Advertisement

Technische Befähigung und Fliegen

  • Siegfried J. Gerathewohl
  • Deutschen Aeronautischen Gesellschaft E. V.

Zusammenfassung

Das Fliegen selbst ist eine Fortbewegungsart, die die Beherrschung des technischen Apparates voraussetzt. Diese Beherrschung ist — vom Anfänger abgesehen — ein quasi-Vorgang, eine Nebenhertätigkeit, der der geübte Flieger im normalen Flugzustand nicht viel mehr Beachtung schenkt als der Führer eines Kraftwagens auf einer ebenen und verkehrssicheren Landstraße. Man erinnere sich, welche Schwierigkeiten sich in den Anfangsstadien des Kraftfahrens ergaben, und welche Bedeutung den technischen Fragen anfangs beigemessen wurden. Der technischen Vervollkommnung zufolge, spielen diese Dinge heute kaum eine Rolle mehr; und bei den zur Erlangung eines Kraftfahrzeugführerscheins vorgeschriebenen Prüfungen wird dem technischen Teil kaum noch Beachtung geschenkt.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Ausgewählte Literatur

  1. Biel, W. C., and Warrick, M. J., Studies in perception of time delay. Rep. 75th Annual Meeting APA, Denver, Col. 1949.Google Scholar
  2. Bosee, R. A., and Gard, P. W., Aviation Medicine in the evaluation of new naval aircraft. J. Aviat. Med. 1951, 22, 518.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Brown, F. R., and Poppen, J. R., Visual problems in designing improved indirect lighting for aircraft cockpits. J. Aviat. Med. 1950, 21, 3.Google Scholar
  4. Browne, R. C., Comparative trial of two attitude indicators. A preliminary note. GB Air Ministry, FPRC 611, February 1945Google Scholar
  5. Chapanis, A., The quantitative measurements of visual fields. AAF Air Mat. Comm., Eng. Div., Techn. Rep. 5112, Wright Field 1944.Google Scholar
  6. Chapanis, A., Summary and evaluation of the status of research on the effect of the optical quality of transparent aircraft panels on vision. USAF Air Mat. Comm., Memo. Rep. TSEAA696–93, Wright Field 1946.Google Scholar
  7. Chapanis, A., Garner, W. R., and Morgan, C. T., Applied experimental psychology. New York 1949.Google Scholar
  8. Chapanis, A., Christensen, J. M., The effect of the staircase scale on dial reading accuracy. USAAF Air Mat. Comm., Eng. Div., MCREXD-694–1-P, Wright Field 1948.Google Scholar
  9. Cibis, P. A., Retinal adaptation in night flying. J. Aviat. Med. 1952, 23, 168.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Craik, K. J. W., Theory of human operator in control systems. II.: Man as an element in a control system. Brit. J. Psychol. 1948, 38, 142.Google Scholar
  11. Early, J. G., The navy ejectable cockpit. J. Aviat. Med. 1951, 22, 46.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Fitts, P. M., Psychological requirements in aviation equipment design. J. Aviat. Med. 1946, 17.Google Scholar
  13. Fitts, P. M., A study of location discrimination ability. AAF Aviat. Psychol. Progr. Res., Rep. 59, 1948.Google Scholar
  14. Fitts, P. M., Jones, R. E., Psychological aspects of instrument display. I.: Analysis of 270 ‘pilot-error’ experiences in reading and interpreting aircraft instruments. USAF Air. Mat. Comm., Eng. Div., TSEAA-694–12A, Wright Field 1947.Google Scholar
  15. Fitts, P. M., Jones, R. E., and Milton, J. L., Eye movements of aircraft pilots during instrument landing approaches. Aero. Engin. Rev. 1950, 9, I.Google Scholar
  16. Fitts, P. M., Simon, C. W., Effect of horizontal vs. vertical stimulus separation on performance in a dual-pursuit task. Rep. 75th Annual Meeting APA, Denver, Col. 1949.Google Scholar
  17. Forbes, T. W., Auditory signals for instrument flying. J. Aeronaut. Sc. 1946, 13.Google Scholar
  18. Grether, W., Discussion of pictorial versus symbolic aircraft instrument displays. USAAF Air Mat. Comm., Eng. Div., TSEAA-694–8B, Wright Field 1947.Google Scholar
  19. Grether, W., The effect of variations in indicator design upon speed and accuracy of altitude readings. USAAF Air. Mat. Comm., Eng. Div., TSEAA-694–14, Wright Field 1947.Google Scholar
  20. Grether, W., Survey of display problems in the design of aviation equipment. AAF Aviat. Psychol. Program Res., Rep. 19, 1948.Google Scholar
  21. Grether, W., Design of dock dials for greatest speed and accuracy of reading in military (2400-hour) system. AAF Aviat. Psychol. Program Res., Rep. 19, 1948.Google Scholar
  22. Grether, W., Williams, A. C., Speed and accuracy of dial reading as a function of dial diameter and angular separation of scale divisions. AAF Aviat. Psychol. Program Res., Rep. 19, 1948.Google Scholar
  23. Grether, W., Instrument reading I: The design of long-scale indicators for speed and accuracy of quantitative reading. J. Appl. Psychol. 1949, 33, 363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gardner, J. F., Direction of pointer motion in relation to movement of flight control. USAF Air Mat. Comm., Techn Rep. 6016, Wright Field 1950.Google Scholar
  25. Henschke, U., Die Verwendung von Ferngläsern im Flugzeug. Ber. Luftfahrtforsch.Anst. München 1944.Google Scholar
  26. Henschke, U., I. Katz, Instrumentenbrettbeleuchtung und Blendung im Flugzeug. Ber. Luftfahrtforsch.Anst. München 1944.Google Scholar
  27. Henschke, U. K., and Mauch, H. A., A study on the improvement of displays for attitude and course indication. USAAF Air Mat. Comm., Eng. Div., TSEAA-696-i1oA, Wright Field 1947.Google Scholar
  28. Henschke, U. K., and Mauch, H. A., Reflex horizon. USAAF Air Mat. Comm., Eng. Div., TSEAA-696-i1oB, Wright Field 1947.Google Scholar
  29. Henschke, U. K., and Mauch, H. A., Blind flying instrument with coordinate system. USAF Air Mat. Comm., Eng. Div., MCREXD696-I,oC, Wright Field 1948.Google Scholar
  30. Hick, W. E., and Bates, J. A. V., The human operator of control mechanisms. GB Ministry of Supply. Monogr. 17–204, May 1950.Google Scholar
  31. Jenkins, W. O., The tactual discrimination of shapes for coding aircraft-type controls. AAF Aviat. Psychol. Progr. Res., Rep. 19, 1948.Google Scholar
  32. Jones, R. E., Milton, J. L., and Fitts, P. M., An investigation of errors made by pilots in judging the attitude of an aircraft without the aid of vision. USAAF Air Mat. Comm., TSEAA-694–13, Eng. Div., Wright Field 1947.Google Scholar
  33. Kapp auf, W. E., Studies pertaining to the design of visual displays for aircraft instruments, computers, maps, charts, tables and graphs. A review of literature. USAF Air Mat. Comm., Techn. Rep. 5765, Wright Field 1949.Google Scholar
  34. Kappauf, W. E., and Smith, W. M., Design of instrument dials for maximum legibility. II.: A preliminary experiment on dial size and graduation. USAAF Air Mat. Comm., Eng. Div., MCREXD-694-i-N, Wright Field 1948.Google Scholar
  35. Kappauf, W. E., and Smith, W. M., Smith, W. M., and Bray, C. W., Design of instrument dials for maximum legibility. I.: Development of methodology and some preliminary results. USAAF Air Mat. Comm., Eng Div., TSEAA-694–1 L, Wright Field 1947.Google Scholar
  36. Kappauf, W. E., and Smith, W. M., Design of instrument dials for maximum legibility. III.: An evaluation of reading difficulty for different parts of dial. USAF Air Mat. Comm., Eng. Div., MCREXD-694, Wright Field 1949.Google Scholar
  37. Kappauf, W. E., and Smith, W. M., Design of instrument dials for maximum legibility. IV.: Dial graduation, scale range, and dial size as factors affecting the speed and accuracy of scale reading. USAF Air Mat. Comm., Eng. Div., Techn. Rep. S914, Wright Field 1950.Google Scholar
  38. King, B. G., Comments on air speed indicator, manufacturer’part AW-2 3/4–2o-D, U. S. Gauge Co., NP-9 AY. USN, NMRI note, January 1946.Google Scholar
  39. Leizorek, M. A., A handheld instrument for measuring visual fields from aircraft. AAF Air Techn. Serv. Comm., Eng. Div., Memo–Rep. TSEAL3–695–48c, Wright Field 1945.Google Scholar
  40. Loucks, R. B., Legibility of aircraft instrument dials: The relative legibility of tachometer dials. USAAF SAM, Randolph Field, Texas May 5944.Google Scholar
  41. Loucks, R. B., Legibility of aircraft instrument dials: A further investigation of the relative legibility of tachometer dials. USAAF SAM, Randolph Field, Texas October 1944.Google Scholar
  42. Loucks, R. B., Legibility of aircraft instrument dials: The relative legibility of manifold pressure indicator dials. USAAF SAM, Randolph Field, Texas December 1944.Google Scholar
  43. Loucks, R. B., The relative effectiveness with which various types of azimuth indicators can be interpreted by novices. USAF Air Mat. Comm., Techn. Rep. 5825, Wright Field 1949.Google Scholar
  44. Loucks, R. B., An experimental evaluation of the interpretability of various types of aircraft attitide indicators. AAF Aviat. Psychol. Progr. Res., Rep. 19, 1948.Google Scholar
  45. Matthews, J. L., Physiological effects of reflective, colored, and polarizing ophthalmic filters. USAF SAM, Randolph Field, Texas August 1949.Google Scholar
  46. Milton, J. L., Analysis of pilots’ eye movements in flight. J. Aviat. Med. 1952, 23, 67.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Milton, J. L., Jones, R. E., Morris, J. B., and Fitts, P. M., Pilot reaction time. USAF Air Mat. Comm., Memo-Rep. TSEAA-694–13 a, Eng. Div., Wright Field 1947.Google Scholar
  48. Morrison, A., Gamma radiation form the instruments in aircraft. J. Aviat. Med. 1951, 22, 350.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Orlansky, J., Psychological aspects of stick and rudder controls in aircraft. Aero. Engin. Rev. 1949, 8, 1.Google Scholar
  50. Petersen, O., Über die Sinnfälligkeit von Blindflugmeßgeräten Industr. Psychol. 1939, 16, 225.Google Scholar
  51. Pinson, E. A., and Chapanis, A., Visual factors in the design of military aircraft. J. Aviat. Med. 1946, 17, 115.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Roscoe, S. N., Smith, J. F., Johnson, B. E., Dittmann, P. E., and Williams, A. C., Comparative evaluation of pictorial and symbolic VOR navigation displays in the I-CA-I link trainer. CAA Div. of Res., Rep. 92, 1950.Google Scholar
  53. Rose, H. W., and Ripple, P. H., Visual problems of pilot in prone position. USAF SAM, Randolph Field, Texas 1951.Google Scholar
  54. Vince, M. A., Direction of movements of machine controls. Flying Pers. Res. Comm., Rep. 637, Great Britain 1945.Google Scholar
  55. Warrick, M. J., and Grether, W., The effect of pointer alignment on check-reading of engine instrument panels. USAF Air Mat. Comm., Eng. Div., MCREXD-694–17, Wright Field 1948.Google Scholar
  56. Weitz, J., The coding of airplane control knobs. AAF Aviat. Psychol. Progr. Res., Rep. 19, 1948.Google Scholar
  57. White, W. J., The effect of dial diameter on ocular movements and speed and accuracy of checkreading groups of simulated engine instruments. USAF Air Mat. Comm., Techn. Rep. 5826, Wright Field 5949.Google Scholar
  58. Williams, S. B. Suggestions concerning desirable display characteristics for aircraft instruments. Spec. Dev. Center, Office of Naval Res., Rep. SDC-71-,6–4, 1949.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Johann Ambrosius Barth-München 1953

Authors and Affiliations

  • Siegfried J. Gerathewohl
    • 1
  • Deutschen Aeronautischen Gesellschaft E. V.
  1. 1.New BraunfelsUSA

Personalised recommendations