|
曝光台 注意防骗 网曝天猫店富美金盛家居专营店坑蒙拐骗欺诈消费者
Roscoe (ref. 10) states that “Complex cockpit motion, whether slightly beneficial or detrimental on balance . . . has so little effect on training transfer that its contribution is difficult to measure at all.” The two studies most often cited showing that motion did not have a training benefit for several tasks are those by Waters et al. (ref. 11) and Gray and Fuller (ref. 12). However, Cardullo points out that these two studies have largely been discredited because of the poor experimental apparatus used in each study (ref. 9). In particular, the motion systems had large motion platform delays. Boldovici (ref. 8), in an extensive review for the U.S. Army, presents several reasons for not using motion platforms: (1) the absence of supporting research results, (2) possible learning of unsafe behavior based on incorrect platform cueing, (3) achievement of greater training transfer by means other than motion cueing, (4) undesir-able effects of poor motion synchronization, (5) direct, indirect, and hidden costs, (6) alternatives to motion bases for producing motion cueing (e.g., g-seats, pressure suits), and (7) benign force environments. Poor motion synchronization, which does not have a precise definition, has caused some pilots to experience simulator sickness. This discomfort affects both the pilot’s performance and his acceptance of a simulator. Surprisingly the discomfort can last, or even develop, hours after the simulator session. The U.S. Navy has recommended that motion bases be turned off if sickness develops; however, that recommendation notes that some crews also become sick in the actual vehicle (ref. 13). Some branches of the armed services require a waiting period between a simulator session and flight. Finally, several researchers have defined tasks for which motion does not seem to add benefit. Hunter et al. (ref. 14) and Puig et al. (ref. 15) indicate that motion does not seem to be very beneficial for tasks in which the pilot creates his own motion. Such instances would be for tracking tasks in a disturbance-free environment. The Case For Platform Motion. Hall attempts to determine when platform motion is and is not important (ref. 16). He contends that non-visual cues are of little importance for primarily open-loop, low pilot-vehicle gain, low workload maneuvers with strong visual cues. However, he also states that motion cues are more important when the pilot workload increases, when the pilot-vehicle gain rises, or when the vehicle stability degrades. The latter certainly occurs in helicopter simulation. Showalter and Parris conducted a study in which pilots had to recover from an engine-out during takeoff in a KC-135 aircraft (ref. 17). They showed that the addition of motion significantly reduced the amount of yaw activity during an engine-out when compared to the no-motion case. In the same study, they also showed that the addition of motion affected inexperienced pilots’ ability to perform precision rolling maneuvers, but that the addition of motion had no significant effect on experienced pilots for the same task. 直升机网 www.helicopter.cn 直升机翻译 www.aviation.cn 本文链接地址：Helicopter Flight Simulation Motion Platform Requirements(7) |
