Physiological and hygienic assessment of the working position at operators of unmanned aerial vehicles

Introduction. In the modern world, unmanned aerial vehicles are widely used in both the civilian and military sectors. In the context of the growing demand for qualified specialists-operators of unmanned aerial vehicles, conducting a comprehensive hygienic assessment of the conditions of their professional activity is of particular relevance.

An important aspect of this assessment is the physiological and hygienic analysis of the working posture of operators when performing their professional activities.

The study aims to present a physiological and hygienic assessment of the working position of UAV operators based on a photogoniometric analysis and survey results for further development of preventive measures.

Materials and methods. To analyze the working position, the researchers used a photogoniometric method: photographing in the sagittal and frontal planes with the determination of the coordinates of anatomical landmarks. The scientists calculated the angles of joint flexion and deviation from the vertical. They compared the data obtained with physiologically optimal ranges. The experts assessed subjective complaints using an original questionnaire with four sections of 10 questions each (score from 0 to 5 points). Mathematical and statistical data processing was performed in Microsoft Excel 2010 using the Student's t-test and the Pearson correlation coefficient.

Results. As a result of the assessment of the working position of the operators of unmanned aerial vehicles in the course of their work, scientists have found that the work of this group of specialists has a high proportion of static load and forced working positions, accompanied by functional overstrain of the musculoskeletal system. The authors have identified statistically significant relationships between the parameters of the working position and the severity of subjective complaints, which will further develop and improve measures to preserve and improve the ability to work of the above-mentioned specialists.

Limitations. The study was limited to assessing the working positions of operators of unmanned aerial vehicles when performing professional tasks in a sitting position in stationary conditions. Options for controlling the drone in a standing position, as well as the specifics of working in the field with increased exposure to adverse factors, were not considered, and the authors did not evaluate the complexity. In addition, the influence of personal protective equipment and warm clothing on the parameters of the working position was not taken into account, which may be important when working in the cold season.

Conclusions. The professional activity of UAV operators is characterized by a predominance of static load and forced working positions, accompanied by functional overstrain of the musculoskeletal system. According to the survey data, the authors revealed a high prevalence of fatigue and pain, mainly in the cervical and lumbar spine, which indicates a professionally determined nature of functional disorders. The established correlations between the parameters of the working position and the severity of subjective complaints confirm the impact of an unfavorable workplace organization on the health of operators. The totality of the data obtained makes it possible to classify the working conditions of UAV operators as harmful class 3.1 and justifies the need to implement preventive measures.

Ethics. The study was approved at a meeting of the Independent Ethics Committee at the Kirov Military Medical Academy on 17.12.2024 (Protocol No. 297 dated 17.12.2024). The study was conducted in compliance with Ethical principles and the voluntary consent of the participants.

Contributions:
Safonova S.S. — the concept and design of the study, writing the text, collecting and processing the material;
Bokarev M.A. — research concept and design, text writing, editing;
Grebenkov S.V. — concept and design of research, editing.

Funding. The study had no funding.

Conflict of interest. The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Received: 13.03.2026 / Accepted: 24.03.2026 / Published: 25.04.2026

1. Fetisov V.S., Neugodnikova L.M., Adamovskii V.V., Krasnoperov R.A. Unmanned aviation: terminology, classification, current state. Ufa: FOTON; 2014: 216–217. https://clck.ru/3T2BJU (in Russian).

2. Zryanina N.V., Kulganov V.A., Yakovlev A.G. Results of studying occupational safety and health system of personal computer users. Trudy Voenno-kosmicheskoy akademii imeni A.F. Mozhayskogo. 2016; 654: 198–207. https://elibrary.ru/xxnihp (in Russian).

3. Tutunaru M. Hygienic assessment of working postures among vocational school students specializing in sewing using goniometric indices. Sanatate Publica. 2010; 1(32): 42–45. https://clck.ru/3T2Cab (in Russian).

4. Babin Yu.M., Yusupov V.V., Blaginin A.A., Starenchenko Yu.L., Ovchinnikov D.V. et al. Psychological and psychophysiological criteria for professional selection of aviation system operators. Voenno-medicinskij zhurnal. 2024; 345(8): 43–50. https://elibrary.ru/eypffe (in Russian).

5. Kurenkova G.V. Hygienic features of working conditions and health of professional PC and VDT users. Sibirskiy meditsinskiy zhurnal (Irkutsk). 2004; 47(6): 14–17. (In Russian).

6. Khasanova N.N., Agirov A.Kh., Dautov Yu.Yu., Filimonova T.A. Fatigue development in professional computer users and its prevention. Vestnik Adygeyskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Ser. 4. 2013; (2): 88–97. https://elibrary.ru/rryimv (in Russian).

7. Prokoshina T.S. Ergonomic study of working posture of a lathe operator. Agrotekhnika i energoobespechenie. 2015; (3): 201–206. https://elibrary.ru/yiiurh (in Russian).

8. Ryabets A.Ya., Grishechko A.I., Erofeenkov S.S., et al. Modeling discomfort states of operator working posture. Biotekhnosfera. 2015; 37(1): 14–20. https://elibrary.ru/thgbhj (in Russian).

9. Fedorova M.A. Functional states of a person during labor activity. Vestnik Samarskogo munitsipal'nogo instituta upravleniya. 2008; (6): 100–108. https://elibrary.ru/mvyuvl (in Russian).

10. Elizarova V.V., Kapustina A.V., Yushkova O.I. Ergonomics in assessing physical load and overstrain among workers. Okhrana truda i sotsial'noe strakhovanie. 2021; (2): 97–111. https://elibrary.ru/fdihrq (in Russian).

11. Chvyakin V.A. Functional state of the operator. Nizhny Novgorod: Professional'naya nauka; 2025. 109–110. https://elibrary.ru/eojeej (in Russian).

12. MR 2.2.9.2311-07. Prevention of stress in workers in various types of professional activities methodical recommendations. Approved 18.12.2007. https://clck.ru/3T2DGe (In Russian).

13. Guidelines for the hygienic assessment of factors in the working environment and the labor process. Criteria and classification of working conditions: R 2.2.2006-05. Byulleten' normativnykh i metodicheskikh dokumentov gosudarstvennogo sanitarno-epidemiologicheskogo nadzora; 2005. https://clck.ru/3T2DLm (in Russian).

14. Tebenova K.S., Musina A.A., Grebeneva O.V. Assessment of working conditions of communication operators as professional video display terminal users. Meditsina truda i promyshlennaya ekologiya. 2011; (6): 37–40. https://elibrary.ru/nvapcn (in Russian).

15. Bashirova A.R., Cherdovskikh A.M., Rakaeva L.I. Ergonomics and its requirements for workplace organization in ensuring personnel security. Alleya nauki. 2023; 6(81): 526–529. https://elibrary.ru/mtyamg (in Russian).

16. Ovchinnikov Yu.D., Chop E.O. Ergonomic biomechanics for workplace equipment. Molodoy uchenyy. 2014; (8): 393–395. https://elibrary.ru/sfsbjd (in Russian).

17. Kondakov G.A., Malikovsky O.I. Ergonomic support and organization of quality of a video surveillance operator workplace. Al'manakh Permskogo voennogo instituta voysk natsional'noy gvardii. 2023; 2(10): 56–59. https://elibrary.ru/jbfztg (In Russian).

18. SanPiN 1.2.3685-21. Hygienic standards and requirements for ensuring safety and harmlessness of environmental factors for humans. Approved 28 Jan 2021. https://clck.ru/3T2Dex (in Russian).

19. Ustyantsev S.L., Protasova O.S., Kishka O.V. et al. Pangoniometry as a modern method of physiological and hygienic assessment of labor severity by the indicator "working posture". Meditsina truda i promyshlennaya ekologiya. 2024; 64(8): 542–551. https://doi.org/10.31089/1026-9428-2024-64-8-542-551 (in Russian).

20. Izraelson Z.I., Tarasenko N.Yu. Manual for Laboratory Work in Occupational Hygiene. Moscow: Meditsina; 1981: 42–44 (in Russian).

21. Zemtsova E.A. Ergonomic assessment of working posture and musculoskeletal risk among dentists of different specialties. In: Stalingradskaya osen' — 2025: Proceedings of the International Scientific and Practical Conference; Volgograd. 2025; 81–85. https://elibrary.ru/vedrzx (in Russian).

22. Izmerov N.F., Shardakova V.V., Matyukhin E.F. Industrial ergonomics in the framework of the problem of occupational medicine. Byulleten Nauchnogo soveta "Mediko-ekologicheskie problemy rabotayushchikh". 2006; 2: 14–18. https://elibrary.ru/hujnel (in Russian).

23. Federal Law of December 28, 2013, "On Special Assessment of Working Conditions". https://clck.ru/3T2FWz (in Russian).