Comparison of HMD ownship status symbology and frame of reference orientation during two aircraft control tasks

Paul R. Havig; J. Chris Jenkins; Eric E. Geiselman

doi:10.1117/12.478887

5 August 2002 Comparison of HMD ownship status symbology and frame of reference orientation during two aircraft control tasks

Paul R. Havig, J. Chris Jenkins, Eric E. Geiselman

Author Affiliations +

Proceedings Volume 4711, Helmet- and Head-Mounted Displays VII; (2002) https://doi.org/10.1117/12.478887
Event: AeroSense 2002, 2002, Orlando, FL, United States

Abstract

Recent technological advances allow symbology to be displayed on the pilot's visor. A major benefit of this is that the pilot will be able to take this information with them when they look off-boresight. However, when looking off-boresight the question arises as to what is the best orientation, or frame of reference, for attitude symbology against the horizon (i.e., forward or line-of-sight) in order to maximize interpretation and performance. This study tested five different symbologies (standard HUD, visually coupled acquisition and targeting symbology, arc segmented attitude reference, theta ball, and non-distributed flight reference) of which three have both forward and line-of-sight orientations. The experiment consisted of two different tasks, with the pilots performing either facing the monitor or rotated 90 degree(s) and looking over their shoulder (off-boresight). In the first task, pilots maintained straight and level flight with simulated turbulence. The second task had pilots interpret a static representation of their attitude and respond via a key press, and then the display went live and they had to fly to a new commanded attitude. This second task was similar to a recovery from unusual attitude methodology, except the end state was never straight and level. Instead, a second unknown end state attitude was commanded by the experiment. Results indicate that performance is better when the symbology is forward as opposed to line-of-sight referenced. Further, performance was best in both tasks for the non-distributed flight reference. We discuss these results in terms of implications for helmet-mounted display symbology design.

Citation Download Citation

Paul R. Havig, J. Chris Jenkins, and Eric E. Geiselman "Comparison of HMD ownship status symbology and frame of reference orientation during two aircraft control tasks", Proc. SPIE 4711, Helmet- and Head-Mounted Displays VII, (5 August 2002); https://doi.org/10.1117/12.478887

ACCESS THE FULL ARTICLE

INSTITUTIONAL
Select your institution to access the SPIE Digital Library.

SELECT YOUR INSTITUTION

PERSONAL
Sign in with your SPIE account to access your personal subscriptions or to use specific features such as save to my library, sign up for alerts, save searches, etc.

PERSONAL SIGN IN

No SPIE Account? Create one

PURCHASE THIS CONTENT

SUBSCRIBE TO DIGITAL LIBRARY

50 downloads per 1-year subscription

Members: $195

Non-members: $335 ADD TO CART

25 downloads per 1 - year subscription

Members: $145

Non-members: $250 ADD TO CART

PURCHASE SINGLE ARTICLE

Includes PDF, HTML & Video, when available