LEADER 03563nam  2200445Ia 450 
001 9910695351403321
005 20061010135824.0
035   $a(CKB)5470000002369236
035   $a(OCoLC)72461493
035   $a(EXLCZ)995470000002369236
100   $a20061010d2005      ua             0
101 0 $aeng
135   $aurbz|---|||||
181   $ctxt$2rdacontent
182   $cc$2rdamedia
183   $acr$2rdacarrier
200 00$aComparison of a typical electronic attitude-direction indicator with terrain-depicting primary flight displays for performing recoveries from unknown attitudes$b[electronic resource] $eusing difference and equivalence tests : final report /$fDennis B. Beringer ... [and others]
210  1$aWashington, D.C. :$cFederal Aviation Administration, Office of Aerospace Medicine ;$aFt. Belvior, Va. :$cAvailable to the public through the Defense Technical Information Center ;$aSpringfield, Va. :$cAvailable to the public through the National Technical Information Service,$d2005.
215   $aiii, 7 pages $cdigital, PDF file
300   $aTitle from title screen (viewed on Oct. 10, 2006)..
300   $a"December 2005."
300   $a"DOT/FAA/AM-05/23."
320   $aIncludes bibliographical references (page 7).
330   $aA study was conducted to determine if primary flight displays (PFDs) depicting terrain could be used with a level of safety equivalent to electronic attitude-direction indicators (EADIs) without terrain. Five groups of 8 pilots each flew scenarios in a flight simulator using one of three PFDs (EADI, full-color terrain, uniformly brown terrain) with or without guidance cues. Performances of recoveries from unknown attitudes using the EADI were measured first as a baseline, followed by trials with one of the experimental formats. Performance measures included initial response time, total recovery time, and both initial and secondary control reversals. Traditional "difference" analyses found no significant performance differences between groups. Analyses using confidence intervals to assess equivalence of distributions showed that group performances were practically equivalent. Pilot preferences were examined and are reported. It was concluded that the specific terrain representations examined provided for performance at least equal to if not better than the conventional EADI. This comparative technique is recommended for situations in which one wishes to demonstrate that a proposed device or system is no worse than or roughly equivalent to something already in use.
517   $aComparison of a typical electronic attitude-direction indicator with terrain-depicting primary flight displays for performing recoveries from unknown attitudes 
606   $aAeronautical instruments$xDisplay systems$xEvaluation
606   $aAeronautics$xSafety measures
615  0$aAeronautical instruments$xDisplay systems$xEvaluation.
615  0$aAeronautics$xSafety measures.
701   $aBeringer$b Dennis B$g(Dennis Bruce),$f1950-$01382824
712 02$aUnited States.$bOffice of Aerospace Medicine.
712 02$aUnited States.$bFederal Aviation Administration.
712 02$aCivil Aerospace Medical Institute.
712 02$aUniversity of Oklahoma.$bSchool of Industrial Engineering.
801  0$bGPO
801  1$bGPO
906   $aBOOK
912   $a9910695351403321
996   $aComparison of a typical electronic attitude-direction indicator with terrain-depicting primary flight displays for performing recoveries from unknown attitudes$93428706
997   $aUNINA