Pilot gaze and glideslope control
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We examined the eye movements of pilots as they carried out simulated aircraft landings under day and night lighting conditions. Our five students and five certified pilots were instructed to quickly achieve and then maintain a constant 3-degree glideslope relative to the runway. However, both groups of pilots were found to make significant glideslope control errors, especially during simulated night approaches. We found that pilot gaze was directed most often toward the runway and to the ground region located immediately in front of the runway, compared to other visual scene features. In general, their gaze was skewed toward the near half of the runway and tended to follow the runway threshold as it moved on the screen. Contrary to expectations, pilot gaze was not consistently directed at the aircraft's simulated aimpoint (i.e., its predicted future touchdown point based on scene motion). However, pilots did tend to fly the aircraft so that this point was aligned with the runway threshold. We conclude that the supplementary out-of-cockpit visual cues available during day landing conditions facilitated glideslope control performance. The available evidence suggests that these supplementary visual cues are acquired through peripheral vision, without the need for active fixation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".