An Experimental Comparison of Haptic and Automated Pilot Support Systems

External aids are required to increase safety and performance during the manual control of an aircraft. Automated systems allow to surpass the performance usually achieved by pilots. However, they suffer from several issues caused by pilot unawareness of the control command from the automation. Haptic aids can overcome these issues by showing their control command through forces on the control device. To investigate how the transparency of the haptic control action influences performance and pilot behavior, a quantitative comparison between haptic aids and automation is needed. An experiment was conducted in which pilots performed a compensatory tracking task with haptic aids and with automation. The haptic aid and the automation were designed to be equivalent when the pilot was out-of-the-loop, i.e., to provide the same control command. Pilot performance and control effort were then evaluated with pilots in-the-loop and contrasted to a baseline condition without external aids. The haptic system allowed pilots to improve performance compared with the baseline condition. However, automation outperformed the other two conditions. Pilots control effort was reduced by the haptic aid and the automation in a similar way. In addition, the pilot open-loop response was estimated with a non-parametric estimation method. Changes in the pilot response were observed in terms of increased crossover frequency with automation, and decreased neuromuscular peak with haptics.

[1]  Christopher D. Wickens,et al.  Situation Awareness: Review of Mica Endsley's 1995 Articles on Situation Awareness Theory and Measurement , 2008, Hum. Factors.

[2]  Max Mulder,et al.  Haptic gas pedal feedback for active car-following support , 2007 .

[3]  M. Mulder,et al.  Motivation for continuous haptic gas pedal feedback to support car following , 2008, 2008 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium.

[4]  D A Norman,et al.  The 'problem' with automation: inappropriate feedback and interaction, not 'over-automation'. , 1990, Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences.

[5]  Duane T. McRuer,et al.  Investigation of limb-side stick dynamic interaction with roll controll , 1987 .

[6]  D H Weir,et al.  Theory of manual vehicular control. , 1969, Ergonomics.

[7]  Frans C. T. van der Helm,et al.  Measuring Neuromuscular Control Dynamics During Car Following With Continuous Haptic Feedback , 2011, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part B (Cybernetics).

[8]  Max Mulder,et al.  Effects of Peripheral Visual and Physical Motion Cues in Roll-Axis Tracking Tasks , 2008 .

[9]  Ezra S. Krendel,et al.  Mathematical Models of Human Pilot Behavior , 1974 .

[10]  David B. Kaber,et al.  The effects of level of automation and adaptive automation on human performance, situation awareness and workload in a dynamic control task , 2004 .

[11]  Mica R. Endsley,et al.  The Out-of-the-Loop Performance Problem and Level of Control in Automation , 1995, Hum. Factors.

[12]  René van Paassen,et al.  Haptic interface in UAV tele-operation using force-stiffness feedback , 2009, 2009 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics.

[13]  Mark Mulder,et al.  Exploring the Dimensions of Haptic Feedback Support in Manual Control , 2009, J. Comput. Inf. Sci. Eng..

[14]  David E. Cox,et al.  The Naturalistic Flight Deck System: An Integrated System Concept for Improved Single-Pilot Operations , 2007 .

[15]  Heinrich H. Bülthoff,et al.  Evaluation of Direct and Indirect Haptic Aiding in an Obstacle Avoidance Task for Tele-Operated Systems , 2011 .

[16]  Charles E. Billings,et al.  Human-centered aircraft automation: A concept and guidelines , 1991 .

[17]  Heinrich H. Bülthoff,et al.  A comparison of Direct and Indirect Haptic Aiding for Remotely Piloted Vehicles , 2010, 19th International Symposium in Robot and Human Interactive Communication.

[18]  A. Van Lunteren,et al.  Identification of human operator describing function models with one or two inputs in closed loop systems , 1979 .

[19]  Max Mulder,et al.  Modeling Wide-Frequency-Range Pilot Equalization for Control of Aircraft Pitch Dynamics , 2011 .

[20]  Max Mulder,et al.  New Types of Target Inputs for Multi-Modal Pilot Model Identification , 2008 .

[21]  Mark Mulder,et al.  Haptic shared control: smoothly shifting control authority? , 2012, Cognition, Technology & Work.

[22]  Donald A. Norman,et al.  The 'problem' of automation: inappropriate feedback and interaction , 1990 .

[23]  Lisanne Bainbridge,et al.  Ironies of automation , 1982, Autom..

[24]  Charles E. Billings,et al.  Aviation Automation: The Search for A Human-centered Approach , 1996 .

[25]  Rik Pintelon,et al.  System Identification: A Frequency Domain Approach , 2012 .

[26]  Duane T. McRuer,et al.  A Review of Quasi-Linear Pilot Models , 1967 .

[27]  Joost Venrooij,et al.  Multi-loop Pilot Behaviour Identication in Response to Simultaneous Visual and Haptic Stimuli , 2012 .

[28]  Amy R. Pritchett.  REVIEWING THE ROLE OF COCKPIT ALERTING SYSTEMS , 2001 .

[29]  Kenneth H. Goodrich,et al.  Piloted Evaluation of the H-Mode, a Variable Autonomy Control System, in Motion-Based Simulation , 2008 .

[30]  Mica R. Endsley,et al.  Toward a Theory of Situation Awareness in Dynamic Systems , 1995, Hum. Factors.

[31]  Kenneth H. Goodrich,et al.  Haptic-Multimodal Flight Control System Update , 2011 .

[32]  Mark Mulder,et al.  Sharing Control With Haptics , 2012, Hum. Factors.

[33]  Peter E. Wellstead.  Non-parametric methods of system identification , 1981, Autom..

[34]  M Mulder,et al.  Haptic gas pedal feedback , 2008, Ergonomics.