Jeff Lancaster

Deriving Cursor Control Device Expectations for the Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle

A unique challenge for the Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle is the need for a novel cursor control device (CCD) that allows the crew to interact with display formats while seated and restrained. Display formats will contain “controllable elements” that will be used for input by astronauts, and will most likely not be laid out in a rectilinear grid. A four-way “caged” castle switch on the CCD was designed to travel only to controllable elements toward decreasing erroneous cursor movements. The ability of the four-way castle to intuitively navigate the cursor from a user perspective is a vital consideration. A cursor expectations study was conducted to understand dominant user expectations for CCD movements when controllable elements are not arranged on a rectilinear grid. Algorithms were developed that governed cursor movement in such a way as to match the dominant user expectations, to support the development of user mental models for cursor behavior, and to guide designers when laying out display formats.

Flight simulator evaluation of an Airport Surface Display with Indications and Alerts (SURF IA)

This paper presents the results of a flight simulator evaluation of an Airport Surface Display with Indications and Alerts (SURF IA). The objective was to investigate the independent effects of display type on traffic conflict detection. The study included a comparative evaluation of a Cockpit Display of Traffic Information with Indications & Alerts (CDTI IA) and CDTI without IA (CDTI baseline). Eight commercial airline pilots each flew nine scenarios in a B737–700 part-task flight simulator. Dependent measures included both subjective and objective data. The display symbology for traffic and runway indications and alerts was acceptable and understood by the pilots. The traffic velocity trend vector was considered a significant cue with which to detect traffic conflicts. Workload was perceived as acceptable for both CDTI types. There was no significant difference in traffic conflict detection rates between CDTI baseline and CDTI IA groups. However, the CDTI IA facilitated faster conflict detection and decision making during final approach scenarios when compared to the CDTI baseline display. Similar differences were not observed for take-off scenarios, primarily due to the absence of an alert: either the scenario did not progress to a point where an alert was generated, or the alert was inhibited above 80 knots per the system design.