HUD Symbology for Surface Operations: Command Guidance vs. Situation Guidance Formats

Foyle, David C.; Hooey, Becky L.; Wilson, John R.; Johnson, Walter A.

doi:10.4271/2002-01-3006

Cited by 10 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The data implies that the Advanced HUD provides the best tactical information but fails to impart a strategic awareness. This result has been attributed in previous work to possible HUD cognitive capture and was observed at NASA Ames Research Center 15 . In contrast, the advanced HWD concept had the fewest number of taxi incursions.…”

Section: Discussion Of Experiments One Resultssupporting

confidence: 80%

Design and testing of an unlimited field-of-regard synthetic vision head-worn display for commercial aircraft surface operations

et al. 2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Experiments and flight tests have shown that a Head-Up Display (HUD) and a head-down, electronic moving map (EMM) can be enhanced with Synthetic Vision for airport surface operations. While great success in ground operations was demonstrated with a HUD, the research noted that two major HUD limitations during ground operations were their monochrome form and limited, fixed field of regard. A potential solution to these limitations found with HUDs may be emerging Head Worn Displays (HWDs). HWDs are small, lightweight full color display devices that may be worn without significant encumbrance to the user. By coupling the HWD with a head tracker, unlimited field-of-regard may be realized for commercial aviation applications. In the proposed paper, the results of two ground simulation experiments conducted at NASA Langley are summarized. The experiments evaluated the efficacy of head-worn display applications of Synthetic Vision and Enhanced Vision technology to enhance transport aircraft surface operations. The two studies tested a combined six display concepts: (1) paper charts with existing cockpit displays, (2) baseline consisting of existing cockpit displays including a Class III electronic flight bag display of the airport surface; (3) an advanced baseline that also included displayed traffic and routing information, (4) a modified version of a HUD and EMM display demonstrated in previous research; (5) an unlimited field-of-regard, full color, head-tracked HWD with a conformal 3-D synthetic vision surface view; and (6) a fully integrated HWD concept. The fully integrated HWD concept is a head-tracked, color, unlimited field-of-regard concept that provides a 3-D conformal synthetic view of the airport surface integrated with advanced taxi route clearance, taxi precision guidance, and data-link capability. The results of the experiments showed that the fully integrated HWD provided greater path performance compared to using paper charts alone. Further, when comparing the HWD with the HUD concept, there were no differences in path performance. In addition, the HWD and HUD concepts were rated via paired-comparisons the same in terms of situational awareness and workload. However, there were over twice as many taxi incursion events with the HUD than the HWD.

show abstract

Section: Discussion Of Experiments One Resultssupporting

confidence: 80%

Design and testing of an unlimited field-of-regard synthetic vision head-worn display for commercial aircraft surface operations

et al. 2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Fir st, the HUD symbology tested in the simulations was confor mal scene-linked symbology (see Foyle, McCann & Shelden, 1995). Recent empir ical studies have shown that nonconfor mal guidance symbology may intr oduce safety concer ns of lower situation awar eness, higher wor kload, and cognitive tunneling (Foyle, Hooey, Wilson, & J ohnson, 2002). The second issue is that the HUD depicted only the clear ed taxi r oute and it was this featur e that allowed pilots to easily disambiguate the envir onment (i.e., deter mine which center line to follow).…”

Section: Implications For Technology Implementationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Pilot Navigation Errors on the Airport Surface: Identifying Contributing Factors and Mitigating Solutions

Hooey

Foyle

2006

The International Journal of Aviation Psychology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A taxonomy of navigation er r or s (pilot deviations) dur ing taxi oper ations was developed that defines 3 classes of er r or s: planning, decision, and execution err or s. This taxonomy was applied to er r or data fr om 2 full-mission simulation studies (Hooey, Foyle, Andr e, & Par ke, 2000;McCann et al., 1998) that included tr ials that r eplicated cur r ent-day oper ations and tr ials with advanced cockpit technologies including datalink, electr onic moving maps (EMM), and head-up displays (HUDs). Pilots committed navigation er r or s on 17% of cur r ent-day oper ations tr ials (in low-visibility and night), distr ibuted r oughly equally acr oss the 3 er r or classes. Each er r or class was associated with a unique set of contr ibuting factor s and mitigating solutions. Planning er r or s wer e mitigated by technologies that pr ovided an unambiguous r ecor d of the clear ance (datalink and the EMM, which possessed a text-based clear ance). Decision er r or s wer e mitigated by technologies that pr ovided both local and global awar eness including information about the distance to and dir ection of the next tur n, cur r ent ownship location, and a gr aphical depiction of the r oute (as pr ovided by the EMM and HUD together ). Execution er r or s wer e best mitigated by the HUD, which disambiguated the envir onment and depicted the clear ed taxi r oute. Implications for technology design and integr ation ar e pr ovided.

show abstract

“…Cues consisted of the planned flight path (a series of yellow discs), the location of a FAC-G (a green cone), and the last known location of the target (a red cone). The target itself may or environment) to minimize the potential hazard of cognitive tunneling associated with a smaller, non-conformal HUD (Foyle, et al, 2002;Hooey, et al, 2001;Yeh and Wickens, 2000). …”

Section: Flight Simulator Settingsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cognitive Issues Related to Advanced Cockpit Displays: Supporting the Transition between Internal and External Guidance

Lohrenz¹

2003

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Public reporting burden for the collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to a penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number. AbstractA critical issue in military aviation is the pilot's ability to transition between primarily internal (head-down, instrument-driven) and external (head-up, out of the cockpit) guidance. Experimental cockpit displays were designed and tested for how well they might support this transition phase for military pilots performing time-critical air-to-ground targeting missions such as Forward Air Control and Close Air Support. Twelve subjects performed three sets of experiments using a flight simulator (with simulated heads-up display in the forward field of view) connected to a moving-map display. The experiments were designed to help explain which visual cues in the displays might best help a pilot 1) navigate to a given target area (the "flight guidance" phase of a mission) and 2) search for, find and identify a target (the "target acquisition" phase).In one experiment, subjects flew a mission using three different versions of a plan-view movingmap display: 1) a detailed, topographic map with high-contrast mission overlays, 2) the map only, and 3) the overlays only. Overall, both flight guidance and target acquisition performance were best and workload was lowest while using the simplest, overlays-only display; performance and workload were equivalent or worse with the combination display, and significantly worse with the map-only display. These results suggest that the simplest possible display, portraying only the necessary information, is optimal. The distraction of display clutter often outweighs the potential benefits of additional information, especially when the display must support a timecritical task such as air-to-ground targeting.In all experiments, subjects demonstrated an increased reliance on internal cues (such as the moving-map and other flight instrumentation) during flight guidance and shifted their attention to the external view outside their virtual cockpit during target acquisition. If the target had moved from its expected location, subjects continued switching focus between internal and external cues (a process known as navigational checking) to correlate the various sources of information and find the target.

show abstract

HUD Symbology for Surface Operations: Command Guidance vs. Situation Guidance Formats

Cited by 10 publications

References 7 publications

Design and testing of an unlimited field-of-regard synthetic vision head-worn display for commercial aircraft surface operations

Design and testing of an unlimited field-of-regard synthetic vision head-worn display for commercial aircraft surface operations

Pilot Navigation Errors on the Airport Surface: Identifying Contributing Factors and Mitigating Solutions

Cognitive Issues Related to Advanced Cockpit Displays: Supporting the Transition between Internal and External Guidance

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About