An Experimental Comparison of Five Different Attitude Indicators

Abstract

Two -s-udies-were conducted in which five simulated aircraft attitude indicators,,representing three different indicating principles, were compared.Tw6v*,dicators were of the "earth reference" type, in mhich the moving element repres'ented the horizon as on the conventionalAatititude indioator. Two indicators were of an "airplane reference" type, which presented aircraft rather than horizon movement.Thqe fjfth indicator provided a "stabilized sphere" type of ýpresentatidn,. Tests Vere miad4 in a C-9 Link Trainer and records were performanceflight maneuvers reversals~following sifolotednrorgh iir gusti, anda pilot preferences.Major interest centered around comparison of the "earth reference" and "airplane reference" principles of attitude indication, since these provide opposite directions of movement on the indicator.Each of the five indicators was flown kry Air Force pilots, eight different pilots per instrument.In-additon, itwo indicators representing the two opposed types, were flown by college students with no prior flight experience.The Air Force pilots used in this study were highly experienced on the earth reference type of indicator, and had not previously flown indicators using the airplane reference principle. For this reason, apparently, they made more aileron reversals on the airplane reference type indicators. In the pitch dimension, however, t,)ey made slightly, but not significantly, fewer control reversals o4 thes'e/ idicators. Moreover, their preferences somewhat favored the unfamiliar airplane reference indicators.For the college students, both the control reversal and preference data favored the airplane reference principle. PUBLICATION REVIEW(This report has been reviewed and is approved.

Enhancing Spatial Orientation in Novice Pilots

“…It contradicts earlier findings, which indicate an advantage of moving-aircraft display designs when using an abstract AI display background (e.g. Gardner & Lacey, 1954;Previc & Ercoline, 1999). One possible explanation for this discrepancy could lie in the differences between the design of classical AIs, investigated in the earlier studies, and the general design of PFD as used in our research.…”

Speed and Accuracy of Response to Five Different Attitude Indicators

“…The design situation tested subject response time and accuracy under two conditions. Condition one (1) required the subject to make a corrective manual response with a simulated control stick, to deviations as presented on the instruments. Condition two (2) required the subject to make a corrective verbal response, to deviations as presented on the instruments.…”

Design and arrangement of controls and displays.

“…In connection with uniform pointer alignment, it has been found that the position of the pointer alignment (12,3,6, or 9 o'clock positions) has little effect on time required to identify displaced pointers in a simple check reading of the panel [White,Warrick,and Grether,25]. For a qualitative reading task, however, the 9 o'clock position seems preferable.…”