Perceptual CUE Effects on Distance Estimation from Different Relative Approach Heading

Abstract

Dangers during the approach and landing phases of flight are still leading safety issues in aviation. In particular, inconsistent visual scenes have been associated with variations in pilot performance during visual approaches. While several factors have been identified as causes of such performance variation, such as impoverished visual cues and the geometrical ratio of the runway image, many other perceptual cues remain largely unexplored. This study examines how pilot performance in a visual approach task is affected by changes in the angle from centerline of the runway. Findings from this study will help determine the degree to which previously unexplored variables affect performance and help guide the development of future training for visual approach.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Darby

(2006). Commercial jet hull losses, fatalities rose sharply in 2005. Aviation Safety World, 1(2), 51–53.

Federal Aviation Administration (1993). Recommended standards traffic patterns for aeronautical operations at airports without operating control towers. (FAA Report No. AC 90–66A).

Federal Aviation Administration (2003). General aviation controlled flight into terrain awareness. (FAA Report No. AC 61–134).

Fiore

S.M.

Scielzo

Jentsch

Howard

M.L.

(2006). Effects of discrimination task training on x-ray screening decisions. Proceedings of the 50th Annual Meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, San Francisco, CA: HFES.

Galanis

Jennings

Beckett

(2001). Runway width effects in the visual approach to landing. International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 11(3), 281–301.

Gibb

R. W.

(2007). Visual spatial disorientation: Re-visiting the black hole illusion (Tech Rep No. CI07–0009). Wright Patterson Air Force Base, OH: Department of the Air Force.

Gibb

R. W.

Gray

(2006). Terrain orientation theory for a visual approach to landing. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 50th Annual Meeting; Oct 16–20; San Francisco, CA 1661–1665.

Guilford

J.P.

Zimmerman

W.S.

(1948). The Guilford-Zimmerman aptitude survey. Journal of Applied Psychology, 32, 24–34.

Ishihara

(1977). Tests for colour-blindness. Tokyo: Kanehara Shuppen.

10.

Kern

(2002). Controlling pilot error: Approach and Landing. New York: McGraw-Hill.

11.

Leibowitz

H.W.

(1988). The human senses in flight. In Weiner

E. L.

Nagel

D. C.

(Eds.) Human Factors in Aviation, (pp. 125–133) Academic Press, San Diego, CA.

12.

Lintern

Koonce

J.M.

(1992). Visual augmentation and scene detail effects in flight training. International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 2(4), 281–301.

13.

Lintern

Walker

M.B.

(1991). Scene content and runway breadth effects on simulated landing. International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 1(2), 117–132.

14.

Mertens

H.W.

(1981). Perception of runway image shape and approach angle magnitude by pilots in simulated night landing approaches. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine, 52(7), 373–386.

15.

Mertens

H.W.

Lewis

M.F.

(1982). Effect of different runway sizes on pilot performance during simulated night landing approaches. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine, 53(5), 463–471.

16.

Microsoft (2006). Microsoft Flight Simulator X: Deluxe Edition [computer software]. Redmond, WA: Microsoft.

17.

Pitts

D.G.

(1967). Visual illusion and aircraft accidents. (Report No. SAM-TR-67–28).

18.

Robson

(2001). Human Factors for the Professional Pilot. South Melbourne, Australia: Aviation Theory Centre.

19.

Shappell

S.A.

Wiegmann

D.A.

(2003). A human error analysis of general aviation controlled flight into terrain accidents occurring between 1990–1998 (DOT Report No. DOT/FAA/AM-03/4). Springfield, VA: National Technical Information Service.