Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T05:06:55.287Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Design and evaluation of the objective motion cueing test and criterion

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 May 2016

R. Hosman  and
S. Advani
R. Hosman*
Affiliation:
AMS Consult, Delfgauw, The Netherlands
S. Advani
Affiliation:
IDT, Breda, The Netherlands
*
[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Since the introduction of hexapod-type motion systems for flight simulation in the 1970s, Motion Drive Algorithm tuning has been primarily based on the subjective judgement of experienced pilots. This subjective method is often not transparent and often leads to ambiguous process of adjustment of the tuning parameters. Consequently, there are large variations in the motion cueing characteristics of flight training devices, a variability that subsequently raises questions regarding the value of motion cueing for pilot training itself. The third revision of ICAO 9625 Manual of Criteria for the Qualification of Flight Simulation Training Devices offered the opportunity to take a closer look at simulator motion cueing requirements in general. This led to the concept of the objective motion cueing test (OMCT), which was reported in 2006. After the method was evaluated on three research flight simulators, the results were published in 2007, demonstrating a larger spread in dynamic behaviour of cueing algorithms than expected. After discussions with the simulator industry regarding the form and methodology of the OMCT, an evaluation of the test in cooperation with the industry started in 2011. This led to the final form of the OMCT and cueing parameter criterion for the in-flight mode of transport aircraft. This paper describes the OMCT, the evaluation results and the criterion.

Keywords

flight simulationsimulation
Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 120 , Issue 1227 , May 2016 , pp. 873 - 891
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Aeronautical Society 2016 

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

REFERENCES

1. Meiry, J.L. The vestibular system and human dynamic space orientation. 1965, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Man-Vehicle Lab. Rept.T-65-1, Sc.D. Thesis/NASA CR-628, 1966.Google Scholar
2. Young, L.R. Some effects of motion cues on manual tracking, J of Spacecraft and Rockets, 1967, 4, (10), pp 1300–1303.Google Scholar
3. Shirley, R.S. and Young, L.R. Motion cues in man-vehicle control effects of roll-motion on human operator's behavior in compensatory systems with disturbance inputs, IEEE Transactions on Man-Machine Systems, 1968, MMS9, (4).Google Scholar
4. Stapleford, R.L., Peters, R.A. and Alex, F.R. Experiments and a model for pilot dynamics with visual and motion inputs. 1969, NASA CR-1325.Google Scholar
5. Moriarty, T.E., Junker, A.M. and Price, D.R. Roll axis tracking improvement resulting from peripheral vision motion cues, Conference Proceedings of the 12th Annual Conference on Manual Control, NASA TM-X-73, 170, 1976.Google Scholar
6. Levison, W.H. Use of motion cues in steady state tracking, Conference Proceedings of the 12th Annual Conference on Manual Control, NASA TM-X-73, 1976.Google Scholar
7. Hosman, R. Pilot's perception and control of aircraft motions, Ph.D. Thesis. Delft University of Technology. Delft University Press, Delft, the Netherlands, 1996.Google Scholar
8. Anon . Airplane Simulator and Visual System Evaluation. FAA Advisory Circular AC 120-40, 1983.Google Scholar
9. Schmidt, S.F. and Conrad, B. Motion Drive Signals for Piloted Flight Simulators. NASA CR-1601, Washington: NASA, 1970.Google Scholar
10. Parrish, R.V., Dieudonne, J.E. and Martin, D.J. Motion Software for a Synergistic Six-Degree-of-Freedom Motion Base. NASA TN D-7350. Washington: NASA, 1973.Google Scholar
11. Anon . Airplane Simulator and Visual System Evaluation. FAA Advisory Circular AC 120-40A, 1986.Google Scholar
12. Anon . Airplane Simulator Qualification. FAA Advisory Circular AC 120-0B, 1991.Google Scholar
13. Anon . Manual of Criteria for the Qualification of Flight Simulation Training Devices. ICAO Doc. 9625, 1st ed. 1994.Google Scholar
14. Anon . JAR-STD 1A. Joint Aviation Requirements. Aeroplane Flight Simulators. April 1997.Google Scholar
15. Anon . FAA Part 60. Flight Simulation Training Device Initial and Continuing Qualification and Use. 2008.Google Scholar
16. Bürki-Cohen, J., Booth, E.M., Soja, N.N., Disario, R., Go, T. and Longridge, T. Simulator fidelity – the effect of platform motion. Royal Aeronautical Society, Proceedings of the Conference on Flight Simulation: The Next Decade, London, England, 10-12 May 2000.Google Scholar
17. Winter, J.C.F.de, Dodou, D. and Mulder, M. Training effectiveness of whole body flight simulator motion: A comprehensive meta-analysis, Int J of Aviation Psychology, 2012. 22, (2), pp 164–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18. Advani, S.K. and Hosman, R.J.A.W. Revising civil simulator standards – an opportunity for technological pull, AIAA Modeling and Simulation Technologies Conference and Exhibit, 21-24 August 2006, Keystone, Colorado, US. AIAA 2006-6248.Google Scholar
19. Advani, S.K. and Hosman, R.J.A.W. Towards standardizing high-fidelity cost-effective motion cueing in flight simulation, Royal Aeronautical Society Conference on: Cutting Costs in Flight Simulation. Balancing Quality and Capability, London, England, 7-8 November 2006.Google Scholar
20. Advani, S.K., Hosman, R.J.A.W. and Potter, M. Objective motion fidelity qualification in flight training simulators, AIAA Modeling and Simulation Technologies Conference and Exhibit, 20-23 August, 2007, Hilton Head, South Carolina, US.Google Scholar
21. Reid, L.D. and Nahon, M.A. Flight simulation motion-base drive algorithms: Part I – developing and testing the equations, 1985, Institute of Aerospace Studies, University of Toronto. UTIAS Report 296.Google Scholar
22. Anon . Aeroplane flight simulation training device evaluation handbook. Volume 1, Objective Testing, Royal Aeronautical Society, 4th ed, London, England, 2009.Google Scholar
23. Sinacori, J.B. The determination of some requirements for a helicopter flight research facility, 1977, NASA CR-152066.Google Scholar
24. Schroeder, J.A. Helicopter flight simulation motion platform requirements, 1999, NASA/TP-1999-208766.Google Scholar
25. Hosman, R.J.A.W., Advani, S.K. and Haeck, N. Integrated design of the motion cueing system for a wright flyer simulator, AIAA J of Guidance, Control and Dynamics, 2005, 28, (1), pp 43–52.Google Scholar
26. Hosman, R.J.A.W., Advani, S.K. and Haeck, N. Integrated design of flight simulator motion cueing systems. Royal Aeronautical Society, Aeronautical J, January 2005, 109, (1091).Google Scholar
27. Reid, L.D. and Nahon, M.A. Flight simulation motion-base drive algorithms: Part 2 – selecting the system parameters, 1985, Institute of Aerospace Studies, University of Toronto. UTIAS Report 307.Google Scholar
28. Anon . Manual of Criteria for the Qualification of Flight Simulation Training Devices, ICAO Doc. 9625, 4th ed, 2015.Google Scholar
29. Seehof, C., Durak, U. and Duda, H. Objective motion cueing test – experiences of a new user, AIAA Modeling and Simulation Technologies Conference, 16-18 June 2014, Atlanta, Georgia, US, AIAA 2014-2205.Google Scholar
30. Zaal, P., Schroeder, J.A. and Chung, W.W. Transfer of Training on the Vertical Motion Simulator AIAA Modeling and Simulation Technologies Conference, 16-18 June 2014, Atlanta, Georgia, US, AIAA 2014-2206.Google Scholar
31. Hosman, R.J.A.W. and Advani, S.K. Revised OMCT Test Plan, AMS Consult Report 2014-01, 2014.Google Scholar