China
Africa
Explore chapters and articles related to this topic
Device characterization
Published in Sharma Gaurav, Digital Color Imaging Handbook, 2017
Most visual approaches rely on observers making color matching judgments. Typically, a varying stimulus produced by a given device is compared against a reference stimulus of known measurement. When a visual match is reported, this effectively provides a measurement for the varying stimulus and can be correlated with the device value that produced the stimulus. The major advantage of a visual approach is that it does not require expensive measurement instrumentation. Proponents also argue that the best color measurement device is the human visual system, because, after all, this is the basis for colorimetry. However, these approaches have their limitations. First, to achieve reliable results, the visual task must be easy to execute. This imposes severe limits on the number and nature of measurements that can be made. Second, observer-to-observer variation will produce measurements and a characterization that may not be satisfactory to all observers. Nevertheless, visual techniques are appealing in cases where the characterization can be described by a simple model and thus derived with a few simple measurements. The most common application of visual approaches is thus found in CRT characterization, discussed further in Section 5.8.3.
Navigation
Published in Suzanne K. Kearns, Fundamentals of International Aviation, 2018
For aircraft approaching to land at a controlled airport, a visual approach (i.e., a non-instrument approach) may be used if the visibility is good. For a visual approach, a pilot can see the runway and is therefore able to land using visual reference without needing additional support from ATC. However, under poor weather conditions (or at the pilot’s choosing), an instrument approach procedure (IAP) is used. IAPs are divided into four stages: 1) initial approach, 2) intermediate approach, 3) final approach, and 4) missed approach procedures (if the landing is aborted).7
Flying by Feeling: Communicating Flight Envelope Protection through Haptic Feedback
Published in International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 2021
Dirk Van Baelen, M. M. (René) van Paassen, Joost Ellerbroek, David A. Abbink, Max Mulder
To evaluate this design, an experiment involving eleven Airbus pilots was conducted in the SIMONA research simulator, see Figure 3a (Van Baelen et al., 2020). It is a simulator with a full-fledged flight deck shell, over 180 degrees outside visual, a side stick on the right, rudder pedals in front, and throttle lever and flap levers to the left. Pilots were asked to manually fly two different approaches: a visual approach with elevated workload due to the procedure, and an instrument approach without outside visibility. During the visual approach, they encountered a windshear which required them to operate the aircraft move close to its limits during the recovery. In the instrument approach, ice was building on the aircraft wings, deteriorating the aerodynamic properties and resulting in the aircraft limits nearing the current state. The windshear scenario was flown in both the normal and alternate control law discussed above, the icing scenario was only flown using the alternate control due to limitations of the simulation. All pilots flew the three resulting scenarios with and without the haptic feedback system in a randomized Latin-square order.
Susceptibility to Flight Simulator-Induced Spatial Disorientation in Pilots and Non-Pilots
Published in The International Journal of Aerospace Psychology, 2020
Rafał Lewkowicz, Bibianna Bałaj, Piotr Francuz
For all the flight profiles in the disorientation condition, only specific flight parameters were analyzed after the onset of disorientation cues. The bank angle in the S&LF, S&LFALT, and S&LFART flight profiles was measured when subjects were supposed to maintain wings-level flight (while the sloping cloud deck was visible or during the post-rotatory illusion), and in the RBT flight profile during tilting of the head in pitch and roll when subjects were supposed to maintain a 30° bank (Coriolis illusion). The vertical velocity in the C-T-LP and S-IA flight profiles was measured when subjects were instructed to maintain a visual approach along with glide slope during landing (an up-sloping runway was present in the conflict flight). For the control conditions, the same specific flight parameters from the corresponding parts of the conflict flight profiles were analyzed. More details about the specific flight parameters can be found in our earlier paper (Lewkowicz, Stróżak, et al., 2018).
An Investigation into the Factors that Affect Miscommunication between Pilots and Air Traffic Controllers in Commercial Aviation
Published in The International Journal of Aerospace Psychology, 2019
Qiong Wu, Brett R. C. Molesworth, Dominique Estival
The units of analysis in this study were pairs of transmissions, where the first transmission was initiated by ATC and contained instructions or requests requiring a response from the pilot in the form of a readback (Clark & Schaefer, 1987; Morrow, Rodvold, & Lee, 1994). Miscommunication is defined as “a situation in which a message is not understandable in content, speech (accent), structure, accuracy of readback, or any combination” (Prinzo & Hendrix, 2008). Consistent with Estival and Molesworth (2016), instances of miscommunications were categorized as either omissions or mistakes (incorrect readback); they were further coded for the number of items incorrectly read back or omitted, the type of items involving an error, and the category (number or word) of the erroneous items. An item is defined as a word or phrase (i.e., set of words) which either specifies an action the pilot needs to perform or which contains a piece of information, such as Callsign, Route, Altitude, Frequency, Transponder code, etc., which the pilot must acknowledge, as per the Aeronautical Information Publication (AIP) manual (AirServices Australia, 2014). For instance, the following ATC transmission in (1) contains four items. “China Southern 325, runway 34 left, cancel STAR, expect independent visual approach.”