Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T17:32:13.869Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Cranfield aircraft handling qualities rating scale: a multidimensional approach to the assessment of aircraft handling qualities

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 July 2016

D. Harris ,
J. Gautrey ,
K. Payne  and
R. Bailey
D. Harris
Affiliation:
College of Aeronautics, Cranfield University, Cranfield, UK
J. Gautrey
Affiliation:
College of Aeronautics, Cranfield University, Cranfield, UK
K. Payne
Affiliation:
College of Aeronautics, Cranfield University, Cranfield, UK
R. Bailey
Affiliation:
College of Aeronautics, Cranfield University, Cranfield, UK
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The Cooper-Harper scale is currently the only well-established scale for assessing aircraft handling qualities. However, as a result of having a unidimensional format the Cooper-Harper scale lacks diagnostic power and has also been criticised for exhibiting poor reliability. The Cranfield Aircraft Handling Qualities, Rating Scale (CAHQRS) is a new, multidimensional rating scale using concepts from two established scales, the NASA-TLX workload scale and the Cooper-Harper scale. This paper provides an overview of the development of the CAHQRS and the results from a series of validation trials in an engineering flight simulator. An in-flight refuelling task and an approach and landing task using a range of control laws were used in these evaluations. The results showed that the CAHQRS had high positive correlations with the Cooper-Harper scale. However, the CAHQRS also demonstrated greater validity, diagnostic power and higher test/re-test reliability than the previous scale.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 104 , Issue 1034 , April 2000 , pp. 191 - 198
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Aeronautical Society 2000 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. US Department of Defense Flying qualities of piloted airplanes (MIL- F-8785C), Washington DC, 1980.Google Scholar
2. UK Civil Aviation Authority JAR 25 — Large aeroplanes, London, 1978.Google Scholar
3. US Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Regulations Part 25 — Airworthiness standards, Washington, DC, 1974.Google Scholar
4. Harper, R.P. and Cooper, G.E. Handing qualities and pilot evaluation J Guide, ContDyn, 1986, 9, pp 515–530.Google Scholar
5. Gibson, J.C. The definition, understanding and design of aircraft handling qualities, report LUT LR-756, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands, 1995.Google Scholar
6. Cooper, G.E. and Harper, R.P. The use of pilot rating in the evaluation of aircraft handling qualities, NASA TN-D-5153, 1969.Google Scholar
7. Cooper, G. Understanding and interpreting pilot opinion. Aeronaut Eng Rev, 1957, 16, p 47.Google Scholar
8. Harper, R.P. and Cooper, G. A revised pilot rating scale for the evaluation of handling qualities. Paper presented at AGARD specialists meeting on stability and control, Cambridge, UK, 20-23 September, 1966.Google Scholar
9. Moray, N., Johansen, J., Pew, R.W., Rasmussen, J., Saunders, A.F. and Wickens, C.D. Mental Workload; Its Theory and Measurement, Plenum; New York, 1979.Google Scholar
10. Hill, S.G., Avecchia, H.P., Byers, J.C, Bittner, A.C., Zaklad, R.P. and Christ, R.E. Comparison of four subjective workload rating scales, Hum Fact, 1992, 34, pp 429–439.Google Scholar
11. Harper, R.P. The role of pilot rating in the development of handling criteria, paper number CP-106, AGARD flight mechanics specialist meeting, Ottawa, Canada, 28 September-1 October, 1971.Google Scholar
12. Anastasi, A. Psychological Testing, 6th edition, MacMillan Publishing, New York, 1990.Google Scholar
13. Payne, K.H. and Harris, D. Psychometric approach to the development of a multidimensional scale to assess aircraft handling qualities, manuscript submitted to the Int J Aviat Psych, 1998.Google Scholar
14. Wilson, D.J. and Riley, D.R. Cooper-Harper rating variability, AIAA atmospheric flight mechanics conference paper A1AA-89 3358. AIAA, 1989.Google Scholar
15. Field, E.J. Flying Qualities of Transport Aircraft: Precognitive or Compensatory? PhD thesis, College of Aeronautics, Cranfield University, UK, 1995.Google Scholar
16. UK Civil Aviation Authority British Civil Airworthiness Requirements Section D — large aeroplanes, London, 1981.Google Scholar
17. Joreskog, K.G. and Sorbom, D. LISREL 7 user's reference guide. Scientific Software, Mooresville, USA, 1988.Google Scholar
18. Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L. and Black, W.C. Multivariate Data Analysis, 5th edition, Prentice Hall, New Jersey, 1998.Google Scholar
19. Harris, D., Payne, K. and Gautrey, J. A multidimensional scale to assess aircraft handling qualities, Engineering Psychology and Cognitive Ergonomics (Volume 3), Ashgate, Aldershot, UK, 1999, pp 277–285.Google Scholar
20. Hart, S.G. and Staveland, L.E. Development of the NASA task load index (TLX): results of empirical and theoretical research, Human Mental Workload. North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1988, pp 139–183.Google Scholar
21. Gautrey, J.E. Flying Qualities and Flight Control System Design for a Fly-By-Wire Transport Aircraft, Engineering Doctorate Thesis, Cranfield University, UK, 1998.Google Scholar
22. Gautrey, J. Generic regional aircraft flying qualities for the windshear and formation flying tasks, College of Aeronautics report no 9710, Cranfield University, UK, 1998.Google Scholar
23. Gautrey, J. Generic regional aircraft flying qualities for the approach and landing task, College of Aeronautics report no 9701, Cranfield University, UK, 1997.Google Scholar