LAUSR

Past studies have found poorer performance on vertical heading judgement accuracy compared to horizontal heading judgement accuracy. In everyday life, precise vertical heading judgements are used less often than horizontal heading judgements as we cannot usually control our vertical direction. However, pilots judging a landing approach need to consistently discriminate vertical heading angles to land safely. This study addresses the impact of training on participants’ ability to judge their touchdown point relative to a target in a virtual environment with a clearly defined ground plane and horizon. Thirty-one participants completed a touchdown point estimation task twice, using three angles of descent (3°, 6° and 9°). In between the two testing tasks, half of the participants completed a flight simulator landing training task which provided feedback on their vertical heading performance; while, the other half completed a two-dimensional puzzle game as a control. Overall, participants were more precise in their responses in the second testing compared to the first (from a SD of ± 0.91° to ± 0.67°), but only the experimental group showed improvement in accuracy (from a mean error of − 2.1° to − 0.6°). Our results suggest that with training, vertical heading judgments can be as accurate as horizontal heading judgments. This study is the first to show the effectiveness of training in vertical heading judgement in naïve individuals. The results are applicable in the field of aviation, informing possible strategies for pilot training.