The effects that cues of aircraft motion, delays in visual scene, and movement of a ship model have on pilots' ability to hover a simulated helicopter near a destroyer-class ship were examined. Twelve pilots were tested in a within-subject factorial combination of fixed-base, moving-base, and G-seat conditions in which delays of 66 or 128 ms existed in the simulator's visual display and the pilots had to hover near a moving or stationary ship. Best control performance was seen under the moving-base conditions, whereas poorest control was associated with the fixed-base simulation. An intermediate level of performance was produced by the G-seat. In addition, visual delay affected control of the roll axis of the simulation, and interactions between pilots and motion cuing and visual delay were seen. little effect.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Ashworth, B. R., McKissick, B. T., and Martin, D. J., Jr. (1977, November). Objective and subjective evaluation of the effects of a g-seat on pilot/simulator performance during a tracking task (NAVTRAEQUIPCEN Tech. Rep. IH-294). In Proceedings of the 10th NTEC/Industry Conference. Orlando, FL: Naval Training Equipment Center.
2.
Ashworth, B. R., McKissick, B. T., and Parrish, R. V. (1984, March). Effects of motion base and g-seat cueing on simulator pilot performance (NASA Tech. Paper TP-2247). Hampton, VA: Langley Research Center.
3.
Baron, S. (1980, April). A multi-cue OCM for analysis of simulator configurations (BBN Report No. 4373). Cambridge, MA: Bolt Beranek and Newman.
4.
Baron, S. (1981, May). An optimal control model analysis of data from a simulated hover task (NAVTRAEQUIPCEN 80-C-0055-1). Orlando, FL: Naval Training Equipment Center.
5.
Baron, S., Muralidharan, R., and Kleinman, D. (1980, February). Closed loop models for analyzing engineering requirements for simulators (NASA Contractor Rep. CR- 2965). Hampton, VA: Langley Research Center.
6.
Caro, P. W. (1979). The relationship between flight simulator motion and training requirements. Human Factors, 21, 493–501.
7.
Fedderson, W. E. (1962, April). The role of motion information and its contribution to simulation validity (Army-Navy Instrumentation Program Rep. D228-429-001). Fort Worth, TX: Bell Helicopter Co.
8.
Gum, D. R., and Albery, W. B. (1977). Time-delay problems encountered in integrating the Advanced Simulator for Undergraduate Pilot Training. Journal of Aircraft, 14, 327–332.
9.
Gundry, A.J. (1976). Man and motion cues. In 3rd Flight Simulation Symposium Proceedings. London: Royal Aeronautical Society.
10.
Hosman, R. J. A. W., and van der Vaart, J. C. (1976, May). Thresholds of motion perception in a flight simulator. In Proceedings of the 12th Annual Conference on Manual Control (NASA Tech. Memo. TM X-73). Mountain View, CA: Ames Research Center.
11.
Hosman, R. J. A. W., and van der Vaart, J. C. (1978). Vestibular models and thresholds of motion perception. Results of tests in a flight simulator (Delft University of Technology Rep. LR-265). Delft, The Netherlands: Delft University of Technology.
12.
Hosman, R. J. A. W., and van der Vaart, J. C. (1980, August). Thresholds of motion perception and parameters of vestibular models obtained from tests in a motion simulator. Effects of vestibular and visual motion perception on task performance (Delft University of Technology Memo. M-372). Delft, The Netherlands: Delft University of Technology.
13.
Hunter, S., Gundry, A. J., and Rolfe, J. M. (1977, June). Human factors in flight simulation; annotated bibliography (Advisory Group for Aerospace Research and Development Rep. R-656).
14.
McKissick, B. T., Ashworth, B. R., Parrish, R. V., and Martin, D. J., Jr. (1980). A study of the comparative effects of various means of motion cuing during a simulated compensatory tracking task. In Proceedings of the ACMIEEEISCS 13th Annual Simulation Symposium. Hampton, VA: NASA Langley Research Center.
15.
McRuer, D. T., and Krendel, E. S. (1974, January). Mathematical models of human pilot behavior (AGARDograph AG-188). London: Technical Editing and Reproduction Ltd.
16.
Miller, G. K., Jr., and Riley, D. R. (1977, January). Effects of visual motion time delay on pilot performance in a simulated pursuit tracking task (NASA Tech. Note D-8364). Hampton, VA: Langley Research Center.
17.
Muckler, F. A., and Obermeyer, R. W. (1964, July). Control system lags and man-machine system performance (NASA Contractor Rep. CR-83). Baltimore: Martin Co.
18.
Marrish, R. V., Houck, J. A., and Martin, D. J., Jr. (1977, May). Empirical comparison of a fixed-base and a moving-base simulation of a helicopter engaged in visually conducted slalom runs (NASA Tech. Note D-8424). Hampton, VA: Langley Research Center.
19.
Poulton, E. C. (1974). Tracking skill and manual control. New York: Academic Press.
20.
Puig, J. A., Harris, W. T., and Ricard, G. L. (1978, July). Motion in flight simulation: An annotated bibliography (NAVTRAEQUIPCEN Tech. Rep. IH-298). Orlando, FL: Naval Training Equipment Ccnter.
21.
Queijo, M. J., and Riley, D. R. (1975, October). Fixed-base simulator study of the effect of time delays in visual cues on pilot tracking performance (NASA Tech. Note D-8001). Hampton, VA: Langley Research Center.
22.
Ricard, G. L., and Harris, W. T. (1980). Lead/lag dynamics to compensate for display delays. Journal of Aircraft, 17, 212–217.
23.
Ricard, G. L., Parrish, R. V., Ashworth, B. R., and Wells, M. D. (1981, January). The effects of various fidelity factors on simulated helicopter hover (NAVTRAEQUIPCEN Tech. Rep. IH-321). Orlando, FL: Naval Training Equipment Center.
24.
Ricard, G. L., and Puig, J. A. (1977, March). Delay of visual feedback in aircraft simulators (NAVTRAEQUIPCEN Tech. Note TN-56). Orlando, FL: Naval Training Equipment Center.
25.
Riley, D. R., and Miller, G. K., Jr. (1980, April). Simulator study of the effect of control system time delays on the occurrence of pilot-induced oscillations and on pilot tracking performance with a space-shuttle-orbiter configuration (NASA Tech. Paper TP-1588). Hampton, VA: Langley Research Center.
26.
Ringland, R. F., Stapleford, R. L., and Magdaleno, R. E. (1971, November). Motion effects on an IFR hovering task-Analytic predictions and experimental results (NASA Contractor Rep. CR-1933). Mountain View, CA: Ames Research Center.
