The objective of this paper is to examine how two different cueing designs impact pilot workload for rotorcraft shipboard landings. The study consisted of two phases. The first was an online survey that examined two different 3D conformal cueing styles using video snippets; a traditional 'tunnel in the sky' cueing set, and a unique 'follow the leader' cueing set. The online survey measured pilots' ability to correctly judge the motion of their aircraft in relation to the cue and measured the pilots' opinions about the cue. We used the results from the online survey to refine the visual elements of the cue set for the second phase of the study, Pilot-In-the-Loop (PIL) flight simulator testing. The PIL testing examined the pilots' ability to fly a prescribed approach path to touchdown on the deck of an Arleigh Burke Flight IIA class Destroyer under three different conditions; visual approach during the day with a Heads Up Display (HUD) and Primary Flight Display (PFD), visual approach during the day with HUD, PFD, and Flight Lead Cueing System (FLCS) 3D conformal cueing, and visual approach at night with HUD, PFD, and FLCS 3D conformal cueing. After each condition the pilots rated the cues using the NASA Task Load Index (TLX), System Usability Scale (SUS), and the Deck Interface Pilot Effort Scale (DIPES). We also measured the pilots' control activity using the Dynamic Interface Modeling and Simulation System Product Metric (DIMSS PM) and evaluated their touchdown location, heading, and impact velocity. We found that there was no significant difference in control activity for landing metrics between the day iterations, however, the pilots reported lower workload with the use of the 3D conformal cueing. We also found that the pilots were unable to effectively follow the 3D cueing at night with no external visual references present.
展开▼
