You are on page 1of 7

The Best Regime Recognition Algorithm for HUMS

Eric Bechhoefer
Goodrich Sensors and Integrated Systems
Vergennes, VT 05491

functionalities are still immature. Mechanical

Diagnostics/Prognostics and Regime Recognition are two
Abstract1 functions that have not been fully exploited. Once validated,
RR could extend the service life of life-limited components,
Usage monitoring for Health and Usage Monitoring Systems
reducing maintenance cost and improving operational
(HUMS) equipped aircraft entails determining the actual
readiness. While the RR functionality in the IVHMU is
usage of a component over time. This allows the actually
enabled, the lack of investment in this functionality by the
usage/damage from a flight to be assigning to that
customer has allowed RR to lag other HUMS capabilities.
component instead of the more conservative, worst case
Essentially, the use of RR for the purpose of gaining
usage. By measuring the actually usage on the aircraft, the
maintenance credit is in its infancy.
life of components can be extended, resulting in reduced
maintenance cost. Alternatively, for aggressively flown The goal of this paper is to present an algorithms which is
aircraft, safety is maintained in that a component usage may quantitatively, the best. The “best” is a rather subjective
be “consumed” to a greater extent than expected by the statement, but here in the contest of HUMS, best is:
original flight spectrum data.
• Based on mathematically rigorous methodology
Usage Monitoring requires an accurate representation of which is optimal (in that sense that for a given
regime (e.g. Regime Recognition (RR)), where regime is the probability of false alarm, it maximizes the
flight profile of the aircraft at each instant of flight time. For probability of correct classification)
each regime, there is a usage assigned for each component • Computationally simple to implement and
that is life limited (e.g. accumulated damage over time). For configure
example, the damage accumulated for a component would • Scaleable: easily expanded to encompass new
be higher if the aircraft is undergoing a high G maneuver vs. regimes.
straight and level flight. • For a known regime class, calculated performance
In the past, RR algorithms have used logical tests (Goodrich characteristics: e.g. the Receiver Operating
IVHMU or that presented in Ref [1]) or neural networks Characteristics (ROC). From a certification
(VMEP, Ref [2]). Logical tests can be prone to errors due to perspective, this is essential.
inherently noisy parameter used. Neural networks in general In the method presented, a maximum likelihood estimator
are difficult to certify and could require a large amount of (MLE) methodology is derived. MLEs assume that input
training data. Other methods, such as Markov Models (Ref parameters are noisy, and weights the validity of a parameter
[3]) show promise, but could be computationally expensive. by the information the parameter conveys (the inverse of
Presented here is a noise tolerant algorithm that does not variance is information). The output of the algorithm is the
present the problems associated with: logical test (dealing regime that is most likely, as a function of the a priori
with noise), certification of neural networks, or parameter mean value and variance. This a priori
computational complexities. information constitutes configuration data.

Notation The MLE takes the current set of measurements and

calculates a normalized distance between the measurements
The equations that are described within this document use
and a notional set of regimes. The regime that is closest
BOLD upper case letters (A, etc) to represent a matrix of n
statistically to the measurement is most likely. In this
rows by m columns, and bold lower case letters (x, etc.) to
implementation, the MLE is a multiple dimension
represent a column vector. The basic arithmetic operations
hypothesis test, in which the aircraft parameters are used to
performed on a matrix are performed as per Ref[5].
test the hypothesis that the aircraft is in a given regime.
Hypothesis Test Using the Bayes Classifier
While HUMS equipped aircraft are showing improved
Let us define P(Hi|z) as the probability that Hi was the true
operational readiness and a corresponding reduction in
regime given a measured observation, z. The correct
maintenance cost (Ref [4]), many of the HUMS
hypothesis is the one corresponding to the largest probability
of the m possible regimes. The decision rule will be to
Presented at the American Helicopter Society Specialist’s choose Ho if:
Meeting on Condition Based Maintenance, 2008. Copyright P(Ho|z) > P(H1|z), P(H2|z),… P(Hm|z).
@ 2008 by the American Helicopter Society International,
Inc. All rights reserved.
else choose the greatest P(Hi|z). The null hypothesis P(Ho|z) condition is a type II error. It will be shown that the Bayes
will represent the aircraft turning on the deck, or some other Classifier, for a given probability of error, maximizes the
default case. probability of correct detection.
For illustration, consider the binary case, where the rule
The Bayes Classifier for the Normal Distribution
Under many circumstances, the Normal distribution is a
H1 valid model of the distribution of the data. Besides being
P (H1 | z) > attractive from a mathematical sense (e.g. there are well
1 established tools and procedures to address Gaussian data), it
P (H 0 | z) < is the case that many natural phenomena can be described
with a Gaussian probability function. Without loss of
H0 generality, the Gaussian model is assumed for a generalized
This is the maximum a posteriori probability criterion, n dimension decision space. This decision space describes
wherein the chosen hypothesis corresponds to the maximum the parameters associated with the RR algorithms.
of two posterior probabilities. Using Bayes’ rules to write As noted, the default case is the hypothesis H0, defined as
the criterion gives: the mean of the parameter vector space, m0, representing the
p(z | H i )P (H i ) parameters for regime 0. The probability distribution
P (H i | z) = , i = 0,1
p(z) function of the parameter vector, z, given H0 is defined by
the Gaussian distribution (centered on m0)
where P(Hi) is the probability of Hi in the observation space,
such that: H 0 : m0 = E [z 0 ]
P (H1 | z) p(z | H1 )P (H1 ) p(z | H 0 ) =
P (H 0 | z) p(z | H 0 )P (H 0 )
This allows the test to become: 1 (2π )
n 2
−1 2
exp −1 2 (z − m0 ) Σ−1
0 (z − m0 ) ]
An alternative hypothesis is;
p(z | H1 ) > P (H 0 )
H1 : m1 = E [z1 ]
p(z | H 0 ) < P (H1 )
p(z | H1 ) =
Let us further define the ratio l(z) = p(z|H1)/p(z|H0) as the
likelihood ratio. If the likelihood ratio is assumed to be well
1 (2π )
n 2
−1 2
[ T
exp −1 2 (z − m1 ) Σ1−1(z − m1 )
behaved and everywhere continuous and differentiable, then where Σi is the covariance of the regime parameters. The
without loss of generality, the natural logarithm of both sides normalized distance squared between the measured
can be taken. The logarithm is a monotonically increasing parameters z and any m:
function so that the inequality holds. The log-likelihood ratio
d 2 = (z − m) Σ−1(z − m)
become: T
Eq 1.
Substituting the distance function into the log likelihood
> P (H 0 )
ln l(z) ln ratio test give:
< P (H1 )
It is desirable to take the log of the likelihood ratio because 1 2 [d02 − d12 ]+ 1 2ln(Σ 0 Σ1 ) ln(P0 P1 ) Eq 2.
the probability function P(Hi) is usually some exponential <
function, such as Rayleigh, Gaussian, etc. Taking the log
linearizes the function, simplifying the problem.
In making a decision in a binary hypothesis-testing problem where |Σ| is the determinant of the covariance. This states
(e.g. Regime 0 vs Regime 1), there are four possible that if the normalized distance squared between z and m0
outcomes: (plus a threshold offset which represents the log ratio of test
case probabilities. It is assumed that P0 is equally likely with
Say Ho, and it is true that the AC is in regime 0; P1, such that the offset is ln(1) = 0) is greater than the
Say H1, and it is true that the AC is in regime 1; normalized distance between z and m1, then accept the
Say H1, but the AC is in regime 0; and alternate hypothesis, H1. In this specific aircraft regime case
Say Ho, but the AC is in regime 1. where there are 90 regimes, we conduct 89 tests against the
An error occurs when either the third or four conditions are null hypothesis. If after completing the 89 test, where each
chosen. The third condition is a type I error and the forth test is negative, one cannot reject the null hypothesis (e.g.
aircraft in regime 0). If there are positive test values, select Σ y = Λ−1/2ΦΤΣzΦΛ−1/2
the maximum test value: this accepts the alternative = Λ−1/2ΛΛ−1/2 = I
hypothesis and represents the maximum likely regime the
aircraft is in. This is the whitening process, and has the property that the
transformation is not orthonormal:
Transformation for Optimality
(ΦΛ−1/2)ΤΦΛ−1/2 = Λ−1/2ΦΤΦΛ−1/2
The normalized distance squared between z and m, defined = Λ−1
above, represents a shift in space that can be defined by a
new function: x = z – m, giving d2(x) = xTΣ-1x. We wish to i.e. ATA≠I, as was the case when the eigenvector matrix was
find an x that maximizes this distance function, subject to selected as transformation matrix, illustrating that Euclidean
the side constraint xTx = I (which enforces orthogonality). distances are not preserved (e.g. maximizes the distance).
This maximizes both the separation of the mean vector (for a
In the cases where the respective covariance Σ0, Σ1 of the
given hypothesis) from the general observation vector, and
two distributions are not equal, it is necessary to
the separation between the components of the observation
simultaneously diagonalize the covariance (as per the
space (i.e. regime parameters). Using the standard Lagrange
Lagrangian) to maximize the distance between the
multiplier to find the local extrema (i.e. the maximum)
gives: distributions. The process requires whitening Σ0. However,
applying the transformation to Σ1 results in:

∂x {x Σ x − µ(x x − I)} = 2Σ x − 2µx
T −1 −1
Λ−1/2ΦΤΣ1ΦΛ−1/2 = K.

Setting to zero to find the extrema (thereby maximizing the The resulting covariance, K, of the transformed coordinates
separation) and solving for x results in: (y) in the decision space H1 is not diagonal. K can be
diagonlized by an appropriate orthnormal transformation:
Σ-1x = µx or Σx = λx
Where λ = 1/ µ. w = ΨTy,
The solution to λ must satisfy the determinant: |Σ-λI| =0: the where Ψ is the eigenvector matrix of K such that ΨΤΚΨ is
solution is defined as the eigenvalues of Σ (ref 5). Because Σ diagonal. Combining these processes yields the overall
is a symmetric n x n matrix (e.g. a covariance matrix), there transformation matrix A = ΦΛ−1/2Ψ
are n real eigenvalues (λ1…λn) and n real eigenvectors The Optimal Decision Rule
φ1...φn. The characteristic equation can then be written as:
Using the developed transformation matrix A, we can now
ΣΦ = ΦΛ apply this to the Bayes classifier to maximize the separation
between the decision spaces. This transformation is optimal
where Φ is an n x n matrix consisting of n eigenvectors and
in that no other transformation will provide a higher
Λ is a diagonal matrix of eigenvalues. Note that the
probability of correct classification (recall that the
eigenvectors corresponding to two different eigenvalues are
transformation A is based on the Eigenmatrix solution to the
characteristic function). Given Eq 1. and Eq 2, the following
ΦΤΦ=Ι, change of variables are made:

The solution of the Eigenvalue problem implies that Φ can Y = AT (z − m0 )

be used as a transformation matrix,
Π = AT Σ1 A
y = Φ x,
Λ = AT (Σ−1
0 − Σ1 ) A
−1 −1

It follows that the variance in the transformed space, y, is

independent, because:
L = AT (m1 − m0 )
Σy = ΦΤΣΦ = Λ,
V = −Π−1L
which is diagonal (no cross correlation). Note that the
eigenvalues are the variance of the respective components of c = − 1 2 LT V − 1 2 ln Π
the transformed variable (yi).
Substitution yields (ref 6):
Furthermore, this result can be expanded to find a
transformation that generates unit covariance (i.e. identity h(y) = 1 2 Y T Λ-1Y - V T Y +c Eq. 3
matrix). Selecting ΦΛ−1/2 as the new transformation matrix Note that many of the substituted variables can be pre-
A: computed and reside as configuration data, such as: Λ, V,
y = Λ−1/2ΦΤx and c.
= (ΦΛ−1/2)Tx, The Regime Data
it follows that the y space covariance is given by:
While parametric data for RR is collected with every population as a whole, performing a given maneuver/regime.
operation, there are few opportunities to evaluate the 20 flight cards for all 90 regimes might represent 60 flight
performance of the flight data. There simply is few flight hours of test pilot time from a squadron of aircraft. This is
where the ground truth is know for the flight. Ground truth an expensive proposition.
is obtained by flying an event where a test pilot flies a
Additionally, there are some regimes that are damaging (or
“flight card.” This flight card is a script on which a series of
even dangerous) to fly. Given the limited flight card data,
maneuvers have been designed to fly the aircraft for a given
and the fact that for some regimes based line data does not
set of flight regimes. For each regime, the entry and exit
exits, what can be done? The pragmatic engineer makes the
times are recorded, as well as specific flight parameters (e.g.
best of it and:
60 degree angle of bank, 90 knots airspeed, 1000 ft).
The data set consisted of three flight card events and the • Partitions the available flight card data for know
accompanying data files, covering 50 out of 90 possible regimes into training and test data.
regimes (see appendix for list. The regimes where defined • Uses engineering judgment and estimate what the
by the OEM). The regime data consists of 15 parameters mean and covariance would be for regimes without
sampled at 10 Hz (Table 1). know data.
Table 1. Monitored parameters in IVHMU Estimating mean and covariance for the regimes that are
Parameter Parameter Parameter missing is not as daunting a task as might be presumed. For
No. Name Description
example, in a logic based decision tree, which is currently
AOB Angle of Bank used on IVHMU, rules are given such as in table 2:
Alt/dt Altitude Rate Table 2: Logical Test Regime Example
3 Corrected Normal Regime Takeoff Power
CrNz Acceleration Climb
4 Parameter Operator Threshold
Lat/dt2 Lateral Acceleration
5 WOW = False
Nr Main Rotor RPM Roll Attitude >= -10
6 Roll Attitude <= 10
Ptch At Pitch Attitude
7 Altitude Rate > 600
Rad Alt Radar Altimeter
Lateral Acceleration >= -0.01
Roll At Roll Attitude Lateral Acceleration <= 0.15
9 Total Engine Yaw Rate >= -5
Torque Torque Yaw Rate <= 5
10 Turbine Gas Corrected NZ <= 1.2
TGT Temperature Corrected NZ >= 0.8
11 Vertical Derived TGT >= 850
Vert/dt2 Acceleration VH Fraction <= 1.05
12 Airspeed Vh VH Fraction > .3
Vh Fraction
13 Converting this to a mean and variance, the statistics are as
YawDt Yaw Rate
WOW Weight on Wheels
per table 3:
15 Time in ms of from Table 3: Estimated Regime Statistics
Time start of operation Parameter Mean Standard
Implementation Issues WOW 0 0.001
Roll Attitude 0 6.079
There are two issues that must be addressed for successful Altitude Rate 1000 243.18
implementation: regime statistics data and computational Lateral Acceleration -.1+(.15-.01)/2=.06 0.0426
order of operations. Regime statistics involves estimating the Yaw Rate 0 3.04
mean and covariance for each regime. Computational order Corrected NZ 1 0.1216
of operations means that we are interested in a Derived TGT 975 75.99
computationally efficient design that requires as few VH Fraction .675 0.228
floating-point operations as possible to achieve a result.
Essentially, the mean is taken from the bounds of a
Estimation of the regime statistics requires a set of parameter (Table 2), and the standard deviation is calculated
parameters for a known regime. As noted, there is a limited such that the probability of being greater or less than the
data set of flight cards where parameters can be mapped to a given bounds is less that 95%. For example, the mean of
know regime. In fact, this study is based on a sample of one, the bounds of Nz is 1 ( (0.8+1.2)/2 = 1), and the standard
which realistically, is too small. Ideally, one would prefer deviation is that values from which the inverse of the normal
20+ flight cards from a variety of aircraft/pilots: the mean cumulative distribution is the threshold. In this case, the
and covariance should be representative of the aircraft/pilot
standard deviation for p = .95, such that x = (1-.8) = .2. In example, instead of 8 hypothesis testing, at most one would
this case, the standard deviation is 0.12. call the characteristic function 5 times).
In cases where there is no bounded limited, the mean is For flight regimes a structure similar to figure 2 is
derived by taking the lower bound, and the maximum implemented. Here the initial test determines if the aircraft
possible value. For example, TGT, which is may be lower is in a Hover, Reward or Forward flight. If the maximum
bounded at 850. The max TGT may be 1100, then the mean likely regime is hover, further test are conduct until the null
is 850+(1100-850)/2 = 975. The standard deviation is the hypothesis cannot be rejects. If the current null hypothesis is
value such that p = .95, exceeds (1100-850)/2 = 125, or forward flight, a structure similar to figure 3 is traversed.
Admittedly this is a crude estimation of the “real” mean and
variance for this regime, but with the limited information
available, it is one method to derive these statistics. Note
that when implementing HUMS on a new fleet/type of
aircraft it may be that not flight card data exits. In this case,
the aforementioned methodology provides at least a starting
point for RR development.
In terms of order of operations, it is desirable to have RR run
on the limited computational resources of an embedded Figure 2 Initial Flight Regime Structure
system. From Eq. 3, it is seen that the characteristic
requires one n x n matrix operation, and two vector produces
of size n, where n is the number of parameters. This is
n2+2n operation. To find the maximum likely regime, it
requires m-1 calls to the characteristic function. The order
of operation is then O((m-1)(n2+2n)), or for this example,
O(19936*c) floating point operations. Relative to NN or a
series of logical test, it is admittedly slow.
Conversely, one can take advantage of the regime structure
and reduce the number of calls to the characteristic function. Figure 3 Forward Flight Regime Structure
Consider that WOW is a Boolean – when WOW is true, the If each node (e.g. current null hypothesis) has on average 3
aircraft is on he ground – thus, one can construct a series of sub nodes, then for 90 regimes, the tree structure would have
hypothesis test for ground regimes that have been organized a depth log390 = 4. This would give, on average 3 *4 = 12
into a tree structure (figure 1) calls the characteristic function. Using this structure, the
order for operation is now O(2340*c).
Performance of the Results
For the 50 regimes flown, where each regime was on
average 20 seconds long or 200 tests per regime (given the
10 Hz sample rate,). For 23 regimes, the probability of
being correct was 1. For the remaining 27 regimes, the
following confusion matrix identifies the regime, the
probability of being correct (Pc), and the regimes that where
miss identified (table 4). The minimum probability of
correct identification was for regime 24 (Pc = .86). The
mean Pc for all regimes was .9765.
Table 4: Confusion Matrix Results
Incorrect Regimes and
Regime Pc Pe
Figure 1 Ground Regime Tree Structure
3 5
Here one tests the hypothesis (e.g. call the characteristic 2 0.993 0.004 0.002
function) for Rotors Not Turning vs. Rotors Turning. If the 3
Rotors are Turning (e.g. now the new null hypothesis) test 5 0.965 0.035
the alternative hypothesis that the aircraft is Taxiing, Taking
5 8
off or Landed. If Taxing (promoted to the current null
hypothesis) one testing the alternative hypothesis that that 7 0.877 0.012 0.111
aircraft is in a left turn or a right turn. In this simple 7
8 0.996 0.004
10 generated using engineering judgment (e.g. a guess) and
9 0.945 0.055 obviously incorrect. It is felt that with some “tweaking” the
maximum error could be reduced to less that 1%.
11 0.982 0.018 However, it must additionally be noted that this algorithm
11 13 has not been tested on a larger aircraft data set. While it is
12 0.936 0.014 0.050 impractical to assume that 20 flight test cards from as many
aircraft would be generated, it is hoped that flight cards from
10 different flight cards could be made available for RR
15 0.968 0.032
development. The worry is that with small populations to
15 17 sample from, the regimes configuration will be “over
16 0.986 0.007 0.007 trained”.
Additionally, for the calculation of damage, not only regime
19 0.918 0.082
but gross weight (GW) is needed. The tools available to
31 automate the estimation of GW are limited. Inferred GW is
20 0.896 0.104 another area where research is still in its infancy.
30 31
Is this the best RR algorithm? From a mathematical
21 0.963 0.002 0.035
perspective, this statement is defensible. This algorithm is
31 also very scalable: simply add a new mean and variance for
22 0.994 0.006 each new regime, without retraining the existing regime
31 data. Because it is based on Gaussian statistical procedures,
23 0.970 0.030 for a set of regimes and measurements, an ROC could be
30 31 constructed. Thus, we are able to explicitly describe
24 0.859 0.003 0.138 performance (helpful when wishing to certify). Finally, the
algorithm is polynomial time, but the order of operation is
30 31 88
probably higher than a logic test tree or a NN. Again, “best”
25 0.943 0.007 0.046 0.004
is rather a subjective term: at the least it is hoped that this
27 28 algorithm will spur other researchers to consider this as a
26 0.953 0.034 0.014 viable technique for RR.
26 28
27 0.862 0.009 0.128 References
27 [1] Barndt, Gene; Miller, Charles; Sarkar, Subhasis,
28 0.911 0.089 “Maneuver Regime Recognition Development and
31 Verification for H-60 Structural Monitoring”, American
42 0.996 0.004 Helicopter Society 63 Annual Forum, Virginia Bearch,
46 VA, May 1 – 3, 2007.
43 0.989 0.011 [2] Berry, J., Vaughan, R., Keller, J., Jacobs, J., Grabill, P.,
43 45 and Johnson, T., “Automatic Regime Recognition using
46 0.984 0.010 0.006 Neural Networks”, American Helicopter Society 62nd Annual
49 Forum, Phoenix, AZ, May 9 – 11, 2006.
48 0.983 0.017 [3] He, D., Wu, S., and Bechhoefer, E., “Development of
30 31 56 Regime Recognition Tools for Usage Monitoring”, IEEE
55 0.979 0.000 0.019 0.001 Aerospace Conference, Big Sky, MT, March 3 – 10, 2007.
55 76 [4] Bonino, R., et al., “HUMS/MMIS as an Aviation Combat
56 0.983 0.005 0.012 Mulitplier” American Helicopter Society 63rd Annual
59 Forum, Virginia Bearch, VA, May 1 – 3, 2007.
60 0.999 0.001 [5] Strang, Gilbert. Linear Algebra and its Applications. San
31 Diego, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1988.
63 0.996 0.004
[6] Fukunaga, Keinosuke. Introduction to Statistical Pattern
Discussion Recognition. Academic Press, San Diego, 1990, page 91 –
The greatest source of error in the RR algorithm was a result 93.
of poor mean and variance statistics for the missing regimes. Appendix: Regime Names
The confusion matrix show that most of the errors where a 1 Power On Aircraft, Rotors Not Turning
result of misidentifying a given regime as regime 30 and 31. 2 Power On Aircraft, Rotors Turning, Taxi or Stationary
Both of these regimes mean and standard deviation where 3 Left Taxi Turn
4 Right Taxi Turn Descending Right Turn: > 60 d AOB
Take Off Autorotation Left Turns
Landing Autorotation Right Turns
IGE Hover less than 80 feet Symmetrical Pullouts: 1.8 Gs
0GE Hover greater than 80 feet Symmetrical Pullouts: 3.0 Gs
Fwd Flight to 0.3 Vh Symmetrical Pullouts: 4.0 Gs
Right Sideward Flight Left Rolling Pullout: 1.8 Gs
Left Sideward Flight Left Rolling Pullout: 3.0 Gs
Rearward Flight Left Rolling Pullout: 4.0 Gs
Left Hover Turn Right Rolling Pullout: 1.8 Gs
Right Hover Turn Right Rolling Pullout: 3.0 Gs
Rudder Reversal in Hover Right Rolling Pullout: 4.0 Gs
Longitudinal Reversal in Hover Pushover: 0.8 Gs
Lateral Reversal in Hover Pushover: 0.3 Gs
Level Flight up to 0.3 Vh Pushover to 0 Gs
Level Flight up between 0.3 and 0.4 Vh Dynamic Yaw
Level Flight up between 0.4 and 0.5 Vh Other Maneuver 1, Left Climb Turn Exc AOB
Level Flight up between 0.5 and 0.6 Vh Other Maneuver 2, Right Climb Turn Exc AOB
Level Flight up between 0.6 and 0.7 Vh Other Maneuver 3, Lvl Flight Exd 1.0 Vh
Level Flight up between 0.7 and 0.8 Vh Other Maneuver 4, Dive Excd 1.2 Vh
Level Flight up between 0.8 and 0.9 Vh Other Maneuver 5, Symmetrical Pullout 1.2 Vh
Level Flight up between 0.9 and 1.0 Vh
Rudder Reversal in Level Flight to 1.0 Vh
Lateral Reversal in Level Flight to 1.0 Vh
Longitudinal Reversal in Level Flight to 1.0 Vh
Left Sideslip in Level Flight
Right Sideslip in Level Flight
Best Rate of Climb
Intermediate Power Climb
Takeoff Power Climb
Left Sideslip in Climb
Right Sideslip in Climb
Left Climbing Turn
Right Climbing Turn
Rough Approach
Autorotation with Left Sideslip
Autorotation with Right Sideslip
Rudder Reversal in Autorotation
Longitudinal Reversal in Autorotation
Lateral Reversal in Autorotation
Collective Reversal in Autorotation
Partial Power Descent
Rudder Reversal in Partial Power Descent
Longitudinal Reversal in Partial Power Descent
Lateral Reversal in Partial Power Descent
Rubber Reversal in Dive
Longitudinal Reversal in Dive
Lateral Reversal in Dive
Level Left Turn: 30 d AOB
Level Left Turn: 45 d AOB
Level Left Turn: 60 d AOB
Level Left Turn: > 60 d AOB
Level Right Turn: 30 d AOB
Level Right Turn: 45 d AOB
Level Right Turn: 60 d AOB
Level Right Turn: > 60 d AOB
Descending Left Turn: 30 d AOB
Descending Left Turn: 45 d AOB
Descending Left Turn: 60 d AOB
Descending Left Turn: > 60 d AOB
Descending Right Turn: 30 d AOB
Descending Right Turn: 45 d AOB
Descending Right Turn: 60 d AOB