DTIC ADA410691: Human Systems IAC Gateway. Volume 11, Number 4, 2000

21 Pages·1.6 MB·English

by  Defense Technical Information Center

inside:
Volume XI: Number 4 (2000)
GHuman Systems IAC
ATEWAY Special Issue:
Visual Display Technologies
Published by the Human Systems Information Analysis Center, formerlyknown as CSERIAC 6
Advances in
Avionics
Head-Down
Display
Technology
10
Calendar
12
Head-Up and
Helmet-
Mounted
Displays
16
Decision
Support
Displays for
Military
Command
Centers
Figure 1. Gigapixel crewstation for information-centric warfare
Display Technology Overview
Darrel G. Hopper ESTNEECFHLELNEECCENXEIDICNAINFLORIMNAFTIOONRRMEESCEIVRTATNIEOCN
c
a
W
si arfighters require displays in all crew- holes in an information universe. The Human Systems IAC is a United
h stations and platforms—air, land, sea, Warfighter productivity growth hinges States Department of Defense
/
il and space. This cross-cutting need is on the invention and transition of more Information Analysis Center adminis-
m
documented in a comprehensive study of military capable displays, especially those with tered by the Defense Technical
.
c displays in some 350 defense systems (Desjardins far higher resolution. For example, the InformationCenter, Ft. Belvoir, VA,
i
dt & Hopper, 1999). Remarkable progress over paper B–2 program requires the addition of a technically managed by the Air Force
c. and mechanical visual display media has been 14-inch display between the pilots, as Research Laboratory Human
a
made since the invention of the first electro- the current 8-inch displays are not large Effectiveness Directorate, Wright-
i
/
/ mechanical and electronic displays just a few enough to present all the threat sym- Patterson Air Force Base, OH, and
:
p
decades ago—but far, far more remains to be done bology on a single display surface. operated by Booz·Allen & Hamilton,
t
t
h (Hopper, 2000a). Fielded displays are just peep- continued on next page Mclean, VA.
Approved for Public Release • Distribution Unlimited
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE FormApprovedOMBNo.
0704-0188
Publicreportingburderforthiscollectionofinformationisestibatedtoaverage1hourperresponse,includingthetimeforreviewinginstructions,searchingexistingdatasources,gatheringandmaintainingthedataneeded,andcompleting
andreviewingthiscollectionofinformation.Sendcommentsregardingthisburdenestimateoranyotheraspectofthiscollectionofinformation,includingsuggestionsforreducingthisburdertoDepartmentofDefense,Washington
HeadquartersServices,DirectorateforInformationOperationsandReports(0704-0188),1215JeffersonDavisHighway,Suite1204,Arlington,VA22202-4302.Respondentsshouldbeawarethatnotwithstandinganyotherprovisionof
law,nopersonshallbesubjecttoanypenaltyforfailingtocomplywithacollectionofinformationifitdoesnotdisplayacurrentlyvalidOMBcontrolnumber.PLEASEDONOTRETURNYOURFORMTOTHEABOVEADDRESS.
1.REPORTDATE(DD-MM-YYYY) 2.REPORTTYPE 3.DATESCOVERED(FROM-TO)
01-10-2000 Newletter xx-xx-2000toxx-xx-2000
4.TITLEANDSUBTITLE 5a.CONTRACTNUMBER
GatewayVolumeXI:Number4(2000) 5b.GRANTNUMBER
Unclassified
5c.PROGRAMELEMENTNUMBER
6.AUTHOR(S) 5d.PROJECTNUMBER
Hopper,DarrelG; 5e.TASKNUMBER
Kalmanash,MichaelH;
5f.WORKUNITNUMBER
Bartlett,CT;
Cameron,AA;
et.al,;
7.PERFORMINGORGANIZATIONNAMEANDADDRESS 8.PERFORMINGORGANIZATIONREPORT
HumanSystemsIAC NUMBER
AFRL/HEC/HSIAC
2245MonahanWayBld29
WPAFB,OH45433-7008
9.SPONSORING/MONITORINGAGENCYNAMEANDADDRESS 10.SPONSOR/MONITOR'SACRONYM(S)
, 11.SPONSOR/MONITOR'SREPORT
NUMBER(S)
12.DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITYSTATEMENT
APUBLICRELEASE
,
13.SUPPLEMENTARYNOTES
14.ABSTRACT
ThisnewslettercontainsinformationonadavancesinavionicsHead-downdisplays,head-upandhelmetmounteddisplays,decisionsupport
displaysformilitarycommands,anddisplaytechnologyoverview.Thenewsletteralsocontainsacalendarofupcoming,humansystems
events.
15.SUBJECTTERMS
Displaytechnology;decisionsupportdisplays,head-updisplays;helmet-mounteddisplays;head-downdisplays;HSIACcollection
16.SECURITYCLASSIFICATIONOF: 17.LIMITATION 18. 19.NAMEOFRESPONSIBLEPERSON
OFABSTRACT NUMBER Darrah,Sara
SameasReport [email protected]
(SAR) 20
a.REPORT b.ABSTRACT c.THISPAGE 19b.TELEPHONENUMBER
Unclassified Unclassified Unclassified InternationalAreaCode
AreaCodeTelephoneNumber
DSN
StandardForm298(Rev.8-98)
PrescribedbyANSIStdZ39.18
continued from previous page Advanced cockpits and crewstations Acquisition Platform Category
require panoramic display systems of Display technology confronts the five Services
over 300 inch2 per warfighter with pixel with common challenges and opportunities.
densities increased from the current Annual defense display research appropriations
minimal 80 pixels per inch to over 200 total about $100 million and Congress wants a
pixels per inch to show advanced 25- defense-wide strategy for display acquisition to
megapixel sensor imagery and integrat- guide this investment.
ed situation awareness formats like Display acquisition occurs by platform categories:
pathway in the sky (Snow et al., 1999).
Simulators require synthetic vision sys- • aviation and space electronics (avionics),
tems of 160 megapixels; the state-of- • land vehicle electronics (vetronics),
the-art is 16 megapixels based on 2- • shipboard non-propulsive electronics
megapixel devices. Soldiers require both (naval sea),
large (1 m, 30 megapixel) electronic • mobile personnel, and
maps and small (24 mm, 5 megapixel), • command and control centers (C4ISR).
low power displays yet with color and
high information content. Naval surface Avionics cockpit displays comprise some 19% of
combat information centers require 10- displays in fielded Department of Defense
megapixel team knowledge walls and a weapons systems. All certified aerospace cockpit
true three-dimensional display system displays—military, civil, general, and space—are
to reduce crew sizes and ensure rapid custom designed; most are currently manufactured
understanding of the altitude as well as at opportunity cost in high-volume facilities in
the radial position of ingressing aircraft Korea, Japan, and Taiwan. The remaining 81% of
(Hopper, 2000b). The defense informa- fielded displays are ruggedized versions of displays
tion-centric display challenge is illus- designed for a non-defense market. Across all
trated in Figure 1 (see cover). acquisition programs the cost of a fielded display
Display technology is driven by elec- comprises just 10% for the device per se and some
tronics, sensors, computers, and users. 90% for packaging and testing to meet military
Electronics deals with the challenges of performance specifications. Thus, from a cost per-
fabricating display devices and systems spective all combat displays are custom.
per se. Sensors provide video, still Aviation acquisition has been a key driver of
imagery, and data. Computers generate display research for 100 years. Display research for
graphics and imagery from databases, aircraft crewstations began with mechanical and
sensors, and communications. Users are electromechanical (EM) instrumentation about
decision-makers consuming and acting 1900. Avionics display research was undertaken
on images of information. beginning with the cathode ray tube (CRT) in the
This special issue provides an 1930s through the 1980s. Flat-panel display (FPD)
overview on display technology along research began at the Avionics Laboratory (now
with articles in three areas where part of the U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory,
improved visual displays are poised to AFRL) about 1969 and matured about 1992 when
revolutionize warfighter productivity: the active matrix liquid crystal display (AMLCD)
technology became preferred over CRTs for all mil-
• panoramic head-down instrument itary and civil aerospace cockpits. New FPDs cost
panels; 25% as much but are over 30 times more reliable
• head-up and head-mounted than the old CRT and EM technologies they
systems; and replace. Now AMLCDs are better than CRTs in vir-
c • command decision suites equipped tually every performance parameter, including
a
i with knowledge walls and smart angle of view. The 1903 Wright Flyer had three
s
h desks. instruments (mechanical displays): wind gauge,
/
il propeller RPM counter, and stop watch. The year
m
Displays in three other such areas— 2001 F–22A Raptor has six multifunction AMLCDs
.
c uninhabited combat air vehicle crewsta- totaling 1.2 megapixels in 201 inch2 (49% of the
i
dt tions, simulators and virtual reality, and instrument panel).
c. air-to-air cueing—are illustrated in Mission C4ISR crew workstations in air, sea, and
a
recent issues of Gateway(Barbato, 2000; land systems typically provide each operator a 19-
i
/
/ Knott, 2000; Rastikis, 1998). inch color display with 1.3 megapixel resolution.
:
p
The U.S. Air Force recently switched the design of
t
t
h these 19-inch displays from direct-view CRTs to
2 Human Systems IACGATEWAY Volume XI: Number 4
projectors using digital micromirror devices go up to the maximum of 4π, or 12.566
(DMD). The DMD technology was developed in a sr. Thus, a 40 x 40˚ (0.24 sr) display
DARPA-funded, AFRL-managed exploratory image is just 2% of the 4π sr natural
research project from 1991–1995 and transitioned world. Usable AMLCDs for image pres-
via the Common Large Area Display Set (CLADS) entation appeared in production about
logistics project at Warner-Robins ALC from 1988 when pixel size decreased below
1996–1999. Army and Navy programs have recent- 317 mm with screen size about 3 inches
ly adopted DMD workstations as well. and resolution of 0.0324 megapixels;
Command and control centers are moving to 10- the image size was 2.25 x 2.25 inches,
megapixel anchor desks and workbenches and 100- or about 5 x 5˚ (0.01 sr) at 24 inches.
megapixel knowledge walls and information igloos From 1988 to 2000, direct-view AMLCD
(pixelated rooms) to enable ten persons to make device size has increased from 3 to 30
better decisions in combat than by 30 persons at inches and resolution has increased
present. Display tiling technology from commercial from 0.03 to 9 megapixels. Device pixel
trading floors, broadcaster studios, and advertising, densities in 1988 were 80 per inch; now
enabled by prior defense research, is now fueling a the pixel density is up to 120 per inch in
revolution in military decision-making suites. products and 211 per inch in prototypes.
Design Class Technology Pace and Variants
Display designs are classified as direct-view, pro- Displays operate by reflection, trans-
jection-view, tiled, and true three-dimensional. mission, or emission of light from the
The viewer is usually presented with an image via imaging device and screen. There was
a physical screen. Direct-view displays create the only one electronic display technology
image in the plane of the screen via large electro- in 1940: the CRT. Circa 2000 there are
optic devices. Projection-view displays use minia- two dominant display technologies:
ture electro-optic devices together with an optics CRT and flat-panel AMLCD.
system that magnifies the image some 10 to 1000 Technology creation, transfer, and tran-
times while transmitting it to the screen. Tiled dis- sition have become significantly more
plays create an image having higher luminance, productive with each new economical-
resolution and size from multiple, individually less ly viable generation of electronic dis-
capable, modules. True three-dimensional designs plays. The CRT technology took some
provide multiperspective images, not just three- 52 years from invention in 1896 to
dimensional models depicted on two-dimensional mass market television beginning in
hardware (Hopper, 2000b). about 1947. The AMLCD technology
Mass production displays are typically just 0.8 took some 23 years from the first
megapixel for both direct- and projection-view research funding about 1969 until it
designs. Niche and exotic market production for was fielded on aircraft and supported
tiled systems are typically just 5–16 megapixels. the launch of the notebook computer
The highest resolution direct-view display is the industry by about 1992. The DMD tech-
22-inch, 9.2-megapixel color AMLCD announced nology took just six years from first
by IBM in September 2000; twelve of these devices research to commercial presentation
are being used to create a 114 megapixel datawall projector launch and nine years to the
for computational research in the Department of first military production contract.
Energy. Projection displays up to 5 megapixels are Two new technologies, reflective
becoming available based on miniature AMLCDs. AMLCD on silicon substrate (LCOS)
The biggest jumbo tiled display is the unique $37 and the active matrix organic light-emit-
million NASDAQ Times Square cylindrical building ting diode (AMOLED), appear to be h
t
facade display: 2.1 megapixels, with nine subpix- moving towards successful commercial- tp
els per color pixel, comprising over 18 million ization and operational military use as :/
/
inorganic light emitting diodes (ILED) and cover- fast as did the DMD. Some older tech- ia
ing 1000 m2 (10,800 feet2). nologies have established niche mar- c
.
d
kets: alternating current gas plasma
t
Size, Pixel Density, Resolution (ACGP), vacuum fluorescent display ic
.
Size for displays relates to image, device, and (VFD), thin film and active matrix elec- m
screen. Individual display screens produce an troluminescent (TFEL, AMEL), and liq- i
l
/
image that subtends an instantaneous field-of- uid crystal shutter three-dimensional h
s
view of about 0.01 to 2 steradians (sr) (5 x 5˚ to continued on next page i
a
100 x 100˚) at the design eye point; tiled systems c
Human Systems IACGATEWAY Volume XI: Number 4 3
continued from previous page Table 1. Electronic display comparisons
Design Device Size Market* Technologies
Class (diagonal in mm) Emissive Light Valve
Direct-view Large: Mass CRT AMLCD, EM
25 to 1,000 Niche ACGP, VFD, TFEL, OLED
Future FED, FSD EMS
Projection- Micro: Niche CRT, AMEL AMLCD, DMD
view 3 to 24 Future (device): AMOLED LCOS, GLV
Future (direct write): SSL, VRD
Future (waveguide screens): PSM POD, TWS
Tiled Jumbo: Niche-mass Incandescent, neon Macroscopic shutters
3,000 to 30,000 Exotic ILED, CRT GDL, AMLCD
Future FED, OLED
True 3–D Various Niche Multiplexed 2–D Multiplexed 2–D
Future Volumetric Holographic
* Market (CY2000 unit sales):
Mass (0.1–10+ million); Niche (1–10 thousand); Exotic (1–100); Future (August, zero)
For more information, with glasses (stereoscopic) and without Hopper, D. G. (2000a). 1000 X difference between
please contact: (autostereoscopic). current displays and capability of human visual
Future technologies—those yet to be system: Payoff potential for affordable defense
Darrel G. Hopper, Ph.D. successfully commercialized—include systems. In Proceedings of the SPIE 4022,
AFRL/HECV the flexible substrate display (FSD), 378–389.
2255 H Street solid state laser (SSL), polyplanar optic Hopper, D. G. (November, 2000b). Reality and
WPAFB, OH 45433 display (POD), tapered wedge screen Surreality of 3–D Displays: Holodeck and
(TWS), electrostatic microshutter Beyond. In Proceedings of the Society for
Tel: [phone] (EMS), grading light valve (GLV), virtu- Information Display Electronic Information
Fax: [phone] al retinal display (VRD), field emission Display Conference, London, UK.
E-mail: darrel.hopper@ display (FED), polymer switched matrix Knott, B. (Ed). (2000). Virtual Reality: A Special
wpafb.af.mil (PSM), gas/dye laser (GDL), and Issue of Gateway. In HSIAC Gateway, XI (2),
improved true three-dimensional 1–20.
Darrel G. Hopper, Ph.D., is devices (True 3–D). Rastikis, L. (1998). Human-Centered Design
Senior Engineer and Director Table 1 compares electronic displays by Project Revolutionizes Air Combat. In CSERIAC
of the Aerospace Displays design, size, market, and technology. The Gateway, IX (1), 1–6.
Program with the Visual following three articles will investigate Snow, M. P., Jackson, T. W., Meyer, F. M.,
Display Systems Branch, Crew many of the technologies compared in Reising, J. M., & Hopper, D.G. (1999). The
Systems Interface Division, this table.(cid:2) AMLCD cockpit: promise and payoffs. In
Human Effectiveness Cockpit Displays VI: Displays for Defense
Directorate, U.S. Air Force References Applications, Proceedings of the SPIE 3690,
Research Laboratory, Wright- Barbato, G. (2000). Uninhabited 103–114.
Patterson Air Force Base, Combat Air Vehicle Controls and
c Ohio. He is a Member of the Displays for Suppression of Enemy
a
i DDR&E Displays IPT, and Air Defenses. In CSERIAC Gateway,
s
h Author of the DoD Roadmap XI (1), 1–4.
/
il for Displays. Desjardins, D. D., & Hopper, D. G.
m
(August, 1999). Military Display
.
c Market: Second Comprehensive
i
dt Edition (AFRL–HE–WP–TR–
c. 1999–0211). Wright-Patterson AFB,
a
OH: U.S. Air Force Research
i
/
/ Laboratory Human Effectiveness
:
p
Directorate. Available to qualified
t
t
h requesters.
4 Human Systems IACGATEWAY Volume XI: Number 4
The latest Human Systems IAC
state-of-the-art report (SOAR)
Analysis Techniques for
Human-Machine System Design
This SOAR is based on the work of NATO Defence Research Group,
Panel 8, Research Study Group 14, to improve the application of
human-engineering techniques in NATO countries. Research Study
Group 14 surveyed the use of 24 human-engineering analysis tech-
niques in 33 projects in 7 countries. This SOAR presents the results
of this survey which includes a wide variety of military systems: an
infantry air defense system, tanks, aircraft, ships, submarines, and
command-and-control systems.
Available for $4500 (US) plus shipping and handling.
To order, telephone: [phone], fax: [phone], or
E-mail: [email protected].
Like the human body.
At Anthrotech, we’ve been measuring the human body for 50 years.
Now, you can learn from our expertise by attending:
Essentials of Anthropometry
April 10–12, 2001
Yellow Springs, Ohio
You’ll experience hands-on instruction in over 40 dimensions in
human body measurement, and explore:
• automated measuring techniques
Some shapes • human shape variability
• data and product applications
• protocols for compiling accurate, reliable databases
• human factors and ergonomics applications
are difficult h
• 3D scanner demo. t
t
p
:
Register online at http://www.anthrotech.net /
to measure... /
i
or call 937.767.7226 for more details. a
c
.
d
t
i
ANTHROTECH c
.
m
i
PROVIDING HUMAN DIMENSIONS FOR DESIGN SOLUTIONS l/
h
s
Celebrating 50 years of outstanding service. i
a
c
Human Systems IACGATEWAY Volume XI: Number 4 5
Advances in Avionics
Head-Down Display Technology
Michael H. Kalmanash
Figure 1. Electronic displays streamline cockpit instrumentation
H
ead-down multifunction dis- and also because they could be tailored to fit the
plays (MFDs) mounted in the needs of a variety of different aircraft.
instrument panel are a primary Like dinosaurs, however, their adaptability had
means by which the modern aircraft limits. As aircraft cockpits became more sophisti-
communicates with the pilot. As shown cated, increases in the information volume led to
in Figure 1, electronic MFDs, capable of the need for better display performance (full-color,
providing video, graphics, and text larger viewing area, higher resolution, enhanced
images can replace entire clusters of contrast and brightness, etc.). Improved CRTs
dedicated instruments and can clearly could meet only some of these needs, and even
present sensor video or ground maps, then often at the expense of unacceptable increas-
as well as navigation, aircraft systems es in weight, bulk, and power dissipation. As a
status, and tactical information. In aero- result, the industry began to look for alternative
space electronics, where access to infor- (flat panel) display media for future MFDs. Flat
mation must be quick and accurate, a panel display systems may be designed for either
picture is worth more than a thousand direct-view (large flat panels) or projection-view
words (or numbers). (flat panel microdisplays)—both design approach-
c The first avionics MFDs appeared in es enable significant reductions in weight, bulk,
a
i the early 1960s, using ruggedized tele- and power dissipation relative to CRT devices
s
h vision-type cathode ray tubes (CRTs) as while simultaneously providing dramatically supe-
/
il the display medium. These early MFDs rior performance.
m
were characterized by durability (good),
.
c ambient viewability (good), viewing Flat Panels: The Next Generation
i
dt area (limited), bulk and weight (high), Despite their ability to fill niches in the commer-
c. color (green) and reliability (good but cial marketplace, some flat panel technologies,
a
not great). Despite their shortcomings, such as electroluminescent or plasma display pan-
i
/
/ they were widely adapted, because of els, simply cannot provide adequate performance
:
p
their clear superiority over fixed gauges for avionics applications, while newer technolo-
t
t
h gies such as field-emission displays or organic
6 Human Systems IACGATEWAY Volume XI: Number 4
light-emitting displays remain years away from ruggedization can be accomplished.
fruition. On the other hand, active matrix liquid This approach shows promise, although
crystal displays (AMLCDs), the technology used in not all dimensional requirements can be
notebook computers, are capable of high resolu- satisfied, and there are limitations to the
tion, full color, and most of the performance need- performance that can be attained.
ed for avionics use, particularly when combined Another promising approach is a new
with special wide-range backlights designed for class of avionics MFDs based on rear-
day and nighttime use. projection technology. The core of a
Beginning in the early 1990s, as AMLCDs projection MFD is the “image engine,”
began their ascendancy in the commercial mar- containing high-resolution microdis-
ketplace, several suppliers announced their plays and color management optics.
intention to develop custom AMLCDs for avion- The engine is illuminated by a high-effi-
ics and other specialty markets. Coupled with ciency arc lamp, and its output is cou-
the need for improved performance, this led to a pled to a high-contrast screen via pro-
rush to incorporate AMLCD-based MFDs into jection optics. Unlike direct view dis-
new cockpit designs. The days of the CRT were plays, a common image engine and illu-
over. AMLCDs were touted by some as the ulti- mination system can be used in multi-
mate avionics display medium. ple applications regardless of screen
This may have been a bit of an overstatement. size or form factor, using the projection
The commercial success of direct-view AMLCDs optics to scale the image to fit the
has been based on enormous investments and screen. This enables the use of identical
high-volume manufacturing of standard products. commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) com-
These factors are not shared by U.S. manufactur- ponents and subassemblies for multiple
ers of custom panels who, facing high costs and programs, resulting in reduced costs
poor yields, have proven unable to sustain them- and shorter development cycles.
selves in business. Reductions in the domestic
U.S. direct-view AMLCD supplier base have led to Avionics Projection MFDs
skyrocketing costs and even delayed completion Projection technology has been under
of new aircraft. development at Kaiser Electronics since
As a result, the avionics community has faced 1996, resulting in a number of proto-
pressure to try to design cockpits around standard types ranging in size from 6 x 6 inches
commercial AMLCDs or to purchase capacity for to 8 x 20 inches, all using similar com-
custom runs at Asian commercial fabrication facil- ponents, as illustrated in Figure 2.
ities. In many instances adapting to commerical Projection displays are currently
standards is simply not possible. A key issue is under development for the Primary
size. Most commercial displays are rectangular, continued on next page
while aircraft installations
typically require square dis-
plays (with unforgiving
dimensional constraints).
Additional issues such as
environmental compatibility
and viewing angle often
mandate the use of custom
or semi-custom AMLCDs as
well.
h
t
Fixing the Supplier t
p
Problem :
/
/
In an effort to address ia
size/form factor issues, sever- c
.
d
al groups have been investi-
t
i
gating the “re-shaping” of c
.
commercial flat panels, m
whereby standard AMLCDs i
l
/
are cut down to fit into spe- h
s
cific cockpit installations, fol- i
a
lowing which needed Figure 2. One size fits all: Projection MFDs use common components c
Human Systems IACGATEWAY Volume XI: Number 4 7
continued from previous page
Figure 3. Projection MFDs in the F–22 and F/A–18E/F
For more information, Multifunction Display (PMFD) for the
please contact: F–22 aircraft as well as the Digital
Expandable Color Display (DECD) for
Michael Kalmanash the F/A–18E/F, as illustrated in Figure
Kaiser Electronics 3. Despite their size differences (the
2701 Orchard Parkway PMFD has an 8 x 8 inch screen while
San Jose, CA 95134 the DECD is 6 x 6 inches), both of these
units incorporate common core sub-
Tel: [phone], assemblies, which significantly reduces
ext. 1657 costs for both programs. Additionally,
Fax: [phone] Lockheed-Martin has selected Kaiser
E-mail: kalmanashm@ projection technology for the Joint
kaisere.COM Strike Fighter aircraft, and prototype
units have been delivered to Lockheed
Michael Kalmanash is a for evaluation and demonstration.
Senior Scientist at Kaiser
Electronics, in San Jose, Summary
California, where he has Spiraling costs and supplier uncer-
been employed for 18 years, tainty have raised concerns about the
conducting research in future viability of direct view AMLCDs Figure 4. Projection technology enables the “ulti-
advanced display technology. for avionics applications. Rear projec- mate” cockpit display
tion display technology based on COTS
components is emerging as an attractive
alternative, offering cross-platform com-
monality, lower costs, and multi-source
availability of key components. Using
this approach, the potential exists for
c what may well be the ultimate avionics
a
i display, the reconfigurable panoramic
s
h cockpit system shown in Figure 4.(cid:2)
/
l
i
m
.
c
i
t
d
.
c
a
i
/
/
:
p
t
t
h
8 Human Systems IACGATEWAY Volume XI: Number 4
HFES Publications
New from HFES!

Readings in Training
and Simulation:
A 30-Year Perspective
Edited by Robert W. Swezey
and Dee H. Andrews
The influence of modeling and simu-
lation on training in a broad range
of areas (aerospace,health care,and
transportation,to name a few) has
grown considerably in the last decade.
Readings in Training and Simulation
Macroergonomics: samples three decades of theory and Human Factors
practice in individual and team training
An Introduction to Pioneer
drawn from the HFES journal,Human
Work System Design Factors,and annual meeting proceed- Alphonse Chapanis
ings. This book “provides a broad per-
By Hal W. Hendrick spective on progress in individual and
HFES announces a new video featuring
and Brian M. Kleiner team training and training technology”
an interview with human factors/ergo-
(Harold P. Van Cott,from the Fore-
This concise,comprehensive overview nomics pioneer Alphonse Chapanis. In
word).Sections cover transfer of train-
of macroergonomics—the subdisci- addition to a broad-ranging discussion
ing,training methods,training devices
pline of human factors/ergonomics that of Chapanis’s work and interests,the
and simulators,and application areas
deals with the analysis and design of video contains photos and illustrations
such as flight training,maintenance
work systems—is ideal for those from Chapanis’s own collection. Topics
training,and training evaluation. It
involved in organizational design and include his contribution to the Johns
is ideal for professionals in industrial
management,environmental design, Hopkins Systems Research Project,
and military training communities,
safety,industrial workplaces,and which led to publication of the text
those who teach about training media
related areas. New in the HFES series Applied Experimental Psychology,his
and technology,K–12 educators,and
“Issues in Human Factors and Ergo- work on the “touch-tone”configuration
students in undergraduate or graduate
nomics,”Macroergonomicscovers on Bell Labs telephones,and his teach-
human factors and related courses.
development of the subdiscipline of ing and consulting experiences. The
macroergonomics,its theory and video was produced by interviewer
methods,sociotechnical analysis and ISBN 0–945289–15–4,67⁄8×10″, John Shafer. VHS,30 min. $30 for
design of work system structure,socio- paperbound,464 pages. $40 for HFES HFES members,$40 for nonmembers.
technical analysis and design of work members,$50 for nonmembers. Add Add $7 for US shipping,$10 non-US.
system process,macroergonomics $7 for US shipping,$10 non-US.
results with laboratory and case studies, Shipping January 2001. h
future directions,and a glossary. Special offer: tt
p
The book is also an excellent supple- :
/
ment for undergraduate and graduate Send order with payment (check in US$, Save $4 when you purchase both the /i
a
courses in human factors and related MasterCard,VISA,American Express; video and Chapanis’s recently released c
.
disciplines. California sales tax applies) to: autobiography,The Chapanis Chronicles: d
t
i
Human Factors and 50 Years of Human Factors Research, c
ISBN 0–945289–14–6, 51⁄2×81⁄2″, Ergonomics Society Education and Design (Aegean Publish- .m
paperbound,200 pages. $35 for HFES i
l
ing,retail $34).Book + video:$60 for /
members,$40 for nonmembers. Add P.O.Box 1369 h
$7 for US shipping,$10 non-US. Santa Monica,CA 90406–1369 USA members,$70 for nonmembers.Add s
i
a
Shipping January 2001. Fax [phone],[email protected] $10 for US shipping,$15 non-US. c
Human Systems IACGATEWAY Volume XI: Number 4 9