Terrain orientation theory for A visual approach to landing

Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society

Volumn , Issue , 2006, Pages 1661-1665

  Gibb, Randy ^a   Gray, Rob ^b  

^a Arizona State University

^b ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

SURFACE ORIENTATION; TERRAIN ORIENTATION THEORY;

AIRPORT RUNWAYS; ENGINEERING RESEARCH; ROBUST CONTROL; VISUAL COMMUNICATION;

AIRCRAFT LANDING;

EID: 34547936232     PISSN: 10711813     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (40)

1. Calvert, E. S. (1950). Visual aids for landing in bad visibility with particular reference to the transition from instrument to visual flight. Transactions of the Illumination Engineering Society of London, 6, 183-219.
2. Calvert, E. S. (1954). Visual Judgments in Motion. Journal of the Institute of Navigation, 27, 233-251.
3. Calvert, E. S. (1957). The theory of visual judgments in motion and its application to the design of landing aids for aircraft. Transactions of the Illumination Engineering Society of London, 22, 271-297.
4. DeHart, R. L. & Davis, J. R. (2002). Fundamentals of Aerospace Medicine. Philadelphia: Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins.
5. Flach, J. M. & Warren, R. (1995). Low-altitude flight. In P. Hancock, J. Flach, J. Caird, & K. Vicente (Eds.), Local Applications of the Ecological approach to Human-Machine Systems (pp. 65-103). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
6. Galanis, G., Jennings, A., & Beckett, P. (1998). A mathematical model of glide-slope perception in the visual approach to landing. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 8, 83-101.
7. Galanis, G., Jennings, A., & Beckett, P.(2001). Runway width effects in the visual approach to landing. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 11, 281-301.
8. Gibson, J. J. (1950a). Perception of the Visual World. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
9. Gibson, J. J. (1950b). The perception of visual surfaces. The American Journal of Psychology, 63, 367-384.
10. Gibson, J. J. (1966a). The Senses Considered as Perceptual Systems. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.
11. Gibson, J. J. (1966b) Unpublished Manuscript. Retrieved February, 8, 2006, from www.huwi.org/gibson/slant.php
12. Gibson, J. J. (1979). The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.
13. Gordon, I. E. (1989). Theories of Visual Perception. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
14. Haber, R. N. (1981). Toward a theory of the perceived spatial layout of scenes. Computer Vision, Graphics, and Image Processing, 31, 282-321.
15. Hasbrook, A. H. (1971). Anatomy of a landing cue by cue. Business Commercial Aviation, 29, 54-60.
16. Hasbrook, A. H. (1975). The approach and landing: Cues and clues to a safe touchdown. Business and Commercial Aviation, 32, 39-43.
17. Khatwa, R. & Helmreich, R. L. (1998, November-December, January-February). Analysis of critical factors during approach and landing in accidents and normal flight: Data acquisition and analysis working group final report. Flight Safety Digest, Killers in Aviation: FSF task force presents facts about approach-and-landing and controlled-flight-into-terrain accidents, 1-77.
18. Kleiss, J. A. & Hubbard, D. C. (1993). Effects of three types of flight simulator visual scene detail on detection of altitude change. Human Factors, 35, 653-671.
19. Kraft, C. L. (1978). A psychophysical contribution to air safety: Simulator studies of visual illusions in night visual approaches. In H. L. Pick H. W. Leibowitz, J. E. Singer, A. Steinschneider, & H. W. Stevenson (Eds.), Psychology: From Research to Practice (pp. 363-385). New York: Plenum Press.
20. Lintern, G. (2000). An analysis of slant for guidance of landing approaches. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 10, 363-376.
21. Lintern, G. & Liu, Y. (1991). Explicit and implicit horizons for simulated landing approaches. Human Factors, 33, 401-417.
22. Lintern, G. & Roscoe, S. N. (1980). Visual cue augmentation in contact flight simulation. In S. N. Roscoe (Ed.), Aviation Psychology (pp. 227-227-238). Ames, IA: The Iowa State University Press.
23. 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.
24. Environmental Medicine, 49, 1043-1055.
25. Matthews, R. S. J., Previc, F., & Bunting, A. (2002, April). USAF spatial disorientation survey. Paper presented at the Research and Technology Organization and Human Factors and Medicine Symposium on Spatial Disorientation in Military Vehicles: Causes, Consequences and Cures, La Coruna, Spain.
26. Mertens, H. W. (1981). Perception of runway image shape and approach angle magnitude by pilots in simulated night landing approaches. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine, 52, 373-386.
27. Mertens, H. W. & Lewis, M. F. (1982). Effect of different runway sizes on pilot performance during simulated night landing approaches. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine, 53, 463-471.
28. Mertens, H. W. & Lewis, M. F. (1983). Effects of approach lighting and variation in visible runway length on perception of approach angle in simulated night landings. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine, 54, 500-506.
29. Mulder, M., Pleijsant, J., van der Vaart, H., & van Wieringen, P. (2000). The effects of pictorial detail on the timing of the landing flare: Results of a visual simulation experiment. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 10, 291-315.
30. Nagel, D. C. (1988). Human error in aviation operations. In E. L. Wiener & D. C. Nagel (Eds.), Human Factors in Aviation (pp. 263-303). New York: Academic Press.
31. National Transportation Safety Board (1977). Aircraft Accident Report, Pan American World Airways, Inc., Boeing 707-3215, NTSB-AAR-77-7.
32. National Transportation Safety Board (1998). Safety Recommendation, A-98-87.
33. National Transportation Safety Board (2002). Collision with trees on final approach: Federal Express Flight 1478,Tallahassee, FL
34. Palmisano, S. & Gillam, B. (2005). Visual perception of touchdown point during simulated landing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 11, 19-32.
35. Pendleton, L. D. (2000). The black hole approach: don't get sucked in! Retrieved February, 15, 2006 from www.avweb.com/news/airman/182402-1.html
36. Perrone, J. A. (1984). Visual slant misperception and the 'black-hole' landing situation. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine, 55, 1020-1025.
37. Pomerantz, R. & Kubovy M. (1986). Theoretical approaches to perceptual organization. In K. R. Boff, L. Kaufman, & J. P. Thomas (Eds.), Handbook of Perception and Human Performance, Volume II, Cognitive Processes and Performance (pp. 36-1-44). New York: John Wiley and Sons.
38. United States Department of Transportation (2001). Federal Aviation Regulations and Aeronautical Information Manual, 2002 Edition. Newcastle, WA: Aviation Supplies & Academics.
39. Warren, R. & Owen, D. H. (1982). Functional optical invariants: A new methodology for aviation research. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine, 53, 977-983.
40. Warren, R. & Riccio, G. E. (1985). Visual cue dominance hierarchies: Implications for simulator designs. (SAE Technical Paper Series, No. 851946). Aerospace Technology Conference & Exposition, October 14-17, pp. 61-75.