Development of a research platform that replicates the basic flight functions of a light, general aviation aircraft is described. This involved retrofitting an actual aircraft cockpit with computer displays to emulate an aircraft environment. The hardware and software used in this research platform are described, as well as issues and problems regarding implementation and use in research

Fanjoy, Richard O.

Feyen, Robert G.

Hartman, Nathan W.

Hiremath, Vishal V.

Proctor, Robert W.

Young, John P.

English

CORE

Wright State University CORE Scholar International Symposium on Aviation Psychology - 2005 International Symposium on Aviation Psychology 2005 Simulating Glass Cockpit Displays in a General Aviation Flight Environment Robert W. Proctor John P. Young Richard O. Fanjoy Robert G. Feyen Nathan W. Hartman See next page for additional authors Follow this and additional works at: https://corescholar.libraries.wright.edu/isap_2005  Part of the Other Psychiatry and Psychology Commons Repository Citation Proctor, R. W., Young, J. P., Fanjoy, R. O., Feyen, R. G., Hartman, N. W., & Hiremath, V. V. (2005). Simulating Glass Cockpit Displays in a General Aviation Flight Environment. 2005 International Symposium on Aviation Psychology, 597-600. https://corescholar.libraries.wright.edu/isap_2005/104 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the International Symposium on Aviation Psychology at CORE Scholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in International Symposium on Aviation Psychology - 2005 by an authorized administrator of CORE Scholar. For more information, please contact library-corescholar@wright.edu. Authors Robert W. Proctor, John P. Young, Richard O. Fanjoy, Robert G. Feyen, Nathan W. Hartman, and Vishal V. Hiremath This article is available at CORE Scholar: https://corescholar.libraries.wright.edu/isap_2005/104 SIMULATING GLASS COCKPIT DISPLAYS IN A GENERAL AVIATION FLIGHT ENVIRONMENTRobert W. ProctorJohn P. YoungRichard O. FanjoyRobert G. FeyenNathan W. HartmanVishal V. HiremathPurdue UniversityWest Lafayette, IndianaDevelopment of a research platform that replicates the basic flight functions of a light, general aviation aircraft isdescribed.  This involved retrofitting an actual aircraft cockpit with computer displays to emulate an aircraftenvironment.  The hardware and software used in this research platform are described, as well as issues andproblems regarding implementation and use in research.IntroductionProgress in computer and electronic technology hasdramatically impacted the capabilities and design ofmodern avionics.  The cockpits of most commercialand military aircraft of today bear little resemblanceto those of 30 years ago.  Recent advances in avionicshave embraced the concept of combining theequipment, functions, and displays from variousflight information and navigation systems into one ortwo highly integrated units.  Large commercial andmilitary aircraft have evolved in their use ofelectronic and computer technologies to the pointwhere most modern aircraft utilize Electronic FlightInstrument Systems (EFIS), commonly referred to as“glass cockpit” technology.  The electronic displayunits of glass cockpits are flexible and can present avast array of information in different ways overwhich the pilot has control (Billings, 1997).  Becausethese electronic displays are more user-friendly thantraditional cockpit displays, the switch to EFIS hasimproved system reliability and safety.This transition to EFIS has not been without itsdrawbacks, however.  Analysis of recent airlineaccidents has demonstrated that there are manyhuman factors involved in transitioning to and usingsuch  display  technology  (e.g.,  Kaber,  Riley,  &  Tan,2002).  The pilot’s mental workload may be reducedduring routine flight, but when an unusual conditionoccurs  or  a  flight  plan  needs  to  be  altered,  theworkload may increase dramatically (Ishibashi,1999).  Due in part to a reduced role of the pilot inthe aircraft control loops, during the times of highworkload the pilot’s decision making andperformance may suffer from inadequate situationawareness, or comprehension of the factors involvedin the current situation.Although larger air carrier and corporate jetmanufacturers’ aircraft have incorporated EFIS intotheir flight decks, little has been done in the GeneralAviation (GA) market until recently (e.g., Williams,Yost, Holland, & Tyler, 2002).  Previous GA aircraftdid not employ glass cockpits due to expense,immature miniaturization technology, and a lack ofavailable space in the cockpit.  However, a transitionto glass cockpit technology in GA is beginning tooccur  due  to  the  need  to  present  more  and  moreinformation in formats that a pilot can effectivelyutilize.  To make small aircraft more accessible forgreater numbers of pilots and to ease the impact ofsmall privately owned aircraft on the air trafficsystem, the FAA and NASA have initiated the SmallAircraft Transportation System (SATS) program forthe development of highly integrated and advancedtechnologies for GA.Given the human factors problems associated withthe switch to the glass cockpit in commercial andmilitary aviation, where the pilots are professionalswith extensive experience and training, it should beapparent that the potential threat to safety withintroduction of the glass cockpit in GA is great.Reduction of this threat requires systematic humanfactors analyses to guide the design and developmentof  the  interfaces.   Although  glass  cockpits  arecurrently being introduced by GA aircraft companies,little thought seems to have been given to humanfactors concerns.  Features of commercial glasscockpits are being incorporated directly withoutconsideration of their suitability for relativelyinexperienced GA pilots; little standardization isevident across different company’s displays; andtraining in use of glass cockpits is minimal andunsystematic.  These are a few among severalhuman-factors issues that must be addressed forincreasingly advanced EFIS technology to be597implemented successfully in smaller GA aircraft(Feyereisen & Cundiff, 2001).Of immediate concern is the need to identify andexplore problems associated with the transition ofgeneral aviation pilots from “gauge” (analog) styleflight information display technology (on which theywere initially trained) to highly integrated glasscockpit formats.  For example, Jones (2004), indescribing his first look at the Garmin 1000 equippedCessna 172, states, “I have to admit, it is animpressive panel. Usually reserved for the high-endairplanes  and  airliners,  this  panel  is  a  video  gamejunkies dream come true. Although it made me alittle uncomfortable not having the old steam gaugeinstruments sitting front and center” (p. 2). In thefuture, when pilots have been trained from thebeginning with glass cockpit displays that have beendesigned to thoroughly address human factorsconcerns, there should be a major improvement toaviation safety.  However, in the near term, problemsassociated with transitioning pilots who were initiallytrained using gauge displays could easily overridethese benefits if not dealt with satisfactorily.Because of the need for systematic investigation ofhuman factors issues associated with the adoption ofglass  cockpit  technology  in  GA,  we  have  begun  toconduct an interdisciplinary research program toexamine  these  issues.   As  part  of  this  process,  wedeveloped a research flight simulator that replicatesthe basic functions of a light, general aviationaircraft, and allows us to control many aspects of thecockpit displays while measuring several aspects ofpilot performance.  In this paper, we describe thehardware and software used in this researchsimulator, issues and problems encountered insimulator development, and the decisions made ateach point.  We also outline the capabilities andlimitations of the simulator, and discuss plans forfuture research using this device.Simulator DevelopmentOur goal was to construct a research platform thatwould provide maximum realism, or ecological validity,within a budget of approximately $6,000 (see Table 1).An optimal system would allow us to vary and controldesign and flight parameters, and to record various themeasurements of pilot performance.To start with, we salvaged a KingAir cockpit shell foruse with the simulator equipment (see Figure 1).  Thefront 15 feet of the fuselage had been previouslyseparated from the rest of the aircraft; we cleaned andstripped out this section.  We then added newflooring and wall paneling, and supports for thesimulator  equipment.   The  nose  compartment   wasconverted into the housing for the simulationcomputers and other related equipment. Theequipment and costs are summarized in Table 1.  Weselected Dell Model GX270 Pentium 4 computersoperating at 3.0 GHz, with 1 GB RAM and a 128 MBTable 1.  Equipment List and Costs for SimulatorEquipmentItem Vendor Quantity CostOptiPlexGX270 SmallMiniTower—Intel Pentium4 Processor3.00GHz, 1GBRAMDell 2 $2,310128MB nVidiaGeForce FX5200 GraphicsCardDell 2 $2061224L 12-inchLCD DesktopTouch MonitorDell 1 $540MicroTouch17-inch CRTTouch MonitorDell 2 $869G90fB 19-inchPerfectFlatBlack CRTMonitorDell 2 $416X-Plane GraphicSim 1 $50Throttle Panel,Push-button/Toggleswitchmodule,Landing gearmodule,Autopilotmodule, etc.Goflightinc.com 1 each $1080Yoke, FlightControls,Pedals,Sidesticks, etc.CH Products 1 each $390*GL Studio DistributedSimulationTechnology1 $4,500* GL Studio was not included in the original priceestimate listed in the body of the paper598nVidia GeForce graphics card, to accommodate thelarge  amount  of  memory  needed  to  display  thegraphics. As currently set up, one computer handlesthe external view and the other computer handles thein-cockpit view, and each computer is connected to apair of monitors via a split VGA adapter cable.For the external view, two 19-inch flat CRT monitorsare mounted outside the shell just outside the forwardwindows.  The external image is spread across the twomonitors to present the simulated outside world visiblefrom the cockpit (see Figure 2).  We investigated the useof a projection system to provide a more realisticpanoramic view, but the cost required to overcomehurdles in the projection screen resolution andbrightness was too high.  Initial reports by users havebeen favorable, indicating that despite some initial“tunnel vision” (due to the lack of view through the sidewindows) and the small field of view, the CRT displaysare sufficiently realistic for the users to report that, afterseveral minutes, they “forget” they are looking atcomputer monitors and instead treat them as the “realworld” view out of the front windows.Figure 2.  Displays of simulated external view andinstrument panel.For the in-cockpit view, two 17-inch “touchscreen”monitors were fitted into the instrument panel, one oneach side of the cockpit, to present the displays seenby the pilot (see Figure 2).  The right display isincluded  for  use  by  either  a  co-pilot  or  by  anexperimenter.  We selected touch screens to allow usthe option of exploring touch-based manipulation ofthe displays and controls in the general aviationsetting.  A third 12-inch touchscreen monitor (notshown) was also purchased to explore alternatemethods of displaying and entering flightmanagement data.We opted to go with commercially available flightcontrol software rather than develop our ownsoftware.  After evaluating two mainstream flightsimulator  software  packages  used  in  the  gamingcommunity (Microsoft Flight Simulator and X-plane), we decided on X-plane because of its superiorgraphics quality and data collection capability.  Onesignificant advantage of X-plane is a feature calledPlaneMaker, which allows the user to design customcockpits and instrument layouts.  The instruments forthe panel can be selected from a database available inPlaneMaker and placed in the locations of the users’choosing.  Virtually every flight parameter in X-plane can be recorded, which is a very useful featurefor research.  X-plane provides a comprehensive listof flight parameters, any of which are selectable bythe user.  Although X-plane’s data recordingcapabilities appear sufficient for the time being, wealso have installed LabView data acquisitionsoftware to support more advanced data collectionand analysis.We chose flight controls by CH Products primarilyon the recommendations of the manufacturer of theX-plane software.  Installation was simplified bytheir plug and play capability with X-plane.  Weplanned originally to implement controls on bothsides of the cockpit, as in an actual aircraft.However, X-plane does not allow two controls tooperate simultaneously, which restricts control to onepilot.  Thus, we decided to purchase two sidesticksand one yoke so that we could simulate as manyaircraft  types  as  possible.   Although  the  realism  ofthe sidesticks is enhanced if they provide forcefeedback capability, we did not choose to include thiscapability due to our current budget limitations.Another major limitation of the X-plane software isthat two different cockpit displays cannot bedisplayed on the two different monitors.  Forexample, it is not possible to run the primary flightdisplay on one monitor and a multi-function displayon the other.  This is because X-plane does not allowthe cockpit to be stretched across both screens sothat, instead, both screens show the same image.  WeFigure 1.  General aviation flight simulator.599hope to overcome this hurdle with GL Studio, thesoftware that we purchased to design custominstrumentation.  GL Studio is a reasonably pricedsoftware tool that can be used to design glass cockpitinstrumentation that can then be linked to the flightsimulation software.  Given our interest in exploringalternative instrumentation designs, the capability todesign our own instrumentation and layouts was acrucial addition to our simulator platform.Research AgendaThe advanced flight display platform described in thepreceding section was developed to address a widevariety of flight instrumentation and training issues.Many of these issues have been identified in the bodyof literature that has evolved in response to nearlytwo decades of glass cockpit operations incommercial service.  These issues have attracted newinterest with the recent development andimplementation of glass cockpit instrumentation ingeneral aviation aircraft.  The focus of our researcheffort is to identify relationships between mentalmodels of pilots and advanced instrumentationdesigns.  A primary objective is to identify displaysthat effectively support pilots’ mental models andpermit intuitive responses to environmental inputs.The first stage of this study will be a two-prongedeffort to map mental models used by pilots of varyingexperience levels and to identify differences betweencurrent glass cockpit designs used in general aviationaircraft.   These  steps  will  be  followed  by  aninvestigation of cognitive “disconnects” that occurduring glass cockpit flight operations. Finally,investigators will attempt to modify display aspectsand training curricula to foster improvements to pilotperformance in a glass cockpit environment.The research platform we have detailed provides aninexpensive, yet robust resource to identify keyaspects of pilot mental models and flight displayefficiencies.  It is not, however, a high-fidelity flightsimulator that approaches FAA certificationstandards.  Data collected with the platform will moreaccurately reflect discrete display and performanceaspects, and should not be generalized to a completeand accurate flight environment without additionalstudy.  Initial subjects will constitute samples ofconvenience from a general university flight studentpopulation, but follow on efforts may address awider, general aviation pilot population.We are currently conducting a preliminary experimentthat will allow us to more completely define thesimulator’s capabilities and limitations.  Thisexperiment basically explores the difference inrecovery times of pilots when they are flying an analogcockpit display versus a glass cockpit display.  We areexamining the effects of changing instrument designon performance, for example, changing a dial indicatorto a vertical tape indicator.  Students who recentlycompleted general aviation pilot training will fly ascenario that requires recovery from an unusualattitude, that is, from a situation in which the aircraft isin an abnormal position with relation to the horizon(e.g., being very high nose up).  Recovery time will bemeasured from the instant that the pilot first receivesindication of the unusual attitude to when s/he returnsthe aircraft back to wings level flight and cruiseairspeed configuration.  The results of this experimentwill allow us to become familiar with all details of thesimulator and provide an initial step towardaccomplishing our longer-range research objectives.ReferencesBillings, C. E. (1997). Aviation automation: Thesearch for a human-centered approach.  Mahwah,NJ: Erlbaum.Feyereisen, T. & Cundiff, C. (2001).  Visualcueing and control for general aviation application.AIAA/IEEE Digital Avionics Systems Conference -Proceedings, v 1, pp. 5B11-5B15.Ishibashi, A. (1999).  Situation awareness in theautomated glass-cockpit. Proceedings of the IEEEInternational Conference on Systems, Man andCybernetics, 3, p. III-710 - III-714.Jones, N. (2004).  Chesapeake airport openhouse. The Flying Wire (Monthly publication ofEEA Chapter 339), July, 04, p. 2. (DownloadedJanuary 31, 2005, fromhttp://homepage.mac.com/chapter339/.cv/chapter339/Public/2004-07.pdf-link.pdf)Kaber, D. B., Riley, J. M., & Tan, K.-W. (2002).Improved usability of aviation automation throughdirect manipulation and graphical user interfacedesign. International Journal of AviationPsychology, 12, 153-178.Williams, K. W., Yost, A., Holland, J., & Tyler,R. R. (2002).  Assessment of advanced cockpitdisplays for general aviation aircraft: The CapstoneProgram. FAA Office of Aviation Medicine Reports.DOT/FAA/AM-02/21, Dec 2002, 1-35. US: AviationMedicine.600

Simulating Glass Cockpit Displays in a General Aviation Flight Environment

https://corescholar.libraries.wright.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1095&amp;context=isap_2005

Simulating Glass Cockpit Displays in a General Aviation Flight Environment

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

CORE