Pathway HUDs: Are They Viable?

Abstract

We describe two experiments that examine 3D pathway displays in a head-up location for aircraft landing and taxi. We address both guidance performance and pilot strategies in dividing, focusing, and allocating attention between flight path information and event monitoring. In Experiment 1 the 3D pathway head-up display (HUD) was compared with a conventional 2D HUD. The former was found to produce better guidance, with few costs to event detection. Some evidence was provided that attentional tunneling of the pathway HUD inhibits the detection of unexpected traffic events. In Experiment 2, the pathway display was compared in a head-up versus a head-down location. Excellent guidance was achieved in both locations. A slight HUD cost for vertical tracking in the air was offset by a HUD benefit for event detection and for lateral tracking during taxi (i.e., on the ground). The results of both experiments are interpreted within the framework of object- and space-based theories of visual attention and point to the conclusion that pathway HUDs combine the independent advantages of pathways and HUDs, particularly during ground operations. Actual or potential applications include understanding the costs and benefits of positioning a 3D pathway display in a head-up location.

Effects of Primary Flight Symbology on Workload and Situation Awareness in a Head-Up Synthetic Vision Display

“…However, with respect to flight technical error, the results of this study replicate those of previous comparisons between traditional flight directors and pathway displays both in simulation and in flight [10,16]. In comparison to standard 2D flight directors, pilots are much better at maintaining a commanded path when using a pathway display and it seems likely that this effect is magnified with increasing path complexity.…”

“…While these comments would support a hypothesis of cognitive capture (or attentional tunneling) associated with the pathway, they are somewhat belied by the runway incursion results: none of the incorrect responses to the runway incursion occurred in the pathway condition. Rather, the results support an alternate hypothesis that -even for an unexpected event -the conformal nature of pathway HUD symbology (especially in combination with a synthetic runway outline) and its head-up location facilitate SA, at least relative to events in the far domain near to or overlaid by the symbology [16,17].…”

“…Some authors report no difference in situation awareness on-path versus off-path [3], while others report a decrease in awareness of events and information not contained in the synthetic vision display [11,12]. To date, most of these studies have been done with head-down displays and the differences found (or not found) seem to be highly task-dependent (but see Fadden et al [16]). One purpose of the current study was to see whether using a head-up display for synthetic vision, and presumably focusing pilots' attention head-up rather than head-down would alleviate such concerns.…”

Workload Demands of Remotely Piloted Vehicle Supervision and Control: (1) Single Vehicle Performance

“…This disruption is not just in the form of a minor delay, but rather is a complete absence of noticing. That is, attention appears to be diverted for a long enough time that the visual evidence of the event (SF or TOO) is gone, by the time attention is returned, thereby reflecting a sort of cognitive tunneling or attentional fixation (Fadden, Ververs, & Wickens, 2001). Our analysis of the auditory condition below helps establish that it may be the cognitive components that are responsible.…”

“…These are circumstances that (a) lead the operator to focus attention only on one task (single channel behavior), and (b) leave concurrent tasks neglected or unattended for a non-optimally long period of time; that is, the operator does not switch attention back to the unattended task, as frequently as he or she should, given its priority or importance (Moray & Rotenberg, 1989;Fadden, Ververs, & Wickens, 2001;Kerstholtz, Passenier, Houttuin, & Schuffel, 1996).…”