The Effectiveness of Various Attitude Indicator Display Sizes and Extended Horizon Lines on Attitude Maintenance in a Part-Task Simulation

Abstract

Spatial disorientation (SD) is a constant contributing factor to the rate of fatal aviation accidents. SD occurs as a result of perceptual errors that can be attributed in part to the inefficient presentation of synthetic orientation cues via the attitude indicator when external visual conditions are poor. Improvements in the design of the attitude indicator may help to eliminate instrumentation as a factor in the onset of SD. The goal of the present study was to explore several display concepts that may contribute to an improved attitude display. Specifically, the effectiveness of various display sizes, some that are used in current and some that are anticipated in future attitude displays that may incorporate Synthetic Vision Systems (SVS) concepts, was assessed. In addition, a concept known as an extended horizon line or Malcolm Horizon (MH) was applied and evaluated. Paired with the MH, the novel concept of a fixed reference line representing the central horizontal plane of the aircraft was also tested. Subjects' performance on an attitude control task and secondary math workload task was measured across the various display sizes and conditions. The results, with regard to display size, confirmed the “bigger is better” concept, yielding better performance with the larger display sizes. A clear and significant improvement in attitude task performance was found with the addition of the extended horizon line. The extended or MH seemed to equalize attitude performance across display sizes, even for a central or foveal display as small as three inches in width.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Gillingham

K. K.

Previc

F. H

(1996). Spatial Orientation in Flight. In DeHart

R. L.

(Ed.), Fundamentals of Aerospace Medicine, 2nd Ed. (pp. 309–397) Baltimore, MD: Williams & Wilkins.

Leibowitz

(1986). Recent advances in our understanding of peripheral vision and some implications. In the Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 30^th Annual Meeting (pp. 605–607). University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University.

Malcolm

(1983). The Malcolm Horizon—History and future. In the Kellogg

R. S.

Chair , Proceedings of the Peripheral Vision Horizon Display (PVHD) Conference (pp. 12–40). NASA Conference Publication 2306 Edwards, CA: NASA.

Money

K. E.

(1983). Theory underlying the peripheral vision horizon device. In the Kellogg

R. S.

Chair , Proceedings of the Peripheral Vision Horizon Display (PVHD) Conference (pp. 45–56). NASA Conference Publication 2306. Edwards, CA: NASA.

Neubauer

(2000). Classifying spatial disorientation mishaps using different definitions. IEEE Eng Biol; 19 (2): pp. 28–34.

Previc

F. H.

Ercoline

W. R.

(2001). Trends in spatial disorientation research. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine 72, no. 11, p. 1048–1050.

Stevens

D. E.

(1997). Virtual horizon altitude warning system [A98–11101 01–54]. Proceedings of the SAFE Association Annual Symposium, 35^th (pp. 405–416). Nashville, TN.