Evaluation of Workload and Performance during Primary Flight Training with Motion Cueing Seat in an Advanced Aviation Training Device

• Published in: SAE International journal of aerospace 2020-01, Vol.13 (1), p.91-106, Article 01-13-01-0006
• Main Authors: Belt, Stephen, Gururajan, Srikanth, Wu, Xiaoyu
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Aeronautics; Analysis; Aviation; Circuits; Deviation; Equipment costs; Fatigue; Flight simulation; Flight simulators; Flight training; Human factors; Immersive environments; Industry standards; Maintenance costs; Maneuvers; Motion cueing; Motion effects; Parameters; Pilot workload; Simulation-based skill acquisition; Teachers; Training devices; Variance analysis; Workload; Workloads
• ISSN: 1946-3855; 1946-3901
• DOI: 10.4271/01-13-01-0006

The use of simulation is a long-standing industry standard at every level of flight training. Historically, given the acquisition and maintenance costs associated with such equipment, full-motion devices have been reserved for advanced corporate and airline training programs. The Motion Cueing Seat (MCS) is a relatively inexpensive alternative to full-motion flight simulators and has the potential to enhance the fixed-base flight simulation in primary flight training. In this article, we discuss the results of an evaluation of the effect of motion cueing on pilot workload and performance during primary instrument training. Twenty flight students and instructors from a collegiate flight training program participated in the study. Each participant performed three runs of a basic circuit using a fixed-base Advanced Aviation Training Device (AATD) and an MCS. Flight data was analyzed in terms of a workload parameter as the product of pilot input and the deviation from a reference attitude or heading and performance as the deviation from a desired altitude or heading. Friedman ANOVA tests were used to determine the significance of differences in the parameters between the trials. Where the Friedman test indicated significance, post hoc pairwise comparisons were performed with a Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons. The results of the ANOVA tests were mixed. Few of the metrics were found to have statistically significant changes across the three trials during various phases of a flight. Where the changes were found to be significant between the comparisons (Seat ON#1-Seat OFF-Seat ON#2), it appeared that the MCS had a measurable effect and suggested a potential improvement in fixed-base flight simulation in primary flight training. Additional research across a greater span of maneuvers and training time, considering such human factors as training and fatigue, may yield greater and more nuanced insights into the benefits of MCS in primary flight training.