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

studying pilot cognition in ship based helicopter landing
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

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


slide-1
SLIDE 1

David Rancourt, PhD Thesis Defense David Rancourt, PhD Proposal Vertical Lift Research Center of Excellence 1982-2021: 40 Years of Rotorcraft Research Excellence

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

1

slide-2
SLIDE 2

2

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.

Introduction

slide-3
SLIDE 3

3

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).

slide-4
SLIDE 4

4

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)

slide-5
SLIDE 5

5

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 Level Interviews Critical Incident Questions Knowledge Audit Questions

slide-6
SLIDE 6

6

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

slide-7
SLIDE 7

7

Overview of Ship-Based Approach and Landing

High cognitive load Lower levels of cognitive load

Line up

slide-8
SLIDE 8

8

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

slide-9
SLIDE 9

9

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

slide-10
SLIDE 10

10

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.

slide-11
SLIDE 11

11

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

slide-12
SLIDE 12

12

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

slide-13
SLIDE 13

13

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

slide-14
SLIDE 14

14

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.

RAST trap and probe

NVG Vision

slide-15
SLIDE 15

15

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
slide-16
SLIDE 16

16

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