An analysis of slant for guidance of landing approaches

International Journal of Aviation Psychology

Volumn 10, Issue 4, 2000, Pages 363-376

  Lintern, Gavan ^a  

^a DEFENCE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY ORGANISATION   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0034345226     PISSN: 10508414     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1207/S15327108IJAP1004_4     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Clark, W. C., Smith, A. H., & Rabe, A. (1956). The interaction of surface texture, outline gradient, and ground in the perception of slant. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 10, 1-8.
2. Cutting, J. E. (1986). Perception with an eye for motion. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
3. Cutting, J. E., & Millard, R. T. (1984). Three gradients and the perception of flat and curved surfaces. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 113, 198-216.
4. Doherty, S. (1996). Visual information for glideslope control. Unpublished master's thesis, University of Illinois, Urbana.
5. Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
6. Gibson, J. J., Olum, P., & Rosenblatt, F. (1955). Parallax and perspective during aircraft landings. American Journal of Psychology, 68, 372-385.
7. Hasbrook, A. H. (1975). The approach and landing: Cues and clues to a safe touchdown. Business and Commercial Aviation, November, 39-43.
8. Hutchins, E. (1995). Navigation in the wild. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
9. Kinsella-Shaw, J. M., Shaw, B., & Turvey, M. T. (1992). Perceiving "walk-on-able" slopes. Ecological Psychology, 4, 223-239.
10. Langewiesche, W. (1944). Stick and rudder: An explanation of the art of flying. New York: McGraw-Hill.
11. Lewis, R. E. F., & Humphries, M. (1956). Measurement of pilot behaviour: Comparison of day and night approach and landing techniques (DRML Rep. No. 206-2). Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Defence Research Medical Laboratories.
12. Lintern, G. (1991). An informational perspective on skill transfer in human-machine systems. Human Factors, 33, 251-266.
13. Lintern, G., & Koonce, J. M. (1991). Display magnification for simulated landing approaches. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 1, 59-72.
14. Lintern, G., & Liu, Y. (1991). Explicit and implicit horizons for simulated landing approaches. Human Factors, 33, 401-417.
15. Lintern, G., & Walker, M. B. (1991). Scene content and runway breadth effects on simulated landing approaches. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 1, 117-132.
16. Oshima, C., & Lintern, G. (1991, May). Effects of scene content and horizon on glideslope control. Poster session presented at the Sixth Annual Symposium on Aviation Psychology, Columbus, OH.
17. Purdy, W. C. (1958). The hypothesis of psychophysical correspondence in space perception. Unpublished master's thesis, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.
18. Rosinski, R. R., & Levine, N. P. (1976). Texture gradient effectiveness in the perception of surface slant. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 22, 261-271.
19. Runeson, S. (1977). On the possibility of "smart" perceptual mechanisms. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 18, 172-179.
20. Stevens, K. A. (1981). The information content of texture gradients. Biological Cybernetics, 42, 95-105.
21. Wulfeck, J. W., & Queen, J. E. (1975). The effect of lighted deck shape on night carrier landing (final report). Inglewood, CA: Dunlap and Associates, Inc.