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
Technical Paper
2001-01-2992
ISSN: 0148-7191, e-ISSN: 2688-3627
Annotation ability available
Sector:
Language:
English
Abstract
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.
Recommended Content
Authors
Topic
Citation
Wilkins, 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.Also In
References
- Brooks, P. “Our legacy is safety on the road ahead,” Flight Line 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 48 th 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” Gibson D. Garland D. Koonce J. Situational awareness in complex systems 27 58 Daytona, FL Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University Press
- 1997
- Furness, T. “The Super Cockpit and its Human Factors Challenges.” Human Factors Society 30 th 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,” Langley, VA December 1980
- “Intuition.” The Oxford American Dictionary Oxford University Press 1980
- 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, “ Http://www-afo.arc.nasa.gov/projects/humam factors interaction-automation/three-d-primary.htm 1994
- Regal, D. 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
- 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 December 1997
- Wilkins, R. “Use of Predictive Perspective Guidance Displays for Increased Situational Awareness,” American Helicopter Society, 57 th Annual Forum Washington, DC May 2001