Transfer of Training from a Full-Flight Simulator Vs. a High-Level Flight-Training Device with a Dynamic Seat

Sparko, Andrea L.; Burki-Cohen, Judith S.; Go, Tiauw Hiong

doi:10.2514/6.2010-8218

Cited by 21 publications

(27 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In general, the advantages of simulator motion have not been confirmed in transfer-of-training studies for the type of motion offered by Level D full flight simulators [4,5]. Pilots take advantage of motion cues without needing specific training, and the differences in pilot performance and behavior are generally not operationally relevant [6]. On average, simulator motion seems to have a positive effect when combining results from various transfer-of-training studies in a single analysis [7].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The MPI CyberMotion Simulator: A Novel Research Platform to Investigate Human Control Behavior

Nieuwenhuizen¹,

Bülthoff²

2013

Journal of Computing Science and Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The MPI CyberMotion Simulator provides a unique motion platform, as it features an anthropomorphic robot with a large workspace, combined with an actuated cabin and a linear track for lateral movement. This paper introduces the simulator as a tool for studying human perception, and compares its characteristics to conventional Stewart platforms. Furthermore, an experimental evaluation is presented in which multimodal human control behavior is studied by identifying the visual and vestibular responses of participants in a roll-lateral helicopter hover task. The results show that the simulator motion allows participants to increase tracking performance by changing their control strategy, shifting from reliance on visual error perception to reliance on simulator motion cues. The MPI CyberMotion Simulator has proven to be a state-of-the-art motion simulator for psychophysical research to study humans with various experimental paradigms, ranging from passive perception experiments to active control tasks, such as driving a car or flying a helicopter.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The MPI CyberMotion Simulator: A Novel Research Platform to Investigate Human Control Behavior

Nieuwenhuizen¹,

Bülthoff²

2013

Journal of Computing Science and Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For the V 2 cut in Study 2, 32 motion-trained pilots actually had a slower reaction time, but only at the transfer stage, so it was probably due to fatigue (this was the only significant performance effect for the Study 2 32 V 2 cut). In the fourth study, 60 which replaced no-motion training in the FFS with training in the FFT with seat motion, FFS-trained pilots used larger pedal inputs than the FFT-trained pilots during training for the V 1 cut, but this did not result in any directional performance differences and, moreover, it did not transfer when both groups flew in the FFS. In fact, both groups of pilots improved their yaw and heading between training and transfer (and to the same degree), regardless of how they worked the pedal during training in the different simulators.…”

Section: Takeoffs With Engine Failurementioning

confidence: 99%

“…The FFT has a high-level visual system and dynamic seats to provide motion simulation; each seat is equipped with electric actuators to provide small-magnitude heave motion; loud speakers under the cockpit provide vibration cues. In this study, 60 low-experience pilots trained in either the FFT or an FFS simulating a small turboprop airplane, and then all pilots quasi-transferred to the FFS. Pilots flew V 1 and V 2 cuts, the ILS approach/landing, and the SSL (although, most of the SSL data was not analyzed/reported due to technical problems with data collection).…”

Section: Faa/volpe Center Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Given that so few relevant effects of motion were found across all three studies, a fourth study 60 evaluated the training effectiveness of an alternative motion system called the Full-Flight-Trainer-X TM (FFT-X, or FFT), which had been developed with reference to the earlier studies. The FFT has a high-level visual system and dynamic seats to provide motion simulation; each seat is equipped with electric actuators to provide small-magnitude heave motion; loud speakers under the cockpit provide vibration cues.…”

Section: Faa/volpe Center Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In all four studies, two groups of pilots were trained in the simulator -one group in an FFS with the motion on and the other in the same FFS with the motion off (or, in the case of the fourth study, 60 a training device with an alternative motion system). Both groups of pilots were then quasi-transferred to the FFS with the motion on -a stand-in for the airplane.…”

Section: Faa/volpe Center Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Flight Simulator Motion Literature Pertinent to Airline-Pilot Recurrent Training and Evaluation

Burki-Cohen¹,

Sparko²,

Bellman³

2011

AIAA Modeling and Simulation Technologies Conference

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There has been much debate over the years regarding the need for flight simulator motion for airline-pilot training and evaluation. From the intuitive perspective there is the dictum, "The airplane moves, so the simulator must move" -but intuition alone is not enough to make a valid case for requiring elaborate-and costly-motion systems for training and evaluation of airline pilots. The ultimate goal of training and checking-to produce and maintain highly-skilled pilots capable of ensuring a superior level of safety in both normal and abnormal flight operations-cannot be met without adequate resources available to all airlines world-wide. A big part of the motion debate is what resources are adequate-whether the current regulations specifying six-degree-of-freedom Stewart-motion platforms are appropriate or whether the regulations need to be modified; whether advanced-motion-system simulators, which more realistically simulate aircraft motion, are needed; or whether more flexible motion criteria opening the field for alternative motion stimulation would improve universal access to simulator training and thus benefit safety. While there has been much debate, the main issues regarding motion can be broken down into four main facets: 1) how the human perception system responds to airplane motion; 2) the limits of the hexapod-motion systems currently regulated for pilot training in accurately simulating airplane motion; 3) the opinions of aviation experts who experience the issue in the real training environment; and 4) empirical evidence on the necessity of physical motion systems for effective simulator training and checking to ensure transfer between simulator and airplane. This paper brings all of these aspects together by summarizing the literature pertinent to the simulator-motion debate. First, we discuss the extent to which humans' ability to perceive and appropriately respond to aircraft disturbances depends on visual motion, physical motion, or both. Second, current limitations in flight data availability for certain scenarios, as well as simulator hardware limitations, are discussed. Third, we summarize and respond to the published positions of several stakeholders. Fourth, a range of analytic and empirical work is summarized, from enhanced motion-feedback modeling to pilot-in-the-loop experiments, as well as meta-analytical work on the benefit of motion simulation on transfer of training to the airplane. This includes a synthesis of the Federal Aviation Administration/Volpe Center empirical studies to date. NomenclatureV 1 = takeoff decision speed; the minimum speed in the takeoff, following a failure of the critical engine, at which the pilot can continue the takeoff and achieve the required height above the takeoff surface within the takeoff distance V 2 = takeoff safety speed; a speed that will provide at least the gradient of climb required by the airplane certification rules with the critical engine inoperative V 1 /V 2 cut = engine failure at or above V 1 or V 2 , respectively, with continued takeo...

show abstract

The Shifting Realities of Performance Improvement: VR, AR, MR

Carl¹

2018

Perf. Improv.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Virtual, augmented, and mixed realities (VR, AR, MR) are beginning to influence human performance improvement, including learning. This issue introduces the work of three contributors who have worked in, planned, implemented, and researched realities. Terminology and concepts germane to designing realities are presented. Questions are raised regarding what the attributes of realities indicate for performance improvement and learning.

show abstract

Transfer of Training from a Full-Flight Simulator Vs. a High-Level Flight-Training Device with a Dynamic Seat

Cited by 21 publications

References 4 publications

The MPI CyberMotion Simulator: A Novel Research Platform to Investigate Human Control Behavior

The MPI CyberMotion Simulator: A Novel Research Platform to Investigate Human Control Behavior

Flight Simulator Motion Literature Pertinent to Airline-Pilot Recurrent Training and Evaluation

The Shifting Realities of Performance Improvement: VR, AR, MR

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About