Abstract

Twenty-four certified flight instructors were required to fly a series of curved, step-down approaches while detecting changes to surrounding traffic aircraft and weather cell icons on two integrated hazard display (IHD) formats (2D coplanar and split-screen) under varying workload levels. Generally, it appears that the 2D coplanar IHD was better in supporting flightpath tracking and change detection performance when compared to a split-screen display. Pilots exhibited superior flightpath tracking (in the vertical dimension, and under low workload) when using the 2D coplanar IHD, although this effect was mitigated by increasing workload such that tracking deteriorated faster with the 2D coplanar than the split-screen display. The spawned 3D cost of diminished size with distance from ownship played a role in change detection response time—pilots were slower (particularly in detecting traffic aircraft changes) with the split-screen compared to the 2D coplanar IHD. These effects will be discussed within the context of visual scanning measures.

Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.