An experimental evaluation of head-up display formats

Three types of head-up display format are investigated. Type 1 is an unreferenced (conventional) flight director, type 2 is a ground referenced flight path display, and type 3 is a ground referenced director. Formats are generated by computer and presented by reflecting collimation against a simulated forward view in flight. Pilots, holding commercial licenses, fly approaches in the instrument flight mode and in a combined instrument and visual flight mode. The approaches are in wind shear with varied conditions of visibility, offset, and turbulence. The displays are equivalent in pure tracking but there is a slight advantage for the unreferenced director in poor conditions. Flight path displays are better for tracking in the combined flight mode, possibly because of poor director control laws and the division of attention between superimposed fields. Workloads is better for the type 2 displays. The flight path and referenced director displays are criticized for effects of symbol motion and field limiting. In the subjective judgment of pilots familiar with the director displays, they are rated clearly better than path displays, with a preference for the unreferenced director. There is a fair division of attention between superimposed fields