Evidence Hub

Visual misperception in aviation: glide path performance in a black hole environment

Gibb R, Schvaneveldt R, Gray R

Human factors, 2008

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: We sought to improve understanding of visual perception in aviation to mitigate mishaps in approaches to landing.

BACKGROUND: Research has attempted to identify the most salient visual cues for glide path performance in impoverished visual conditions. Numerous aviation accidents caused by glide path overestimation (GPO) have occurred when a low glide path was induced by a black hole illusion (BHI) in featureless terrain during night approaches.

METHOD: Twenty pilots flew simulated approaches under various visual cues of random terrain objects and approach lighting system (ALS) configurations. Performance was assessed relative to the desired 3 degrees glide path in terms of precision, bias, and stability.

RESULTS: With the high-ratio (long, narrow) runway, the overall performance between 8.3 and 0.9 km from the runway depicted a concave approach shape found in BHI mishaps. The addition of random terrain objects failed to improve glide path performance, and an ALS commonly used at airports induced GPO and the resulting low glide path. The worst performance, however, resulted from a combination ALS consisting of both side and approach lights. Surprisingly, novice pilots flew more stable approaches than did experienced pilots.

CONCLUSIONS: Low, unsafe approaches occur frequently in conditions with limited global and local visual cues. Approach lights lateral of the runway may counter the bias of the BHI. The variability suggested a proactive, cue-seeking behavior…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a simulation / modelling, done in computer models (in silico), not in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free