Thirty-two pilot subjects flew instrument approaches in a visually high-fidelity simulator. Location of flight symbology was manipulated while controlling for optical distance and symbology format. Subjects were assigned to one of two symbology sets, conformal or non-conformal. Each subject flew half of the trials with the symbology presented in a head-up location and half with the symbology located head-down. An unexpected far domain event was presented on one trial per subject. The results revealed that, for flight path control, there was generally a cost associated with head-down location. The magnitude of this cost was relatively larger for conformal than for non-conformal symbology. Head-up presentation resulted in faster transition from instrument to visual flight references, but slower response to the far domain unexpected event.
Conformal versus nonconformal symbology and the head-up display
Helmet- and Head-Mounted Displays and Symbology Design Requirements ; 1994 ; Orlando,FL,United States
Proc. SPIE ; 2218
1994-06-10
Conference paper
Electronic Resource
English
Conformal versus nonconformal symbology and the head-up display [2218-43]
British Library Conference Proceedings | 1994
|NTIS | 1975
|