飞机姿态仪辨别绩效对航空安全的影响
|
摘要
为考察飞机姿态仪显示方式对仪表识别绩效的影响,从人机工效的角度提高飞行仪表设计的安全性,以有飞行经验和无飞行经验的两组被试为试验对象,考察其对由外向内和由内向外两种显示方式下的静态姿态仪的辨别绩效。在分析绩效时,以错误率和反应时间为指标,探讨飞行经验、姿态仪显示方式、滚转方向和滚转角度4个因素对姿态仪辨别绩效的影响。结果表明:当飞机的滚转角度较小时,由外向内显示方式比由内向外显示方式具有辨别优势;由外向内显示方式的优势随飞机滚转角度增加而逐渐消失;具备一定的飞行经验并不改变由外向内显示方式的优势。
This paper is aimed to make an investigation of the impact of the aircraft attitude indicator on the discrimination performance of its instrumentation design in guaranteeing the safety from the perspective of ergonomics. For this purpose,the study has taken PsychoP y,a software library written in Python to offer2 types of attitude indicator formats: outside-in( or moving-aircraft) format and inside-out( or moving-horizon) format. To proceed with the investigation of the above said impact,we have invited 2 groups of sampling cases of students as participants in the study,one group with and the other without any flying experience. In the experiment,they have been required to observe the static attitude indicator displays,and press a key according to the tilting direction of the aircraft as quickly as possible. In doing so,we have adopted 4 bank angles for each tilting direction in the angles of 5°,10°,20°,and 30°,respectively. And,then,the response times and error rates of the participants in answering to the discriminating tasks have been automatically registered and recorded by the program for later analysis. As a result,for the error rates,it has been noticed that the total error rate of the participants tends to be quite low,with the wrong responses to all the trials being merely 0. 83%. In addition,the smaller the bank angle,the more mistakes they tend to make. As to the response time,the results show slower response time for the aircraft tilting to the right than to the left,and faster response they would give to the bigger bank angle. And,what is more significant is that we have noticed there exists somewhat interactive effect between the bank angle and the display format. The response times for the outside-in format turn out to be faster than those for inside-out format,in case the bank angle is smaller.Thus,the interaction effect can support the superiority of the outside-in format. As the bank angle gradually is getting larger,the superiority of the outside-in format tends to be getting disappeared. Besides,flying experience does not prove to affect the superiority of the outside-in format. Hence,the above results can be used to guide the design of the aircraft instruments from the point of view of human-machine interaction or ergonomics.
This paper is aimed to make an investigation of the impact of the aircraft attitude indicator on the discrimination performance of its instrumentation design in guaranteeing the safety from the perspective of ergonomics. For this purpose,the study has taken PsychoP y,a software library written in Python to offer2 types of attitude indicator formats: outside-in( or moving-aircraft) format and inside-out( or moving-horizon) format. To proceed with the investigation of the above said impact,we have invited 2 groups of sampling cases of students as participants in the study,one group with and the other without any flying experience. In the experiment,they have been required to observe the static attitude indicator displays,and press a key according to the tilting direction of the aircraft as quickly as possible. In doing so,we have adopted 4 bank angles for each tilting direction in the angles of 5°,10°,20°,and 30°,respectively. And,then,the response times and error rates of the participants in answering to the discriminating tasks have been automatically registered and recorded by the program for later analysis. As a result,for the error rates,it has been noticed that the total error rate of the participants tends to be quite low,with the wrong responses to all the trials being merely 0. 83%. In addition,the smaller the bank angle,the more mistakes they tend to make. As to the response time,the results show slower response time for the aircraft tilting to the right than to the left,and faster response they would give to the bigger bank angle. And,what is more significant is that we have noticed there exists somewhat interactive effect between the bank angle and the display format. The response times for the outside-in format turn out to be faster than those for inside-out format,in case the bank angle is smaller.Thus,the interaction effect can support the superiority of the outside-in format. As the bank angle gradually is getting larger,the superiority of the outside-in format tends to be getting disappeared. Besides,flying experience does not prove to affect the superiority of the outside-in format. Hence,the above results can be used to guide the design of the aircraft instruments from the point of view of human-machine interaction or ergonomics.
引文
[1] XIAO Xu(肖旭),WANYAN Xiaoru(完颜笑如),ZHUANG Damin(庄达民). Comprehensive evaluation model of multidimensional visual coding on display interface[J]. Journal of Beijing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics(北京航空航天大学学报),2015,41(6):1012-1018.
[2] PANG Bing(庞兵),YU Wenyu(于雯宇). On the improvement of HFACS model based on the associaion rules and Ge NIe[J]. Journal of Safety and Environment(安全与环境学报),2018,18(5):1886-1890.
[3] ZHANG Lei(张磊),ZHUANG Damin(庄达民),YAN Yinxue(颜吟雪). Encoding of aircraft cockpit display interface[J]. Journal of Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics(南京航空航天大学学报),2009,41(4):466-469.
[4] COMSTOCK J R,JONES L C,POPE A T. The effectiveness of various attitude indicator display sizes and extended horizon lines on attitude maintenance in a part-task simulation[C]//Human Factors and Ergonomics Society. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting. Los Angeles,CA:SAGE Publications,2003:144-148.
[5] Air Accident Investigation Commission. Aeroflot Flight821 accident report[R]. Moscow, Russia:Interstate Aviation Committee,2008.
[6] Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau. Final report of the aircraft accident investigation bureau on the accident to the SAAB 340B aircraft,registration HB-AKK of Crossairflight CRX 498[R]. Berne,Switzerland:Federal Department of the Environment, Transport, Energy and Communications,2002.
[7] WICKENS C D. Aviation displays[M]//TSANG P,VIDULICH M. Principles and practices of aviation psychology. Mahwah,NJ,US:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers,2003:147-199.
[8] JOHNSON S L,ROSCOE S N. What moves,the airplane or the world?[J]. Human Factors,1972,14(2):107-129.
[9] HASBROOK A H,RASMUSSEN P G. In-flight performance of civilian pilots using moving-aircraft and movinghorizon attitude indicators,FAA-AM-73-9[R]. Washington DC:Federal Aviation Administration,1973.
[10] GROSS A,MANZEY D. Enhancing spatial orientation in novice pilots:comparing different attitude indicators using synthetic vision systems[C]//Human Factors and Ergonomics Society. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting. Los Angeles,CA:SAGE Publications,2014:1033-1038.
[11] YAMAGUCHI M,PROCTOR R W. Compatibility of motion information in two aircraft attitude displays for a tracking task[J]. American Journal of Psychology,2010,123(1):81-92.
[12] LEE B G,MYUNG R. Attitude indicator design and reference frame effects on unusual attitude recoveries[J].The International Journal of Aviation Psychology,2013,23(1):63-90.
[13] COHEN D,OTAKENO S,PREVIC F H,et al. Effect of “inside-out” and “outside-in” attitude displays on off-axis tracking in pilots and nonpilots[J]. Aviation,Space,and Environmental Medicine,2001,72(3):170-176.
[14] MULLER S,MANZEY D. Moving-horizon versus moving-aircraft:comparing the effectiveness of competing attitude indicator formats on recoveries from discrete and continuous attitude changes[C]//Human Factors and Ergonomics Society. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting. Los Angeles,CA:SAGE Publications,2017.
[15] DING D,PROCTOR R W. Interactions between the design factors of airplane artificial horizon displays[C]//Human Factors and Ergonomics Society. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting. Los Angeles, CA:SAGE Publications, 2017:84-88.
[16] MULLER S,SADOVITCH V,MANZEY D. Attitude indicator design in primary flight display:revisiting an old issue with current technology[J]. The International Journal of Aerospace Psychology, 2018, 28(1/2):46-61.
[17] PEIRCE J W. Generating stimuli for neuroscience using Psycho Py[J]. Frontiers in Neuroinformatics,2009,2(10):1-8.
[18] PREVIC F H,ERCOLINE W R. The “outside-in”attitude displayconcept revisited[J]. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 1999, 9(4):377-401.
[19] DAI Kun(戴琨),YAN Bihua(晏碧华),YANG Shiyun(杨仕云),et al. A study on pilots’strategy of constructing dynamic spatial representation[J]. Psychological Science(心理科学),2010,33(1):87-91.
[20] YAN Bihua(晏碧华),YOU Xuqun(游旭群). Pilots’dissociation of object properties and motion properties in relative arrival time tasks[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica(心理学报),2015,47(2):212-223.
[2] PANG Bing(庞兵),YU Wenyu(于雯宇). On the improvement of HFACS model based on the associaion rules and Ge NIe[J]. Journal of Safety and Environment(安全与环境学报),2018,18(5):1886-1890.
[3] ZHANG Lei(张磊),ZHUANG Damin(庄达民),YAN Yinxue(颜吟雪). Encoding of aircraft cockpit display interface[J]. Journal of Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics(南京航空航天大学学报),2009,41(4):466-469.
[4] COMSTOCK J R,JONES L C,POPE A T. The effectiveness of various attitude indicator display sizes and extended horizon lines on attitude maintenance in a part-task simulation[C]//Human Factors and Ergonomics Society. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting. Los Angeles,CA:SAGE Publications,2003:144-148.
[5] Air Accident Investigation Commission. Aeroflot Flight821 accident report[R]. Moscow, Russia:Interstate Aviation Committee,2008.
[6] Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau. Final report of the aircraft accident investigation bureau on the accident to the SAAB 340B aircraft,registration HB-AKK of Crossairflight CRX 498[R]. Berne,Switzerland:Federal Department of the Environment, Transport, Energy and Communications,2002.
[7] WICKENS C D. Aviation displays[M]//TSANG P,VIDULICH M. Principles and practices of aviation psychology. Mahwah,NJ,US:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers,2003:147-199.
[8] JOHNSON S L,ROSCOE S N. What moves,the airplane or the world?[J]. Human Factors,1972,14(2):107-129.
[9] HASBROOK A H,RASMUSSEN P G. In-flight performance of civilian pilots using moving-aircraft and movinghorizon attitude indicators,FAA-AM-73-9[R]. Washington DC:Federal Aviation Administration,1973.
[10] GROSS A,MANZEY D. Enhancing spatial orientation in novice pilots:comparing different attitude indicators using synthetic vision systems[C]//Human Factors and Ergonomics Society. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting. Los Angeles,CA:SAGE Publications,2014:1033-1038.
[11] YAMAGUCHI M,PROCTOR R W. Compatibility of motion information in two aircraft attitude displays for a tracking task[J]. American Journal of Psychology,2010,123(1):81-92.
[12] LEE B G,MYUNG R. Attitude indicator design and reference frame effects on unusual attitude recoveries[J].The International Journal of Aviation Psychology,2013,23(1):63-90.
[13] COHEN D,OTAKENO S,PREVIC F H,et al. Effect of “inside-out” and “outside-in” attitude displays on off-axis tracking in pilots and nonpilots[J]. Aviation,Space,and Environmental Medicine,2001,72(3):170-176.
[14] MULLER S,MANZEY D. Moving-horizon versus moving-aircraft:comparing the effectiveness of competing attitude indicator formats on recoveries from discrete and continuous attitude changes[C]//Human Factors and Ergonomics Society. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting. Los Angeles,CA:SAGE Publications,2017.
[15] DING D,PROCTOR R W. Interactions between the design factors of airplane artificial horizon displays[C]//Human Factors and Ergonomics Society. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting. Los Angeles, CA:SAGE Publications, 2017:84-88.
[16] MULLER S,SADOVITCH V,MANZEY D. Attitude indicator design in primary flight display:revisiting an old issue with current technology[J]. The International Journal of Aerospace Psychology, 2018, 28(1/2):46-61.
[17] PEIRCE J W. Generating stimuli for neuroscience using Psycho Py[J]. Frontiers in Neuroinformatics,2009,2(10):1-8.
[18] PREVIC F H,ERCOLINE W R. The “outside-in”attitude displayconcept revisited[J]. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 1999, 9(4):377-401.
[19] DAI Kun(戴琨),YAN Bihua(晏碧华),YANG Shiyun(杨仕云),et al. A study on pilots’strategy of constructing dynamic spatial representation[J]. Psychological Science(心理科学),2010,33(1):87-91.
[20] YAN Bihua(晏碧华),YOU Xuqun(游旭群). Pilots’dissociation of object properties and motion properties in relative arrival time tasks[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica(心理学报),2015,47(2):212-223.