Ground-based demonstration of spatial disorientation (SD) has been recommended for military as well as commercial pilot training. Although the leans illusion is the most common form of SD, no data exist yet of an effective ground-based leans procedure for a hexapod simulator. In this paper we describe the development of such a procedure and its tuning with nine subjects. The procedure was then used in an experiment with 18 airline pilots, which is described elsewhere. The final procedure started with a prepositioning phase, during which the simulator platform was slowly tilted to a 3.5° prepositioning roll angle, while the pilot performed a distraction task and the instruments and outside visuals indicated level flight. Next followed an adaptation phase, during which the pilot's vestibular system adapted to the new angle, the outside visibility degraded to zero and the instruments were covered. Then the platform was moved back to level, above the perceptual threshold, after which the instruments were shown again. The pilot was then tasked to roll back to level. The addition of the motion cues caused an increase in roll reversal errors by a factor of 3 in airline pilots. The procedure can be implemented in a scenario for demonstrating the leans in a cost-effective simulator.

Objective: We tested whether a procedure in a hexapod simulator can cause incorrect assumptions of the bank angle (i.e., the “leans”) in airline pilots as well as incorrect interpretations of the attitude indicator (AI). Background: The effect of the leans on interpretation errors has previously been demonstrated in nonpilots. In-flight, incorrect assumptions can arise due to misleading roll cues (spatial disorientation). Method: Pilots (n = 18) performed 36 runs, in which they were asked to roll to wings level using only the AI. They received roll cues before the AI was shown, which matched with the AI bank angle direction in most runs, but which were toward the opposite direction in a leans-opposite condition (four runs). In a baseline condition (four runs), they received no roll cues. To test whether pilots responded to the AI, the AI sometimes showed wings level following roll cues in a leans-level condition (four runs). Results: Overall, pilots made significantly more errors in the leans-opposite (19.4%) compared to the baseline (6.9%) or leans-level condition (0.0%). There was a pronounced learning effect in the leans-opposite condition, as 38.9% of pilots made an error in the first exposure to this condition. Experience (i.e., flight hours) had no significant effects. Conclusion: The leans procedure was effective in inducing AI misinterpretations and control input errors in pilots. Application: The procedure can be used in spatial disorientation demonstrations. The results underline the importance of unambiguous displays that should be able to quickly correct incorrect assumptions due to spatial disorientation.