Evaluation of Process Tracing Technique to Assess Pilot Situation Awareness in Air Combat Missions

Author(s):  
Ketut Sulistyawati ◽  
Yoon Ping Chui ◽  
Yeow Min Tham ◽  
Yeow Koon Wee
Author(s):  
Heikki Mansikka ◽  
Kai Virtanen ◽  
Don Harris ◽  
Jaakko Salomäki

This paper advances live (L), virtual (V), and constructive (C) simulation methodologies by introducing a new LVC simulation framework for the development of air combat tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTP). In the framework, TTP is developed iteratively in separate C-, V-, and L-simulation stages. This allows the utilization of the strengths of each simulation class while avoiding the challenges of pure LVC simulations. The C-stage provides the optimal TTP with respect to the probabilities of survival ( Ps) and kill ( Pk) of aircraft without considering the human–machine interaction (HMI). In the V-stage, the optimal TTP is modified by assessing its applicability with Pk and Ps, as well as HMI measures regarding pilots’ situation awareness, mental workload, and TTP adherence. In the L-stage, real aircraft are used to evaluate whether the developed TTP leads to acceptable Pk, Ps, and HMI measures in a real-life environment. The iterative nature of the framework enables that V- or L-stages can reveal flaws of the TTP and an inadequate TTP can be returned to the C- or V-stage for revision. This paper is Part 1 of a two-part study. Part 2 demonstrates the use of the framework with operationally used C- and V-simulators as well as real F/A-18C aircraft and pilots.


Author(s):  
Lawrence J. Hettinger ◽  
W. Todd Nelson ◽  
Michael W. Haas

The use of multi-sensory displays for fighter aircraft cockpits is being investigated at the U.S. Air Force's Armstrong Laboratory as a means of enhancing pilot performance. The current experiment was conducted to evaluate the effect of employing such displays on the performance of a simulated air combat task. Each of four experienced US Air Force F-16 pilots flew 12 simulated missions which required them to locate and destroy four enemy bombers whose flight path was pre-programmed. Simultaneously, two other pilots were assigned to auxiliary cockpits in the laboratory and flew enemy fighter aircraft in an attempt to intercept and shoot down the primary pilot. Therefore there were three active participants in each air combat scenario. Each pilot flew six trials using a cockpit comprised of conventional F-15 flight instruments and six trials using a modified, multi-sensory cockpit. The results indicated that pilot performance and situation awareness were generally superior with the multi-sensory cockpit as opposed to the conventional cockpit, although statistical differences between the two were at best marginally significant. Nevertheless, the results suggest that if pilots were to receive advance training with the multi-sensory cockpit their performance may exceed that in the highly overlearned conventional cockpit by even more substantial amounts.


Author(s):  
Brian T. Schreiber ◽  
Herbert H. Bell ◽  
William B. Raspotnik

In an exploratory study, we examined whether communication could distinguish between high- or low-situation awareness (SA) F-15 lead pilots. With aid from an assigned wingman and an air weapons controller, the lead pilots flew 36 simulated combat engagements. Two measures of SA were utilized. First, ratings of SA were obtained from the operational squadrons. Second, subject matter experts based SA ratings of 40 lead pilots on (a) 28 critical behaviors identified in a task analysis, and (b) behaviors such as communication. Subsequent rankings from both SA measures revealed that, during the simulated engagements, high-situation awareness pilots directed team members more frequently and requested more information. Despite the varied complex simulated engagements, communication patterns were stable; lead pilots' communications were similar for identical engagements that were flown both early and late in the study. Larger studies using a correlational approach with communication categorization are suggested.


Author(s):  
Heikki Mansikka ◽  
Kai Virtanen ◽  
Don Harris ◽  
Jaakko Salomäki

In this paper, the use of the live (L), virtual (V), and constructive (C) simulation framework introduced in Part 1 of this two-part study is demonstrated in the testing and evaluation of air combat tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTP). Each TTP consists of rules that describe how aircraft pilots coordinate their actions to achieve goals in air combat. In the demonstration, the initial rules are defined by subject matter experts (SMEs). These rules are refined iteratively in separate C-, V-, and L-simulation stages. In the C-stage, an operationally used C-simulation model is used to provide optimal rules with respect to the probabilities of survival ( Ps) and kill ( Pk) of aircraft without considering human–machine interaction (HMI). In the V-stage, fighter squadrons’ V-simulators and SMEs’ assessment are used to modify these rules by evaluating their applicability with Pk and Ps, as well as HMI measures regarding pilots’ situation awareness, mental workload, and TTP rule adherence. In the L-stage, qualified fighter pilots fly F/A-18C aircraft in a real-life environment. Based on SMEs’ assessment, the TTP rules refined in the C- and L-stages result in acceptable Pk, Ps, and HMI measures in the L-stage. As such, the demonstration highlights the utility of the LVC framework.


2004 ◽  
Author(s):  
Parsa Mirhaji ◽  
S. Lillibridge ◽  
R. Richesson ◽  
J. Zhang ◽  
J. Smith

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document