Moving-Horizon versus Moving-Aircraft: Comparing the Effectiveness of Competing Attitude Indicator Formats on Recoveries from Discrete and Continuous Attitude Changes
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online September, 2017
Moving-Horizon versus Moving-Aircraft: Comparing the Effectiveness of Competing Attitude Indicator Formats on Recoveries from Discrete and Continuous Attitude Changes
BeringerB.D.BallJ.D. (2009). Unknown-attitude recoveries using conventional and terrain-depicting attitude indicators: Difference testing, equivalence testing, and equivalent level of safety. Journal of Aviation Psychology, 19, 76-97.
2.
GrossA.ManzeyD. (2014). Enhancing spatial orientation in novice pilots: Comparing different attitude indicators using synthetic vision systems. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 58(1), 1033–1037. doi:10.1177/1541931214581216
3.
JohnsonS. L.RoscoeS. N. (1972). What moves, the airplane or the world?The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 14(2), 107–29.
4.
LeeB. G.MyungR. (2013). Attitude indicator design and reference frame effects on unusual attitude recoveries. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 23(1), 63–90.
5.
PrevicF.H.ErcolineW.R. (eds.) (2004). Spatial disorientation in aviation. Reston: American Institute of Astronautics and Aeronautics.
6.
PrevicF. H.ErcolineW. R. (1999). The “outside-in” attitude display concept revisited. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 9(4), 377–401. doi:10.1207/s15327108ijap0904
