A Cybernetic Approach to Assess Flight Simulator Fidelity

This paper presents the results of an experiment in which a cybernetic approach has been used to investigate the effect of motion filter setting changes and display type on simulator fidelity. Pilot control behavior, pilot remnant, open loop behavior, open loop performance and subjective evaluations in a real jet-aircraft were compared with that in a high-fidelity motion base simulator. The task studied was a pitch-tracking following task. Peripheral information was omitted from the experiment. The results from the flight tests, in the first phase of the experiment, were used to tune and validate simulator models and settings for the simulator tests in the second phase of the experiment. These flight test results are also used as a base-line condition to which the results from the simulator tests are compared. Two types of displays were used in the experiment, a compensatory and pursuit display, and in the simulator, a set of nine different motion filter settings. Results show only slight differences in pilot control behavior and open loop behavior between the aircraft and the simulator, between the different motion filter settings in the simulator, and between the two display types used. A more significant effect is found on the pilot injected noise level and consequently on the open loop performance. Analytical biases and variances are calculated for the estimated open loop describing functions. The applied cybernetic approach has provided objective and accurate results, which makes this technique suitable for more extensive research on simulator fidelity in the future.

[1]  Duane T. McRuer.  HUMAN PILOT DYNAMICS IN COMPENSATORY SYSTEMS , 1965 .

[2]  R A Hess,et al.  Modeling human pilot cue utilization with applications to simulator fidelity assessment. , 2000, Journal of aircraft.

[3]  Jan Albert Mulder,et al.  OPTIMISATION OF THE SIMONA RESEARCH SIMULATOR'S MOTION FILTER SETTINGS FOR HANDLING QUALITIES EXPERIMENTS , 2003 .

[4]  Max Mulder,et al.  Using the SIMONA Research Simulator for Human-machine Interaction Research , 2003 .

[5]  Ronald A. Hess,et al.  Computer-Aided Assessment of Flight Simulator Fidelity , 2003 .

[6]  Tiauw Hiong Go,et al.  Simulator Fidelity: The Effect of Platform Motion , 2000 .

[7]  Ronald A. Hess,et al.  FLIGHT SIMULATOR FIDELITY ASSESSMENT IN A ROTORCRAFT LATERAL TRANSLATION MANEUVER , 1993 .

[8]  Jens Rasmussen,et al.  Skills, rules, and knowledge; signals, signs, and symbols, and other distinctions in human performance models , 1983, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics.

[9]  H. A. Mooij,et al.  Human pilot describing function, remnant and associated information for pitch attitude control: in flight and ground-based tracking experiments , 1975 .

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

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

[12]  Tiauw Hiong Go,et al.  FLIGHT SIMULATOR FIDELITY CONSIDERATIONS FOR TOTAL AIR LINE PILOT TRAINING AND EVALUATION , 2001 .

[13]  Ronald A. Hess.  Model for human use of motion cues in vehicular control , 1990 .

[14]  H. J. Smith,et al.  Human transfer characteristics in flight and ground simulation for a roll tracking task , 1969 .

[15]  J. V. D. Vaart,et al.  Modelling of perception and action in compensatory manual control tasks , 1992 .

[16]  Boding Zhang,et al.  How to consider simulation fidelity and validity for an engineering simulator , 1993 .

[17]  Ronald A. Hess,et al.  Assessment of Flight Simulator Fidelity in Multiaxis Tasks Including Visual Cue Quality , 2001 .

[18]  Arnab Lahiri,et al.  Challenges to Assessment of Flight Simulators- the Standards and the Role of the Regulatory Bodies , 2002 .

[19]  Ronald A. Hess,et al.  Computer-Aided Assessment of Flight Simulator Fidelity , 2002 .

[20]  Ronald A. Hess,et al.  Closed-loop assessment of flight simulator fidelity , 1991 .