Comanche Helmet-Mounted Display Heading-Tape Simulation
The Aeroflightdynamics Directorate (AMRDEC) conducted a simulation to assess the performance associated with a Contact Analog, world-referenced heading tape as implemented on the Comanche Helmet Integrated Display Sight System (HIDSS) when compared with a Compressed heading tape similar to that specified by the former Military Standard (MIL-STD) 1295. Six experienced pilots flew three modified Aeronautical Design Standards (ADS)-33 maneuvers (Hover Turn, Bob-up, Transient Turn) and a precision traffic pattern in the NASA Vertical Motion Simulator (VMS). Analysis of the pilot objective performance data and subjective handling qualities ratings (HQRs) showed the following: Compressed symbology in the Velocity Stabilization (VelStab) flight mode generally produced the most precise performances over Contact Analog symbology with respect to the heading, altitude, position, and time criteria specified for the maneuvers tested. VelStab outperformed the Automatic Flight Control System (AFCS) on all maneuvers achieving desired performance on most maneuvers for both symbol sets. Performance in the AFCS mode was generally desirable to adequate for heading and altitude and did not meet adequate standards for hover position and time for the Hover Turn and Bob-up maneuvers. VelStab and AFCS performance were nearly the same for the Transient Turn. Pilot comments concerning the Contact Analog heading-tape implementation were generally unfavorable in spite of the achieved levels of performance. HQRs showed Compressed symbology in the VelStab flight mode produced the lowest mean HQR, encompassing mixed ratings of satisfactory handling and needing improvement. All other symbology/flight-mode combinations yielded higher HQRs, which characterized opinions that deficiencies in aircraft handling due to HMD symbology would need improvement. Contact Analog heading tape and other symbology require improvement, especially when operating in the AFCS mode. NASA-TLX rated Compressed symbology in the VelStab flight mode as the least demanding on resources, closely followed by ratings for Contact Analog in the VelStab mode. In a similar pattern, TLX ratings for maneuvers completed in the AFCS mode yielded a higher level of resource demand with even slighter differences between Contact Analog and Compressed symbology sets. Further research should be conducted where objective data and subjective HQR ratings indicate a need for improvement. The areas requiring attention are those where the symbology implementation, the flight control system, or a combination of both caused workload to reach an objectionable level where adequate performance was either difficult to achieve or unachievable. These areas are clearly identified in this report. Symbology that received negative HQR comments by a majority of pilots should also be examined. The summary of pilot comments can be found in appendix A. Additional simulation trials should be considered to address the identified issues.