Comparison of Display System Options for Helicopter Aircrew Tactical
Training Systems
Dennis Joseph, Tom Burch, Richard Connolly
CAE USA
Tampa, Florida
ABSTRACT
The paper presents considerations for determining the appropriate type of visual display system to support helicopter
aircrew training with an emphasis on tactical military training. Main discussion points include: identification of
tasks dependent upon out-the-window cues; display related performance necessary to support tactical training
maneuvers; types of displays that are considered for helicopter training systems; and further considerations
including deployment, reconfiguration, acquisition and support costs.
The discussion of display related features is limited to those essential to support modern military tactical training
tasks. Some of these tasks include nap-of-the-earth flight; confined area landings; formation flight; external load
operations; shipboard operations; target detection and recognition; weapons operation; air-to-air refueling; fast rope
operations; emergency/autorotation landings; and stimulation of night vision goggles (NVGs). There are many
additional tasks, but this paper will limit discussion to these.
The discussion of the types of display systems used for helicopter aircrew training includes characteristics,
performance, features, and benefits of several display types including dome displays, rear-projection mosaic
displays, cross-cockpit collimated displays, and Helmet Mounted Displays (HMDs). Examples of state of the art
helicopter displays are included for each display type.
The paper presents a high level summary of a training task analysis comparing the ability of each display type to
support the previously discussed training requirements. A comparison matrix follows the discussion.
The paper presents a discussion of the acceptance of HMDs in helicopter aircrew training systems. These systems
include the US Army’s BICEP and AVCATT systems. Factors affecting pilot acceptance including eyeglass
compatibility, pupil size, ease of fit, and helmet weight are discussed. A comparison between leading HMD systems
is presented.
Other factors in determining the appropriate display system for the training application are also discussed. These
factors include forward deployment of the training system, support for reconfigurable cockpits, and the effect on
total cost of the training system.
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Dennis M. Joseph is presently a Principal Engineer for Advanced Systems at CAE USA. He has over 17 years
experience in the design of simulation and training systems, much of that involving the design of dome displays,
collimated displays, head-up displays, and helmet-mounted display devices. He previously worked for GE SCSD,
Martin Marietta, Hughes Training, Raytheon, and Reflectone. He is currently Principal Investigator for Helmet
Mounted Displays at CAE USA.
Thomas E. Burch is a Program Manager at CAE USA. He is a former US Army helicopter pilot. He is a graduate of
US Naval Test Pilot School and spent 3 years as a Staff Instructor in the Rotary Wing Flight Test Program. After
retiring from the US Army he joined Singer-Link were he was involved in the USAF B-2 Program and later led the
Link training analysis team for the Comanche. He joined CAE USA in 1995 where he is now the Program Manager,
LASAR Combat Mission Simulator for the 160th SOAR (A).
Richard D. Connolly is presently a Principal Engineer for Tactical Systems at CAE USA. He has 20 years of
experience in the development of simulation and training systems, much of that involving visual systems for rotary
wing training devices. He previously worked for Camber, SBS, AAI, Systems Research Laboratories, and
FlightSafety. Prior to simulation he worked in experimental flight test at Piper Aircraft. He has held a variety of
engineering positions throughout his career, much of that involved in analyzing and specifying requirements for
visual systems. He is currently involved in two tactical helicopter simulators.
