Human Factors in Head-Up Synthetic Vision Displays

Snow, Michael P.; French, Guy A.

doi:10.4271/2001-01-2652

Cited by 5 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Unique difficulties associated with HUD presentation included precise alignment with the real world and blockage of the outside visual scene: two issues that have been found to strongly and adversely affect perceived usability of see-through enhanced and synthetic vision systems. 8,9 During both ground operations and approach to landing significant misalignments were noted. Positioning errors of the IR image on the order of 0.5 nautical miles were noted during approach.…”

Section: Pilot Observations Of Evsmentioning

confidence: 97%

<title>Terminal area operations with enhanced and synthetic vision: experience in the Boeing technology demonstrator</title>

et al. 2003

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Several emerging technologies were recently demonstrated in a Boeing 737-900 as part of Boeing's Technology Demonstrator (BTD) program. Among these technologies were two enhanced vision systems and a synthetic vision system, including synthetic displays to support surface operations. This project gained operational experience with enhanced and synthetic vision systems operating in a context that included Required Navigation Performance (RNP) terminal area operations, Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) approach and landing, and Integrated Area Navigation (IAN). The technologies were demonstrated to a broad mix of constituents involved in research, regulation, and acquisition in the transport category environment. This paper describes the systems demonstrated, the context in which they were used, and perceived benefits of integrating them in an operational environment. Lessons learned in the implementation of these technologies throughout the program are described and subjective data from participants are summarized.

show abstract

Section: Pilot Observations Of Evsmentioning

confidence: 97%

<title>Terminal area operations with enhanced and synthetic vision: experience in the Boeing technology demonstrator</title>

et al. 2003

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…8 Of particular interest for the rotorcraft industry might include the work of Bachelder et al, where one goal was finding a solution for pilot tasking for approach-to/stay-within/depart-from hover maneuvers using night vision devices (NVD). 2 In part, the context of this study shows the benefit of 'tunnel-like' hover guidance symbologies overlaid on a nighttime synthetic vision database.…”

Section: B Synthetic Vision-based Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Flight Simulation Architecture for Tunnel-in-the-Sky Guidance and Synthetic Vision

Brychcy

Shanmugasundaram

Allen

et al. 2004

Journal of Aerospace Computing, Information, and Communication

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper will focus on the practical incorporation of "tunnel-in-the-sky" and synthetic vision concepts from a flight simulation software perspective. Piloted, rotorcraft flight simulation analysis of these concepts has been an ongoing activity in the Boeing Flight Simulation Laboratory in Philadelphia. The theoretical basis and advantages in augmenting pilot situational awareness was well presented by Robert R. Wilkins. 1 In this paper, the technical issues involving design architecture, visual perception and verification of these concepts will be addressed. Some of these issues include architecture optimization for future enhancements, tunnel correlation and conformality with out-the-window terrain, validation of pilot visual cues and integration of tunnel and synthetic vision concepts. Future work and directions will also be discussed, for both tunnel symbology-based guidance and synthetic vision situational awareness, in the context of practical realization in a rotorcraft flight simulation environment.acceleration of gravity T H = tunnel height -ft H B = barometric altitude -ft T HDG = tunnel heading -deg H P = pressure altitude -ft T T = tunnel turn radius -deg F F = function factor -normalized T W = tunnel width -ft F pv Δθ = flight path vector delta pitch -deg T Y = tunnel yaw -deg F pv Δψ = flight path vector delta yaw -deg V A = true airspeed -kn K PHI = gain on bank angle V C = calibrated airspeed -kn K TAE = gain on track angle V G = groundspeed -kn K XTD = gain on cross track deviation V R = reference speed -kn N G = north cig coordinate -ft V RC = vertical velocity -ft/s N Xwp = next waypoint index -unitless X L = aircraft longitude -€ ˙ P O = push-over rate -deg (deg/min/s) S L = tunnel segment length -feet XTD = aircraft cross track S S = tunnel segment spacing -feet deviation -perpindicular TAE = aircraft track angle error -difference distance from aircraft between tunnel course and aircraft center of gravity to tunnel ground track angle -deg ground track -ft T A = tunnel altitude -ft Y L = aircraft latitude -(deg/min/s) € ˙ φ = aircraft roll rate -deg/s Z B = tunnel flight profile height -ft θ = pitch angle -deg BRYCHCY ET AL. 240 ΔP Y = power cue vertical offset -in. (display) ϑ (5) = fifth order polynomial ΔT = simulation execution time -s quantity -unitless ΔT C = command-frame time -s ψ = aircraft heading -deg ΔT F = lead-frame time -s € ˙ ψ = aircraft yaw rate deg/s ΔT L = look-ahead time -s ψ M = aircraft magnetic heading -Δθ Y = pitch cue vertical offset -in. (display) deg φ = aircraft bank angle -deg ψ T = aircraft true heading -deg

show abstract

“…The four components of SVSs together characterize the display technology and past research on SVS (Alexander, Wickens, & Hardy, 2005;Bolton & Bass, 2008;Bolton, Bass, & Comstock, 2007;Prinzel et al, 2004;Schnell, Kwon, Merchant, & Etherington, 2004;Snow & French, 2001;Verly, 1997Verly, -2008 suggests the significant potential for numerous safety and operational benefits. In terms of safety benefits, SV may help to reduce many accident precursors including (Kramer & Prinzel, 2006):…”

mentioning

confidence: 98%