Virtual reality (VR) flight training programs are being developed as a low-cost, highly realistic training option and tested to ensure user expectations for skills mastery are met. A usability pilot study was conducted in two experimental courses comparing the training effectiveness of 2D and VR simulation for flight training at a university in the Southwestern United States. The results indicated that system usability was significantly higher in the VR group. There was no significant difference between groups for perceived workload nor user experience. Although both groups reported low symptoms of simulator sickness, users in the VR group reported significantly higher levels of eye strain. Both groups found the simulations to be enjoyable and several users stated that the simulations were beneficial for learning flight maneuvers. The results of the pilot study demonstrated that overall, VR simulation is similar to 2D simulation for flight training in terms of usability and user satisfaction.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BrookeJ. (1996). SUS - A quick and dirty usability scale. In JordanP. W.ThomasB.WeerdmeesterB. A.McClellandI. L. (Eds), Usability Evaluation in Industry (pp 189–94). Taylor & Francis.
2.
EastgateR. M.WilsonJ. R.D’CruzM. (2015). Structure development of Virtual Environments. In HaleK. S.StanneyK. M.BadcockD. M. (Eds.), The handbook of virtual environments: Design, implementation, and applications (2nd ed.) (pp. 353–390). CRC Press.
HightM.FussellS. G.KurkchubascheM. (in review). Effectiveness of VR simulations: Comparing virtual reality with 2d simulations for ab initio pilot training. International Journal of Aviation, Aeronautics, and Aerospace.
5.
JensenL.KonradsenF. (2018). A review of the use of virtual reality head-mounted displays in education and training. Education and Information Technologies, 23(4), 1515–1529. doi:10.1007/s10639-0179676-0
6.
KarreS. A.MathurN.ReddyY. R. (2019). Usability evaluation of VR products in industry: A systematic literature review. In Proceedings of the 34th ACM/SIGAPP Symposium on Applied Computing (SAC ‘19). Association for Computing Machinery, 1845–1851. https://doi.org/10.1145/3297280.3297462
7.
KennedyR.LaneN.BerbaumK.LilienthalM. (1993). Simulator sickness questionnaire: An enhanced method of quantifying simulator sickness. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 3, 203–220.
8.
KoglbauerI. (2016). Simulator training improves pilots’ procedural memory and generalization of behavior in critical flight situations. Cognition, Brain, Behavior, 20(4), 357–366. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/312173784
9.
LelandR.RogersR. O.BoquetA.GlaserS. (2009). An experiment to evaluate transfer of upset-recovery training conducted using two different flight simulation devices (DOT/FAA/AM-09/17). Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration. https://www.academia.edu/32044967
10.
LewisJ.LivingstonJ. (2018). Pilot Training Next: Breaking institutional paradigms using student-centered multimodal learning. Proceedings of Interservice/Industry Training, Simulation, and Education Conference (I/ITSEC)2018, Orlando, FL.
11.
MacchiarellaN. D.BradyT.LyonB. S. (2008). An application of high fidelity FTDs for ab initio pilot training: The way ahead. Collegiate Aviation Review International, 26(1), 65–75. http://dx.doi.org/10.22488/okstate.18.100367
12.
MoroneyW. F.LilienthalM. G. (2009). Human factors in simulation and training: An overview. In VincenziD. A.WiseJ. A.MoulouaM.HancockP. A. (Eds), Human factors in simulation and training (pp. 3–39). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
13.
MurtzaR.MonroeS.YoumansR. J. (2017). Heuristic evaluation for virtual reality systems. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 2017 Annual Meeting, 2067–2071.
ÖzgenD.S.AfacanY.SürerE. (2019). Usability of virtual reality for basic design education: a comparative study with paper-based design. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-019-09554-0
16.
PallaA.BrentL.SikorskiE. (2018). Training with virtual reality: Lessons learned. In Proceedings of the Interservice/Industry Training, Simulation and Education Conference (I/ITSEC).
17.
PhanM. H.KeeblerJ. R.ChaparroB. S. (2016). The development and validation of the game user experience satisfaction scale (GUESS). Human factors, 58(8), 1217–1247
18.
RogersR. O.BoquetA.HowellC.DeJohnC. (2010). A two-group experiment to measure simulator-based upset recovery training transfer. International Journal of Applied Aviation Studies, 10(1), 153–168. FAA Academy. https://www.academy.jccbi.gov/ama-800/Summer_2010.pdf
19.
SauroJ. (2011, February2). Measuring usability with the system usability scale (SUS). Measuring U. https://measuringu.com/sus/
SmithP.L.LittleD.R. (2018). Small is beautiful: In defense of the small-N design. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 25, 2083–2101. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-018-1451-8
22.
TaylorH. L.LinternG.HulinC. L.TalleurD. A.EmanuelT. W.JrPhillipsS. I. (1999). Transfer of training effectiveness of a personal computer aviation training deviceThe International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 9(4), 319–335. doi:10.1207/s15327108ijap0904_1
23.
TaylorH. L.TalleurD. A.RantanenE. M.EmanuelT. W.Jr. (2004). The effectiveness of a personal computer aviation training device (PCATD), a flight training device (FTD), and an airplane in conducting instrument proficiency checks. Final Technical Report AHFD-0412/FAA-04-05. Federal Aviation Administration Civil Aerospace Medical Institute. Retrieved from http://www.tc.faa.gov/logistics/grants/pdf/2001/01-G 037%20Volume%201.pdf
24.
TaylorH. L.TalleurD. A.EmanuelT. W.RantanenE. M. (2005). Transfer of training effectiveness of a flight training device (FTD). International Symposium on Aviation Psychology, 736–740. Retrieved from https://corescholar.libraries.wright.edu/isap_2005/132
