Tanner Yackley brand mark
Tanner Yackley
Human Performance · Autonomy
Portfolio

Designing training backward from demonstrated capability.

Selected UAS training-system design work showing how complex operational requirements can be translated into curriculum, simulation, performance assessment, qualification, and instructor development.

Orientation

A systems approach to technical training.

Technical training should begin with the capability an operator must demonstrate, not with the content available to teach.

The work below illustrates a systems approach to connecting operational tasks, learning objectives, instruction, simulation, assessment, qualification, and instructor development.

PF.01

Task-to-Qualification Architecture

From operational requirements to demonstrated and sustained capability.

PF.02

Scenario-Based Evaluation

Assessing autonomous UAS operator performance beyond mission outcome.

PF.03

Instructor Qualification Framework

Developing instructors who can produce and evaluate operational capability at scale.

Selected experience

Scale of the training environments behind this work.

15+
Years UAS & aviation training
3,400+
MQ-9 operational flight hours
1,000+
Combat missions
100+
Instructors supported
~450
Students annually in military training environments
120+
University UAS students per semester

These are supporting credibility indicators, not the primary focus of the page.

PF.01 · Task-to-Qualification Architecture

Building training backward from operational performance.

PF.01
Training Architecture
Artifact

The Task-to-Qualification Architecture provides a repeatable method for translating operational requirements into instruction, simulation, assessment, qualification, and continuing proficiency.

  1. Operational Task Analysis

    What must the operator actually be able to do?

    Include
    • Critical tasks and subtasks
    • Operating conditions and constraints
    • Required knowledge and decisions
    • Human-system interactions
    • Common errors and failure modes
    • Safety-critical behaviors
    • Performance standards
    Output

    Defined operational performance requirements.

  2. Performance Objectives

    What observable performance demonstrates competence?

    Include
    • Observable
    • Measurable
    • Condition-specific
    • Operationally relevant
    • Connected to defined standards
    Output

    Performance-based learning objectives tied directly to operational tasks.

  3. Instruction

    What foundation does the learner need before performing the task?

    Include
    • Foundational knowledge
    • System understanding
    • Procedures and workflows
    • Demonstration
    • Guided practice
    • Case-based learning
    • Instructor-led application
    Output

    Structured learning pathway aligned to defined objectives.

  4. Simulation & Scenario Application

    Can the learner apply the capability under realistic conditions?

    Include
    • Normal operations
    • Environmental variation
    • System limitations
    • Automation behavior
    • Degraded conditions
    • Ambiguous information
    • Time pressure
    • Edge cases
    • Recovery decisions
    Output

    Scenario-based practice requiring integrated technical and decision-making performance.

  5. Performance Assessment

    Can the learner demonstrate the required capability?

    Evaluate
    • Technical execution
    • System awareness
    • Decision quality
    • Automation supervision
    • Risk management
    • Procedural compliance
    • Mission effectiveness
    Output

    Evidence of demonstrated operational capability.

  6. Qualification

    Has the learner demonstrated readiness to perform independently?

    Knowledge + Demonstration + Judgment + Standards
    Output

    Defensible qualification decision based on measurable performance.

  7. Recurrent Evaluation

    Does competence remain aligned with the system and mission?

    Include
    • Product and software changes
    • New operational requirements
    • Emerging failure modes
    • Field observations
    • Instructor feedback
    • Assessment trends
    • Lessons learned
    Output

    Continuous alignment among system capability, operator performance, and training requirements.

Central principle
Task AnalysisObjectivesInstructionSimulationAssessmentQualificationRecurrent Evaluation

Each stage produces evidence for the next.

The result is a training system designed around operational capability rather than content completion.

PF.02 · Scenario-Based Evaluation

Autonomous UAS Infrastructure Inspection.

PF.02
Illustrative Example
Artifact
Illustrative training example

This scenario is not based on or representative of any specific manufacturer's operating procedures.

Training purpose

Evaluate an operator's ability to supervise an autonomous UAS mission when changing system and environmental conditions require reassessment of the original plan.

The scenario is designed to distinguish procedural familiarity from operational competence.

Mission

Conduct an autonomous inspection of critical infrastructure while maintaining:

  • Safe aircraft operation
  • Mission effectiveness
  • Appropriate automation supervision
  • Operational risk controls
  • Awareness of changing system state
Scenario progression
  1. Phase 01
    Scenario progression

    Nominal Operations

    Evaluate
    • Establishes an accurate understanding of system state
    • Confirms mission parameters
    • Maintains appropriate supervisory awareness
    • Identifies relevant operational constraints
    Evaluator focus

    Establish the operator's baseline representation of the mission before conditions change.

  2. Phase 02
    Scenario progression

    Navigation Confidence Degrades

    Expected behaviors
    • Detects the change
    • Correctly interprets its operational significance
    • Evaluates whether continued autonomy remains appropriate
    • Avoids unnecessary intervention while remaining prepared to intervene
    Evaluator focus

    Does the operator understand what the automation is doing and what the change means?

  3. Phase 03
    Scenario progression

    Original Mission Path Becomes Unsuitable

    Expected behaviors
    • Recognizes that the original plan should be reconsidered
    • Evaluates available alternatives
    • Maintains appropriate aircraft and mission awareness
    • Selects an action consistent with safety and mission objectives
    Evaluator focus

    Can the operator adapt when the original plan is no longer the best plan?

  4. Phase 04
    Scenario progression

    Recovery Decision

    Expected behaviors
    • Integrates system status, environmental conditions, mission requirements, and risk
    • Selects an appropriate course of action
    • Executes or supervises the response correctly
    • Verifies the resulting system state
    Evaluator focus

    Does the operator make an appropriate decision and confirm that the system responded as expected?

Evaluated dimensions
01
System Awareness
02
Automation Supervision
03
Decision Quality
04
Risk Management
05
Procedural Execution
Performance rubric
System Awareness
Unsatisfactory

Fails to recognize or correctly interpret meaningful changes in system state.

Qualified

Recognizes relevant changes and correctly determines their operational significance.

Advanced

Anticipates downstream implications and adjusts supervisory attention before performance deteriorates.

Automation Supervision
Unsatisfactory

Passively allows inappropriate continuation or intervenes without understanding system behavior.

Qualified

Allows appropriate autonomous behavior and intervenes when operational conditions require it.

Advanced

Demonstrates predictive supervision, anticipating when changing conditions may require intervention.

Decision Quality
Unsatisfactory

Selects an unsafe, ineffective, or poorly supported response.

Qualified

Selects an appropriate response using available system and mission information.

Advanced

Balances safety, mission effectiveness, system capability, and future conditions when selecting a response.

Risk Management
Unsatisfactory

Fails to identify or control meaningful operational risk.

Qualified

Identifies relevant hazards and applies appropriate controls.

Advanced

Continuously reassesses risk as system and environmental conditions evolve.

Procedural Execution
Unsatisfactory

Requires significant assistance or performs actions inconsistently with required procedures.

Qualified

Executes required actions correctly and independently.

Advanced

Maintains procedural accuracy while managing competing operational demands.

Qualification principle

A learner should not pass this scenario merely because the aircraft completes the mission.

The assessment asks whether the operator demonstrated the capability to understand, supervise, evaluate, and appropriately influence the autonomous system throughout the mission.

Mission success and operator competence are related, but they are not the same measurement.

PF.03 · Instructor Qualification Framework

Developing instructors who can produce and evaluate operational capability.

PF.03
Instructor Development
Artifact

Operational expertise alone does not establish instructional competence.

A scalable UAS training organization requires instructors who can teach consistently, diagnose learner performance, facilitate realistic scenarios, evaluate against common standards, and provide feedback that improves future performance.

  1. Operational Competence

    Foundation
    • System knowledge
    • Operational procedures
    • Mission understanding
    • Risk management
    • Automation understanding
    • Required technical skills
    Standard

    Demonstrated operational credibility in the material being instructed.

  2. Instructional Foundations

    Capabilities
    • Translate tasks into learning objectives
    • Structure explanations
    • Demonstrate technical procedures
    • Ask diagnostic questions
    • Recognize learner misconceptions
    • Adapt instruction without changing standards
    Standard

    Can explain and demonstrate complex material clearly and accurately.

  3. Guided Instruction

    Evaluate
    • Technical accuracy
    • Lesson organization
    • Communication
    • Learner engagement
    • Pacing
    • Recognition of learner difficulty
    • Appropriate instructional intervention
    Standard

    Can deliver structured instruction while maintaining technical and instructional quality.

  4. Scenario Facilitation

    Capabilities
    • Scenario setup
    • Progressive complexity
    • Realistic operational injects
    • Managing learner workload
    • Distinguishing productive difficulty from overload
    • Allowing decisions to develop without prematurely solving the problem
    Standard

    Can create conditions in which operational capability can be practiced and observed.

  5. Performance Evaluation

    Competencies
    • Observing relevant behaviors
    • Applying common standards
    • Separating outcome from performance
    • Identifying root performance deficiencies
    • Documenting evidence
    • Making defensible qualification decisions
    Standard

    Two qualified evaluators observing comparable performance should reach substantially similar conclusions.

  6. Debrief & Feedback

    Capabilities
    • Reconstruct key decisions
    • Identify performance gaps
    • Explore learner reasoning
    • Distinguish symptoms from underlying deficiencies
    • Reinforce effective behaviors
    • Establish specific improvement priorities
    Standard

    Feedback improves the learner's ability to recognize and correct future performance.

  7. Instructor Qualification

    Demonstrated competence across
    • Operational Knowledge
    • Instructional Delivery
    • Scenario Facilitation
    • Learner Diagnosis
    • Performance Assessment
    • Feedback & Debrief
    • Risk Management
    • Standards Application
    Standard

    Qualification represents the ability to reliably produce and evaluate competent operators.

  8. Standardization & Continuing Qualification

    Include
    • Periodic standardization
    • Instructor observation
    • Evaluation calibration
    • Curriculum updates
    • Product-change training
    • Scenario refresh
    • Learner-performance trends
    • Instructor feedback
    • Recurrent qualification where appropriate
    Standard

    Instructor performance remains aligned across people, locations, products, and time.

Central principle
Operational CompetenceInstructional FoundationsGuided InstructionScenario FacilitationPerformance EvaluationDebriefQualificationStandardization

The objective is not simply to create instructors who can deliver the same lesson.

The objective is to create an instructor workforce capable of producing consistent operational capability at scale.

Working notes

Method, transfer, and context.

Method

Training architecture begins with operational performance and works backward toward the learning experiences required to produce it.

Transfer

The frameworks are intended to transfer across UAS platforms, autonomous systems, simulation environments, and other safety-critical technical domains.

Context

These are selected examples of training-system design thinking, not proprietary procedures or representations of any manufacturer's training program.

Contact

Tanner R. Yackley

UAS Curriculum Developer · Training Systems Leader · Instructor & Evaluator
FAA Part 107 Remote Pilot
ContactMedia & Background