides all drones for its competi-
tions and keeps a queue of ready drones for each pilot as races
progress.
Racing drones are quadcopters (4 upward facing rotors), but
are configured differently from common hobby drones. Rac-
ing drone rotors form an H-shape, rather than an X-shape, to
support forward speed, rather than stability. DRL drones use
powerful motors and aim to be lightweight. Since they impact
the finish box and crash land, in addition to normal crashes,
they must have a sturdy frame and body.
The front-mounted camera is angled such that pilots can see
straight ahead as the drone pitches forward during flight. The
camera transmits video in real time to the pilot’s HMD; the
feed can be tapped into for spectating purposes.
As they are competing in races, visually tracking drones is
key, both for spectators and pilots. DRL drones are covered
in all sides in a grid of color-changable LEDs. During each
race, a pilot’s drone is set to a particular color.
Outside the DRL, drone customization is often a key com-
ponent of competition and a means for pilots to distinguish
themselves. Racing drones run a gamut of designs, but are
almost universally small quadcopters with an FPV camera.
491
CHI PLAY 2017, October 15–18, 2017, Amsterdam, NL
Controller. RC controllers are used to pilot drones and con-
sist of two analog thumbsticks that can be pushed in any di-
rection: the right joystick controls roll (via left-right move-
ment) and pitch (via forward-back movement) and the left
joystick controls yaw (via left-right movement) and overall
throttle (via forward-back movement). Roll is the primary
means to turn a drone while flying, causing the drone to tilt
along its longitudinal axis by adjusting the relative power to
rotors on either side. Pitch adjusts the forward / backward
leaning of the drone, which enables it to fly forward or back-
ward. Yaw is primarily useful for spinning the drone in place.
As with all rotor-wing aircraft, the throttle controls how fast
all props are spinning, so that, if tilted forward, the drone
acquires forward and upward momentum; if level, the drone
will simply go up.
This is a standard configuration for drone racers (and RC
flight, in general). The overall effect is that, to fly forward,
the pilot pushes both sticks forward. Typical turns are accom-
plished by moving the left stick to the left or right, causing the
drone to bank.
The controller and drone must be set to the same radio fre-
quency channels, which are specified for each pilot in a race.
HMD Goggles. DRL pilots wear HMD goggles that com-
pletely obscure vision of the world around them. The HMD
goggles provide a raw live video feed of the drone’s FPV
camera, simulating sitting in a cockpit.
In the DRL, race status information is overlaid on the live
video feed to each racer. The overlay provides a leaderboard
in the corner, which indicates each pilot’s relative position
and whether or not any have crashed. This is accomplished
with special software and a repeater device.
Infrastructure
A key part of any race is setting up infrastructure. All course
designers must be careful about ensuring that the radio bands
needed for transmitting to and from drones are interference
free. In addition, the DRL includes substantial infrastructure
for live mixing of video feeds and for recording events.
Race Scoring and Structure
DRL races consist of heats9 with up to four pilots in each.
Each pilot will compete in multiple heats, accumulating
points for a race; the winner of the race gets the most points.
A crash eliminates a pilot from a particular heat, but that pilot
can still earn points by competing in other heats. Points are
scored as follows:
For passing at least two checkpoints and visiting the
course in its entirety, pilots are awarded 50 points. For
every second underneath the two-minute time cap, pilots
are awarded an additional 10 points. Each race features
a number of heats. [The final point total is calculated by
summing the points across all the heats]. [49]
Race Regulations
Leagues specify their own regulations for competition, like
any sport. These cover the following:
9
A heat is a single competitive run through a course.
Session 8: Beyond the Typical Player Experience
• Aircraft specifications for frame shape and size, propeller
shape and size, motors, batteries, and vehicle weight.
• FPV camera and goggles may be subject to requirements
about what data can be shown.
• Safety rules cover how people act within a venue, in par-
ticular staff and pilots. They also cover rules about pre-
flight inspections, allowed types of flight, first aid, and fire
hazards. One DRL safety rule is that the first step in re-
trieving any crashed drone is to pull the power connector
off to ensure its rotors do not accidentally activate.
• Participant rules and requirements cover how league
personnel and spectators should act.
• Judgment rules identify how ambiguous situations in a
race will be adjudicated.
• Frequency management rules describe requirements for
radio transmission within the venue to ensure all pilots
maintain a video feed and control without interference.
• Race levels and classes identify the number and type of
levels in a competition.
• Scoring structure specifies how pilots accumulate points
and win races.
Tournament Structure
Competition in the DRL starts with the pre-season, then
moves through each of the levels, which culminate in Level
5. The competition begins with 16 pilots total, four of whom
are eliminated in the pre-season event. The remaining 12 pi-
lots compete to win each of the five levels, based on points
accumulated through a number of heats on each of those
courses. The heats are organized into races, creating a tour-
nament structure within the level. Points and eliminations do
not carry forward to the next level.
In general, racing events have qualifying levels that they hold
in either a regional or non-regional format. A normal struc-
ture is to have a tournament with semifinals, finals, and a
championship to eliminate players and declare a champion.
Crash Analysis
A major focus of the present research was to explicate the
reasons for drone crashes, and consider their role in the sport.
Crashes in the DRL result in pilots being eliminated from the
current heat, but not the race, which is a substantial penalty.
At the same time, in other competitions, the stakes can be
higher (e.g., loss of an expensive drone, complete loss of a
competition). We thus expect understanding such incidents
to be vital.
An interesting point in the DRL is that all drone hard-
ware is standardized and racers practice with that hardware.
This helps to eliminate any problems arising from unfamiliar
equipment that could lead to crashes.
From our analysis of crash events, we identified three possible
crash types:
492
CHI PLAY 2017, October 15–18, 2017, Amsterdam, NL
• drone-obstacle collisions occur when a drone strikes an
obstacle, either official or incidental;
• drone-drone collisions occur when two racers acciden-
tally collide mid-flight; and
• stall crashes occur when a racer places the drone at an
attitude such that it has insufficient lift to stay airborne.
In our dataset, we observed 15 drone-obstacle collisions, 1
drone-drone collision, and 2 stall crashes.
Collisions
Understanding the reason for collisions (both drone-obstacle
and drone-drone) was a key part of this research. We were
able to triangulate crash reasons by looking at multiple linked
documents for each crash event. In many cases, racers who
crashed were interviewed to understand their reasoning. In
addition, since crashes were a focus of the produced race
videos, we were often able to observe each crash from the
racer’s viewpoint, the viewpoint of trailing racers, and the
viewpoint of venue cameras.
Regarding the one drone-drone collision, while we take this
as its own type, these types of collision are rare. The one
instance observed involved two drones taking off simultane-
ously and out of sight of one another.
Stall Crashes
While the mechanics of collisions are straightforward, stall
crashes may be unfamiliar to the reader. Racing drones in the
DRL are quadcopter designs with four rotors that provide lift
in one direction [33, 42]. If the pilot changes the attitude of
the drone and exceeds its critical angle of attack, the drone
may slow below its stall speed in level flight, which renders it
uncontrollable.
An example of a stall crash was when pilot Hazak crashed in
Qualifying Race 2, Heat 1. He was banking over the (empty)
stands through a series of gates. After clearing the last gate,
he banked especially hard, pushing the drone to be perpendic-
ular to the ground. When that happened, his drone only had
thrust to its left and none upward, gravity caused it to drop
out of the race and into the stands.
Proper drone piloting techniques prevent stall crashes, as we
learned through instructional videos. Avoiding stalls is a key
skill that is learned through practice.
Crash Reasons
In interviews, pilots discussed the reasons for crashes in terms
of human performance. While they mentioned that stress and
anxiety are factors for crashes, due to the high stakes of the
competition, many pointed to a failure of maneuvering skills
as the main reason for crashing. They pointed to two issues:
choosing the wrong maneuver at the wrong time and a failure
to execute the maneuver correctly.
Our study shows that collisions occurred due to three main
reasons: improper maneuvering, errors in perception, and in-
terference from lighting transitions.
Improper Maneuvering. While racing drones are agile, they
also move very fast. Many collision crashes were a result of
Session 8: Beyond the Typical Player Experience
the failure of the pilot to maneuver through a tight space. We
identified improper maneuvering as the reason for 7 of the
drone-obstacle collisions in different places as well as the two
stall crashes.
For example, at one of the sections of Level 1, after drones
exit from a tunnel they must turn right to the helix immedi-
ately. This transition resulted in many of the drone-obstacle
collisions due to the degree of the turn and the speed at which
pilots were flying. For instance, pilot M0ke crashed in Final
Heat 3 upon his drone exiting from a tunnel and wanting to
turn right into the helix. Unfortunately for M0ke, he immedi-
ately collided with a column.
Errors in Perception. Errors in visual perception were the
second-most prevalent reason for drone racing crashes in our
dataset. While racing, pilots must use TTC, depth cues, and
other information in their optic flow to choose the lines that
they will fly through a course. However, due to the limited
field of view of the front-mounted camera, pilots’ situation
awareness is compromised. Moreover, human perception is
imperfect at extreme speeds, thus racers have difficulty judg-
ing their potential to avoid obstacles, causing collisions. Er-
rors in perception were the reason for 6 of the observed drone-
obstacle collisions.
For instance, when pilot Hazak in the DRL race Semifinal 2
Heat 3 was preparing to enter a tunnel gate, he lined up his
drone and flew straight for a full 3 seconds. Believing his
drone was aligned with the entrance, he flew directly into the
top of the tunnel.
Interference from Lighting Transitions.
Some crashes were caused by drones moving from a dark
space into a bright one or vice-versa. This lighting transi-
tion, which lasts only a moment, makes it hard for the racer
to identify and avoid obstacles, leading to collisions. This
was the reason for 2 drone-obstacle collisions.
DISCUSSION
Drone racing user interfaces are simple and direct, modeling
the basics of flight. A mental model of quadcopter flying is
needed, which is likely readily acquired through practice, in
order to manipulate a drone. Further practice helps pilots de-
velop an intuitive sense of the aircraft’s aerodynamic capabil-
ities and limitations, especially with regards to stalls. Based
on our observed data, an understanding of how the sport is
played, an understanding of the practice of spectating, and an
understanding of crashes, we expect that there is ample op-
portunity for new UI designs in drone racing.
Value of Crashes
Watching pilots’ performance is a primary motivator for spec-
tators in drone racing and a primary concern in the design of
the DRL. The controlled environment of the DRL helps to
ensure that pilot skill is the primary point of competition (and
the reason for crashes). Careful attention is paid to ensuring
that flying drones are consistent, that pilots’ capabilities are
not technologically hindered, and that everyone has a fair and
equivalent experience.
493
CHI PLAY 2017, October 15–18, 2017, Amsterdam, NL
As in car racing, the possibility of crashes increases the
drama of races and adds excitement. There is an open ques-
tion as to whether or not reducing crash rate in professional
drone races is desirable, although in other contexts (e.g., non-
entertainment flight; drone races with privately owned, ex-
pensive drones) it clearly is.
None of the pilot interview data suggested a need for tech-
nological intervention; in fact, using a bare-bones design is
what enables a DRL drone’s speed and agility. The consen-
sus among pilots indicates that they value the opportunity to
engage in complex maneuvering and enjoy flying fast. Fur-
ther, crashes are simply a component of the sport.
Potential for User Interface Improvements
While crashes seem integral to drone racing, we have two
perspectives on how more advanced UIs could improve the
sport while preserving the value of crashes.
First, DRL pilots represent some of the best drone racing pi-
lots in the world, they are extremely skilled and have prac-
ticed their craft extensively. The process of undertaking this
practice is time-consuming and expensive, and so augmented
drone interfaces could serve to speed up pilot education and
better prepare them for DRL-style drone racing.
Second, although skilled, pilots are playing through a techno-
logical mediation that does not support human cognition ef-
fectively. This failure, especially errors in perception, appears
to directly translate into the few crashes that we observed.
Further, unlike pilots of manned aircraft, drone pilots lack
the physical experience that lends them information about the
aerodynamic state of the aircraft. They also fly without basic
instruments that are normally needed for flight.
Prior research in the community has focused on how drones
might be used as a source of design, but not focused on how
to support piloting them. A number of projects have con-
sidered using drones for display purposes (e.g., [18, 22, 36]),
for playing games (e.g., [22, 28]), or for remote collaboration
(e.g., [21]). The UI to control racing drones is, presently, sim-
ple, and only a few projects have considered how new tech-
nologies might support more interesting control devices and
control mappings (e.g., [1, 24]). The projects fall short of ad-
dressing the issues we have discovered in drone racing.
Changes to drone UIs could help to develop human skill for
more exciting races or could directly improve performance.
In the remainder of this section, we look at the ways in which
the research community could improve drone UIs for the
purposes of racing. Beyond this scope, these improvements
could benefit drone pilots, especially training, in general.
While we expect that faster processing, better display tech-
nologies, and faster drones will enhance the appeal of the
sport, these advancements are straightforward and largely di-
rected at hardware. At the same time, such hardware im-
provements are likely to exacerbate the existing challenges
of flight, pushing it beyond human capabilities. This argues,
further, for the need for UI enhancements to the sport.
Session 8: Beyond the Typical Player Experience
Supporting Accurate Perception
One part of our results shows that most crashes are due to
collisions, and the main reasons for collisions are failures in
human perception and performance. This is illustrated by the
fact that many crashes happened when racers tried to enter a
check point or clear an obstacle but erred in their perception
or maneuvering.
UI support could be added to support diagnosis of passabil-
ity through and around various obstacles. Depending on the
stance of drone racers, this could function in a tutorial mode
to enable new pilots to understand the inherent difficulties in
judging distance through FPV HMD goggles, yet we expect
it to be valuable even as a prosthesis to overcome the inherent
deficiencies in the setup.
We envision simple augmentations to a pilot’s video feed: in-
dicators on the feed of where the drone is projected to be in
the near future. More advanced designs could warn of the
location of an impending crash.
Technologically, supporting accurate perception can likely be
performed through computer vision analysis of live video, to
minimize the impact on the lean design of drones. At the
same time, augmenting drones with a combination of sensors
and / or data on the 3D configuration of their race environ-
ment would enable similar capabilities.
Supporting Instrumentation
Stall crashes occur when a drone’s angle of attack is such that
it loses lift. Stalls are a known issue in flight (both in tradi-
tional contexts and drone racing), and we observed a number
of training videos and resources aimed at supporting drone
racers in avoiding stalls. Drone pilots have to be made aware
of the drone aerodynamic states that can lead to stall crashes
during maneuvers. Drone racers lack even the most basic in-
struments and this, combined with being outside the cockpit
of their vehicles, increases the likelihood of stall crashes.
We thus suggest that even a basic stall indicator would sup-
port drone pilots immensely. Such as system could commu-
nicate, through iconography, the lift state of a drone by using
small, onboard sensors. Again, even used as a training tool,
such an indicator could help drone pilots avoid stall crashes.
Enhancing the Spectator Experience
Drone racing is primarily watched in a technologically medi-
ated way (e.g., professionally produced video from multiple
viewpoints, large live screens, HMDs that can tune to mul-
tiple drones’ frequencies). Spectators are rarely near a race
because it is unsafe. Further, the inability to spot speeding
drones with the naked eye is challenging even at a close dis-
tance.
A straightforward solution for visibility is to add lighting the
drones. Some leagues provide or require drones that have
bright LEDs on them, as is true of the DRL’s Racer drones.
Races are held indoors or at night for this reason.
494
CHI PLAY 2017, October 15–18, 2017, Amsterdam, NL
An alternative solution is to have spectators located safely in
an area where they can enjoy the race live through HMD gog-
gles. An augmented view of the race could highlight racers
and provide insight into their movement vectors. Spectators
could select their preferred video feed and engage with the
race at a greater depth.
CONCLUSION
In this paper, we have performed a grounded theory analysis
of a large corpus of DRL video data to deeply understand the
sport of drone racing and develop an understanding of the rea-
sons for crashes. We contribute a first-of-its-kind description
of the sport for consumption by the research community. The
research has led us to a framework for describing and charac-
terizing crashes. Looking further, we point toward the value
of interfaces in this sport and the benefits they could provide.
It is our expectation that the sport of drone racing will con-
tinue to advance, pushing the limits of human capability and
that, as a sport that is inherently technologically mediated,
both for participants and spectators, it stands to benefit from
leveraging that mediation. Looking to the future of drone rac-
ing, we expect that improving pilots’ and spectators’ inter-
faces are the keys to enabling more exciting and entertaining
races. Such developments require that drone platforms ad-
vance, along with the sophistication of their sensor packages
and ability to convey data to the pilot and transmit nuanced
control to the drone.
We close with a quote from Stephenson’s Snowcrash, in
which he describes characters engaged in racing in a virtual
world (the Metaverse). The description bears a striking re-
semblance to the experience of drone racing. For us, this
quote highlights how drone racing can advance as a sport, but
one in which UI advancements are vital in supporting physi-
cal advances in racing performance.
A Metaverse vehicle can be as fast and nimble as a
quark. There’s no physics to worry about, no constraints
on acceleration, no air resistance. Tires never squeal and
brakes never lock up. The one thing that can’t be helped
is the reaction time of the user. So when they were racing
their latest motorcycle software through Downtown at
Mach 1, they didn’t worry about engine capacity. They
worried about the user interface, the controls that en-
abled the driver to steer, accelerate, or brake as quickly
as he could think. Because when you’re in a pack of
bike racers going through a crowded area at that speed,
and you run into something and suddenly slow down to
a speed of exactly zero, you can forget about catching
up. One mistake and you’ve lost. [40, p. 354]
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This material is based upon work supported by the National
Science Foundation under Grant No. IIS-1619273.
Session 8: Beyond the Typical Player Experience
REFERENCES
1. Charlie Anderson, Benji Barash, Charlie McNeill, Denis
Ogun, Michael Wray, Jarrod Knibbe, Christopher H.
Morris, and Sue Ann Seah. 2015. The Cage: Towards a
6-DoF Remote Control with Force Feedback for UAV
Interaction. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM
Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in
Computing Systems (CHI EA ’15). ACM, New York,
NY, USA, 1687–1692. DOI:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2702613.2732877
2. Ella Atkins, Anı́bal Ollero, and Antonios Tsourdos
(Eds.). 2016. Unmanned Aircraft Systems. John Wiley &
Sons Ltd., Chichester, West Sussex, United Kingdom.
3. ATLAS.ti Scientific Software Development GmbH.
2017. ATLAS.ti Windows version 8. Software
[Windows]. (2017).
http://atlasti.com/product/v8-windows/
4. Reg Austin. 2010. Unmanned aircraft systems: UAVS
design, development and deployment. John Wiley &
Sons Ltd., Chichester, West Sussex, United Kingdom.
5. HaiYang Chao, YongCan Cao, and YangQuan Chen.
2010. Autopilots for small unmanned aerial vehicles: a
survey. International Journal of Control, Automation
and Systems 8, 1 (2010), 36–44.
6. Juliet Corbin and Anselm Strauss. 2008. Basics of
Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for
Developing Grounded Theory (3rd ed.). SAGE
Publications, Inc, Thousand Oaks, California, USA.
7. Igor Dolgov. 2016. Moving towards Unmanned Aircraft
Systems Integration into the National Airspace System:
Evaluating Visual Observers’ Imminent Collision
Anticipation during Day, Dusk, and Night sUAS
Operations. International Journal of Aviation Sciences
1, 1 (2016), 41–56.
8. Igor Dolgov and Stephen B. Hottman. 2011. Human
Factors in Unmanned Aircraft Systems. In Introduction
to Unmanned Aircraft Systems, Richard K. Barnhart,
Stephen B. Hottman, Douglas M. Marshall, and Eric
Shappee (Eds.). CRC Press, 165–180. DOI:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1201/b11202-12
9. Igor Dolgov, Elizabeth Kaltenbach, Ahmed S. Khalaf,
and Zachary O. Toups. 2017. Measuring human
performance in the field: Concepts and applications for
unmanned aircraft systems. In Human Factors in
Practice: Concepts and Applications, H. Cuevas,
J. Velasquez, and A. Dattel (Eds.). Taylor & Francis. In
press.
10. Mica R. Endsley. 1995. Toward a theory of situation
awareness in dynamic systems. Human Factors 37, 1
(1995), 32–64.
11. Mica R. Endsley. 2000. Theoretical Underpinnings of
Situation Awareness: A Critical Review. In Situation
Awareness Analysis and Measurement, Mica R. Endsley
and D. J. Garland (Eds.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
Mahwah, NJ, USA, 3–6.
495
CHI PLAY 2017, October 15–18, 2017, Amsterdam, NL
12. Mattias Esbjörnsson, Barry Brown, Oskar Juhlin, Daniel
Normark, Mattias Östergren, and Eric Laurier. 2006.
Watching the Cars Go Round and Round: Designing for
Active Spectating. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI
Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
(CHI ’06). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1221–1224.
DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1124772.1124955
13. James J. Gibson. 1950. The Perception of the Visual
World. The Riverside Press, Cambridge, Massachussets,
USA.
14. James J. Gibson. 2014. The Ecological Approach to
Visual Perception (classic ed.). Psychology Press, New
York, New York, USA.
15. Barney G. Glaser. 1978. Theoretical Sensitivity:
Advances in the Methodology of Grounded Theory. The
Sociology Press, Mill Valley, California, USA.
16. Barney G. Glaser. 1998. Doing Grounded Theory:
Issues and Discussions. The Sociology Press, Mill
Valley, California, USA.
17. Barney G. Glaser and Anselm Strauss. 1967. The
Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for
Qualitative Research. Aldine Publishing Company,
Chicago, Illinois, USA.
18. Antonio Gomes, Calvin Rubens, Sean Braley, and Roel
Vertegaal. 2016. BitDrones: Towards Using 3D
Nanocopter Displays As Interactive Self-Levitating
Programmable Matter. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI
Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
(CHI ’16). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 770–780. DOI:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2858036.2858519
19. Peter A. Hancock and M. P. Manster. 1997.
Time-to-Contact: More than Tau Alone. Ecological
Psychology 9, 4 (1997), 265–297. DOI:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15326969eco0904_2
20. Alan Hobbs. 2010. Unmanned Aircraft Systems. In
Human Factors in Aviation (2nd ed.), Eduardo Salas and
D. Maurino (Eds.). New York: Elsevier, 505–531. DOI:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-374518-7.
00016-X
21. Brennan Jones, Kody Dillman, Richard Tang, Anthony
Tang, Ehud Sharlin, Lora Oehlberg, Carman
Neustaedter, and Scott Bateman. 2016. Elevating
Communication, Collaboration, and Shared Experiences
in Mobile Video Through Drones. In Proceedings of the
2016 ACM Conference on Designing Interactive Systems
(DIS ’16). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1123–1135.
DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2901790.2901847
22. Matjaž Kljun, Klen Čopič Pucihar, Mark Lochrie, and
Paul Egglestone. 2015. StreetGamez: A Moving
Projector Platform for Projected Street Games. In
Proceedings of the 2015 Annual Symposium on
Computer-Human Interaction in Play (CHI PLAY ’15).
ACM, New York, NY, USA, 589–594. DOI:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2793107.2810305
Session 8: Beyond the Typical Player Experience
23. Jan J. Koenderink. 1986. Optic flow. Vision Research 26,
1 (1986), 161–179.
24. Nataliya Kos’myna, Franck Tarpin-Bernard, and
Bertrand Rivet. 2014. Bidirectional Feedback in Motor
Imagery BCIs: Learn to Control a Drone Within 5
Minutes. In CHI ’14 Extended Abstracts on Human
Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA ’14). ACM,
New York, NY, USA, 479–482. DOI:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2559206.2574820
25. David N. Lee. 1976. A theory of visual control of
braking based on information about time-to-collision.
Perception 5, 4 (1976), 437–459.
26. David N. Lee and Paul E. Reddish. 1981. Plummeting
gannets: A paradigm of ecological optics. Nature 293
(1981), 293–294. DOI:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/293293a0
27. David N. Lee, Paul E. Reddish, and D. T. Rand. 1991.
Aerial docking by hummingbirds. Naturwissenschaften
78, 11 (1991), 526–527.
28. Joseph Lindley and Paul Coulton. 2015. Game of
Drones. In Proceedings of the 2015 Annual Symposium
on Computer-Human Interaction in Play (CHI PLAY
’15). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 613–618. DOI:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2793107.2810300
29. Jack M. Loomis and Andrew C. Beall. 1998. Visually
controlled locomotion: Its dependence on optic flow,
three-dimensional space perception, and cognition.
Ecological Psychology 10, 3-4 (1998), 271–285.
30. Michael K. McBeath, Dennis M. Shaffer, and Mary K.
Kaiser. 1995. How baseball outfielders determine where
to run to catch fly balls. Science 268, 5210 (1995), 569.
31. Don Norman. 2013. The Design of Everyday Things:
Revised and Expanded Edition (2013 ed.). Basic Books,
New York, New York, USA.
32. Carl Pancock, Jr., Ellen J. Bass, and Philip J. Smith.
2016. UAS human factors and control station design
standards: UAS control station literature review.
Technical Report.
33. Quadcopter Flight School. 2014. Vortex Ring State (The
Wobble of Death). (2014).
http://quadcopter101.blogspot.com/2014/10/
vortex-ring-state-wobble-of-death.html.
34. Darren Rovell. 2016. Drone Racing League, ESPN
reach broadcasting agreement. (2016). http:
//www.espn.com/moresports/story/_/id/17544727.
35. G. J. Savelsbergh, H. T. Whiting, and Reinoud J.
Bootsma. 1991. Grasping Tau. Journal of Experimental
Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 17, 2
(1991), 315.
496
CHI PLAY 2017, October 15–18, 2017, Amsterdam, NL
36. Stefan Schneegass, Florian Alt, Jürgen Scheible,
Albrecht Schmidt, and Haifeng Su. 2014. Midair
Displays: Exploring the Concept of Free-floating Public
Displays. In CHI ’14 Extended Abstracts on Human
Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA ’14). ACM,
New York, NY, USA, 2035–2040. DOI:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2559206.2581190
37. Dennis M. Shaffer, Igor Dolgov, Andrew Maynor, and
Cody Reed. 2013a. Receivers in American football use a
constant optical projection plane angle to pursue and
catch thrown footballs. Perception 42, 8 (2013),
813–827.
38. Dennis M. Shaffer, Igor Dolgov, Eric Mcmanama,
Charles Swank, Andrew B. Maynor, Kahlin Kelly, and
John G. Neuhoff. 2013b. Blind (fold) ed by science: A
constant target-heading angle is used in visual and
nonvisual pursuit. Psychonomic bulletin & review 20, 5
(2013), 923–934.
39. Dennis M. Shaffer, Richard S. Marken, Igor Dolgov,
and Andrew B. Maynor. 2013c. Chasin’ choppers: using
unpredictable trajectories to test theories of object
interception. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics 75,
7 (2013), 1496–1506.
40. Neal Stephenson. 1992. Snow Crash. Bantam Books,
New York, NY, USA.
41. H-J Sun, DP Carey, and MA Goodale. 1992. A
mammalian model of optic-flow utilization in the
control of locomotion. Experimental Brain Research 91,
1 (1992), 171–175.
42. The Drone Racing League. 2016a. Proximity Stall.
(2016). https://thedroneracingleague.com/
trick-wiki/proximity-stall/.
43. The Drone Racing League. 2016b. Trick Wiki. (2016).
https://thedroneracingleague.com/trick-wiki/.
44. James R. Tresilian. 1999. Visually timed action:
Time-out for ‘tau’? Trends in Cognitive Sciences 3, 8
(1999), 301–310.
45. U.S. Government Publishing Office. 2017. Small
Unmanned Aircraft Systems, 14 C.F.R. Part 107. (2017).
46. Kimon P. Valavanis, P. Oh, and Les A. Piegl. 2013.
Unmanned aircraft systems. Springer.
47. Hermann Wagner. 1982. Flow-field variables trigger
landing in flies. Nature 297 (1982), 147–148.
48. Adam C. Watts, Vincent G. Ambrosia, and Everett A.
Hinkley. 2012. Unmanned aircraft systems in remote
sensing and scientific research: Classification and
considerations of use. Remote Sensing 4, 6 (2012),
1671–1692.
49. Jesse Young. 2017. Everything You Need to Know about
Drone Racing. (2017). http://www.droneguru.net/
everything-you-need-to-know-about-drone-racing/.