Hostname: page-component-669899f699-tzmfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-27T21:48:31.046Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A rating scale for the subjective assessment of simulation fidelity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2016

P. Perfect ,
E. Timson ,
M. D. White ,
G. D. Padfield ,
R. Erdos  and
A. W. Gubbels
P. Perfect*
Affiliation:
University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK
E. Timson
Affiliation:
University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK
M. D. White
Affiliation:
University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK
G. D. Padfield
Affiliation:
University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK
R. Erdos
Affiliation:
Flight Research Laboratory, National Research Council, Ottawa, Canada
A. W. Gubbels
Affiliation:
Flight Research Laboratory, National Research Council, Ottawa, Canada
*
p.perfect@liverpool.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A new rating scale for capturing pilot subjective assessment of simulation fidelity is described in this paper. The scale has been developed through a series of flight and simulation trials using six test pilots from a variety of backgrounds, and is based on the methodology utilised with the Cooper-Harper Handling Qualities Rating scale and the concepts of transfer of training, comparative task performance and task strategy adaptation. The development of the new rating scale has been undertaken using simulations of rotary-wing aircraft on the University of Liverpool’s HELIFLIGHT-R research simulator, in conjunction with the Canadian Flight Research Laboratory’s Bell 412 ASRA in-flight simulator. The utility of the scale applied to locating fidelity boundaries for quantitative metrics is illustrated for an inter-axis coupling criterion. The work described in this paper is preliminary in nature, and research activities are on-going to continue the validation of the fidelity rating scale.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 118 , Issue 1206 , August 2014 , pp. 953 - 974
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Aeronautical Society 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

1. JAA, JAR-FSTD H, Helicopter flight simulation training devices, May 2008, Joint Aviation Authorities.Google Scholar
2. FAA, FAA Advisory Circular AC120-63, Helicopter simulator qualification, November 1994, Federal Aviation Administration.Google Scholar
3. JAA, JAR-STD 1H, Helicopter Flight Simulators, April 2001, Joint Aviation Authorities.Google Scholar
4. White, M.D., Perfect, P., Padfield, G.D., Gubbels, A.W. and Berryman, A.C. Progress in the development of unifed fdelity metrics for rotorcraft flight simulators, May 2010, 66th Annual Forum of the American Helicopter Society, Phoenix, AZ, USA.Google Scholar
5. Perfect, P., White, M.D., Padfield, G.D., Gubbels, A.W. and Berryman, A.C. Integrating predicted and perceived fidelity for flight simulators, September 2010, 36th European Rotorcraft Forum, Paris, France.Google Scholar
6. Perfect, P., White, M.D., Padfield, G.D., Gubbels, A.W. and Berryman, A.C. Rotorcraft simulation fidelity: new methods for quantification and assessment, Aeronaut J, March 2013, 117, (1189), pp 235–282.Google Scholar
7. Szalai, K.J. Validation of a general purpose airborne simulator for simulation of large transport aircraft handling qualities, October 1971, NASA TN-D-6431.Google Scholar
8. Cooper, G.E. and Harper, R.P. The use of pilot rating in the evaluation of aircraft handling qualities, April 1969, NASA TN-D-5153.Google Scholar
9. Hagin, W.V., Osborne, S.R., Hockenberger, R.L., Smith, J.P. and Gray, T.H. Operational test and evaluation handbook for aircrew training devices: operational effectiveness evaluation, AFHRL-TR-81-44(ii), February 1982.Google Scholar
10. Advani, S.K. and Wilkinson, C.H. Dynamic interface modelling and simulation ― a unique challenge, November 2001, The Challenge of Realistic Rotorcraft Simulation, RAeS Conference, London, UK.Google Scholar
11. Zivan, L. and Tischler, M.B. Development of a full flight envelope helicopter simulation using system identification, J American Helicopter Soc, 55, pp 22003 1-15.Google Scholar
12. USAAMC, ADS-33E-PRF, Handling qualities requirements for military rotorcraft, March 2000, US Army.Google Scholar
13. Key, D.L., Blanken, C.L. and Hoh, R.H. Some lessons learned in three years with ADS-33C, Piloting Vertical Flight Aircraft’, a conference on flying qualities and human factors, 1993, NASA CP 3220.Google Scholar
14. White, M.D., Perfect, P., Padfield, G.D., Gubbels, A.W. and Berryman, A.C. Acceptance testing of a rotorcraft flight simulator for research and teaching, Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part G: J Aerospace Eng, March 2012, DOI: 10.1177/0954410012439816Google Scholar
15. Gubbels, A.W. and Ellis, D.K. NRC Bell 412 ASRA FBW systems description in ATA100 format, April 2000, Institute for Aerospace Research, National Research Council Canada, Report LTR-FR-163.Google Scholar
16. Heffley, R.K. et al. Determination of motion and visual system requirements for flight training simulators August 1981, Systems Technology, Technical Report No. 546.Google Scholar
17. ICAO, Manual of criteria for the qualification of flight simulation training devices, Volume 2 – helicopters (Draft), Volume 2, 3rd Edition, 2011, ICAO 9625.Google Scholar
18. Jennings, M. Introduction to and overview of IWG on helicopter FSTDs, November 2010, The Challenges for Flight Simulation ― The Next Steps, RAeS Conference, London, UK.Google Scholar
19. Phillips, M. The H-IWG training matrix: unlocking the mystery, November 2010, The Challenges for Flight Simulation ― The Next Steps, RAeS Conference, London, UK.Google Scholar
20. Go, T.H., Bürki-Cohen, J., Chung, W.W., Schroeder, J., Saillant, G., Jacobs, S. and Longridge, T. The effects of enhanced hexapod motion on airline pilot recurrent training and evaluation, 2003, AIAA Modeling and Simulation Technologies Conference, AIAA.Google Scholar
21. DuVal, R.W. A real-time multi-body dynamics architecture for rotorcraft simulation, November 2001, The Challenge of Realistic Rotorcraft Simulation, RAeS Conference, London, UK.Google Scholar
22. Manimala, B.J., Walker, D.J., Padfield, G.D., Voskuijl, M. and Gubbels, A.W. Rotorcraft simulation modelling and validation for control law design, Aeronaut J, 2007, 111, (1126), pp 77–88.Google Scholar
23. Blanken, C.L., Hoh, R.H., Mitchell, D.G. and Key, D.L. Test Guide for ADS-33E-PRF, July 2008, Special Report AMR-AF-08-07, US Army AMRDEC.Google Scholar
24. Timson, E., Perfect, P., White, M.D., Padfield, G.D. and Erdos, R. Pilot sensitivity to flight model dynamics in flight simulation, September 2011, 37th European Rotorcraft Forum, Gallarate, Italy.Google Scholar
25. Tischler, M.B. and Remple, R.K. Aircraft and Rotorcraft System Identification: Engineering Methods with Flight Test Examples, 2006, AIAA Education Series, Reston, VA, USA.Google Scholar
26. Timson, E., Perfect, P., White, M.D., Padfield, G.D., Erdos, R. and Gubbels, A.W. Subjective fidelity assessment of rotorcraft flight training simulators, May 2012, 68th Annual Forum of the American Helicopter Society, Fort Worth, TX, USA.Google Scholar