Susceptibility to Flight Simulator-Induced Spatial Disorientation in Pilots and Non-Pilots

IF 1 4区 心理学 Q4 PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED International Journal of Aerospace Psychology Pub Date : 2020-04-02 DOI:10.1080/24721840.2019.1696680
Rafał Lewkowicz, B. Bałaj, Piotr Francuz
{"title":"Susceptibility to Flight Simulator-Induced Spatial Disorientation in Pilots and Non-Pilots","authors":"Rafał Lewkowicz, B. Bałaj, Piotr Francuz","doi":"10.1080/24721840.2019.1696680","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Objective: This study aimed to investigate whether pilots and non-pilots differ in their susceptibility to spatial disorientation (SD) during a flight in various disorienting scenarios, and in coping with SD. Background: Pilot selection is relevant in assessing pilots’ susceptibility to SD. However, SD-related accidents indicate that it may not be fully effective. Method: A set of 12 flight sequences (six containing an SD conflict, three with vestibular and three with visual illusions) was flown by military pilots (N = 20; age: M = 31.6; SD = 8.22) and non-pilots (N = 20; age: M = 30.95; SD = 7.72) in a flight simulator specially designed for SD research and training. The number and mean magnitude of control reversal errors (CREs) were calculated along with the effects of SD conflict on flight performance. Results: With two exceptions, in all SD-conflict flights, the mean number of CREs increased. For mean magnitudes of CREs, the same effects were not observed. Pilots and non-pilots differed in disorientation conditions (M = 4.5 ± 1.95 vs M = 2.6 ± 2.41) only in one profile (shape constancy illusion). In the other two (false horizon and leans illusions), the applied SD cues significantly affected their flight performance. Conclusion: Although the effects of SD cues on flight performance were observed, the applied disorientation scenario would not be useful in the pilot selection procedure. To provide the criteria to select pilot candidates, other disorientation scenarios, or even a different flight simulator should be considered.","PeriodicalId":41693,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Aerospace Psychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-04-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/24721840.2019.1696680","citationCount":"6","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Aerospace Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/24721840.2019.1696680","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

Abstract

ABSTRACT Objective: This study aimed to investigate whether pilots and non-pilots differ in their susceptibility to spatial disorientation (SD) during a flight in various disorienting scenarios, and in coping with SD. Background: Pilot selection is relevant in assessing pilots’ susceptibility to SD. However, SD-related accidents indicate that it may not be fully effective. Method: A set of 12 flight sequences (six containing an SD conflict, three with vestibular and three with visual illusions) was flown by military pilots (N = 20; age: M = 31.6; SD = 8.22) and non-pilots (N = 20; age: M = 30.95; SD = 7.72) in a flight simulator specially designed for SD research and training. The number and mean magnitude of control reversal errors (CREs) were calculated along with the effects of SD conflict on flight performance. Results: With two exceptions, in all SD-conflict flights, the mean number of CREs increased. For mean magnitudes of CREs, the same effects were not observed. Pilots and non-pilots differed in disorientation conditions (M = 4.5 ± 1.95 vs M = 2.6 ± 2.41) only in one profile (shape constancy illusion). In the other two (false horizon and leans illusions), the applied SD cues significantly affected their flight performance. Conclusion: Although the effects of SD cues on flight performance were observed, the applied disorientation scenario would not be useful in the pilot selection procedure. To provide the criteria to select pilot candidates, other disorientation scenarios, or even a different flight simulator should be considered.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
飞行员和非飞行员对飞行模拟器引起的空间定向障碍的易感性
摘要目的:本研究旨在探讨飞行员和非飞行员在飞行过程中不同定向障碍情境下对空间定向障碍的易感性和应对能力是否存在差异。背景:飞行员选择与评估飞行员对SD的易感性有关。然而,与sd相关的事故表明,它可能不会完全有效。方法:选取军事飞行员的12组飞行序列(6组包含SD冲突,3组包含前庭幻觉,3组包含视错觉)(N = 20;年龄:M = 31.6;SD = 8.22)和非飞行员(N = 20;年龄:M = 30.95;SD = 7.72),在专门为SD研究和训练设计的飞行模拟器中。计算了控制反转误差(CREs)的数量和平均大小以及SD冲突对飞行性能的影响。结果:除2个例外,在所有sd冲突航班中,cre的平均数量增加。对于cre的平均量级,没有观察到相同的影响。飞行员和非飞行员在定向障碍条件(M = 4.5±1.95 vs M = 2.6±2.41)仅在一个侧面(形状恒定错觉)存在差异。在另外两种情况下(假地平线和倾斜错觉),SD提示显著影响了他们的飞行表现。结论:虽然观察到SD线索对飞行表现的影响,但定向障碍情景在飞行员选拔过程中并不有用。为了提供选择飞行员候选人的标准,应该考虑其他定向障碍场景,甚至是不同的飞行模拟器。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
7.70%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Qualitative Analysis of General Aviation Pilots’ Aviation Safety Reporting System Incident Narratives Using the Human Factors Analysis and Classification System Effective Monitoring for Early Detection of Hypoxia in Fighter Pilots The Effects of Aeronautical Decision-Making Models on Student Pilots’ Situational Awareness and Cognitive Workload in Simulated Non-Normal Flight Deck Environment The Relationship between Preparation, Impression Management, and Interview Performance in High-Stakes Personnel Selection: A Field Study of Airline Pilot Applicants It Was This Wing Wasn’t It? Identifying the Importance of Verbal Communication in Aviation Maintenance
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1