This content is not included in your SAE MOBILUS subscription, or you are not logged in.
FTE and Pilot Workload Comparison of Perspective Flight Guidance Displays to Conventional Flight Director Symbology in Instrument Approach Applications
ISSN: 0148-7191, e-ISSN: 2688-3627
Published September 11, 2001 by SAE International in United States
Annotation ability available
Perspective Flightpath Guidance (PFG)
Current requirements for precision air navigation are no longer in nautical miles, but tenths of miles as reflected in the RNP3 (Required Navigation Performance) or Required Navigation Performance (desired flight path) of .3 NM (± .n nmi).
Flight director guidance for critical maneuvers (those maneuvers with very small or reduced margins for error) is essential for precision navigation requirements. Current generations of guidance symbology (Delta-Veebar and Two-bar) work well, but are limited in their ability to display future flight path information to the pilot and/or the results of pilot control input. Both display symbology sets are designed to follow command guidance from an off-course situation to return to a nominal (null error) solution, known as a compensatory tracking task.
As stated in O’Hare, D, & Roscoe, S., 1990, increasingly such displays cause much “mental gymnastics” cognitive processing and pilot mental workload, often leading to additional error and total loss of situational control, resulting in full scale deflection, that is, maximum deviation mandating a missed approach.
In order to reduce tracking errors and pilot workload, one must provide the pilot with increased situational awareness of the aircraft’s relation to the desired flight path, the flight path itself or track, and the actual aircraft performance (flight path vector) as well as the desired/commanded and predicted aircraft performance.
The use of a perspective flight guidance displays with a predictive flight path/performance symbology set provides that increased situational awareness.
Flight path vector-based (FPV) Perspective Flightpath Guidance (PFG) provides pilots with an intuitive symbology set which enables the execution of steep precision instrument approaches using a high resolution 2D or 3D-like database in near zero visibility. PFG technology utilizes differential GPS (dGPS) for precision waypoint geolocation, combined with a “quickened” predictive flight-path-vector and “tunnel-in-the-sky” pathway guidance to develop an affordable, intuitive, rotorcraft/tiltrotor instrument approach guidance symbology system. Effectively designed and implemented, PFG is capable of replacing traditional, workload-intensive, Two-bar and Delta-Veebar flight director terminal approach guidance while providing smaller flight technical error and reduced plot workload.
|Ground Vehicle Standard||ENGINE ROTATION AND CYLINDER NUMBERING|
|Aerospace Standard||Human Engineering Considerations in the Application of Color to Electronic Aircraft Displays|
|Technical Paper||Presentation of Information on Multimode Displays: Abnormal and Emergency Aircraft Operations|
CitationWilkins, R., "FTE and Pilot Workload Comparison of Perspective Flight Guidance Displays to Conventional Flight Director Symbology in Instrument Approach Applications," SAE Technical Paper 2001-01-2992, 2001, https://doi.org/10.4271/2001-01-2992.
- Brooks, P., “Our legacy is safety on the road ahead,” Flight Line, ALPA, July/August, 1997
- Curran, J., “Trends in advanced avionics.” Ames: Iowa State University Press, 1992.
- Decker, W., “Piloted Simulator Investigations of a Civil Tilt-Rotor Aircraft on Steep Instrument Approaches,” American Helicopter Society 48th Annual Forum, Washington, DC, June, 1992
- Decker, W. et al, “Evaluation of Two Cockpit Display Concepts for Civil Tiltrotor Instrument Operations on Steep Approaches,” presented at Piloting Vertical Flight Aircraft: A Conference on Flying Qualities and Human Factors, San Francisco, CA, January, 1993
- Endsley, M. (1934) “Situational Awareness in Dynamic Human Decision Making Theory”. In Gibson D., Garland D., & Koonce J. (Eds.) Situational awareness in complex systems (pp. 27–58). Daytona, FL Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University Press.
- Federal Aviation Administration, “Transport category airplane electronic display systems.” Department of Transportation, FAA Advisory Circular AC 25-11. Government Printing Office, Washington:, DC, 1997
- Furness, T., “The Super Cockpit and its Human Factors Challenges.” Human Factors Society 30th Annual Meeting. Santa Monica: Human Factors Society, 1986
- George, F., “Next Generation Displays and Controls,” Business and Commercial Aviation, December 1997
- Grunwald, A., Robertson, J & Harfield, J., “Evaluation of a computer-generated perspective tunnel display for flight path following,” NASA Technical Paper 1736. National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Langley, VA, December 1980
- “Intuition.” The Oxford American Dictionary. Oxford University Press, 1980
- Society of Automotive Engineers, “Flight deck instrumentation, display criteria and associated controls for transport aircraft,” Aerospace Recommended Practice ARP 1068B, amended 1985, Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE), Warrendale, PA, 1985
- Stokes, A, Wickens C., & Kite K., “Display Technology,” Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE), Warrendale, PA 1990
- Theunissen, E., “Integrated Design of a Man-Machine Interface for 4-D navigation,’ Delft University Press, Delft, Netherlands, 1997
- O’Hare, D, & Roscoe, S., “Flight Deck Performance: the Human Factor,” Iowa State University Press, Ames. IA, 1990
- Oliver, J., “Improving Situational Awareness Through the use of Intuitive Pictorial Displays,” SAE Technical Paper 901829. Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE), Warrendale, PA, 1990
- Palmer, E., “3-D Primary Flight Display with Terrain Information, “ NASA. Http://www-afo.arc.nasa.gov/projects/humam factors interaction-automation/three-d-primary.htm, 1994
- Regal, D., “Curved Flight Paths for the HSCT,” Report BE15B-M94-078. Boeing Company, Seattle. WA, 1994.
- Regal, D. & Whittington, D., “Guidance Symbology for Curved Flight Paths,” Eighth International Symposium of Aviation Psychology, Ohio State University Department of Aviation Psychology, Columbus, OH 1995
- Sanders, M., & McKormick E., “Human Factors in Engineering and Design, 6th ed.,” McGraw-Hill, New York, 1987
- Stokes, A, Wickens C., & Kite K., “Display Technology,” Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE), Warrendale. PA, 1990.
- Department of Transportation, “Vertical Flight IFR Terminal Area Procedures (VERTAPS) Program Plan, ” Federal Aviation Administration, DTFAO1-87-C-00014, Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 1993
- Wilkins, R., “Tunnel-In-The-Sky Flight Displays for Vertical Flight Aircraft Using Steep Instrument Approaches in Obstacle Rich Environments,” paper for MAS 604, Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, Daytona Beach, FL, December 1997
- Wilkins, R., “Use of Predictive Perspective Guidance Displays for Increased Situational Awareness,” American Helicopter Society, 57th Annual Forum, Washington, DC, May 2001.