10 June 1994 Conformal versus nonconformal symbology and the head-up display
Author Affiliations +
Thirty-two pilot subjects flew instrument approaches in a visually high-fidelity simulator. Location of flight symbology was manipulated while controlling for optical distance and symbology format. Subjects were assigned to one of two symbology sets, conformal or non-conformal. Each subject flew half of the trials with the symbology presented in a head-up location and half with the symbology located head-down. An unexpected far domain event was presented on one trial per subject. The results revealed that, for flight path control, there was generally a cost associated with head-down location. The magnitude of this cost was relatively larger for conformal than for non-conformal symbology. Head-up presentation resulted in faster transition from instrument to visual flight references, but slower response to the far domain unexpected event.
© (1994) COPYRIGHT Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE). Downloading of the abstract is permitted for personal use only.
Jeffry Long, Jeffry Long, Christopher D. Wickens, Christopher D. Wickens, } "Conformal versus nonconformal symbology and the head-up display", Proc. SPIE 2218, Helmet- and Head-Mounted Displays and Symbology Design Requirements, (10 June 1994); doi: 10.1117/12.177380; https://doi.org/10.1117/12.177380

Back to Top