Comparing Pilots' Taxi Performance,Situation Awareness and Workload Using Command-Guidance,Situation-Guidance and Hybrid Head-Up Display Symbologies

Abstract

This study investigated pilots' taxi performance, situation awareness and workload while taxiing with three different head-up display (HUD) symbology formats: Command-guidance, Situation-guidance and Hybrid. Command-guidance symbology provided the pilot with required control inputs to maintain centerline position; Situation-guidance symbology provided conformal, scene-linked navigation information; while the Hybrid symbology combined elements of both symbologies. Taxi performance was assessed with average taxi speed and root mean square error (RMSE) from the centerline. Situation awareness and workload were assessed using a 3- Dimension SART and a 7-point scale, respectively. Taxi speeds were highest and RMSE from centerline lowest with Situation-guidance and Hybrid symbologies. Situation awareness was highest and workload lowest with Situation-guidance and Hybrid symbologies. These results are thought to be due to cognitive tunneling induced by the Command-guidance symbology. Situation-guidance (and Hybrid) HUD symbologies provided a common reference with the environment, which may have supported better distribution of attention.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Beringer

D. B.

(1999). Flight command-guidance indicators or situation-guidance displays: My way or the highway? Proceedings of the 10th International Symposium on Aviation Psychology. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University.

Foyle

D. C.

Ahumada

A. J.

Larimer

Sweet

B. T.

(1992). Enhanced/synthetic vision systems: Human factors research and implications for future systems. SAE Transactions: Journal of Aerospace, 101, 1734–1741.

Foyle

D. C.

Andre

A. D.

McCann

R. S.

Wenzel

E. M.

Begault

D. R.

Battiste

(1996). Taxiway navigation and situation awareness (T-NASA) system: Problem, design philosophy, and description of an integrated display suite for low-visibility airport surface operations. SAE Transactions: Journal of Aerospace, 105, 1411–1418.

Foyle

D. C.

McCann

R. S.

Shelden

S. G.

(1995). Attentional issues with superimposed symbology: Formats for scene-linked displays. In Jensen

R. S.

Rakovan

L. A.

(Eds.), Proceedings of the 8th International Symposium on Aviation Psychology, 98–103. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University.

Hooey

B. L.

Foyle

D. C.

Andre

A. D.

(2000). Integration of cockpit displays for surface operations: The final stage of a human-centered design approach. SAE Transactions: Journal of Aerospace, 109, 1053–1065.

Kelley

D. R.

Adam

G. L.

(1997). The human factors of runway incursions caused by “pilot error:” A survey of U.S. airline pilots. In Jensen

R. S.

Rakovan

(Eds.) Proceedings of the 9th International Symposium on Aviation Psychology, 911–917, Columbus, OH: Ohio State University.

McCann

R. S.

Foyle

D. C.

Johnston

J. C.

(1993). Attentional limitations with head-up displays. In Jensen

R. S.

(Ed.), Proceedings of the 7th International Symposium on Aviation Psychology, 70–75. Columbus OH: Ohio State University.

Taylor

R. M.

(1990). Situational awareness rating technique (SART): The development of a tool for aircrew systems design. Situational Awareness in Aerospace Operations, AGARD-CP-478, 3-1-3-37.

Ververs

P. M.

Wickens

C. D.

(1998). Conformal flight path symbology for head-up displays: Defining the distribution of visual attention in three-dimensional space. University of Illinois Institute of Aviation Technical Report (ARL-98-5/NASA-98-1). Savoy, IL: Aviation Research Lab.

10.

Weintraub

D. J.

Ensing

(1992). Human Factors issues in head-up display design: The book of HUD (SOAR 92-2). Dayton, OH: CSERIAC.