Cognitive Issues Related to Advanced Cockpit Displays: Supporting the Transition between Internal and External Guidance

Abstract

Public reporting burden for the collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to a penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number. AbstractA critical issue in military aviation is the pilot's ability to transition between primarily internal (head-down, instrument-driven) and external (head-up, out of the cockpit) guidance. Experimental cockpit displays were designed and tested for how well they might support this transition phase for military pilots performing time-critical air-to-ground targeting missions such as Forward Air Control and Close Air Support. Twelve subjects performed three sets of experiments using a flight simulator (with simulated heads-up display in the forward field of view) connected to a moving-map display. The experiments were designed to help explain which visual cues in the displays might best help a pilot 1) navigate to a given target area (the "flight guidance" phase of a mission) and 2) search for, find and identify a target (the "target acquisition" phase).In one experiment, subjects flew a mission using three different versions of a plan-view movingmap display: 1) a detailed, topographic map with high-contrast mission overlays, 2) the map only, and 3) the overlays only. Overall, both flight guidance and target acquisition performance were best and workload was lowest while using the simplest, overlays-only display; performance and workload were equivalent or worse with the combination display, and significantly worse with the map-only display. These results suggest that the simplest possible display, portraying only the necessary information, is optimal. The distraction of display clutter often outweighs the potential benefits of additional information, especially when the display must support a timecritical task such as air-to-ground targeting.In all experiments, subjects demonstrated an increased reliance on internal cues (such as the moving-map and other flight instrumentation) during flight guidance and shifted their attention to the external view outside their virtual cockpit during target acquisition. If the target had moved from its expected location, subjects continued switching focus between internal and external cues (a process known as navigational checking) to correlate the various sources of information and find the target.

Nextgen flow corridors initial design, procedures, and display functionalities

“…However, Prinzel et al (2006) demonstrated that 3D presentation in conjunction with 2D displays provided an increase in situational awareness and allowed pilots to avoid certain hazardous terrain [22]. Lohrenz (2003) demonstrated that performance and workload are optimal when the cockpit displays were of the simplest design and contained only the necessary information required [23].…”

Effects of navigation method on workload and performance in simulated high-speed ship navigation

“…Course deviation. Course deviation was assessed by calculating the cross-track error, or XTE (Lohrenz, 2003). The XTE is the perpendicular distance between the participants' planned route and the actual track from the simulator GPS receiver.…”

Developing a library of display effects on pilot performance

“…Overlaid versus separate databases for focused tasks. An analysis of data from the aviation and military domains reveals that performance time increases with overlaid display formats when used for focused attention tasks (Kroft & Wickens, 2001;Lohrenz, 2003;Wickens, Kroft, & Yeh, 2000). Kroft and Wickens (2001) measured reaction times of student pilots to questions related to one of two overlaid databases on a "small integrated display"; one domain consisted of navigational ground features (e.g., roads, power lines, bridges), and the other consisted of air hazards (a composite display of weather and air traffic) ( Figure A4).…”

“…Overlaid and separate display formats; displays used in an experiment by Kroft and Wickens (2001). In a low-fidelity simulation, Lohrenz (2003) also examined the effects of display overlay by measuring target acquisition times by participants with either a pilot's license or flight simulator experience, for targets in a military aviation environment.…”

“…A B Figure A5. Overlaid and separate display formats; displays used in an experiment by Lohrenz (2003). by ~0.9 s, equal to a 75% relative percentage time cost for the display with more overlaid databases.…”