Motion Cueing From Sensation to Sensibility Sunjoo Advani IDT WATS 2009 Orlando

1 Position Motion is not always well understood It’s easy to ask for a lot It’s even easier to ask for NONE No motion is better than poor motion What is required? What is feasible and affordable?

2 Safety Issues Piloting duties: Fly Navigate Communicate Organize Handling skills must be maintained despite automation Concerns of loss of skills retention: Short-haul pilots – 15 hours/year Long-haul pilots – 15 manual take-offs/landings; 30 minutes/year The only place where skills can be retained is the FSTD

3 Motion Feedback in Reality “Motion”comes from many sources: Eyes Body Vestibular From childhood, we learn to integrate these and use them to control self-motion Each sensory path has its own dynamics: Vestibular & Bodyfast Peripheral visualslower Central visualslowest Take away one, and other channels have to adapt

4 Motion Research Large body of research on flight simulator motion Focus of research is on proper generation of cues Some on transfer of training

5 Motion Cueing Fidelity

6 Flight Training Goals Motion should support the training task Bad motion must be avoided Good motion contributes to correct responses Today’s tests: Robotic test (what the system is capable of doing during operation) Subjective test (what the pilot thinks it’s doing during operation This can lead to inconsistency

7 Current Tests Robotic Tests Frequency response Leg balance Transport delay Turnaround Functional Subjective Tests There is NO objective testing of the total motion gain and phase

8 High-pass / low-pass filtering

9

10 High-pass / low-pass filtering

11 Motion Drive Algorithm Flight Model High-Pass Translation Low-Pass Translation High-Pass Rotation a/c linear accels a/c angular accels Motion System Sim translation command Sim rotation command + + Each block contains many coefficients that determine response

12 Motion Cueing Algorithms Transfer Function of aircraft attitude to simulator attitude, Classical Washout Short Period Nat. Freq. Small Heli

13 Objective Motion Cueing Test Implemented in ICAO 9625 Enhance current practices. Supported by analytical and experimental knowledge. Easy to interpret. Independent of the technology within the simulator. Standardized analysis techniques and tools. Acceptable to all major stakeholders Benefits to training: 1.Identify deficiencies (and show why) 2.Equalize motion simulation 3.Quantify motion cueing

14 Objective Motion Cueing Test Motion Cueing Algorithm In the frequency range that pilots manually control, we need the simulator to respond with: Relatively high gain Relatively low phase OMCT is END-TO-END test of motion cueing performance: Motion Cueing Algorithm Motion System Response (6 DOF) Motion Transport Delay OMCT bounds the acceptable gain and phase in End-to-End response O M C T

15 Objective Motion Cueing Test Advani-Hosman Motion Criterion (1 rad/s to 2.5 X A/C) Gain and Phase Distortion Boundaries Natural Mode Small Transport

16 Objective Motion Cueing Test Motion Criterion Advani-Hosman (1 rad/s to 2.5 X A/C) Gain and Phase Distortion Boundaries Natural Mode, Large Transport

17 The road ahead

18 Status Tests introduced in ICAO 9625 Need to define the criteria associated with tests Define what is required to improve overall quality Requires additional research – and YOUR support! Breda, The Netherlands

19 Conclusions New tests make life easier Less dependence on pilot conjecture and subjectivity Easier interpretation for qualification Meaningful way of putting motion cueing in a visible form Making “sense” out of subjectivity