Methods for Characterizing Rotorcraft Pilot Strategy and Handling Qualities in the Shipboard Environment

The present work reports on analysis improvements applied to previous research in handling qualities for the shipboard environment. The data were collected from six test pilot instructors at the U.S. Naval Test Pilot School, each of whom has extensive experience in the shipboard environment. Three tasks, one land-based and two sea-based, were performed to investigate how pilot workload varies with visual scene and control response type. There is no wind or ship motion, therefore the present study only provides insight into the visual cueing differences between the land-based and ship-based tasks. The primary data analysis consisted of pilot assigned handling qualities ratings, approach profile, pilot control input, and eye tracker data. These data, particularly the variation in these data over the course of a given maneuver, reveal insight to the pilot-vehicle system beneficial to the understanding of maritime operations. Key results include the following: (i) pilots use a combination of foveal and peripheral vision in order to gain a sense of position and closure to the landing area, (ii) the land-based approach, with its richer near-field cues and two-dimensional ship profile, is fundamentally different from the shipboard approach tasks, and (iii) optical tau (i.e., “taudot”) analysis provides an impetus to separate the maritime approach and maritime hover into two different tasks.

[1]  William,et al.  Brown-Out Symbology Simulation (BOSS) on the NASA Ames Vertical Motion Simulator , 2008 .

[2]  David G. Mitchell,et al.  Rotorcraft Handling Qualities for Shipboard Operations , 2009 .

[3]  Joseph F. Horn,et al.  Simulation Testing of Advanced Response Types for Ship-Based Rotorcraft , 2014 .

[4]  George E. Cooper,et al.  Handling qualities and pilot evaluation , 1986 .

[5]  John Tritschler,et al.  Use of Time-Frequency Representations for Interpreting Handling Qualities Flight Test Data , 2016 .

[6]  William Gray,et al.  Handling Qualities Evaluation at the USAF Test Pilot School , 2009 .

[7]  Arthur Gubbels,et al.  CH-53K Control Laws: Risk Reduction Flight Testing , 2011 .

[8]  R S Kennedy,et al.  AN ANALYSIS OF VISUAL TASKS IN HELICOPTER SHIPBOARD LANDING , 1985 .

[9]  Edmund J. Field,et al.  Appraisal of Several Pilot Control Activity Measures , 2005 .

[10]  Gareth D. Padfield,et al.  The tau of flight control , 2011, The Aeronautical Journal (1968).

[11]  Gareth D. Padfield,et al.  How do helicopter pilots know when to stop, turn or pull up? , 2001 .

[12]  David H. Klyde,et al.  Power Frequency: A Metric for Analyzing Pilot-in-the-Loop Flying Tasks , 2012 .

[13]  R R Mourant,et al.  Mapping Eye-Movement Patterns to the Visual Scene in Driving: An Exploratory Study1 , 1970, Human factors.

[14]  M. Negrin,et al.  Superimposed perspective visual cues for helicopter hovering above amoving ship deck , 1988 .

[15]  C. H. Paulk,et al.  Evaluation of control and display configurations for helicopter shipboard operations , 1983 .