by

THE EFFECT OF FLIGHT SIMULATOR MOTION ON MODELLED VESTIBULAR RESPONSE by Kathleen M. Misovec B.S., Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1984 Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Aeronautics and Astronautics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology September, 1986 ()Massachusetts Institute of Technology 1986 Signature of Author Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics September, 1986 Certified by Professor Steven R. Bussolari Thesis Supervisor Certified by Professor Harold Y. Wachman Chairman Departmental Graduate Committee Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics I Room 14-0551 mITLibraries Document Services 77 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA 02139 Ph: 617.253.2800 Email: docs@mit.edu http://Iibraries.mit.edu/docs DISCLAIMER OF QUALITY Due to the condition of the original material, there are unavoidable flaws in this reproduction, We have made every effort possible to provide you with the best copy available. If you are dissatisfied with this product and find it unusable, please contact Document Services as soon as possible. Thank you. Some pages in the original document contain pictures, graphics, or text that is illegible. THE EFFECT OF FLIGHT SIMULATOR MOTION ON MODELLED VESTIBULAR RESPONSE by Kathleen M. Misovec Submitted to the Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics on August 30, 1986 in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Aeronautics and Astronautics ABSTRACT A study of the effect of flight simulator motion on modelled vestibular response was conducted. Experiments were performed on a Boeing 727 flight simulator which used a synergistic motion base. Three different motion conditions were compared in the experiments. One condition consisted only of high frequency, low amplitude special effects such as turbulance and landing gear extension. The second condition, jostle motion, consisted of motion capability in the lateral and vertical degrees of freedom as well as special effects. The third condition, full motion, was the six degree of freedom capability normally used on the flight simulator. Three flight scenarios, designed to require significant amounts of pilot control activity, were flown by eighteen subjects. The subjects were divided into three groups of six, each group performing one scenario. The first scenario consisted of an engine flame out on take off. The second, an airwork scenario, consisted of steep turns, approach to stall maneuvers, and standard rate turns with yaw damper failure. The third scenario was an ILS approach and landing in wind shear. The two primary types of measurements that were analyzed were acceleration errors and vestibular errors. Acceleration error is defined to be the difference between the accelerations of the aircraft and the simulator. Vestibular error is defined to be the difference between the pilot's modelled vestibular responses in the aircraft and the simulator. Two other sets of measurements, pilot opinion and pilot performance, were also compared for the three motion conditions of the experiment. In general, no significant differences were found between the motion conditions for any of the measurements. However, for the vestibular error measurments, the rotational vestibular errors were usually below established thresholds of perception while many of the translational errors were above the thresholds of perception. Thesis supervisor: Steven R. Bussolari, PhD Title: Assistant Professor of Aeronautics and Astronautics This thesis is dedicated in memory of Margaret Mary Misovec. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank my father, Dr. Andrew Misovec. His ideas and our conversations about engineering have always been extremely valuable to my education. His constant encouragement and insights are greatly appreciated. Professor Steven Bussolari provided the basic idea for the experiments and contributed to thcir implementation and analysis. I would like to thank Dr. Alfred Lee for the analysis of performance data and Ted Demosthenes for his generous help with running the experiments. Thanks are due to Dr. Charles Oman for consultations about the vestibular models and to Dr. Alan Natapoff for consultations about the statistical analysis of the data. Conversations with Dr. Mohammed Massoumnia have been extremely valuable to my general education and are greatly appreciated. I would also like to thank Ed Kneller, Mark Shelhamer and R. Bryan Sullivan for their helpful thoughts on the technical aspects of the analysis of these experiments. Thanks also to Dan Merfeld for his ideas. The generous amounts of advice and help from Sherry Modestino and Ed Kneller in writing and preparing this thesis are gratefully acknowledged. I am grateful to Margaret Misovec, Mary Misovec, Paul Misovec, Andrew C. Misovec, Michael Misovec, James Smith, Patricia Tellier and Rene Tellier for their support and encouragement. Thanks also to Kevin Ackley, Marilyn Cieuzo, Suzanne Cox, Wayne Greene, Justin Marble and Jennifer Wiseman. TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1: 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Types of Motion Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Types of Washout Systems Problems with the Optimal Control Washout Design - What Should Be Optimized? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Problems Associated with Quantifying Simulator Realism . .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . This Research - More Basic Questions Thesis Outline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 2: FORMULATION OF THE VESTIBULAR ERROR AS A MOTION FIDELITY MEASURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . 2.1 Introduction .. .. '. . . . . . . .. .. ... . . . .. . . 2.2 Semicircular Canals . . . . . *.. . . 2.2.1 Physical Description of the Semicircular canals 2.2.2 Mathematical Model of the semicircular canals . . . 2.3 Otoliths . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3.1 Physical Description of Otoliths . . . . . . . . . . 2.3.2 Mathematical Models of the Otoliths . . . . . . . . 2.4 Vestibular Error Measurements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 3: EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN AND ANALYSIS MEASUREMENTS . . . . . . . 3.1 Brief Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2. Experiment Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.1 Simulator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.2 Motion Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.3 Flight Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.3.1 Familiarization Scenario . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.3.2 Engine flame-out on takeoff . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.3.3 Airwork Scenario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.3.4 ILS Approach and Landing Scenario . . . . . . . 3.2.4 Subjects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.5 Order Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3 Analysis Measurements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.1 Opinion Measurements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.2 Acceleration Error Measurements . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.3 Vestibular Error Measurements . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.4 Pilot Performance Measurements. . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.4.1 Engine Flame-out Scenario . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.4.2 Airwork Scenario. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.4.3 ILS Approach and Landing Scenario . . . . . . . . 3.4 Data Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4.1 Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4.2 Trials . . . . . . . . . . . . *.* . . .. . . . . . . . 3.4.3 Pertinent Degrees of Freedom for Each Scenario . . . . 3.4.4 Data Windows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4.5 Data Collection Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4.5.1 Possible Aliasing of Rotational Data . . . . . . 3.4.5.2 Lateral Axis Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4.5.3 Longitundinal Axis Acceleration Data. . . . . . . 3.4.5.4 Other Problems. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 5 7 13 17 17 21 23 24 24 24 24 25 33 33 33 35 40 40 40 40 40 42 43 43 44 44 46 47 47 47 51 52 53 53 53 54 54 54 57 57 58 59 59 60 60 60 CHAPTER 4: PILOT OPINION RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 4.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2 Presentation of Opinion Results . . . 4.3 Discussion of Pilot Opinion Results. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 62 62 64 CHAPTER 5: ACCELERATION ERROR RESULTS AND DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . 70 5.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 5.2 Engine Flame-Out Acceleration Error Results . . . . . . . . 71 5.3 Steep Turu Acceleration Error Results . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 5.4 Stall Acceleration Error Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 5.5 Rate Turns with Yaw Damper Failure Acceleration Error Results. 78 5.6 ILS Approach and Landing Scenario Results . . . . . . . . . 80 5.6.1 Approach Segment: 500' - 200' . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 5.6.2 Landing Segment: Last 20 to 25 s Before Touchdown . 83 5.7 Discussion. ......... ,. ............. '.. ....... . ...... 86 5.7.1 Discussion of Analysis Method. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 5.7.2 Discussion of Results. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 CHAPTER 6: VESTIBULAR ERROR RESULTS AND DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . 6.1 Engine Flame-Out Vestibular Error Results . . . . . . . . . 6.2 Steep Turn Vestibular Error Results . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3 Stall Vestibular Error Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.4 Rate Turns with Yaw Damper Failure Vestibular Error Results 6.5 ILS Approach and Landing Vestibular Error Results. . .... 6.5.1 Approach Segment: 500' - 200' . . . . . . . . . . . 6.5.2 Landing Segment: Last 20-25 sec before touchdown . 6.6 Discussion of Vestibular Error Results . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 7: PILOT PERFORMANCE RESULTS . . . . . . . 7.1 Engine Flame-Out Performance Results . . 7.2 Airwork Scenario Performance . . . . . . 7.2.1 Approach-to-Stall . . . . . . . . . 7.2.2 Rate Turns with Yaw Damper Failure 7.3 ILS Approach and Landing Scenario . . . 7.4 Discussion of Performance Results. . . . . CHAPTER 8: 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 9: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . 9.1 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.2 Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 91 92 95 98 101 101 105 109 . . . . 111 . . . . 111 . . . . 112 . . . . 112 . . . . 112 . . . . 112 . . . . 113 PROBLEMS DUE TO ALIASED ROTATIONAL VESTIBULAR RESPONSES Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aliasing General Information . . . . . . . . . . . The Effect of Undersampling on the Results of This Rotational Vestibular Error Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117 . . . . . . . . . . Study . . . . . . . 117 117 119 119 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131 131 132 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION In addition to being useful as both subjects and tools of scientific research, flight simulators provide training to aircraft pilots, and are also used for pilot certification. Pilot training and certification encompasses a broad range of flight manuevers from standard procedures such as cruise to more complicated and frequently dangerous manuevers such as an engine failure on takeoff. Performance of such manuevers in a simulator instead of an actual aircraft is valuable for two reasons. One is because if a pilot makes a mistake in an actual aircraft, collision is possible. The other is that although simulators may have a higher initial cost than the actual flight vehicle, the operational costs of simulators are usually less than those of an actual flight vehicle. This makes pilot training and certification less expensive in a simulator in an actual aircraft. It is vitally important that the simulation is realistic enough so that pilot training received in simulated emergency manuevers is adequate enough to apply to similar situations that may arise in an actual aircraft. Currently it is not known how realistic the simulator must be to achieve adequate "transfer-of-training" from simulator to aircraft. So the effort has been to make the simulation as realistic as possible. of realism. There are three general types Engineering realism may be parameterized by dynamic characteristics such as accelerations and forces. Psychological realism could be achieved by such factors as an actual instrument panel, or realistic air traffic control simulation and could be measured by pilot opinion about the fidelity of the simulation. 5 Physiological fidelity pertains to the accurate representation of sensory signals sent to and processed by the central nervous system. A natural tradeoff arises between the fidelity of the simulation and the cost associated with the complexity of the system. The lower fidelity flight training systems might be a cardboard representation of the instrument panel or relatively simple program that runs on a microcomputer. Both realism and cost are increased as real instruments and an actual cockpit setting, which provide primarily psychological fidelity, are added to the system. Physio- logical as well as psychological fidelity can be increased, at high financial cost, by including a visual system in the simulation. A motion system may increase engineering, psychological and physiological realism to the simulation. In recent years, technological improvements in motion systems have been mainly software-oriented so that their cost, which is high primarly due to dynamic requirements of obtaining accelerations, remains relatively high. Most of the more advanced simulators today have highly complex, expensive motion systems. Many motion systems have been installed and methods of controlling the motion base have been widely researched because of an implicit assumption that motion capability in a simulator is critical for realism and therefore necessary for adequate transfer-of-training from simulator to aircraft. The goal of this thesis is to scientifically examine this assumption by comparing the effects of different levels of motion capability on various parameters of engineering, psychological and physiological realism. 6 1.1 Types of Motion Systems There are six possible independent directions or degrees of freedom in which motion capability is possible in all physical unconstrained systems. As shown in Figure 1.1, there are the three translational degrees of freedom and three rotational degrees of freedom. In this thesis, the translational degrees of freedom will be referred to as "surge" for longitudinal motion; "sway" for lateral motion, and "heave" for vertical motion. While the rotational degrees of freedom will be referred to as "pitch", and "yaw", "roll" IVarer&I Figure 1.1: The six possible degrees of freedom of motion. There are a variety of different mechanical ways to produce simulator motion currently in use. In cascaded systems, such as that shown in Figure 1.2, each degree of freedom is separately and independently controlled by a cascade of six motion elements. Translational degrees of freedom are achieved by allowing a cab to 7 move on a cascade of linear tracks. This motion is characterized by the position, velocity and acceleration of the cab along the tracks. The length of the track limits translational motion capability. Rotational directional capability is acheieved by suspending the cab in a motor-driven gimbal. Three nested gimbals are needed to obtain complete rotational capability about any axis. motion is limited by the maximum angular positions, Rotational angular velo- cities, and angular accelerations that the system can undergo. In other systems, known as synergistic simulators, the actuators work together to achieve motion in a single degree of freedom (see Figure 1.3). This can be achieved by having a cab supported by a platform which is supported by six legs attached to the ground. The legs are controlled by hydraulic pistons and limitations are due to the maximum length of the legs and the their maximum rates of change. The maximum force that the legs can generate is another motion capability limiting factor. The primary advantage of this "hexapod" system over the cascaded system is that the hardware is simpler. Some systems, such as the Vertical Motion Simulator (VMS) located at NASA Ames, have a motion base system that is a combination of the cascade and the hexapod system. In the VMS, as shown in Figure 1.4, linear tracks provide the translational motion capabilitities, lities. while a hexapod system provides the rotational capabiAlthough there are only two tracks in this system, the cab can rotate about a vertical axis to allow the horizontal track to be used for both longitudinal and lateral motion (Sullivan, 1985). 8 Another type of system is exemplified by the Large Amplitude Multi-Mode Aerospace Research Simulator ("LAMARS") located at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base. In this system, a 10 meter beam suspends a large sphere which supports the simulator cab. beam is capable of lateral and vertical motions. The The cab is gimballed so that it can move in all three rotational degrees of freedom. Centrifuge motion systems are gimballed cabs that are suspended at the end of a large rotating arm (see Figure 1.5). The design of a controller for these motion systems is challenging because the pilot is in a rotating environment. Unlike the above systems which are only capable of half of a g acceleration levels, centrifuge motion systems can achieve translational accelerations of up to 40g (Ish-Shalom, 1982). The capability of large sustained acceleration is extremely useful in training military pilots to avoid blacking out, which happens ocassionally when they are flying high performance fighter aircraft. The high g-levels can draw the blood from their heads and cause them to lose consciousness. One of the highest fidelity flight simulators currently in existence are variable stability airplanes that are used as flying simulators. These planes are designed so that their natural frequencies can be varied to simulate different types of aircraft. 9 CDC199I MSPILAT AI=ZaS P.ATFORM PITCH AXIS YISUAL O3KAT t"ie curxia c-zAagpg Faci2 A, 977T AXIST (WCA -liCA4. CA4043 Figure 1.2 Example of Cascaded Motion Base System (Sinacori, 10 1977) Figure 1.3: Example of Synergistic Motion Base System (Unscaled Drawing) 11 Figure 1.4 Vertical Motion Simulator (VMS) (Sullivan,1985) IVon-Gierke Figure 1.5: Artist's Conception of ,cntri'uge Motion Base System (7on-Gierke 19(a 12 1.2 Types of Washout Systems Designing a simulator motion drive logic system is a challengThe basic task is to compute simulator motion ing control problem. base commands on the basis of computed airplane motions without exceeding the limitations of the motion system, while retaining as much realism as possible (Figure 1.6) (Ish-Shalom, 1982). The term "washout system" is given to the simulator controller because basically the system undergoes an initial acceleration in some direction that must be slowly faded or "washed" out so that the simulator will not reach the limits of its excursion capabilities. Afterwards, the simulator, which has changed position as a result of the acceleration, is slowly allowed to return to a more central position so that it can have enough room for travel in the next portion of the flight. Ideally the system should be designed so that the whole procedure is as realistic as possible to the pilot. For example when the simulator accelerations are being washed out and when the simulator returns to a central position, it should do so in such a way that the motions involved are below the threshold of perception in the pilot. There are a variety of washout systems that are currently in use in industry today. Examples of the simpler types of washout systems in use are systems that employ some sort of accelerationmatching strategy. For example, the simulator acceleration could be the actual aircraft acceleration multiplied by a constant gain. The "clipped magnitude" concept, another example of this type of washout system, matches the accelerations as long as they don't exceed a certain limit dictated by the capabilities of the 13 simulator. One of the disadvantages of these systems is that they are not self-centering. Other disadvantages include the facts that the proportional drive needlessly limits low displacement high frequency accelerations; while the clipped magnitude drive unnecessarily limits high frequency high amplitude accelerations that are still within the excursion limits of the simulator. More complicated washout systems in use today represent the simulator motion drive logic problem in the frequency domain and thus are able to employ techniques which take advantage of what has happened earlier in the simulation. By extrapolating knowledge about rates of change, these types of systems are also able to make and act upon predictions about what will happen next in a simulated flight. In other words these simulators have memory. An example of this type of system is the linear crossfeed washout, which uses second order high-pass filters with cross coupling between translational and rotational degress of freedom. ing the simulator below the perception level of the pilot, By tiltthis type of system is also able to take advantage of the component of gravity to obtain longitudinal and lateral accelerations and thus minimize undesired accelerations in these directions (see Figure 1.7). Another type of washout system is the linear quadratic optimal control system. In this method, after certain assumptions are made, a quadratic cost functional, which represents the engineering tradeoffs being made, is minimized. (Sivan et al., 1981, Ish-Shalom, 1982) 1982, Sturgeon, Other examples include a non-linear adaptive washout system that optimizes its control parameters in real time (Parrish, 1976). Work has been done on non-linear optimal vwdstou+ 14 1970, Kosut, 1979). By using mathematical filters (Friedland et al., models of the vestibular system, which is the human balancing and motion sensing system that consists of rotational and translational accelerometers located in the inner ear. Ish-Shalom (1982) designed an optimal motion base system which takes direct advantage of what is known about human perception. FLIGHT DISTURBANCES PILOT'S OUTSIDE VIEW, FLIGHT IISTRUMEIJT READINGS PILOT AIRPLANE 1ICTIQNS TA' K AIRPLANE --- ------ ---- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -----FLIGHT SIMULATOR PT S IMULATIOI -- LO CONTROLS AIRPLANE I INDISPLAY COMPUTATIONS ------------------- SIMULATOR UNIT SIMULATOR MOTloi OTER PILOT DISPLAYS Figure 1.6: Comparison of Aircraft Flight to Simulated Flight (Ish-Shalom, 1982) 15 AIRCRAFT SURGE BODY AXIS PITCH ANGLE (6) F LOCAL HORIZONTAL F 'I VERTICAL COORDINATE SYSTEM Figure 1.7: g V FORCE VECTORS This fi-ure shows how tiltinthe pilot can cause a translational acceleration due to a component of gravit,,. 16 1.3 Problems with-the Optimal Control Washout Design --What Should Be Optimized? The usual procedure of any optimal control problem is to minimize a cost functional, which is the mathematical representation of the engineering tradeoffs that are being made. With the Ricatti equation and some computational power, one can quickly find the "best" or optimal solution to accomodate these tradeoffs. challenging engineering problem is not in applying The elegant, but standard, mathematical techniques in order to minimize a cost functional; it is deciding what tradeoffs should be made and how they should be incorporated into a cost functional. For the flight simulator problem, a major tradeoff exists between how much motion the simulator is allowed and how realistic the simulated flight can be. The cost functional would therefore penalize large motion excursions and it would also penalize motion that would cause the simulator to seem unrealistic to the pilot. However, it is not clear what to use to quantify simulator realism. 1.4 Problems Associated with Ouantifying Simulator Realism Realism is a vague and complicated notion. It is helpful to realize simulators can and do play powerful "tricks" on the pilot by purposely stimulating various sense organs in a way that will make him think he is moving when he actually is not. For example, if a person sees a low frequency movement in his peripheral field of view, he experiences a very strong illusion of self-motion called vection. Amusement parks frequently take advantage of this phenome- non in circular movie theatres by using a wide field-of-view to give the viewers the illusion that they are moving along with the 17 scene on the screen. A good visual system alone can be very effective in making a pilot think he is moving when he is actually stationary, and consequently, it is conceivable that the necessity of motion, in order to achieve realism, may be reduced. On the other hand, contradictory signals from the visual system and the vestibular system may produce lack of realism and even motion sickness (Oman, 1982). Another reason that the relationship between motion capability and simulator fidelity is not obvious is because it is not clear how the degrees of freedom are different and which are most important in providing realistic cues to the pilot. For example, it is plausible that human beings, because they spend most of their lives exposed to a constant 9.8 m/sec2 gravitational acceleration, might process vertical accelerations in a vastly different way than accelerations in the lateral or longitudinal directions. Although there is basic knowledge about how the six independent degrees of freedom interact, this also is a largely unanswered question. One possibility for quantifying realism is to use cockpit motions of the simulator as compared with those of the actual aircraft (see Figure 1.8). This, however, would require an extremely expensive motion system or an in-flight simulator such one described in 1.1. Another possibility is using an "orientation estimate" which the central nervous system estimate of the motion after processing signals from the vestibular as well as the visual, tactile, auditory and other sensory systems. Although research is currently being done to find out more about the interaction of these systems, not enough is currently known to apply this method. 18 TAS K AIRP LANE lTori INERTI.\l SENSORS VESTIBULARITACTILE ORIENTATION ESTIMATOR EN SO(BRAIh) OTHER ORIENTATION- 7 Lj--,, --l!) ONTROLLE A!RPLlAME IFT 10:; A19PLA!IE SENSORS VISUAL.AUDITORY coc /r1' SENSORY MOT IOI ONSEASUREMENTS CK 0,lENTA' ioII ES TIMAIloilI COTROL EFFORT M EFORYE.ANCE *7E14- COMPUTED IMPLAXE '-.0T 10:1 IMUO.A TO Lg fEATIAL MOTION JESTI SE SrT ACS E- ~ YESTCULR. :ACILEORIE11TATION OTHER STA( R ESTIMATOR (ORAMN) - FILTER --TIN 0--- VISUAL, AU01T09Y 5i .,:ASPOUT COMPUTA- :alENTATION _fQA*.r AIRPLANL aCONTROL.LER. SENSCRS AT-rG 4 Lar A P W . ? ~ rj L TAS.. I- - - -- - - - ''atching Points to Achieve Figure 1.8: Comparison of ?ossible Simulator nealism (Ish-Shaloa, 1982) 19 t Ish-Shalom (1982) used models of the vestibular system to quantify simulator realism for his optimal flight simulator design. The cost functional in this method is based on the difference between the physiological outputs of the vestibular system of a pilot in an imaginary reference airplane to those of the pilot in the simulator. This difference is defined to be the vestibular error. Sullivan (1985) implemented an optimal washout system based on the vestibular error on the VMS and compared it to the motion control system normally used for this system. These systems were compared in terms of performance in a tracking task, Cooper-Harper handling quality ratings and simulator motion quality ratings given by pilot subjects. His experiments show that the use of vestibular models is a reasonable approach to the design and evaluation of motion control systems. Because one of the primary goals of the simulation is to adequately train pilots, two other possible methods to acheive simulator realism are matching pilot control effort and matching pilot performance for the simulator and the aircraft. to these methods is that it A disadvantage is not at all clear that just because the pilot is controlling the aircraft the same way or performance is measured to be the same that the simulation is realistic. A variety of different types of motions could cause the pilot to execute the same control motion while the same performance can be achieved by vastly different strategies. More about all of these possibilities is discussed by Ish-Shalom (1982). Sullivan (1985) found that although performance is widely used as a simulator fid- 20 elity measure, it is not necessarily a valid or consistent measure. 1.5 This Research - More Basic Questions As stated earlier, there is an implicit assumption that simulator motion is critical for realism and thus for the transfer of training from simulator to aircraft. Therefore, much effort has been put into the problem of how to best design controllers for this motion in order to make the simulation realistic. A major problem with this research has been that it is not clear how to quantify simulator realism. Although some work has been done using scientific knowledge of the human perceptual systems, many washout systems today are still being designed mainly by intuition. This research will examine more basic questions than how to best control the motion of the simulator in order to make the flight realistic. The purpose of this thesis is to examine the relationship between flight simulator motion and realism. This will be done by examining the effect of different levels of motion capability on various parameters of engineering, physiological realism. psychological, and The variables used to represent realism are vestibular errors and acceleration errors, as well as pilot opinion and performance measures. Vestibular error is primarily a physiological fidelity measure; acceleration error, an engineering fidelity measure, and opinion, a psychological measure. Because these measures are not independent, it will important to look for consistencies or inconsistencies in what they show. There is not really a good reason to classify performance as a realism measure. 21 As mentioned before different control strategies can achieve the same performance, so similar performance does not necessarily signify realism. However, because difference in performance could signify lack of realism, it will be helpful to examine performance measures in addition more direct realism measurements. Three different motion conditions were used to represent the spectrum of motion capability. For the lowest fidelity motion condition, the simulator only consisted of special effects motions like turbulence. The amplitude of these motions was small compared to the other conditions. In the "jostle" motion condition, simulator was allowed to move in only two directions -and longitudinal translational. in this condition. the lateral Special effects were also included The last motion condition allowed motion in all six degrees of freedom. Special effects were included in this condition also. Experiments, which are described more fully in the next chapter, were performed on a Boeing 727-200 simulator located at NASA Ames. Flight scenarios were chosen that were representative of the training environment. These manuevers required significant pilot control activity so that motion platform effects, if they existed, and could be measured this way, were as detectable as possible. The three flight scenarios chosen were engine flameout on takeoff, an airwork scenario, and an ILS approach and landing windshear scenario. The airwork scenario consisted of steep turns, approach-to-stall manuevers and standard rate turns with a yaw damper failure. The effect of motion on pilot vestibular error, 22 opinion and performance is relevant to all types of washout system design methodologies, not just the optimal control methodology. 1.6 Thesis Outline This thesis is organized as follows. Chapter 1 is a general introduction to flight simulator technology and the problems that are examined in this thesis. in chapter 2. Chapter 3 is a detailed description of the experiment methodology issues. in chapter 4. Opinion results are are presented and discussed Acceleration error results are presented and discussed in chapter 5. chapter 6. The vestibular models are formulated The vestibular error results are located in Chapter 7 is a presentation of the performance results. Chapter 8 is a discussion about the problems that occurred due to undersampling of the data. Chapter 9 deals with conclusions and suggestions for further research. 23 CHAPTER 2: FORMURATION OF THE VESTIBULAR ERROR AS A MOTION FIDELITY 2.1 Introduction In the absence of visual cues, the vestibular system is the primary physiological system used to detect motion. The vestibular system consists of the semicircular canals, which detect rotational accelerations and the otoliths, which detect translational motion (see Figures 2.1 and 2.2). The vestibular system is particularly good at detecting high frequency motion, while the visual system perceives strong motion cues from low frequency motions especially in the peripheral field-of-view. This report focuses solely on the vestibular system because it is not clear how the two systems interact. Also because of the limited travel of the simulator, motion that is simulated is primarily high frequency motion. This chapter is a description of the vestibular system. Mathe- matical models of the semicircular circular canals and otoliths are presented, 2.2 2.2.1 and the concept of vestibular error is introduced. Semicircular Canals Physical Description of the Semicircular canals The semicircular canals are used to sense rotational motion with respect to inertial space. There are three approximately orthogonal canals which are filled with a fluid called endolymph. When the head rotates with respect to inertial space the endolymph, due to its inertia, initially tends to remain fixed. The semicircular canals, which form approximately two thirds of a circle, have an expanded 24 section at the base called the ampulla, which leads into a common base called the utricle (see Figures 2.3, 2.4, and 2.5). The ampulla is blocked by the cupula. When the water-like endolymph moves relative to the canals, which is the end result of the fluids initial tendency to stay fixed in inertial space, sensory hair cells embedded By increasing their firing in the base of the cupula are bent. frequency, these hair cells provide information about the motion to the central nervous system. The hair cells in a particular semicircular canal are all polarized for sensing motion in the same direction. So each canal is used for a particular direction. Theoretically, by combinations of the information provided by the three orthogonal canals, the CNS can detect motion in any direction. There are two types of hair cells in the canals - type I and type II (see Figure 2.6). Type I cells, which have an irregular dis- charge pattern in the afferents and show adaptation, may be sensitive to both hairbendings and the rate of change of hairbendings (Hosman and Van der Vaart, 1978). Type II hair cells are believed to primarily sense hair bendings. 2.2.2 Mathematical Model of the semicircular canals The endolymph is acted on by primarily two forces. The first is viscous drag, which is the proportional rate of velocity of the fluid with respect to the walls of the canal. The second is modelled as a linear elastic restoring force that is caused by the cupula's tendency to return to its resting position. The equations below represent a basic but incomplete model of a canal and were first proposed by Steinhausen in the 1930's 25 (Ormsby, 1974 ). as I# m(ec + eci) - 9ec -V 8ec -k eec angular deflection of endolymph with respect to canal angular position of canal with respect to inertial space m - moment of inertia of endolymph V - coefficient of viscous drag k - coefficient of linear restoring force due to displacement of fluid in the canal eci - - The system appears to be overdamped and k/V << V/m this equation can be approximated as: ec(s)i)-l c i(s )(s+k/V) (s+V/m) This model is called the overdamped torsional pendulum model. Recent efforts have included a lead term to represent the sensitivity of type I haircells to the rate of cupula displacement. Based on studies of the squirrel monkey, Fernandez and Goldberg (1976) estimated the lead time constant to be 0.049 sec. Another addition to the basic torsional pendulum model has been included because adaptation to prolonged accelerations was noticed. Adaptation could be due to processing by the CNS; or it could be attributed to adaptation in the sensory haircells; or it could be a combination of these effects. The adaptation term, which is due to the efforts of Young and Oman (1969), causes a phase lead and gain attenuation at low frequencies. In any case the full transfer function which now relates spatial orientation to angular acceleration of the head for one degree of freedom can now be written as: H(s) - Gscc . Tas (1+Tas) 26 (l+TLs) (1+Tls)(l+T2 s) The output is measured in threshold units so that a response 2 of one is obtained for a sinusoidal input of amplitude 1.450/sec and frequency of 0.94 rad/sec as found by Hosman and Van der Vaart (1978), who also obtained T1 -5.9 sec. The adaptation term has a value of Ta- 80 sec (Young and Oman, 1969). T2 has such a high frequency that is difficult to measure. Theoretical estimates by Steer (1967) estimate this value to be 0.005 sec (Hosman and Van der Vaart, 1978). Bode plots are shown in Figure 2.7. In this report, this model is limited by the sampling rate of the flight simulator computer, which was 30 times per second, so the highest frequency in the model should be 15 Hz. Therefore, to prevent undersampling, the lead term and the high frequency pole, with frequencies of 20.4 hz and 200 hz rspectively, inated. have been elim- In this report, the following transfer function was used to represent a semicircular canal: H(s) - Gscc . Tas (1+Tas) . I (1+Tls) Gscc - 222.7 sec 2 /rad - 80 sec Ta - 5.9 sec Tj This transfer function is used for each of the three degrees of freedom. Bode plots are shown in Figure 2.8. 27 M~t~ZU Figre .1 Th stucureoftheinnr I ar.(Peeram169 ~ 0 0 Figure 2.2 Orientation of the seimicircuiir canals and the otoliths with respect to the head (Jongkees ,1967) 28 Cristo Ampulla Membranous Horizontal Semicircular Canal 1.1 mm Utricle 6.4 rmm 0.24 mm Figure 2.3: Average dimensions (Peters,1969) of Semicircular Canali x y Superior Canals Utricles Vectoril indicate effective direction of angular .cceleration Left Coa l Right Horizontal Canal Posterior Canals Fi&LARE2,41 The effective directions of the semicircular canals (approximate) (Peters,1969) 29 CELLS -SENSORY Figure 2.5: Simplified diagram of ampulla section of semicircular canal (Peters, 1969) Type ~fL I S heir mm Efend., n * r LA\.IWA,.W O* b VA Figure 2.6: Schematic drawing of type i and type Hair cells (Wersall et al, 30 1971) I SEMICIRCULAR CANAL MODEL FREQUENCY RESPONSE PLOTS MAGNITUDE 10 2 k I'Prs ( 10 IC 1s)(rice (I +TI S) 10 1o0 oL -3 ,o-2 1 100 u) CrodI) 101 ) 10, 100. so.[ 0. (de9 vee") - -So. -100.' Id j-3 Figure 2.7: ........... -2 10 i 100 Ctad /Sec 102 Frequency Response Plots of Semicircular Canal Model 31 10 10 4 -2 FREQUENCY SCC MODEL CI2 0t1 -1 100 RESPONSE 123 100. 50. -o.. -100., 220i 16-1 100 io1 102 13 Figure 2.8 Frequency Response Plots of Semicircular Canal Model Used in this Report. 32 Otoliths 2.3 2.3.1 Physical Description The otolith organs, also located in the inner ear, are used to detect translational accelerations. This includes gravity, which is a translational acceleration of 9.8 m/sec 2 . There are two otolith organs located in each inner ear. One of them is located in the utricle, which is the common base of the semicircular canals. The other otolith organ is located in the saccule, which is a downward extension of the utricle. The basic structure of the otolith consists of a supporting base called the macula (Figure 2.9). Covering the macula is a gelatinous layer containing suspended calcite crystals. When the head is exposed to a specific force, the calcite crystals have more inertia than the gelatinous layer, and the layer shears. Sensory haircells embedded in the macula are bent and a signal is sent to the central nervous system. The otoliths have the same two basic types of haircells that are located in the semicircular canals; however, unlike the canals, are polarized in different directions. hairs in one organ This enables motion sensa- tion in the three degrees of freedom when there are only organs in two approximately orthogonal directions. 2.3.2 Mathematical Models of the Otoliths An otolith organ can be modelled as a overdamped spring-mass- damper system with the following transfer function, which describes translational acceleration perception to specific force. 33 H(s) - K (l+T3 s)(l+T4 s) Modifications proposed by Young and Meiry (1968) include a lead term which takes into account adaptation. H(s) - K(1+Tns) (1+T3 s)(l+T 4 s) Tn T3 T4 K - 13.2 sec - 5.3 sec - .67 sec - gain factor In this report, approximations were made to prevent undersampling. The transfer function actually used was: H(s) - Go(l+Tns) (l+T3 s) Go Tn T3- - 2.13 sec 2 /m 13.2 sec 5.3 sec Threshold units were used to give a response of 1 when subjected to accelerations of 0.47 m/sec 2 as discovered by Hosman and Van der Vaart (1978). Figure 2.10 shows other experimental estimates of the threshold level of perception. In this report, all of freedom are represented by this model. degrees Bode plots for one degree of freedom are shown in Figure 2.11. Time constants in the otolith model are not as definite as in the semicircular canals. This is partly because of difficulties in the experimental tools used. For semicircular canal research, subjective experiments can be performed in a rotating chair with 34 well-trained subjects. For otolith research, a smoothly running translational car is needed (Hosman and Van der Vaart, 1978). 2.4 Vestibular Error Measurements Based on the vestibular models described above, one can calculate a response in threshold units. Because the simulator undergoes different accelerations than the actual airplane, the simulator vestibular response will be different from the vestibular response that would occur in an actual aircraft (see Figure 2.12). The difference in these two responses is defined as the vestibular error. The input accelerations to the vestibular must be in cockpit body axis coordinates. Because it was desired to compare average magnitudes of these errors and not to compare functionality, a root mean square error was computed for specific data windows of interest. will be discussed further in Chapter 3. 35 This measure STATOCONIm GEAT:..NOW '~v (Peters, 1969) 36 50 33 25 171 100 0.1 0.08 0.06 10 PERIOD, SECONDS 5 3.3 2 1 0.5 0 05 0.25 0.17 0.1 F I iI I 0.02 . 2 . 0.04 Nd ooZ . -- - L- 0.01 p CD -- 0.005 0.008 0.006 3 (06 3 4 1116 0.004 0.003 0.002 04:4p 0.001 0.0007 0.0005 0.0003 0.006 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.1 Fig ure,.-2 .10 0.2 0.4 0.6 1.0 2 FREQUENCY, Hz 3 4 5 6 8 10 20 40 60 80 Threshold-of-Pe'rception Measurements and a Design Limit ror Spurious Accelerations (Taback -- Table 2.1 SUIARY OF THPESHOLD-OF-PERCEPTI 1983) ON (from fig. 2.10) DATA SOURCES (-r~gAB ci, \9 DATA POINT SOURCE 1 Chaney 1(4) Vertical Axis Shiaker 10 males, seated with lap belt restraint and footrests. Each subject makes 4 determinations at 4 frequencies 2 3 4 Chaney 1(5) Chen and Robertson 3 5 males, standing, feet attached to moving platform. 5 Chen and Robertson 3 Vertical Axis Shaker Closed room on a platform with 2-. axis horizontal motioon Closed room on a 25m pendulum Goril and Vertical Axis Shaker TEST RIG TEST SUBJECTS/ACCOMMODATIONS ACCELERATI DIRECTIONS TEST SUBJE Z-Z (8 measurements for each frequency data point). 6 7 8 9 Snyder 1(8) Gurney 1(12) 10 11 12 Landsberg 1(18) Richer and Meister 1(22) 13 von Bekesy 2 14 Walsh 1(24) 15 16 17 18 19 2 subjects at each frequency, standing. Z-Z 3 X-X 4 Y-Y 10 subjects sitting. 10 subjects sitting. 5 X-X 6 Y-Y 20 subjects standing. 7 X-X 6 males (air crew) seated in a cockpit simulation. Vertical circula r are 3 subjects sitting blindfolded (seesaw). . 3.26m radius 3.6m Pendulum Subjects lay face-down and face-up. Platform drivenI by 10 subjects in five positions; Standing, X-X, Z-Z; eccentric mass lay face-up X-X, Y-Y, Z-Z. (12 is X-X face up only.) vibrator 2m Horizontal 2 subjects seated circular arc 1.55m Pendulum 4 to 7 subjects each test point. Lay face-up, facedown, on sides. 8 measurements for each subject. Z-Z Z-Z Z-Z 11, All 12, X-X y-y 14, X-X 15, Y-Y 16, Z-Z Walsh 1(26) Benson Bionetics at Miami U.4 Vertical circula r arc 7 males, 4 measurements each, 8 times. Lay face-up. Vertical hydraul ic 6 males, 4 females in an aircraft ejection seat. driven oscillato r4m Pendulum 2 males lay face-down, series of measurements at one frequency. 37 X-X Z-Z Y-Y OTOL ITN Re Pd FPGQUgw-E 10. N'S - POT' . . 1-' Malj It- 1' 10 7 10~1 lou w C.raA/,A.. 30. p 1.t 20. 10. 0. 1 0~4 10~1 100 10 14 (rad/sfr) Figure 2.11: Otolith Model freouency response plots 38 MDELLED AIRCRAFT TRANSLATIONAL ACCELEXATIONS MDELLED AIRCRAFT MDEL Or OTOLIN ORCAN ROTATIONAL MDEL Or SEMICIACULA" ACCELERATIONS CANAL ORGAN TAWLATIOUAL VZSTISULAA Eacas t ROTATIONAL ACCELEZATION SIMULATOR TRANSLATIONAL ACCELERATIONS MOEL OF OTULITN ORGAN SIMULAroft ACCgLUT ONS i MODEL OF SEMICIRCULAR CANAL OR.AN Figure 2.12: Calculation of Vestibular Error 39 CHAPTER 3: EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN AND ANALYSIS MEASUREMENTS 3.1 Brief Introduction This chapter is a summary of the experimental procedure. A description of the experiments is presented first and is divided into sections about the simulator, motion conditions, flight scenarios, subjects, and order effects. The second part of this chapter discusses the actual measurements taken and and the third section is a discussion of data collection. 3.2. Experiment Description 3.2.1 Simulator Experiments were performed with a Boeing 727-200 series flight simulator on a six degree of freedom synergistic motion base. uses a nonlinear adaptive washout system. It The visual system used for this study is a computer-generated dusk/twilight scene. This simulator meets the requirements for Phase II certification under Federal Aviation Regulations. The simulator, which is designed by the Singer-Link company, is located at the NASA Ames Research Center. 3.2.2 Figure 3.1 is a picture of the actual aircraft. Motion Conditions Three motion conditions were used. In the "fixed-base" condition, only special effects motion was allowed. included runway touchdown bumps, Special effects vibrations due to the roughness of 40 *O-rr i dw. Figure 3.1: The Boeing 727-200 series Aircraft 41 the runway, buffets associated with flap, gear and spoiler extension, turbulence, and Mach and stall buffet. The special effects only motion condition is the most severely limited condition in the study. The amplitude of these vibrations is small compared to the motion capabilities in the other conditions. "Jostle " motion condition provided only two degrees of freedom: vertical translaThis condition, which also in- tional and lateral translational. clude all of the special effects mentioned above, was included to study the effects of providing mostly translational acceleration information to the pilot. The last motion condition, full motion, provided full six degree of freedom capabilities as well as the special effects included in the other conditions. This condition is the nominal condition for the simulator. 3.2.3 Flight Scenarios The environmental data base used in the simulations was the area of the San Francisco International Airport. takeoff weight was set to 148000 lbs. The aircraft Although flights were short so the fuel burn that would occur is slight, the weight was held constant throughout the experiments in order to eliminate the effects of weight changes due to fuel burn which might vary due to different piloting techniques. All scenarios, with the exception of the ILS Approach and Landing Scenario, were conducted in the standard day (pressure - 1 atm, temperature- 150 C) with no wind and good visibility. 42 Familiarization Scenario 3.2.3.1 This scenario was flown by all subjects directly before beginning their series of experimental flight scenarios. The purpose of this scenario was to allow the pilots to get used to the simulator. Because the purpose of this study was to compare solely the effects of motion fidelity levels on a variety of parameters, allowing the subjects to become familiar with the simulator hopefully reduced the possible learning effects. (In similar experiments Sullivan (1985) found learning effects on some performance measures.) A familiarization scenario run began at the departure end of runway 28R at the San Francisco International Airport. The pilots followed air traffic control vectors around the traffic pattern for a visual approach to a touch-and-go landing. The subject then followed the vectors around the traffic pattern for another visual approach to a full stop landing. Subjects then had the choice of performing this scenario again. 3.2.3.2 Engine flame-out on takeoff This scenario began with the aircraft ready for takeoff at the end of runway 28R of the San Francisco International Airport. The subject was informed in advance that there would be an engine flame out in one of the off-centerline engines (#1 or #3). At the beginning of each run, the experimenter randomly chose which engine would fail. Randomization was used to prevent the subject from making anticipatory control motions. The time of engine failure was also varied but always occurred within five seconds following 43 rotation, that is beyond V2. The engine flameout occured after V2 so that the pilots could not decide to abort the takeoff. Subjects were instructed to maintain runway heading and level out at an altitude of 2000 ft. 3.2.3.3 Airwork Scenario The Airwork Scenario, run began with the aircraft at 15000 ft with 250 knots indicated airspeed directly above the San Francisco International Airport with a heading of 2800. The pilot was instructed to perform two consecutive steep turns 450 bank, one to the right and one to the left, to make one "s" turn, two approachto-stall manuevers, and then two standard rate turns with the yaw dampers failed. 3.2.3.4 ILS ADproach and Landing Scenario Pilots flying the ILS Approach and Landing scenario were initialized at an altitude of 4000 ft, an airspeed of 220 knots indicated airspeed, and an intercept course of 300 off the localizer to SFO's runway 28R. levels. ft. The simulator was set for moderate turbulence There was 600 ft ceiling and unlimited visibility at 500 A windshear, described in Figure 3.2, was introduced at this altitude. Pilots were instructed to land the aircraft and were informed of the presence of windshear. 44 ALTTUDE * 1000 ft 900 ft . 800 ft 700 ft 600 ft 500 ft 2 10 kts FIGURE 3.2: 5 kts i i i 0Okts WINDSPEED - 400 ft - 300 ft ft - 200 . 100 ft 2 ft --- Aid 10 kts 5 kts (K-+S) WINDSHEAR MODEL FOR ILS APPROACH AND LANDING SCENARIO (Arrow-3iindcult direci.on of oircraf+). to incm 45 mied4 reIQLi S/ e 3.2.4 SubJects Eighteen air transport pilots were used in the study. The subjects were told that the experiment was a study on flight simulator fidelity. They were not told before the experiment that the experimental conditions would vary only the motion platform capabilities. Briefing material given to the pilots before the experiments is located in the Appendices. The primary subject chose his preferred seat, left or right and flew as pilot-in-command, and the secondary subject flew secondin-command. Data was taken on the first subject and then the levels of command were switched, the new subject chose his seat and data was recorded again. Due to schedule changes, the second-in-command seat was sometimes taken by a non-subject pilot. To minimize the effect on exposure to another subject's experiment which might induce learning effects, subjects who flew in groups of two were given different flight scnearios to perform. The eighteen pilots were randomly divided into groups of three so that six subjects flew each of the three flight scenarios. Pilots 4, 6, 7, 12, 16, and 18 performed the ILS Approach and Landing in wind shear scenario. Pilots 2, 5, 10, 11, performed the engine-flame out scenario, and pilots 13, 15 performed the airwork scenario. 14, and 17 1, 3, 8, 9, Before performing the actual experiments, all subjects flew the familiarization scenario which consisted of VFR takeoffs, approaches and landings. 46 3.2.5 Order Effects There are six permutations motion conditions. of possible orders to present the Each subject flew a different order so that ordering effects would be minimized. In all motion conditions, normal procedures for full six degree of freedom were conducted before the experiment so that the pilots would not notice testing motion base differences before the experiment ocurred. motion condition, the subjects filled out a After each questionnaire which was used to provide pilot opinion data. In the debriefing session, subjects were able to make additional comments pertaining to the flight conditions. session, they were told what the conditions were. During this Notes on their comments are provided in the Appendices. 3.3 Analysis Measurements The following sections will describe the measurements taken and examined. These measurements are categorized into opinion measurements, acceleration error measurements, vestibular error measurements, and performance measurements. Opinion Measurements 3.3.1 After each motion condition, questionnaire, the subject filled which asked for the subjects comparison of certain aspects of the condition to corresponding aspects aircraft. out an opinion in an actual The actual questionnaire is reprinted in Figure 3.3. There were six questions on the questionnaire. 47 The first two questions had to do with the pilots opinion of the workload levels of the simulator as compared to the actual aircraft. Workload levels may interfere with the ability of pilots to perform well especially in long duration flights or critical phases of flight. concept is an important one that should be considered in training. So this pilot Because one of the primary purposes of flight simulators is for training aircraft pilots, these questions were included in the study. The first question asked the pilots to compare the demand on attention, skill and effort required to control the simulator to what it would have been in an actual aircraft. question pertained to the entire flight scenario. The This second question, on the other hand, was restricted to times when the simulator was undergoing configuration changes. This question also dealt with their demand on attention, skill or effort. In the third question the pilots compared the response of the simulator to control efforts during the entire flight scenario. This question was aimed at their direct opinion of the simulator itself; whereas, the first two questions were aimed at their levels of effort. The answer range for the simulator response question was from "much slower than aircraft" to "much faster than aircraft." The fourth question required the pilots to compare the value of the simulator to the aircraft for the purpose of training pilots. The value of the simulator for pilot checking was compared to the value of the actual aircraft for pilot checking in question five. The sixth question asked the pilots to rank the simulator in terms 48 of overall realism. The answers ranged from major deficiencies to no deficiencies at all. The opinion results were analyzed two ways. For the first method of analysis, for each question and each motion condition, the mean over all pilots performing the same flight scenario was These means and the standard deviations associated with computed. These plots show the differences on average, them were plotted. if there are any, between motion conditions in the pilots opinion to the specific question asked. The second method of analysis was an analysis of variance statistical test used to determine if the differences found were "statistically significant" . The answers to each question were analyzed separately by an F-test, which assumes random sampling of the data, equal condition variances, the data. and a normal distribution of The null hypothesis of these F-tests is that for a particular question, the mean answer is the same for all three motion conditions. The F-test gives a level of significance for rejecting this hypothesis. It does not confirm the null hypothesis. mechanics of the test are to compute the The "among groups " mean square, which represents the variance among motion conditions in the answer to the particular question, to the "within groups" mean square, which represents the unexplained variance in the answers to this questions. variances. The F-ratio is the ratio of these two Probabilities of obtaining an F-ratio larger that than the one obtained are computed. If the F-ratio is large, in other words the among groups mean square is larger than what would be estimated by chance (which is estimated by the within groups mean 49 square), then the null hypothesis can be rejected at a level of significance defined as the probability of obtaining a higher Fratio. SIMULATOR CONDITION NUMBER During the entire flight scenario, the demand on attention, skill, or effort reouired to control the simulator was: 1. 1---------------- -4---------5 2. much more than aircraft very similar to aircraft much less than aircraft During aircraft configuration changes, the demand on attention, skill, or effort required to control the simulator wass 1------ much less than aircraft ------------ very similar much more than aircraft to aircraft During the entire flight scenario, the resoonse of the simulator to control inouts was: 1-----------------------------------4--much slower tian aircraft 4. eouivalent much more than aircraft to aircraft The utility of this simulator for allot c.-.cking is: I much less tman aircraft 6. 5 The utility of this simulator for pilot t.-aining iss much less than aircraft 5. --- much faster than aircraft very similar to aircraft 2------------ eouivalent much more than aircraft zo aircraft The overall realism of the simulation as comoared to the aircraft 4---- --- was: I major deficiencies Figure 3.3: 2---------- -------some minor deficiencies no deficiencies Pilot Opinion Questionnaire 50 5 Acceleration Error Measurements 3.3.2 Because the simulator had limited travel, simulator accelerations were different from those that would actually occur in the real aircraft. This difference is defined to be the acceleration error. We were interested in comparing the magnitude of this error for the three motion conditions. This study does not compare differences in the functionality of the data. Therefore, degree of freedom of interest in a particular scenario, for each a root mean square error was calculated for a data window of interest (see equation below). The particular degrees of freedom and data windows for each flight manuever are discussed in the data collection section of this chapter. rmsaj - ((ai ac(k) - ai sm(k))2 rmsai - rms acceleration error in the ith direction ai ac(k) - aircraft acceleration in the ith direction for the kth measurement in the data window. ai sm(k) - simulator acceleration in the ith direction for the kth measurement in the data n = number of measurement points Two methods were used to analyze the effect of motion base differences on acceleration error measurements. specific performing In the first, for degrees of freedom and motion conditons, means over pilots the same maneuver were computed. Comparison plots of the mean rms error values and the standard deviations of these means were plotted. The second analysis method of this data was an F-test for which the null hypothesis was that the mean rms error value was the same for all three motion conditions. 51 3.3.3 Vestibular Error Measurements A root mean square for the vestibular error was also calculated to obtain information about the relative magnitude of the errors for different motion conditons. (see equation below). The root mean square error is computed for the particular data windows of interest described in later sections of this chapter. rmsyi - J ((Yi ac(k) - yi sm(k))2) rmsyi - rms vestibular error in the ith direction Yi ac(k) - aircraft vestibular response in the ith direction for the kth measurement in the data window. yi sm(k) - simulator vestibular error in the ith direction for the kth measurement the data window. n = number of measurement points The vestibular error was analyzed two different ways. different degrees of freedom were analyzed separately. The The first analysis method consisted of averaging the rms error for a particular degree of freedom and for a particular motion condition for over a set of pilots who had performed the same scenario. Motion effects were studied by comparison plots of the means and standard deviations of the means for the three different motion conditions. The second analysis method used was a statistical analysis of variance test to examine whether or not the differences associated with the plots and the data that makes up the plot is statistically significant. The null hypothesis of these F-test were that the mean root mean square errors (over the set of pilots performing the scenario) were the same for different motion conditions. These tests assume random data samples, equal condition variances, and normal distribution of the measurement errors. 52 Similar to the absolute acceleration error measurements, only certain degrees of freedom were studied for each particular flight maneuver. These are listed by flight maneuver in the data collection section of this chapter. 3.3.4 Pilot Performance Measurements This section describes the pilot performance measures examined for each flight scenario. 3.3.4.1 Engine Flame Out Scenario The mean aircraft centerline deviation over all pilots performing the scenario was computed and compared for each motion condition. This measure was computed for increments during the data window of interest, which is described later in the chapter. Centerline deviation was considered an important parameter to study because loss of power in an off-centerline engine will cause the plane to yaw as a result of an unbalanced torque about the aircraft's center of gravity. The other measurement sudied in this scenario was the time to climb to a safe altitude of 400' from a speed 120 kias. This measure was computed for each subject for each trial for each of the motion conditions. 3.3.4.2 Airwork Scenario The mean variance of aircraft pitch and bank for the data window defined for stall was computed for each run. These numbers for each motion condition were averaged over all runs. 53 The mean variance of aircraft pitch and bank for the data window defined for stall was computed for each run. The numbers were averaged and compared for each motion condition over all runs. 3.3.4.3 ILS Approach and Landing Scenario During the approach segment of this flight, which will be defined later, mean glideslope and localizer deviations were computed for each run. The average deviations are compared for all pilots for each motion condition. During the landing protion of this scenario, which will be defined late, the mean sink rate and lateral deviation are studied. 3.4 Data Collection The following sections describe the data variables that were collected, specific degrees of freedom that were analyzed for the acceleration error and vestibular error measurements, and pertinent data windows that were studied for each flight manuever. This section then describes problems that were associated with the data collection and data processing. These problems included undersampling the rotational degree of freedom acceleration measurements as well as lost data. 3.4.1 Variables This section contains a list, table 3.1, of all of the variables and how often they were collected. were used in the simulation software. 54 The names associated The experiment frame count (jtimer) time into the experiment (30 x jtimer - was used to calculate the Jwindow and jintc time). were not used for this study but were included as an aid to data collection and processing done at NASA Ames. The array JYSCC contains the outputs of the semicircular canal model for both the simulator and the aircraft model. This data was not used at all because the incorrect model was used (see data collection problems). Instead these responses were calculated at MIT. The jyoto array contains the otolith model outputs in threshold units for both the simulator and the modelled aircraft. the vestibular error. These were used in computing The modelled aircraft accelerations in all six degrees of freedom are shown in table 3.1 as are all six simulator platform accelerations. The other variables in the list are those that are used for performance measurements or for identifying data widows. Some are pilot control variables which are not included in this report. 55 TABLE 3.1: DATA VARIABLE LIST (ALL VARIABLES CALCULATED AT 30 HZ) COLLECTION RATE (HZ) w 1 ; & IW IE rW JW INDOW r-INTC + c00 S r iJYEcC +00± rw w EW EW +003 EW .L .1.r A EU - JY C J,YrOT 0 J3 YOT 0 FDPA FDQA FDRA JAANA J.AAYiA +00± +0 0 . A :-. A, EW CUJ +AA. +004 EW .LAr A = EU +005 EW +000 +000 +0A +000 +000 J MA '.r A JMD A r4-r JMAZA -L-7 A JMDPA JMDRA N GC- NGCCE I FWE FHGEL FtVIA S FTHETA FPHI NPSIGA FESPOS FSWPCS NGCAGC EPR± EPRI EPR FRUDT +A +000 +000 +000 +000 +000 +000 +000 +000 +0.115 +000 +.LA ^I +000 +000 +000 +000 +000 +000 +000 +000 +000 EW EW EWU EW * EWU EW EW EWU EWU EWU EW EW. EWU EWU EW EU EU EWU EW EU EWU EWU EW EWU EWU -15 EXPER IMENT FRAME C 1U.NT (30H) ACTIVE WINDOWE (INTEGER BYTE ARRAY-4 S 15 %SINCE MIDNIGHT -0 HZ TICK CLCCK TIME MIT CC M1DL OUTPLT A/C TLL ACCEL - --15 MIT 5CC M 11D7E L 0I ITPLIT ACPITCH ArcCEL-1 15 NIT SCC MODEL OUTPUT A/C YAW ACCEL T15IL; A 1 ACCEL-MIT SCC MODEL OUTPUT MOTION ROLL MIT SCC MODEL OUTPUT MOTION PITCH ACCEL----- 15 MIT 5CC MODEL OUTPUT MOTION YAW ACCEL T1LITH MODEL OUTPUT A/C LONG ACCELMIT MIT OTOLITH MODEL OUTPUT A/C LAT ACCEL' MIT TLITH MDEL UTPUT A/C VERT ACCEL 15 15 MIT OTOLITH MODEL OUTPUT MOTION LONG ACCEL- MIT OTOLITH MODEL OUTPUT MOTION LAT ACCEL - - 1 ...E15CE- -- 15 1 ACCEL MIT OTOLITH MODEL M~UTPUT MOTION VERT A/C AXIS ROLL ACCELERATION ----s A/C AXIS PITCH ACCELERATION - MIT MOTION PITCH ACCEL I MIT MOTION YAW ACCEL N--TRUE GROUND SPEED- -- LEFT HY~D BRAKE GCA G/ TORQUE VERT VELOCITY - - HEIGHT INDICATED AIRSPEED A/C ANGLE PITCH A/C BANK A/C TRUE ATRETCHED STRETCHED - AEL ANGLE (DEG)HEADING (DEG)- STICK WHEEL RANGE 5E_ E ENG INE TOTAL RUDDER -- -- -- - TO TD -- -- - -- - - - (DEG- - -- -- --- -~~ -~~ ---- -- - - ~~ --- -- - 1 1 1 1 - - - -- -15 15 1 15 15 - -~~ -~~ __ -- - - (DEG - -- -- -- (DEG-. -- 1 1 1 -. - -- -- (FT)-- -- 56 - - 1 1 - - - -' - - - - - - - -- - - - 15 1 1 1 -- - - - - 15 -- - - - - - - - - - 15 - -- - -- - - 15 -- - -- (FTp- POSITION POSITION ENGINE I EP --- -CENIN -- -- - - -- - - - - - - - (KNTS)-- (D:) - - 15 15 15 - - - (FT- - - EL AIrMSAE-ANI GEMETRIC 15 - 15 - - ANG3LE - COURSE DEVIATION - - - - LAT DEVIATION - - - FORCE+±6- FT- DEVIATION GCA BGAS - - MIT MOTION ROLL ACCEL IN- AGS EW EW -- A/C AXIS TURN ACCELERATIN MIT A/C LNG ACCEL INMIT A/C LAT ACCEL IN -MIT A/C VERT ACCEL INMIT MOTION LONG ACCEL INMIT MOTION LAT ACCEL INMIT MOTION VERT ACCEL IN- - - 1 3.4.2 Trials There were two runs per motion condition per subject for both the engine flameout scenario. Because of the length of the airwork scenario, the subjects flew only one run per motion condition. This means that for the steep turns and the rate turns with yaw dampers failed, there is only one data measurement per subject per motion condition which is the transition between two turns. Every other flight manuever in the study consists of two data measurements per subject per motion condition. The ILS Approach and Landing Scenario had two runs per subject per motion condition. 3.4.3 Pertinent Degrees of Freedom for Each Scenario Calculations were not computed for every degree of freedom for every flight manuever. Interest was primarily in the degrees of freedom in which significant motion occurred. In the engine flameout scenario, interest was mainly in the yaw rotational and the lateral translational directions. In the airwork scenario, for the approach-to-stall manuever, we were interested in roll, pitch, and longitudinal directions. For both the steep turn and the rate turns with yaw damper failure manuevers, we were interested in all three rotational degrees of freedom as well as the lateral translational degree of freedom. In the ILS Approach and Landing scenario, all six degrees of freedom were of interest. Problems described in the data collection caused us to lose the lateral axis 57 measurements completely as well as some of the longitudinal absolute acceleration error measurements. Data Windows 3.4.4 One of the reasons the flight scenarios were chosen was because they were typical tasks required in a training or checking environment and they required significant amounts of pilot control effort, as compared to cruise or more standard aspects of flight. For this study, only the more critical portions of the flight, which required significant control activity, were considered in the motion condition comparisons. For the engine flameout scenario, for example, the portion of flight that occurs when the pilot has realized the problem and made most compensation decisions is of primary interest. A short time period directly before the flameout is also of interest because it can have direct effects on the period after the problem has occured. For these reasons, a data window of ten seconds before the engine flameout and ten second afterwards was chosen as the data window of interest for this particular scenario. For the two successive steep turns, there was one data window during the transition between the two turns. This window ocurred at ten seconds before and after the wings were level (zero bank angle). For each of the two approach-to-stall manuevers, data was analyzed 10 sec prior to and following the lowest indicated airspeed attained. For the standard rate turns with failed yaw dampers, data was taken at the transition point between the turns: again defined as 10 sec before and after zero bank angle. 58 In the ILS approach and landing scenario, two data windows were examined per run. One was between approximately 500'-200', which The second,the landing segment, was the approach segment. approximately 20-25 seconds before touchdown. was Numbers, defining the data windows, are approximate because altitude measurements were taken only every second. 3.4.5 Data Collection Problems 3.4.5.1 Possible Aliasing of Rotational Degrees of Freedom For the translational degrees of freedom, the correct vestibular model was included in the simulator software. experiment, at the rate of 30 times per second, responses were calculated. the vestibular They were stored at 15 hz. the amount of magnetic tapes that were needed. experiment, 'So during the the high frequency model (TL - .05 to save on At the time of the sec) in the semicircular canal model, was included in the simulator software and semicircular canal responses were calculated. in this report because it were in error. They were not used was possible that these calculations In actuality this data is correct, and analysis is currently being done on it. For this report, the semicircular canal response used for analysis was calculated using the input angular acceleration data that had been collected at 15 hz., and using a model which eliminated the high frequency zero (See chpt2.) The main problem is that the simulator only limited motions that had a frequency content higher than 15 hz. semicircular canal calculations Because the new that were being done at 15 hz, 59 high frequency motion (> 7.5 hz) would be aliased. This means that they would look like low frequency motions. Power spectra are shown for the relevant degrees of freedom for a typical run of each scenario to get an estimate of how much aliasing had occured. These are presented and discussed in Chpt. 8. 3.4.5.2 Lateral Axis Data All lateral axis data, both absolute and vestibular response data, was lost. This is because of an error made in the simulator software in converting from center-of-gravity to cockpit coordinates. 3.4.5.3 Longitudinal Axis Acceleration Data In the ILS Approach and Landing Scenario, longitudinal acceleration error was not calculated. 3.4.5.4 Other Problems Some runs were not included in the analysis because the data was on a bad magnetic tape, In some cases, data files had been only partially transferred to a format compatible with the MIT Man-Vehicle Laboratory computer facilities. Although some of the problems could be fixed by getting the back-up tape at the Ames simulator facility and re-transferring the data, there was not a lot of time to wait for this to be done. with a few missing runs. So the analysis continued These are indicated in the appendices. In other cases, for example in the ILS approach and landing scenario, a pilot may not have completed the entire run. 60 So there are some missing runs for the last 20-25 seconds before touchdown data window for that run. 61 CHAPTER 4: PILOT OPINION RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 4.1 Introduction This chapter is a presentation of the results of the opinion questionnaire. The opinion questionnaire required the subjects to compare the simulator to the actual aircraft for various aspects of the simulation. These included workload levels during different phases of flight, and simulator response abilities to control input. The opinion questionnaire also required pilots to rate the value of the simulation on the utility of pilot training and pilot checking. Finally, pilots gave their opinions about the overall realism of the flight. The analysis consisted of plots of the mean answers to the questions over all pilots performing the same flight scenario and F-tests to see if the differences between motion conditions was significant for these means. Results are presented in the first part of the chapter and discussed in the second part of the chapter. 4.2 Presentation of Opinion Results Raw data for the opinion questionnaire as well as the analysis of variance tables and debrief session notes can be found in Appendix B. The opinion questionnaire, which the subjects filled out after each motion condition, is shown in Figure 3.3. Plots of the mean answer to each question (averaged over pilots flying the same scenario) are shown in Figures 4.1-4.3. Figure 4.2 shows the average opinions of pilots who flew the engine flameout scenario; 62 figure 4.3, shows the average opinions of pilots who flew the airwork scenario; and figure 4.4, show the average opinions of pilots who flew the ILS approach and landing scenario. Figures 4.1-4.3 show that there is not much difference between motion conditious in the opinions of the pilots to any of the questions asked. Furthermore, the figures show that overall the pilots seldom answered lower than a "2" or higher than a "4", most of the data clusters around the number "3". For the questions on scenario workload, configuration workload, simulator control response, training utility and checking utility, an answer of "3" indicates that the simulator is very similar to the actual aircraft. For the question on overall simulator realism, an answer of three indicates that there were some minor deficiencies in the simulation. Tables 4.1-4.3 show the pilot opinion statistical results. Analysis of variance tests were obtained to get a statistically reliable level of significance at which the hypothesis of these Ftests, which is the mean answer to a particular question is the same for all three motion conditions, can be rejected. Tables 4.1-4.3 show that the null hypothesis can not be rejected at statistically asked. significant levels for any of the questions The level of significance that is termed "statistically significant " is defined to a probability of 0.05 of obtaining an F-ratio larger than the one obtained. The lowest probability in these tables, which is associated with the answers of the engine flameout pilots to the simulator response question, is only 0.25 corresponding to an F-ratio of 1.5. The other values in the table show even higher probabilities, and the null hypothesis is not 63 rejected at statistically significant levels for any of the questions asked. The notes on the pilot debriefing session, provided in the appendix, show some pilots making specific comments about the response or sensitivity in the pitch and roll degrees of freedom. Pilots also made specific comments about particular motion conditions. 4.3 Discussion of Opinion Results Taken together the plots and the tables lead to the conclusion that there is no statisticlly significant difference in the answers to these questions between motion conditions. conclusion is debatable, however. The value of this It is possible that the questions were too vague too find differences in the opinions or that more questions should have been asked. In the first five categories (scenario workload, configuration workload, simulator response, training utility, and checking utility) pilots seem to agree that the simulation is close to the actual aircraft. However they also agree that there are some minor deficiencies in the overall realism of the simulator, as evidenced by the answers close to "3" in the realism question. Because these deficiencies were not discovered in the other questions, perhaps the questions were too vague or more questions should have been asked. The notes on the debrief session, show that several pilots made comments about specific degrees of freedom and about specific motion conditions. Perhaps questions which compared the simulator control response to the actual aircraft control response in particular degrees of freedom should have been asked. 64 CONFIGURATION scenario workload WORKLOAD oxx "=s TWAmWmSf nw isca3- 4 3 mmo.m SIMULATOR AW7L" RESPONSE TRAINING UTILITY 3. To.s a-o ft"mm SaG CHECKING UTILITY REALISM , 4.- .I ,' -3- ,. K c awl3 WM a.- v.nm m Figure 4.1: mn wut AL 4U Opinions of pilots who flew the engine flame-out scenario. 65 .7m Scenario Configuration Workload Workload I, no I f f SIM" 2* n I..] MM Los fW 416c"r P" Simulator Response Training Utility T. 'M is" "Isw f I checking f 3{ ""MAN " "SCUM utility Realism -0 8 LSCA. M Sa 4 { 2 A" is. Figure 4.Z, jobs& OV" MMM JMFRA uI.L. Opinions of pilots who flew the airwork scenario. 66 I,,e. SCENARIO CONFIGURATION WORKLOAD w" ma i il:'1 3. SIMULATOR WORKLOAD 4- TRAINING RESPONSE UTILITY mae s. a- f 3- NVA4 mm -I -O P".0Rft EAISm Voem sImo s3 REALISM CHECKING UTILITY 4. i. f a-ri "m3- I maA" R" so Figure 4.3: Niel ww"m sputa " IMm ap9mm Opinion of pilot's who flew the ILS landing scenario. 67 TABLE 4.1: Engine Flame-Out Pilot Opinion Statistical Results F-Ratio Scenario Workload Probabilty .5 .62 Configuration Workload 1.22 .32 Simulator Response 1.5 .25 Training Utility .6 .56 Checking Utility .21 .81 Overall Realism .02 .98) TABLE 4.2: Airwork Scenario Pilot Opinion Statistical Results F-Ratio Probabilty Scenario Workload .09 .91 Configuration Workload .46 .64 1.01 .39 Training Utility .78 .47 Checking Utility .09 .92 Overall Realism .05 .95 Simulator Response 68 TABLE 4.3: ILS Approach and Landing Pilot Opinion Statistical Results F-Ratio Probabilty Scenario Workload .65 .54 Configuration Workload .38 .69 Simulator Response .75 .49 Training Utility .34 .72 Checking Utility .27 Overall Realism 1.18 69 - .77 .34 CHAPTER 5: ACCELERATION ERROR RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 5.1 Introduction This chapter is a presentation and discussion of the results of the acceleration error analyses. The acceleration error was computed by subtracting simulator accelerations from modelled aircraft accelerations for specific degrees of freedom. Because only magnitude information about critical portions of the flight was desired, a root mean square error was computed for each pilot for the data windows discussed in chapter 3. The basic analyses were F-tests and plots of the mean rms error over all the pilots performing a specific manuever for a particular degree of freedom. The null hypothesis of these tests is that the mean rms errors for different motion conditions are equal. The plots are comparisons of the means and standard deviations of the means for each motion condition. The F-ratios and corresponding probabilities are printed below the graphs. The null hypothesis will be rejected at "statistically significant" levles if the associated probability is less than or equal to 0.05 The chapter is organized by flight scenarios. results are presented and first. Engine flameout The acceleration error results from the manuevers of the airwork scenario: steep turns, stalls, and rate turns with a yaw damper failure, follow. The ILS approach and landing acceleration error results are presented last. The chapter is concluded with a discussion of the accleration error results. 70 5.3 Engine Flame-Out Acceleration Error Results Figure 5.1 shows the mean rms yaw acceleration errors. The accelerations are on the order of approximately 0.008-0.012 rad/sec 2 . There is an upwards slope to the plot which implies that the rms errors were the lowest for full six degree of freedom motion. Jostle, two degree of freedom, motion had the next lowest mean rms error; while the special effects only motion had the highest mean rms error, as well as the highest standard deviation. The associated F-ratio, 2.15, gives a probability of 0.137 that the null hypothesis is true, which is not low enough to reject it at a statistically significant level. Based on the plot and the F-test, there is an upward trend to the graph, this trend is insignificant based on the F-test. Mean RMS Yaw ACCELERATION ERROR Engine Flame Out 0.011 - 0.013 0.012 0.011 0.01 0.009 - 0.00 - 0.002 0.001 0" Jostle motion full motion Figure 5.1: F = 2.15, 71 special effects only motion P - 0.137 5.4 Steep Turn Results The three rotational degrees of freedom, which are pitch, roll and yaw, considered in this maneuver all showed the same shape of the graph; the lowest mean rms errors were associated with the two degree of freedom jostle motion, the next lowest mean rms error is due to the special effects only motion; while the highest mean rms error is associated with the full six degree of freedom motion (Figures 5.2, 5.3, and 5.4). This result is interesting because one might expect the full motion condition to have lower rms errors than the other conditions. For the pitch acceleration error case, the F-ratio is 3.64 and the associated probability level is These differences are close to being significant. differences are not statistically significant .056. Although the for the roll case with a probability of 0.174, when an F-test is done between the firzt t'. r.ti ndiA.LJtzLL (ull and jostLe), we obtain a probability level of 0.077 which closer to being significant. Both the pitch and roll mean rms acceleration error plots show a fair amount of difference between the motion conditions. The yaw acceleration error case has a probability level of 0.201 and on the plot, the difference in the means do not appear to be as prominent as the other two cases. Considering the orders of magnitude of the errors, roll acceleration error is found to be the highest overall. 72 mean rms pitch ACCELERATION ERROR steep turns 0.015- 0.0130.0130.0120.011 - 0.01 0.008 - Cd 0.007 - -4 "o 0.006 - 0.003 0.0020.001 0- I- Figure 5.2: mean special effects only motion jostle motion full motion F = 3.64, P - 0.056 rms roll acceleration errors steep turns . 0.035eq U 0.03- Q) 0.025- 0.02 - 0.015 0.01 0.0050- Figure 5.3: special effects only motion jostle motion full motion F = 2.00, 73 P 0.174 Mean rms yaw acceleration error steep turns 0.01 - 0.009 - 0.0080.007U, ~i-4 0.006 - 0.005 - 0.004 - 0.003 - I f 0.002 0.001 - a jostle motion full motion Figure 5.4: F = 1.82, 74 special effects only motion P - 0.201 5.5 Stall Acceleration Error Results Figures 5.5-5.7 illustrate the results obtained for the stall flight manuever. These Figures show mean rms acceleration errors for the rotational degrees of freedom of pitch and roll and the longitudinal translational degree of freedom. The roll acceleration plot has the lowest mean rms error for the jostle motion condition and highest for special effects motion. The standard deviations for the full motion case and the special effects only motion case are quite large compared to the standard deviation associated with jostle motion. The plot shows prominent differneces; while the F-test implies that the hypothesis that the means are equal can not be rejected at statistically levels (with p-.364). variances, significant However the F-test assumes equal population and this assumption probably does not hold up well for the following reason. The population variance of the individual points is proportional to the variance of the means. The standard deviations of the means are not equal in this plot which implies that the variance of the rms errors are probably not equal. This weakens the conclusions that can be drawn from this F-test. The other degrees of freedom, pitch acceleration error and longitudinal acceleration error (Figures 5.6 and 5.7) show large similarities both in the means and in their standard deviations. The associated probabilities agree and imply that the null hypothesis can not be rejected at significant levels. 75 MEAN RMS ROLL ACCELERATION ERRORS STALL C14 co -r- 0.020.019 0.0180.0170.0160.0150.0140.0130.012 0.011 0.01 0.0090.0080.007 0.0060.0050.0040.003 0.002 0.001 0-- I- full motion Figure 5.5: MEAN jodtle motion F - 1.05, special effects only motion P = 0.364 RMS PITCH ACCELERATION ERROR STALL 0.015 0.0140.013 0.012 - f 0.011- c~OM - Cd 0.008 0.007 0.00 0.0050.0040.003- o.0o0 0.001 0 i- full motion Figure 5.6: 76 jostle motion F - 0.12, special effects only motion P = 0.886 MEAN U STALL 0.6 . 0.58 - 0.57 - 0.56 0.55 4.J RMS LONGITUDINAL ACC ERRORS 0.54 { f 0.53 0.52 0.51 0.5 jostle full motion Figure 5.7: motion F = 0.21, 77 special effects only motion P = 0.816 5.6 Rate Turns with Yaw Damper Failure Results The mean rms acceleration error for the pitch and yaw directions (Figures 5.8 and 5.10) have the same shape, with the highest errors for the full motion condition and the lowest for the special effects only condition. For the roll direction, jostle motion has a slightly higher mean rms error than full motion. For all of these directions; however it is noticed that the mean rms acceleration errors for full and jostle motion are very close in value. None of the differences are found to be statistically significant according to the results of the associated F-tests. The roll acceleration errors are higher, on average than both the pitch and yaw acceleration errors. MEAN RMS PITCH ACCLERATION RATE TURNS WITH YAW DAMPER FAILURE 0.04 - ERRORS 0.035 0.03- C*4 0.025 Ca W, 0.020.015 0.0L - { 0.0050* full motion Figure 5.8: jostle motion F = 0.87, 78 special effects only motion P = 0.443 MEAN RMS ROLL ACCELERATION ERROR RATE TURNS WITH YAW DAMPER FAILURE 026 024 - - 022 0.:1 U 0.16 - C,, U, .9-I -o CU 04t4 0.12 - 0.1 - 0.08 - 0.06 - 0.04 - 0.02 0- full Figure 5.9: MEAN 0.06 - special effects only motion jostle motion motion F = 0.50, P - 0.620 RMS YAW ACCELERATION RATE TURNS WITH YAW DAMPER FAILURE ERRORS 0.05 - C..4 C,, -r4 { 0.04 - 0.03 - 0.02 - 0.01 - 0 full motion Figure 5.10: jostle motion F 79 - 0.57, special effects only motion P - 0.577 5.7 5.7.1 ILS Approach and Landing Scenario Results Approach Segment: 500' - 200' Figures 5.11, 5.12, 5.13 show the rotational degrees of freedom mean rms errors for the different motion conditions. For all cases mean rms errors are highest for special effects only motion and lowest for for full motion. Although these differences are not major and the statistical results do not allow rejection of the null hypothesis at significant levels. The mean rms acceleration errors in the roll direction are slightly higher than these errors in the pitch and yaw directions. The vertical axis acceleration error plot (Figure 5.13) also does not show major differences between motion conditions and the hypothesis that mean rms errors are equal for the different motion conditions can not be rejected at significant levels. MEAN RMS PITCH ACCELERATION ERRORS ULs LANDING 500'-200' 0.040.0300.038 0.0370.036 - 0.03 0.033 0.031 - full motion Figure 5.11: jostle motion F - 1.36, 80 special effects only motion P - 0.272 MEAN ROLL ACCELERATION ILS LANDING 500'-200' ERRORS 0.06- 0.059 0.058 - 0.057 - 0.056 0.055 0.054 - 0.053 w { - 0.052 0.051 0.050.049 - *1-4 .t S 0.048 0.047 0.046 - 0.045 - 0.044 - 0.043 - 0.042 0.041 0.04. jostle full motion Figure 5.12: MEAN 0.015 special effects only motion motion F = 0.20, P - 0.821 RMS YAW ACCELERATION ERRORS ILS LANDING 500'-200' - 0.014 0.013 0.012 0.011 C%4 0.01 0.009 - 0.008 Cd 0.007 *~0.0060 0.0050.0040.003 0.002 0.001- 0 -J- I full motion Figure 5.13: jostle motion F 81 - 1.18, - ____ special effects only motion P - 0.322 MEAN RMS VERTICAL AXIS ACC ERRORS ILS LANDING 500'-200' 2.93- C14 U 2no - 2.89 - f a) U, U, I..' a) a) 2.88 2.87 2.86 - - I I full jostle motion motion Figure 5.14: F 82 = 0.54, special effects only motion P = 0.588 5.7.2 Landing segment: Last 20 to 25 s Before Touchdown The mean rms pitch, roll and yaw acceleration errors are shown in Figures 5.15, 5.16, and 5.17 respectively. Both the roll and the pitch plots show a downward slope implying largest mean rms errors for the full motion case, and lowest; for the special effects only motion condition. This trend is small, and the differences are not supported by the F-tests. error plot, In the mean rms roll acceleration the means for full and jostle motion are quite close. The mean rms error for the angular acceleration in the yaw direction is highest for the jostle motion condition and lowest for the full motion condition. The F-test does not support differences in the means for any of the rotational degrees of freedom. In these plots, the average roll acceleration error appears to have higher errors than the average pitch and yaw acceleration errors. The vertical axis acceleration error plot (Figure 5.18) shows little differences in the mean rms errors between motion conditions. The hypothesis that these quantities are equal is not rejected by the F-test. 83 MEAN 0.05 0.04 - 0.03 - 0.02 - PITCH ACCELERATION RMS ERRORS ILS LANDING LAST 20-25 SEC { 0 C12 co, w~ 0.01 0 f ull motion Figure 5.15: MEAN RMS 0.2 -i jostle motion F - 1.59, special effects only motion P - 0.221 ROLL ACCELERATION ILS LANDING LAST 20-25 SEC ERRORS 0.19 :.181 0.17 C:, 0.16 - 0.15 - 0.14r - C13 5-4 0.13 0.12- 0.11O.J full mo tion Figure 5.16: jostle motion F - 0.98, 84 special effects only motion P = 0.389 MEAN 0.0 4 1 RMS YAW ACCELERATION ILS LANDING ERRORS 20-25 SEC LAST 0.035 0.03C14 Cl) 0.025 - cc, 0.02 0.015 0.01 0.005 - jostle motion motion Figure 5.17: Mean IsI 3 I I I full F 1.57, - speciAl effects only motion P - 0.226 RMS Vertical Axis Accel Errors IW Landing last 20-25 soc 2.92.972.96C., Cl, 2.95- C') S.d f+ 2.94- 2.93 2.922.912.9 .1 I jostle motion full motion Figure 5.18: F - 85 0.40, I special effects only motion P - 0.674 5.2 Discussion of Acceleration Error Results Discussion of Analysis Method The root mean square is purposely used to ignore differences in the functionality of the data because the purpose of this study is to obtain very basic differences in the relative levels of these errors for the motion conditions studied. The more complicated differences associated with the fact that these errors vary with time in a functional matter are important and should be studied further. The plots shown in the preceding pages are useful because they are magnitude comparisons of an average root mean square acceleration error for different motion conditions. For this report this measure is useful because it is one way to compare realism for the three motion conditions. The weaknesses in all of the results derived from the plots shown in the preceding pages is that acceleration error is an incomplete way to look at realism. In this study we are looking at several incomplete measures of realism and trying to obtain a broad picture by studying various specific aspects. it is misleading in some ways. One reason is that This measure completely ignores what is known about human motion sensing systems. The errors may be below the threshold of perception of the pilot, in which case they may not be important. In the next chapter, the question of perception threshold is examined more thoroughly. There are also weaknesses in conclusions drawn from the Fratios and probabilities. The null hypothesis of these tests is that the means shown in the corresponding plots are equal. 86 The probability gives a significance level for rejecting this hypoAt probability levels of 0.05, thesis. rejected at what is defined the null hypothesis can be to be statistically significant levels. This implies a 5 % chance that the null hypothesis is true given the F-ratio, which is an estimate of the ratio of the variance between the motion conditions as compared to the overall variance, obtained. The weakness in the conclusions based on these tests is that the F-test makes assumptions about the distributions of the data and we are not sure if these assumptions are valid. The F- test assumes that the data are independent samples of a normally distributed variable. It assumes that the three motion conditions have the same variance of the individual measures of the rms value. The assumption about independence is probably a good one, partly because subjects probably did not effect the results of other subjects. Also because the familiarization scenario was flown to minimize learning effects and the order of presentation of the motion conditions was randomized to minimize learning effects within a subject. The other assumptions of the F-test: that the data is normally distributed with the conditions having the same population variances, is not at all clear. Because the population variance of the individual points is proportional to the variance of the means, the standard deviations in these plots can be used to estimate the validity of the assumption of equal population variances. Because these assumptions can not be validated, sions drawn from these numbers is weakened. the conclu- The numbers are still valuable and worthwhile to look at because they give a rough esti- 87 mate of how significant these differences may be. Also by considering the plots, we have a stronger pictorial representation of the differences that exist between motion conditions. The F-test is a secondary weaker measure of the results shown in the plots. Discussion of Results There appears to be some differences in motion conditions as measured by acceleration error. None of the differences found were statistically significant at the 0.05 level; however, the plots show relative differences. Not all degrees of freedom show marked differences and some of the flight scenarios, such as the ILS aprroach and landing, do not show strong differences in any of the degrees of freedom. The direction of the differences appears to be counter-intuitive at times. It seems as though the lowest errors would be associated with the full six degree of freedom motion; however, this is not always the case. It does not hold up in steep turns roll, pitch and yaw axes, which have higher mean rms errors for full motion than for the other motion conditions. turn with yaw damper failure manuever, For the rate the full motion mean rms acceleration errors are higher than the special effects only motion errors for all rotational degrees of freedom. In the vertical axis for the landing portion of the ILS approach and landing scenario, the mean rms error is slightly larger for full six degree of freedom motion than for the other two. Perhaps the reason this occurs is because the simulator might be undergoing low frequency tilts to obtain the necessary accelera- 88 tions for the translational axes. This could induce higher errors in the rotational axes for the full motion condition than for the jostle or special effects conditions. It would be interesting to see if these errors induce errors that are above the threshold of perception of the vestibular system. 89 CHAPTER 6: VESTIBULAR ERROR RESULTS AND DISCUSSION This chapter is a presentation and discussion of the results of the vestibular error analyses. in Chapter 2, The vestibular error, as explained was computed by subtracting modelled simulator vestibular responses from modelled aircraft vestibular responses for specific degrees of freedom. As stated in chapter 3, not every degree of freedom was studied for every flight manuever. The degrees of freedom that were studied for each flight manuever, were considered to be particularly important. Because only magnitude information about critical portions of the flight was desired, a root mean square error was computed for each plot for the critical portions of the flight. The basic analyses were F-tests and plots of the mean rms errors over all pilots performing a specific manuever for a particular degree of freedom. The null hypothesis of these tests is that the mean rms errors for different motion conditions are equal. The plots are comparisons of the means and standard deviations of the means for each motion condition. The F-ratios and corresponding probabilities are printed below the graphs. The chapter is organized by flight scenarios. vestibular error results are presented first. Engine flameout The vestibular error results from the manuevers of the airwork scenario: stalls, and rate turns with a yaw damper failure, steep turns, follow. The ILS approach and landing vestibular error results are presented last. The chapter is concluded with a discussion of these results. 90 Engine Flame-Out Results 6.1 The mean rms vestibular errors in the yaw direction are shown in Figure 6.1. The plot slopes upwards implying highest errors for the special effects only condition and lowest for the full motion condition. In Chapter 5, Figure 5.1, which shows the acceleration errors in the yaw direction, mean rms also slopes upwards. This implies that in this case, the acceleration and vestibular errors give similar information, at least in terms of the direction of the trend. The mean rms error for the full motion condition is 0.96 threshold units, which is below the threshold of perception. The other conditions have means that are greater than 1, implying that the error can be perceived by the pilot. The F-test on the data does not support differences in the three motion conditions. Mean RMS Vestibular Yaw Error Engine Flame Out 1.25 1.21.15 1.05- 0 0j 0.93 0.9- 0.3 full motion jostle motion special effects motion only Figure 6.1: F - 0.97, P - 0.392 91 6.2 Steep Turn Vestibular Error Results Figures 6.2, 6.3, and 6.4 show the mean rms vestibular errors in the pitch, roll and yaw directions. The mean rms vestibular errors in the pitch and yaw directions are well below the threshold of perception for all motion conditions. The mean rms vestibular error in the roll direction is above the perception level (1.22 threshold units) for the full motion condition; but the other two conditions have mean vestibular roll errors below the perception threshold. These plots imply that the full six degree of freedom condition is worse in a perceivable way for roll motion in this manuever. The mean rms acceleration error in the roll and pitch directions plots in Chapter 5 (Figures 5.3 and 5.2) show the same shapes as Figures 6.3 and 6.2, with the highest errors in the full motion case and the lowest in the jostle motion case. The shape of the yaw axis plots are different for acceleration error measurements than they are for vestibular error measurements. Figure 5.4 shows that the mean rms acceleration error in the yaw direction is slightly lower for jostle motion than for special effects only motion. On the other hand, the numbers associated with Figure 6.4 say that the mean rms vestibular error in the yaw direction is slightly higher for jostle motion as compared to special effects. This is interesting because in this case the acceleration error is misleading. Although the differences are very small, and they are not important for determining differences between motion conditions; the data is taken from the same set of runs and therefore shows that the acceleration error can be misleading. 92 It will be interesting to see if any of the other quantities measured show opposite trends for the vestibular errors compared to the acceleration errors. The analysis of variance tests done for the vestibular errors do not allow us to reject the "equal rms error mean" hypothesis at statistically significant levels (significant implies p - 0.05). The lowest probability level is for the pitch axis (p - 0.097). When an F-test is done solely between full motion and jostle motion, however, the probability obtained (p - 0.011) is significant. An F-test performed between full and jostle motion conditions for the vestibular roll rms errors also enables us to reject (at the 0.028 significance level) the hypothesis that the mean rms errors for these conditions are equal. Mean RMS vestibular pitch error steep turns fl6 0.5 - .A-I r-4 0.3 - 0.2 - 0.1 - I 0 41a 0 ~1 3 full motion jostle motion Figure 6.2: F = 2.81, 93 special effects motiQn only P = 0.097 Mean Rms 1.5 vestibular roll error steep turns - 1.4 - 1.3 - 1.2 - 1.1 - I- 0 0.9 - 0.7 - 0.7 - 0.5 - 0.4 - 0.3 - 0.2 - 0.1 - W, 0 full motion jostle motion special effects motion only Figure 6.3: F - 2.22, P Mean rms errors = 0.148 vestibular yaw steep turns 0 0.24- 0.22H 0.2 0.18 CD 4-1 0 U, 0.16 - 0.14 - 0.12 - O.1 0.08 - 0.06 - 0.04 - 0.02 - .d 0~ I I full motion jostle Figure 6.4: F motion 94 - 0.90, special effects motion only P - 0.429 6.3 Stall Vestibular Error Results The mean rms vestibular errors in the roll and pitch directions are plotted in Figures 6.5 and 6.6 respectively. The average errors in these plots are below the threshold of perception for all three motion conditions - full, pitch vestibular errors, jostle, and special effects only. For the highest mean root mean square error is for the full motion case and the lowest, for the special effects only motion. For the roll vestibular errors, the highest mean rms error is for the full motion condition and the lowest is for the jostle motion condition. The mean rms acceleration errors give different information for the roll direction. Figure 5.5 show the mean rms acceleration errors in the roll direction are highest for the special effects only motion. The F-tests do not allow rejection of the null hypothesis at statistically significant levels for either degree of freedom. An F-test performed just between the full and jostle conditions for the mean roll vestibular error gives a probability level of .24 which is still not significant. standard deviation shown in this plot are not equal. The This raises questions about the validity of the F-test. The mean rms vestibular longitudinal errors are shown in Figure 6.7. These errors are above the threshold of motion perception for all three motion conditions by a factor of approximately 1.5, and they appear to be very close in value for all three conditions. The F-test gives a probability level of 0.914, which does not allow us to reject the null hypothesis at even close to significant levels. 95 MEAN RMS VESTIBULAR ROLL ERRORS STALL 0.1 0.090.08 0.0771 0.06 - 4 0.05 0 U, 0.03 - 0.1 - full motion jostle Figure 6.5: F special effects motion = 0.82, motion only P - 0.450 MEAN RMS VESTIBULAR STALL 0.01 PITCH ERRORS 0.07 0.06 14 0.050 0.00.031 o.aa I - 0.O a- Imotion jostle motion special effects motion only Figure 6.6: F - 0.96, P full 96 = 0.395 MEAN RMS VESTIBULAR LONGITUDINAL ERRORS STALL 1.6 1.59 - 1.50 - 1.57 - 1.56 1.55 - 1.54 - - 1.52u 1.51a o 1.4382 1.5o { - f 1.49- 1.43 1.42 - 143 - 1.41 I full motion jostle Figure 6.7: F motion = 97 0.09, -- special effects motion only P - 0.914 Rate Turns with Yaw Damper Failure Results 6.4 The mean rms vestibular errors in the pitch, roll and yaw directions, shown in Figures 6.8 through 6.10 are all well below For all motion conditions, the aver- the threshold of perception. age roll rms vestibular errors are slightly higher than the average pitch and yaw rms vestibular errors. According to the results of the F-tests, the null hypothesis can not be rejected at statistically significant levels. The plots themselves do not show marked trends. The shape of the plot for the mean rms vestibular errors in the roll direction conform with the corresponding acceleration error plots in Chapter 5 (see Figures 5.9 and 6.9) although the differences between full and jostle motion seem more pronounced in the vestibular plot. However, the relative level of errors between motion conditions change slightly for the yaw and pitch degrees of freedom. In the vestibular error plots in Chapter 6, jostle motion has a slightly higher mean rms vestibular errors in these directions than full motion. ter 5, Whereas in the acceleration error plots in Chap- jostle motion has slightly lower mean rms errors than full motion for the pitch and yaw directions (see Figure 5.8 and 5.10). These changes are very small. Although full and jostle motion (see appendices) F-tests strictly between do not statistically allow us to reject the hypothesis that the mean rms errors are equal for different motion conditons for either the pitch degree of freedom or the yaw direction. The data for acceleration error information comes from the same set of runs as the data for vestibular error 98 information, and it gives a slightly different picture of what is going on. MEAN RMS VESTIBULAR PITCH ERRORS RATE TURNS WITH YAW DAMPER FAILURE 0.01 0.0090.0080, -w 0.0070.006- ~0 0.005 - C', 0.004- -w 0.003 0.002 - 0.001 - 0. I motion Figure 6.8: F full MEAN RMS = special effects motion only 0.94, P = 0.414 VESTIBULAR ROLL ERRORS RATE TURNS 0.04 I jostle motion WITH TAW DAMPER FAILURE 0.035- 0.03 (n 0.025 - 0.02 - 0.015 - 0.01 - 0 C', 1.1 0.005 a , full motion jostle Figure 6.9: F motion 99 = 1.01, special effects motion only P = 0.392 MEAN RMS VESTIBULAR YAW ERRORS RATE TURNS WITH YAW DAMPER FAILURS 0.01 - 0.0090.008 0.007Vi4 0.006r-4 0.005- 0 0.0030.0020.0010* jostle motion full motion Figure 6.10: 100 F = 0.36, special effects motion only P - 0.703 6.5 6.5.1 ILS Ap2roach and Landing Results Approach segment: 500' - 200' The mean rms vestibular error for the rotational degrees of freedom are presented in Figures 6.11 to 6.13. These plots all show errors which are below the threshold of perception for all three conditions. The mean rms errors are close to being equal and the null hypothesis cannot be rejected at statistically significant levels for any of the degrees of freedom. There are some changes in the magnitude of the average errors relative to each other between the acceleration error plots and the vestibular error plots. These are most noticable in the pitch direction and can be observed by comparing Figures 5.11 and 6.11. For the translational degrees of freedom (see Figures 6.15 and 6.16) the vestibular longitudinal errors are below the threshold perceeption level. The vertical vestibular errors, on the other hand are on the order of six times above the level of perception. The F-tests do not allow us to reject the null hypotheses at statistically significant levels for both the vertical and the translational rms errors. The direction of the trend is different for vestibular error measurements than for acceleration error measurements for the vertical degree of freedom (see Figures 6.14 and 5.14). We are unable to compare the direction for the longitudinal direction because the acceleration error data was not processed. 101 MEAN RMS VESTIBULAR PITCH ERROR ILS LANOING 500'-200' 0.5 0.48 0.45 0.44 0.42 2 ,-4 0.4 - 0.38 - 0.35 - 0.34 - 0.32 - 0.3 - 0.28 - f 0.25 0.24 - 0.22 - 0.2 full jostle motion motion Figure 6.11: VESTIBULAR 4.J v-4 0 .J P - 0.987 F = 0.01, ROLL MEAN RMS ERRORS ILS IANDING 5W'-200 0.55- 0.54 special effects motion only - 0.53 0.52 0.51 0.5 0.40 0.48 - 0.47 - 0.46 0.450.44 0.430.420.41 0.4 0.390.30- 0.370360.35 jostle motion full motion Figure 6.12: 102 F = 0.02, special effects motion only P = 0.983 MEAN VESTIBULAR YAW RMS ERRORS ILS LANDiNG 500'-200r 0.1 0.02 CA 4.J 0.08 - 0 0.07 - *1 0.06 - 0.05 - -- full motion Figure 6.13: jostle motion F - 0.53, 103 special effects motion only P - 0.594 MEAN RMS VESTIBULAR VERTICAL ERRORS IL9 LANDING 500-200' 6.5 6.406.466.446.42co 6.46.38 6.36 - f 6.340 6.326.36.28- 6.26 f - 6.24 - 6.22 6.2 full motion jostle motion F - 0.48, Figure 6.14: MEAN RMS VESTIBULAR 0.8 - 0.7 0.622 LONGITUDINAL ERRORS - '-I 0 = I U, ~LJ ~1-4 P ItS LANDING 500-200' I 0.9 special effects motion only - { TI 0.6- 0.5 I I full motion jostle motion Figure 6.15: 104 F - 0.63, special effects motion only P - 0.538 Data Window for the last 20-25 sec before touchdown 6.5.2 The mean rms vestibular errors are below the threshold level of perception for the pitch and yaw directions; for the roll direction, however, the mean rms error is just at the threshold level of perception for the full motion condition, and below the threshold level of perception for the other motion conditions. The analysis of variance tests berween the three motion conditions are not significant for any of these plots, although they come close in the pitch degree of freedom with a probablity level of 0.086. The only different information given by acceleration error results in Chapter 5 and vestibular error results in chapter 6 occurs in the yaw degree of freedom. For this data window, both the translational degrees of freedom examined have errors that are above the threshold level of perception. For the longitudinal direction, they are on the order of two times the perception level; for the vertical direction, they are on the order of six times the perception level. The results of the F-test are not statistically significant for the three motion conditions examined. There are slight differneces in the information given by acceleration error measurements and vestibular error measurements in the vertical direction pertaining to jostle and special effects motion (see Figure 5.18 and 6.19). The acceleration and vestibular errors for the longitudinal degree of freedom were not compared. 105 MEAN RMS VESTIBULAR PITCH ERROR ILS LANOING LAST 20-25 SEC * 0.3 0.29 0.28 - 0.270.26 0.25 - { 0.24 0.23 0.22 0.21 0.2 0.19 0.18 0.17 - ~0 0j 0.15 0.14 0.13 0.12 0.11 1 W. I full motion jostle motion Figure 6.16: special effects motion only F = 2.69, P = 0.086 RMS MEAN VESTIBULAR ROLL ERRORS I.S LANOING LAST 20-25 SEC 1.2- 1.- 0.9 - 0 0.5 - '4j 0.7 - 0.6 05 jostle motion full. motion Figure 6.17: 106 F - 1.80, special effects motion only P = 0.184 MEAN RMS VESTIBULAR YAW ERROR LS 0.2 LANDING LAST 20--25 SEC - 0.19 0.18 0.17 0.16 C,, 0.15 - f 0.14 0.13 '0 0 0.12 0.11 C,, aJ 4-I 0.1 0.09 0.08 0.07 0.06 0.05 - full motion jostle motion Figure 6.18: 107 F = 0.60, special effects motion only P = 0.554 MEAN RMS VESTIBULAR VERTICAL ERRORS ILS Landing last 20-25 sec 6.7 6.65 6.6 co r--4 6.5 - 6.45 - 6.4 - 0 co, 6.35 6.3- I I jostle motion full motion F Figure 6.19: MEAN I RMS VESTIBULAR 1.27, = special effects motion only P = 0.296 LONGITUDINAL ILS Landing last 20-25 see ERRORS 3 2.9 2.8 2.7 2.6 U, 4.' "-4 2.5 2.+ - -o 2.3 - '-.4 0 U, 22- s.d 1.l 1.8 - 1.8 6 1.5 - . I full motion Figure 6.20: jostle motion F = 0.92, 108 special effects motion only P = 0.410 6.6 Discussion of Vestibular Error.Results There are a number of interesting results that were found by examining the vestibular error. The first is that there were no significant differences found between the three motion conditions. Two differences were found to be significant in a two-way comparison. The result that the motion conditions were not remarkably different most of the time is very important because it means that adding motion capability to a simulator may not be necessry. In fact, in some directions, motion capability makes the situation worse; although in some cases, made more realistic. this may be because another direction is For example, pitch motion may be sacrificed in order to achieve longitudinal fidelity. The next interesting result is that frequently the rotational errors were below the threshold level of perception for many the motion conditions examined. of This is important because it means that the simulator is doing its job well in these directions. Although fewer translational degrees of freedom were examined than rotational, most of the average translational errors studied were above the perception level threshold. The exceptions were the ILS approach segment mean longitudinal rms errors, which were below perception level for all motion conditions. The result that on the whole rotational errors were less than translational errors in terms of perception is significant because it implies that perhaps more cross-coupling should be attempted to trade-off some expendable rotational error for the purpose of achieving less error in the translational directions. Although it is important to realize that aliasing may change the conclusions drawn from rotational 109 vestibular error results. The next chapter will examine what the effects of aliasing may have been. The third result is that the acceleration error and the vestibular error can give contradictory information about which motion conditions are better than others. This result is not suprising because the vestibular response is a frequency dependent function. 110 CHAPTER 7: PILOT PERFORMANCE RESULTS This chapter is a summary of pilot performance results. Cal- culations, plots, and statistical tests were done at the NASA Ames The facility and are also presented by Lee and Bussolari (1986). results that are presented here are not complete. Most of the Statistical analyses plots do not show standard deviation bars. were conducted and differences are said to be "statistically reliable" if a significance level of 0.1 was calculated. statistical analysis are not presented here. Data for the A short summary of these results are presented for completeness of this study . Engine flameout results are presented first followed by performance results from the airwork scenario. The ILS approach and landing performance measures are presented and discussed last. 7.1 Engine Flame-Out Figure 7.1 shows the mean aircraft centerline deviation in feet, averaged over all pilots. This plot is for ten seconds prior to and ten seconds following engine flame-out, where the EPR of the failed engine drops. which is the point According to Lee and Bussolari (1986), no statistically reliable differences were found. Time to climb out to an altitude of 400' from an speed of 120 KIAS was calculated for each run and the results were averaged over all runs and pilots. ferent motion conditions. Figure 7.2 shows this plot for the difFull six degree of freedom motion is higher than the other conditions by a small amount. Lee and Bussolari (1986), According to the difference between the fastest and 111 the slowest average times for the motion conditions is approximately three seconds which is not statistically significant. 7.2 Airwork Scenario Performance 7.2.1 Aproach-to-Stall Manuevers Figure 7.3 shows the mean variance (averged over all airwork pilots) in aircraft attitude during the period ten seconds prior to and following the point where the lowest indicated airspeed was attained. For both pitch and bank angles, the variance is highest for full motion and lowest for jostle motion. According to Lee and Bussolari (1986), no statistically reliable differences were found in analyses of this data. 7.2.2 Rate Turns with Yaw Damper Failure Figure 7.4 shows the mean variance of aircraft pitch (7.4a) and bank (7.4b) angles during the ten second period prior to and following zero bank angle. For pitch angle, the mean variance is highest for jostle motion and lowest for special effects only motion. For mean bank variance, which is on the order of a hundred times mean pitch variance, full motion has the highest mean variance, while jostle and special effects motion are very close in value. According to Lee and Bussolari (1986), no reliable differences were found. 7.3 ILS Approach and Landing ScenarioFigure 7.5 shows the mean glideslope and localizer deviations during the period 20 sec after an altitude of 500' was reached. 112 (In other sections of this report the data window is from the altitudes of 500'-200', which usually lasts about 20 sec). Although there are small differences in the glideslope and localizer deviations, these differences fall within those expected due to sampling variation in the data. According to Lee and Bussolari (1986), none of these differences were statistically reliable. Figure 7.6 shows the mean sink rate and lateral deviation during the landing phase of the flight 20 seconds prior to touchdown. There appear to be little differences between the motion conditions. The mean sink rate is lower for jostle motion than for the other two conditions. (1986), According to Lee and Bussolari these differences are within those expected due to sampling variation alone and are not statistically reliable. Discussion of Pilot Performance Results No statistically reliable differences between motion conditions were reported for any of the pilot performance results presented. Based on the results of this study, the conclusion that pilot performance is not a valid measure of motion fidelity is not unreasonable. Sullivan (1985) also reaches the conclusion that performance is not a valid or consistent measure of motion fidelity. This result makes sense theoretically because similar performance measures may be obtained by different control strategies. This implies that similar performance to the aircraft does not necessarily imply realism; although lack of similarity in performance measures could signify lack of realism. 113 100 - 90 L- 80 70 z - 60 - 50 - 40- 0 6 DOF U 2 DOF 0 SPECIAL EFFECTS 30 20 a* 10 0 a -10 -8 Figure 7.1 -6 -4 -2 EF 2 TIME (SECODS) 4 I I 6 8 Aircraft centerline deviation ortor to and following engine flameout (EF) as a function of motion platforn condition. (N-6 pilots) IN RLIod. 9% (,4 50 U' 0 6 DOF 50 a L4 2OF C SPECIAL EFFECTS 30 - -- I 7 20 10- Figure '.UTimS to climb to altitude following engine flameout. (N-6) (LEE ANO 114 MIWsOLARI i otol) I 10 0 60F 13 2 0OF - 6 5 - 60 C tSPECK EFFECTS 4C 16 r 50 . (b) (a) K-; 3 2 I 40 < 30 20 10 I I Ftgure'13 Mean variance of aircraft oitch (a) and bank (b) angle . during aporoacri to stall. (N-6 pilots) ( Le-e ad iusok". 196) 0 C w 6 0%or - - S 02 D C SPECA 600 FFECrs 500 U (a) 4 2 4 w 2 (b) 300 F V 200 'F I I Ll 157L Z-Irolr FIgUrelu: Mean vaiance of aircraft pitch (a) wd bar (b) angle durrng stanard ttrns with yaw anOprs faile. (N6 pilots) (Lee And)C 400 > s -sMo'Alo.) ivs) 115 100 90 6 w SM EFC SM 75 4 SM C 0 SPECtAL E'FECTS 60 TT - I- 45- z 4 SM r -'4' 30. 15 GLIDESLOPE I LOCALIZER Figure|riean gildesioce and localizer deviation curing tne Instrument aooroacn maneuver. (T-Oarw l S.D.. N-6 13lots) (LEE AjjD TU5'5OLARI, 19%(2) 6 DOF 0 2 DO' 0 SPECIAL 12 U SM U, Si. SM 4 12 EFFECTS 10 - 10 / V. 6 6 6 2 I- In 4,9 2 4 / I; 2 '/ u I I . Figtre% Landing sink rate and touchdown laterml deviation. (N-6 piots) 116 116 16 CHAPTER 8: 8.1 PROBLEMS DUE TO ALIASED ROTATIONAL VESTIBULAR RESPONSES Introduction This chapter contains a discussion of how using undersampled rotational acceleration measurements to calculate the semicircular response affected the results of this thesis. 8.2 Aliasing General Information The rotational acceleration measurements used to calculate the semicircular canal response were sampled at 15 Hz. Theoretical- ly, any motion that is greater than half this frequency, which is 7.5 hz will be aliased; in other words, it will look like a lower frequency motion. This is because the minimum sampling rate needed to obtain the correct frequency is two times the period (or half the frequency) (Figure 8.1). It is known that aliasing magnitude information is symmetric about the critical sampling frequency. For our case, frequencies of 8 Hz will be aliased to frequencies of 7 Hz and the higher frequencies will be correspondingly aliased to lower frequencies. For example, 10 Hz is aliased to 5 Hz, etc. Whereas the magnitude information is preserved, the phase of the aliased signal is transformed randomly because it is not known where the signal is being sampled (see Figure 8.1). The important questions is how the aliasing affect the measurements and the results of this study. 117 I. Figure 8.1: Example of Aliasing Effects true waveform o) datapoints produced by sampling AA' O] datapoints produced by sampling ---.---.-.-. aliased waveform produced by sampling 'A' 'B' aliased waveform produced by sampling 'B' 118 8.3 The Effect of Undersami~ling on the Results of This Study A number of results in this study are based on the rotational acceleration errors. The fact that the rotational acceleration measurements were undersampled does not change the rms acceleration error calculations for the following reasons. The root mean square calculation is essentially an averaging calculation to determine magnitude of the error. It is not a frequency dependent calcula- Undersampling becomes a problem when the data is put through tion. a frequency dependent calculation such as the semicircular canal response calculation because low frequencies are there that shouldn't be. No problems are expected in the rms rotational acceleration error calculations because they are not frequency dependent. The results of the rotational acceleration error analysis remain unchanged. The Effects of Undersampling on Rotational Vestibular Error 8.3.1 Results On the other hand, semicircular canal error results can be affected by aliasing because they are a frequency dependent calculation. The question to consider is how much are the results affected. In most situations if aliasing occurs, the total effect on the response is unpredictable; while the amplitude information is preserved in the transformation to lower frequencies, the phase information is transformed by an unpredictable amount (see figure 8.1 ). The reason this amount is unpredictable is because it is not known where on the signal the sampling points are taken. 119 In this situation, we are interested in the effect on the root mean square vestibular error. Although this function is concerned with the average magnitude of the error, phase effects become important because of the subtraction of simulator responses from aircraft responses. Phase effects could cause the subtraction can be changed into an addition. As a result the mean rms error can be changed. For aliasing to have a major effect on the calculations of rotational vestibular error, the power at the frequencies that are aliased would have to be on the order of the power at the low frequencies. Thus, we are interested in how much power the signals have at frequencies greater than 7.5 hz. If these powers are relatively low, then the error calculation is dominated by the motions lower than 7.5 hz. One way to estimate the power of the true acceleration signal is to consider the power spectrums of the aliased acceleration signal. The power spectrum is only good to half the sampling frequency. Although the aliased signal may have greater powers in the frequency range of 0-7.5 hz than the true signal, the shape of the aliased power spectrum can still useful. It can be useful because we can see if it is a reasonable aliased result of a true spectrum with low relative power at frequencies beyond 7.5 Hz. Figures 8.2-8.13 show the aliased power spectrums for simulator accelerations of typical runs of each flight manuever data window. Because of occasional overlap, the ILS approach and landing segments were analyzed together. the full motion condition. All of these runs are for The important question is whether or 120 not these aliased spectrums make the possibility of relatively low power levels at frequencies greater than 7.5 hz. unlikely. One interesting thing to notice about most of these power spectrums is that their power does start decreasing before 7.5 hz. The amount of decrease seems to be the least in the Ils simulator roll acceleration plot. Some of the plots decrease and at frequencies close to 7.5 hz start to increase again. If the true spectum really increases in this way, then these power levels are high and aliasing could have a major effect on the vestibular errors. Figure 8.14 shows that relatively low power levels at frequencies greater than 7.5 hz could also cause this effect if the downward slope at frequencies greater than 7.5 hz is steeper than the downward slope at frequencies lower than 7.5 hz. This is because aliasing magnitude effects are symmetric and power is a magnitude computation. For physical reasons that are explained below, the the speculation that the signals were aliased in a way similar to figure 8.14 is more likely than the speculation that the true power spectrum really increases at frequencies greater than 7.5 hz. The speculation that there is relatively low energy at the higher frequencies is supported for the following physical reasons. Actual aircraft motions of large amplitude at these high frequencies takes a significants amount of energy because the aircraft is so massive. This energy can come from the aircraft itself or from disturbance forces. The aircraft is not designed to operate such high energy vibrations in the cockpit. with Disturbance effects usually do not sustain such high energies for a significant amount 121 of time. We are concerned with the accelerations in the cockpit, although the wings tips may be vibrating at high energy levels, amount that the cockpit is vibrating is usually much lower. the These assumptions are justified in the simulator for similar reasons. Making the actuators move such a massive simulator at such high frequencies at large amplitudes would also take a lot of energy. In addition, the simulator is limited to motions no higher than 15 hz. This limit is probably set by the computer rate and not by the highest frequencies for which the simulator and its actuators are capable. Typical power spectrums were only considered for the full motion case. The actual aircraft should have spectrums similar to these because of the reasons stated above. The power spectrum of jostle motion for the rotational degrees of freedom should be similar to the corresponding power spectrums of special effects only motion. effects. Jostle motions are confined to heave and sway and special Special effects motion consists primarily of high frequency low amplitude motions. still below 7.5 hz. However these motion are probably It is reasonable to assume that the power spectrums for the jostle and special effects only motion conditions will also have low power levels in the spectrum of 7.5-15 hz. relative to the power levels of motions in the frequencies less than 7.5 hz. This is because 7.5 hz is still very fast even for special effects. In summary aliasing could have affected the rotational vestibular error results. If so, the extent and the direction of the effects is uncertain due to unpredictable shifts in phase. 122 In any case, aliasing probably did not effect the full motion rotational vestibular error results much because the powers at frequencies above 7.5 hz were probably low and consequently calculations were probably dominated by low frequency motions. The aliased power spectrums examined for this condition do not contradict this result. Although the aliased power spectrum were not computed for the other motion conditions it is probable that aliasing effects will also be small for similar reasons. Calculations are currently being done with the data that includes the lead term of the semicircular canal model. Aliasing will not be a factor in these calculations because these semicircular canal responses were calculated at 30 hz. The effect of the zero will be to add gain and phase lead at frequencies greater than 3.18 hz. to the vestibular response. The differences between the rms error results of this study and the results of the new analysis are uncertain. 123 01. 7.5 Hz 1.0~ Figure 8.2: Power spectrum of simulator yaw acceleration for typical engine flame-out run. 10"6 10-li 1.010-1( 7.4 Hz Power spectrum of simulatro roll acceleration Figure 8.3: turn run. steep for typical 124 101. 1 1t 0- .10'" 7.5 Hz Figure 8.4: Power spectrum of simulator pitch accleration for typical steep turn run. :1.0'"' 1 I I I t III I I I f1 1. Q8 i.0-( 7.5 Hz Figure 8.5: Power spectrum of simulator yaw acceleration for typical steep turn run. 125 T I li II i I I T-1 1 AufyI~4W~ 1.Ol 1.0-6 iO~ .1. O** I0 7.5 Hz Power spectrum of simulator pitch acceleration Figure 8.6: maneuver. for typical stall I II I 1111I I It1I 1 1 1 1.0"i 108 1.0"s IV.( 1 1ii I 1 I I 7.5 Hz Figure 8.7: Power spectrum for simulator roll acceleration for typical stall maneuver. 126 I I I 111 I 1 1 1 1 1 1I I I 7.5 Hz Figure 8.8: Power spectrum for simulator roll acceleration for typical turn with yaw damper failure. 10-4 10 1 1 1 1,1 1 1 1 1 1111J - I I 7.5 Hz Figure 8.9: for typical Power spectrum for simulator yaw acceleration turn with yaw damper failure. 127 I. 0~ I I I I . I I . I I . I t I I i I 1.0" ~ it,0"~ 1>1 .1. 0"~ 1.0' 1.0 ~ :1, ()-i) 10"1O .0"11 1()-I 2 I I I pI I I I I . . . I 7.5 Hz Figure 8.10: Power spectrum of simulator pitch acceleration for typical turn with yaw damper failure. U 1.0-12, Ir~ JI U m I U U U U p a 10-71 11111111 I I 1111 III I 'liii I 7.5 Hz Figure 8.11: Power spectrum of simulator roll acceleration for typical LLS approach and landing. 128 ,.v 7.5 Rz Figure 8.12: Power spectrum of simulator pitch acceleration for typical ILS approach and landing . 1l 1j 1i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7.5 Hz Figure 8.13: Power spectrum of simulator yaw acceleration for typical ILS approach and landing. 129 Hypothetical Aliased Spectrum Shape Hypothetical True Spectrum Shape 0 7.5 Hz 7.5 Hz log frequency Figure 8.14: log frequency Hypothetical Example of how spectrum may be aliased to have apparent incresed power at frequencies near the critical frequency 130 CHAPTER 9: 9.1 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Conclusions This study shows that most of the differences found between motion conditions were not statistically significant for any of the realism parameters examined. These include pilot opinion, pilot performance, acceleration and vestibular errors. Because the assumptions of the statistics have not been proven true for this data, the actual confidence levels found are not assured, they are only useful as a rough guideline to what is going on. More important is the fact that most of these differences were within reasonable bounds when the analysis consisted of comparison plots for the means of the realism measurement over the group of pilots performing the same flight scenario. The fact that for most cases, major differences were not found in the motion conditions to any of the realism parameters is very important because it shows that fidelity is not necessarily gained by adding more motion capability to the system. Expensive full six degree of motion systems may not perform that much better than less capable systems (at least for the conditions of this experiment). In fact, full motion can be less realistic than the other conditions. For many of the rotational degrees of freedom, the vestibular error was below the threshold level of perception. On the other hand, a lot of the translational degrees of freedom errors were above the threshold of perception. This is important and may be useful in future simulator controller design. 131 However, the validity of conclusions about the rotational vestibular errors could be weakened by the possibilty aliasing effects. It was argued that these effects would be small due to low power levels of both the simulator and the aircraft at frequencies greater than 7.5 hz. In addition the semicircular canal responses were computed without lead term that adds gain and phase lead at frequencies greater than 3.18 hz. 9.2 Recommendations 1. The rotational vestibular error analysis be redone with the seimicircular canal model responses calculated by the simulator computer. The lead term is included in this model and aliasing will not be a problem. 2. More specific opinion questions could be asked of the pilots, e.g.comparative questions about the response for specific degrees of freedom for different motion conditions. 3. As this was a study of quantitative comparisons of the error levels between motion conditions, the results of a time-series statistical analysis which considers the functionality of the data would be useful. 4. For improving the design of this simulator, the errors in the rotational degrees of freedom should be increased in order to reduce the errors in the translational degrees of freedom. This is because rotational errors of were frequently much lower than the perception level threshold; while translational errors were frequently much higher. 132 REFERENCES Fernandez, C. and Goldberg, J.M. "Physiology of Peripheral Neurons Innervating Otolith Organs of the Squirrel Monkey I, II, III" J. Neurophys. 39: 970-1008, 1976. Friedland, B., Ling, C.K., and Hutton, M.F., "Quasi-optimum design ofcontrol systems for moving basesimulators", NASA CR 1614, 1970. Hosman, R.J.A.W., and van der Vaart, J.C. "Vestibular Models amd Thresholds of Motion Perception. Results of Tests in a Flight Simulator. Delft University of Technology, Report LR-265, 1978. Ish-Shalom, J. Design of Optimal Motion for Flight Simulators, Ph.D. Thesis, MIT, 1982. Jongkees, L.B.W "On the Otoliths: Teir function and the way to test them, Third symposium on the role of vestibular organs in space exploration, 1967,NASA SP-152,1968. Kosut, R.L., "Nonlinear optimal cue-shaping filters for motion base simulators." J Guidance and Control 2:486-490, 1979. Lee, A.T., and Bussolari, S.R,"Flight Simulator Requirements For Airline Transport Pilot Training: An Evaluation of Motion System Design Alternatives," Proceedings of the IEE Second International Conference on Simulators, Universtiy of Warwick, UK, Sept. 1986. Oman, C.M., A Heuristic Mathematical Model for the Dynamics of Senory Conflict and Motion Sickness," Acta Oto-Laryngologica Supplement 392, 1982. Ormsby, C.C. "Model of Human Dynamic Orientation" Ph.D. Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1974. Parrish, R.V., and Martin, D.J., "Comparison of a linear and nonlinear washout for motion simulators utilizing objective and subjective data from CTOL transport landing approaches", NASA TN D 8157, 1976. Peters, R.A., "Dynamics of the Vestibular System and Their Relation to Motion Perception, Spatial Orientation, and Illusions, NASA CR-1309,1969. Sinacori, J.B., Stapleford, R.L., Jewell, W.F. and Lebman,J.M., "Researchers Guide to NASA AMES Flight Simulator for Advanced Aircraft (FSAA),"NASA CR-2875, August, 1977. Sivan, R., Ish-Shalom, J. and Huang, J.K. "An Optimal Control Approach to the Design of Moving Flight Simulators," IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Vol. SMC-12, No. 6, November/December, 1982. Steer, R.W., The Influence of Angular and Linear Acceleration and Thermal Stimulation on the Semicircular Canal, Sc.D. Thesis, MIT, 1967. Sturgeon, W.R., "Controllers for aircraft motion simulators", J 133 Guidance and Control 4:184-191, 1981. Sullivan, R.B., The Use of Vestibular Models in Flight Simulator Motion Washout Systems: An Experimental Evaluation, SM Thesis, MIT, 1985. Von-Gierke,H.E. and Steinmetz, E. "Motion Devices for Linear and Angular Oscillation and for Abrupt Acceleration Studies on Human Subjects (Impact)", Publication 903, National Academy Of Sciences-National Research Council, Washington, D.C.,1961. Wersall, J. and D. Bagger-Sjoback "Morphology of the Vestibular Sense Organs", in H.H. Kornhuber ed. Handbook of Sensory Physiology., vol. VI, Vestibular system Partl: Basic Mechanisms, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg,new York, 1971. Young, L.R. and Meiry, J.L. A revised dynamic otolith model. Med 40:606-608, 1968. Young, L.R. and Oman, C.M. "Model for vestibular adaptation to horizontal rotation," Aerospace Medicine, 40(10):1076-1080, 1969. 134 Aerospace SUMMARY OF CONTENTS OF APPENDIX A: This appendix is a summary of all results pertaining to pilot opinion. It includes a list of pilot comments and experimenter notes on the debrief session. The raw data answers to the opinion questionnaire and anova tables are also included. divided into groups who flew the same scenario. 135 The pilots are PILOT COMMENTS AND NOTES ON DEBRIEF SESSION ENGINE FLAME-OUT SCENARIO PILOTS PILOT 1; Jostle and special effects motion "felt more realistic" pertaining to external inputs to aircarft. Subject reports "wing low" in jostle and special effects motion. Felt there was some wind in full motion. PILOT 3: Pitch sensitivity greater than aircraft. Needs to pull too hard on take-off. Flight director unfamiliar. PILOT 9; No perception of altered fidelity of specifically motion. PILOT 13: On retrospect, sustained acceleration perceived. PILOT 15: For all conditions roll response not as "stiff" as aircraft. Tendency to disregard motion cues. Acceleration/deceleration cues are needed in simulator. For full motion, pilot reported "swerve to right on first take-off which may have been late rudder input." For special effects only motion, on "second take-off at about 170 kts,flap change seemed to require more immediate attention to rudder trim change." AIRWORK SCENARIO PILOTS Pilot 2: Eye fatigue on jostle motion condition. Pilot 10: Jostle motion best in pitch, but not realistic in roll. Special Effects motion has too much roll response. Full motion too little roll response. Pitch response in familiarization flight is unlike aircraft on rotation Jostle motion most like aircraft but easier. Little or no learning in steep turns. Minimal learning in stalls Little bit of learning in turns with yaw damper failure, but used techniques learned in training. 136 Special effects only motion not as desirable or realistic. Pilot 14: Briefing on dutch roll technique would be helpful. Pilot 17: Too much lag especially in elevator. ILS Approach and Landing Scenario Pilots Pilot 7: In full motion felt left cross wind was recurrance of the left side bias. Observed trim inputs seemed to take too long to affect stick force of ADI indication. Felt mushy on rotation. Jostle motion: "easiest to fly of all of them." Overall: Not sure how faithful HSI Sperry flight director is. Feels that motion may not be necessary. He would not have said this before. Pilot 12: Control forces during configuration changes seemed slightly excessive. Control response of simulator seemed faster than aircraft. Pilot 16: Lag in controls, mushy on controls. little motion. In retrospect, felt a Pilot 18: In familiarization scenario, "felt an unusual pitch up, but maybe its me." 137 flame out subjects opinion data engine 1 5 6 7 3 3.00 2.42 3 .00 4.00 3 .00 3.00 3.50 3 .00 3.00 3 .00 4.00 4.00 3 .00 4.00 3 .00 3.00 3 .00 2.71 3.00 4.00 4.00 2 3 4 1 ,, , IVEntI 2 1 Column: 5C~LP ,r~ff~?&.i9'~ 4tj Analysis of Variance Source of Variation Among Within Adj Total Square 18 .2692667 4.891857 20 5.161124 2 Groups Groups Table Mean Degrees of Sum of Freedom Squares .1346333 .2717699 F Ratio 0.50 Probability 0.617 The columns used in this analysis are Column Column Column I label 2 label 3 label Ericrne. Column: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 :scenario :scenario :scenario PLamrwe 4 Mj~cqfN . 3,25 ;A. - our 6 5 3.00 3.42 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.58 3.79 3.00 3.00 4.00 3.00 3.00 4.00 workload 6 dof workload 2 dof workload 0 dof 2.92 2.00 2.00 3.33 3.00 3.00 4.00 2 , SI .21 Analysis of Variance Table Source of Variation Degrees of Sum of Freedom Squares Among Groups Within Groups 2 18 .6946381 5.117486 Adj Total 20 5.812124 .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The columns used in this Column Column Column 4 label 5 label 6 label Mean FProbabilit Square Ratio .347319 .2843048 0.318 .................................... analysis are :configuration workload 6 dof :configuration workload 2 dof :configuration workload 0 dof 138 1.22 ep tG pe 8 7 Co1tmn: ff r-LJ+ 6 LAtI 9 3.50 3.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 2.75 3.63 3.50 3.00 4.00 3.00 4.00 4.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3 .00 3.83 4.00 3.50 1 2 3 4 4.00 5 6 7 3-L 3A9q 3 I1 Oen C r- Analysis of Variance Table Source Among Groups Within Groups 2 18 .6327714 3.803429 Total 20 4.4362 Adj The columns used in this Column Column Column 7 label 8 label 9 label 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 .3163857 .2113016 1.50 Probability 0.250 analysis are 6 U*T rLJArME 11 12 3.00 2.50 2.17 4.00 4.00 4.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.79 2.92 2.83 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 2.00 4.00 3.00 3.00 r, I f-r I Q 3.11 2.'41 Z7 2,71 . 27 '13 Analysis Source of Variation Among Groups Within Groups of Variance Degrees of Sum of Freedom Squares 2 . Table Mean Square .5560667 8.309657 18 Adj Total 20 .. . . . . . . . . .. .2780334 .4616476 10 label 11 label 12 label :training :training :training F Ratio 0.60 Probability 0.558 8.865724 .......................................... The columns used in this analysis are Column Column Column F Ratio :simulator response 6 dof :simulator response 2 dof :simulator response 0 dof 9r~,36pJE Column: Mean Square Degrees of Sum of Freedom Squares of Variation utility utility ut.ility 139 6 dof 2 dof 0 dof I- F0r1 E Column: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 13 14 3.42 4.00 2.00 2. 71 3 .00 3.00 2.00 2.00 4.00 3.00 3.42 4.00 2.00 3.00 A"I Vy, CkT 15 2.67 4.00 2.00 3.00 3.00 2.00 3.00 ?,~ Z4~) Analysis of Variance Table Degrees of Sum of Freedom Squares Source of Variation Among Groups Within Groups 2 18 .2351524 10.15977 Adj 20 10.39492 Total Mean Square .1175762 .5644317 F Ratio 0.21 Probability 0.814 The columns used in this analysis are Column Column Column 13 label 14 label 15 label :checking :checking :checking FerYaE (OUIr ENG(NE 16 Column: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 )Vk'I- 2.92 3.00 3.00 3.00 4.00 3.00 4.00 17 3.00 4.00 3.00 2.96 4.00 3.00 3.00 utility 6 dof utility 2 dof utility 0 dof 18 2.80 3.00 3.00 2.83 4.00 3.00 4.00 'D 0 I~ 2 ~ Analysis of Variance Table Source of Variation ............. Among Groups Degrees 9f Sum of Mean F Probability Freedom Squares Square Ratio ......................................... 2 9.2666679-03 4.633334E-03 0.02 0.982 Within Groups 18 4.621914 Adj Total ............. 20 4.631181 ......................................... The columns used in this analysis are Column Column Column 16 17 18 label label label :realism :realism :realism 140 6 dof 2 dof 0 dof .256773 pilot opinion data Airwork scenario Column: - rv i~E 2 2w,37 3 .00 4.00 4.71 4.00 3.00 1 4S .14 S-4 v I 1 16 00: M e-A IJ 3 2.00 4.00 3. 58 2.00 3 .00 4.00 3.00 3.00 4.00 3.00 3.21 4.00 3.00 1 2 3 4 5 6 ,,, 1 Analysis of Variance Table Source of Variation Among Mean Degrees of Sum of Freedom Squares Groups Square F Ratio 2 .1068778 5.343889E-02 Within Groups 15 8.8505 .5900334 Adj Total 17 8.957377 0.09 in this analysis The columns used Column Column Column 1 label 2 label 3 label :scenario :scenario :scenario Probability 0.914 are workload 6 dof workload 2 dof workload 0 dof Airwork scenario pilot opinion data 4 Column: 1 2 3 4 5 6 MEW 6 5 3.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 3.17 3.33 5.00 3.00 3.00 2.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 3.92 4.00 2.00 3153 ;.06 S (5 ' - 11 ,L 5nr-txW. Analysis of Variance Table Source of Variation Degrees of Sum of Mean F Freedom Square Ratio Squares Among Groups Within Groups 2 15 .7486778 12.15017 Adj Total 17 12.89884 .3743389 .£100111 The columns used in this analysis are Column Column Column 4 label :configuration workload 6 dof 5 label :configuration workload 2 dof 6 label :configuration workload 0 dof 141 Probability 0.46 0.639 Airwotk scenario pilot opinion data 1 2 3 4 5 6 3.00 3.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 3.00 9 8 7 Cobumn: 3.00 2.75 4.00 4.67 5.00 2.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.21 4.00 1.00 ,,s flVl F Ar N s SA1) orTaeavi zt.14ff *q3 Analysis of Variance Table Source Degrees of Variation Freedom Among Within Groups Groups of Sum of Squares 2 Adj Total 15 1.792478 13.34208 17 15.13456 Mean Square F Ratio .8962389 .8894723 1.01 Probability 0.389 The columns used in this analysis are Column Column 8 label Column 9 label 7 label :siaulator response 6 dof :simulator response 2 dof :simulator response 0 dof Airwork scenario pilot opinion data Column: 1. 2 3 4 6 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.00 4.00 3.00 3,51 rAvjEAO~ 11 10 12 4.00 2.92 2.00 2.58 4.00 3.00 2.00 2.50 4.00 4.00 4.00 2.00 3tol 3.o% Analysis of Variance Table Source of Variation Degrees of Sus Freedon Squares of F Square Ratio Among Groups Within Groups 2 1 .5 15 9.5578 .6371867 Adj Total 17 10.5578 The columns used Column Column Column 10 label in this analysis are :training utility 11 label :training utility 12 label :training utility 142 Probability moan 6 dof 2 dof 0 dof 0.78 0.474 Airwork scenario pilot opinion data Column: 1 2 3 4 5 6 rvi F-A J 15 14 13 2.00 1.00 3.00 3 .00 2.50 2.83 2.00 2.00 1.00 4.00 4.00 2.33 1.00 4.00 4.00 2 .00 2.00 2.00 2.'5S 2,33 ql. S1) OF Woan L.jq Analysis of Variance Table Probability F Mean Degrees of Sum of Source Ratio Square Squares of Variation Freedom ---------------------------------------.. . . . . . . . . . . . ......... 0.09 0.917 .1030889 .2061778 2 Among Groups 1.178347 17.6752 15 Within Groups 17.88138 17 Adj Total ................................................ The columns used in this analysis are 13 label :checking utility 6 dof 14 label :checking utility 2 dof 15 label :checking utility 0 dof Column Column Column Airwork scenario pilot opinion data Column: 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 rv i !, n' 3.00 2.00 4.00 4.88 2.00 4.00 1,1 17 2.00 2.50 4.00 4.13 4.00 3.00 18 4.00 3.83 3.00 3.83 4.00 2.00 3,2./ .33 Analysis of Variance Table Source Degrees of Sum of Mean F Probability of Variation Freedom Squares Square Ratio ......... .................................................. Among Groups 2 9.621111E-02 4.810556E-02 0.05 0.951 Within Groups 15 14.22795 .94853 Adj Total ......... 17 14.32416 .................................................. The columns used in this analysis are Column Column Column 16 label 17 label 18 label :realism :realism :realism 6 dof 2 dof o dof 143 ILS approach and landing pilot opinion data Column: 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3.00 4.00 3.33 2.00 3.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 3.75 2.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 3.50 2.75 3.00 5.00 3 Analysis Source of Variation of Variance Degrees of Sum of Squares Freedom Among Groups Within Groups 2 15 .8129333 9.334917 Total 17 10.14785 Adj Mean Square ILS approach and landing pilot 4 1 3.00 2 4.00 3 3.75 4 2.50 5 4.00 6 4.00 0.65 .4064667 .6223278 Probability 0.535 :SCENARIO WORKLOAD 6 DOF MOTION :SCENARIO WORKLOAD 2 DOF MOTION :SCENARIO WORKLOAD 0 DOF 1 label 2 label 3 label Column: F Ratio in this analysis are The columns used Column Column Column Table 5 4.00 4.00 3.00 3.00 4.00 3.00 opinion data 6 3.00 3.00 3.00 2.58 4.00 4.00 9,24 :) N;-: A t3 .2q Analysis of Variance Table Source of Variation Degrees of Sum of Freedom Squares Among Groups Within Groups 2 15 .2704333 5.312417 Adj Total 17 5.58285 The columns Column Column Column used in this analysis 4 label 5 label 6 label Mean Square .1352167 .3541611 are :CONFIGURATION WORKLOAD :CONFIGURATION WORKLOAD :CONFIGURATION WORKLOAD 144 F Ratio 6 DOF 2 DOF 0 DOF 0.38 Probability 0.689 ILS approach and landing pilot opinion data 1 2.00 2.00 2.58 3.50 2.00 2.00 2 3 4 5 6 ftv EA PJ 9 8 7 Column: 3.00 2.00 3.00 3.67 2.00 4.00 2.00 3.00 3.75 3.58 2.00 1.00 ?..'w 2,1 2,560 - 5 14 1,N Sb OF MOM -------------------------..................... Analysis of Variance Table Source of Variation Degrees of Sum of Freedom Squares Among Groups Within Groups 2 15 1.107011 11.00683 Total 17 12.11384 Adj The columns used in Column Column Column 7 label 8 label 9 label this analysis Mean Square .5535055 .7337889 F Ratio 0.75 Probability 0.487 are :SIMULATOR RESPONSE 6 DOF :SIMULATOR RESPONSE 2 DOF :SIMULATOR RESPONSE 0 DOF ILS approach and landing pilot opinion data Column: 1 2 3 4 5 6 10 2.00 3.00 4.00 2.67 4.00 4.00 11 4.00 3.00 3.00 2.00 4.00 2.00 12 3.00 3.00 3.50 2.63 4.00 4.00 7 3, S.,36 .43 . 3 1.28 r) OF m .is Analysis Degrees of Sum of Squares Freedom Source of Variation Among Groups Within Groups The columns Column Column Column Mean Square .4187444 9.274834 2 15 17 .. . . . . Adj Total . . .. . of Variance Table .2093722 .6183222 0.34 Probability 0.718 9.693578 ............................................. used in this analysis are 10 label 11 label 12 label F Ratio :TRAINING UTILITY 6 DOF :TRAINING UTILITY 2 DOF :TRAINING UTILITY 0 DOF 145 ILS approach and landing pilot opinion data 3 .00 3 .00 2.67 2.71 3.00 5.00 1 2 3 4 5 6 15 14 13 Column: 4.00 3.00 3.83 2.67 3.00 5.00 3.00 3.00 3.75 2.83 2.00 5.00 -2Lt I'll 3,22, rr-O Analysis Source Degrees of Sum of Freedom Squares of Variation Among of Variance Table Groups Within Groups 2 15 .4567111 12.80707 Adj Total 17 13.26378 Mean Square .2283556 .8538045 F Ratio 0.27 Probability 0.769 The columns used in this analysis are Column Column Column 13 label 14 label 15 label :CHECKING UTILITY 6 DOF :CHECKING UTILITY 2 DOF :CHECKING UTILITY 0 DOF ILS approach and landing pilot opinion data 16 Column: 17 18 1 3.00 4.00 3.00 2 3 4 5 6 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.08 3.00 e),ooftwI 2.71 3.00 2.67 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 4 ,1 Analysis of Variance Source of Variation Among Groups Within Groups Adj Total .... ... Degrees of Sun of Squares Freedom 17 ........ The columns used in this Column Column Column 16 label 17 label 18 label Mean Square 1.018144 6.476167 2 15 Table .5090722 .4317445 F Ratio 1.18 Probability 0.335 , 7.494311 ..................................... analysis are :REALISM 6 DOF :REALISM 2 DOF :REALISM 0 DOF SUMMARY OF CONTENTS OF APPENDIX B This appendix contains a copy of the briefing material that was given to the subjects to read before performing the experiment. MIT/NASA FLIGHT SIMULATOR EVALUATION EXPERIMENT PILOT BRIEFING SUMMARY Pilot ID - Crew ID- -- Date 147 :.. ; ZNTDUCTI0fN :.ur.ose of t.i-s stucV is to examtigne t he roIe of flight alot training ana certification. simulator fIdelity in a r transoort The ex-er-men-s cescribed belcow are cesignec to icentify potential simulator ceficiencies and to determine metrlocs to improve the effectiveness of Flicht simulation. An imoortant elemyient of this investication is the evaluation of various levels of simulation by aircrew zarticioants in a series of realistic flight scenarios. Each oilot will ex:erien-e the simulation at three different levels of fidelity. The pilots will be asked to evaluate the simulation durino the course of the experiment by means of a series of numerical ratino scales. The followina sections descrioe the nature of the fliaht scenarios and the experimental procedure. 2.0 DE CO=TN 0F SULTOR The simulator used in this study is manufactured by Singer-Link and is essentially identical to those used by Delta Airlines in their pilot training orogram. it is designed to simulate the Boeing 727-200 series aircraft. ::.0 GENERAL EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE Each aircrew Darticioant will be briefec on the safety features of the NASA MVSRF B-727 flight simulator and on the experimental procedure prior to the start of the exoeriment. The test plan provides for two aircrew participants for each experimental run. One particioant will act as pilot-in-command and provide the simulator evaluation while the other assists in the aircraft operation. The two particioants will then exchange roles and the exoeriment will be reoeated. During the data collection portion of the experiment, the crewmember acting as pilot in command will occupy the flight deck position with which he/she has the most recent experience (i.e. current F/O's will occuoy the right seat, etc.). The flight portion of the experiment will begin with a series of familiarization maneuvers to enable the crewmembers to adjust to the soecific cockpit layout of the simulator. Then a different series of maneuvers will be flown under varying levels of fidelity. After each set of reoetitions, the pilot will be asked to evaluate the simulation by means of the Flight Simulator Rating Forms. 4.0 FLIGHIT SCENARIOS The flight portion of the experiment will consist of one of the following four scenarios. In general. Scenario I will for the familiarization oeriod and one of the remaining three used for the data taking portion of the exoeriment. Aircrew particioants are asked to set uo ane fly tie aircraft as they 148 or more be used will be would in rno .* rat iora! env 1 rorlmernt. a- the csarture Scenario 1 -he siYulator wi I be n- . - Iz 9 14e200 lns. Takeoff weiJort wiI, enc of Rwy 28R at SF0. - eather wil1 be clear with calm wrics. 7- eni'.ct wilI follow ATC vectors around the traffic Dattern for a vssual a:iroach to a touch-anC-co lanCing. The Dilot wil: t ar follow vectors arounc the traffic pattern for another visual aocroach to a full-stoo landi rig. Scenario 2: The simulator will be initialized at the deoarture end of Rwy -28R. Weather will be clear with calm winds. Clearance will be to fly runway heading, climb and maintain 4000 ft. lakeoff weight will be :48,000 lbs. An engine flameout during takeoff will result in either a rejected takeoff or an engine-out takeoff with a climb to the clearance altitude on the runway heading. Scenario 3: The simulator will be initialized at altitude in level flight. Weather will be clear with calm winds. Aircraft weight will be 148,000 lbs. The pilot will perform two steeo 360 The pilot will then perform degree turns, one left and one right. two aooroach to stall maneuvers in the clean configuration. The oilot will then oerform additional turns as vectored by ATC (there is the possibility of yaw damper failure during these turns). Scenario 4: The simulator is initialized in flight, configuration, on a vector for the ILS ZSR. Aircraft be 148.000 lbs. The weather will be 600 ft. overcast visibility with the oossibility of wind shear on the Ao:roach will be hand flown with the flight director will be terminated by a full stoo landing. 5.0 in the clean weight will ten mile aooroach. coucled and Si.ULATGR EVALUATI0N After the aircrew particioant flies the exoerimental scenario under a soecific level of simulation fidelity, he/she will be asked to evaluate the simulation according to the Flight Simulator Rating Form. Because both marticipants will be acting as pilot in command during the course of the exoeriment, it is necessary to perform the evaluation in such a way that the responses of one pilot do not This will be avoided by the -use influence the resoonses of another. of a written evaluation form. In addition, each aircrew particioant will act as pilot in command on a different scenario from that performed by the other participant. The questions in the Flight Simulator Evaluation Form are desioned to orovide you with a scale by which to rate certain simulator characteristics in soecified fliaht maneuvers. Each item consists of a scale of characteristics, with the numbers 1-5. For example: 149 e DturtC. taxi, ri tie actual aircraftC i. ------ s1aefrr; - - 0 - - tTre sil!ator - --- - - - - hac, as comoared - - -- 4--------------5 Maj 0Or some minor no deficiencies ceficiencies deficiencies to You are to cnoose The numoers form a scale between two extremes. a number that best exoresses your rating of the simulator on the scale For exanole, if you think that the simulator had no orovicec. deficiencies in nosewieel steerinc as comoared to the actual aircraft during taxi, you woud Cloose 1. If you believe that the simulator had only minor deficiencies, you might choose ., and so forth. Once you have selected trse number that best describes your If the evaluation, circle the aporooriate number on each scale. cuestion refers to a maneuver or maneuver segment that you have not attemoted in the simulator, leave the scale blank and go on to the The cuestions in the Flight Simulator Rating Form have next cuestion. no right or wrong answers. Please read each question carefully and Do not soend a mark the resoonse that BEST reflects your evaluation. lot of time on each one, your FIRST response is usually the best. -In order to assure that your identity is protected, there will be no record of your name or affiliation on the Flight'Simulator Rating Form or on the attached Aircrew Participant 150 Background Questionnaire. How Ionc have you been emoloyed by your oresent airline? years. 2. How lona have you served as a pilot in the following categories? ______ General Aviation Cosymuter/Air Airline Taxi ______ years. ____-_ years. years. Military: .anker/Transoort/Bomber _.._._ years. Fighter Helicooter Other 3. _____. (soecify) years. ._____ Indicate the total time you have served in each of the following crew positions in the B-727 aircraft. years. First Officer ._____ Flight years. Engineer ._._._ Estimate your total Other transoort Other flight What hours. simulator ______-hours. simulator is your age? years. hours in flight simulators in the past year. B-727 simulator 6. Circle the appropriate Caotain First Officer Captain ------ 5. years. What is your present crew positign? answer. A. B. 4. years. ____-- ._____ ____ hours. years. 151 SUMMARY OF CONTENTS OF APPENDIX C: This appendix contains the raw data used for the acceleration error analyses. The translational degrees of freedom acceleration errors are in units of m/sec 2 ; while the rotational degrees of freedom acceleration errors are in units of rad/sec 2 . The means and standard deviation of the means for each motion condition, over all pilots performing the same manuever are presented in tables. The analysis of variance tables are presented with the data that is associated with them. scenario. The data is presented by flight Engine flameout results are presented first. The acceleration error results from the airwork scenario follow, with steep turns presented first followed by stall the results from the rate turn with presented. results, and then a yaw damper failure are The results from the approach segment of the ILS appraoch and landing scenario precedes the results from the landing segment of this scenario. LIST OF CONTENTS OF APPENDIX C: Engine flameout yaw acceleration error data and analysis Steep turn pitch acceleration error data and analysis Steep turn roll acceleration error data and analysis Steep turn yaw acceleration error data and analysis Stall roll acceleration error data and analysis Stall pitch acceleration error data and analysis Stall longitudinal acceleration error data and analysis Rate Turn with Yaw Damper Failure pitch acceleration error data and analysis 152 Rate Turn with Yaw Damper Failure roll acceleration error data and analysis Rate Turn with Yaw Damper Failure yaw acceleration error data and analysis ILS Approach and Landing 500' -200' pitch acceleration error data and analysis ILS Approach and Landing 500'-200' roll acceleration error data and analysis ILS Approach and Landing 500' -200' yaw acceleration error data and analysis ILS Approach and Landing 500'-200' vertical acceleration error data and analysis ILS Approach and Landing last 20-25 sec pitch acceleration error data and analysis ILS Approach and Landing last 20-25 sec roll acceleration error data and analysis ILS Approach and Landing last 20-25 sec yaw acceleration error data and analysis ILS Approach and Landing last 20-25 sec vertical acceleration error data and analysis 153 AccE LE1 AT)0tW ENGINE FLAME-OUT YAW,,ERROR 1 Column: 1 2 a3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 .00862 .00932 .00745 .00961 .01197 .00766 .00840 .00917 .00845 .00989 .00769 Col Col ( Col( Col Col ( Col( 2 3 .00922 .00879 .01319 .00977 .00622 .00763 .00882 .01229 .01238 .00834 .01428 .02017 .01320 .01120 .00804 .00911 .00919 .00695 4 .00007 .00009 .00006 .00009 .00014 .00006 .00007 .00008 .00007 .00010 .00006 6 .00009 .00008 .00020 .00041 .00017 .00013 .00006 .00008 .00017 .00010 .00004 .00006 .00008 .00015 .00015 .00007 .00008 .00005 SUBJECT 1)6 DOF RMS ERROR 2)2 DOF RMS ERROR 3)0 DOF RMS ERROR 4)6 DOF MEAN SQUARE ERROR 5)2 DOF MEAN SQUARE ERROR 6)0 DOF MEAN SQUARE ERROR MEAN ROW 1: ROW 2: ROW 3: ROW 4: ROW 5: ROW 6: ROW 7: ROW 8: ROW 9: ROW 10: ROW 11: ROW 12: STANDARD DEVIATION OF THE MEAN COLUMN 1 .00 COLUMN 2 COLUMN 3 5 3 SC00072 00 152 CA 154 3 3 8 8 9 9 13 13 15 15 ERROR ANALYSIS -1GINEFLAME OUT SCENARIO YAW ACCELERATION CONT"D Analysis of Variance Table -Source of Variation Among Groups .c Within Groups Degrees of Sum of Squares Freedom F Ratio Mean Square 2 3.183238E-05 1. 591619E-05 26 1.925218E-04 2.15 Probability 0.137 7.404685E-06 Adj Total 2.243542E-04 28 The columns used in this analysis are Column Column Column 1 label :6 DOF RMS ERROR 2 label :2 DOF RMS ERROR 3 label :0 DOF RMS ERROR Analysis of Variance Table Source of Variation Amng Groups Degrees of Sum of Squares Fraeeo 1 Mean Square F Ratio Probability 3.100915E-05 3.100915E-05 3.60 Within Groups 17 1.463808E-04 8.610632E-06 Adj Total 18 1.773899E-04 The columns used in this analysis are Column 1 Label :ColumI 1 Column 3 label :Column 3 155 0.072 steep turn pitch acceleration error analysis 3 2 1 Column: 4 6 5 12. .00793 .00690 .01239 .00006 .00005 .00015 .00002 .00003 .00469 .00517 .2 .00711 .00664 .01557 .00899 4 5 6 1)6 2)2 3)0 4)6 5)2 6)0 Col( Col( Col ( Col Col( Col( COLUTN 1 MEAN -09 Z5 COLU N 2 COLUMN .00379 .01119 .00394 .00435 .00415 .00442 .00195 dof dof dof dof dof dof .00005 .00004 .00024 .00008 .00001 .00013 .00002 .00002 .00002 .00002 .00000 rms error rms error rms error mean square error mean square error mean square error ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW 1: 2: 3:4: 5: 6: SUBJECT 2 5 10 11 14 17 STANDAR.D DEVIATION OF THE %,AN 00163 O H2-o. ooi172 3 -60750 Analysis of Variance Table Source of Variation Among Groups Degrees of Sum of Squares Freedom Mean Square F Ratio 2 7.185664E-05 3.592832E-05 13 1.283327E-04 3.64 Within Groups 9.871749E-06 Adj Total 15 2.001894E-04 The columns used in this analysis are Column Column Column 1 label :6 dof rms error 2 label :2 dof rms error 3 label :0 dof rms error 156 Probability 0.056 CONTINUED STEEP TURNS PITCH ACCELERATION ERROR ANALYSIS Analysis of Variance Table Source of Variation Degrees of Sun of Squares Freed3m Mean Square F Ratio Groups 1 6.849126E-05 6.849126E-05 Within Groups 9 6.596682E-05 7.329646E-06 Adj Total 10 1.344581E-04 Among 9.34 'he columns used in this analysis are Column Column 1 label :6 dof rms error 2 label :2 dof rms error 1 S7 Probability 0.013 A(CELZW102V' steep turns -rollAerror analysis 1 Column: 1 2 -m3 4 5 6 .03836 .02312 .01495 .00826 .02093 .01833 .01493 .02387 .01360 .01611 .00641 .05423 .01581 .01438 .00962 .02413 4 3 2 .00034 .00022 .00057 .00018 .00026 .00004 .00294 .00025 .00021 .00009 .00058 6 5 .00147 .00053 .00022 .00007 .00044 SUBJECT 1)6 2)2 3)0 4)6 5)2 6)0 Col( Col( Col( Col( Col Col( MEAN dof dof dof dof dof dof rms error rms error rms error mean square error mean square error mean square error STANDARD DEVIATION OF THE MEAN COLUMN 1 - 3 COLUM 2j jCOLUY.N 3 l 0L 9 .ooS6O Z. .u.. 158 ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW 1: 2: 3: 4: 5: 6: 2 5 10 11 14 17 STEEP TURNS ROLL ACCELERATION ERROR ANALYSIS CONTINUED Analysis of Variance Table Source of Variation Degrees of Sum of Freedom Squares Mean Square F Ratio Probability ----------------------------------------------------------Among Groups 2 5.041706E-04 2.520853E-04 Within Groups 13 1.636186E-03 1.258605E-04 Adj Total 15 2.140357E-03 2.00 0.174 ----------------------------------------------------------The columns used in this analysis are Column Column Column 1 label :6 dof rms error 2 label :2 dof rms error 3 label :0 dof rms error Analysis of Variance Table Source of Variation Amng Groups Degrees of Sum of Freed Squares 1 Mean Square F Ratio Probability 4.917089E-04 4.917089E-04 3.91 Within Groups 9 1.131484E-03 1.257205E-04 Adj Total 10 1.623193E-03 The coluwn Column Column used in this analysis are 1 label :6 dof 2 label :2 dof =serr= 159 0.077 ~~~0~~~~ steep turn yaw acceleration analysis 1 Column: 1 2 $I . 5 6 7 8 .00384 .00202 .00420 .00327 .00263 .00254 .00055 .00625 .00222 .00354 .00208 Col( Col( Col Col( Col( Col( 4 3 2 .00437 .00445 .00264 .00051 .00286 6 5 .00001 .00000 .00002 .00001 .00001 .00001 .00000 .00004 .00000 .00001 .00000 1)6 dof rms error 2)2 dof rms error 3)0 dof rms error 4)6 dof mean square error 5)2 dof mean square error 6)0 dof mean square error .00002 .00002 .00001 .00000 .00001 ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW COLUMN 2 6: SUBJECT 2 5 10 11 14 17 STANDARD DEVIATION OF THE MEAN MEAN COLUN 1 .: 2: 3: 4: 5: ,> 3,006q .O62 COLUHN 3 GO 219 07OO - Analysis of Variance Table Source of Variation Degrees of Sum of Freedom Squares Mean Square F Ratio Among Groups 2 .C3.515055E-06 7.03011E-06 Within Groups 13 2.513733E-05 1.933641E-06 Adj Total 15 3.216745E-05 1.82 The columns used in this analysis are Column Column Column 1 label :6 dof rms error 2 label :2 dof rms error 3 label :0 dof rms error 160 Probability 0.201 STEEP TURNS YAW ACCELERATION CONTINUED ERROR ANALYSIS Analysis of Variance Table Source of Variation Degrees of Sum of Freanm Squares Mean Square F Ratio Groups 1 1.271001E-06 1.271001E-06 Within Groups 9 1.723585E-05 1.915095E-06 Adj Total 10 1.850685E-05 Among 0.66 Probability 0.509 The columns used in this analysis are Column Column 2 label :2 dof rms error 3 label :0 dof rxs error Analysis of Variance Table Source of Variation Dgrees of Sum of Freedom Sqares Mean Square F Ratio Groups 1 7.022605E-06 7.022605E-06 Within Groups 9 1.481441E-05 1. 646046E-06 Adi Total 10 2.183702E-05 Amag 4.27 'Ih columuu used in this analysis are column Colum 1 label :6 dof ras error 2 label :2 dof rms error 161 Probability 0.067 STALL ROLL ACCELZRATION ERROR 1 Column: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 .00686 .00170 .00203 .00228 .00456 .00259 .04626 .00205 .00235 .00210 .00115 .00448 .00116 .00262 .00093 .00081 .00199 .00291 .00766 .00298 .00368 .00297 2 3 .00646 .00337 .00125 .00071 .03897 .03723 .00121 .00198 .00145 .00312 4 5 6 .00005 .00000 .00004 .00000 .00001 .00001 .00002 .00000 .00001 .00000 .00214 .00000 .00152 .00001 .00000 .00139 .00000 .00002 .00000 .00000 .00001 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00001 .00001 .00006 .00001 .00001 .00001 SUBJECT Coi( Col( Col( Col( Col ( Col( 1)6 DOF RMS ERRORS 2)2 DOF RMS ERRORS 3)SPECIAL EFFECTS RMS ERRORS 4)6 DOF MEAN SQUARES 5)2 DOF MEAN SQUARE ERRORS 6)SPECIAL EFFECTS ONLY ERRORS MEAN COLUMN i COLUMN 3 ,31 ooL43 .0003 005eIR 1: 2: 3: 4: 5: 6: 7: 8: 9: 10: 11: ROW 12: STANDARD DEVIATION OF THE MEAN .O()9 COLUMN 2 ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW 2 2 5 5 10 10 11 11 14 14 17 17 CONT'D ERROR ANALYSIS STALL ROLL ACCELERATION Analysis of Variance Table Source of Variation Among Mean Degrees of Sum of Squares Freedom Groups F Ratio Square Probability 2.744528E-04 1.372264E-04 2 1.05 Within Groups 29 3.803538E-03 1.311565E-04 Adj Total 31 4.077991E-03 0.364 The columns used in this analysis are Column Column Column 1 label 2 label 3 label :6 DOF RMS ERRORS :2 DOF RMS ERRORS :SPECIAL EFFECTS RMS ERRORS Analysis of Variance Table Source of Variation Amng Groups Degrees of Sum of Freeda Squares Mean Square F Ratio 1 2.579375E-04 2.579375E-04 Within Groups 20 2.072126E-03 1.036063E-04 Mj Total 21 2.330063E-03 2.49 The columns used in this analysis are Column 2 label :2 DOF M9ERRORS Column 3 label :SPECAL EFFECIS 1 163 ERCM Probability 0.130 STALL PITCH ACCLERATION ERROR ANALYSIS 1 Column: 3 4 .00668 .01211 .01281 .00831 .00566 .00949 .00852 4 5 Col( Col( Col( Col( 1 COLUMN 2 COLUMN 3 6 .00008 .00004 .00003 .00005 .00023 .00009 .00952 .00004 .00008 .01126 .00015 .00009 .00013 .01210 .00016 .00003 .00015 .00338 .00007 .00012 .00001 .00399 .00003 .00001 .00002 .00009 .00016 .00007 .00035 .00898 .00941 .00561 .01108 .00316 .01270 .01878 ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW 1)6 DOF RMS ERROR 2)2 DOF RMS ERROR 3)SPECIAL EFFECTS RMS ERRORS 4)6 DOF MEAN SQUARE ERRORS 5)2 DOF MEAN SQUARE ERRORS 6)SPECIAL EFFECTS MEAN SQUARE ERRORS Col( Col( COLU 3 .00579 .00549 .00915 .00003 .00003 .00623 .00505 .00617 .00004 .00003 .00004 .00664 .00554 .00005 .00700 .00707 .01589 .01386 .01508 .00025 .00019 1 2 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 2 MEAN .c fq15 - STANDARD DEVIATION OF THE MEAN , 8 :oI I , q .oO193 Analysis of Variance Table Source of Variation Among Degrees of Sum of Freedom Squares Mean F Square Ratio Groups 2 3.827692E-06 1.913846E-06 Within Groups 29 4.552619E-04 1.569869E-05 Adj Total 31 4.590896E-04 The columns used in this analysis are Column Column Column 1 label :6 DOF RMS ERROR 2 label :2 DOF RMS ERROR 3 label :SPECIAL EFFECTS RMS ERRORS 164 Probability 0.12 0.886 1: 2: 3: 4: 5: 6: 7: 8: 9: 10: 11: 12: SUBJECT 2 2 5 5 10 10 11 11 14 14 17 17 STALL J0NUDIAL A Colu i: 1 -. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ATIN ER1 2 3 AAIMsIS 4 5 .55224 .55751 .50618 .54139 .58052 .56418 .56041 .54160 .56961 .58183 .58058 .55336 .48542 .49506 .50130 .51191 .54379 .55471 .55300 .52069 .57019 .52063 .53550 .53108 .53495 .57683 .59213 .57537 .53648 .52032 Col( Col Col( Col( Col( Col( 1)6 DOF PHS ERRRM 2)2 DF RM M 3) SPECIAL EFFECTS RHS EM N ZM EMXS 4)6 DF MEAN 5) 2 DOF MEMN SM EM 6) SPECIAL EFFECTS MEMN qM 6 .32446 .33853 .33708 .23564 .25131 .29571 .30581 .32512 .28676 .28618 .35062 .28781 .27074 .30497 .31082 .25622 .29310 .33701 .31830 .31405 .29333 EAN .30621 .24508 .26205 .30770 .27112 .27105 .28205 .33274 .33105 SUBJECT ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW ERR STANDARD DEVIATION COLUMN 1 COLUMN 2 555.0-7 . 454 COLUMN 3 . 1: 2: 3: 4: 5: 6: 7: 8: 9: 10: 11: 12: OF THE MEAN y' 11 .( 3 .15.o . Analysis of Variance Table Degra of S=r of So Squares of Variatimi Freedc= Mean Sqare F Ratio 2 3.468219E-04 1.734109E-04 Within &*a 27 2.280975E-02 8. 448054E-04 Adj Total 29 2.315657E-02 Amxng Groups 0.21 The clumn ColuMn Colum Colum used in this analysis are 1 label :6 DOF RI6 ERRMRS 2 label :2 DOF M4 EM 3 label :SPECIAL EFFE.IS MERRC 165 Probability 0.816 2 2 5 5 10 10 11 11 14 14 17 17 yaw damper failure pitch acceleration error analysis Column: 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 .00295 .00290 .00624 n.02193 .02652 .01404 .01370 .04138 .03117 .01400 .03067 3 4 .00304 .00001 .00692 .00774 .00048 .00906 .00020 .02409 .00171 .00020 5 .00001 .00004 .00070 .00019 .00097 .00094 6 .00001 .00005 .00006 .00008 .00058 SUBJECT Col Col( Col( Col( Col( Col ( 1)6 dof rms error 2)2 dof rms error 3)special effects rms error 4)6 dof mean square error 5)2 dof mean square error 6) special effects mean square error MEAN COLUMN STANDARD DEVIATION OF THE MEAN CAS(. 000039i COLUM 2 COLU N3 -o 166 ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW 1: 2: 3: 4: 5: 6: 2 5 10 11 14 17 r CONTINUED RATE ~~JRS W/YAW DAY2ER FAILURE PITCH ACCELERATION ERROR ANALYSIS Analysis of Variance Table Source of Variatian Degrees of S=. of Squares Fred Mean Square F Ratio Amrng GrCUps 2 2.493415E-04 1.246708E-04 Within qcups 13 1.868517E-03 1.437321E-04 Adj Total 15 2.117859E-03 Probability 0.87 0.443 The cuIs Col= Colu Col used in th.is analysis are 1 label :6 dof s ero 2 label :2 dof rs err=r 3 label :special effects r s error Analysis of Variance Table Source of Variation Among Groups Degrees of Sum of Freedom Squares 1 Mean Square F Ratio Probability 1.9076E-04 1.9076E-04 1.63 Within Groups 9 1.051962E-03 1.168847E-04 Adj Total 10 1.242722E-03 The columns used in this analysis are Column Column 2 label :2 dof rms error 3 label :special effects rms error 167 0.232 yaw danper failure roll acceleration error Column: 1 2 .01125 .00579 .06250 14138 .20664 .13432 .17632 .31489 .24784 .13861 .22424 1 2 3 4 5 6 3 .00393 .08255 .10413 .08723 .22288 4 5 6 .00013 .00003 .00002 .00391 .00681 .01999 .04270 .01084 .01804 .03109 .00761 .09916 .06142 .04968 .01921 .05028 SUBJECT Col Col( Col( Col( Col( Col 1)6 dof rms error 2) 2 dof =s error 3)special effects rms error 4)6 dof mean square error 5)2 dof mean square error 6) special effects mean square error MEAN ROW RCW ROW ROW RCW ROW 1: 2: 3: 4: 5: 6: STANDARD DEVIATION OF THE MEAN ,4496 L $ 14 COLUMN i 1 COLUMN 2 '3 COLUMN 3 .0014 .-o12, .- 4 Analysis of Variance Table Source of Variation Degrees of Sum of Freedom Squares Mean Square F Ratio 2 9.070793E-03 4.535397E-03 Within GrC.zps 13 .1190325 Adj Total 15 .1281033 Amnq Groups 0.50 9.156349E-03 The columns used in this analysis are Column Column Column 1 label :6 dof rms error 2 label :2 dof =ns error 3 label :special effects rms error Probability 0.620 2 5 10 11 14 17 yaw damper failure Column: 1 1 .00291 2 3 -. 03324 4 '.03448 5 .08992 6 .03035 7 Col( Col( Col( col( Col Col 2 .00234 .01319 .04797 .04204 .06545 .05272 4 -7 2 .aa 6 DEVIATION OF THE MEAN , . 5 .00148 .00001 .00001 .00000 .00017 .00040 .01996 .02212 .00110 .00230 .00049 .02323 .00119 .00177 .00054 .04944 .00809 .00428 .00244 .00092 .00278 STANDARD COLUMN 1 COLU.MN 3 3 1)6 dof rns error 2)2 dof rzs error 3)special effects rms error 4)6 dof mean square error 5)2 dof mean square error 6)special effects mean square error MEAN COLUMN 2 yaw accleration error analysis oi'H32 'T -5 ,o -7( 169 SUBJECT ROW 1: ROW ROW ROW 2: 3: 4: 2 5 10 11 ROW 5: 14 ROW 6: 17 RATE TURNS W/ YAW DA PER FAILURE YAW ACCELERATION ERROR ANALYSIS CONTINUED Aralysis of Variance Table Source of Variation Among Within Groups oups Adj Total Degrees of Sum of Freaedm Squares Mean Square F patio 2 7.195278E-04 3.597639E-04 13 8.162361E-03 6.278739E-04 15 8.881889E-03 0.57 Probability 0.577 The coluts used in this analysis are Column Column. Column 1 label :6 dof =s error 2 label :2 dof r= error 3 label :special effects rms error Analysis of Variance Table Source of Variation Among Groups Degrees of Sum of Freedom Squares 1 Mean Square F Ratio Probability 2.184614E-06 2.184614E-06 0.00 Within Groups 9 6.990411E-03 7.767123E-04 Adj Total 10 6.992595E-03 The columns used in this analysis are Column Column 1 label :6 dof rms error 2 label :2 dof rms error 170 0.986 AC4EL eFxn orJ ILS LANDING 500'-200' PITCHAERROR ANALYSIS Column: 1 1 .02960 .03818 2 3 4 5 .02815 .03643 6 .03399 7 8 9 .03529 10 11 12 .03773 .03240 .03470 .03625 .03265 .03877 13 Col( Col( Col( Col( Col( Col( 2 .03489 4 .03237 .00088 .00122 .00146 .03521 .00142 .00124 .03307 .00079 .00109 .04028 .00133 .00162 .03622 .00116 .03272 .03929 .00105 .00107 .03205 .03974 .00125 .00103 .04030 .00120 .00162 .03773 .03322 .00131 .00142 .04195 .03891 .00107 .00176 .03644 .04497 .00150 .00133 1)6 DOF 2)2 DOF 3)0 DOF 4)6 DO? 5)2 DOF 6)0 DO? 6 5 .03303 .04245 .03448 .03188 .00105 .00109 .00180 .00119 .00102 .00131 .00154 .00158 .00110 .00151 .00202 SUBJECT RMS ERROR RMS ERROR ROW ROW ROW ROW RMS ERROR MEANS SQUARE ERROR MEAN SQUARE ERROR MEAN SQUARE ERROR 1: 2: 3: 4: ROW 5: ROW 6: ROW 7: ROW 8: ROW 9: ROW 10: ROW 11: ROW 12: STANDARD DEVIATION OF THE %EAN MEAN COLUMN I 3 o COLUMN 2 0 1 1 6003 COLUMN 3 j Analysis of Variance Table Source of Variation Among Degrees of Sum of Freedom Squares Mean Square F Ratio Groups 2 3.865778E-05 1.932889E-05 Within Groups 30 4.263946E-04 1.421315E-05 Adj Total 32 4.650524E-04 1.36 The columns used in this analysis are Column Column Column 1 label :6 DO? RMS ERROR 2 label :2 DOF RMS ERROR 3 label : 0 DO? RMS ERROR 171 Probability 0.272 4 4 6 6 7 7 12 12 16 16 18 18 ACc6L9ERATlOrJ ILS LANDING 500-200' ROLLAERROR Column: 1 .03424 . 05044 .03691 .04123 .07200 .04502 .04886 .06199 .05411 .05551 .04452 .06417 2 3 .04159 .03660 .03251 .05261 .04500 .05518 .04871 .05854 .06917 4 5 6 .00104 .00173 .00134 .00254 .00106 .04531 .00136 .00205 .00277 .04424 .00170 .00196 .00203 .04070 .00518 .00166 .00304 .00203 .00237 .08034 .00239 .00645 .00343 .04483 .00384 .00201 .00478 .04625 .00293 .00214 .04623 .04021 .00308 .00214 .00162 .07233 .07188 .00198 .00523 .00517 .06164 .08687 .00412 .00380 .00755 SUBJECT 1)6 DOF RMS ERROR 2)2 DOF RMS ERROR 3)0 DOF RMS ERROR 4)6 DOF MEAN SQUARE ERROR Col( Co( Co( Co( Co( 5)2 Co( DOF ROW 1: ROW 2: ROW 3: ROW 4: ROW 5: ROW 6: ROW 7: ROW 8: ROW 9: ROW 10: ROW 11: ROW 12: MEAN SQUARE ERROR 6)0 DOF MEAN SQUARE ERROR MEAN - 4 4 6 6 7 7 12 12 16 16 18 18 STAflARD DEVIATION OF THE MEAN ,05---.0033(---- COL M N 2 . 5 2 COLUMN 300(4q 5, o 0 4J Analysis of Variance Source of Variation Among Groups Degrees Freedom of Sum of Squares Table Mean Square F Ratio 2 7.920194E-05 3.960097E-05 30 5.97566E-03 0.20 WithIn Groups 1.991887E-04 Adj Total 6.054862E-03 32 The columns used in this analysis are Column Column Column I label :6 DOT RMS ERROR 2 label :2 DOT RMS ERROR 3 label :0 DOT RMS ERROR 17. Probability 0.821 tJ A CCSLEZA10 YAWAERROR 500-200' ILS LANDING Column: 1 6 5 4 3 2 .00497 .00564 .00002 .00002 .00003 .00619 .00005 .00004 .00498 .00682 .00785 .00002 .00005 .00006 .00810 .00679 .00664 .00007 .00005 .00004 .00680 .00580 .00850 .00005 .00003 .00007 .00664 .00011 .00004 .01029 .00477 .00477 .01135 .00803 .01165 .01427 .00013 .00551 .00814 .01588 .00006 .00738 .00003 .00924 .01043 .01117 .00666 .01223 .00937 .00914 .01701 .01496 .00009 .00011 .00012 .00020 .00007 .00005 .00004 .00015 .00009 .00014 .00025 .00008 .00029 .00022 SUBJECT Col( Col( Col( Col( Col( Col( COLUMN 1 C.OLMN 2 1)6 2)2 3)0 4)6 DO? DOIP DOF DO? 5)2 DOF 6)0 DO? MEAN ,oosiz RMS ERROR RMS ERROR RMS ERROR MEAN SQUARE ERROR MEAN SQUARE ERROR MEAN SQUARE ERROR STA,%DARD DEVIATION OF ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW 1: 2: 3: 4: 5: 6: 7: 8: 9: 10: 11: 12: 4 4 6 6 7 7 12 12 16 16 18 18 THE xEAN 0,o cg ,0 092q cools COLUMN 3 (, o IQ4 Analysis of Variance Table Source of Variation Among Groups Degrees of Sum of Squares Freedom 2 Mean Square F Ratio Probability 2.47266E-05 1.23633E-05 1.18 Within Groups 30 3.148263E-04 1.049421E-05 Adj Total 32 3.395529E-04 The columns used in this analysis are Column Column Column 1 label :6 DO? RMS ERROR 2 label :2 DOF RMS ERROR 3 label :0 DOF RMS ERROR 173 0.322 I..... VICAL AXIS AaM =CN ERRR IIS 500-200' 1 Coiumn: 6 5 4 3 2 1 2.8925 2.8962 2.8721 8.3663 8.3879 8.2490 2.9084 8.2993 8.4586 2 2.8808 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 2.9060 2.8923 2.9402 2.8738 2.9072 2.8959 2.8425 2.8978 2.9272 2.8938 2.9245 2.9261 2.9044 2.9124 2.9150 2.8871 2.8804 2.8796 2.8902 2.8948 2.8972 2.8979 2.8638 2.8878 2.9139 2.9305 2.9144 2.8920 col( Col( Col( col( col( col 8.4448 8.3654 8.6446 8.2588 8.4515 8.3861 8.0797 8.3974 8.5687 8.3739 8.5525 8.5621 8.4354 8.4820 8.4971 8.3355 8.2965 8.2923 8.3531 8.3797 8.3940 8.3976 8.2014 8.3395 8.491 8.5876 8.4939 8.3635 1)6 Do ImS mum0 2)2 OF RM EIRKt 3)0 Mir 14m ERIUM 4)6 DOF IMEAN S=M 5)2 MF IMEAN sq = I6)0 DOF IMEAN sq= COLUMN 1 A0 5: 12 12 16 10: 16 18 18 11: 12: DKg" F* of SLm of suarm Mean Square F Ratio 2 4.654903E-04 2.327451E-04 Within troups 30 1.289757E-02 Adj Ttal 32 Gr4S 7 7 6: 7: 8: 9: Tble Analysis of Varianc A~r 6 6 .o2 I - 004 .. q5 SCUZ= of Varistim 2: 3: 4: SUBJECT 4 4 STANDARD DEVIATION OF THE MAN ObI,0C)qL- MEAI C0LUM2 COLUMN 3 1 1: ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW 0.54 4.299191E-04 1.336306E-02 The clumns usd in this analysis are 1 labal :6 2 label :2 3 label :0 ms Prcbability 0.588 ILS LANDING LAST 20-25 SEC PITCHAERROR ANALYSIS Column: 1 2 c3 m4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 .01985 .03303 .06298 .03053 .03325 .02954 .03059 .02785 .03100 .04927 .06943 .05045 Col( Col( Col( Col ( Col( Col( 3 2 .01934 .03658 .03782 .02975 .06536 .05849 .03196 .03160 .03675 1)6 2)2 3)0 4)6 5)2 6)0 DOF DOF DOF DOF DOF DOF .01555 .04435 .03889 .01694 .03437 .03629 .02489 .03845 .00109 .00397 .00093 .00111 .00087 .00094 .00078 .00096 .02726 .00243 .02640 .00482 .00255 4 5 6 .00039 .00024 .00197 .00037 .00151 .00134 .00029 .00143 .00118 .00132 .00089 .00062 .00427 .00148 .00342 .00102 .00074 .00100 .00070 .00135 RMS ERROR RMS ERROR RMS ERROR MEAN SQUARE ERROR MEAN SQUARE ERROR MEAN SQUARE ERROR S UBJECT ROW ROW 1: 2: ROW 3: ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW 4: 5: 6: 7: 8: 9: ROW 10: ROW 11: ROW 12: STANDARD DEVIATION OF THE MEAN MEAN COLUMN 1 .0Yo072. I COLUMN 2 . I COLUMN 3 (4 I -35 175 4 4 6 6 7 7 12 12 16 16 18 18 ILS LANDING LAST 20-25 sec pitch acceleration error analysis continued I Analysis of Variance Table Source of Variation Degrees of Sum of Freedom Squares Mean Square F Ratio 2 5.709019E-04 2.85451E-04 WithIn Groups 28 5.013378E-03 1.790492E-04 Adj Total 30 5.58428E-03 Among Groups 1.59 Probability 0.221 The columns used in this analysis are Column Column Column 1 label :6 DOF RMS ERROR 2 label :2 DOF RMS ERROR 3 label :0 DOF RMS ERROR Analysis of Variance Table Source of Variation Amang Groups Degrees of Sum of Fred Squares 1 Mean Square F Ratio Probability 5.644842E-04 5.644842E-04 3.54 Within Groups 19 3.033859E-03 1.596768E-04 Adj Total 20 3.598344E-03 The coluzmn Column Column used in this analysis are 1 label :6 DOF RS ERRCR 3 label :0 DOF IM ERRCR 176 0.072 ILS LANDING LAST 20-25 SEC ROLL ACCELERATION ERROR ANALYSIS 1 Column: 1 2 2 3 4 .04953 .13852 .24293 .05156 .13817 .09598 .05183 .13128 .16359 .10053 .01723 .14380 .16477 .08359 .02068 .07539 .10392 .00568 .17502 .19781 .13317 .03063 .10942 .22862 .09859 .01197 .06316 .15837 .00399 .15578 .06279 .16026 .02427 .25941 .27782 .10522 .06729 .19099 .13477 .03648 .22707 .22766 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Col( Col( Col( Col( Col( Col( 1)6 2)2 3)0 4)6 5)2 6)0 5 6 .00245 .01919 .05901 .01909 .00921 .02676 .01011 .02715 .00699 .01080 .03913 .01773 .05227 .00972 .02508 .00394 .02568 .07718 .01107 .01816 DOF RMS ERROR DOF RMS ERROR DOF RMS ERROR DOF MEAN SQUARE ERROR DOF MEAN SQUARE ERROR DOF MEAN SQUARE ERROR SUBJECT ROW ROW 1: 4 2: ROW 3: 4 6 ROW 4: ROW 5: ROW 6: ROW 7: ROW 8: ROW 9: ROW 10: ROW 11: .0W 12: 6 7 7 12 12 16 16 18 18 STANDARD DEVIATION OF THE MEAN MEAN COLUMN 2 (c COLUMN 3 &Al ,7 179y 93 00 Analysis of Variance Table source of Variation Degrees of Sum of Freedom Squares Mean Square F Groups 2 7.204142E-03 3.602071E-03 Within Groups 28 .1031859 Adj Total 30 .1103901 Among Probability Ratio 0.98 The columns used in this analysis are Column Column Column 1 label :6 DOF RMS ERROR 2 label :2 DOF RMS ERROR 3 label :0 DO? RMS ERROR 177 3.685212E-03 0.389 I ACCE LE ZA1 10 &J ILS LANDING LAST 20-25 SEC YAWAERROR ANALYSIS 1 Column: .00962 1 2 (3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 .01279 .01958 .02021 .00722 .00872 .03703 .02058 .01021 .01140 .02217 .01908 Col( Col( Col( Col( Col( Col( MEAN COLUMN 1 COLUMN 2 3 2 .03006 .02841 .01222 .04777 .04312 .02142 .01118 .03106 .01855 1)6 2)2 3)0 4)6 5)2 6)0 DOF DOF DOF DOF DOF DOF .01557 .01986 .01505 .01784 .00866 .00504 .04398 .02715 .00016 .00038 .00041 .00005 .00008 .00137 .00042 .00010 .02208 .00013 .01676 .00049 .00036 4 5 .00009 .00090 .00081 .00015 RMS ERROR RMS ERROR RMS ERROR MEAN SQUARE ERROR MEAN SQUARE ERROR MEAN SQUARE ERROR 3 COLUMN 3 178 .00024 .00039 .00023 .00032 .00007 .00003 .00193 .00074 .00228 .00186 .00046 .00012 .00049 .00096 .00028 .00034 STANDARD DEVIATION OF THE MEAN 01 6 ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW I. 2: 3: 4: 5: ROW ROW 6: 7: ROW 8: ROW 9: ROW 10: ROW 11: ROW 12: SUBJECT 4 4 6 6 7 7 12 12 16 16 18 18 continued yaw acceleration error analysis 20-25 sec ILS LANDING LAST Analysis of Variance Table Source of Variation Among Degrees of Sum of Squares Freedom 2 Groups Mean Square F Ratio Probability 3.724191E-04 1. 862095E-04 1.57 Within Groups 28 3.321733E-03 1.186333E-04 Adj Total 30 3.694152E-03 0.226 The columns used in this analysis are Column Column Column 1 label :6 DOF RMS ERROR 2 label :2 DOF RMS ERROR 3 label :0 DOF RMS ERROR Analysis of Variance Table sourc of Variation Degrees of Sum of Freedcm Squares Mean Square F Ratio Amrng Groups 1 3.487895E-04 3.487895E-04 Within Groups 19 2.90 2.285952E-03 1.203133E-04 Adj Total 20 2.634741E-03 The columns used in this analysis are Column Column 1 label :6 DOF RMERR 2 label :2 DOF RM ERR 179 Probability 0.102 IS IANDG LAST 20-25 SEC VERICAL AXIS A 1 Colt=: 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 8.5928 8.5691 2.9468 8.8372 2.9727 8.6837 8.6772 2.9484 2.9233 2.9457 8.6930 8.5455 2.9521 2.9607 2.9333 8.7150 8.7660 2.9270 2.9508 2.9567 8.5671 8.7070 2.9211 8.5507 2.9242 2.9629 2.9285 2.9268 8.7786 8.5760 2.9082 2.9847 2.9802 8.4577 8.9086 8.7295 8.5187 2.9546 2.9187 2.9489 2.9113 2.9398 8.6962 8.4755 2.9944 2.9641 2.9349 8.9667 8.7860 2.9266 2.9135 8.5652 8.4886 col( Col( Col( Col( col( 1)6 DOF ImS , 2)2 DOF ImS 3)0 DOF smS 4)6 M 5)2 DMF MEA r I 6)0 mE COUL" 8.6424 8.6138 SUBJECT ERRmR EMMR SM sq sqAmE STANDARD DEVIATION OF THE MEAN 6 , 93-7 a, 941[3 COLUMN 3 8.8813 ROW 1: ROW 2: 3: ROW 4: ROW ROW ROW 6: 7: ROW 8: ROW 9: ROW ROW 10: ROW 11: ROW 12: 'Z.194-11 2 8.6045 8.7421 8.5331 8.5659 ERRmR MEAN CTLUMN 6 5 4 2.9314 2.9273 1 2 3 4 5 2 RAION ERMRANALYSIS 49 0-7 8 - , 0 0,5 9 kArlysis of Varianm Table sourceZDegres of S=U of of Variati Fread Squam Anzgq G=Vs 2 Within &=up 28 mean square F Ratio 4.112165E-04 2.056082E-04 1.439289E-02 5.140317E-04 Adj Tctal The colum column Column column 30 Prcbability .0148041 used in this analysis are 1 label :6 2 label :2 DOT ME 3 label :0 Dor R EmmR 18) 0.40 0.674 4 4 6 6 7 7 12 12 16 16 18 18 SUMMARY OF CONTENTS OF APPENDIX D: This appendix contains the raw data used for the vestibular All data is in threshold units. error analyses. A value of "1" indicates that the theoretically the subject can just percieve that motion is detatil. occuring. Chapter 2 discusses these units in more The means and standard deviation of the means for each motion condition, over all pilots performing the same manuever are presented in tables. The analysis of variance tables are presented with the data that is associated with them. flight scenario. The data is presented by Engine flameout results are presented first. The vestibular error results from the airwork scenario follow, with steep turns presented first followed by stall the results from the rate turn with presented. results, and then a yaw damper failure are The results from the approach segment of the ILS appraoch and landing scenario precedes the results from the landing segment of this scenario. 18] LIST OF CONTENTS OF APPENDIX D: Engine flameout yaw vestibular error data and analysis Steep turn pitch vestibular error data and analysis Steep turn roll vestibular error data and analysis Steep turn yaw vestibular error data and analysis Stall roll vestibular error data and analysis Stall pitch vestibular error data and analysis Stall longitudinal vestibular error data and analysis Rate Turn with Yaw Damper Failure pitch vestibular error data and analysis Rate Turn with Yaw Damper Failure roll vestibular error data and analysis Rate Turn with Yaw Damper Failure yaw vestibular error data and analysis ILS Approach and Landing 500'-200' pitch vestibular error data and analysis ILS Approach and Landing 500'-200' roll vestibular error data and analysis ILS Approach and Landing 500'-200' yaw analysis vestibular error data and ILS Approach and Landing 500'-200' vertical vestibular error data and analysis ILS Approach and Landing last 20-25 sec pitch vestibular error data and analysis ILS Approach and Landing last 20-25 sec roll vestibular error data and analysis ILS Approach and Landing last 20-25 sec yaw vestibular error data and analysis ILS Approach and Landing last 20-25 sec vertical vestibular error data and analysis 182 ENGINE FLAME-OUT VESTIBULAR YAW ANALYSIS 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 2 1 Column: 0.57949 0.89982 1.05760 0.84368 0.82787 1.07350 1.36440 1.08920 1.48050 1.48930 1.29710 1.17160 1.21660 0.80807 0.58842 0.84973 0.93228 0.82139 1.04220 1.02230 0.99446 0.96506 1.39720 1.05880 1.22650 1.36840 0.88871 0.88646 0.80002 Col ( Col ( Col( Col( Col( Col( 1)6 2)2 3)0 4)6 5)2 6)0 MEAN COLUMN DOF DOF DOF DOF DOF DOF 4 0.33581 0.80968 1.11852 0.71180 0.68537 1.18636 1.68247 0.65298 0.86915 1.04510 0.93134 1.50430 0.78981 1.15240 1.86159 2.21801 1.48012 0.72204 1.08618 SUBJECT ROW I: ROW 2: ROW 3: ROW 4: ROW 5: ROW 6: ROW 7: ROW 8: ROW 9: ROW 10: ROW 11: ROW 12: STANDARD DEVIATION OF THE MEAN I2 o 1 6 2.19188 1.37265 0.34624 0.67468 0.98895 1.95217 1.12106 1.87252 0.78581 0.64003 RMS ERROR RMS ERROR RMS ERROR MEAN SQUARE ERROR MEAN SQUARE ERROR MEAN SQUARE ERROR COLUMN 2 COLUMN 3 5 1'0_ 183 ZZq 1 3 3 8 8 9 9 13 13 15 15 ENGINE FLAME OUT SCENARIO VESTIBULAR ERROR YAW AXIS ANALYSIS CONT'D Analysis of Variance Table Source of Variation Among Mean Square Degrees of Sum of Freedom Squares Groups Within Groups 26 .116184 1.554139 Adj Total 28 1.670323- 2 F Ratio .058092 0.97 Probability 0.392 5.977458E-02 The columns used in this analysis are Column Column Column 1 label :6 DOF RMS ERROR 2 label 3 label :2 DOF RMS ERROR :0 DOF RMS ERROR Analysis of Variance Table Srce of Variatin Am=ng Groups Degrees of Sum of Squares Free= 1 Mean Square .1077512 .1077512 .0463782 Within Groups 17 .7884294 Adj Total 18 .8961806 The columns used in this analysis are Column Column 1 label :column I 3 label :Column 3 1w4 F Ratio 2.32 Probability 0.143 steep turn vestibular pitch error analysis Column: 1 2 3 4 5 6 .49245 .38053 .31980 .43115 .22085 .29534 .14713 .38876 .17000 .63084 .06295 MEAN COLUMN 3 .14506 .39215 .63139 .17858 .04149 4 5 .24251 .14480 .10227 .18589 .04877 .08723 .02165 .15113 .02890 .39796 .00396 6 .02104 .15378 .39865 .03189 .00172 1)6 dof rms error 2)2 doff rms error 3)0 doff rms error 4)6 dof mean square error 5)2 doff mean square error 6)0 dof mean square error Col ( Col Col Col( Col ( Col ( COLUMN 1 COLUMN 2 3 2 1 STANDARD DEVIATION OF THE MEAN -qq77/ - . O5 5 (O -7-7 . eO .2o SUBJECT ROW I1: ROW 2: 3: 5 4 11 14 17 ROW ROW ROW ROW 5: 6: 2 10 STEEP TURNS VESTIB3LAR PITCH ERROR ANALYSIS CONTINUED Analysis of Variance Table Mean Square Degrees of Sum of Squares Freedom Source of Variation F Ratio 2 .1519925 7.599627E-02 Withln Groups 13 .3520598 2.708152E-02 Adj Total 15 .5040523 Among Groups 2.81 Probability 0.097 The columns used in this analysis are Column Column Column 1 label :6 dof rms error 2 label :2 dof rms error 3 label :0 dof rms error Analysis of Variance Table Source of Variation Degrees of Sum of Freedom Squares Among Groups Within Groups 1 9 .1453176 .1306511 Adj Total 10 .2759686 Mean Square The columns used in this analysis are Column Column 1 label :6 dof rms error 2 label :2 dof rms error F Ratio 10.01 .1453176 1.451679E-02 Probability 0.011 steep turn vestibular roll error analysis Column: 1 2 c3 4 5 6 7 2 1 1.5665 1.0017 1.0999 1.4720 0.7893 0.7548 0.2432 1.3384 0.6367 0.9889 0.3359 Col( Col( Col( Col( Col ( Col ( 1)6 2)2 3)0 4)6 5)2 6)0 3 0.4642 1.8077 0.8182 0.3627 0.1993 4 6 5 2.4539 1.0034 1.2098 2.1668 0.6230 0.5697 0.0591 1.7913 0.4054 0.9779 0.1128 0.2155 3.2678 0.6695 0.1315 0.0397 SUBJECT dof rms error dof rms error do f rms error dof mean square error dof mean square error dof mean square error ROW 1: ROW 2: ROW ROW 3: 2 5 10 4: 11 ROW 5: 6: 14 ROW MEAN jCOLUMN .& l STANDARD DEVIATION OF THE MEAN .1l5 2S COLUMN I COLUMN 3 187 1 17 STEEP TURNS VESTIBULAR ROLL ERROR ANALYSIS CONTINUED Analysis of Variance Table Source of Variation Degrees of Sum of Squares Freedom Among Groups Within Groups Adj Total 2 13 .9308698 2.726478 15 3.657348 Mean Square F Ratio .4654349 .2097291 -------------------------- 2.22 ------ 1 label :6 dof rms error 2 label :2 dof rms error 3 label :0 dof rms error of Variation Analysis of Variance Table Degrees of Sum of Mean Freedcn Squares Square Amng Groups Within Groups 1 9 .7942883 1.070055 Adj Total 10 1.864343 The columns used in this analysis ar COlumn C0lUMn 1 label :6 dof rm error 2 label :2 dof rz error 188 .7942883 .118895 0.148 ----------------- The columns used in this analysis are Column Column Column Probability tio 6.68 0.028 steep turn Vestibular yaw error analysis Column: 1 2 23 4 5 6 .24332 .10754 .29683 .19525 .14756 .12155 .02072 .15878 .08873 .24425 .06745 Col ( Col Col ( Col Col Col dof dof dof dof dof dof .05359 .33986 .15214 .02205 .02722 4 .05920 .01156 .08811 .03812 .02177 .01477 .00043 .02521 .00787 .05966 .00455 rms error rms error rms error mean square error mean square error mean square error ,i.92 COLUMN1 COLUMN 3 1)6 2)2 3)0 4)6 5)2 6)0 3 STANDARD DEVIATION OF THE MEAN MEAN COLUMN 2 2 1 , IL.1 . O'9O0(0 11S9 1 6 5 .00287 .11550 .02315 .00049 .00074 SUBJECT ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW 1: 2: 3: 4: 5: 6: 2 5 10 11 14 17 STEEP TURNS VESTIBULAR YAW ERROR ANALYSIS CONTINUED Analysis of Variance Table Among Groups F Ratio Mean Square Degrees of Sum of Squares Freedom Source of Variation 2 1.798314E-02 8.991569E-03 13 .1291844 15 .1471675 0.90 Within Groups Adj Total Probabilit 0.429 9.93726E-03 --------------------------------------------The columns used in this analysis are Column Column Column 1 label :6 dof rms error 2 label :2 dof rms error 3 label :0 dof rms error Analysis of Variance Table Mean Square Degrees of SUM of Sqares Freed:U Vriatio Sof Variaticn of AVGrxxupS 1 F Ratio 1.380957E-02 1.380957E-02 21 2.17 Within Grc*IpS 9 5.720565E-02 6.356183E-03 jTotal10 7.101522E-02 rae oolun used in this analySis are Colu= Column PrcabilitY 1.label :6 dof rMS error 2 label :2 dof rms error 190 .7 0.172 STALL VESTIBULAR ROLL ERROR ANALYSIS 1 Column: 2 3 5 4 6 1 .01616 .00820 .00189 .00026 .00007 .00000 2 .01136 .00346 .00046 .00013 .00001 .00000 .00225 .00016 .04747 .01283 3 .00020 .00001 .01418 .00307 4 : 5 .35507 .00525 .19174 .12607 .00003 .03676 6 .00660 .00185 .05918 .00004 .00000 .00350 7 .00411 .01992 .00455 .00002 .00040 .00002 8 .00085 .00464 .00389 .00000 .00002 .00002 9 .00363 .00383 .00185 .00001 .00001 .00000 10 .00305 .00693 .00151 .00001 .00005 .00000 .00666 .00018 11 .08158 .01335 .00022 .00003 12 .01472 .00523 SUBJECT Col( Col( Col( Col( Col( Col( 1)6 DOF RMS ERROR 2)2 DOF RMS ERROR 3)SPECIAL EFFECTS ONLY RMS ERRORS 4)6 DOF MEAN SQUARE ERROR 5)2 DOF MEAN SQUARE ERROR 6)SPECIAL EFFECTS ERROR STANDARD DEVIATION OF THE MEAN COL~UMN 2 COLUIMN 3 ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW ,ao3(as4-,- 3: 4: 5: 6: 7: 8: 9: 10: 11: 12: 2 2 5 5 10 10 14 14 17 17 EAN I(4 03 ,eigg,6 Analysis of Variance Table Source of Variation Among Groups Degrees of Sun of Freedom Squares 2 Mean Square F Ratio Probabilit'y 8.096127E-03 4.048063E-03 0.82 Within Groups 29 .1430462 Adj Total 31 .1511423 4.932626E-03 The columns used in this analysis are Column Column Column I label :6 DOF RMS ERROR 2 label :2 DOF RMS ERROR 3 label :SPECIAL EFFECTS ONLY RMS ERRORS 191 0.450 CONTINUED STALL VESTIBULAR ROLL ERROR Analysis of Variance Table Source of Variation Amng Degrees of Su of Fredcm Squares Groups Mean Square F Ratio 1 8.093612E-03 8.093612E-03 Within Groups 20 .1104547 Adj Total 21 .1185483 5.522736E-03 Probability 1.47 0.240 The columns used in this analysis are Column Column 1 label :6 DOF FMERRCR 2 label :2 DOF RMS E Analysis of Variance Table Source of Variation Among Groups Degrees of Sum of Freedom Squares 1 Mean Square F Ratio Probability 1.558702E-03 1.558702E-03 0.91 Within Groups 20 3.433945E-02 1.716973E-03 Adj Total 21 3.589815E-02 The columns used in this analysis are Column Column 2 label :2 DOF RMS ERROR 3 label :SPECIAL EFFECTS ONLY RMS ERRORS 192 0.352 STALL VESTIBULAR PITCH ERROR ANALYSIS 1 Column: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 2 3 4 5 6 .01498 .02235 .00268 .04059 .00719 .00086 .06973 .05662 .03724 .03289 .13065 .04193 .07671 .01753 .01040 .01533 .00022 .00050 .00001 .00165 .00005 .00000 .00486 .00321 .00139 .00108 .01707 .00176 .00588 .00031 .00011 .00024 .04456 .03495 .04442 .00199 .00122 .00197 .00962 .00711 .02285 .00009 .00005 .00052 .03483 .05267 .00426 .00121 .00277 .00002 .00898 .00799 .00207 .00008 .00006 .00000 .10552 .05587 .01113 .00312 .03454 .03298 .00119 .00109 SUBJECT Col( Col ( Col ( Col( Col( Col( 1)6 DOF RMS ERRORS 2)2 DOF RMS ERRORS 3)SPECIAL EFFECTS ONLY RMS ERRORS 4)6 DOF MEAN SQAURE ERRORS 5)2 DOF MEAN SQUARE ERRORS 6)SPECIAL EFFECTS ONLY MEAN SQUARE ERRORS ROW 1: ROW 2: ROW 3: ROW 4: ROW 5: ROW 6: ROW 7: ROW 8: ROW 9: ROW 10: ROW 11: ROW 12: STANDARD DEVIATION OF THE MEAN MEAN COLUMN1 04 COLU4N 2 o COLUMN 3 ,02.S911 1 . 0 51309 0(.(01 7 'C) 3 Analysis of Variance Table Source of Variation Degrees of Sum of Squares Freedom Mean Square F Ratio 2 1.759314E-03 8.796572E-04 Within Groups 29 2.659635E-02 9.171155E-04 Adj Total 31 2.835566E-02 Among Groups 0.96 The columns used in this analysis are Column Column Column 1 label :6 DOF RMS ERRORS 2 label :2 DOF RMS ERRORS 3 label :SPECIAL EFFECTS ONLY RMS ERRORS 193 Probability 0.395 2 2 5 5 10 10 11 11 14 14 17 17 Stall VestibUlar IangitudinaEError analysis Column: 3 2 1 1.5963 1.5935 1.6205 1.5243 1.5758 1.5626 1.3525 1.3774 1.3464 1.3706 1.5613 1.5134 1.5306 1.5416 1.6036 1.5526 1.5374 1.5685 1.5124 1.4484 1.5395 1.4917 1.5558 1.6690 1.6499 1.6059 1.5581 1.6257 1.5095 1.5142 1.5499 1.5223 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 2.5482 2.5393 2.6259 2.3234 2.4830 2.4416 1.8292 1.8972 1.8127 1.8785 2.4376 2.2903 2.3428 2.3765 2.5714 2.4106 2.3634 2.4602 2.2872 2.0980 2.3700 2.2252 2.4205 2.7855 2.7221 2.5788 2.4276 2.6430 2.2786 2.2928 2.4023 2.3173 1) 6 DOF MEAW RM M 2) 2 DOF MEAN MS EM 3) SPECIAL ETECIS 4)6 DOF MN Sq-V=ERM 5)2 DOF MEAMN SqREEtS 6) SPECIAL EMFECIS MEN SqREE col( col( Col( col( Col( Col( ,(00( 1 COLUmN 2 o - 1: 2: 3: 4: SUBJECT 2 2 6: 7: 9: 10: 11: 12: 14 14 17 17 o Analysis of Variarce Table Degrsm of Sum of source Sqarem of Variatioi Fr.d Amon Groups Mean Square F Ratio 6.232564E-04 0.09 Within Groups 29 .2005916 Adj Total 31 .2018382 The =1=s Colum Column Colt= Probability 1.246513E-03 2 used in this analysis are 1 label :6 DO? MO EMU 2 label :2 DO? IM ERERS 3 label :SPECAL UEC> 194 6.916953E-03 5 10 10 11 11 2.9* COLUMN 3j 5 8: c 9 . ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW STANDAD DEVIATION OF THE MEAN MEAN COLU", 6 5 4 0.914 yaw damper failure vestibular pitch error analysis 1 Column: 6 3 4 5 .00001 .00000 .00000 .00347 .00000 .00065 .00002 .00001 .00103 .00000 .00000 .00542 .00709 .00044 .00003 .00005 .00167 .00515 .00000 .00003 1 .00044 2 3 .4.004 7 3 4 2.00034 5 2 .00029 .00215 .00283 .00027 6 .00000 .00001 .00000 .00000 .00000 SUBJECT Col( Col Col Col( Col( Col( COLUMN 1 COLUMN 2 COLUMN 3 1)6 dof rms error 2)2 dof rms error 3)0 dof rms error 4)mean square error 6 dof 5)mean square error 2 dof 6)mean square error 0 dof MEAIN COZ.$Z ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW STANDARD DEVIATION OF THE MEAN .001o01 (-(1 o 1 (O4 I 195 1: 2: 3: 4: 5: 6: 2 5 10 11 14 17 RATE TURNS W/YAW DAMPER FAILURE VESTIBULAR PITCH ERROR ANALYSIS CONTI=UD Analysis of Variance Table Source of-Variation Among Degrees of Sum of Freedom Squares F Ratio Probability 9.802042E-06 2 Groups Mean Square 4.901021E-06 0.94 13 Within Groups ri5.187103E-06 7.723438E-05 15 Adj Total 0.414 6.743233E-05 The columns used in this analysis are Column Column Column 1 label :6 dof rms error 2 label :2 dof rms error 3 label :0 dof rms error Analysis of Variance Table Source of Variation Among Degrees of Sum of Freedom Squares Mean Square F Ratio Groups 1 5.360303E-07 5.360303E-07 Within Groups 9 5.998633E-05 6.665148E-06 Adj Total 10 6.052237E-05 0.08 Probability 0.719 -----------m-----------------w----- w---------------M----------- The columns used in this analysis are Column Column 1 label :6 dof rms error 2 label :2 dof rms error 196 yaw damper failure vestibular roll error analysis 1 Column: 2 3 4 5 6 1 .00174 .00062 .00002 .00000 .00000 .00000 2 3 2.03309 4 .00325 5 .04121 6 .01623 .02009 .02132 .03447 .05627 .03665 .00040 .00183 .04276 .00850 .00109 .00045 .00007 .00969 .00001 .00119 .00009 .00413 .00170 .00317 .00002 .00026 .00134 SUBJECT Col( Col( Col( Col( Col( Col ( 1)6 dof rms error 2)2 dof rms error 3)0 dof rms error 4)6 dof mean square error 5)2 dof mean square error 6)mean square error 0 dof STANDARD DEVIATION OF THE MEAN MEAN COLUMN1 0191O COLUMN 2 o ,. COLUMN 3 ,OI.?OZ , . -70 197 ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW 1: 2: 3: 4: 2 5 10 11 5: 14 6*: 17 RATE TURNS W/YAW DAMPER FAILURE VESTIBULAR ROLL ERROR ANALYSIS CONTINUED .Analysis of Variance Table Source of Variation Degrees of Sum of Squares Freedom Mean Square Groups 2 6.483721E-04 3.24186E-04 Within Ggoups 13 4.181815E-03 Among F Ratio Probability 1.01 0.392 3.216781E-04 15 Adj Total 4.830187E-03 The columns used in this analysis are Column Column Column 1 label :6 dof rms error 2 label :2 dof rms error 3 label :0 dof rms error ---------------- m--------m---------- m---------M-----------Analysis of Variance Table Source of Variation Degrees of Sum of Freedom Squares Mean Square F Ratio ------------------------------ Among ------------ Groups 1 6.314917E-04 6.314917E-04 Within Groups 9 2.936414E-03 3.262682E-04 Adj Total 10 1.94 --------- 3.567906E-03 m------------------ m------------------ The columns used in this analysis are Column Column Probability 2 label :2 dof rms error 3 label :0 dof rms error 198 0.196 Yaw damper failure vestibular yaw axis error analysis Column: 1 2 3 4 .00045c 00024 .00001 .00421 .01032 .00761 .00492 .00178 .00084 .00081 .00256 .01186 .01483 .00089 .00000 .00354 .00852 5 .00000 .00002 .00006 .00002 .00000 .00000 .00014 .00022 .00001 .00007 6 .00000 .00011 .00000 .00001 .00000 SUBJECT Col( Col( Col( Col( Col( Col( 1)6 2)2 3)0 4)6 5)2 6)0 MEAN COLUYM 1 COLUMN 2 COLUMN 3 dp f dof dof dof dof dof rms error rms error rms error mean square error mean square error mean square error ROW ROW 1: 2: ROW ROW 4: ROW ROW STANDARD DEVIATION OF THE MEAN 002 17 5 0Z19 .00135 199 3: 5: 6: 2 5 10 11 14 17 RATE TURNS W/YAW DAMPER FAILURE VESTIBULAR YAW ERROR ANALYSIS CONTINUED Analysis of Variance Table Source of Variation Groups Among Mean Square Degrees of Sum of Squares Freedom Probability F Ratio 1.726678E-05 2 8.63339E-06 0.703 0.36 Within Groups 13 3.10294E-04 2.386877E-05 Adj Total 15 3.275607E-04 The columns used in this analysis are Column Column Column 1 label :6 dpf rms error 2 label :2 dof rms error 3 label :0 dof rms error Analysis of Variance Table Source of Variation Degrees of Sum of Freedam Squares Mean Square F Ratio Among Groups 1 1.446735E-06 1. 446735E-06 Within Groups 9 2.417001E-04 2.685557E-05 Adj Tctal 10 2.431468E-04 0.05 'he columns used in this analysis are Column Column 1 label :6 dpf rms error 2 label :2 dof rms error 200 Probability 0.782 Ils landing 500-200' Column: 1 2 Vestibular Pitch Error Analysis 3 4 5 .246184 .28316 .20340 .2n15 .19930 .05849 .04803 .08018 .39660 .29583 .33196 .28121 .35283 .39329 .36489 .27283 .24172 .40584 .32445 .36454 .15729 .10527 .28370 .38531 .08752 .08049 .29327 .26887 .11020 .08601 .25617 .07908 .31486 .43328 .12449 .09914 .37208 .45187 .15468 .13844 .28528 .13314 .08138 .31961 .27899 .07444 .10215 .42587 .26294 .05843 .18137 .27429 .33849 .16471 .07524 Col( Col( CoI( Col( Col( Col( 6 .04137 .03972 .13289 .14846 .07229 .06562 .18773 .20419 .07784 .06914 .11458 1)6 DOF RMS 2)2 DOF RMS 3) ' 0' DOF RMS 4) 6 DOF IMAN SQUARED ERROR 5)2 DOF ?MEA SQUARE ERROR 6)'0' DOF )CAN SQUARE EnOR RCW 1: 4 RCW RCW ROW ROW 2: 3: 4: 5: 4 RCW 6: ROW ROW ROW 7: 8: - 9: 10: RCW 11: ROW 12: ROW NS7:DARD DS"VAtON OF THE COLL"- LN 6 6 7 7 12 12 16 16 is 18 IQ.1- COL.Y.N 3$3 .-3 17 -0 - . -.- - - - - Analysis of Variance Table Degrees of Sum of Squares Freedom Source of Variation Amorfg Groups 2 Mean Square F Ratio 1. 252864E-04 6.264322E-05 0.01 Within Groups 30 .1450809 Adj Total 32 .1452062 -------------------- 0.987 4.836029E-03 ------ -- --- The columns used in this analysis are Column Column Column Probability 1 label :6 DOF RMS 2 label :2 DOF RMS 3 label :'O' DOF RMS 201 ils landing 500'-200' vestibular roll error analysis 1 Colt=: 2 3 4 1 .26490 .32970 .22602 .07017 .20452 .12135 2 i.34836 3 .39275 .41215 .44870 .15425 4 .42369 .38310 .48499 .17951 5 .67393 .28868 .43767 .45418 .35305 .12684 6 .35615 7 .52620 .77198 .63102 .27689 8 .68275 .51772 .78715 .46615 9 .59153 .33200 .34991 10 .41113 .37178 .32170 .16903 11 .32790 .76090 .48985 .10752 12 .66327 .45585 .66928 .43993 13 1)6 DOF 2)2 Do? 3)0 DO? 4)6 DO? Col Col( Col( col( 5 6 .10870 .05109 .04183 .16987 .20133 .14677 .23522 .08334 .19156 .12464 .59595 .39819 .26803 .61961 .11022 .13822 .10349 .57897 .23995 .20780 .44794 SUBJECT Im ER RM Im "ll zmM sqm ROW ROW ROW ROW mmg sq 6)0 DOD ?m sqDEm Col ( 5)2 DOF ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW MEAN COLUMN 1 1: 2: 3: 4 4 6 4: 6 5: 6: 7: 8: 9: 10: 11: 12: 7 7 12 12 16 16 18 18 STANDARD DEVIATION OF THE .7S MEAN #2" COLUMN (- COLUMN 3_ s-td -- Analysis of Variance Table Saurceo of Variaticn Amcng Groups Dres of Sum of FrIN M Squarin 2 Mean Square F Ratio Prcbability 9.745206E-04 4.872603E-04 Within Grups 30 .8463396 Mj Total 32 .8473141 The colum used in this analysis are Colum CoUM Colum1 I 1 label :6 DO? a EM E 2 label :2 DOF M EM 3 label :0 DOF IM EM 3)2 R 0.02 2.821132E-02 0.983 ILS LANDING 500-200' VESTIBULAR YAW ERROR ANALYSIS Column: 1 2 3 4 .03849 .03865 .03679 .00148 .04753 .05246 .08157 .06104 .08133 .11629 .08431 .05904 .06788 .07791 .11319 .03577 .00226 .05745 .06593 .00275 .05816 .07370 .00665 .03974 .07098 .00373 .04776 .00661 .13084 .13018 .01352 .08853 .17951 .00711 .05247 .00349 .05537 .06956 .00461 .12470 .11785 .00607 .06834 .11342 .01281 Col( Col( Col( Col( Col( Col( 1 .00149 .00135 .00128 .00330 .00435 .00338 .00543 .00158 .00504 .00228 .01712 .01695 .00784 .03222 .00275 .00307 .00484 .01555 .01389 .00467 .01286 ROW 1: ROW 2: ROW 3: ROW 4: ROW 5: ROW 6: ROW 7: ROw 8: ROW 9: ROW 10: ROW 11: ROW 12: 1)6 DOF RMS ERROR 2)2 DOF RMS ERROR 3)0 DOF RMS ERROR 4)6 DOF MEAN SQUARED ERROR 5)2 DOF MEAN SQUARED ERROR 6)0 DOF MEAN SQUARED ERROR FxEAN COLUMN 6 5 OF STAnARD DEVIATION THE MnAN SUBJECT 4 4 6 6 7 7 12 12 16 16 18 0- COLUMN 2 COLUMN 3_ 67t 2000 )r5Iq Analysis of Variance Table Source of Variation Degrees of Sum of Freedom Squares Mean Square F Ratio 7503------- Among Groups 2 1.275035E-03 6 .375176E-04 ithfn Groups 30 3.606195E-02 Adj Total 3.733698E-02 32 The columns used in this analysis are Column Column Column ---- 0.53 1.202065E-03 1 label 2 label 3 label :6 DOF RMS ERROR :2 DOF RMS ERROR :0 DOF RMS ERROR 203 Probability 0.594 II.S ANDL G 500-200'VESTINAR VERITCAL AXIS ACEATION E Coltu: 1 6.2344 2 6.2298 3 X6.3350 4 6.1356 5 6.0606 6 6.3023 7 6.3923 8 6.2646 9 7.3088 10 6.1945 11 6.1204 12 6.4276 Col( Col Col( Col( Col( col( 6.2475 6.1512 6.2393 6.2021 6.5267 6.3423 6.3563 6.2594 6.2886 6.2146 6.1868 6.2502 6.2018 6.1829 6.3755 6.2502 6.2332 6.2191 6.4907 6.3950 6 5 4 3 2 1 38.867 39.031 37.837 38.810 40.132 38.466 37.646 40.224 36.731 39.180 38.928 42.598 40.403 39.547 39.720 39.065 40.861 38.621 38.852 39.245 38.277 38.678 53.419 39.065 38.371 38.462 42.129 37.459 38.228 40.896 41.314 40.647 1)6 dof rms error 2)2 dof rms error 3)0 dof rms eror 4)6 dof mean square error 5)2 dof mean square error 6)0 dof mean square error ROW ROW ROW ROW 1: 2: ROW ROW ROW ROW 5: ROW ROW ROW ROW COLUM 11 £ / , A io'7 14-z z I 00940, %COLUMN 2 COLUMN 3 4: 6: 7: 8: 9: 10: 11: 12: 1; AN ARD DEVI TION OF THE MEAN ALM - 3: SUBJECT 4 4 6 6 7 7 12 12 16 16 18 18 STANDlARDl DEVIATION OF THE MEAN VEANM Mr R ANALYSIS , * 1 02 t6,.1I50 0' -7 6 OP50I110 I An I I ILS LANDING 500-200' VESTIBULAR VERTICAL ERROR ANALYSIS CONTINUED Analysis of Variarxe Table Source of Variation Degrees of Sim of Freedom Sqares Mean Square F Ratio Among Groups 2 4.481315E-02 2.240657E-02 ithin Groups 29 1.343928 31 1.388741 Adj Total Probability 4.634235E-02 The columns used in this analysis are Column Column Column 1 label :6 dof rms error 2 label :2 dof rs error 3 label :0 dof rms error Analysis of Variance Table Source of Variation Among Groups Degrees of SuM of Freedom Squares 1 Mean Square F Ratio Probability 4.178346E-02 4.178346E-02 0.69 Within Groups 20 1.206781 Adj Total 21 1.248564 6.033903E-02 'Ihe columns used in this analysis are Column Column 1 label :6 dof rms error 2 label :2 dof rm err= 205 0.415 EIMCATI IIS LANDIM 500-200' VESTIBLAR INGI'ITJIDAL 1 Colt: 2 3 1 1.0031 0.4518 0.5026 0.7871 2 0.7553 3 -0.5662 0.4322 0.4606 4 0.4045 0.3854 0.6200 5 0.5168 0.6847 0.7421 6 0.9089 1.0692 7 1.3528 0.8227 0.8120 8 0.6325 0.7637 0.5217 9 1.0377 0.4526 10 0.5401 0.5984 1.6875 11 0.6727 1.3619 0.3964 12 1.0548 0.4333 4 ERRCR ANALYSIS 6 5 1.0061 0.2041 0.2526 0.6195 0.5705 0.3205 0.1868 0.2122 0.1636 0.1485 0.3844 0.2670 0.4688 0.5508 0.8261 1.1432 0.6768 0.5833 0.2049 0.3581 0.4525 1.8549 0.6594 0.2721 1.8301 0.4001 1.0767 0.2917 2.8475 0.1571 1. 1126 0.1878 13 SUBJECT 1)6 DOF M ERE=R m 2)2 DO? M ERR DOF 3)0 M 4)6 DO? MEN 5)2 DOF MEAN SqD= 6)0 DOF MEw SUM Col( cml( col( col( col( col( 1' COLUMN COLUMN 2 COLUMN 3 1: 4 ROW 2: 3: 4: 5:6: 7: 8: 9: 4 6 6 7 7 12 12 16 16 18 ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW 10: ROW 1U: ROW 12: STANDARD DEVIATION OF THE MEAN . O 2 MEAN ,5g-7 1 (1159(01, 1 'S ROW O19 96 -1a ,9 Analysis of Variarnx Table Scurce of Variatim Degrim of SLm of Squares Freed=s man Square F Ratio Amang Grup 2 .1313013 6.565065E-02 Within 29 3.002143 .1035222 Adj Total 31 3.133445 IhA colu=na used in this analysis are 1 label :6 DO? ME 2 label :2 DO? M ERR 3 label :0 DO? m E 206 Prbability 18 ILS LANDING LAST 20-25 SEC VESTIBULAR PITCH ERROR ANALYSIS 1 Column: 1 2 .10665 .17806 .41999 .22897 .20947 .18884 .22219 .23646 .24244 .23748 .36376 .36405 22 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 .12142 .23232 .19106 .16971 .44732 .24305 .21347 .24067 .19552 3 4 .06547 .20024 .28449 .13075 .18635 .17102 .18292 .29977 .03171 .17639 .05243 .04388 .03566 .04937 .05591 .05878 .14407 .05640 .13613 .13232 .13253 5 6 .01137 .00429 .04010 .01474 .08093 .05397 .01710 .03650 .03473 .02925 .02880 .03346 .20010 .08986 .05907 .04557 .02076 .05792 .01853 .03823 SUBJECT Col( Col( Col( Col( Col( Col( MEAN COLUN I. COLUMN 2 * COLUMN 3 * 1)6 2)2 3)0 4)6 5)2 6)0 DOF DOF DOF DOF DOF DOF RMS ERROR RMS ERROR RMS ERROR MEAN SQUARE ERROR MEAN SQUARE ERROR ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW MEAN SQUARE ERROR ROW STANDARD DEVIATION OF THE MEAN . . /~A , 207 4aaQ5I ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW 1: 2: 3: 4: 5: 6: 7: 8: 9: 10: 11: 12: 4 4 6 6 7 7 12 12 16 16 18 18 ILS LANDING LAST 20-25 sec vestibular pitch error analysis continued Analysis of Variance Table Source of Variation Mean Square Degrees of Sum of Squares Freedom F Ratio 2 3.624465E-02 1.812232E-02 WithIn Groups 28 .1889603 Adj Total 30 .2252049 Among Groups 2.69 Probability 0.086 6.748582E-03 The columns used in this analysis are 1 label :6 DOF RMS ERROR 2 label :2 DOF RMS ERROR 3 label :0 DOF R S ERROR Column Column Column Analysis of Variance Table Source of Variation Among Groups Degrees of Sum of Freedom Sqares Mean Square F Ratio 1 3.587835E-02 3.587835E-02 Within Groups 19 .1097514 Adj Total 20 .1456298 6.21 5.776392E-03 The oolumns used in this analysis are Column Column 1 label :6 DO? RMSEMCR 3 label :0 DOF IM EMM 208 Probability 0.021 ILS LANDING LAST 20-25 SEC VESTIBULAR ROLL ERROR ANALYSIS Column: 1 4 3 2 0.25388 0.55113 1.02550 1.38086 1.17510 1.56040 0.81062 0.63444 2.25120 0.95981 0.95156 0.75551 0.92124 0.86984 0.78773 0.42099 0.75662 0.47793 0.21721 0.46606 1.26290 1.11740 0.92298 1.59492 0.87460 1.59530 0.76501 0.76493 0.44014 0.66109 0.19372 0.72128 0.40162 0.83198 0.52024 1.33670 1.96880 0.52688 1.78677 1.39650 0.68742 1.95021 5 6 0.06446 0.30374 1.05165 0.65710 0.40251 0.90547 0.57080 0.62052 0.17723 0.22842 1.24858 0.85189 2.54498 0.58524 0.43704 0.16130 0.69219 3.87617 0.27760 0.47255 SUBJECT Col( Col( Col( Col( Col( Col( 1)6 2)2 3)0 4)6 5)2 6)0 DOF DOF DOF DOF DOF DOF RMS ERROR RMS ERROR RMS ERROR MEAN SQUARE ERROR MEAN SQUARE ERROR RMS ERROR ROW 1: ROW 2: ROW 3: ROW ROW 4: 5: ROW ROW 6: 7: ROW 8: ,OW 9: IOW 10: 2OW 11: )OW 12: MEAN COLUMN 1 COLUMN 2 COLUMN 3 STANDARD DEVIATION OF THE MEAN */tioo/ 0 ., a - 6). 209 353 4 4 6 6 7 7 12 12 16 16 18 18 20-25 sec ILS LANDING LAST continued vestibular roll error analysis Analysis of Variance Table Source of Variation Groups Among Within Groups 2 28 .5339456 4.153348 Total 30 4.687293 Adj The columns used in this Column Column Column Mean Square Degrees of Sum of Squares Freedom F Ratio 1.80 .2669728 .1483338 Probability 0.184 analysis are 1 label :6 DOF RMS ERROR 2 label :2 DOF RMS ERROR 3 label :0 DOF RMS ERROR Table Analysis of Varianc sorce of Variation DegreesOf SumOf Squares Freedc Aming Groups Within Groups 1 19* Adj Total 20 .5003579 1.694478 MeanF Square 2.194836 1 label :6 DOF RM 3 label :0 DOF R 210 EMR ERRR Ratio 5.61 .5003579 8.918304E-02 lem columnS used in this analysis are Column Column Probability 0.027 ILS LANDING LAST 25 SEC VESTIBULAR YAW ERROR Column: 1 z2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 .04849 .06611 .13638 .17584 .15293 .17201 .05373 .05855 .04762 .27062 .26965 .16685 .30929 .07446 .08847 .05498 .06909 .11926 .22268 .13989 .09893 Col( Col( Col( Col( Col( Col( MEAN COLUMN 1 COLUMN 2 2 1 (2 3 .06302 .08534 .10311 .13490 .04304 .02348 .30618 .21238 .11252 .08567 4 5 .00235 .00437 .01860 .02339 .00289 .00227 .07324 .02784 .00554 .00302 .01422 .01957 .00397 .00728 .03092 .01063 .02959 .01820 .00343 .00185 .00055 .07271 .09375 .09566 .04511 .00783 .00477 .01266 .04959 .00734 .00979 ROW 1: ROW 2: ROW 3: ROW 4: ROW 5: ROW 6: ROW 7: ROW 8: ROW 9.: ROW 10: ROW 11: ROW 12: 1)6 DOF RMS ERRORS 2)2 3)0 4)6 5)2 6)0 DOF DOF DOF DOF 6 RMS ERRORS RMS ERRORS MEAN SQUARE ERROR MEAN SQUARE ERROR DOF MEAN SQUARE ERROR SUBJECT 4 4 6 6 7 7 12 12 16 16 18 18 STANDARD DEVIATION OF THE MEAN . 153 M COLUMN 3 Analysis of Variance Table Source of Variation Among Degrees of Sum of Freedom Squares Groups Mean Square F 2 8.070948E-03 4.035474E-03 Within Groups 28 .1875894 Adj Total 30 .1956603 0.60 - The columns used in this analysis are Column Column Column Probability Ratio 1 label :6 DO? RMS ERRORS 2 label :2 DO? RMS ERRORS 3 label :0 DO? RMS ERRORS 6.69962E-03 0.554 ILs ANDM IAST 20-25 SEC VESTIJIAR V Column: 3 2 1 6.3200 6.2231 6.6934 6.2210 6.3712 6.4800 6.2999 6.4947 6.5398 6.4438 6.2542 6.3725 6.8827 6.6242 1 43.269 2 6.5779 46.196 3 m6.7967 40.853 4 6.3917 41.861 5 6.4700 40.955 6 6.3996 41.459 7 6.4389 8 6.8293 46.640 9 6.1710 6.5687 38.081 10 6.5727 6.7879 6.2213 43.200 11 6.9811 6.6267 6.2658 48.736 12 6.4602 6.2688 41.735 4 ICAL AXIS ERROR ANALYSIS 6 5 39.943 38.727 44.802 38.700 40.593 41.991 39.689 42.181 42.769 41.522 39.115 40.608 47.371 43.880 43.148 46.076 38.704 43.913 39.260 39.298 SUBJECT Col( Col( Col( Col( Col( Col( 1)6 dof s eerror 2)2 dof rms error 3)0 dof :ms error 4)6 dof ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW mean square error 5)2 dof mean square error 6)0 dof mean square error MEANSTANDARD DEVIATION OF 5 Yo70 COLUMN 1 ' COLUMN 2 (o, 94 COLU4tN 3 (,&5 5a 5 1: 2: 3: 4: 5: 6: 7: 8: 9: 10: 11: 12: E MEAN 4 4 6 6 7 7 12 12 16 16 18 18 ILS LANDING LAST vestibular vertical error analysis 20-25 sec continued Analysis of Variance Table Source of Variation F Ratio Mean Square Degrees of St= of Squares Freedom AMrq Groups 2 .1152107 5.760533E-02 Within &r=ups 28 1.268216 4.529343E-02 Mj Total 30 1.383427 1.27 Probability 0.296 The columns used in this analysis are Column Column Colun 1 label :6 dof r=s error 2 label :2 dof rms error 3 label :0 dof rm error Analysis of Variance Table Source of Variation Degrees of Sum of Freedo Squares Amng Groups Within Grmps 1 19 .1148377 .7944804 Mj Total 20 .9093182 Mean Square The columnw used in this analysis are Column Column 1 label :6 dof rms error 3 label :0 dof rms error 213 F Ratio .1148377 2.75 4.181476E-02 Probability 0.111 VESI1 LAR LCNTIGDIAL AXIS ILS IANDICL IA9I 20-25 SEC 1 * 3.633 1.9060 2.0005 1 6 5 4 3 2 4.002 0.7267 3.270 0.528 2 1.8083 3 g2.6466 3.0342 0.8544 7.004 9.206 0.730 4 3.4897 1.5169 3.5110 12.178 2.301 12.327 5 2.3892 3.1931 3.0186 5.708 10.196 9.112 4.0032 1.075 16.026 6 1.0368 7 2.5390 2.5699 2.5841 6.446 6.604 6.677 8 1.1548 2.3811 2.5786 1.334 5.670 6.649 0.107 6.328 9 0.3278 2.5156 10 0.6513 0.6441 0.5977 0.424 0.415 0.357 11 1.7182 3.8697 2.8028 2.952 14.975 7.855 9.415 12.728 12 3.0684 3.5677 SL'3JECT 1)6 DOF RM 2)2 DOF IMS EMM~t 3)0 DOF RMS ERFR~ Col( col( col col( ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW 4)6 DF MN SGZRE 5)2 DF MEAN SGUE 6)0 OF MEAN SRE o Degrees of S= of Squares Frgedm Amiq Groups Within GrS 2 28 2.09303 31.86762 Adi Total 30 33.96065 7-7 column 1 label :6 DF 2 label :2 DF 3 label :0 DMF 6: 8: 9: 10: 11: 12: ~6 ~R -7 4 Table Mean sqUare 2w columns used in this analysis are column column 4: 7- Anlysis of Variarc SOLICI of Variation 2: 3: STANDARD DEVIATION OF THE MEAN MEAN COLUMN1 COLUMN 2 COLUMN 3. 1: 1.046515 1.138129 F Ratio 0.92 Prcbability 0.410 4 4 6 6 7 7 12 12 16 .16 18 18

by

Related documents

Products

Support

by

Related documents

Add this document to collection(s)

Add this document to saved

Suggest us how to improve StudyLib