Procedures and Metrics for Aircraft Cockpit Display Evaluations

Abstract

The standardization of test methods for the evaluation of aircraft cockpit displays is an area display designers need to investigate. Comparable simulation facilities, and experimental protocols including tasks, performance parameters, data analysis techniques, and subject pools, need to be employed across military and civilian research laboratories to ensure that the results of simulation efforts will be interpreted similarly by all researchers and designers. This paper reviews the types of tasks and data collection, reduction, and analysis techniques used by researchers during a five-year Air Force research program designed to: 1) develop a standard head-up display (HUD) symbology set for use as a primary flight reference during instrument flight, and 2) develop a standard symbology set to be used as a baseline for comparing other HUDs. The program objective was met. The symbology set will be included in a revision of Military Standard (MIL STD) 1787, Aircraft Display Symbology.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bitton

Evans

(1991). Report on head-up display symbology standardization. USAF IFC Technical Report (USAFIFC-TR-91-01) Randolph AFB, TX.

Burns

, (1990). An evaluation of the F-16 instrument landing system landing display. USAF ASD Technical Report (ASD-TR-90-5001) Wright-Patterson AFB, OH.

Ercoline

Gillingham

(1990). Effects of variations in head-up display airspeed and altitude representations on basic flight performance. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 34th Annual Meeting. Human Factors Society; Santa Monica, CA.

Hughes

Hassoun

Barnaba

(1992). A comparison of head-up display and head-down instrument suites during instrument flying tasks. USAF Crew Station Evaluation Facility Technical Report (ASC-TR-92-IFC-XXX) Wright-Patterson AFB, OH.

Hughes

Lovering

(1990). A comparison of alternative head-up display symbol sets during approach and landing, navigation and unusual attitude recovery tasks. USAF Crew Station Evaluation Facility Technical Report (CSEF-TR-90-IFC-001) Wright-Patterson AFB, OH.

Hughes

Hassoun

(1992). Mechanization of the Instrument Flight Symbology Head-Up Display. USAF Crew Station Evaluation Facility Technical Report (CSEF-TR-92-IFS-0001). Wright-Patterson AFB, OH.

Rastellini

M.M.

(Ed.) (1986). Instrument Flying. Air Force Manual 51–37. Headquarters US Air Force, Washington, DC.

Turner

Hattendorf

(1992). Standardized Head-Up Display Svmbology Evaluation. Air Force Flight Test Center (AFFTC-TR-92-15). Edwards AFB, CA.

Ward

Hassoun

(1990). The Effects of Head-Up Display (HUD) Pitch Ladder Articulation, Pitch Number Location and Horizon Line Length on Unusual Attitude Recoveries for the F-16. USAF ASD Technical Report (ASD-TR-90-5008) Wright-Patterson AFB, OH.

10.

Weinstein

Ercoline

(1991). Effects of variations in head-up display climb/dive ladder symbology. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 35th Annual Meeting. Human Factors Society; Santa Monica, CA.

11.

Weinstein

Ercoline

Bitton

(1992). The utility of a ghost horizon and climb/dive ladder tapering on a head-up display. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 36th Annual Meeting. Human Factors Society; Santa Monica, CA.

12.

Weinstein

Ercoline

Evans

Bitton

(1992). Head-up display (HUD) symbology standardization and the utility of analog vertical velocity information during instrument flight. International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 2, (4).

13.

Weinstein

Ercoline

McKenzie

Bitton

Gillingham

(1993, in press). The standardization of aircraft command and performance symbology on the USAF head-up display. USAF Armstrong Laboratory Technical Report (AL-TR-1993-XXX). Air Force Material Command, Brooks AFB, TX: Armstrong Laboratory.