Enhanced vision for all-weather operations under NextGen

Recent research in Synthetic/Enhanced Vision technology is analyzed with respect to existing Category II/III performance and certification guidance. The goal is to start the development of performance-based vision systems technology requirements to support future all-weather operations and the NextGen goal of Equivalent Visual Operations. This work shows that existing criteria to operate in Category III weather and visibility are not directly applicable since, unlike today, the primary reference for maneuvering the airplane is based on what the pilot sees visually through the "vision system." New criteria are consequently needed. Several possible criteria are discussed, but more importantly, the factors associated with landing system performance using automatic and manual landings are delineated.

[1]  J. F. Creedon,et al.  Development and flight evaluation of automatic flare laws with improved touchdown dispersion , 1980 .

[2]  Christopher D. Wickens,et al.  Superimposition, Symbology, Visual Attention, and the Head-Up Display , 1997, Hum. Factors.

[3]  Stanley N. Roscoe,et al.  The effect of eliminating binocular and peripheral monocular visual cues upon airplane pilot performance in landing. , 1948 .

[4]  F. J. Drinkwater,et al.  A flight study of manual blind landing performance using closed circuit television displays , 1964 .

[5]  Richard L. Newman,et al.  Head-Up Displays: Designing the Way Ahead , 1995 .

[6]  David C. Foyle,et al.  Attentional Issues with Superimposed Symbology: Formats for Scene-Linked Displays , 1995 .

[7]  Sidney Dekker,et al.  HUD with a velocity (flight-path) vector reduces lateral error during landing in restricted visibility , 2007 .

[8]  Steven D. Young,et al.  Aviation Safety Program Integrated Intelligent Flight Deck Technical Plan Summary , 2006 .

[9]  Randall E. Bailey,et al.  Crew and display concepts evaluation for synthetic/enhanced vision systems , 2006, SPIE Defense + Commercial Sensing.

[10]  Randall E. Bailey,et al.  Simulation evaluation of synthetic vision as an enabling technology for equivalent visual operations , 2008, SPIE Defense + Commercial Sensing.

[11]  Anthony D. Andre,et al.  Taxiway Navigation and Situation Awareness (T-NASA) System: Problem, Design Philosophy, and Description of an Integrated Display Suite for Low-Visibility Airport Surface Operations , 1996 .

[12]  Christopher D. Wickens,et al.  Synthetic Vision Systems: The Effects of Guidance Symbology, Display Size, and Field of View , 2005, Hum. Factors.

[13]  T. Schnell,et al.  Terrain awareness & pathway guidance for head-up displays (tapguide); a simulator study of pilot performance , 2003, Digital Avionics Systems Conference, 2003. DASC '03. The 22nd.

[14]  Jorg Onno Entzinger,et al.  Visual Cues in Manual Landing of Airplanes , 2008 .

[15]  G. W. Webber.  All Weather Landing and Take‐Off , 1963 .

[16]  D. C. Bacon,et al.  Flight investigation of the landing task in a jet trainer with restricted fields of view , 1967 .

[17]  Randall E. Bailey,et al.  Fusion of Synthetic and Enhanced Vision for All-Weather Commercial Aviation Operations , 2007 .

[18]  Steven P. Williams,et al.  Simulation evaluation of equivalent vision technologies for aerospace operations , 2009, Defense + Commercial Sensing.

[19]  A. A. Lambregts.  AVOIDING THE PITFALLS IN AUTOMATIC LANDING CONTROL SYSTEM DESIGN , 1982 .

[20]  David M. Murphy,et al.  Flare Cue Symbology for Zero-Zero Weather Landings , 2006 .

[21]  Jorg Onno Entzinger,et al.  The Role of Binocular Cues in Human Pilot Landing Control , 2009 .

[22]  Randall E. Bailey,et al.  CFIT prevention using synthetic vision , 2003, SPIE Defense + Commercial Sensing.

[23]  J.J. Arthur,et al.  Evaluation of equivalent vision technologies for supersonic aircraft operations , 2009, 2009 IEEE/AIAA 28th Digital Avionics Systems Conference.

[24]  Randall E. Bailey,et al.  Flight testing an integrated synthetic vision system , 2005, SPIE Defense + Commercial Sensing.

[25]  Ming-Hui Wen,et al.  Comparison of head-up display (HUD) vs. head-down display (HDD): driving performance of commercial vehicle operators in Taiwan , 2004, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[26]  Randall E. Bailey,et al.  Synthetic Vision Enhances Situation Awareness and RNP Capabilities for Terrain-Challenged Approaches , 2003 .

[27]  Jennifer Crawford,et al.  A Review of the Perceptual and Cognitive Issues Associated With the Use of Head-Up Displays in Commercial Aviation , 2006 .

[28]  William D. Grantham,et al.  Comparison of flying qualities derived from in-flight and ground-based simulators for a jet-transport airplane for the approach and landing pilot tasks , 1989 .

[29]  Lawrence J. Prinzel,et al.  Head-Up Displays and Attention Capture , 2004 .

[30]  Jens Schiefele,et al.  Human factors flight trial analysis for 3D SVS: part II , 2005, SPIE Defense + Commercial Sensing.

[31]  Christopher D. Wickens,et al.  Conformal Symbology, Attention Shifts, and the Head-Up Display , 1994 .

[32]  K. Lemos,et al.  Synthetic vision systems: human performance assessment of the influence of terrain density and texture , 2003, Digital Avionics Systems Conference, 2003. DASC '03. The 22nd.