Design and evaluation of the objective motion cueing test and criterion

Since the introduction of hexapod-type motion systems for flight simulation in the 1970s, Motion Drive Algorithm tuning has been primarily based on the subjective judgement of experienced pilots. This subjective method is often not transparent and often leads to ambiguous process of adjustment of the tuning parameters. Consequently, there are large variations in the motion cueing characteristics of flight training devices, a variability that subsequently raises questions regarding the value of motion cueing for pilot training itself. The third revision of ICAO 9625 Manual of Criteria for the Qualification of Flight Simulation Training Devices offered the opportunity to take a closer look at simulator motion cueing requirements in general. This led to the concept of the objective motion cueing test (OMCT), which was reported in 2006. After the method was evaluated on three research flight simulators, the results were published in 2007, demonstrating a larger spread in dynamic behaviour of cueing algorithms than expected. After discussions with the simulator industry regarding the form and methodology of the OMCT, an evaluation of the test in cooperation with the industry started in 2011. This led to the final form of the OMCT and cueing parameter criterion for the in-flight mode of transport aircraft. This paper describes the OMCT, the evaluation results and the criterion.

[1]  Jeffery A. Schroeder,et al.  Transfer of Training on the Vertical Motion Simulator , 2014 .

[2]  L. D. Reid,et al.  Flight simulation motion-base drive algorithms: part 1. Developing and testing equations , 1985 .

[3]  J. B. Sinacori.  The determination of some requirements for a helicopter flight research simulation facility , 1977 .

[4]  S. F. Schmidt,et al.  Motion drive signals for piloted flight simulators , 1970 .

[5]  Sunjoo K. Advani,et al.  Integrated Design of the Motion Cueing System for a Wright Flyer Simulator , 2005 .

[6]  L. R. Young,et al.  Some effects of motion cues on manual tracking. , 1967 .

[7]  Sunjoo K. Advani,et al.  Integrated design of flight simulator motion cueing systems , 2005, The Aeronautical Journal (1968).

[8]  Joost C. F. de Winter,et al.  Training Effectiveness of Whole Body Flight Simulator Motion: A Comprehensive Meta-Analysis , 2012 .

[9]  Jeffery A. Schroeder,et al.  Helicopter flight simulation motion platform requirements , 1998 .

[10]  Umut Durak,et al.  Objective Motion Cueing Test – Experiences of a New User , 2014 .

[11]  Sunjoo K. Advani,et al.  Revising Civil Simulator Standards - An Opportunity for Technological Pull , 2006 .

[12]  R. V. Parrish,et al.  Motion software for a synergistic six-degree-of-freedom motion base , 1973 .

[13]  R.J.A.W. Hosman,et al.  Objective Motion Fidelity Qualification in Flight Training Simulators , 2007 .

[14]  Laurence R. Young,et al.  Motion Cues in Man-Vehicle Control Effects of Roll-Motion Cues on Human Operator's Behavior in Compensatory Systems with Disturbance Inputs , 1968 .

[15]  Susan Nelson,et al.  Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Title: Part 60—Flight Simulation Device Initial and Continuing Qualification and Use. Type of Request: Extension without , 2009 .

[16]  R.J.A.W. Hosman,et al.  Pilot's Perception and Control of Aircraft Motions , 1998 .

[17]  F R Alex,et al.  Experiments and a model for pilot dynamics with visual and motion inputs. NASA CR-1325. , 1969, NASA contractor report. NASA CR. United States. National Aeronautics and Space Administration.