Thirty-six pilots (31 men, 5 women) were tested in a flight simulator on their ability to intercept a pathway depicted on a highway-in-the-sky (HITS) display. While intercepting and flying the pathway, pilots were required to watch for traffic outside the cockpit. Additionally, pilots were tested on their awareness of speed, altitude, and heading during the flight. Results indicated that the presence of a flight guidance cue significantly improved flight path awareness while intercepting the pathway, but significant practice effects suggest that a guidance cue might be unnecessary if pilots are given proper training. The amount of time spent looking outside the cockpit while using the HITS display was significantly less than when using conventional aircraft instruments. Additionally, awareness of flight information present on the HITS display was poor. Actual or potential applications of this research include guidance for the development of perspective flight display standards and as a basis for flight training requirements.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Andre, A. D., & Wickens, C. D. (1995, October). When users want what's not best for them. Ergonomics in Design, pp. 10--14.
2.
Barfield, W., & Rosenberg, C. (1992). Effect of geometric field of view and tunnel design for perspective flight-path displays. In 22nd International Conference on Environmental Systems (pp. 1–6). Warrendale, PA: Society of Automotive Engineers.
3.
Barrows, A. K., Enge, P., Parkinson, B. W., & Powell, J. D. (1996). Flying curved approaches and missed approaches: 3-D display trials onboard a light aircraft. In Proceedings of the 9th International Technical Meeting of the Satellite Division of the Institute of Navigation (pp. 59–68). Alexandria, VA: Institute of Navigation.
4.
Damos, D. L., John, R. S., & Lyall, E. A. (1999). The effect of level of automation on time spent looking out of the cockpit. International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 9(3), 303–314.
5.
Dorighi, N. S., Ellis, S. R., & Grunwald, A. J. (1993). Perspective format for a primary flight display (ADI) and its effect on pilot spatial awareness. In Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 37th Annual Meeting (pp. 88–92). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
6.
Endsley, M. R. (1995). A taxonomy of situation awareness errors. In R. Fuller, N. Johnston, & N. McDonald (Eds.), Human factors in aviation operations (pp. 287–292). Aldershot, England: Ashgate Ltd.
7.
Endsley, M. R. (1997). Supporting situation awareness in aviation systems. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics (pp. 4177–4181). Piscataway, NJ: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers.
8.
Frost, G. (1972). Man-machine dynamics. In H. P. Van Cott & R. G. Kinkade (Eds.), Human engineering guide to equipment design (Rev. ed., pp. 227–310). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
9.
Grunwald, A. J. (1996). Improved tunnel display for curved trajectory following: Experimental evaluation. Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, 19, 378–384.
10.
Haskell, I. D., & Wickens, C. D. (1993). Two-and three-dimensional displays for aviation: A theoretical and empirical comparison. International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 3, 87–109.
11.
Hudson, W. (1960). Pictorial depth perception in sub-cultural groups in Africa. Journal of Social Psychology, 52, 183–208.
12.
Jensen, R. S. (1981). Prediction and quickening in perspective flight displays for curved landing approaches. Human Factors, 23, 355–363.
13.
Kramer, L. J., & Busquets, A. M. (2000).Comparison of pilots' situational awareness while monitoring autoland approaches using conventional and advanced flight display formats (Tech. Paper NASA/TP-2000-210284). Hampton, VA: NASA Langley Research Center.
14.
Lintern, G., Waite, T., & Talleur, D. A. (1999). Functional interface design for the modern aircraft cockpit. International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 9, 225–240.
15.
McGuinness, B. (1995). Situational awareness measurement in cockpit evaluation trials. In Aerospace Research and Development Conference Proceedings - 575 (pp. 7-1–7-8). Neully-Sur-Seine, France: Advisory Group for Aerospace Research and Development.
16.
Reising, J. M., Liggett, K. K., Solz, T. J., & Hartsock, D. C. (1995). Comparison of two head up display formats used to fly curved instrument approaches. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 39th Annual Meeting (pp. 1–5). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
17.
Rudisill, M. (1994). Flight crew experience with automation technologies on commercial transport flight decks. In M. Moulou & R. Parasuraman (Eds.), Human performance in automated systems: Current research and trends (pp. 203–211). Washington, DC: Catholic University.
18.
Theunissen, E., & Mulder, M. (1995). Error-neglecting control with perspective flightpath displays. In 8th International Symposium on Aviation Psychology (pp. 110–115). Columbus: Ohio State University.
19.
Wickens, C. D. (1995). Situation awareness: Impact of automation and display technology. In Aerospace Research and Development Conference Proceedings - 575 (pp. 7-1–7-8). Neully-Sur-Seine, France: Advisory Group for Aerospace Research and Development.
20.
Wickens, C. D., & Prevett, T. T. (1995). Exploring the dimensions of egocentricity in aircraft navigation displays. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 1, 110–135.
21.
Wiener, E. L. (1993). Life in the second decade of the glass cockpit. In Proceedings of the 7th International Symposium on Aviation Psychology(pp. 1–7). Columbus: Ohio State University, Department of Aviation.
