<title>Effects of field-of-view on pilot performance in night vision goggles flight trials: preliminary findings</title>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Night vision goggles (NVGs) allow pilots to see and navigate under minimal levels of illumination. While NVGs allow the user to see more than they typically could under these levels of illumination, the visual information provided by NVGs has a limited field-of-view. The size of the field-of- view can diminish the pilot's spatial orientation ability in the night flying environment. We examined pilot performance in low level helicopter flight while the pilots were using NVGs with 40 degree(s), and 52 degree(s) fields-of-view. The pilots flew a standardized ADS-33D hover maneuver in a Bell 206 helicopter equipped with an accurate position measurement system. The tests were conducted in simulated night conditions and both subjective and objective measures of task performance were obtained. Pilot Cooper-Harper ratings increased from Level 1 baseline ratings to Level 2 ratings when the NVGs were used, indicating worse performance when using the NVGs. Small rating differences were noticed between the 52 degree(s) and 40 degree(s) field-of-view conditions. Similar trends were noticed in the objective data of altitude, and lateral and longitudinal station keeping errors.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".