CEAS Aeronautical Journal

, Volume 4, Issue 4, pp 385–396 | Cite as

Effects of visual and motion cues in flight simulation of ship-borne helicopter operations

  • Yaxing WangEmail author
  • Mark White
  • Ieuan Owen
  • Steven Hodge
  • George Barakos
Original Paper


Good visual cues are necessary in the flight simulation of ship-borne helicopter operations. Operating in a degraded visual environment cues has a negative impact on pilot workload and task performance. However, the need for motion cues in piloted flight simulation is still a widely debated issue. This paper describes a preliminary piloted flight simulation study into the effects of visual and motion cues on the operation of ship-borne helicopters and pilot workload. Unsteady CFD airwakes have been computed and integrated into the FLIGHTLAB modelling and simulation environment with a simulated rotorcraft model, configured to be representative of an SH-60B helicopter. A series of ship-deck landing and hover manoeuvres have been conducted using the University of Liverpool’s HELIFLIGHT-R motion-base flight simulator representing different visual and motion cues, for a range of ship airwakes and sea states (ship deck motions). The usable cue environment (UCE), handling quality and pilot workload ratings were assessed using visual cue ratings, handling quality rating and the Bedford workload rating scale and Deck Interface Pilot Effort Scale. This paper presents the results from simulation trials with two test pilots examining the effect of the simulation cueing on task performance and workload. Visual cues were found to have a significant impact both on the UCE ratings and pilot workload ratings. In degraded visual environments, the pilot’s ability to make corrections in attitude and translational rates was reduced. Pilots experienced higher workload in terms of compensatory control inputs to complete the same mission task as compared to operations in a good visual environment. Analysis of the pilots’ workload ratings and control activity show that motion cueing can cause differences in pilot perceived workload. For the simulation of ship-borne operations, the impacts of motion cueing are dependent on other simulation conditions, which include visual environments, airwake, sea states and ship deck motion. The effect of motion cueing on pilot workload and control activity was found to be more significant when the visual cueing was degraded. The variations in pilot workload ratings and control activities under different motion and visual cues indicate that the Ship Helicopter Operating Limits can be affected by the simulation cueing fidelity.


Flight Simulator Rotorcraft Fidelity Ship helicopter operating limits 



The financial support from AgustaWestland through the AgustaWestland-Liverpool Advanced Rotorcraft Centre (AWLARC) is gratefully acknowledged. Special thanks also go to test pilots Andy Berryman and Steven Cheyne for their hard work and professionalism during the trials.


  1. 1.
    Zan, S.J.: On aerodynamic modelling and simulation of the dynamic interface. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part G Aerosp. Eng. 219, 393–410 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Padfield, G.D.: Helicopter flight dynamics. Blackwell (2007)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Roscoe, M.F., Thompson, J.H.: JSHIP’s dynamic interface modelling and simulation system: a simulation of the UH-60A Helicopter/LHA Shipboard Environment Task. In: 59th Annual Forum, Phoenix, AZ, 6–8 May 2003Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hodge, S.J.: Dynamic interface modelling and simulation fidelity criteria. PhD thesis, School of Engineering, The University of Liverpool, Liverpool (2010)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    White, M.D., Perfect, P., Padfield, G.D. Gubbels, A.W., Berryman, A.C.: Acceptance testing and commissioning of a flight simulator for rotorcraft simulation fidelity research. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part G J. Aerosp. Engi. 227(4) (2013)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hodge, S., Forrest, J., Padfield, G., White, M.: Determining fidelity standards for maritime rotorcraft simulation. In: RAeS conference on Maritime operations of rotorcraft, June (2008)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Forrest, J.S., Owen, I.: Investigation of ship airwakes using detached-eddy simulation. Comput. Fluids 39, 656–673 (2010)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hodge, S.J., Zan, S.J., Roper, D.M., Padfield, G.D., Owen, I.: Time-accurate ship airwake and unsteady aerodynamic loads modelling for maritime helicopter simulation. J. Am. Helicopter Soc. 54(2) (2009)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Aeronautical design standard, performance specification, handling qualities requirements for military rotorcraft, US Army Aviation and Missile Command, ADS-33E-PRF, Mar (2000)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Padfield, G.D.: Handling qualities criteria for maritime helicopter operations. In: American Helicopter Society 53rd Annual Forum, Virginia Beach, Virginia, May (1997)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mitchell, D.G., Nicoll, T.K.: New ADS-33 requirements for cargo and maritime operations. In: American Helicopter Society 65th Annual Forum, Grapevine, Texas (2009)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bürki-Cohen, J., Boothe, E.M., Soja, N.N., DiSario, R.D., Go, T., Longridge, T.: Simulator fidelity—the effect of platform motion. In: Proceedings of the Royal Aeronautical Society Conference on Flight Simulation. The Next Decade, London (2000)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Allerton, D.: Principles of flight simulation. Wiley, London (2009)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    McCauley, M.E.: Do army helicopter training simulators need motion bases? In: Technical Report 1176. Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey (2006)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hall, J.R.: The need for platform motion in modern piloted flight training simulators. In: Technical Memorandum FM35. The Royal Aerospace Establishment, Bedford (1989)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Schroeder, J.A.: Helicopter flight simulation motion platform requirements. In: Technical Report NASA/TP-1000-208766. NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA (1999)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Cooper, G.E., Harper, Jr., R.P.: The Use of Pilot Rating in the Evaluation of Aircraft Handling Qualities. NASA TN D-5153, April (1969)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Roscoe, A.H., Ellis, G.A.: A Subjective Ratings Scale for Assessing Pilot Workload in Flight: A Decade of Practical Use. Technical Report TR90019, RAE (1990)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hodge, S.J., Perfect, P., Padfield, G.D., White, M.D.: Optimising the cues available from a short stroke Hexapod motion platform. In: 67th Annual Forum of the American Helicopter Society, Virginia Beach, May (2011)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Cooper, J., Schierman, J., Horn, J.F., Yomchinda, T., O’Neill, E.: Handling qualities evaluation of an adaptive disturbance compensation system for ship-based rotorcraft. In: 67th Annual Forum of the American Helicopter Society, Virginia Beach (2011)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Deutsches Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt e.V. 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yaxing Wang
    • 1
    Email author
  • Mark White
    • 1
  • Ieuan Owen
    • 1
  • Steven Hodge
    • 1
  • George Barakos
    • 1
  1. 1.The University of LiverpoolLiverpoolUK

Personalised recommendations