We investigated three interaction effects between the design factors of artificial horizon displays in the context of an airplane upset recovery task. To explain some inconsistent results from previous research about the superiority of moving-airplane designs, we hypothesized and explored interactions between moving element, roll scale/index, display size, and symbol size. A 24 factorial experiment was conducted with 20 novice subjects on a desktop simulator. Moving element was found to interact with display size and symbol size in an unexpected fashion, although the size of the effects was small. Spatially compatible roll scale/index was strongly supported, while the evidence for moving-airplane was weaker than expected. We explained that when redundant roll angle information is present, subjects tend to focus on the indication that appears most usable to them. Roll scale/index appeared to be more compelling than airplane symbol and horizon for roll indication purposes.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BeringerD. B.WilligesR. C.RoscoeS. N. (1975). The transition of experienced pilots to a frequency-separated aircraft attitude display. Human Factors, 17, 401–414.
2.
ComstockJ. R.JonesL. C.PopeA. T. (2003). The effectiveness of various attitude indicator display sizes and extended horizon lines on attitude maintenance in a part-task simulation. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting (Vol. 47, pp. 144–148).
3.
FittsP. M. (1947). Psychological research on equipment design (No. 19). Air Technical Service Command Wright-Patterson AFB OH Aero Medical Lab. Dayton, OH.
4.
FogelL. J. (1959). A new concept: The Kinalog display system. Human Factors, 1, 30–37.
5.
GrossA.ManzeyD. (2014). Enhancing spatial orientation in novice pilots: Comparing different attitude indicators using synthetic vision systems. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 58th Annual Meeting (pp. 1033–1038). Los Angeles, CA.
6.
HasbrookA. H.RasmussenP. G. (1973). In-flight performance of civilian pilots using moving-aircraft and moving-horizon attitude indicators (FAA-AM-73-9). Oklahoma City, OK.
7.
HiremathV.ProctorR. W.FanjoyR. O.FeyenR. G.YoungJ. P. (2009). Comparison of pilot recovery and response times in two types of cockpits. In Symposium on human interface (pp. 766-775). Berlin Heidelberg: Springer.
JanczykM.YamaguchiM.ProctorR. W.PfisterR. (2015). Response-effect compatibility with complex actions: The case of wheel rotations. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 77, 930–940.
10.
JohnsonS. L.RoscoeS. N. (1972). What moves, the airplane or the world?Human Factors, 14, 107–129.
11.
JTSB. (2014). Aircraft serious incident investigation report. Tokyo, Japan.
12.
KelleyC. R.GrootS.BowenH. (1961). Relative motion III: Some relative motion problems in aviation (AD256346). Port Washington, NY.
13.
LeeB. G.MyungR. (2013). Attitude indicator design and reference frame effects on unusual attitude ecoveries. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 23, 63–90.
14.
MalcolmR. (1983). The Malcolm Horizon history and future. In Proceedings of a conference held at NASA Ames Research Center Dryden Flight Research Facility (pp. 11–40). Edwards, CA.
15.
NTSB. (1986). Aircraft accident report - China Airlines Boeing 747-SP, N4522V, 300 nautical miles northwest of San Francisco, California, February 19, 1985. Washington D.C.
16.
PrevicF. H.ErcolineW. R. (1999). The “outside-in” attitude display concept revisited. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 9, 377–401.
17.
ProctorR. W.VuK. L. (2006). Stimulus–response compatibility: Data, theory, and application. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
18.
RasmussenJ. (1983). Skills, rules, and knowledge; signals, signs, and symbols, and other distinctions in human performance models. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, SMC-13, 257-266.
19.
ReasonJ. (1990). Human error. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
20.
RoscoeS. N.WilligesR. C. (1975). Motion relationships in aircraft attitude and guidance displays : A flight experiment. Human Factors, 17, 374–387.
21.
SelfB. P.BreunM.FeldtB.PerryC.ErcolineW. R. (2000). Assessment of pilot performane using a moving horizon (inside-out), a moving aircraft (outside-in), and an arc-segmented attitude reference display (ADP013872). In RTO HFM Symposium on “Spatial Disorientation in Military Vehicles: Causes, Consequences, and Cures” (pp. 30-1-30-7). La Coruna, Spain.
22.
SingerG.DekkerS. (2002). The effect of the roll index (sky pointer) on roll reversal errors. Human Factors and Aerospace Safety, 2, 33–43.
23.
Swiss AAIB. (2002). Final report of the aircraft accident investigation bureau on the accident to the SAAB 340B aircraft, registration HB-AKK of Crossair flight CRX498. Berne, Switzerland.
24.
WickensC. D.CarswellC. M. (1995). The proximity compatibility principle: Its psychological foundation and relevance to display design. Human Factors, 37, 473–494.
25.
WickensC. D.HollandsJ. G.BanburyS.ParasuramanR. (2013). Engineering psychology and human performance (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
26.
YamaguchiM.ProctorR. W. (2006). Stimulus-response compatibility with pure and mixed mappings in a flight task environment. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 12, 207–222.
27.
YamaguchiM.ProctorR. W. (2010). Compatibility of motion information in two aircraft attitude displays for a tracking task. American Journal of Psychology, 123, 81–92.
