Abstract
Spatial disorientation (SD) poses a serious threat to flight safety. A pilot’s gaze behaviour that characterizes his/her visual perception and attention determines success in dealing with this phenomenon. Regardless of a pilot’s experience or proficiency, sensory illusions can lead to differences between instrument indications and what the pilot “feels”. Understanding how simulator-induced SD cues affect gaze behaviour in pilots and non-pilots is our interest and was addressed as the aim of this research. Using a SD flight simulator, 40 male (20 military pilots; 20 non-pilots) were exposed to 12 flight sequences. We measured and compared subjects’ gaze behaviour and flight performance in response to three visual and three motion illusions across two groups (pilots vs. non-pilots) and flight type (non-SD vs. SD flight). From the applied SD cues only in three illusions (false horizon, somatogyral, and Coriolis), the difference in visual attention distribution in comparison with non-SD flight was observed. There was no interaction of expertise and flight type. The pilots had shorter mean fixation time than non-pilots, except for landings. For the same SD flight profiles, we found the changes of the subjects’ gaze behaviour and flight performance. The SD cues affect both the pilots and non-pilots in the same way; therefore, being an expert in piloting aircraft does not reduce the susceptibility of the pilot to loss of their spatial orientation. Eye-tracking technology could be useful in the analysis of the pilots’ attention and better understanding and training of pilots’ flight performance during SD events.
Highlights
Spatial navigation during flight is a cognitively complex and demanding task (Dahlstrom and Nahlinder 2009) that requires continuous monitoring of system parameters and the environment (Colvin et al 2005)
Similar to Cheung and Hofer (2003), we showed that the Coriolis illusion (RBT profile) affects both piloting and visual scanning as participants looked less at the ALT and airspeed indicator (ASI) and more at the attitude director indicator/artificial horizon (ADI) compared to the Right banked turn (RBT) profile with nonSD flight
We did not notice an effect of Spatial disorientation (SD) cues or an interaction with oculomotor indicators for the circle-to-land procedure (C-T-LP) profile, but we found an effect of expertise on gaze distribution over the areas of interest (AOIs), as pilots devoted more time to OTW and ASI indicators, while non-pilots devoted more time to ADI
Summary
Spatial navigation during flight is a cognitively complex and demanding task (Dahlstrom and Nahlinder 2009) that requires continuous monitoring of system parameters and the environment (Colvin et al 2005). Disoriented pilots are often not aware of their orientation error and, upon recognising that a conflict exists, often believe a flight instrument to be in error. When flying without reliable external attitude or motion cues, only the conscious mind can correctly determine the correct orientation through the use of focal vision and attention to flight instruments. It is possible to establish spatial orientation through aircraft instrumentation and displays indirectly, orientation comes at a high cognitive demand. This high cognitive and attention demand on the pilot competes with other mission-specific demands such as decision-making and risk assessment for different courses of actions
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
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 callDisclaimer: 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.
