Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-04T19:39:35.414Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Objective motion cueing criteria investigation based on three flight tasks

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 January 2017

P.M.T. Zaal ,
J.A. Schroeder  and
W.W. Chung
P.M.T. Zaal*
Affiliation:
San Jose State University, NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, California, US
J.A. Schroeder
Affiliation:
Federal Aviation Administration, Moffett Field, California, US
W.W. Chung
Affiliation:
Science Applications International Corporation, NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, California, US
*
[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper adds data to help establish fidelity criteria to accompany the simulator motion system diagnostic test specified by the International Civil Aviation Organisation. Twelve airline transport pilots flew three tasks in the NASA Vertical Motion Simulator under four different motion conditions. The experiment used three different hexapod motion configurations, each with a different trade-off between motion filter gain and break frequency, and one large motion configuration that utilised as much of the simulator's motion space as possible. The motion condition significantly affected (1) pilot motion fidelity ratings, and sink rate and lateral deviation at touchdown for the approach and landing task, (2) pilot motion fidelity ratings, roll deviations, maximum pitch rate, and number of stick shaker activations in the stall task, and (3) heading deviation after an engine failure in the take-off task. Significant differences in pilot-vehicle performance were used to define initial objective motion cueing criteria boundaries. These initial fidelity boundaries show promise but need refinement.

Keywords

flight simulationmotion cueingpilot performance
Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 121 , Issue 1236 , February 2017 , pp. 163 - 190
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Aeronautical Society 2017 

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.)

Footnotes

This is an adapted version of a paper first presented at the RAeS Challenges in Flight Simulation Conference hosted by the Royal Aeronautical Society in London, June 2015.

References

REFERENCES

1. Code of Federal Regulations, Flight Simulation Training Device Initial and Continuing Qualification and Use, Title 14, Part 60.Google Scholar
2. International Civil Aviation Organization, ICAO 9625: Manual of Criteria for the Qualification of Flight Simulation Training Devices. Volume 1 – Aeroplanes, 3rd edition, 2009, International Civil Aviation Organization, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.Google Scholar
3. Hosman, R.J.A.W. and Advani, S.K. “Are criteria for motion cueing and time delays possible? Part 2, Proceedings of the AIAA Modeling and Simulation Technologies Conference,” No. AIAA-2013-4833, 19-22 August 2013, Boston, Massachusetts, US, doi: 10.2514/6.2013-4833.Google Scholar
4. Sinacori, J.B. “The Determination of some requirements for a helicopter research simulation facility,” Tech. Rep. NASA CR-152066, September 1977, Systems Technology, Inc. Mountain View, California, US.Google Scholar
5. Schroeder, J.A. “Helicopter flight simulation motion platform requirements,” Tech. Rep. NASA/TP-1999-208766, July 1999, NASA, Moffett Field, California, US.Google Scholar
6. Stapleford, R.L., Peters, R.A. and Alex, F.R. “Experiments and a model for pilot dynamics with visual and motion inputs,” Tech. Rep. NASA CR-1325, 1969, NASA, Hawthorne, California, US.Google Scholar
7. Bergeron, H.P., Adams, J.J. and Hurt, G.J. Jr. “The effects of motion cues and motion scaling on one- and two-axis compensatory control tasks,” NASA Technical Note NASA TN D-6110, January 1971, NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, Virginia, US.Google Scholar
8. Bray, R.S. “Visual and motion cueing in helicopter simulation,” Technical Memorandum NASA TM-86818, September 1985, Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, California, US.Google Scholar
9. Cooper, D.E. and Howlett, J.J. “Ground based helicopter simulation,” Proceedings of the American Helicopter Society Symposium on Status of Testing and Model Techniques for V/STOL Aircraft, 1973, Essington, Pennsylvania, US.Google Scholar
10. Jex, H.R. and Magdaleno, R.E. “Roll tracking effects of G-vector tilt and various types of motion washout,” Proceedings of 14th Annual Conference on Manual Control, 27, April 1978, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, US, pp 463–502.Google Scholar
11. Jex, H.R., Jewell, W.F. and Magdaleno, R.E. “Effects of various lateral-beam-motion washouts on pilot tracking and opinion in the “Lamar” simulator,” Proceedings of 15th Annual Conference on Manual Control, 20-22 March 1979, Wright State University, Dayton, Ohio, US, pp 244–266.Google Scholar
12. Bray, R.S. “Initial operating experience with an aircraft simulator having extensive lateral motion,” Technical Memorandum NASA TM X-62,155, 1972, Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, California, US.Google Scholar
13. Bray, R.S. “Vertical motion requirements for landing simulation,” Technical Memorandum NASA TM X-62,236, February 1973, Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, California, US.Google Scholar
14. van Gool, M.F.C. “Influence of motion washout filters on pilot tracking performance,” Piloted Aircraft Environment Simulation Techniques, No. AGARD-CP-249, 1978, AGARD, Amsterdam, Netherlands, pp 19–1-19–5.Google Scholar
15. Shirachi, D.K. and Shirley, R.S. “Visual/motion cue mismatch in a coordinated roll maneuver,” Contractor Report NASA CR-166259, November 1981, Computer Sciences Corporation, Moffett Field, California, US.Google Scholar
16. Zaal, P.M.T., Schroeder, J.A. and Chung, W.W. “Transfer of training on the vertical motion simulator,” J Aircraft, November–December 2015, 52, (6), pp 1971–1984, doi: 10.2514/1.C033115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17. Anonymous, Military Specfication - Flying Qualities of Piloted Airplanes, November 1980, Department of Defense, Washington, D.C., US.Google Scholar
18. Beard, S.D., Reardon, S.E., Tobias, E.L. and Aponso, B.L. “Simulation system optimization for rotorcraft research on the vertical motion simulator,” Proceedings of the AIAA Modeling and Simulation Technologies Conference, No. AIAA-2012-4634, 13-16 August 2012, Minneapolis, Minnesota, US, doi: 10.2514/6.2012-4634.Google Scholar
19. Dieudonne, J.E., Parrish, R.V. and Bardush, R.E. “An actuator extension transformation for a motion simulator and an inverse transformation applying Newton-Raphson’s method,” NASA Technical Note NASA TN D-7067, November 1972, NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, Virginia, US.Google Scholar
20. Field, A. Discovering Statistics Using SPSS, ISM Introducing Statistical Methods, 2nd ed., 2005, SAGE Publications Ltd., London, UK.Google Scholar
21. Schroeder, J.A. and Grant, P.R. “Pilot behavioral observations in motion flight simulation,” Proceedings of the AIAA Guidance, Navigation, and Control Conference and Exhibit, Toronto (ON), Canada, No. AIAA-2010-8353, 2-5 August 2010, doi: 10.2514/6.2010-8353.Google Scholar