Loading…

Flight simulator evaluation of an Airport Surface Display with Indications and Alerts (SURF IA)

This paper presents the results of a flight simulator evaluation of an Airport Surface Display with Indications and Alerts (SURF IA). The objective was to investigate the independent effects of display type on traffic conflict detection. The study included a comparative evaluation of a Cockpit Displ...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Lancaster, J A, Khatwa, R, Conner, K J, Glover, J H
Format: Conference Proceeding
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that cite this one
Online Access:Request full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c223t-b43b1da51c76a9b9e71ff8aa048020b967c37b8cb10565c642118aa8b37b51303
cites
container_end_page 4.D.2-12
container_issue
container_start_page 4.D.2-1
container_title
container_volume
creator Lancaster, J A
Khatwa, R
Conner, K J
Glover, J H
description This paper presents the results of a flight simulator evaluation of an Airport Surface Display with Indications and Alerts (SURF IA). The objective was to investigate the independent effects of display type on traffic conflict detection. The study included a comparative evaluation of a Cockpit Display of Traffic Information with Indications & Alerts (CDTI IA) and CDTI without IA (CDTI baseline). Eight commercial airline pilots each flew nine scenarios in a B737-700 part-task flight simulator. Dependent measures included both subjective and objective data. The display symbology for traffic and runway indications and alerts was acceptable and understood by the pilots. The traffic velocity trend vector was considered a significant cue with which to detect traffic conflicts. Workload was perceived as acceptable for both CDTI types. There was no significant difference in traffic conflict detection rates between CDTI baseline and CDTI IA groups. However, the CDTI IA facilitated faster conflict detection and decision making during final approach scenarios when compared to the CDTI baseline display. Similar differences were not observed for take-off scenarios, primarily due to the absence of an alert: either the scenario did not progress to a point where an alert was generated, or the alert was inhibited above 80 knots per the system design.
doi_str_mv 10.1109/DASC.2010.5655333
format conference_proceeding
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>ieee_CHZPO</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_ieee_primary_5655333</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><ieee_id>5655333</ieee_id><sourcerecordid>5655333</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c223t-b43b1da51c76a9b9e71ff8aa048020b967c37b8cb10565c642118aa8b37b51303</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNo1kEtPAjEUhesrEZEfYNx0qYvB3j6nywmIkpCYiKxJWzpSMzCkLRr-vROFs7m55zu5yT0I3QEZAhD9NK7moyEl3SqkEIyxMzTQqgROOZcSSn6OehSEKBQl-gLdnIDklycAWlyjQUpfpJOgilHSQ8tJEz7XGaew2TcmtxH7b9PsTQ7tFrc1NltchbhrY8bzfayN83gc0q4xB_wT8hpPt6vg_tKpy65w1fiYE36YL94neFo93qKr2jTJD46zjxaT54_RazF7e5mOqlnhKGW5sJxZWBkBTkmjrfYK6ro0hvCSUGK1VI4pWzoLpPvfSU4BOlzazhXACOuj-_-7wXu_3MWwMfGwPHbFfgHx7Vee</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Publisher</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>conference_proceeding</recordtype></control><display><type>conference_proceeding</type><title>Flight simulator evaluation of an Airport Surface Display with Indications and Alerts (SURF IA)</title><source>IEEE Xplore All Conference Series</source><creator>Lancaster, J A ; Khatwa, R ; Conner, K J ; Glover, J H</creator><creatorcontrib>Lancaster, J A ; Khatwa, R ; Conner, K J ; Glover, J H</creatorcontrib><description>This paper presents the results of a flight simulator evaluation of an Airport Surface Display with Indications and Alerts (SURF IA). The objective was to investigate the independent effects of display type on traffic conflict detection. The study included a comparative evaluation of a Cockpit Display of Traffic Information with Indications &amp; Alerts (CDTI IA) and CDTI without IA (CDTI baseline). Eight commercial airline pilots each flew nine scenarios in a B737-700 part-task flight simulator. Dependent measures included both subjective and objective data. The display symbology for traffic and runway indications and alerts was acceptable and understood by the pilots. The traffic velocity trend vector was considered a significant cue with which to detect traffic conflicts. Workload was perceived as acceptable for both CDTI types. There was no significant difference in traffic conflict detection rates between CDTI baseline and CDTI IA groups. However, the CDTI IA facilitated faster conflict detection and decision making during final approach scenarios when compared to the CDTI baseline display. Similar differences were not observed for take-off scenarios, primarily due to the absence of an alert: either the scenario did not progress to a point where an alert was generated, or the alert was inhibited above 80 knots per the system design.</description><identifier>ISSN: 2155-7195</identifier><identifier>ISBN: 1424466164</identifier><identifier>ISBN: 9781424466160</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2155-7209</identifier><identifier>EISBN: 9781424466184</identifier><identifier>EISBN: 1424466180</identifier><identifier>EISBN: 9781424466177</identifier><identifier>EISBN: 1424466172</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1109/DASC.2010.5655333</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>IEEE</publisher><subject>Air traffic control ; Aircraft ; Airports ; Atmospheric modeling ; Image color analysis ; Safety ; Visualization</subject><ispartof>29th Digital Avionics Systems Conference, 2010, p.4.D.2-1-4.D.2-12</ispartof><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c223t-b43b1da51c76a9b9e71ff8aa048020b967c37b8cb10565c642118aa8b37b51303</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/5655333$$EHTML$$P50$$Gieee$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>309,310,780,784,789,790,2058,27925,54555,54920,54932</link.rule.ids><linktorsrc>$$Uhttps://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/5655333$$EView_record_in_IEEE$$FView_record_in_$$GIEEE</linktorsrc></links><search><creatorcontrib>Lancaster, J A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Khatwa, R</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Conner, K J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Glover, J H</creatorcontrib><title>Flight simulator evaluation of an Airport Surface Display with Indications and Alerts (SURF IA)</title><title>29th Digital Avionics Systems Conference</title><addtitle>DASC</addtitle><description>This paper presents the results of a flight simulator evaluation of an Airport Surface Display with Indications and Alerts (SURF IA). The objective was to investigate the independent effects of display type on traffic conflict detection. The study included a comparative evaluation of a Cockpit Display of Traffic Information with Indications &amp; Alerts (CDTI IA) and CDTI without IA (CDTI baseline). Eight commercial airline pilots each flew nine scenarios in a B737-700 part-task flight simulator. Dependent measures included both subjective and objective data. The display symbology for traffic and runway indications and alerts was acceptable and understood by the pilots. The traffic velocity trend vector was considered a significant cue with which to detect traffic conflicts. Workload was perceived as acceptable for both CDTI types. There was no significant difference in traffic conflict detection rates between CDTI baseline and CDTI IA groups. However, the CDTI IA facilitated faster conflict detection and decision making during final approach scenarios when compared to the CDTI baseline display. Similar differences were not observed for take-off scenarios, primarily due to the absence of an alert: either the scenario did not progress to a point where an alert was generated, or the alert was inhibited above 80 knots per the system design.</description><subject>Air traffic control</subject><subject>Aircraft</subject><subject>Airports</subject><subject>Atmospheric modeling</subject><subject>Image color analysis</subject><subject>Safety</subject><subject>Visualization</subject><issn>2155-7195</issn><issn>2155-7209</issn><isbn>1424466164</isbn><isbn>9781424466160</isbn><isbn>9781424466184</isbn><isbn>1424466180</isbn><isbn>9781424466177</isbn><isbn>1424466172</isbn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>conference_proceeding</rsrctype><creationdate>2010</creationdate><recordtype>conference_proceeding</recordtype><sourceid>6IE</sourceid><recordid>eNo1kEtPAjEUhesrEZEfYNx0qYvB3j6nywmIkpCYiKxJWzpSMzCkLRr-vROFs7m55zu5yT0I3QEZAhD9NK7moyEl3SqkEIyxMzTQqgROOZcSSn6OehSEKBQl-gLdnIDklycAWlyjQUpfpJOgilHSQ8tJEz7XGaew2TcmtxH7b9PsTQ7tFrc1NltchbhrY8bzfayN83gc0q4xB_wT8hpPt6vg_tKpy65w1fiYE36YL94neFo93qKr2jTJD46zjxaT54_RazF7e5mOqlnhKGW5sJxZWBkBTkmjrfYK6ro0hvCSUGK1VI4pWzoLpPvfSU4BOlzazhXACOuj-_-7wXu_3MWwMfGwPHbFfgHx7Vee</recordid><startdate>201010</startdate><enddate>201010</enddate><creator>Lancaster, J A</creator><creator>Khatwa, R</creator><creator>Conner, K J</creator><creator>Glover, J H</creator><general>IEEE</general><scope>6IE</scope><scope>6IH</scope><scope>CBEJK</scope><scope>RIE</scope><scope>RIO</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201010</creationdate><title>Flight simulator evaluation of an Airport Surface Display with Indications and Alerts (SURF IA)</title><author>Lancaster, J A ; Khatwa, R ; Conner, K J ; Glover, J H</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c223t-b43b1da51c76a9b9e71ff8aa048020b967c37b8cb10565c642118aa8b37b51303</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>conference_proceedings</rsrctype><prefilter>conference_proceedings</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2010</creationdate><topic>Air traffic control</topic><topic>Aircraft</topic><topic>Airports</topic><topic>Atmospheric modeling</topic><topic>Image color analysis</topic><topic>Safety</topic><topic>Visualization</topic><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Lancaster, J A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Khatwa, R</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Conner, K J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Glover, J H</creatorcontrib><collection>IEEE Electronic Library (IEL) Conference Proceedings</collection><collection>IEEE Proceedings Order Plan (POP) 1998-present by volume</collection><collection>IEEE Xplore All Conference Proceedings</collection><collection>IEEE Xplore</collection><collection>IEEE Proceedings Order Plans (POP) 1998-present</collection></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext_linktorsrc</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Lancaster, J A</au><au>Khatwa, R</au><au>Conner, K J</au><au>Glover, J H</au><format>book</format><genre>proceeding</genre><ristype>CONF</ristype><atitle>Flight simulator evaluation of an Airport Surface Display with Indications and Alerts (SURF IA)</atitle><btitle>29th Digital Avionics Systems Conference</btitle><stitle>DASC</stitle><date>2010-10</date><risdate>2010</risdate><spage>4.D.2-1</spage><epage>4.D.2-12</epage><pages>4.D.2-1-4.D.2-12</pages><issn>2155-7195</issn><eissn>2155-7209</eissn><isbn>1424466164</isbn><isbn>9781424466160</isbn><eisbn>9781424466184</eisbn><eisbn>1424466180</eisbn><eisbn>9781424466177</eisbn><eisbn>1424466172</eisbn><abstract>This paper presents the results of a flight simulator evaluation of an Airport Surface Display with Indications and Alerts (SURF IA). The objective was to investigate the independent effects of display type on traffic conflict detection. The study included a comparative evaluation of a Cockpit Display of Traffic Information with Indications &amp; Alerts (CDTI IA) and CDTI without IA (CDTI baseline). Eight commercial airline pilots each flew nine scenarios in a B737-700 part-task flight simulator. Dependent measures included both subjective and objective data. The display symbology for traffic and runway indications and alerts was acceptable and understood by the pilots. The traffic velocity trend vector was considered a significant cue with which to detect traffic conflicts. Workload was perceived as acceptable for both CDTI types. There was no significant difference in traffic conflict detection rates between CDTI baseline and CDTI IA groups. However, the CDTI IA facilitated faster conflict detection and decision making during final approach scenarios when compared to the CDTI baseline display. Similar differences were not observed for take-off scenarios, primarily due to the absence of an alert: either the scenario did not progress to a point where an alert was generated, or the alert was inhibited above 80 knots per the system design.</abstract><pub>IEEE</pub><doi>10.1109/DASC.2010.5655333</doi></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext_linktorsrc
identifier ISSN: 2155-7195
ispartof 29th Digital Avionics Systems Conference, 2010, p.4.D.2-1-4.D.2-12
issn 2155-7195
2155-7209
language eng
recordid cdi_ieee_primary_5655333
source IEEE Xplore All Conference Series
subjects Air traffic control
Aircraft
Airports
Atmospheric modeling
Image color analysis
Safety
Visualization
title Flight simulator evaluation of an Airport Surface Display with Indications and Alerts (SURF IA)
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-01T05%3A00%3A26IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-ieee_CHZPO&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=proceeding&rft.atitle=Flight%20simulator%20evaluation%20of%20an%20Airport%20Surface%20Display%20with%20Indications%20and%20Alerts%20(SURF%20IA)&rft.btitle=29th%20Digital%20Avionics%20Systems%20Conference&rft.au=Lancaster,%20J%20A&rft.date=2010-10&rft.spage=4.D.2-1&rft.epage=4.D.2-12&rft.pages=4.D.2-1-4.D.2-12&rft.issn=2155-7195&rft.eissn=2155-7209&rft.isbn=1424466164&rft.isbn_list=9781424466160&rft_id=info:doi/10.1109/DASC.2010.5655333&rft.eisbn=9781424466184&rft.eisbn_list=1424466180&rft.eisbn_list=9781424466177&rft.eisbn_list=1424466172&rft_dat=%3Cieee_CHZPO%3E5655333%3C/ieee_CHZPO%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c223t-b43b1da51c76a9b9e71ff8aa048020b967c37b8cb10565c642118aa8b37b51303%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_ieee_id=5655333&rfr_iscdi=true