Two experiments examined the effects of display location (head up vs. head down) and image intensity/clutter on flight path performance and mid-air target detection in a general aviation cruise flight environment. In Experiment 1, a low-fidelity simulation, both near-domain and far-domain Instrumentation were presented at the same optical distance. Detection of commanded flight changes and maintenance of desired flight path flight were generally better in the head-down condition, an advantage attributed to the superior image contrast ratios in that condition. In contrast, target detection was superior with the head-up display, reflecting an attentional tradeoff Experiment 2 was performed with pilots viewing far-domain imagery (and airborne targets) on an Evans and Sutherland display positioned near optical infinity, head-up display (HUD) imagery at the same optical distance, and head-down imagery at a near distance typical of the instrument panel. The degree of clutter was also varied and image contrast ratios were equated between head-up and head-down viewing conditions. Flight performance was equivalent between the HUD and head-down locations. However, detection of both near-domain events (commanded changes) and far-domain targets was better in the HUD condition, revealing the HUD benefit of reduced scanning. Adding extra information (clutter) to the HUD inhibited detection of both events in both head-up and head-down locations. However, this clutter cost was diminished for far-domain target detection if the added information was "low-lighted." Flight performance was superior in clear weather, when the true horizon was available for viewing. The data provided little evidence that attention was modulated in depth (near vs. far domains), but rather suggested that attention was modulated between tasks (flight control and detection).

Two experiments examined the effects of display location (head up vs. head down) and image intensity/clutter on flight path performance and mid-air target detection in a general aviation cruise flight environment. In Experiment 1, a low-fidelity simulation, both near-domain and far-domain Instrumentation were presented at the same optical distance. Detection of commanded flight changes and maintenance of desired flight path flight were generally better in the head-down condition, an advantage attributed to the superior image contrast ratios in that condition. In contrast, target detection was superior with the head-up display, reflecting an attentional tradeoff Experiment 2 was performed with pilots viewing far-domain imagery (and airborne targets) on an Evans and Sutherland display positioned near optical infinity, head-up display (HUD) imagery at the same optical distance, and head-down imagery at a near distance typical of the instrument panel. The degree of clutter was also varied and image contrast ratios were equated between head-up and head-down viewing conditions. Flight performance was equivalent between the HUD and head-down locations. However, detection of both near-domain events (commanded changes) and far-domain targets was better in the HUD condition, revealing the HUD benefit of reduced scanning. Adding extra information (clutter) to the HUD inhibited detection of both events in both head-up and head-down locations. However, this clutter cost was diminished for far-domain target detection if the added information was "low-lighted." Flight performance was superior in clear weather, when the true horizon was available for viewing. The data provided little evidence that attention was modulated in depth (near vs. far domains), but rather suggested that attention was modulated between tasks (flight control and detection).

The primary role of head-up displays (HUDs) is to provide primary flight, navigation, and guidance information to the pilot in a forward field-of-view on a head-up transparent screen. Therefore, this theoretically allows for optimal control of an aircraft through the simultaneous scanning of both instrument data and the out-the-window scene. However, despite significant aviation safety benefits afforded by HUDs, a number of accidents have shown that their use does not come without costs. The human factors community has identified significant issues related to the pilot distribution of near and far domain attentional resources because of the compellingness of symbology elements on the HUD; a concern termed, attention or cognitive capture. The paper describes the phenomena of attention capture and presents a selected survey of the literature on the etiology and potential prescriptions.Prinzel, Lawrence J., III and Risser, MatthewLangley Research CenterHUMAN FACTORS ENGINEERING; AIRCRAFT SAFETY; HEAD-UP DISPLAYS; ETIOLOGY; INFORMATION; OPTIMAL CONTROL; FIELD OF VIEW

This is a thorough description of this increasingly important technology, starting from the development of head-up displays (HUDs), particularly specifications and standards and operational problems associated with HUD use. HUD involvement in spatial disorientation and its use in recognizing and recovering from unusual attitudes is discussed. The book summarizes the design criteria including hardware, software, interface and display criteria. It goes on to outline flight tasks to be used for evaluating HUDs and discusses the impact of HUDs on flight training. Recent work indicates that a HUD may allow a significant reduction in the time required to train a pilot on a particular aircraft, even considering non-HUD-related tasks. The author concludes with a review of unresolved HUD issues and recommendations for further research and provides an impressive bibliography, glossary and index. Within the military aviation sector the book will be of use to industry, research agencies, test pilot schools and air force training establishments. In the civil area regulatory authorities, airlines and industry will also have an increasing interest.

Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Applied Human Factors and Ergonomics (AHFE 2023), July 20–24, 2023, San Francisco, USA