Evaluating a Helicopter Pilot HMI for Rotor Strike Warning in a Simulated Environment

  • Markus KaiserEmail author
  • Axel Schulte
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11472)


Helicopter pilots often encounter unknown situations especially while in tactical flight or during rescue missions where they are demanded to react adequately to occurring hazards. This requires the pilots to continuously monitor their systems as well as their environment particularly in confined areas where there are numerous obstacles reducing free space for helicopter maneuvers. In those environments, pilots need to have very precise knowledge about the position and, if somehow possible, the shape of obstacles around them to be able to avoid accidents. Existing assistance systems only marginally support the pilot in this task. The R&D project “Human-Machine Interface (HMI) for Rotor Strike Warning & Hostile Fire Indication” conducted partially at our institute aims to improve those shortcomings by offering the pilots additional information. The project’s goal is to design an HMI that is intuitively and efficiently usable by helicopter pilots. It uses aural as well as visual transmission of the required information. The paper describes this HMI concept as well as our helicopter simulator used for its verification. Additionally, based on the simulation environment VBS3 that is used in our simulator it explains which steps are necessary to provide the data required for the HMI concept evaluation. The paper concludes with an explanation of some possibilities for improvement, which are partly already planned for implementation.


HMI Rotor-Strike Warning Simulated environment 


  1. 1.
    Baker, S.P., Shanahan, D.F., Haaland, W., Brady, J.E., Li, G.: Helicopter crashes related to oil and gas operations in the Gulf of Mexico. Aviat. Space Environ. Med. 82, 885–889 (2011). Scholar
  2. 2.
    Nagaraj, V.T., Chopra, I.: Safety Study of Wire Strike Devices Installed on Civil and Military Helicopters (2008)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Waanders, T., et al.: Helicopter rotorstrike alerting system. In: 41st European Rotorcraft Forum (2015)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brunetti, M., Costa, C.: The guardian project: reasons, concept and advantages of a novel obstacle proximity lidar system. In: 40th European Rotorcraft Forum (2014)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ebrecht, L., Ernst, J.M., Döhler, H.-U., Schmerwitz, S.: Integration of an exocentric orthogonal coplanar 360 degree top view in a head worn see-through display supporting obstacle awareness for helicopter operations. In: Yamamoto, S., Mori, H. (eds.) HIMI 2018. LNCS, vol. 10905, pp. 369–382. Springer, Cham (2018). Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bronkhorst, A.W., Veltman, J.A. (Hans), Van Breda, L.: Application of a three-dimensional auditory display in a flight task. Hum. Factors J. Hum. Factors Ergon. Soc. 38, 23–33 (1996).
  7. 7.
    Simpson, B., et al.: 3D audio cueing for target identification in a simulated flight task. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, vol. 48, pp. 1836–1840 (2004).
  8. 8.
    King, R.B., Oldfield, S.R.: The impact of signal bandwidth on auditory localization: implications for the design of three-dimensional audio displays. Hum. Factors J. Hum. Factors Ergon. Soc. 39, 287–295 (1997). Scholar
  9. 9.
    Františ, P., Hodicky̌, J.: Human machine interface in command and control system. In: 2010 IEEE International Conference on Virtual Environments Human-Computer Interfaces and Measurement Systems Proceedings, VECIMS 2010, pp. 38–41 (2010).
  10. 10.
    Bowman, D.A., McMahan, R.P.: Virtual reality: how much immersion is enough? Computer (Long. Beach. Calif) 40, 36–43 (2007). Scholar
  11. 11.
    Tan, D.S., Gergle, D., Scupelli, P., Pausch, R.: With similar visual angles, larger displays improve spatial performance. In: Proceedings of the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI 2003, p. 217 (2003).
  12. 12.
    Tan, D.S., Gergle, D., Scupelli, P.G., Pausch, R.: Physically large displays improve path integration in 3D virtual navigation tasks. In: Proceedings of the 2004 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI 2004, vol. 6, pp. 439–446 (2004).
  13. 13.
    Bradley, D.R., Abelson, S.B.: Desktop flight simulators: simulation fidelity and pilot performance. Behav. Res. Methods Instrum. Comput. 27, 152–159 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Aalund, F.P.: A comparative study of screen-space ambient occlusion methods, vol. 1, pp. 1–59 (2013)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Swihart, D.E., et al.: Automatic ground collision avoidance system design, integration, & flight test. IEEE Aerosp. Electron. Syst. Mag. 26, 4–11 (2011). Scholar
  16. 16.
    Theißing, N., Liegel, A., Schulte, A.: Verhindern von Pilotenfehlern durch ein zustandsadaptives Assistenzsystem. In: Grandt, M., Schmerwitz, S. (eds.) Kooperation und kooperative Systeme in der Fahrzeug- und Prozessführung (DGLR-Bericht 2015-01), pp. 97–113 (2015)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Honecker, F., Brand, Y., Schulte, A.: A task-centered approach for workload-adaptive pilot associate systems. In: Proceedings of the 32rd Conference on European Association for Aviation Psychology, Cascais, Port, pp. 485–507 (2016)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Honecker, F., Schulte, A.: Automated online determination of pilot activity under uncertainty by using evidential reasoning. In: Harris, D. (ed.) EPCE 2017. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 10276, pp. 231–250. Springer, Cham (2017). Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wickens, C.D.: Multiple resources and performance prediction. Theor. Issues Ergon. Sci. 3, 159–177 (2002). Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Flight SystemsUniversity of the BundeswehrNeubibergGermany

Personalised recommendations