This work evaluates augmented reality (AR) training materials for general aviation (GA) weather training. Reviews of GA weather training identify gaps where students lack opportunities to experience weather patterns and lack the ability to correlate weather knowledge in weather-related situations. Three-dimensional (3D) visual models may help close the gaps by visualizing information about weather processes, hazards, and visual cues. A 3D AR thunderstorm model visualizes a single-cell thunderstorm clouds, winds, precipitation, lightning, and advective movement. Preliminary evaluation of the model was conducted through a subject matter expert (SME) review and a usability study. The SME review identified improvements to the model and areas for future content design. The usability study identified usability issues with the model. Insights about the design of weather visualizations are developed into recommendations. The approach will integrate 3D AR models into the weather training curriculum to create interactive print training.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Air Safety Institute. (2018). 27th Joseph Nall Report: General Aviation Accidents in 2015.
2.
BerendschotQ.OrtizY.BlickensderferB.SimonsonR.DeFilippisN. (2018). How to Improve General Aviation Weather Training: Challenges and Recommendations for Designing Computer-Based Simulation Weather Training Scenarios. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 62(1), 1792–1795. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541931218621406
CarneyT. Q.BrownL. J.DuncanJ. C.WhitehurstG. R.RantzW. G.SeilerB. M.CashS.MajorW. L.KellerJ. C.FoxJ. C.MayesP. (2015). Weather Technology in the Cockpit (WTIC) Project B: Unexpected Transition from VFR to IMC.
6.
Department of Defense. (2011). Modeling and Simulation Verification, Validation, and Accreddidation Recommended Practices Guide. https://vva.msco.mil/Key/key-pr.pdf
7.
DeyA.BillinghurstM.LindemanR. W.SwanJ. E. (2018). A systematic review of 10 Years of Augmented Reality usability studies: 2005 to 2014. Frontiers Robotics AI, 5(APR). https://doi.org/10.3389/frobt.2018.00037
8.
EstapaA.NadolnyL. (2015). The Effect of an Augmented Reality Enhanced Mathematics Lesson on Student Achievement and Motivation. Journal of STEM Education, 16(3), 40–49.
9.
Federal Aviation Administration. (2013). Advisory Circular (AC No. 00-24C).
10.
Federal Aviation Administration. (2016). Advisory Circular (AC No. 00-6B).
11.
Federal Aviation Administration. (2018). Private Pilot ‒ Airplane Airman Certification Standards. FAA-S-ACS-6B (with Change 1).
12.
GohJ.WiegmannD. A. (2001). Visual Flight Rules Into Instrument Meteorological Conditions: An Empirical Investigation of the Possible Causes. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 11(4), 359–379.
13.
HartS. G.StavelandL. E. (1988). Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results from Empirical and Theoretical Reserach. Advances in Psychology., 52, 139–185.
14.
KaptelininV.NardiB. A. (2006). Acting With Technology: Activity Theory and Interaction Design (1st ed.). MIT Press.
15.
LewisJ. R.SauroJ. (2009). The factor structure of the system usability scale. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Including Subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics), 5619 LNCS, 94–103. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-02806-9_12
16.
LewisJ. R.SauroJ. (2018). Item Benchmarks for the System Usability Scale. Journal of Usability Studies, 13(3), 158–167.
17.
MatsushitaM.YonezawaH.KatoT. (2000). A Frame Representation of User Requirements for Automated Data Visualization. Proc. 14th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 631–635.
18.
MennJ. P.SeligerG. (2016). Increasing Knowledge and Skills for Assembly Processes through Interactive 3D-PDFs. Procedia CIRP, 48, 454–459. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2016.02.093
19.
NadolnyL. (2017). Interactive print: The design of cognitive tasks in blended augmented reality and print documents. British Journal of Educational Technology, 48(3), 814–823. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12462
20.
NeweA.BeckerL.SchenkA. (2014). Application and evaluation of interactive 3D PDF for presenting and sharing planning results for liver surgery in clinical routine. PLoS ONE, 9(12), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0115697
21.
PaceD. K.SheehanJ. (2002). Subject Matter Expert ( SME )/ Peer Use in M&S V&V. Proc. Workshop on Foundations for Modeling and Simulation (M&S) Verification and Validation (V&V) in the 21st Century.
22.
PauleyK.O’HareD.WigginsM. W. (2008). Risk tolerance and pilot involvement in hazardous events and flight into adverse weather. Journal of Safety Research, 39(4), 403–411. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsr.2008.05.009
23.
SchriverK. A. (2013). What do technical communicators need to know about information design? In Johnson-EilolaJ.SelberS. (Eds.), Solving problems in technical communication (pp. 386–427). Universtity of Chicago Press.
24.
SobieralskiJ. B. (2013). The cost of general aviation accidents in the United States. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 47, 19–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2012.10.018
25.
TufteE. R. (1997). Visual Explanations: Images and Quantities, Evidence and Narrative. Graphics Press.
26.
WerglesN.MuharA. (2009). The role of computer visualization in the communication of urban design-A comparison of viewer responses to visualizations versus on-site visits. Landscape and Urban Planning, 91(4), 171–182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2008.12.010
27.
WhitehurstG. R.BrownL. J.RantzW. G.NicolaiD.BradleyJ. M.RantzW. G.NicolaiD.BradleyJ. M. (2019). The Effect of Experiential Education on Pilots’ VFR into IMC Decision-Making. Journal of Aviation/Aerospace Education & Research, 28(2). https://doi.org/10.15394/jaaer.2019.1793
28.
WiegmannD. A.GohJ.O’HareD. (2002). The role of situation assessment and flight experience in pilots’ decisions to continue visual flight rules flight into adverse weather. Human Factors, 44(2), 189–197. https://doi.org/10.1518/0018720024497871
29.
WigginsM. W.O’HareD. (1995). Expertise in aeronautical weather-related decision making: A cross-sectional analysis of general aviation pilots. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 1(4), 305–320. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-898X.1.4.305
30.
WigginsM. W.O’HareD. (2003). Expert and novice pilot perceptions of static in-flight images of weather. International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 13(2), 173–187. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327108IJAP1302_05
