Field of View Effects on a Simulated Flight Task with Head-Down and Head-Up Sensor Imagery Displays

Abstract

When pilots fly an aircraft with sensor imagery rather than direct vision, their instantaneous field of view (FOV) is restricted severely. This limitation has been identified as a major human factors problem in aviation and has fostered efforts to develop displays with much wider FOVs than are currently available. Two experiments are reported investigating FOV effects in simulated flights with sensor imagery appearing on a Head-Down Display (HDD) and a Head-Up Display (HUD). The outside world was viewed via a simulated sensor image with a 25, 40, or 55 deg FOV, while the surrounding world was dark and provided no additional information. The subjects' task was to fly a slalom course without hitting the pylons or missing the intervals between pylons. The results indicate significant effects of FOV on both hits and misses for both the HDD and the HUD. In addition, performance was significantly affected by the speed of flying and the level of training. With the narrow FOV, subjects flew closer to the pylons than with the wide FOV and hit the pylons more often. These results are interpreted as an indication that subjects perceived the sensor display as the entire world rather than as a window into the world. This effect was somewhat smaller with the HUD than with the HDD, possibly because the HUD better represented a window into the world. The differences between the HUD and the HDD, however, did not reach statistical significance.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Brickner

M.S.

(1989a). Helicopter flights with night vision goggles — Human factors aspects (NASA TM-101039). Moffett Field, CA: NASA.

Brickner

M.S.

(1989b). Apparent limitations of head-up displays and thermal imaging systems. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Symposium on Aviation Psychology. Vol. I. Columbus, OH: Ohio State U, 703–707.

Haines

R.F.

Fischer

Price

T.A.

(1980). Head-up transition behavior of pilots with and without head-up display in simulated low-visibility approaches. (NASA TP-17201. Moffett Field, CA: NASA.

Harrington

D.O.

(1964). The visual field. St. Louis: Mosby.

Hart

S.G.

Brickner

M.S.

(1989). Helmet-mounted pilot night vision systems: Human factors issues. In Spatial Displays and Spatial Instruments (NASA CP-10032). Moffett Field, CA: NASA, (13)1–(13)21.

Huang

J.K.

Young

L.R.

(1988). Visual field influence on manual roll and pitch stabilization. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine, 59, 611–619.

Johnson

W.W.

Bennett

T.C.

O'Donnell

Phatak

A.V.

(1988). Optical variables useful in the active control of altitude. In Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Conference on Manual Control. Cambridge MA: MIT.

Leibowitz

H.W.

Shupert

C.L.

Post

R.B.

(1984). The two modes of visual processing: Implications for spatial orientation. In Peripheral Vision Horizon Display (PVHD). NASA CP-2306, Moffett Field, CA: NASA, 41–44.

Malcolm

(1984). The Malcolm horizon — history and future. In Peripheral Vision Horizon Display (PVRD). NASA CP-2306, Moffett Field, CA: NASA, 11–40.

10.

Roscoe

S.N.

(1985). Bigness is in the eye of the beholder. Human Factors, 27, 615–636.

11.

Shenker

(1987). Optical criteria for binocular helmet-mounted displays. SPIE Display System Optics, 778, 70–78.

12.

Welch

B.L.

(1986). Engineering and human visual consideration in development of a fiber optic helmet mounted display. In Advances in Flight Simulation — Visual and Motion Systems Proceedings, London, Royal Aeronautical Society, 295–331.

13.

Wright

M.J.

(1987). Spatiotemporal properties of grating motion detection in the center and the periphery of the visual field. Journal of the Optical Society of America, 4, 1627–1633.

14.

Wurfel

H.G.F.

(1984). F-16 and F-10 diffraction optics head-up display (HUD) flight test evaluation. In AGARD Flight Test Technology HC A16/MF A01, Brussels, Belgium: AGARD.