Good old ideas for pictorial flight displays that were once impractical warrant reconsideration in light of current microcomputing and display technology. Among the ideas are the contact analog, highway in the sky, and flight path predictor concepts. Basic pictorial display principles established in the 1950s and 1960s have been supported by additional experimental findings in the 1970s. These include pictorial realism, magnification, integration, compatible motion, frequency separation, pursuit presentation, quickening, and predicting. An extended analysis of dynamic display variables provides a broadened conceptual foundation for future multifactor experimental optimization of forward-looking pictorial flight displays.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Baty, D. L.Rationale and description of a coordinated cockpit display for aircraft flight management. Washington, DC: National Aeronautics and Space Administration, NASA TM X-3457, 1976.
2.
Bauerschmidt, D. K. and Roscoe, S. N.A comparative evaluation of a pursuit moving-airplane steering display. IRI Transactions on Human Factors in Electronics, 1960, HFE-1(2), 62–66.
3.
Beringer, D. B., Williges, R. C., and Roscoe, S. N.The transition of experienced pilots to a frequency-separated aircraft attitude display. Human Factors, 1975, 17, 401–414.
4.
Bernotat, R. and Widlok, H.Principles and applications of prediction displays. Institute of Navigation Journal, 1966, 19, 361–370.
5.
Besco, R. O.Manual attitude control systems: Vol. II. Display format considerations. Culver City, CA: Hughes Aircraft Company, Technical Report to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 1964.
6.
Birmingham, H. P. and Taylor, F. V.A design philosophy for man-machine control systems. Proceedings of the IRE,1954, 42, 1748–1758.
7.
Carel, W. L.Visual factors in the contact analog.Ithaca, NY: General Electric Advanced Electronics Center, Report R61 ELC60, 1961.
8.
Carel, W. L.Pictorial displays for flight. Washington, DC: Office of Naval Research, JANAIR TR 2732.01/40, 1965.
9.
Chernikoff, R. and Taylor, F. V.Effects of course frequency and aided time constant on pursuit and compensatory tracking. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1957, 53, 285–292.
10.
Dorfman, P. W. and Goldstein, I. L.The effects of task coherency, preview. and speed-stress on timing and anticipation. Journal of Motor Behavior, 1975, 7, 45–55.
11.
Fargel, L. C. and Ulbrich, E. A.Aerospace simulators prove predictor displays extend manual operation. Control Engineering, 1963, 8, 57–69.
12.
Fitts, P. M.Engineering psychology and equipment design. In S. S. Stevens (Ed.) Handbook of experimental psychology.New York: Wiley, 1951, 1287-1340.
13.
Fitts, P. M. and Jones, R. E.Psychological aspects of instrument display: Analysis of 270 “pilot-error” experiences in reading and interpreting aircraft instruments. In H. W. Sinaiko (Ed.) Selected papers on human factors in the design and use of control systems.New York: Dover. 1961, 359–396.
14.
Fogel, L. J.A new concept: The kinalog display system. Human Factors, 1959, 1, 30–37.
15.
Ince, F., Williges, R. C. and Roscoe, S. N.Aircraft simulator motion and the order of merit of flight attitude and steering guidance displays. Human Factors, 1975. 17, 388–400.
16.
Jagacinski, R. J. Aqualitative look at feedback control theory as a style of describing behavior. Human Factors, 1977, 19, 331–347.
17.
Jensen, R. S. Prediction and quickening in perspective displays for curved landing approaches. Doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 1979. Dissertation Abstracts International, 1979, 40, 3996B.
18.
Johnson, S. L. and Roscoe, S. N.What moves. the airplane or the world?Human Factors, 1972, 14. 107–129.
19.
Kelley, C. R.Submarine control by a single operator. Stamford. CT: Dunlap and Associates. Technical Report 954-00-18. 1953.
20.
Kelley, C. R.Developing and testing the effectiveness of the predictor instrument. Stamford. CT: Dunlap and Associates, Technical Report TR 252-60-1. 1960.
21.
Kelley, C. R.The predictor instrument-Final report and summary of project activities during 1961. Stamford, CT: Dunlap and Associates. 1962.
22.
Kelley, C. R.Manual and automatic control. New York: Wiley. 1968.
23.
Kelley, C. R.Mitchell, M. B. and Strudwick, P. H.Applications of predictor displays to the control of space vehicles. Santa Monica: Dunlap and Associates. 1964.
24.
Kellogg, S. and Fragola, C. F.The Sperry Zero Reader. Aeronautical Engineering Review, 1949. 13. 22–31.
25.
Kreifeldt, J. G. and Wempe, T.Pilot performance during a simulated standard instrument procedure with and without a predictor display. Proceedings of the Ninth Annual NASA-University Conference on Manual Control. Washington. DC: National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 1973,
26.
McCormick, E. J.Human factors in engineering and design.New York: McGraw-Hill. 1976.
27.
Obermayer, R. W., Swartz, W. F., and Muckler, F. A.Interaction of information displays with control system dynamics and course frequency in continuous tracking. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1962, 15. 199–215.
28.
Poppen, J. R.Equilibratory functions in instrument flying. Journal of Aviation Medicine, 1936, 6, 148–160.
29.
Poulton, E. C.Perceptual anticipation and reaction time. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1950, 2, 99–112.
30.
Poulton, E. C.Perceptual anticipation in tracking with two-pointer and one-pointer displays. British Journal of Psychology, 1952, 43. 222–229.
31.
Poulton, E. C.Tracking skill and manual control, New York: Academic Press, 1974.
32.
Randle, R. J., Roscoe, S. N., and Petitt, J.Effects of accommodation and magnification on aimpoint estimation in a simulated landing task. Washington. DC: National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Technical Paper NASA TP-1635, 1980.
33.
Roscoe, S. N. Aircraft pilot performance as a function of the extent and magnification of the visible horizon. Doctoral dissertation. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. 1950. Dissertation Abstracts International, 1950, 11. 173.
34.
Roscoe, S. N.Airborne displays for flight and navigation. Human Factors, 1968, 10, 321–322.
35.
Roscoe, S. N. and Eisele, J. E.Integrated flight displays. In S. N. Roscoe. Aviation psychology.Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press. 1980, 48–61.
36.
Roscoe, S. N.Hasler, S. G. and Dougherty, D. J.Flight by periscope: Making takeoffs and landings; the influence of image magnification, practice, and various conditions of night. Human Factors, 1966, 8, 13–40.
37.
Roscoe, S. N. and Jensen, R. S. Computer-animated predictive displays for microwave landing approaches. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man. and Cybernetics (in press).
38.
Roscoe, S. N. and Williges, R. C.Motion relationships in aircraft attitude and guidance displays: A flight experiment. Human Factors, 1975, 17. 374–387.
39.
Roscoe, S. N., Johnson, S. L., and Williges, R. C.Display motion relationships. In S. N. Roscoe. Aviation psychology, Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press. 1980, 68–81.
40.
Schmidt, R. A.Anticipation and timing in human motor performance. Psychological Bulletin, 1968, 70. 631–647.
41.
Simon, C. W.Economical multifactor designs for human factors engineering experiments. Culver City. CA: Hughes Aircraft Company, Display Systems and Human Factors Department. TR P73-326. 1973.
42.
Simon, C. W.A new research paradigm for applied experimental psychology: A system approach, Westlake Village. CA: Canyon Research Group. Report CWS-04-77, 1977.
43.
Simon, C. W. and Roscoe, S. N.Altimetry studies: II. A comparison of integrated versus separated, linear versus circular, and spatial versus numerical displays. Culver City, CA: Hughes Aircraft Company, Technical Memorandum 435, 1956.
44.
Simon, C. W. and Roscoe, S. N.Economical approaches to transfer of training research, Westlake Village, CA: Canyon Research Group, Report NAVTRAEQUIPCEN 78-C-0060-6, 1981.
45.
Simon, C. W., Slocum, G. K., Hopkins, C. O., and Roscoe, S. N.Altimetry studies: I. An experimental comparison of three pictorial and three symbolic displays of altitude, vertical speed, and altitude commands. Culver City, CA: Hughes Aircraft Company, Technical Memorandum 425, 1956.
46.
Smith, R. L. and Kennedy, R. S.Predictor displays: History, research, and operations. Inglewood, CA: Dunlap and Associates, Contract No. N11123-74-c-0952, 1975.
47.
Smith, R. L., Pence, G. G., Queen, J. E., and Wulfeck, J. W.Effect of a predictor instrument on learning to land a simulated jet trainer. Inglewood, CA: Dunlap and Associates, 1974. (AD A000586)
48.
Sweeney, J. S., Todd, N. C., and Heaton, E. C.Studies in predictor display technique. Anaheim, CA: North American Aviation, Autonetics Division, Report C5-1819/311, 1965.
49.
Warner, J. D.Manual control system performance with predictive displays. Proceedings of the Fourth Annual NASA-University Conference on Manual Control, Washington, DC: National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 1968.
50.
Williams, A. C., Jr. Preliminary analysis of information required by pilots for instrument flight. Aviation Research Monographs, 1971, J(I), 1-17. (Originally issued in 1947 as Interim Report 71-16-1 on ONR/SDC Contract N6ori, Task Order XVI.) (a)
51.
Williams, A. C. Jr., Suggestions concerning desirable display characteristics for aircraft instruments. Aviation Research Monographs, 1971, 1(1), 29–48. (Originally issued in 1949 as Interim Report SDC-71-16-4 on ONR/SDC Contract N6ori, Task Order XVI.) (b)
52.
Wulfeck, J. W., Prosin, D. J., and Burger, W. J.Effect of a predictor on carrier landing performance-Part I: Experimental evaluation. Inglewood, CA: Dunlap and Associates, 1973.
