Leans Illusion in Hexapod Simulator Facilitates Erroneous Responses to Artificial Horizon in Airline Pilots.

OBJECTIVE: We tested whether a procedure in a hexapod simulator can cause incorrect assumptions of the bank angle (i.e., the "leans") in airline pilots as well as incorrect interpretations of the attitude indicator (AI). BACKGROUND: The effect of the leans on interpretation errors has previously been demonstrated in nonpilots. In-flight, incorrect assumptions can arise due to misleading roll cues (spatial disorientation). METHOD: Pilots (n = 18) performed 36 runs, in which they were asked to roll to wings level using only the AI. They received roll cues before the AI was shown, which matched with the AI bank angle direction in most runs, but which were toward the opposite direction in a leans-opposite condition (four runs). In a baseline condition (four runs), they received no roll cues. To test whether pilots responded to the AI, the AI sometimes showed wings level following roll cues in a leans-level condition (four runs). RESULTS: Overall, pilots made significantly more errors in the leans-opposite (19.4%) compared to the baseline (6.9%) or leans-level condition (0.0%). There was a pronounced learning effect in the leans-opposite condition, as 38.9% of pilots made an error in the first exposure to this condition. Experience (i.e., flight hours) had no significant effects. CONCLUSION: The leans procedure was effective in inducing AI misinterpretations and control input errors in pilots. APPLICATION: The procedure can be used in spatial disorientation demonstrations. The results underline the importance of unambiguous displays that should be able to quickly correct incorrect assumptions due to spatial disorientation.

The effect of steering-system linearity, simulator motion, and truck driving experience on steering of an articulated tractor-semitrailer combination.

Steering systems of trucks consist of many linkages, which introduce nonlinearities that may negatively affect steering performance. Nowadays, it is possible to equip steering systems with actuators that provide artificial steering characteristics. However, before new steering systems are deployed in real vehicles, evaluation in a safe and controlled simulator environment is recommended. A much-debated question is whether experiments need to be performed in a motion-base simulator or whether a fixed-base simulator suffices. Furthermore, it is unknown whether simulator-based tests can be validly conducted with a convenience sample of university participants who have not driven a truck before. We investigated the effect of steering characteristic (i.e., nonlinear vs. linear) on drivers' subjective opinions about the ride and the steering system, and on their objective driving performance in an articulated tractor-semitrailer combination. Thirty-two participants (12 truck drivers and 20 university drivers) each completed eight 5.5-min drives in which the simulator's motion system was either turned on or off and the steering model either resembled a linear (i.e., artificial) or nonlinear (i.e., realistic) system. Per drive, participants performed a lane-keeping task, merged onto the highway, and completed four overtaking manoeuvers. Results showed that the linear steering system yielded less subjective and objective steering effort, and better lane-keeping performance, than the nonlinear system. Consistent with prior research, participants drove a wider path through curves when motion was on compared to when motion was off. Truck drivers exhibited higher steering activity than university drivers, but there were no significant differences between the two groups in lane keeping performance and steering effort. We conclude that for future truck steering systems, a linear system may be valuable for improving performance. Furthermore, the results suggest that on-centre evaluations of steering systems do not require a motion base, and should not be performed using a convenience sample of university students.