In-Flight Study of Helmet-Mounted Symbology System Concepts in Degraded Visual Environments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: During approach and departure in rotary wing aircraft, a sudden loss of external visual reference precipitates spatial disorientation. METHODS: There were 10 Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) Griffon pilots who participated in an in-flight investigation of a 3-dimensional conformal Helmet Display Tracking System (HDTS) and the BrownOut Symbology System (BOSS) aboard an Advanced System Research Aircraft. For each symbology system, pilots performed a two-stage departure followed by a single-stage approach. The presentation order of the two symbology systems was randomized across the pilots. Subjective measurements included situation awareness, mental effort, perceived performance, perceptual cue rating, NASA Task Load Index, and physiological response. Objective performance included aircraft speed, altitude, attitude, and distance from the landing point, control position, and control activity. Repeated measures analysis of variance and planned comparison tests for the subjective and objective responses were performed. RESULTS: For both maneuvers, the HDTS system afforded better situation awareness, lower workload, better perceptual cueing in attitude, horizontal and vertical translation, and lower overall workload index. During the two-stage departure, HDTS achieved less lateral drift from initial takeoff and hover, lower root mean square error (RMSE) in altitude during hover, and lower track error during the acceleration to forward flight. During the single-stage approach, HDTS achieved less error in lateral and longitudinal position offset from the landing point and lower RMSE in heading. DISCUSSION: In both maneuvers, pilots exhibited higher control activity when using HDTS, which suggested that more pertinent information was available to the pilots. Pilots preferred the HDTS system.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 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".