Masters Theses

Date of Award

8-2005

Degree Type

Thesis

Degree Name

Master of Science

Major

Aviation Systems

Major Professor

Richard Ranaudo

Committee Members

R. B. Richards, G. W. Masters

Abstract

As the service life of aging military aircraft are extended and these aircraft are tasked with new missions they were never designed to support, military aircraft are constantly being upgraded with new systems and avionics. Additionally, many legacy aircraft have poor cockpit layouts or incorporate older displays that are not compatible with or require extensive modification to support these new technologies. Unfortunately, many acquisition programs do not have the luxury of an unlimited budget and schedule to complete the required upgrades. One alternative is to incorporate a portable electronic device or PED into the cockpit. These devices can provide moving maps, real time intelligence information, or simply transition to a paperless cockpit. Adding a PED can be a cheaper and easier alternative than redesigning the entire cockpit. Although PEDs have some cost and schedule benefits, the human factors concerns can often overshadow the money and time saved using these devices.

This paper investigates the human factors and aircrew systems design considerations when integrating laptop, pentablet, and personal digital assistant (PDA) type devices into attack and strike-fighter fixed wing aircraft. The range of issues that human factors engineers must consider with any potential PED is wide-ranging, from display readability to operator training and from user interface to degraded system operation. This paper focuses on the hardware integration requirements for PEDs in tactical fixed wing aircraft. While software functionality and aircrew workload are important factors that must be considered for any system, these issues are outside the scope of this paper. When integrating a PED system, there are six critical operational issues (COI) every system must meet before it can be considered operationally effective and suitable for the cockpit environment. The six PED COIs are:

  • The display must be easily readable under all anticipated lighting conditions ranging from direct sunlight to night time operations. Also, the display must have adequate off axis readability if the display is not in the pilot’s primary field of view or if shared by two crew members.

  • The display lighting must be compatible with existing cockpit lighting, including night vision imaging systems (NVIS). Lighting compatibility affects both internal and external cockpit vision and the ability to shift focus from outside to inside the cockpit and vice versa.

  • The input devices and controls must allow for fast, accurate data entry and system optimization to present mission critical information in the desired format at the appropriate time.

  • The PED must be integrated into the cockpit so it is easily accessible to the pilot while not restricting the pilot’s access to other cockpit controls and displays.

  • If the PED is used as an electronic kneeboard, it must be properly secured so the device remains firmly in place and is comfortable to wear, especially during dynamic maneuvering and extended combat missions.

The PED must not interfere with normal and emergency ingress and egress, including the ejection process. Also, the PED should not increase the risk of injury during an emergency egress scenario.

For each COI, military and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) human factors, cockpit guidelines, and specifications are outlined and applied to PED use in a military cockpit. This paper examines several fielded systems used in both commercial and military aviation, as well as potential Commercial Off the Shelf (COTS) systems. Ground and flight test reports for fielded and developmental PEDs provide examples as to how these guidelines and specifications apply to PED integration into the cockpit. Finally, the author, a Navy test pilot with experience employing PEDs in tactical cockpits, provides an aviator perspective to these guidelines and specifications in a combat environment.

Based on the PED COIs, military specifications presented, and lessons learned from currently deployed PED systems, five conclusions were made when conducting this evaluation:

  • Pentablet computers are preferred over laptops and PDAs.

  • PEDs should not serve as the primary indicator of safety of flight or mission critical information.

  • Integrating COTS systems does not guarantee cost and schedule savings.

  • Touch screens and reprogrammable push buttons are the optimum control option.

  • PEDs should be mounted on kneeboards vice the instrument panel.

PEDs have excellent potential to fulfill many roles in the tactical cockpit, including electronic checklists, navigation charts, and real time weapon system control. While PEDs may not be the perfect solution to many system integration problems, they are viable options that deserve further consideration by any program manager or acquisition professional.

Download
Files over 3MB may be slow to open. For best results, right-click and select "save as..."

Included in

Aviation Commons

Share

COinS