Pilot Opinion of Flight Displays and Monitoring Gauges in the UH-1 Helicopter

Abstract

BtrOMt COMPLKTIWG POI 1. RCClPlCNFlCATALOONUMMil 1. MC^OMT NUMBER llNTLASSTFTKn MCUMTY CUMWFICATIOW or THIS PA9UWkm Oau 20. Con'td. the rankings concerning the areas mentioned above. It was determined that all experience levels were in high agreement with regard to their opinions concerning the frequency with which they used the various monitoring gauges and flight displays while hovering, climbing, cruising, and descending in both IFR and VFR conditions. The flight displays thought to be most often used were the airspeed indicator followed by the altimeter. For the monitoring gauges, engine RPM and the gas producer were ranked 1 and 2 respectively for frequency of use. IA, UNCLASSIFIED UCUNITV CLASSIFICATION OF THIS FAGCOAM DM« Bnl»n4) SUMMARY Subjective rcsponsis werf acquired from r>4 Army aviators concerning the UH-1 instrument panel. The aviator subjects were drawn fron three experience levels: student, "tacticket," and fully instrument rated pilots. They were asked to rank instruments with regard to frequency of use, order of preference, reliability and readability. The instnments were divided into flight displays and monitoring gauges. Ranks were requested for various profiles and flight conditions. Data analyses examined the amount of agreement between experience levels as well as the rankings concerning the areas mentioned above. It was determined that all experience levels were in high agreement with regard to their opinions concerning the frequency with which they used the various monitoring gauges and flight displays while hovering, climbing, cruising, and descending in both IFR and VFR conditions. The flight displays thought to be most often used were the airspeed indicator followed by the altimeter. For the monitoring gauges, engine RIW and the gas producer were ranked 1 and 2 respectively for frequency of use.