Studying Pilot Cognition in Ship-Based Helicopter Landing Maneuvers - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Studying Pilot Cognition in Ship-Based Helicopter Landing Maneuvers Dev Minotra and Karen Feigh, Cognitive Engineering Center, School of Aerospace Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology Vertical Lift Research David Rancourt, PhD Thesis David Rancourt, PhD Proposal 1 Center of Excellence Defense 1982-2021: 40 Years of Rotorcraft Research Excellence

Introduction Overview of the Project • Focuses on the task of landing a helicopter on a moving ship deck. • It is tied to a number of challenges not faced in ground-based landing maneuvers. • At Georgia Tech, we are conducting a study to develop intelligent guidance and cueing to assist pilots in ship-board landing maneuvers. 2

Introduction Complexity elements - landing a helicopter on a ship • Moving landing spot • Limited visual cueing • Spatial confinement in landing area • Airflow hazards Project Objectives • Understand the cognitive task of landing rotorcraft on ships. Challenges in Pilot Assist Function • Matching the guidance algorithm output to how pilots think. • Choice of display modality and location of displays in cockpit (i.e. heads-up vs. heads down). 3

Overview of this Study • What are the cognitive issues in landing a helicopter on a moving ship? • We conducted a Cognitive Task Analysis. • This involved interviews with four navy instructor pilots with shipboard landing experience (August 21, 22, 2017). • Also interviewed ground-based pilots in an earlier study. • Total recorded time was 6 hours 17 mins. • Instructor pilots ― Number of shipboard landings are 200 - 810 ― DDG/FFG related experience 50 - 2000 hours ― Most experience with H60 Seahawk variants ― (MH-60R, MH-60S, SH-60B) 4

Methodology • Applied Cognitive Task Analysis (Militello and Hutton, 1998). • Adapted for the purposes of our study based on a previous preliminary study with ground-based pilots. • Focuses on expert-novice differences to reveal cognitive demands. • Each interview consists of the following – Surface Critical Knowledge Level Incident Audit Interviews Questions Questions 5

Methodology • Surface-level interview – Overview of task in 3 – 6 steps – Flow of basic steps involved • Critical incident question – “Take your time to think about an incident in which you had to bring in your helicopter piloting experience in a difficult shipboard landing operation that a novice couldn’t have carried out successfully. Can you please narrate such an incident?” • Knowledge audit questions – Big Picture – Past, Present, and Future – Noticing – Job Smarts – Self Monitoring – Anomalies – Equipment Difficulties 6

Overview of Ship-Based Approach and Landing High cognitive load Lower levels of cognitive load Line up 7

Cognitive Demands Identified Transition in Visual Scans – From instruments to external environment – This is a decision point – the timing depends on visibility or time-of-day – Switch is made once the ship is visible – At day time, once the helicopter has descended below clouds – Done before missed approach point (.5 NM) – Pilot guidance format – heads up display Illustration of Possible HUD 8

Cognitive Demands Identified Line-up with Ship’s Heading – There are two types of line-up – straight and offset (a fixed angle). – Line-up starts after the ship is found and is continually done throughout the approach. – Novice pilots may get this step wrong. – Deviations are not noticed immediately. Leads to wave-offs. Straight line-up Offset line-up 9

Cognitive Demands Identified Crossing the Edge of the Deck – In the past, it has led to deaths – landing gear stuck on nets – Interview revealed an instance of tail wheel tapping nets – Estimation of the height requires nuance judgement – Aircrewman plays a role in checking for separation – Design implication: auditory feedback, predictive feedback 1999 Accident at USS Pecos 6 marines and a Navy corpsman were killed. 10

Cognitive Demands Identified Alignment of Probe Within RSD – RAST system is still used – Not visible to pilot – Fine adjustments: Alignment of RAST probe and RSD requires aircrewman assistance – Design implication: auditory or tactile feedback 11

Cognitive Demands Identified Decision to Touchdown – Heavy sea state requires some hovering prior to touchdown – Novices spend more time hovering – Novices tend to chase the motion of the deck although without necessarily being aware of it. Type of spatial disorientation. – Time to hover ranges: <1 min to 10 mins – Sea state and visibility affect hovering time – Waiting in hover state can be frustrating 12

Cognitive Demands Identified Decision to Touchdown – Two ways to describe ‘when’ to initiate a touchdown • When a quiescent period is identified • When the deck is at level with the horizon bar – Identifying the right time to touchdown is a nuance judgement – Intelligent guidance should reduce the overall hover time – Two approaches to achieve this - • Path guidance leading to touchdown - cross the deck and directly touchdown • Cross the deck, hover, and wait for the aid to indicate the touchdown period Horz bar daytime Horz bar nighttime 13

Other Cognitive and Technical Issues • Horizon bar - the size and position may not be ideal. • There is no heads-up display in cockpit. • Pitch and roll conditions are not electronically relayed into cockpit. Information accuracy issues. • Night vision goggles - • Narrow FOV of 40 degrees. • Visual horizon is not as visible through NVGs – issue .25 NM behind the ship. • Equipment malfunctions – do not always manifest as electronic alerts. Differs from expectations based on NATOPS manuals. NVG Vision RAST trap and probe 14

Discussion • Summary of work – Cognitive Task Analysis – Four pilots interviewed – Points of high cognitive load • Transitions in visual scans • Line up with ship’s heading • Crossing edge of deck • Alignment of probe with the RAST • Hovering and touchdown decision Main implications • – Heads up display for pilot trajectory guidance – Finer adjustments involve auditory feedback – A number of system limitations were identified • Confirmatory interviews scheduled 15

Acknowledgements • Financial Support from the Vertical Lift Research Center of Excellence (VLRCOE) • Pilots at NAS Whiting • Fellow VLRCOE Task 10 students & faculty • Guidance from John Tritschler & James Prichard 16