Trade-Offs in Synthetic Vision System Display Resolution, Field of Regard, Terrain Data Density, Texture, and Shading During Off-Path Operations

Schnell, Thomas; Keller, M.; Etherington, Timothy J.

doi:10.1080/10508410802597390

Cited by 9 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…That is, a perspective view is biased due to perspective distortions, causing pilots to make judgment errors regarding the relative location, height, and ultimately the avoidance of terrain obstacles [3,5]. To mitigate these issues, the SVS community has explored solutions such as terrain coloring to indicate high-elevated areas, using high-resolution textures to increase speed perception and judgment of distances [6], and optimal field-of-view settings to reduce spatial biases [4,6].…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Design and Simulator Evaluation of an Ecological Synthetic Vision Display

Borst

Mulder

Paassen

2010

Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A synthetic vision display is generally believed to support pilot terrain awareness. Many studies have shown, however, that the bias in perspective views can cause pilots to make judgment errors regarding the relative location, height, and ultimately the avoidance of terrain obstacles. Therefore, alerting systems are required to keep pilots at safe distances from the terrain. These systems provide explicit guidance commands to circumvent terrain conflicts, which is far from optimal regarding pilot terrain awareness as it fails to present the rationale of the terrain separation problem. Consequently, this can affect the trust in and the reliance on these systems and pose a potential safety risk, especially in events or situations unfamiliar to the alerting system. This paper presents the design and evaluation of an extension to a synthetic vision display that aims to make the constraints of the alerting automation more transparent in order to help pilots better understand why, how, and when they should act. A pilot-in-the-loop experiment, using 16 glass-cockpit pilots in a fixed-based flight simulator, showed that the constraint-based overlays indeed improved the overall pilot terrain awareness compared to a command-based display. The decision-making only improved in the unanticipated events introduced in the experiment. The utility of the energy angle was found to be important for recognizing the offnormal events and to prevent terrain crashes. However, the pilot response time, flight safety in terms of low-altitude flying, and pilot workload are better when using the command display. This indicates that a last-resort alerting and advisory system would still be required in operations at the periphery of safe system performance. Nomenclatureto-maneuver, m D P = pull-up/push-over distance, m dt = time step, s E kin = kinetic energy, Joule E pot = potential energy, Joule E tot = total energy, Joule g = gravitational acceleration, m=s 2 H = altitude, m H R = radio altitude, m H T = terrain height, m LB, RB = left and right heading constraints, n z = normal acceleration R P = pull-up radius, m R T = turn radius, m T = thrust force, N T L = look-ahead time, s T R = reaction time, m T = time-to-radius, s T = u-turn time, s V a = aerodynamic velocity, m=s V k = kinematic velocity, m=s V w = wind velocity, m=s W = weight, N X, Y = lateral positions, m = vertical flight-path angle, rad E = energy angle, rad M = maneuver angle, rad T = terrain angle, rad = roll lag-time constant, s = roll angle, rad = track angle, rad = heading angle, rad Subscripts a = aerodynamic C = collision k = kinematic min, max = minimum, maximum s, sn = specific w = wind Superscripts OC = optimum climb OG = optimum glide

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Design and Simulator Evaluation of an Ecological Synthetic Vision Display

Borst

Mulder

Paassen

2010

Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As we discussed in the introduction, there are other properties of perspective displays that can impact compression rates. These include display size, display resolution, other GFOVs, as well as different displayed trajectories and camera orientations [8,9,22,[26][27][28][29]. Given that the results presented here suggest that compression rates can be used to explain judgment biases that manifest for both between-and within-display differences, they should be able to explain the biases seen in all of these studies.…”

Section: E Other Display Considerationsmentioning

confidence: 94%

“…There were seven textures used in the experiment and two GFOVs (30 • and 60 • ). It is important to note that different terrain textures can contain different depth cues and can thus have a significant impact on the perception of spatial quantities [18,22]. However, the purpose of the work presented here was to investigate the impact of compression rates on human spatial judgments.…”

Section: Independent Variablesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We know from Bolton and Bass [19] and the extended SVS literature [8,9,22,30] that terrain texture can impact human spatial perception of quantities shown in SVS displays. Further, wireframes can be used to highlight important elements (such as runways or flightpaths) in SVS displays and can be set to convey different spatial information [7].…”

Section: E Other Display Considerationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Compression Rates and Spatial Judgment Biases Made from Synthetic Vision Perspective Displays

Wei

Bolton

2017

Journal of Aerospace Information Systems

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this work we investigated the relationship between error in human spatial judgments made from perspective displays with the compression rates used to represent the judged spatial quantities. Twodimensional perspective displays are often used to represent 3D information to humans. Such displays can use different compression rates (actual distance conveyed per unit of screen distance) for identical spatial quantities. We used an existing data set in which spatial judgments (relative distance, angle, and elevation) were made about the relative location of a terrain point shown on a simulated aircraft synthetic vision systems display. We then measured the correlations between compression rates and associated judgment error. Correlations were computed for average participant judgments as well as for each participant from which an average correlation was computed. Significant negative correlations were found between compression rates and judgment error for all of the analyzed spatial judgments. These were particularly strong for relative distance judgment error. There were noticeable differences between the correlations of averages and the associated average correlations. Our results indicate that compression rates do bias the analyzed spatial judgments. However, there are significant individual differences in how the compression rates appear to impact judgment error.

show abstract

“…NASA and others have developed and shown that SVS technologies provide significant improvements in terrain awareness and reductions for the potential of Controlled-Flight-Into-Terrain incidents/accidents, 3,4 improvements in flight technical error to meet Required Navigation Performance criteria, [7][8][9] and improvements in situation awareness without increased workload compared to current generation cockpit technologies. [10][11][12] As such, SVS, often displayed on a head-down display (HDD), is emerging as standard equipage for Part 23 and Part 25 flight decks even though, to date, no operational credit is obtained from equipage.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing impact of dual sensor enhanced flight vision systems on departure performance

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Synthetic Vision (SV) and Enhanced Flight Vision Systems (EFVS) may serve as game-changing technologies to meet the challenges of the Next Generation Air Transportation System and the envisioned Equivalent Visual Operations (EVO) concept -that is, the ability to achieve the safety and operational tempos of current-day Visual Flight Rules operations irrespective of the weather and visibility conditions. One significant obstacle lies in the definition of required equipage on the aircraft and on the airport to enable the EVO concept objective. A motion-base simulator experiment was conducted to evaluate the operational feasibility and pilot workload of conducting departures and approaches on runways without centerline lighting in visibility as low as 300 feet runway visual range (RVR) by use of onboard vision system technologies on a Head-Up Display (HUD) without need or reliance on natural vision. Twelve crews evaluated two methods of combining dual sensor (millimeter wave radar and forward looking infrared) EFVS imagery on pilot-flying and pilotmonitoring HUDs. In addition, the impact of adding SV to the dual sensor EFVS imagery on crew flight performance and workload was assessed. Using EFVS concepts during 300 RVR terminal operations on runways without centerline lighting appears feasible as all EFVS concepts had equivalent (or better) departure performance and landing rollout performance, without any workload penalty, than those flown with a conventional HUD to runways having centerline lighting. Adding SV imagery to EFVS concepts provided situation awareness improvements but no discernible improvements in flight path maintenance.

show abstract

Trade-Offs in Synthetic Vision System Display Resolution, Field of Regard, Terrain Data Density, Texture, and Shading During Off-Path Operations

Cited by 9 publications

References 8 publications

Design and Simulator Evaluation of an Ecological Synthetic Vision Display

Design and Simulator Evaluation of an Ecological Synthetic Vision Display

Compression Rates and Spatial Judgment Biases Made from Synthetic Vision Perspective Displays

Assessing impact of dual sensor enhanced flight vision systems on departure performance

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About