Dynamic Tunnel Usability Study: Format Recommendations for Synthetic Vision System Primary Flight Displays

A usability study evaluating dynamic tunnel concepts has been completed under the Aviation Safety and Security Program, Synthetic Vision Systems Project. The usability study was conducted in the Visual Imaging Simulator for Transport Aircraft Systems (VISTAS) III simulator in the form of questionnaires and pilot-in-the-loop simulation sessions. Twelve commercial pilots participated in the study to determine their preferences via paired comparisons and subjective rankings regarding the color, line thickness and sensitivity of the dynamic tunnel. The results of the study showed that color was not significant in pilot preference paired comparisons or in pilot rankings. Line thickness was significant for both pilot preference paired comparisons and in pilot rankings. The preferred line/halo thickness combination was a line width of 3 pixels and a halo of 4 pixels. Finally, pilots were asked their preference for the current dynamic tunnel compared to a less sensitive dynamic tunnel. The current dynamic tunnel constantly gives feedback to the pilot with regard to path error while the less sensitive tunnel only changes as the path error approaches the edges of the tunnel. The tunnel sensitivity comparison results were not statistically significant.

[1]  Randall E. Bailey,et al.  Pathway concepts experiment for head-down synthetic vision displays , 2004, SPIE Defense + Commercial Sensing.

[2]  Jarvis J. Arthur,et al.  Synthetic Vision CFIT Experiments for GA and Commercial Aircraft: “A Picture is Worth a Thousand Lives” , 2003 .

[3]  James A. Jeske,et al.  Flight Path Synthesis and HUD Scaling for V/STOL Terminal Area Operations , 1995 .

[4]  Earl L. Wiener.  Controlled Flight into Terrain Accidents: System-Induced Errors , 1977 .

[5]  Jarvis J. Arthur,et al.  The Efficacy of Head-Down and Head-Up Synthetic Vision Display Concepts for Retro- and Forward-Fit of Commercial Aircraft , 2004 .

[6]  Kevin B. Bennett,et al.  When Automation Fails . . . , 1994 .

[7]  Dave Shreiner.  OpenGL programming guide , 2013 .

[8]  Randall E. Bailey,et al.  Nasa Synthetic Vision Ege Flight Test , 2002 .

[9]  Kevin W. Williams,et al.  Impact of Aviation Highway-in-the-Sky Displays on Pilot Situation Awareness , 2002, Hum. Factors.

[10]  Christopher D. Wickens,et al.  Two- and Three-Dimensional Displays for Aviation: A Theoretical and Empirical Comparison , 1993 .

[11]  Randall E. Bailey,et al.  Flight Simulator Evaluation of Synthetic Vision Display Concepts to Prevent Controlled Flight Into Terrain (CFIT) , 2004 .

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

[13]  Yongjin Kwon,et al.  Improved Flight Technical Performance in Flight Decks Equipped With Synthetic Vision Information System Displays , 2004 .

[14]  J Pollet.  [Crow's feet]. , 1973, Annales de chirurgie plastique.

[15]  Lynda J. Kramer,et al.  Flight Test Comparison of Synthetic Vision Display Concepts at Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport , 2003 .

[16]  M C Waller,et al.  CONCEPT OF OPERATIONS FOR COMMERCIAL AND BUSINESS AIRCRAFT SYNTHETIC VISION SYSTEMS , 2001 .

[17]  E. Theunissen.  Integrated design of a man-machine interface for 4-D navigation , 1997 .

[18]  Randall E. Bailey,et al.  Advanced Pathway Guidance Evaluations on a Synthetic Vision Head-Up Display , 2005 .