Effects of primary flight symbology on workload and situation awareness in a head-up synthetic vision display

AIAA/IEEE Digital Avionics Systems Conference - Proceedings

Volumn 2, Issue , 2002, Pages

  Snow, Michael P ^a,b   French, Guy A ^a  

^a AIR FORCE RESEARCH LABORATORY   (United States)

^b BOEING COMPANY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AIR NAVIGATION; AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL; COMPUTER VISION; DISPLAY DEVICES; FIGHTER AIRCRAFT;

FLIGHT SYMBOLOGY;

FLIGHT DYNAMICS;

EID: 0036453340     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (17)

1. Moroze, M.L., & Snow, M.P. (1999). Causes and remedies of controlled flight into terrain (CFIT) in military and civil aviation. In Tenth International Symposium on Aviation Psychology. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University.
2. Scott, W.B. (November 4, 1996). New technology, training target CFIT losses. Aviation Week & Space Technology, 73-77.
3. Snow, M.P., & Reising, J.M. (1999). Effect of pathway-in-the-sky and synthetic terrain imagery on situation awareness in a simulated low-level ingress scenario. In 4th Annual Symposium on Situation Awareness in the Tactical Air Environment (pp. 198-207). Patuxent River, MD: NAWCAD.
4. Reising, J.M., Liggett, K.K., Solz, T.J., & Hartsock, D.C. (1995). Comparison of two head up display formats used to fly curved instrument approaches. In Proceedings of the 39th Annual Meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society (pp. 1-5). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
5. Hoover, G.W., Cronauer, V.T., & Shelley, S.H. (1985). Command flight path display F-14A flight test program (NADC-85128-60). Warminster, PA: Naval Air Development Center.
6. Dittenhauser, J.N., Eulrich, B.J., & Reynolds, P.A. (1983). Command flight path display (CFPD) sensor software development and overall system hardware integration in the NC-131H (TIFS) in-flight simulator (6645-F-12). Buffalo, NY: CALSPAN.
7. U.S. Department of Defense. (2000). MIL-STD-1787C, Department of Defense Interface Standard for Aircraft Display Symbology. Philadelphia, PA: Defense Automated Printing Service.
8. Reising, J.M., Liggett, K.K., Kustra, T.W., Snow, M.P., Hartsock, D.C., & Barry, T.P. (1998). Evaluation of pathway symbology used to land from curved approaches with varying visibility conditions. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 42d Annual Meeting (pp. 1-5). Santa Monica, CA: HFES.
9. Sanders, M.S., & MCCormick, E.J. (1987). Human factors in engineering and design (6th ed.). New York, NY: MCGraw-Hill.
10. Theunissen, E. (1997). Integrated design of a man-machine interface for 4-D navigation: Delft, NL: Delft University Press.
11. Williams, K. (2002). Impact of aviation highway-in-the-sky displays on pilot situation awareness. Human Factors, 44(1), 18-27.
12. Olmos, O., Liang, C.-C., & Wickens, C.D. (1997). Electronic map evaluation in simulated visual meteorological conditions. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 7(1), 37-66.
13. Endsley, M.R. (1995). Measurement of situation awareness in dynamic systems. Human Factors, 37(1), 65-84.
14. Vidulich, M.A., Ward, F.G., & Schueren, J. (1991). Using the subjective workload dominance (SWORD) technique for projective workload assessment. Human Factors, 33(6), 677-692.
15. Aretz, A.J., C. Johannsen, Ober, K. (1995). An empirical validation of subjective workload ratings. In Proceedings of the 40th Annual Meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society (pp. 91-95). Santa Monica, CA, Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
16. Fadden, S., Ververs, P.M., & Wickens, C.D. (2001). Pathway HUDs: Are they viable? Human Factors, 43(2), 173-193.
17. Martin-Emerson, R., & Wickens, C.D. (1997). Superimposition, symbology, visual attention, and the head-up display. Human Factors, 39(4), 581-601.