Helicopter tracking error and input aggression for point tracking tasks under boundary avoidance situations

Helicopter tracking error and input aggression for point tracking tasks under boundary avoidance situations

Qiuyang Xia

download PDF

Abstract. Helicopters are broadly applied in complex and harsh task environment such as rescue mission and firefighting. These tasks require helicopters to operate in ground proximity, keep tracking the target while avoid obstacles to avoid trashing. The combination of point tracking and boundary avoidance tracking can be utilized to describe this task condition. This study implemented a simulation task on MATLAB and Simulink and utilized a simplified helicopter dynamic model to investigate point tracking and boundary avoidance tracking tasks. The analysis of variance (ANOVA) and regression analysis were used to analyze the effects of task conditions on participants’ tracking error and input aggression. Results demonstrated that the overall tracking error had a negative correlation with input aggression, and that participants tended to have higher input aggression and lower tracking error near the boundary.

Rotorcraft-Pilot Coupling, Boundary Avoidance Tracking, Point Tracking, Human-Machine Interaction

Published online 9/1/2023, 8 pages
Copyright © 2023 by the author(s)
Published under license by Materials Research Forum LLC., Millersville PA, USA

Citation: Qiuyang Xia, Helicopter tracking error and input aggression for point tracking tasks under boundary avoidance situations, Materials Research Proceedings, Vol. 33, pp 118-125, 2023

DOI: https://doi.org/10.21741/9781644902677-18

The article was published as article 18 of the book Aerospace Science and Engineering

Content from this work may be used under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license. Any further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the title of the work, journal citation and DOI.

[1] M. D. Pavel et al., “Adverse rotorcraft pilot couplings—Past, present and future challenges,” Progress in Aerospace Sciences, vol. 62, pp. 1–51, Oct. 2013. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paerosci.2013.04.003
[2] W. Gray, “Boundary-Escape Tracking: A New Conception of Hazardous PIO:,” Defense Technical Information Center, Fort Belvoir, VA, Sep. 2004. Accessed: Dec. 10, 2021. [Online]. Available: http://www.dtic.mil/docs/citations/ADA427054
[3] W. Gray, “Boundary Avoidance Tracking: A New Pilot Tracking Model,” in AIAA Atmospheric Flight Mechanics Conference and Exhibit, San Francisco, California, Aug. 2005, p. 5810. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2005-5810
[4] M. R. Endsley, “A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Direct Objective Measures of Situation Awareness: A Comparison of SAGAT and SPAM,” Hum Factors, vol. 63, no. 1, pp. 124–150, Feb. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720819875376
[5] L. Lu and M. Jump, “Pilot modelling for boundary hazard perception and reaction study,” in 43rd European Rotorcraft Forum, ERF 2017, Politecnico di Milano, Bovisa, Milano, Italy, Jan. 2017, vol. 1, pp. 640–652. Accessed: Mar. 06, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://livrepository.liverpool.ac.uk/3009474
[6] H. Ji, L. Lu, M. D. White, and R. Chen, “Advanced pilot modeling for prediction of rotorcraft handling qualities in turbulent wind,” Aerospace Science and Technology, vol. 123, p. 107501, Apr. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ast.2022.107501