A Comparison of Three Attitude Display Symbology Structures during an Attitude Maintenance Task

Abstract

The present study evaluated a new aircraft attitude display concept. The new symbology format, or Theta display, was developed by integrating the features of the conventional attitude/direction indicator (ADI) and head-up attitude reference display (HUD) into a single format. Number of trials to reach a specific performance criterion and tracking performance were collected as dependent variables on an attitude maintenance task. The results show that performance and training time were better with both the Theta display and the ADI than with the HUD. The findings support the hypothesis that an attitude display formed of the integration of ADI and HUD symbology will demonstrate a performance benefit over a pure HUD format.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Burns

R.K.

Lovering

P.B.

(1988). F-15E EADI evaluation: a comparison of three formats. ASD-TR-88-5030 Final Report ASD AFSC Wright-Patterson AFB, OH.

Guttman

(1986). Evaluation of the F/A-18 head-up-display for recovery from unusual attitudes. NADC-86157-60 Final Report, Naval Air Development Center, Warminster, PA.

Johnson

S.L.

Roscoe

S.N.

(1972). What moves, the airplane or the world? Human Factors, 14 (2), 107–129.

Kinsley

S.A.

Warner

N.W.

Gleisner

T.P.

(1985). A comparison of two pitch ladder formats and an ADI ball for recovery from unusual attitudes. Aircraft and Crew Systems Technology Directorate, Naval Air Development Center, Warminster, PA. (Report NADC-86012-60).

Osgood

R.K.

Venturino

(1990). Information representations for aircraft attitude displays. Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 34th Annual Meeting. pp 1542–1546 Human Factors Society, Santa Monica, Ca.

Previc

F.H.

(1989). Towards a physiological based HUD symbology (Tech Report USAFSAM-TR-88-25). Brooks Air Force Base, TX: Human Systems Division.

Reising

Zenyuh

Barthelemy (1988). Head up display symbology for unusual attitude recovery. Proceedings of the IEEE 1988 National Conference. pp 926–930 IEEE, New York, NY.

Roscoe

S.N.

Corl

Jensen

R.S.

(1981). Flight display dynamics revisited. Human Factors, 21 (3), 341–353.

Roscoe

S.N.

(1968). Airborne displays for flight and navigation. Human Factors, 10, 21–332.

10.

Taylor

R.M.

(1988). Aircraft attitude awareness from visual displays. Displays. April. 65–75.

11.

Taylor

R.M.

, (1984). Some effects of display format variables on the perception of aircraft spatial orientation. In AGARD-CP-371 NATO AGARD, France.

12.

Taylor

R.M.

(1982). Human factors aspects of aircraft head-up display symbology: The presentation of attitude information. In: Electronic Displays 1982. Session 3. Display Applications. Conference Proceedings. Network Exhibitions Ltd. Buckingham. ISBN: 0 904999 99 8: pp. 41–61.

13.

Treisman

A.M.

Gelade

(1980). A feature-integration theory of attention. Cognitive Psychology, 12, 97–136.

14.

Wickens

C.D.

(1986). The object display: principles and a review of experimental findings. MDA903-83-K-0255 Interim Report, Army Research Institute. Alexandria, VA.