p

0
170290

AGA RD-CP-59-70
I

AGARD CONFERENCE PROCEEDINGS No. 59

on

8 Aircraft Landing Systems

DISTRIBUTION A N D AVAILABILITY
ON BACKCOVER
n
P
<
D

'H
0
4
0)
C
a
 W W
W W
0 0
U U
R c
m (I)

a a
1 g
0 c
P

a,
W

W
0
U
a
R
m

a
H
?

cn
N
(D

I ? ?
0 0
VI w
c
!-
a, a,
W W
 / A G A R D C0nf-e Proc- .59 h

NORTH A T L A N T I C T R E A T Y O R G A N I Z A T I O N

A D V I S O R Y GROUP FOR A E R O S P A C E R E S E A R C H AND DEVELOPMENT

( O R G A N I S A T I O N DU T R A I T E D E L ' A T L A N T I Q U E NORD)

(7 \
i-- AIRCRAFT LANDING S Y S T E M S

Papers presented at a S y m p o s i u m of the G u i d a n c e and C o n t r o l Panel of AGARD

held i n C a m b r i d g e , Massachusetts, USA, 20-23 M a y , 1969
 Published September 1970

629.7.051.83

Printed b y Technical Editing and Reproduction Ltd

H a r f o d House, 7-9 Charlotte St. London. WIP I H D

ii
 PREFACE

With expanding a i r t r a f f i c , t h e problem of a i r c r a f t landing systems is assuming ever-

i n c r e a s i n g importance. S a f e t y throughout t h e f l i g h t p r o f i l e of any a i r c r a f t is e s s e n t i a l .
C e r t a i n l y , however, at t h e t e r m i n a l p o i n t t h e problem is complicated and aggravated by t h e
confluence ofmany aircraft wishing t o use t h e same landing f i e l d and which a r r i v e t h e r e at
o r near t h e same time. An a d d i t i o n a l complicating f a c t o r is bad weather c o n d i t i o n s , which
makes it highly d e s i r a b l e t o develop a i r c r a f t landing systems of zero v i s i b i l i t y c a p a b i l i t y .

For t h e s e reasons and o t h e r s , it w a s most a p p r o p r i a t e f o r t h e Guidance and Control Panel

of AGARD t o devote its May 1969 Symposium t o t h e r a t h e r broad s u b j e c t of A i r c r a f t Landing
Systems. D r G.Schweizer of Germany assumed t h e r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s of Program Chairman and
developed with h i s Program Committee a program of s i x t e c h n i c a l s e s s i o n s covering many o f
t h e s i g n i f i c a n t areas of A i r c r a f t Landing Systems. These Symposium Proceedings c o n s i s t o f
t h e papers presented at t h i s meeting.

The f i r s t s e s s i o n , e n t i t l e d “Needs and Requirements: Conventional and V/STOL” was devoted

t o a d e f i n i t i o n of many of t h e important problem a r e a s of a i r c r a f t landing systems.

The second s e s s i o n , “System Details f o r Conventional A i r c r a f t ” , d e a l t with fundamental

systems c o n s i d e r a t i o n s f o r a i r c r a f t landing systems. Short f l i g h t problems between c l o s e l y -
l o c a t e d urban c e n t e r s , f o r i n s t a n c e , are assuming g r e a t e r importance, and t h e t h i r d s e s s i o n ,
“System Details f o r V/STOL A i r c r a f t ” , q u i t e a p p r o p r i a t e l y t r e a t e d t h i s area. Backing up
t h e systems c o n s i d e r a t i o n s of t h e e a r l i e r s e s s i o n s , t h e f o u r t h s e s s i o n , “Experience with
A i r c r a f t Landing Systems”, included a number of v a l u a b l e papers d e t a i l i n g landing experience.
The f i f t h and s i x t h s e s s i o n s , “Technical Hardware”, described a r a t h e r broad and s i g n i f i c a n t
a r r a y of t e c h n i c a l hardware a s p e c t s of landing systems.

Cornelius T. Leondes
Editor

iii
 CONTENTS

Page

PREFACE iii

SESSION I - NEEDS AND REQUIREMENTS: CONVENTIONAL & V / S T O L

R e f e re n c e

ALL WEATHER LANDING

by O . B . S t J o h n 1

A N INTERNATIONAL A I R L I N E VIEWS AUTOMATIC LANDING SYSTEMS

b y B. F. M c L e o d

PSYCHOLOGICAL A N D PROCEDURAL A S P E C T S RELATED TO I L S APPROACHES

A N D LANDINGS I N V I S I B I L I T I E S L E S S THAN 1 2 0 0 F E E T
by E . W . J o h n s o n , D. L . C a r m a c k a n d L. M . H a d l e y

S E S S I O N I1 - SYSTEM D E T A I L S FOR CONVENTIONAL A I R C R A F T

NEW DEVELOPMENTS I N LANDING SYSTEMS

b y G. B . L i t c h f o r d 4

AUTOMATIC LANDING SYSTEM O P T I M I Z A T I O N U S I N G I N E R T I A L NAVIGATION DATA

A N D MODERN CONTROL THEORY
by D . M a c K i n n o n

IMPORTANCE O F S P E E D CONTROL R E L A T I V E T O LONGITUDINAL TOUCHDOWN D I S P E R S I O N

b y R.G.Loome

NEW GUIDANCE DEVELOPMENTS FOR ALL WEATHER LANDING

by D . J . S h e f t e l

DEVELOPMENT OF AIRBORNE HARDWARE FOR AUTOMATIC LANDING SYSTEMS

b y R. I . B i s h o p

S E S S I O N I11 - SYSTEM D E T A I L S FOR V / S T O L A I R C R A F T

P O S T 1 9 7 0 SCANNING BEAM APPROACH AND LANDING

by J . W o o d w a r d 9

LANDING VTOL AIRCRAFT I N ADVERSE C O N D I T I O N S AND SOME P O S S I B L E S O L U T I O N S

by D . J . Walters 10

THE V / S T O L TRANSPORT A N D AUTOMATIC F L I G H T ’

by D . W . W o o d 11

V / S T O L SIMULATION WITH R E S P E C T TO AUTOMATIC LANDING.

b y G . Schweizer 12

SESSION I V - F L I G H T E X P E R I E N C E WITH SYSTEMS FOR AUTOMATIC LANDING

E X P E R I E N C E DU CENTRE D ’ E S S A I S EN VOL FRANCAIS D A N S LE DOMAINE

DE L ’ A T T E R R I S S A G E TOUT TEMPS
par Y . M i c h o t 13

AUTOMATIC LANDING SYSTEMS ARE HERE

by J . L . L o e b 14

Not available for publication.

iv
 Reference

AIDED INERTIAL FLIGHT TEST EXPERIMENTS

by R. J . Madigan and E . J . Koenke 15

THE DEVELOPMENT OF AUTOMATIC LANDING FOR BEA OPERATION

by J . L. Weston 16

EXPERIENCE GAINED BY B.A.C. AND ELLIOTT IN THE DEVELOPMENT

AND SERVICE USE OF AUTOMATIC LANDING SYSTEMS
by M. F. Moulton 17

SESSION Va - TECHNICAL HARDWARE

THE AUTOPILOT FOR THE C-141 ALL WEATHER LANDING SYSTEM
by R. Glacken and T. L. Cronley 18

DIRECT LIFT CONTROL FOR APPROACH AND LANDING

by R.C.Lorenzetti 19

LE PILOTE AUTOMATIQUE TAPIR

par J . Pagnard 20

FLIGHT CONTROL SYSTEMS WITH RESPECT TO V/STOL AUTOMATIC LANDING

by H . G. Schumann and R. Staufenbiel 21

SYSTEMES D’ATTERRISSAGE DE THOMSON/CSF, LS371 - SATRAM - SYDAC/ILS

par P.Dantremont 22

SESSION Vb - TECHNICAL HARDWARE

FLIGHT TEST RESULTS OF TACTICAL LANDING EQUIPMENT.

by J.Ruth, A.Smitchens and R.Umana 23

EVOLUTIONARY EXTENSION OF ILS

by J . Benjamin 24

LE SYSTEME D’ATTERRISSAGE AUTOMATIQUE DE CONCORDE

par R.Deque 25

Not available for publication.

V
 1

ALL-WEATHER LANDING

0.B.St. John.

Board of Trade
S h e l l Mex House
London, W. C. 2. England.
1
 1- 1

ALL-WEATHER L A N D I N G

0. B. S t . John

D e n today i n 1969, a i r c r a f t do not o p e r a t e u n l e s s t h e r e is almost c l e a r v i s i b i l i t y . They e i t h e r remain on

t h e ground or i f t h e y do t a k e o f f , t h e y are faced w i t h a p o s s i b l e d i v e r s i o n from t h e i r d e s t i n a t i o n . The key
problem both i n M i l i t a r y and i n C i v i l a v i a t i o n c e n t r e s around t h e approach and landing and t h e s o l u t i o n l i e s i n
t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n of safe all-weather o p e r a t i o n s . Furthermore, t h e necessary techniques are now well known, and
t h e e v e n t u a l outcome is assured, because t h e need w i l l grow. The seemingly long time of adoption arises from a
combination of implementation problems, both t e c h n i c a l and f i n a n c i a l , and a n a t u r a l r e l u c t a n c e t o abandon e x i s t i n g
s t a n d a r d equipment, which has long s i n c e been i n t e r n a t i o n a l l y agreed. T h i s l a t t e r reason is p o s s i b l y less r e l e -
vant at p r e s e n t t o t h e Military case, but is l i k e l y t o become more important i f j o i n t ATC and landing procedures
are adopted f o r both C i v i l and Military use, covering V/STOL as well as conventional aircraft.

The UK p o l i c y has been t o proceed s t e a d i l y towards near-blind o p e r a t i o n s on t h e b a s i s of using a f u l l y auto-

matic, f a i l u r e - s u r v i v a l , landing system, but it was only very r e c e n t l y , e a r l y i n 1969, t h a t approval was obtained
by B r i t i s h European Airways t o o p e r a t e down t o a d e c i s i o n h e i g h t of 150 f e e t and runway v i s u a l range (RVR) of 500
metres. US o p e r a t o r s , on t h e o t h e r hand, have f o r some time been c e r t i f i c a t e d f o r f u l l Cat I1 o p e r a t i o n s with
manual landing, and a French A i r l i n e h a s r e c e n t l y achieved a u t h o r i s a t i o n f o r Cat IIIA o p e r a t i o n s down t o a
d e c i s i o n h e i g h t of 50 f e e t , and an RVR of 200 metres, using a s i n g l e a u t o p i l o t backed by a f l i g h t d i r e c t o r . But
it is s t i l l fair t o say, however, t h a t t h e 'number of l a n d i n g s i n C i v i l o p e r a t i o n a l s e r v i c e i n a c t u a l low v i s i b i l i t y
is still n e g l i g i b l e .

Modern a i r c r a f t r e p r e s e n t such a l a r g e capital investment t h a t it i s i n t o l e r a b l e t h a t o p e r a t i o n s should be so

s e r i o u s l y hampered by weather. With t h e expected i n c r e a s e i n C i v i l t r a f f i c i n t h e f u t u r e , and t h e much l a r g e r
aircraft being adopted f o r both C i v i l and M i l i t a r y use, t h e c o s t of c a n c e l l a t i o n or d i v e r s i o n w i l l become t o t a l l y
unacceptable. T h i s c o s t is measured i n a v a r i e t y of ways and it i s h e r e t h a t t h e M i l i t a r y and C i v i l s i t u a t i o n s
d i f f e r . On t h e one hand, t h e importance of an emergency o p e r a t i o n of t r a n s f e r r i n g a very l a r g e number of t r o o p s
at s h o r t n o t i c e t o remote parts of t h e world i n l a r g e military t r a n s p o r t a i r c r a f t could be of c r i t i c a l n a t i o n a l
importance though, i n such a c a s e , an element of r i s k might c o n s c i o u s l y be accepted on t h e grounds of expediency.
I n c i v i l a v i a t i o n t h e need f o r r e g u l a r i t y involves two main a s p e c t s . To t h e t r a v e l l i n g p u b l i c , t h e prospect of
f a i l i n g t o complete a journey on schedule is f r u s t r a t i n g , and i n some c a s e s i n v o l v e s s e r i o u s expense or l o s s of
business. Already w i t h c u r r e n t a i r c r a f t t h e inconvenience and discomfort due t o c a n c e l l a t i o n or d i v e r s i o n is by
no means i n s i g n i f i c a n t . The prospect of a i r c r a f t c a r r y i n g 500 o r 1,000 passengers w i l l make t h e s i t u a t i o n worse
t o t h e p o i n t where t h e growth of C i v i l Aviation could w e l l be prejudiced.

To t h e A i r l i n e s , r e g u l a r i t y i s v i t a l t o revenue and any d i v e r s i o n is c o s t l y . The d i v e r s i o n of s e v e r a l such

l a r g e a i r c r a f t could r e s u l t i n chaos and enormous expense. The r i g i d maintaining of schedules, both f o r opera-
t i o n s and s e r v i c i n g , is a c r i t i c a l economic f a c t o r , especially t o s h o r t - h a u l o p e r a t o r s .

Associated w i t h t h e need f o r r e g u l a r i t y i n o p e r a t i o n is t h e need f o r p r o p e r l y equipped a i r p o r t s . T h i s is

p a r t l y a matter of n a t i o n a l p r e s t i g e , but it could have l a r g e f i n a n c i a l repercussions. For example, t h e e s t a b -
lishment of f u l l f a c i l i t i e s t o allow l a n d i n g s t o be made at London Airport i n a l l weathers, would c e r t a i n l y
enhance its p o s i t i o n as a European a i r p o r t , and hence a t t r a c t more o p e r a t o r s , with correspondingly g r e a t e r
revenue. Conversely, f a i l u r e t o implement such a programme could r a p i d l y decrease London's s t a t u s as an i n t e r -
national terminal.

Without doubt t h e s a f e s t course f o r a p r o s p e c t i v e air t r a v e l l e r , i s t o remain on t h e ground. Although p l a t i -

tudinous, t h i s s e r v e s t o emphasise t h a t t h e r e must be a compromise when c o n s i d e r i n g s a f e t y , although it is
unpopular i n some q u a r t e r s t o a d m i t of t h e e x i s t e n c e of any such r i s k . The o b j e c t must be t o achieve an ade-
q u a t e l y s a f e system without unnecessary c o s t . The v a l u e of s a f e t y is somewhat i n t a n g i b l e , though & r e c e n t US
source (1) h a s estimated t h e p o t e n t i a l c o s t of a s i n g l e a c c i d e n t t o a jumbo j e t as being i n excess of one hundred
million dollars.

Over t h e past 30 years t h e a d d i t i o n a l insurance premium payable by a C i v i l a i r l i n e p i l o t t o cover f l y i n g r i s k s

h a s dropped s t e a d i l y and d r a m a t i c a l l y . S t a t i s t i c a l l y , C i v i l a v i a t i o n is becoming s a f e r , but because of t h e
i n c r e a s e i n t r a f f i c and t h e l a r g e r s i z e s of a i r c r a f t being used, t h e number of passengers k i l l e d every year is
t e n d i n g t o I n c r e a s e . Although t h e number of a c c i d e n t s remains almost c o n s t a n t , and t h e r e are fewer a c c i d e n t s
per m i l l i o n landings, t h e r e can be no complacency, e s p e c i a l l y as t h e a n t i c i p a t e d growth.of t r a f f i c i n t h e coming
decades, t o g e t h e r w i t h t h e advent of larger and more s o p h i s t i c a t e d aircraft such as SSTs, could radically change
t h e s i t u a t i o n f o r t h e worse.
 1- 2

In s p i t e of t h e fact t h a t o p e r a t i o n s i n low v i s i b i l i t y have s c a r c e l y begun, t h e c o n t r i b u t i o n of poor v i s i b i l i t y

t o t h e accident r a t e is very s i g n i f i c a n t . Over t h e last f i v e y e a r s f o r which f i g u r e s a r e a v a i l a b l e , h a l f t h e
n o t i f i a b l e a c c i d e n t s t o B r i t i s h aircraft on p u b l i c t r a n s p o r t o p e r a t i o n s occurred during approach and landing.
Of t h e s e a c c i d e n t s , h a l f occurred i n weather i n which fog, low cloud o r r a i n made t h e p i l o t ’ s t a s k more d i f f i c u l t
than it would otherwise have been. There is reason t o b e l i e v e t h a t t h i s is g e n e r a l l y a p p l i c a b l e . The only
p o s s i b l e conclusion is t h a t landing i n poor v i s i b i l i t y using c u r r e n t techniques, t h a t is an instrument approach
followed by a manual landing, i n v o l v e s a much g r e a t e r r i s k t h a n i n c l e a r weather. An e s t i m a t e has been made
t h a t t h e r i s k is increased by a f a c t o r of about 100 when t h e RVR i s down t o 400 metres.

Any a l l - w e a t h e r landing system must improve s a f e t y , not only i n bad v i s i b i l i t y but a l s o d u r i n g approach and
landing i n c l e a r c o n d i t i o n s . T h i s l a t t e r c a s e is p a r t i c u l a r l y important at a i r f i e l d s where t h e approach is over
f e a t u r e l e s s t e r r a i n o r over t h e s e a , and it u n d e r l i n e s t h e apparent cause of t h e i n c r e a s e d risk during a manual
landing, which is a s s o c i a t e d with t h e d i f f i c u l t y i n c o n t r o l l i n g h e i g h t during t h e l a t t e r s t a g e s of approach and
landing, because t h e v i s u a l information is poor.

The UK has maintained f o r many y e a r s t h a t t h e only p r a c t i c a l s o l u t i o n t o t h i s problem is t o use a f u l l y auto-

matic landing system whose performance does not depend on o u t s i d e v i s i b i l i t y . Such a system could be used t o
improve s a f e t y i n c l e a r as well as i n bad v i s i b i l i t y . During t h e UK R & D programme more t h a n 20,000 f u l l y
automatic landings have been mads i n a l l v i s i b i l i t i e s i n c l u d i n g r e a l l y dense fog. The c u r r e n t s i t u a t i o n is t h a t
both BEA and BOAC are i n t r o d u c i n g automatic landing by stages and t h e T r i d e n t and Super VC 10 a r e r e g u l a r l y
making such l a n d i n g s at s u i t a b l e a i r p o r t s throughout Europe and North America. But u n t i l very r e c e n t l y a l l
l a n d i n g s on scheduled s e r v i c e s have been made i n Cat I c o n d i t i o n s although both a i r c r a f t have made experimental
l a n d i n g s i n t h i c k fog. The p r e s e n t world wide landing a c c i d e n t r a t e is about one f a t a l a c c i d e n t i n one m i l l i o n
landings. The B r i t i s h A i r R e g i s t r a t i o n Board (ARB) i n c o n s i d e r i n g t h e r i s k introduced by an automatic landing
system, as one c o n t r i b u t i o n among many, have proposed an o v e r a l l s a f e t y t a r g e t of not more than one f a t a l a c c i d e n t
i n t e n m i l l i o n l a n d i n g s as a r e s u l t of using t h e system.

A s t h i s c r i t e r i o n has t o be a p p l i e d t o t h o s e l a n d i n g s made i n t h e lower v i s i b i l i t y c o n d i t i o n s as a group,

r a t h e r t h a n on average over t h e e n t i r e spectrum of v i s i b i l i t y , it is, obvious t h a t a v a s t i n c r e a s e i n s a f e t y must
be achieved i n t h e s e c o n d i t i o n s . To s a t i s f y t h i s s a f e t y c r i t e r i o n from t h e p o i n t of view of r e l i a b i l i t y using
a s i n g l e unmonitored a u t o p i l o t , would demand a mean time between f a i l u r e (MTBF) of somewhat i n e x c e s s of 150.000
hours. There is f r a n k l y no prospect of achieving such r e l i a b i l i t y f o r t h i s t y p e of equipment and redundant
elements a r e e s s e n t i a l . I would argue t h a t it is u n s a t i s f a c t o r y i n near-blind c o n d i t i o n s , i n t h e c a s e of auto-
p i l o t f a i l u r e , t o p r e s e n t t h e p i l o t suddenly with a s i t u a t i o n where he has t o t a k e over and make a manual landing.
In such c o n d i t i o n s , with d o u b t f u l v i s u a l r e f e r e n c e , o r even i f he is using a f l i g h t d i r e c t o r whose r e l i a b i l i t y
is l i k e l y t o be f a r l e s s t h a n t h a t of t h e a u t o p i l o t , t h e s a f e t y of t h e o p e r a t i o n must be i n grave doubt. Hence
t h e UK p o l i c y h a s been t o opt f o r a system which is capable of s u r v i v i n g any s i n g l e f a i l u r e . Such systems are
at p r e s e n t f i t t e d i n t h e T r i d e n t and VC 10 i n s l i g h t l y d i f f e r e n t forms, and are s p e c i f i e d f o r t h e Concorde.
Automatic b l i n d l a n d i n g s must not be made without gaining t h e necessary “proof” under c o n d i t i o n s which allow t h e
p i l o t t o s e e what is happening. T h i s is t h e b a s i s of t h e p r e s e n t UK implementation programme which assumes
s e v e r a l years s a f e o p e r a t i o n a l experience before reducing v i s i b i l i t y minima t o a r e a l l y low l e v e l . This
experience w i l l , at t h e same time, g i v e t h e p i l o t t h e necessary confidence which is so e s s e n t i a l , and without
which he is l i a b l e t o i n t r o d u c e e x t r a r i s k by unnecessary “ i n t e r f e r e n c e ” with t h e system. I t t h e r e f o r e seems
t o me i n d e f e n s i b l e t o adopt a “look-see” a t t i t u d e towards really low v i s i b i l i t y c a t e g o r i e s , i . e . Cat 111,
though it is hard t o be so dogmatic about Cat I1 o p e r a t i o n s .

Many y e a r s ago, a d e t a i l e d study was made of t h e time t a k e n t o c o r r e c t a l a t e r a l o f f - s e t p r i o r t o landing,

which r e s u l t e d i n a minimum f i g u r e of about 10 seconds. T h i s s t u d y r e l a t e d t o comparatively slow piston-engined
a i r c r a f t and t h e s i t u a t i o n with regard t o a modern j e t a i r c r a f t is l i k e l y t o be worse. A r e c e n t US a r t i c l e (1)
p u t s it s u c c i n c t l y : “In Cat I I B , t h e time it t a k e s t o i d e n t i f y and c o r r e c t l a t e r a l , v e r t i c a l and l o n g i t u d i n a l
d i s p e r s i o n s of t h e instrument-guided a i r c r a f t back t o t h e accepted v i s u a l c o n d i t i o n s may exceed t h e a c t u a l time
remaining t o touchdown’! The i m p l i c a t i o n s are c l e a r . For s a f e Cat I1 manual l a n d i n g s , t h e p i l o t must really
be “ i n t h e groove” at d e c i s i o n height. I f n o t , t h e landing success rate is l i k e l y t o be very low and t h i s w i l l
c r e a t e queues, both i n t h e air and on t h e ground, and so prevent t h e b u i l d i n g up of an a c c e p t a b l e movement r a t e ,
q u i t e apart from t h e r i s k involved i n a last moment go-around.

T r a d i t i o n a l l y , t h e r e h a s been a somewhat d i f f e r e n t approach t o low v i s i b i l i t y l a n d i n g s by t h e UK and US. The

prime emphasis i n t h e UK has been t o go d i r e c t l y t o f u l l y automatic landing systems capable of o p e r a t i n g i n a l l
v i s i b i l i t y c o n d i t i o n s . The US and some o t h e r European o p e r a t o r s , on t h e o t h e r hand, have tended t o go f o r less
complex automatic equipment, with more p i l o t p a r t i c i p a t i o n and t h e use of f l i g h t d i r e c t o r s , w i t h t h e i n i t i a l
o b j e c t i v e of achieving Cat I1 o p e r a t i o n s . But now, when c o n s i d e r i n g Cat I11 o p e r a t i o n s , I b e l i e v e t h e r e is
v i r t u a l l y f u l l agreement, and at a r e c e n t meeting of t h e All-Weather Operations Group of t h e ATA, I understand
t h a t it was agreed t h a t a l l new C i v i l t r a n s p o r t a i r c r a f t should be equipped from t h e beginning with f a i l u r e
s u r v i v a l automatic landing systems.

Nevertheless, f o r some time t o come t h e r e w i l l be a need, p a r t i c u l a r l y f o r l e s s s o p h i s t i c a t e d a i r c r a f t , t o

provide adequate s a f e t y down t o Cat I1 c o n d i t i o n s . A r e c e n t paper by Ken Kramer ( 2 ) s u g g e s t s t h a t although
khere is now g e n e r a l agreement t h a t Cat I11 o p e r a t i o n s demand f u l l y automatic c o n t r o l through f l a r e and touch-
down, t h e same requirement a l s o s t a n d s f o r Cat I1 o p e r a t i o n s , because Cat I1 c o n d i t i o n s are not c o n s i s t e n t . .
Recent work i n t h e UK has emphasised t h e t r a n s i t o r y n a t u r e of Cat I1 c o n d i t i o n s and underlined t h e d i f f i c u l t y
of achieving meaningful measurements of v i s i b i l i t y i n an environment where changes occur very r a p i d l y , s o t h a t
measurements t a k e n are i r r e l e v a n t due t o s l i g h t d i f f e r e n c e s of l o c a t i o n o r passage of time.
 1-3

The dangers a s s o c i a t e d with o p e r a t i n g down t o a cloud base of 100 f e e t without a f u l l y automatic system must
t h e r e f o r e not be underrated, though t h e e x t e n t t o which t h e o p e r a t i o n s a r e j u s t i f i a b l e using automatic approach
followed by a manual landing, perhaps using a f l i g h t d i r e c t o r , is debatable. To what e x t e n t then, could t h e
f l i g h t d i r e c t o r provide s a f e t y i n conjunction with a simple automatic c o n t r o l system? There is a p r e f e r e n c e on
t h e p a r t of many p i l o t s t h a t such a d i s p l a y should be provided head-up because of t h e n a t u r a l tendency of t h e
p i l o t t o look o u t f o r any v i s u a l cues t h a t become a v a i l a b l e .

The head-up d i s p l a y i t s e l f does indeed appear t o provide t h e only p r a c t i c a l method of p r e s e n t i n g simultaneously

both t h e e x t e r n a l v i s u a l world and i n s t r u m e n t a l information. Furthermore t h e time taken t o t r a n s f e r a t t e n t i o n
from a head-down d i s p l a y , which is at s h o r t v i s u a l range, and r e f o c u s and a p p r e c i a t e t h e o u t s i d e view i s most
s i g n i f i c a n t , and must induce unnecessary r i s k during t h i s , t h e most c r i t i c a l , p a r t of t h e landing. I f t h e out-
s i d e world is seen t o be inadequate, t h e process w i l l have t o be reversed.

But t h e very use of a head-up d i s p l a y r a i s e s problems i n t h a t , once having admitted t h a t t h e visual c u e s i n

p i t c h a r e poor, t h e p i l o t who s e e s any o u t s i d e world whatsoever w i l l be s o r e l y tempted t o abandon h i s i n s t r u -
mental guidance, which is almost c e r t a i n l y s u p e r i o r , t h u s r e v e r t i n g t o h i s b a s i c a l l y u n s a t i s f a c t o r y s t a t e .
Furthermore one must c o n s i d e r t h e r e l i a b i l i t y of t h e d i s p l a y i t s e l f , which is l i k e l y t o be one of t h e weakest
l i n k s i n t h e chain. I f one goes t o t h e complexity of a redundant head-up d i s p l a y , t o g e t h e r with a s i m p l i f i e d
automatic c o n t r o l system, it is l i k e l y t h a t t h e t o t a l complexity w i l l be at l e a s t as g r e a t and probably g r e a t e r ,
t h a n a f u l l f a i l u r e - s u r v i v a l automatic system.

What t h e n is t h e l i k e l y a p p l i c a t i o n f o r HUD? There w i l l i n e v i t a b l y be s m a l l e r a i r c r a f t f o r which t h e f i t t i n g

of a f u l l automatic landing system would not be economic, and f o r such, a HUD may provide some improvement i n
r e g u l a r i t y and s a f e t y . B u t because t h e i n s t a l l a t i o n involves both economic and engineering problems, it is
necessary t o assess t h e b e n e f i t i n any s p e c i f i c a p p l i c a t i o n before d e c i d i n g t o f i t such a d i s p l a y . There a r e
b a s i c a l l y t h r e e p o s s i b l e a p p l i c a t i o n s corresponding t o t h e d i f f e r e n t v i s i b i l i t y c a t e g o r i e s .

For Cat 111, o r n e a r - b l i n d o p e r a t i o n s , with a p p r o p r i a t e equipment f i t , t h e p i l o t must p o s i t i v e l y be discouraged

from making d e c i s i o n s based on h i s e x t e r n a l v i s i o n i n view of t h e l i k e l i h o o d t h a t it may be inadequate or even
misleading. The r e l i a b i l i t y of any automatic landing system must be such t h a t i t s i n t e g r i t y would be impaired
r a t h e r than enhanced by such a c t i o n . Any monitoring should be on t h e b a s i s of instrumental information and t h e
most r e l i a b l e form of such information is l i k e l y t o be head-down. There would seem, t h e r e f o r e , t o be no need t o
f i t a HUD t o monitor t h e automatic landing system f o r Cat I11 o p e r a t i o n s , although i f one were f i t t e d f o r o t h e r
reasons, it might be used t o supplement v i s u a l guidance during ground r o l l - o u t .

For Cat I1 o p e r a t i o n s t h e use of a HUD could be of value, for example i n shallow fog c o n d i t i o n s , when t h e r e
m a y be t i m e s when t h e v i s u a l segment d e c r e a s e s suddenly, l e a v i n g t h e p i l o t with no v i s u a l guidance at a very
c r i t i c a l s t a g e . HUD could g i v e a marked improvement i n performance below d e c i s i o n h e i g h t by providing t h e
e q u i v a l e n t of a g l i d e path extension. Furthermore, at d e c i s i o n h e i g h t , t h e chance of making a c o r r e c t d e c i s i o n
could be improved by t h e Captain having two independent s o u r c e s of information, t h e v i s u a l and t h e i n s t r u m e n t a l ,
but t h e problem of adequate r e l i a b i l i t y would have t o be very c a r e f u l l y considered.

Throughout t h e world, t h e r e are s t i l l many poorly equipped a i r p o r t s used by long-haul o p e r a t o r s . Although

t h e a i r c r a f t used may be well equipped, t h e ground equipment, both ILS and v i s u a l a i d s , is o f t e n of poor q u a l i t y
or non-existent. These d i f f i c u l t i e s a r e emphasised when t h e approach is over f e a t u r e l e s s t e r r a i n such as sand
o r water and p a r t i c u l a r l y at n i g h t . For a l l t h e s e c a s e s , a simple HUD t o s t a b i l i s e t h e approach p a t h t o a
n o t i o n a l 3' could be a v a l u a b l e a i d t o improving performance and hence s a f e t y .

The whole question of t h e r o l e t h a t t h e aircrew must p l a y during low v i s i b i l i t y landings i s now being c a r e -
f u l l y s t u d i e d . C e r t a i n l y t h e r e is room for improvement i n t r a i n i n g methods and b e t t e r c o c k p i t d r i l l s , but it
may, i n t h e f u t u r e , be p o s s i b l e t o r e d e s i g n t h e f l i g h t c o n t r o l system t o e l i m i n a t e many of t h o s e tasks which
r e q u i r e manual s e l e c t i o n . Even i f a f u l l y automatic f a i l u r e s u r v i v a l landing s y s t e m ' i s f i t t e d , t h e p i l o t has
s t i l l t o bear t h e f u l l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r t h e s a f e t y of h i s passengers, and u n t i l an automatic landing can be
guaranteed every time, he must continue t o p l a y an important r o l e i n maintaining t h e s a f e t y of t h e landing
o p e r a t i o n . There can be no question of d i s p o s i n g of t h e p i l o t , but he must p r o g r e s s from being t h e o p e r a t o r
t o becoming t h e manager. I

With many t y p e s of a i r c r a f t now equipped f o r making automatic l a n d i n g s , what a r e t h e major o b s t a c l e s t o

p r o g r e s s towards r e g u l a r b l i n d l a n d i n g s ? There are two broad c a t e g o r i e s , f i r s t l y t o ensure t h a t every p a r t of
t h e system has t h e r e q u i r e d performance and r e l i a b i l i t y and secondly t o provide t h e r i g h t environment. In
l i s t i n g them, I would l i k e t o r e f e r t o t h o s e examples of r e s e a r c h now being undertaken which a r e u n l i k e l y t o
be covered f u l l y by o t h e r speakers.

Undoubtedly t h e f i r s t t o mention is t h e problem of i n t e g r i t y of I.L.S. which by v i r t u e of i t s frequency, is

s u b j e c t t o i n t e r f e r e n c e both by s t a t i c o b j e c t s and taxying a i r c r a f t , and a l s o from o t h e r a i r c r a f t o v e r f l y i n g
t h e I . L . S . l o c a l i s e r . T h i s l a t t e r c a s e is t h e only s i g n i f i c a n t one of a t r a n s i e n t n a t u r e which h a s been i d e n t i -
f i e d and i s o l a t e d . I n a long queue waiting t o t a k e o f f at JFK r e c e n t l y with mixed landings and t a k e - o f f s , it
was easy t o see how such i n t e r f e r e n c e could a r i s e . Because, i n a d d i t i o n , t h e I . L . S . propagation p a t h is a
s i n g l e one, I am convinced t h a t it is p o t e n t i a l l y t h e weakest l i n k i n a system which otherwise i s l i k e l y t o
have a high degree of redundancy.
1-4

To attempt t o s o l v e t h e problem of i n t e r f e r e n c e due t o o v e r f l y i n g a i r c r a f t by r i g i d A.T.C. procedures, although

u s e f u l as a short-term p a l l i a t i v e , w i l l not s o l v e t h e long-term problem of a t t a i n i n g a high movement r a t e i n
r e a l l y bad weather.

I b e l i e v e t h a t t h e r e are at l e a s t f o u r approaches t o t h e problem of I.L.S. i n t e g r i t y . F i r s t l y t h e r e v o l u t i o n -

ary: t o r e p l a c e I.L.S. with a new system e n t i r e l y . Undoubtedly t h i s must come, but it must not be done h a s t i l y ,
and even i f it could be, t h e proving of a new system would involve a very long programme, w i t h f u l l r e c e r t i f i -
c a t i o n of e x i s t i n g systems. I . L . S . as it s t a n d s is probably well capable of providing guidance j u s t down i n t o
Cat 111, and t h e r e is at p r e s e n t an enormous c a p i t a l investment i n it. Secondly a supplementary approach of
two s o r t s - i n d i r e c t and d i r e c t . One can supplement I.L.S. with an independent monitor, e i t h e r of a similar o r
completely d i f f e r e n t type. This w i l l not improve t h e b a s i c i n t e g r i t y of I.L.S. o r even render it l e s s s u s c e p t i b l e
t o i n t e r f e r e n c e , but it would improve s a f e t y and it looks as i f such a system could be e n t i r e l y s a t i s f a c t o r y
down t o t h e lowest height at which it is s a f e f o r t h e a i r c r a f t t o overshoot, i n t h e c a s e of some a i r c r a f t as
low as 30 f e e t .

The o t h e r t y p e of supplementary approach is t o use an “ i n e r t i a l c r u t c h ” , t h a t is t o use an i n e r t i a l term as

an a c t i v e p a r t of t h e system. A number of f l i g h t t e s t s has been made at Bedford using a s p e c i a l l y equipped
Comet a i r c r a f t , and it seems t h a t a r e a l l y good platform is necessary, though not beyond c u r r e n t known techniques,
t h a t is a t r a n s m i t t e d accuracy of about 10-4g. Special f l i g h t t e s t s involving two a i r c r a f t have shown t h a t it
ought t o be p o s s i b l e by t h i s means t o overcome t h e e f f e c t of major i n t e r f e r e n c e t o I.L.S. such as is caused by
a i r c r a f t t a k i n g o f f over t h e l o c a l i s e r .

However, t h i s is not a p p l i c a b l e t o a l l a i r c r a f t . There w i l l undoubtedly be problesm of redundancy of t h e

i n e r t i a l system and i n t e g r i t y of t h e i n t e r f a c e with t h e a u t o p i l o t . It is most u n l i k e l y t o be economic u n l e s s
t h e i n e r t i a l system is a l r e a d y used f o r o t h e r purposes.

L a s t l y , an e v o l u t i o n a r y approach. I f an a l t e r n a t i v e guidance system is a v a i l a b l e , it could be f i r s t used as

a monitor, and t h e n proceed with a l l t h e complexity of i n t e r n a t i o n a l acceptance, towards its f i r s t being used
as d i r e c t supplementary guidance and e v e n t u a l l y as a new proven system i n i t s own r i g h t .

The second major o b s t a c l e is concerned with t h e a i r c r e w and t h e i n t e r f a c e between t h e a u t o p i l o t and t h e aircrew.

In o p e r a t i o n a l use with BEA. t h e r e has been a l a r g e d i s p a r i t y between t h e p i l o t cut-out r a t e i n c l e a r weather
below 100 f e e t and t h e implied a c c e p t a b l e i n t e r v e n t i o n r a t e below 100 f e e t , i n low v i s i b i l i t y , t a k i n g i n t o
account t h e overshoot r i s k .

We have, at BLEU, conducted a s e r i e s of s i m u l a t o r s t u d i e s i n Cat I1 c o n d i t i o n s , with P i l o t 1 head-up through-

o u t , and P i l o t 2 monitoring on head-down instrumental information, with a v a r i e t y of v i s i b i l i t y sequences. From
t h e s e t e s t s we have drawn t h r e e main c o n c l u s i o n s : -

(1) There a r e p o t e n t i a l problems when t h e i n t e r v a l between h-eak-out and d e c i s i o n height is less t h a n about
t h r e e seconds. There t e n d s t o be a c o n f l i c t between P1 and P2.

(2) Once below d e c i s i o n h e i g h t . t h e p i l o t is very r e l u c t a n t t o change h i s mind and go-around even i f t h e

v i s u a l segment d e t e r i o r a t e s s i g n i f i c a n t l y . Both t h e s e f i r s t two conclusions emphasise t h e importance
of pursuing improved methods of measuring v i s i b i l i t y .
(3) The t e s t s i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e r e d b a r r e t t e s , t h e pad of red l i g h t s j u s t p r i o r t o t h r e s h o l d , made a
s i g n i f i c a n t improvement t o performance, p a r t i c u l a r l y a t n i g h t .

The t h i r d and last main o b s t a c l e t o p r o g r e s s is concerned with t h e whole problem of a i r p o r t s u r f a c e t r a f f i c

c o n t r o l . T h i s problem is well-known, and p r e s e n t s s p e c i a l d i f f i c u l t y t o a i r c r a f t , as well as both o r d i n a r y
and emergency v e h i c l e s . The problem is t o e s t a b l i s h t h e i d e n t i t y l o c a t i o n and i n t e n t i o n of a l l v e h i c l e s on t h e
a i r p o r t . A s f a r as I am aware, no system c u r r e n t l y envisaged s a t i s f i e s t h e s e t h r e e requirements i n t h e g e n e r a l
case, t h a t is f o r a r e a l l y busy a i r p o r t i n r e a l l y low v i s i b i l i t y .

As an example of c u r r e n t work being done i n t h i s area, I would j u s t mention a programme on t h e problem of

measuring runway d i s t a n c e t o go, which m a y prove t o be e s s e n t i a l f o r Cat I11 o p e r a t i o n s but could be u s e f u l f o r
a l l v i s i b i l i t y c o n d i t i o n s . F l i g h t t e s t s have been made using presence d e t e c t o r s on t h e runway t o d e r i v e t h e
i n i t i a l range term, i n conjunction with a wheel p i c k - o f f . A number of d i f f e r e n t s e n s o r s has been t r i e d , though
we a r e a c t u a l l y using a s e r i e s of i n f r a - r e d d e t e c t o r s p o s i t i o n e d l a t e r a l l y a c r o s s t h e runway s u r f a c e , s t a r t i n g
at a range j u s t a f t e r t h e normal expected touch-down range.

The p r e s e n t a t i o n has been of d i s t a n c e t o t u r n - o f f and speed, with t h e o p t i o n of a simple d e c e l e r a t i o n d e t e c t o r .

T h i s type of system is l i k e l y t o come i n t o its own a t v i s i b i l i t i e s below 200m.. but o p e r a t i o n a l l y it cbuld pro-
v i d e two main b e n e f i t s even i n c l e a r e r weather.

(1) It could ensure t h e optimum use of brakes, t h u s reducing t y r e wear.

(2) I t could improve runway u t i l i s a t i o n by helping t h e p i l o t t o c l e a r t h e runway as soon as p o s s i b l e .

I n a d d i t i o n , i n bad v i s i b i l i t y , it is expected t o g i v e some improvement i n s a f e t y , p a r t i c u l a r l y f o r t h e

apu ap 1a n i ng c a s e.
 1- 5

Even given a guidance system of adequate i n t e g r i t y and an a i r p o r t equipped t o o p e r a t e i n near b l i n d conditions,

t h e c e r t i f i c a t i o n of landing systems can only be achieved by s t a g e s as a r e s u l t of measuring performance i n opera-
t i o n a l s e r v i c e . T h i s involves gathering s t a t i s t i c a l data, i f p o s s i b l e both i n t h e a i r c r a f t and on t h e ground, t o
ensure t h a t t h e basic system design is both v a l i d and adequate.

A r e c e n t c o n t r i b u t i o n i n t h i s a r e a has been t h e development by BLEII, i n conjunction with E l l i o t t Automation

R a d a r Systems Limited, of an a i r c r a f t landing measurement system (ALMS) designed t o c o l l e c t s t a t i s t i c a l d a t a on
approach and landing performance i n o p e r a t i o n a l c o n d i t i o n s at busy c i v i l a i r p o r t s , i n t h e hope of maintaining,
o r p r e f e r a b l y improving, s a f e t y standards by q u a l i t y c o n t r o l . The system aims t o s a t i s f y t h r e e important re-
quirements; t h a t it should be cheap, t h a t it can be operated automatically without cooperation from t h e landing
aircraft, even i n very low v i s i b i l i t i e s , a n d t h a t t h e data be produced i n computer-compatible form. The last
requirement enables a l a r g e amount of information t o be c o l l e c t e d and c o r r e l a t e d with information such as air-
craft t y p e and weather conditions. A prototype system has been produced f o r use at Bedford A i r f i e l d and it is
hoped t o i n s t a l l a complete system at London Airport by t h e end of 1970.

Looking t o t h e more d i s t a n t f u t u r e , it is intended t o t a c k l e t h e c o n t r o l problems a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h e use of

curved approach p a t h s i n t,he hope of achieving a more f l e x i b l e and a c c u r a t e c o n t r o l throughout t h e whole terminal
movement a r e a . The use of a c c u r a t e l y c o n t r o l l e d curved f l i g h t p a t h s i n azimuth may achieve g r e a t e r runway
u t i l i z a t i o n by bringing aircraft of d i f f e r e n t approach speeds along d i f f e r e n t p a t h s so as t o a r r i v e at t h e runway
t h r e s h o l d at equally spaced i n t e r v a l s . Increased accuracy might also allow reduction i n p a r a l l e l runway separa-
t i o n at p a r t i c u l a r a i r p o r t s i f a l l t h e a i r c r a f t were s u i t a b l y equipped. I n t h e v e r t i c a l plane, t h e use of curved
o r two-stage p a t h s could o f f e r t h e p o s s i b i l i t y of reducing noise.

The counterpart t o t h i s c o n t r o l research programme, which is mainly concerned with achieving b e t t e r performance
under new conditions, i s t h e need f o r improved r e l i a b i l i t y . A s t h e automatic system becomes more and niore re-
l i a b l e , so it should become p o s s i b l e t o c a r r y l e s s f u e l t o allow f o r a diversion. Eventually t h e time could
come when t h e o v e r a l l r e l i a b i l i t y w i l l be s o h i g h t h a t it should not i n theory be necessary t o c a t e r f o r a
d i v e r s i o n at a l l , but t h e r e are unfortunately v a r i o u s reasons, not connected w i t h automatic landing, such a s
a blocked runway, which preclude f u l l e x p l o i t a t i o n of t h i s p o s s i b i l i t y . D e n a minor reduction would be a most
a t t r a c t i v e economic p r o p o s i t i o n , p a r t i c u l a r l y f o r s u c h aircraft as t h e SST. but t h e need t o maintain adequate
r e l i a b i l i t y and hence safety, w i l l , i n t h i s p a r t i c u l a r case, p r e s e n t a considerable challenge t o t h e equipment
manufacturer.

I
 2

A N INTERNATIONAL AIRLINE VIEWS

AUTOMATIC LANDING SYSTEMS

by

B. F. McLeod

Director, E l e c t r o n i c Engineering
Pan American World Airways
Miami, F l o r i d a 33195, USA
2

\
\

.---,
 2- 1

AN I N T E R N A T I O N A L A I R L I N E VIEWS
AUTOMATIC L A N D I N G SYSTEMS

B. F. McLeod

I t was November, 1947, when t h e f i r s t United S t a t e s a i r l i n e p i s t o n a i r p l a n e s were approved t o o p e r a t e t o

weather minimums of a 200 f o o t c e i l i n g and a forward v i s i b i l i t y of Ih mile. Although a few a i r c r a f t c a r r i e d auto-
p i l o t approach c o u p l e r s , f o r a l l practical purposes low v i s i b i l i t y approaches at t h a t time were f u l l y manual,
using o u t p u t s d i r e c t from t h e a i r c r a f t ILS r e c e i v e r s o r from Ground Control Approach (GCA). About 1952, a major
advance w a s made i n a i r b o r n e i n s t r u m e n t a t i o n when t h e Sperry Company introduced t h e Zero Reader. This device,
as i t s name i m p l i e s , had two c r o s s - p o i n t e r n e e d l e s which, when centered on zero, i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e a i r c r a f t was
on t h e d e s i r e d c o u r s e , o r w a s being s t e e r e d p r o p e r l y t o g e t back on course. A few y e a r s later, as o t h e r companies
produced similar equipment, t h e more g e n e r a l term “ f l i g h t d i r e c t o r ” was adopted i n o r d e r t o avoid t r a d e names.

By late 1958, e s s e n t i a l l y a l l United States a i r l i n e p i s t o n a i r c r a f t were equipped with a u t o approach c o u p l e r s

and f l i g h t d i r e c t o r s and 200 and Ih o p e r a t i o n w a s r o u t i n e on ILS equipped runways. Then, i n October of t h a t
y e a r , t h e f i r s t United S t a t e s commercial j e t s e n t e r e d s e r v i c e .

I n i t i a l l y , t h e FAA decided t h a t a l l t u r b o j e t a i r c r a f t should be r e s t r i c t e d t o weather minimums of 300 f e e t

and % mile v i s i b i l i t y . During t h e p e r i o d from 1958 t o 1962, passengers demonstrated a tremendous p r e f e r e n c e
f o r t h e comfort and speed of j e t t r a v e l ; however, when weather c o n d i t i o n s were poor, it was not uncommon f o r
passengers t o d e s e r t t h e j e t schedules and seek p i s t o n a i r c r a f t as t h e d i f f e r e n c e i n landing minimums r e s u l t e d
i n much b e t t e r o p e r a t i n g r e l i a b i l i t y f o r p i s t o n a i r c r a f t . It i s i n t e r e s t i n g t o n o t e how we have f o r g o t t e n t h o s e
inconveniences i n j u s t seven years! There is, however, a p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t we could s e e a recurrence of t h i s
s i t u a t i o n when t h e SSTs a r e f i r s t introduced.

Extensive teamwork s t a r t e d i n 1959 between i n d u s t r y and government l e d t o t h e s t i l l developing U . S . A . c r i t e r i a

f o r t h e Category I , 11, and I11 a l l weather landing program. A s t h i s paper d e a l s with t h e a i r l i n e e f f o r t i n t h i s
program, I would l i k e t o mention t h e commendable r o l e of t h e Air Transport A s s o c i a t i o n ’ s All-Weather Operations
Committee which was e s t a b l i s h e d under t h e l e a d e r s h i p of Captain Johnny G i l l and l a t e r d i r e c t e d by Captain Gordon
Granger. During one of t h e e a r l y meetings of t h i s Committee, t h e following o b j e c t i v e s were e s t a b l i s h e d :

Basic Aim

‘The u l t i m a t e aim of t h e U . S . scheduled a i r l i n e s i s t h e achievement through e v o l u t i o n a r y development of a

complete instrument system p e r m i t t i n g o p e r a t i o n from o r i g i n a t i n g g a t e t o d e s t i n a t i o n gate without v i s u a l
outside reference.
“he steps planned for landing are as follows:

1. Achievement of weather minimums of 2,600 f t of Runway Visual Range (RVR) [200 f t and Ih mile f o r a l l air-
t c r a f t at a l l major a i r c a r r i e r t e r m i n a l s ] .

2. Reduction of weather minimums t o 1,300 f t of RVR [lo0 f t and !/1 mile f o r a l l a i r c r a f t at a l l major air
carrier t e r m i n a l s ] . ( E s s e n t i a l l y ICAO Operational Category 11). !

3. A. Reduction of weather minimums t o an RVR of 700 f t o r approximately t h r e e seconds of v i s u d time.

(This ,is still a see-to-land concept).,

B. Execution of landing through decrab and touchdown without o u t s i d e v i s u a l r e f e r e n c e , but with o u t s i d e

v i s u a l guidance f o r r o l l - o u t .
C. Execution o f landing and r o l l - o u t without o u t s i d e v i s u a l r e f e r e n c e , but with v i s u a l o r o t h e r guidance
f o r t a x i i n g t o t h e gate., ( E s s e n t i a l l y ICAO Operational Category 111-B).
D. Complete instrument landing and t a x i o p e r a t i o n t o d e s t i n a t i o n g a t e without o u t s i d e v i s u a l r e f e r e n c e .

“he steps for take-off are as follows:

1. Elimination of t h e c e i l i n g minimum requirement f o r t h o s e a i r c r a f t f o r which it is now r e q u i r e d .

2. Reduction of take-off v i s i b i l i t y requirements t o t h e minimum r e q u i r e d t o provide v i s u a l information f o r

alignment with runway c e n t e r - l i n e l i g h t s .
3 . A. Take-off from end of runway without o u t s i d e v i s u a l r e f e r e n c e .

B. Complete instrument d e p a r t u r e from o r i g i n a t i n g gate, without o u t s i d e v i s u a l reference.

2- 2

Approximately t h r e e and one-half y e a r s were r e q u i r e d t o e s t a b l i s h Category I requirements f o r t u r b o j e t

a i r c r a f t , t o q u a l i f y t h e f i r s t a i r p l a n e s , and t o demonstrate r e q u i r e d crew c a p a b i l i t y . T h i s milestone was
passed on May 14, 1962, when approval was granted t o Pan Am, and followed very soon by a u t h o r i z a t i o n t o s e v e r a l
other airlines.

Once p a s t t h i s mile-post, government and i n d u s t r y launched a new and p i o n e e r i n g d r i v e - t o go t o Category I1

o p e r a t i n g c o n d i t i o n s involving limits never approved before f o r any c i v i l a i r o p e r a t i o n .

I t was a memorable day i n October, 1965, when United A i r l i n e s received t h e f i r s t approval t o o p e r a t e t o a

d e c i s i o n h e i g h t of 150 f e e t and 1,600 f e e t RVR under t h e Category I1 program. Later, Pan Am and o t h e r s a l s o
passed t h i s bench mark and i n January, 1967, Pan Am became t h e f i r s t a i r l i n e t o r e c e i v e approval t o o p e r a t e
t o a 100 f t d e c i s i o n h e i g h t and 1,200 f t RVR.

Where does t h e i n d u s t r y s t a n d i n mid-1969? Almost 1,400, o r approximately 80 p e r c e n t , of t h e US j e t t r a n s -

p o r t s a r e q u a l i f i e d f o r Category 11. In Pan Am’s c a s e , our e n t i r e f l e e t of 154 j e t s was f u l l y q u a l i f i e d last
January.

R e g r e t t a b l y , t h e Category I1 a i r p o r t q u a l i f i c a t i o n program is f a r behind t h e a s s o c i a t e d a i r c r a f t and crew

t r a i n i n g q u a l i f i c a t i o n programs. A s of March, 1969, t h e US had only one runway (at O’Hare F i e l d ) t h a t f u l l y
q u a l i f i e d f o r 1,200 f t RVR d u r i n g both day and n i g h t c o n d i t i o n s . Ten a d d i t i o n a l runways a r e Category I1
approved, but with varying degrees of r e s t r i c t i o n s . Of t h e 102 a i r p o r t s o u t s i d e t h e United S t a t e s served by
Pan Am, none is y e t approved by t h e FAA f o r Category I1 o p e r a t i o n ; however, we b e l i e v e t h a t s e v e r a l a r e adequate.

It is estimated t h a t t h e US a i r l i n e s have s p e n t about $80 m i l l i o n f o r improved a l l - w e a t h e r c a p a b i l i t y on t h e

i n - s e r v i c e f l e e t and much more than t h i s is being spent f o r a i r c r a f t on o r d e r . The a i r l i n e s c o n t i n u e t o remain
o p t i m i s t i c t h a t t h e FAA and l o c a l a u t h o r i t i e s w i l l a c c e l e r a t e t h e lagging a i r p o r t programs.

Most j e t s i n c u r r e n t s e r v i c e a r e equipped with a s i n g l e automatic approach system and d u a l f l i g h t d i r e c t o r

systems. Several hundred have dual a u t o p i l o t systems and about 85 US jet a i r c r a f t have complete automatic
landing c a p a b i l i t y i n c l u d i n g automatic t h r o t t l e s . Pan Am has f i v e B-707s and two 8-727s t h a t a r e f u l l y equipped
and FAA approved for automatic landings to as low as Category II minimums in scheduled passenger operation. The
a i r l i n e j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r automatic landing equipment on i n - s e r v i c e a i r c r a f t is t o f u r t h e r r e f i n e Category I1
f a c i l i t i e s and t e c h n i q u e s and develop Category I11 systems.

For more t h a n twenty y e a r s , it h a s been p o s s i b l e f o r r e s e a r c h and development groups t o demonstrate automatic

landings. Many of u s probably made some i n DC-3s back as e a r l y as 1946. The problem has been t o t r a n s l a t e t h i s
c a p a b i l i t y t o a day-to-day o p e r a t i o n using s k i l l s and maintenance p r a c t i c e s found i n an a i r l i n e environment.
The a i r l i n e s have f i n a l l y a r r i v e d at t h e period i n which a determined e f f o r t is being made t o make automatic
landing work i n a l i n e o p e r a t i o n .

F o r t u n a t e l y , t o d a y ’ s a i r b o r n e and ground f a c i l i t i e s a r e f a r b e t t e r than t h o s e of t h e p a s t . P r o g r e s s i s r e -

markable! Pan Am has now made more than 1,000 automatic l a n d i n g s of which about 400 were i n scheduled passenger
o p e r a t i o n . P i l o t acceptance and enthusiasm are good. Last y e a r , i n reviewing autoland performance, it was
noted t h a t t o o o f t e n t h e monitor s h u t down t h e automatic landing system ( u s u a l l y at an a l t i t u d e of 1,500 t o
1,000 f e e t ) f o r no apparent reason. Likewise, when checked on t h e ground no o u t - o f - t o l e r a n c e equipment could be
d e t e c t e d . With e x c e l l e n t h e l p from Boeing and Sperry, a s i g n i f i c a n t m o d i f i c a t i o n was made t o t h e 8-727 system
t o reduce t h e exposure t o t h i s problem. Also, i f a shut-down does occur now, we have a l i m i t e d system t o show
what caused it. T h i s modification has c a r r i e d us through another long s t r i d e forward. A word of c a u t i o n is i n
o r d e r , however, regarding t h e t o l e r a n c e t o which monitors are capable of working and t h e manner i n which t h e y are
a d j u s t e d , as t h e y w i l l always have a major i n f l u e n c e on t h e performance of an automatic landing system.

I t is a reasonable estimate t h a t t h e t a s k of e s t a b l i s h i n g Category 1 1 1 - A c r i t e r i a w i l l r e q u i r e about t h r e e

y e a r s and it i s expected t h a t t h e FAA w i l l announce t h e o f f i c i a l requirements about l a t e 1969. To add c r e d i -
b i l i t y t o t h i s p r e d i c t i o n , t h e FAA r e c e n t l y r e l e a s e d a d r a f t Advisory C i r c u l a r e n t i t l e d “Concepts of Airborne
Systems f o r Category 1 1 1 - A Operations”.

It is planned t h a t t h e b a s i c mode of Category 1 1 1 - A o p e r a t i o n s w i l l be automatic t o touchdown. Redundant

o p e r a t i o n a l f l i g h t c o n t r o l c a p a b i l i t y (two o p e r a t i o n a l landing systems making a f a i l - o p e r a t i o n a l landing system)
at least down t o t h e predetermined a l e r t h e i g h t is r e q u i r e d .

L i s t e d below are t y p i c a l arrangements by which it is expected t h a t Category 1 1 1 - A f l i g h t c o n t r o l system r e -

quirements can b e met:

A. Two independent, f u l l y monitored a u t o p i l o t s , (making up a dual-automatic f a i l - o p e r a t i o n a l system) one

remaining o p e r a t i v e a f t e r a f a i l u r e .
B. An a l t e r n a t e arrangement would u t i l i z e two monitored systems, each c o n s i s t i n g of an i n t e g r a t e d a u t o p i l o t
and f l i g h t d i r e c t o r system w i t h common f l a r e computation, with one monitored system remaining o p e r a t i o n a l
after a failure.
C. Another a l t e r n a t i v e arrangement would u t i l i z e t h r e e a u t o p i l o t s , two remaining o p e r a t i v e ( t o p e r m i t comparison
and provide necessary hard-over p r o t e c t i o n ) a f t e r a f a i l u r e .
 2- 3

D. Another a l t e r n a t i v e arrangement would u t i l i z e a s i n g l e , monitored f a i l - p a s s i v e automatic f l i g h t c o n t r o l

system with automatic f l a r e and l a n d i n g , p l u s and adequately f a i l u r e - p r o t e c t e d f l i g h t d i r e c t o r system with
d u a l d i s p l a y s (or d u a l f l i g h t d i r e c t o r systems) with f l a r e computation, (independent of t h a t used f o r t h e
a u t o p i l o t ) s u p p l i e d t o t h e command b a r s .

Note: The f l i g h t d i r e c t o r d i s p l a y s (head-down and/or head-up) must provide s u f f i c i e n t guidance so t h a t a

p i l o t of average s k i l l can demonstrate s a t i s f a c t o r y performance.

I p r e d i c t t h a t w i t h i n about one more y e a r , e s s e n t i a l l y a l l U S j e t t r a n s p o r t a i r c r a f t w i l l meet Category I1

requirements and 1,200 f t RVR o p e r a t i o n w i l l be conventional at f i v e t o e i g h t s u i t a b l y equipped US a i r p o r t s .
During t h e next t h r e e y e a r s , about f o r t y a d d i t i o n a l a i r p o r t s a r e expected t o be Category I1 q u a l i f i e d . Looking
d e e p l y i n t o a good q u a l i t y crystal b a l l , it is s a f e t o s p e c u l a t e t h a t of approximately 1,700 US j e t s c u r r e n t l y
i n s e r v i c e , probably no more than 20 t o 25 p e r c e n t of t h e s e a i r p l a n e s w i l l be q u a l i f i e d f o r Category 1 1 1 - A o r
lower minimums. T h i s is because o f :

1. The l a r g e expense t o procure new equipment and modify i n - s e r v i c e a i r c r a f t .

2. The probable d e l y i n q u a l i f y i n g a i r p o r t s . f o r Category I11 o p e r a t i o n .

3. The f a c t t h a t a number of t h e l a r g e r a i r l i n e s a r e beginning t o t r a d e o f f t h e i r o l d e r a i r p l a n e s f o r u s e i n

less developed a r e a s .
4. The modest degree of improvement expected t o be made i n schedule r e l i a b i l i t y as t h e weather gap is narrowed
from Category I1 t o Category 111.

Of t h e e s t i m a t e d 20 t o 25 percent of t h e 1969 j e t f l e e t t h a t w i l l q u a l i f y f o r Category 1 1 1 - A , it is l i k e l y t h a t

most of t h i s group of a i r p l a n e s w i l l use one automatic landing channel and one manual landing channel. During
r e c e n t y e a r s , t h e r e h a s been c o n s i d e r a b l e d e b a t e w i t h i n t h e i n d u s t r y about t h e f e a s i b i l i t y of using a f l i g h t
d i r e c t o r system f o r f u l l manual l a n d i n g s f o r j e t t r a n s p o r t a i r c r a f t . I n February of t h i s y e a r , Pan Am conducted
f l i g h t t r i a l s on a 8707-300B a i r p l a n e equipped with a p r o t o t y p e manual landing system s u p p l i e d by Sperry p l u s an
independent automatic landing system b u i l t by Bendix. Demonstrations with t h i s a i r p l a n e showed t h a t s a t i s f a c t o r y
manual l a n d i n g s ( e s s e n t i a l l y equal t o t h e automatic landings) could be made without v i s u a l o u t s i d e r e f e r e n c e .

Under t h e c o n d i t i o n s of t h e f l i g h t t r i a l s t h a t I witnessed (300 f t c e i l i n g , 150 f t wide runway and s i g n i f i c a n t

s h e e r from 1,000 f t t o t h e s u r f a c e ) touchdown d i s p e r s i o n s were well w i t h i n t h e a i r l i n e proposed Category 1 1 1 - A
limits. The f l y i n g p i l o t s were confident t h a t had we had a 700 f t RVR c o n d i t i o n , or even less, r o l l - o u t using
t h e c e n t e r - l i n e l i g h t s would have been e n t i r e l y s a t i s f a c t o r y . A l l on board agreed t h a t t h e equipment under t e s t
needed f u r t h e r refinement t o make it s u i t a b l e f o r Category 111-B o p e r a t i o n ( r o l l - o u t on t h e runway without v i s u a l
reference).

A common conclusion while observing a s e r i e s of manual landings w i t h t h e p i l o t under t h e hood w a s t h a t h i s

v i s u a l c a p a b i l i t y was used t o near t h e l i m i t ; however, h i s a u r a l channel was open f o r a d d i t i o n a l i n p u t s . Useful
comments from t h e nonflying p i l o t on c r i t i c a l parameters such as air speed, a l t i t u d e , and i n i t i a t e f l a r e were
most h e l p f u l t o t h e f l y i n g p i l o t .

I n Pan Am, p i l o t t r a i n i n g f o r Category I1 o p e r a t i o n r e q u i r e s t h a t t h e p i l o t d e l i v e r t h e a i r p l a n e w i t h i n a

small a r t i f i c i a l window at t h e 100 f t h e i g h t so t h a t it is i n a proper p o s i t i o n f o r completing a smooth landing.
T h i s must be done with t h e p i l o t under t h e hood - using manual speed c o n t r o l , a f l i g h t d i r e c t o r , and i n a “one
engine o u t ” c o n d i t i o n . I t i s t h e opinion of Pan Am p i l o t s who have made Category 1 1 1 - A manual b l i n d l a n d i n g s
with automatic t h r o t t l e s , a f l i g h t d i r e c t o r , and f l a r e computer, t h a t t h e degree of p i l o t s k i l l r e q u i r e d is
about t h e same as needed f o r t h e c o n d i t i o n s i n our Category 11 t r a i n i n g program.

J u s t as p r o g r e s s has been made i n reducing j e t landing limits over t h e last seven Years, it has a l s o been made
i n reducing t a k e - o f f limits. C e i l i n g h e i g h t requirements have been e l i m i n a t e d at p r o p e r l y equipped a i r p o r t s . On
t h o s e runways f o r which we a r e approved f o r Category I1 landings, we are a l s o approved f o r take-off when we have
1,200 f t RVR on t h e start end of t h e runway and 1,000 RVR on t h e f a r end.

So much f o r today and t h e s t a t u s of i n - s e r v i c e a i r p l e s ; w h a t m a r et h e p l a n s f o r 8-747s. L - I O l l s , and DC-lOs?

The 8-747 w i l l have two independent automatic manual, landing systems with i n t e g r a t e d f l i g h t d i r e c t o r s p l u s about
one h a l f of t h e components needed f o r a t h i r d independent system. The f i r s t a i r p l a n e s w i l l be c e r t i f i c a t e d f o r
both automatic and manual approaches t o Category I1 minimums at t h e time of d e l i v e r (Category 1 1 1 - A c r i t e r i a is
not expected t o be a v a i l a b l e when t h e f i r s t 6-747 is c e r t i f i c a t e d ) . A d d i t i o n a l l y , t h e a i r p l a n e w i l l be c e r t i -
f i c a t e d f o r autoland t o Category I1 minimums. Users wishing t o g a i n Category 1 1 1 - A approval w i l l probably e l e c t
t o do so by p r o v i d i n g a monitored autoland system p l u s an independent manual landing channel or expand t h e
e x i s t i n g complement of equipment t o include t h r e e independent autoland systems.

Although t h e performance limits f o r ’ Category 1 1 1 - A were not i n d i c a t e d i n t h e FAA d r a f t Advisory C i r c u l a r , t h e

a i r l i n e s have proposed t h a t f o r l a t e r a l d i s p e r s i o n , t h e a i r c r a f t c e n t e r l i n e (at main landing g e a r ) should be
w i t h i n 27 f t of t h e c e n t e r l i n e of t h e runway on a two-sigma (95 p e r c e n t ) b a s i s at touchdown, and SO o r i e n t e d
t h a t it w i l l p r o p e r l y move toward t h e runway c e n t e r l i n e .

For l o n g i t u d i n a l d i s p e r s i o n , t h e main g e a r touchdown p o i n t should not exceed 1,500 f t t o t a l about a nominal

p o i n t on a two-sigma b a s i s . T h i s p o i n t should ensure t h a t t h e a i r c r a f t w i l l touch down 300 f t . o r more beyond t h e
t h r e s h o l d and t h e p i l o t w i l l be i n a p o s i t i o n t o s e e at l e a s t f o u r b a r s of t h e 3,000 f t touchdown zone l i g h t s .
2-4

L-1011 and DC-10 a i r c r a f t are expected t o be c e r t i f i c a t e d beginning i n l a t e 1971. By t h i s t i m e , Category 1 1 1 - A

c r i t e r i a should have been a v a i l a b l e t o t h e i n d u s t r y f o r almost two years. It is planned t h a t t h e s e a i r p l a n e s
w i l l be c e r t i f i c a t e d f o r Category I1 o p e r a t i o n and t h e chances a r e very good t h a t t h e y w i l l a l s o be c e r t i f i c a t e d
f o r Category 1 1 1 - A o r 111-B performance. Both Lockheed and Douglas have e l e c t e d t o employ two monitored auto-
matic landing systems with i n t e g r a t e d f l i g h t d i r e c t o r s . One system w i l l remain o p e r a t i o n a l a f t e r f a i l u r e and
automatic shutdown of t h e o t h e r .

In looking towards Category 1 1 1 - B f a c i l i t i e s , a s t r o n g d e s i r e h a s been expressed f o r an independent monitoring

system t h a t w i l l provide t h e cockpit with a well d e f i n e d “TV type” p i c t u r e ( o r e q u i v a l e n t ) which w i l l show c l e a r l y
whether o r not t h e a i r p l a n e is p r o p e r l y a l i g n e d f o r t h e landing. Manufacturers and e n g i n e e r s a r e urged t o respond
t o t h i s need.

Your a t t e n t i o n should be d i r e c t e d t o t h e f a c t t h a t a i r c r a f t c e r t i f i c a t i o n f o r Category I1 o r Category I11

performance does not mean t h a t an air c a r r i e r can use it f o r t h a t purpose without a l a r g e amount of remaining work.
This work comes i n t h e n a t u r e of f l i g h t demonstrations, crew t r a i n i n g and crew c e r t i f i c a t i o n , issuance of new
o p e r a t i n g procedures, a c a r e f u l study of maintenance p r a c t i c e s and c a p a b i l i t y , and amendment t o t h e o p e r a t i n g
s p e c i f i c a t i o n s t o include a l l of t h e p e r t i n e n t r e v i s i o n s and s p e c i f y i n g approved runways.

What a r e t h e p l a n s f o r SSTs? The Concorde w i l l have d u a l monitored automatic landing systems with i n t e g r a t e d
f l i g h t d i r e c t o r s . The Boeing B-2707 SST is expected t o use a t r i p l i c a t e d automatic landing system. I p r e d i c t
t h a t both of t h e s e a i r p l a n e s w i l l probably be q u a l i f i e d f o r Category 111-C o p e r a t i o n during t h e i r l i f e t i m e .

What a r e t h e economics of gaining Category I11 approval on modern subsonic a i r c r a f t ? F i r s t , on a world-wide

average, weather below 1,200 f t RVR e x i s t s about one h a l f of one percent of t h e time. These average f i g u r e s
appear very small, but when a main s t a t i o n such as London, New York, o r Los Angeles is c l o s e d by weather even
f o r a few hours, it can r e f l e c t throughout a l a r g e system causing d e l a y s at many good weather s t a t i o n s .

In a d d i t i o n t o overcoming low c e i l i n g problems, t h e a i r l i n e s b e l i e v e t h a t a s a f e r o p e r a t i o n , and landings with

less wear and t e a r on t h e a i r p l a n e can be made through automation of t h i s r o u t i n e f u n c t i o n .

Each a i r l i n e , of course, is faced w i t h its own p e c u l i a r s e t of circumstances and must develop its own economic
j u s t i f i c a t i o n . By 1975, t h e a i r l i n e s of t h e world w i l l have invested between $25 b i l l i o n and $50 b i l l i o n i n
f a c i l i t i e s and manpower t o t r a n s p o r t huge numbers of people at a high, d a i l y rate.

The a i r l i n e s b e l i e v e t h a t a s a f e , e f f i c i e n t , and h i g h l y r e l i a b l e o p e r a t i o n can be conducted under Category I11

c o n d i t i o n s . There i s no doubt but what t h e “work-horse” commercial a i r p l a n e s of tomorrow w i 1 1 have t h i s
capabi 1it y .
 3

PSYCHOLOGICAL AND PROCEDURAL ASPECTS RELATED TO ILS

APPROACHES AND LANDINGS IN VISIBILITIES L E S S THAN 1200 F E E T

L t Col Edwin W.Johnson, USAF, Major Donald L.Carmack, USAF

and Major Larry M.Hadley, WAF.

USAF Instrument P i l o t I n s t r u c t o r School (ATC)

Randolph A i r Force Base, Texas.
3

FOREIVORD

I n t h e p a s t f o r t y y e a r s many s o l u t i o n s t o t h e instrument landing problem have evolved from t h e accumulation

of o p e r a t i o n a l experience and new technology derived from r e s e a r c h and development programs. Although t h i s h a s
i n c r e a s e d instrument approach and landing c a p a b i l i t i e s , t h e r e s t i l l e x i s t i n c r e a s i n g o p e r a t i o n a l requirements
f o r recovering a i r c r a f t d u r i n g low v i s i b i l i t y c o n d i t i o n s . P i l o t s from t h e USAF Instrument P i l o t I n s t r u c t o r
School have had t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o f a m i l i a r i z e themselves with t h e low v i s i b i l i t y environment below e x i s t i n g
landing minimums. Their experiences have produced v a l u a b l e “ r e a l world” documentation of t h e p i l o t ’ s v i s u a l
cue problem and t h e psychological and procedural c o n s i d e r a t i o n s t h a t he must mentally a d j u s t t o when landing
d u r i n g low v i s i b i l i t y c o n d i t i o n s . P r o j e c t p i l o t s , using a s p e c i a l l y instrumented j e t a i r c r a f t , have flown over
two hundred approaches and l a n d i n g s i n low weather c o n d i t i o n s down t o v i r t u a l l y zero-zero. The a c t u a l experience
gained d u r i n g t h i s ‘Zanding Weather Minimums I n v e s t i g a t i o n ” has brought i n t o view many aspects o f t h e low v i s i -
b i l i t y environment t h a t p r e v i o u s l y were obscured. The f i l m s taken during t h e l a n d i n g s a r e an o u t s t a n d i n g
documentation of t h e l a n d i n g environment while under t h e i n f l u e n c e of r a p i d l y changing f o g c o n d i t i o n s . Some
conclusions have been drawn from t h e experiences gained during t h e s e f l i g h t s . However, u n t i l f u r t h e r s t u d y is
complete t h e a u t h o r s have l i m i t e d t h e i r d i s c u s s i o n t o program h i s t o r i c a l c o n s i d e r a t i o n s , t e s t plan methodology
and t h e psychological and procedural a s p e c t s observed from a p i l o t ’ s p o i n t of view while o p e r a t i n g i n an un-
f a m i l i a r environment.

The material p r e s e n t e d i n t h i s paper is an aggregate a u t h o r s h i p by p r o j e c t p i l o t s of t h e USAF Instrument

P i l o t I n s t r u c t o r School. The views are t h e i r own and do not n e c e s s a r i l y r e f l e c t t h o s e of t h e Department of
Defense or t h e United States Air Force.

H.D.Allshouse. L t col, USAF

Commander.
 3- 1

PSYCHOLOGICAL A N D PROCEDURAL ASPECTS RELATED TO I L S

APPROACHES A N D LANDINGS I N V I S I B I L I T I E S LESS T H A N 1200 FEET

L t Col Edwin W. Johnson, USAF, Major Donald L. Carmack, USAF,

and Major Larry M.Hadley, USAF.

The USAF Instrument P i l o t I n s t r u c t o r School, i n conjunction with t h e Air Force F l i g h t Dynamics Laboratory,
has f o r s e v e r a l y e a r s been a c t i v e l y involved i n developing, t e s t i n g and e v a l u a t i n g f l i g h t instruments and systems
f o r a l l - w e a t h e r landing. I n 1962 a s t u d y e n t i t l e d t h e “ P i l o t Control-Display F a c t o r s Program” (PIFAX) was con-
ducted i n support of t h e National Supersonic Transport Program. The PIFAX program was an e x p l o r a t o r y development
program t o d e f i n e t h e p i l o t ’ s f l i g h t c o n t r o l - d i s p l a y requirements and t o demonstrate s o l u t i o n s f o r f l y i n g on
instruments from letdown through approach and landing. The PIFAX program was under t h e sponsorship of t h e F e d e r a l
Aviation Agency and t h e t e c h n i c a l d i r e c t i o n of t h e F l i g h t Control Division of t h e Air Force F l i g h t Dynamics
Laboratory (AFFDL). I n f l i g h t v a l i d a t i o n was conducted by t h e USAF Instruinent P i l o t I n s t r u c t o r School using a
c r o s s s e c t i o n of p i l o t s from t h e American f l y i n g community. While t h i s paper does not intend t o d i s c u s s t h e
complete f i n d i n g s and r a m i f i c a t i o n s of t h e PIFAX program, s e v e r a l concepts should be explained p r i o r t o d i s c u s s i n g
t h e Landing Weather Minimums I n v e s t i g a t i o n .

P i l o t in the Loop: Few people w i l l q u e s t i o n t h a t t h e use of automatics w i l l r e s u l t i n s u p e r i o r performance i n

comparison t o t h e human p i l o t . I n a d d i t i o n , automatics w i l l unburden t h e p i l o t so t h a t more time is a v a i l a b l e
f o r t o t a l s u r v e i l l a n c e o f t h e s i t u a t i o n . However, t h e USAF h a s long contended t h a t t h e f l e x i b i l i t y and t h e
decision-making c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of t h e p i l o t should be f u l l y e x p l o i t e d i f t h e t o t a l system is t o have t h e capa-
b i l i t y of d e a l i n g with t h e many c o n t i n g e n c i e s t h a t could occur. Rather t h a n be s u b s e r v i e n t t o an automatic
system t h e p i l o t should be an a c t i v e c o n t r o l element; he should be i n t h e c o n t r o l loop with t h e c a p a b i l i t y of
making i n p u t s as deemed necessary. For t h e p i l o t t o be i n t h e c o n t r o l loop he must:
1. be provided t h e means of t a k i n g a c t i o n i n an easy and n a t u r a l f a s h i o n without disengaging t h e a u t o p i l o t ,
and
2. have access t o t h e proper information t o monitor t h e performance of t h e aircraft.

T h i s i n t e g r a t i o n of t h e p i l o t must be accomplished without a s i g n i f i c a n t decrement i n t h e p r e c i s i o n of t h e

automatic system. The PIFAX program demonstrated t h e f e a s i b i l i t y of maintaining t h e p i l o t - i n - t h e - l o o p by t h e
use of Force Wheel S t e e r i n g .

Contro,Z Concepts: Force wheel s t e e r i n g l i n k s t h e p i l o t t o t h e c o n t r o l s u r f a c e s of t h e a i r c r a f t through t h e

a u t o p i l o t by p l a c i n g e l e c t r o n i c f o r c e s e n s i n g d e v i c e s i n t h e c o n t r o l column and rudder p e d a l s ( s e e Figure 1).
The f o r c e wheel and p e d a l s convert f o r c e a p p l i e d by t h e p i l o t i n t o e l e c t r o n i c s i g n a l s which a r e r e c e i v e d by t h e
a u t o p i l o t computer-amplifier. The f o r c e s r e q u i r e d f o r t h e p i l o t t o make i n p u t s with t h e Force Wheel are similar
t o t h o s e r e q u i r e d t o move t h e c o n t r o l s u r f a c e s through normal l i n k a g e . The f o r c e wheel is a c t i v e any time t h e
a u t o p i l o t is engaged allowing t h e p i l o t t o f l y t h e aircraft independently o r i n conjunction with t h e automatic
f l i g h t c o n t r o l system. Force Wheel S t e e r i n g (FWS) allows t h e p i l o t t o e x e r c i s e h i s judgment and s k i l l by making
c o n t r o l i n p u t s , through t h e a i r c r a f t ’ s c o n t r o l column, t o t h e a u t o p i l o t . The p i l o t ’ s i n p u t s supplement t h e auto-
p i l o t i n r e f i n i n g t h e a i r c r a f t ’ s p o s i t i o n i n r e l a t i o n t o guidance information. The p i l o t , t h e r e f o r e , f l i e s h i s
aircraft with FWS and a u t o p i l o t a s s i s t a n c e , speeding up o r slowing down guidance c o r r e c t i o n s , Compensating f o r
wind and wind s h e a r s , damping out guidance system e r r o r s and supplying t h e judgment, s k i l l and d e t e r m i n a t i o n
which cannot be b u i l t i n t o automatic systems. The human p i l o t is conditioned t o make t h e s e c o r r e c t i o n s because
he v i r t u a l l y f l i e s each approach. H i s hands are always on t h e . a i r c r a f t c o n t r o l s and he is mentally prepared t o
assume c o n t r o l t o whatever e x t e n t it becomes necessary. Force wheel s t e e r i n g is not intended t o r e p l a c e auto-
matics, f a r from it. It is a means of supplying redundancy, a means of a s s i s t i n g t h e human p i l o t t o f u l f i l l
h i s d u t i e s as an aircraft compander and at t h e same time i n c o r p o r a t i n g t h e s a f e t y and p r e c i s i o n of an automatic
system.

Display Concepts: I f t h e p i l o t is t o use t h e maximum p o t e n t i a l of t h e a u t o p i l o t , l o o p , he must have t h e a b i l i t y

t o assess a u t o p i l o t performance, T h i s i m p l i e s he must s e e what t h e a u t o p i l o t is doing and have at h i s d i s p o s a l
q u a n t i t a t i v e and q u a l i t a t i v e instrument information. Therefqre, t h e a u t o p i l o t was modified t o e l i m i n a t e t h e
approach coupler. C i r c u i t r y was added so t h e a u t o p i l o t could act on t h e same s i g n a l s t h e F l i g h t D i r e c t o r Computer
w a s using t o d r i v e t h e s t e e r i n g command b a r s . This then gave t h e p i l o t t h e means t o view a u t o p i l o t performance
i n r e l a t i o n t o , f i r s t , t h e q u a n t i t y and q u a l i t y of c o r r e c t i o n s it was making and, second, t h e raw guidance in-
formation. Advanced d i s p l a y s of expanded l o c a l i z e r . F l i g h t Path Angle, approach p r o g r e s s i n d i c a t i o n s , i n s t a n t a -
neous v e r t i c a l v e l o c i t y and radar r a t e information were added t o complete t h e process. The loop was now closed.
The p i l o t can use t h e a u t o p i l o t , he can monitor a u t o p i l o t performance and p o s s e s s t h e means t o i n j e c t h i s s k i l l
and judgment along with t h e automatic system.
3- 2

Landing Weather Minimums Investigation: These p r i n c i p l e s were used throughout t h e PIFAX s t u d y i n an e f f o r t t o

d e f i n e p i l o t i n g requirements i n terms of c o n t r o l and d i s p l a y f o r t h e f i n a l approach t o touchdown and r o l l o u t
under low v i s i b i l i t y c o n d i t i o n s . Several thousand hooded l a n d i n g s were made using instrument panel information
only i n e f f o r t s t o v a l i d a t e t h e PIFAX concepts. The r e s u l t s of c a r e f u l l y c o n t r o l l e d i n f l i g h t s t u d i e s demon-
s t r a t e d t h a t t h e advanced f l i g h t c o n t r o l - d i s p l a y system permitted t h e p i l o t t o make meaningful c o n t r o l i n p u t s
throughout touchdown, on instruments alone.

The i d e a of i s o l a t i n g t h e p i l o t from v i s u a l information by p l a c i n g him under t h e hood was considered unrea-

l i s t i c f o r s i m u l a t i n g “real-world’’ f l i g h t c o n d i t i o n s , i f v i s u a l cues are a v a i l a b l e and usable i n a c t u a l weather.
Therefore, an e f f o r t t o determine what v i s u a l information is a v a i l a b l e from o u t s i d e t h e a i r c r a f t became a funda-
mental requirement f o r providing s o l u t i o n s i n terms of s a t i s f y i n g p i l o t i n g requirements. I t was necessary t o
determine t h e e f f e c t i v e n e s s of t h e s e cues and t o i n v e s t i g a t e t h e fog s t r u c t u r e s as t h e y r e l a t e t o t h e v i s u a l
sequence t o be expected d u r i n g t h e landing p r o f i l e . Also, t h e a i r c r e w ’ s procedural r o l e must be d e f i n e d when
o p e r a t i n g i n t h i s new and u n f a m i l i a r environment. T h i s is b a s i c a l l y what t h e Landing Weather Minimums I n v e s t i -
g a t i o n is a l l about.

I t is evident any advanced f l i g h t c o n t r o l - d i s p l a y system/concept cannot r e c e i v e p i l o t acceptance u n t i l t h e

approach and landing problems have been resolved i n terms of o p e r a t i o n s i n an environment of a c t u a l weather.

While o p e r a t i o n a l requirements f o r landing under low weather c o n d i t i o n s a r e i n c r e a s i n g , few p i l o t s have had

t h e o p p o r t u n i t y of f a m i l i a r i z i n g themselves w i t h runway v i s i b i l i t y c o n d i t i o n s below one-quarter mile. This t y p e
of i n f l i g h t r e s e a r c h was a needed d e p a r t u r e from t h e normal validation/demonstration of automatic and manual
c o n t r o l techniques i n simulated c o n d i t i o n s . The experience gained from such a program could permit a more
r e a l i s t i c and v a l i d assessment of t h e p i l o t ’ s c o n t r o l - d i s p l a y information requirements and t h e determination of
h i s u l t i m a t e r o l e i n t h e landing p r o f i l e .

The USAF Instrument P i l o t I n s t r u c t o r School has endeavored t o i n v e s t i g a t e and a s s e s s t h e low v i s i b i l i t y landing

environment when under t h e i n f l u e n c e of v a r i o u s fog s t r u c t u r e s . During t h e p r e l i m i n a r y phase of t h e i n v e s t i g a t i o n ,
one hundred ILS approaches and landings were made at s e l e c t e d m i l i t a r y a i r f i e l d s during weather c o n d i t i o n s below
1600 RVR. These landing p r o f i l e s were considered pre-experimental i n t h a t p r o j e c t p i l o t s probed t h e u n c e r t a i n t i e s
of t h e new environment f o r t h e purpose of b u i l d i n g an experience l e v e l f o r f u t u r e e x p l o r a t i o n . This newly
acquired knowledge and experience provided an adequate b a s i s f o r improvements i n t h e t e s t a i r c r a f t ’ s f l i g h t
c o n t r o l - d i s p l a y c o n f i g u r a t i o n (Figure 2) and f o r r e v i s i o n of aircrew procedures.

Several problem a r e a s were i d e n t i f i e d and many aspects of t h e low v i s i b i l i t y environment were brought more
c l e a r l y i n t o view. A Film Report (FR 878) c o n t a i n i n g r e s u l t s of t h e f i r s t y e a r ’ s o p e r a t i o n was r e l e a s e d i n 1967
f o r p u b l i c dissemination.

I n t h e past two years emphasis has been placed on continued assessment of t h e instrument landing problem and
t h e accumulation of d a t a f o r documentation of t h e landing environment. Through t h e cooperation of t h e Federal
Aviation Agency, permission was obtained t o use s e l e c t e d Category I1 f a c i l i t i e s i n support of t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n .
P r o j e c t p i l o t s have flown an a d d i t i o n a l 100 approaches and landings i n low weather at t h e s e i n s t a l l a t i o n s . The
knowledge gained h a s g r e a t l y enhanced our c a p a b i l i t y t o a u t h o r i t a t i v e l y a s s e s s t h e landing environment, and h a s
enabled t h e Air Force t o s h a r e with t h e a v i a t i o n community f i r s t - h a n d p i l o t i n g experiences below e x i s t i n g landing
minima.

I t is not t h e i n t e n t of t h i s paper t o d i s c u s s a l l t h e c o n s i d e r a t i o n s emanating from t h e instrument landing

problem, nor t o impress upon t h e reader t h a t our f i n d i n g s and opinions a r e unchallengeable. The comments and
conclusions were d e r i v e d mostly from observed d a t a and p i l o t opinion. They m a y not always support t h e c r e d i t a -
b i l i t y of e x i s t i n g and f u t u r e all-weather landing concepts. However, u n t i l a thorough a n a l y s i s of t h e recorded
d a t a is complete. we must l i m i t our d i s c u s s i o n t o s e l e c t e d p i l o t i n g c o n s i d e r a t i o n s .

Crew Procedures: Each f l i g h t during t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n c o n s i s t e d of a minimum crew of three f u l l y - q u a l i f i e d

p r o j e c t p i l o t s . Each p i l o t had accomplished s u f f i c i e n t t r a i n i n g at a l l crew p o s i t i o n s s o as t o be f u l l y q u a l i -
f i e d t o f l y i n any c a p a c i t y . I n a d d i t i o n t o t h e t h r e e p r o j e c t p i l o t s , e i t h e r a f l i g h t t e s t engineer o r a human
f a c t o r s s p e c i a l i s t accompanied t h e crew during t h e p r o j e c t f l y i n g .

The aircrew procedures which w i l l be described were t h e r e s u l t of experience gained i n t h e real-world environ-
ment as well as e x t e n s i v e t r a i n i n g p r i o r t o t h e a c t u a l weather f l y i n g . The crew members and t h e i r p o s i t i o n s w i l l
be defined a s :
1. Heads-down p i l o t ( l e f t s e a t )
2. Heads-up p i l o t ( r i g h t s e a t )
3. Third p i l o t (systems monitor).

The “heads-down” p i l o t b a s i c a l l y remained heads down throughout t h e approach and landing phase, f l y i n g t h e
a i r c r a f t manually o r i n conjunction w i t h t h e automatic f l i g h t c o n t r o l system. He was r e s p o n s i b l e f o r a i r c r a f t
and automatic f l i g h t c o n t r o l system c o n f i g u r a t i o n s and f l i g h t d i r e c t o r mode s e l e c t i o n . Once e s t a b l i s h e d i n s i d e
t h e o u t e r marker t h e “heads-down” p i l o t made no r a d i o t r a n s m i s s i o n s nor was he r e s p o n s i b l e f o r any a c t i v i t i e s
except a i r c r a f t c o n t r o l . He had t h e a u t h o r i t y t o execute a go-around any time he deemed necessary.
 3-3

The “heads-up” p i l o t was p r i m a r i l y responsible f o r system performance monitoring and approach management
u n t i l assuming a heads-up p o s i t i o n at 200 f t absolute a l t i t u d e . H i s t a s k then changed t o a s s i m i l a t i n g v i s u a l
cues, supplying q u a l i t a t i v e and q u a n t i t a t i v e information w i t h d e f i n i t i v e v e r b a l c a l l s and i n some c a s e s a s s i s t i n g
i n v e h i c l e c o n t r o l . He w a s also responsible f o r t h e operation of measurement and recording equipment used
during t h e t e s t program. In t h e event any r a d i o transmissions were made i n s i d e t h e o u t e r marker, they were
accomplished by t h e “heads-up” p i l o t . He a l s o had t h e a u t h o r i t y t o c a l l f o r a go-around a t any time.

The t h i r d p i l o t performed as both a heads-down and heads-up p i l o t . He was responsible f o r reading a i r c r a f t

and project equipment c h e c k l i s t s , monitoring a l l f u n c t i o n s performed by t h e two p i l o t s , and monitoring t h e per-
formance of t h e automatic f l i g h t c o n t r o l system. He a l s o a s s i s t e d t h e heads-up p i l o t i n t h e recording and
evaluating of v i s u a l cues obtained from o u t s i d e t h e a i r c r a f t . A s an a d d i t i o n a l s a f e t y consideration, t h e t h i r d
p i l o t could also command a go-around a t any time.

These procedures were v a r i e d somewhat on v a r i o u s occasions t o s a t i s f y c e r t a i n mission o b j e c t i v e s and t o o b t a i n

s u b j e c t i v e and o b j e c t i v e d a t a r e l a t i v e t o t h e “see-to-land concept”. These changes consisted of t h e “heads-down”
p i l o t coning heads up on a v i s u a l c a l l from t h e “heads-up” p i l o t while s t i l l r e t a i n i n g c o n t r o l of t h e a i r c r a f t .
This procedure was used p r i m a r i l y when weather w a s at t h e lower limits of Category I1 o r i n Category I I I a condi-
t i o n s . A d e t a i l e d account of t h e s e f i n d i n g s may be found l a t e r i n t h i s r e p o r t .

P r i o r t o t h e a i r c r a f t being e s t a b l i s h e d on f i n a l approach normal air-ground communications were used. Once

e s t a b l i s h e d on f i n a l approach, however, t h e problem of voice communications becomes increasingly s i g n i f i c a n t .
The “heads-down’’ p i l o t must he r e l i e v e d of a l l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y and a l l o t h e r p i l o t s should have as l i t t l e t o say
as possible. The following v o i c e transmissions were used during f i n a l approach. They a r e s h o r t , however,
extremely meaningful and f o r our purposes a l l t h a t was required. “Approaching 400 f t - 400 f t mark” - t h i s call
was made by t h e t h i r d p i l o t and w a s made f o r t h e purpose of a l e r t i n g t h e r i g h t s e a t p i l o t t o t u r n on recording
equipment. The next c a l l made would then be “cue”, made by t h e heads-up p i l o t . This meant t h a t he had v i s u a l l y
i d e n t i f i e d a recognizable p o r t i o n of t h e approach l i g h t i n g o r runway complex. The next c a l l would he “ l a t e r a l ” .
This would occur when t h e heads-up p i l o t had s u f f i c i e n t v i s u a l cues t o e f f e c t l a t e r a l control. This c a l l was
extremely meaningful i n t h a t it i n s t i l l e d confidence i n t h e “heads-down’’ p i l o t . The last c a l l made on f i n a l
would then be “visual”. This was made when t h e “heads-up” p i l o t had s u f f i c i e n t v i s u a l cues t o c o n t r o l t h e a i r -
c r a f t . Although t h e heads-down p i l o t remained on instruments during t h e majority of t h e approaches, he could
e l e c t t o come heads-up at t h i s time, provided t h i s procedure had been planned p r i o r t o s t a r t i n g t h e approach.

The only o t h e r c a l l would be t h e words “go-around”. A s i n d i c a t e d before, t h i s could be c a l l e d by any of t h e

t h r e e crew members.

S i t u a t i o n s d i d occur during t h e p r o j e c t f l y i n g when approach c o n t r o l , towers, o r o t h e r a i r c r a f t made t r a n s -

missions during c r i t i c a l phases of t h e approach. Without exception, t h e s e were annoying and d i s t r a c t i n g ; because
t h e p i l o t s a r e psychologically and meantally prepared t o f l y instruments t o touchdown t h e r e must not be any
break i n t h e i r concentration. Voice c a l l s o r r a d i o transmissiohs which have no bearing on t h e performance of
t h e approach s e r v e t o break t h i s concentration and cannot be t o l e r a t e d .

It may be g e n e r a l l y accepted t h a t t h e process of f l y i n g an a i r c r a f t on instruments i s r e l a t i v e l y a mechanical

act r e g a r d l e s s of t h e weather conditions. I t is our i n t e n t i o n t o p o i n t out t h a t t h e r e a r e psychological and
procedural c o n s i d e r a t i o n s t h a t p i l o t s must mentally a d j u s t t o depending on t h e o p e r a t i o n a l environment. The
remainder of t h i s paper w i l l consider, from a p i l o t ’ s p o i n t of view, t h e above problems i n r e l a t i o n t o t h r e e
t y p e s of fog s t r u c t u r e - shallow, deep and cloud base.

For purpose of d e f i n i t i o n , shallow fog w i l l be considered t o e x i s t t o a height of not more than 200 f e e t above
and down t o t h e runway s u r f a c e . The v a r i a b l e s t h a t w i l l e x i s t then a r e t h e depth of t h e fog l a y e r , i t s d e n s i t y
and whether it is homogeneous o r non-homogeneous. Experience has shown t h a t v i s i b i l i t i y s can change very r a p i d l y
from s e v e r a l miles t o 600 f e e t o r l e s s . While forming, shallow fog t e n d s t o be non-homogeneous (patchy) and
wisps of fog may form along o r down t h e runway t h a t w i l l r e s t r i c t v i s i b i l i t y at d i f f e r e n t p o s i t i o p s on t h e run-
way. I n i t s embryo s t a g e , i t s height may be f i f t e e n t o twenty f e e t . Therefore, it is p o s s i b l e f o r a p i l o t ’ s
eye height t o be above a fog l e v e l with t h e a i r c r a f t on t h e runway. A s t h e fog matures, t h e v i s u a l segment
decreases. Its height may reach s e v e r a l hundred f e e t and it may become homogeneous. Visual segments of 200 f e e t
with a fog height of 150 f e e t have been noted along t h e runway a f t e r a period of t h i r t y minutes.

Shallow fog c o n d i t i o n s p r e s e n t an unusual challenge due t o t h e i n s i d i o u s n a t u r e of cues a v a i l a b l e t o p i l o t s .

T h i s type of fog can i n s t i l l a f a l s e sense of confidence i n p i l o t s due t o t h e abundance of v i s u a l cues during
t h e e a r l y p o r t i o n of an approach. The ALS w i t h i t s f l a s h i n g s t r o b e s and even t h e runway l i g h t i n g may be v i s i b l e
as o u t e r marker is passed and t h e p i l o t f e e l s relaxed and confident. However, t h e opposite is t r u e . A s t h e
v e h i c l e continues down t h e approach p a t h , t h e v i s u a l cues become more obscure and a q r e a l i z a t i o n occurs as t h e
p i l o t f i n a l l y f i n d s himself void of o u t s i d e guidance. For a p i l o t t o suddenly f i n d himself i n such a p o s i t i o n
t h e r e a r e but two a l t e r n a t i v e s . The f i r s t and most practical is t h e missed approach ( i f a i r c r a f t performance
is adequate). The second i s t o continue i n hopes of again becoming v i s u a l . T h i s choice is l i k e playing
Russian Roulette with a loaded revolver. Conditions won’t become b e t t e r ; i n fact, i n a mature, homogeneous
shallow fog you can probably expect a v i s u a l segment of from 200 t o 400 f e e t . T h i s is d e f i n i t e l y not enough
t o v i s u a l l y f l a r e t h e a i r c r a f t and probably not enough f o r l a t e r a l alighnment.

Psychologically, t h e p i l o t is faced with a r a p i d d e t e r i o r a t i o n of confidence and judgment. Confidence,

because h e ’ s l o s i n g c o n t r o l of h i s v e h i c l e , and judgment, because he’s not q u i t e s u r e what t o do. Should he
continue on instruments, continue v i s u a l l y o r make a missed approach? L e t ’ s suppose he goes back on instruments.
3-4

The a i r c r a f t ’ s plummeting toward t h e runway with impact only t e n t o f i f t e e n seconds away. What do t h e instruments
t e l l t h e p i l o t ? How t o p r e c i s e l y c o n t r o l t h e v e r t i c a l and l a t e r a l path of t h e a i r c r a f t , when t o i n i t i a t e t h e
f l a r e , how t o decrab, touchdown p o i n t , runway a v a i l a b l e ? No, none of t h e s e parameters a r e a v a i l a b l e on t h e i n s t r u -
ment panel i n usable form. P i l o t s a r e f a m i l i a r with t h e i r v i s u a l approach p a t t e r n s and most of t h i s knowledge
and experience h a s been negated s i n c e t h e r e is very l i t t l e on t h e panel t h a t p r e s e n t s meaningful information i n
a manner comparable t o t h e v i s u a l approach. I t ’ s a new and d i f f e r e n t environment where h i s past i s behind and
h i s f u t u r e w i l l be determined i n a few seconds. The last few seconds of an approach can be considered as a time
element i n i t s e l f , where acts are condensed and time compressed. Acts must be now, they must be r i g h t , t h e r e is
no second chance and every e f f o r t must be d i r e c t e d toward t h e moment of t r u t h . Apprehension, confusion and time
are psychological b a r r i e r s p i l o t s must understand and be prepared t o accept and conquer i f low v i s i b i l i t y
approaches and l a n d i n g s a r e t o be made.

How p i l o t s become trapped i n such an untenable s i t u a t i o n could be t h e s u b j e c t of a paper i n i t s e l f ; however,

only a s h o r t e x p l a n a t i o n w i l l be given t o e x p l a i n t h e p i t f a l l s of weather r e p o r t i n g . The s c i e n c e of weather
r e p o r t i n g is indeed a h i g h l y s o p h i s t i c a t e d art. Meteorologists use s a t e l l i t e s , t e l e v i s i o n , r a d i o r e p o r t s , p i l o t
r e p o r t s , e t c . , t o produce d a t a as a c c u r a t e a s p o s s i b l e . However, f o r p i l o t s , t h e accepted method is t o r e c e i v e
a b r i e f i n g p r i o r t o t a k e - o f f and update it during f l i g h t . A s a p i l o t n e a r s h i s d e s t i n a t i o n and is handed o f f t o
approach c o n t r o l , he is a g a i n informed of h i s d e s t i n a t i o n weather. The p i l o t r e c e i v e s r e p o r t s on c e i l i n g , v i s i -
b i l i t y , r e s t r i c t i o n s t o v i s i b i l i t y , such as r a i n , fog, snow, e t c . , a l t i m e t e r s e t t i n g and t h e runway v i s u a l range,
i f a v a i l a b l e . Now comes t h e problem t h a t h a s been accepted f o r many y e a r s : t h e weather, as r e p o r t e d by t h e
c o n t r o l l e r , r e p r e s e n t s t h e most r e c e n t observation, which may be s e v e r a l minutes o r as much as an hour o l d . I f
we examine t h e s i t u a t i o n more c l o s e l y , we f i n d it mandatory f o r c o n t r o l l e r s t o r e p o r t Runway Visual Range (RVR)
if it is p a r t of t h e c r i t e r i a f o r an approach. This value is obtained a u t o m a t i c a l l y from a transmissonieter (a
device which p r o j e c t s a l i g h t source and measures its propagation), which may not even be l o c a t e d near t h e touch-
down zone. I n fact, it may be s e v e r a l hundred f e e t from t h e touchdown zone. T h i s value m&v be i n e r r o r by
s e v e r a l hundred f e e t due t o patchy c o n d i t i o n s or because it is derived at n i g h t o r during d a y l i g h t hours. A t
n i g h t t h e p h o t o e l e c t r i c c e l l which is r e c e i v i n g t h e q u a n t i t y of l i g h t w i l l record a g r e a t e r v a l u e of l i g h t in-
d i c a t i n g a higher t h a n a c t u a l RVR reading. I n d a y l i g h t t h e emitted l i g h t blends with t h e n a t u r a l l i g h t and again
t h e transmissometer reading is not r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of t h e t r u e RVR.

This, then is t h e p i l o t ’ s legacy, h i s endowment, f o r t h e approach he is about t o commence. What v i s u a l cues

w i l l a c t u a l l y be seen w i l l depend on t h e f a c i l i t i e s a v a i l a b l e at h i s d e s t i n a t i o n . L e t ’ s assume we’re on approach
with t h e weather r e p o r t e d as 100 f e e t obscured with f o g and an RVR of 1200 f e e t . We r e a l i z e our v i s u a l segment
w i l l be l e s s t h a n r e p o r t e d due t o t h e s l a n t range aspect and our a i r c r a f t ’ s c o c k p i t c u t - o f f angle. Also, t h e
e f f e c t i v e n e s s of t h e Approach L i g h t i n g System (ALS), Touchdown Zone L i g h t s (TDZ). C e n t e r l i n e L i g h t s and High
I n t e n s i t y Runway L i g h t s (HIRL) w i l l depend on t h e time of day i n which our approach is conducted. A t n i g h t , of
c o u r s e , t h e l i g h t s w i l l be more p r e v a l e n t and a f f o r d much b e t t e r v i s u a l information. During day o p e r a t i o n s t h e
l i g h t s w i l l be less d i s c e r n a b l e and our v i s u a l segment w i l l seem s h o r t e r ; however, we w i l l be i n a more f a m i l i a r
environment s i n c e our c o c k p i t is more conspicious and we w i l l have t h e use of runway c o n t r a s t and markings.
C e r t a i n p e r i o d s of t h e day, such as s u n s e t and s u n r i s e , w i l l cause o t h e r problems which a r e not s t r i c t l y asso-
c i a t e d with pure n i g h t o r day operation. When t h e sun rises o r sets t h e incidence of l i g h t from t h e sun,
through t h e fog, c a u s e s r e f r a c t i v e e f f e c t s which blend with t h e emission from t h e l i g h t i n g systems, reducing
t h e i r e f f e c t i v e n e s s as v i s u a l cues. I n some cases t h e l a c k of c o n t r a s t m a y completely e l i m i n a t e t h e use of
l i g h t s as v i s u a l cues.

A t n i g h t shallow fog c o n d i t i o n s p r e s e n t a unique problem as t h e ALS segment with i t s f l a s h i n g s t r o b e l i g h t s

w i l l be v i s i b l e through t h e fog s t r u c t u r e during t h e e a r l y p a r t of t h e approach. As t h e fog l a y e r is e n t e r e d ,
c o n t a c t with t h e ALS may be l o s t , and t h e s t r o b e l i g h t s cause a d i s t r a c t i n g e f f e c t as t h e i r l i g h t is d i f f u s e d
through fog. The f i r s t usable cue f o r lateral alignment w i l l probably be t h e 1000 f o o t bar and then i n r a p i d
succession w i l l be t h e last 700 f e e t of t h e ALS, t h e 200 f o o t r e d t e r m i n a t i n g b a r , t h e r e d wing l i g h t s , t h r e s h o l d
l i g h t s , and t h e n c o n t a c t with t h e TDZ, CL and HIRL. It should be pointed o u t t h a t as f a s t as t h e s e cues a r e
perceived t h e y w i l l be l o s t as t h e y p a s s out of t h e f i e l d of v i s i o n . The cues from t h e runway l i g h t i n g environ-
ment w i l l remain c o n s t a n t i n a homogeneous fog c o n d i t i o n . The p i l o t w i l l s e e f i v e t o s i x HIRL at each s i d e of
t h e runway and about a 1000 f o o t segment of t h e TDZ and CL l i g h t s . He won’t s e e a v i s u a l segment e q u i v a l e n t t o
t h e r e p o r t e d RVR, because he has t o look down through t h e f o g at an angle. H i s a k t u a l v i s i b i l i t y w i l l be a
s l a n t range v i s i b i l i t y t h a t w i l l never equal t h e h o r i z o n t a l v i s i b i l i t y . The National Bureau of Standards r e p o r t s
an RVR of 1200 f e e t w i l l y i e l d a s l a n t range v i s i b i l i t y of 810 f e e t at 100 f e e t . I n a d d i t i o n , darkness reduces
t h e e f f e c t i v e n e s s of t h e touchdown zone, c e n t e r l i n e and edge markings; i n extreme darkness t h e s e markings w i l l
not be v i s i b l e . Once v i s u a l c o n t a c t with t h e TDZ, CL and HIRL is perceived and a v i s u a l segment of 1200 f e e t
e x i s t s , it is a matter of using t h e s e cues t o c o n t r o l t h e lateral and v e r t i c a l p a t h of t h e v e h i c l e . In t h e t e s t
v e h i c l e t h e r e was no problem c o n t r o l l i n g f l i g h t p a t h i n t h i s condition.

The f i r s t mental a c t is t o determine l a t e r a l p o s i t i o n through use of a l l a v a i l a b l e cues. A t n i g h t p r o j e c t

p i l o t s used t h e TDZ and c e n t e r l i n e l i g h t s t o determine f l i g h t p a t h , e f f e c t lateral c o n t r o l and decrab. Once
i n i t i a l lateral c o n d i t i o n s were determined, a s i n g l e row of l i g h t s may be used t o c o n t r o l l a t e r a l movements.
After proper lateral p a t h c o n t r o l is a s c e r t a i n e d a p i l o t ’ s a t t e n t i o n must a l s o f o c u s on t h e v e r t i c a l plane f o r
f l a r e control.

The p i l o t ’ s v i s u a l p e r c e p t i o n f o r f l a r e i n i t i a t i o n w i l l be s h a r p l y l i m i t e d by t h e l a c k of v i s u a l cues caused

by t h e 1200 f o o t segment. T r a i n i n g w i l l be necessary t o adapt t o using t h i s s h o r t e r v i s u a l segment. The TDZ
and CL l i g h t s must be used t o c o n t r o l f l a r e a t t i t u d e , although they do not provide good v i s u a l r e f e r e n c e f o r
depth perception. The runway and i t s markings m a y not be v i s i b l e at n i g h t , s o t h e f l a r e may be based t o t a l l y
on l i g h t i n g cues. I f proper lateral alignment w a s not a s c e r t a i n e d at i n i t i a l c o n t a c t with t h e l i g h t i n g cues, t h e
p i l o t ’ s v i s u a l c o n t r o l problems w i l l be compounded s i n c e he w i l l t h e n have t o c o n t r o l t h r e e axes simultaneously.
 3-5

The problems of lateral and v e r t i c a l c o n t r o l w i l l be deeply compounded at t h o s e i n s t a l l a t i o n s without TDZ and

CL l i g h t s .The ALS with its s t r o b e s , r e d t e r m i n a t i n g b a r , r e d wing b a r s and t h r e s h o l d l i g h t s provide t h e same
cues, but once t h e s e a r e no longer i n view a l l t h a t e x i s t a r e t h e HIRL f o r l a t e r a l and v e r t i c a l c o n t r o l . R o l l ,
yaw and s p e c i f i c a l l y p i t c h cues w i l l be c o n s i d e r a b l y l e s s p l a c i n g more emphasis on using instrumentation f o r
f l a r e and touchdown.

Imagine now descending i n t o a black void with an RVR of 1200 f e e t at 140 k t s . You have been f l y i n g instruments
and suddenly you t r a n s i t i o n t o o u t s i d e v i s u a l cues at 75 t o 80 f e e t above t h e ground. Your f i r s t v i s u a l impres-
s i o n w i l l be of blackness. You cannot s e e t h e runway o u t l i n e o r its markings, only two segments of l i g h t s . Five
o r s i x l i g h t s moving toward, down and t h e n p a s t t h e s i d e s of t h e a i r c r a f t w i l l be your only cues f o r l a t e r a l and
v e r t i c a l c o n t r o l . These are t h e v i s u a l cues p i l o t s w i l l have t o use i f no in-runway l i g h t i n g i s a v a i l a b l e .

During t h e Landing Weather Minimums I n v e s t i g a t i o n it was determined it r e q u i r e s about t h r e e ( 3 ) seconds f o r

t h e heads-down p i l o t t o i n t e g r a t e t h e o u t s i d e v i s u a l cues a f t e r becoming v i s u a l . It t a k e s him t h i s long t o a d j u s t
t o t h e o u t s i d e environment, t o e s t a b l i s h h i s p o s i t i o n i n r e l a t i o n t o t h e runway, determine c r o s s - t r a c k r a t e and
develop knowledge as t o t h e c o n t r o l i n p u t s necessary f o r v i s u a l c o n t r o l . H i s mind f u n c t i o n s l i k e a computer
d i g e s t i n g information t o determine a c t i o n s . U n t i l a h i s t o r y i s known i n r e l a t i o n t o t h e v i s u a l cues, t h e proper
c o n t r o l input cannot be derived. While t h i s p r o c e s s is going on t h e a i r c r a f t is moving forward at approximately
225 f e e t per second and downward at IO t o 15 f e e t p e r second. The p i l o t ’ s v i s u a l r o l l and p i t c h information is
l i m i t e d i n t h i s environment. Due t o t h e 1200 f o o t segment, a f e e l i n g of being high m a y e x i s t , causing an i n s t i n c -
t i v e lowering of t h e nose c r e a t i n g a f a l s e aiming p o i n t . Also, i f t h e a i r c r a f t is at an angle t o t h e runway
c e n t e r l i n e , t h e p i l o t ’ s f i r s t impression m a y be perceived as a c r o s s - t r a c k causing a r o l l i n p u t which produces
an a c t u a l c r o s s - t r a c k . The 1200 f o o t segment p r e s e n t s enough information t o perform t h e f l a r e maneuver; however,
t h e horizon and usual background cues w i l l not be v i s i b l e . A d i f f e r e n t f l a r e r e f e r e n c e must be learned and a new
s e t of v a l u e s f o r judgment and confidence must be p a r t of t h e p i l o t ’ s r e p e r t o i r e f o r approaches and l a n d i n g s i n
t h i s environment.

Once touchdown is accomplished, t h e HIRL w i l l provide adequate cues t o perform t h e r o l l o u t phase of t h e landing.
Of course i f TDZ and CL l i g h t s are a v a i l a b l e , cues from t h e s e sources w i l l p r e s e n t b e t t e r r o l l o u t information.
Lighted distance-to-go markers along t h e edge of t h e runway should be adequate f o r braking. I t would be b e t t e r
from a p i l o t ’ s p o i n t of view t o have in-runway l i g h t i n g f o r d i s t a n c e remaining along t h e c e n t e r l i n e , o f t h e run-
way. A t t e n t i o n could then be t o t a l l y focused on t h e c e n t e r l i n e f o r r o l l o u t and braking techniques.

Use of t h e landing l i g h t s has not been mentioned on t h e s e d e s c r i p t i o n s of n i g h t approaches. These l i g h t s

produce a b l i n d i n g e f f e c t , t h u s hindering both t h e heads-down and heads-up p i l o t s . They w i l l completely block
o u t v i s u a l cues f o r t h e heads-up p i l o t and draw t h e heads-down p i l o t away from h i s instruments. P o s s i b i l i t i e s
e x i s t t h a t a coherent l i g h t source could be of tremendous value i f one were a v a i l a b l e . T h i s could be used t o
provide runway cues f o r both t h e approach and r o l l o u t .

The TDZ, CL and HIRL a r e adequate f o r approaches i n Category I1 c o n d i t i o n s . The 7500 minimum candela l i g h t s
provide b e t t e r cues t h a n t h e 300 minimum l i g h t s . Operational experience i n Category I11 weather i n d i c a t e s t h e
l i g h t i n g systems should be modified t o provide information i n a manner compatible t o t h e p i l o t ’ s needs. The new
c o n f i g u r a t i o n of t h e ALS with its extension t o t h r e s h o l d and t h e parallel red b a r s should provide t h e needed
d e f i n i t i v e r o l l guidance l e a d i n g t o t h r e s h o l d provided t h e minimum peak i n t e n s i t y of t h e l i g h t s is adequate.
A t t h r e s h o l d and f o r t h e f i r s t 1000 f e e t of t h e runway, however, t h e r e appears t o be an inadequacy i n t h e system
when o p e r a t i n g i n v i s i b i l i t i e s below Category 11. The p i l o t needs a b s o l u t e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of t h r e s h o l d , and
t h e n more d e f i n i t i v e lateral guidance i n t h e f i r s t 1000 f e e t of t h e runway. I t ’ s obvious t h a t Category I11
o p e r a t i o n s w i l l r e q u i r e instrument f l i g h t t o touchdown, but v i s u a l cue requirements e x i s t t o provide t h e heads-up
p i l o t with real-world information i n a meaningful manner, o u t s i d e t h e cockpit. To provide p o s i t i v e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n
of t h r e s h o l d , green l i g h t b a r s a r e recommended. A f e a s i b l e c o n f i g u r a t i o n seems t o be s i x t o e i g h t green l i g h t
b a r s extending i n t o t h e runway about 45 f e e t and e q u a l l y spaced along t h e t h r e s h o l d ; each l i g h t bar c o n s i s t i n g
of t h r e e rows of 7500 minimum c a n d e l a u n i d i r e c t i o n a l l i g h t s . The rows would c o n s i s t ‘of t h r e e l i g h t s at i n t e r v a l s
o f 15 f e e t with each row f i v e f e e t a p a r t . To provide more d e f i n i t i v e l a t e r a l p o s i t i o n t o t h e heads-up P i l o t
higher i n t e n s i t y or t h r e e rows of CL, l i g h t s should commence at t h r e s h o l d and extend through t h e f i r s t 1000 f e e t
of t h e runway. T h i s c o n f i g u r a t i o n would p o s i t i v e l y i d e n t i f y runway CL preventing t h e HIRL from being mistaken
f o r CL during an o f f s e t approach. With t h i s c o n f i g u r a t i o n complementing t h e p r e s e n t system, t h e p i l o t is given
information i n a meaningful p a t t e r n ; guidance t o t h r e s h o l d , p o s i t i v e t h r e s h o l d i d e n t i f i c a t i o n , emphasis per-
t a i n i n g t o l a t e r a l p o s i t i o n and touchdown zone i d e n t i f i c a t i o n .

There a r e s e v e r a l s i g n i f i c a n t f a c t o r s t h a t d i s t i n g u i s h day o p e r a t i o n s from night: t h e P i l o t ’ s psychological

f e e l i n g s ; t h e e f f e c t i v e n e s s of l i g h t i n g systems; t h e runway i s d i s c e r n a b l e ; and cues a r e a v a i l a b l e from runway
markings.

P s y c h o l o g i c a l l y t h e p i l o t is more relaxed. H i s environment is more f,amiliar and he can r e l y more on h i s p a s t

experience and not be hampered by t h e c o n f i n e s of darkness. He is more assured t h a t h i s approach w i l l be a
s u c c e s s s i n c e h i s cues w i l l involve more of t h e r e a l world. The runway w i l l be v i s i b l e w i t h i t s o u t l i n e s and
markings. He f e e l s t h e s e a r e more t a n g i b l e cues t h a n l i g h t s i n t h e blackness. Subconsciously, t h e s e a r e
t h o u g h t s t h a t go through a p i l o t ’ s mind. Realistically, however, t h e p i l o t is faced with a more d i f f i c u l t
s i t u a t i o n t h a n he r e a l i z e s .

In f a c t , he w i l l f i n d l e s s l i g h t i n g cues a v a i l a b l e f o r h i s day approach. On f i n a l , t h e AL6 with i t s s t r o b e

l i g h t s w i l l be washed o u t , faded t o t h e e x t e n t t h e y may not be v i s i b l e from t h e c o c k p i t . If t h e y a r e a v a i l a b l e ,
o n l y t h e last few hundred f e e t p r i o r t o t h r e s h o l d w i l l be u s e f u l . I n t h i s case t h e runway m a k i n g s and c o n t r a s t
3- 6

m a y provide b e t t e r guidance t h a n in-runway l i g h t i n g system. The heads-down p i l o t a s he comes heads up w i l l be

drawn t o t h e CL s t r i p i n g , touchdown markings and runway c o n t r a s t more so than t h e l i g h t i n g systems. The markings
w i l l provide adequate l a t e r a l guidance and t h e a v a i l a b l e runway segment provides s u f f i c i e n t v i s u a l r e f e r e n c e f o r
f l a r e . Some TDZ and CL l i g h t s w i l l be v i s i b l e ; however, t h e y w i l l be of secondary importance. Runways which do
not have TDZ and CL l i g h t s may provide j u s t as e f f e c t i v e cues with t h e instrument runway markings.

The most important aspect of t h e day approach i s , then, t h e runway markings. I t i s imperative t h e s e cues be
kept i n e x c e l l e n t c o n d i t i o n . I f n o t , much of t h e v i s u a l information f o r l a t e r a l c o n t r o l w i l l be l o s t . F u r t h e r ,
t h e TDZ and CL s t r i p i n g provide cues t o a c q u i r e depth p e r c e p t i o n . I f t h e s e cues a r e not i n good c o n d i t i o n , t h e
f l a r e p e r s p e c t i v e would be considerably reduced. The s i d e s t r i p i n g a l s o produces v a l u a b l e information f o r
l a t e r a l guidance during t h e f l a r e and r o l l o u t . The r o l l o u t can be acomplished with CL s t r i p i n g . Distance-to-go
information on c e n t e r l i n e should be considered t o avoid d i v i s i o n of a t t e n t i o n during r o l l o u t s .

There i s a very sharp d i f f e r e n c e between t h e v i s u a l cues used f o r day and n i g h t o p e r a t i o n . L i g h t s provide

t h e dominant n i g h t cues, while t h e runway with its markings i s b e s t during d a y l i g h t . During s u n r i s e and sunset
a combination e x i s t s .

Let u s c o n s i d e r day and n i g h t o p e r a t i o n s with RVRs of from 200 t o 600 f e e t . Now a new problem develops where
i n s u f f i c i e n t cues a r e a v a i l a b l e t o f l a r e t h e a i r c r a f t whether it i s day o r n i g h t . As t h e v i s i b i l i t y approaches
200 f e e t l a t e r a l c o n t r o l becomes extremely d i f f i c u l t with p r e s e n t l i g h t i n g and marking systems. I n t h i s environ-
ment, t h e e n t i r e A L S can be considered i n e f f e c t i v e f o r l a t e r a l c o n t r o l . The t h r e s h o l d , r e d t e r m i n a t i n g bar and
wing l i g h t s may provide a cue t o t h e heads-up p i l o t . However, t h e heads-down p i l o t w i l l not s e e t h e s e cues
s i n c e he must remain on instruments t o touchdown. Therefore, he r e q u i r e s r e f i n e d l a t e r a l and v e r t i c a l guidance
along with f l a r e information. The key t h e n t o a s u c c e s s f u l approach is t h e i n t e r a c t i o n of each P i l o t , with
t h e i r proper execution of assigned r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s .

The heads-up p i l o t w i l l s e e cues from t h e TDZ, CL and H I R L s during n i g h t o p e r a t i o n o r t h e washed-out e f f e c t

of t h e l i g h t i n g system and runway markings during d a y l i g h t o p e r a t i o n . These cues provide a marginal v i s u a l seg-
ment f o r l a t e r a l alignment; t h e f l a r e maneuver w i l l have t o be c o n t r o l l e d by instruments.

It is important t o examine t h e c r i t i c a l phase of t r a n s i t i o n i n g from instrument t o v i s u a l f l i g h t t o understand

how t o use t h e v i s u a l segment of 200 t o 600 f e e t . Crew procedures and concepts are extremely important as it is
imperative t h e t r a n s i t i o n be smooth, p r e c i s e and occur at t h e proper moment. This emphasizes t h e two p i l o t con-
t r o l concept w i t h each assigned s p e c i f i c t a s k s during an approach.

F i r s t of a l l , t h e p i l o t f l y i n g instruments (heads-down p i l o t ) w i l l not s e e t h e cues v i s i b l e t o t h e p i l o t

looking o u t (heads-up p i l o t ) . When t h e heads-down p i l o t comes heads up, t h e r e is a g r e a t d e a l of mental a d j u s t -
ment t o make i f he is t o maintain c o n t r o l of t h e v e h i c l e . The heads-up p i l o t ’ s d e c i s i o n t o c a l l v i s u a l c o n t a c t
with t h e runway environment is a very c r i t i c a l one. I f he b r i n g s him up t o o soon, t h e r e m a y not be enough cues
f o r proper c o n t r o l ; if i t ’ s t o o l a t e t h e r e may not be enough time t o v i s u a l l y e s t a b l i s h t h e proper f l i g h t p a t h s
f o r lateral and v e r t i c a l c o n t r o l .

These problems were overcome through t h e use of t h r e e v e r b a l calls by t h e heads-up p i l o t which conveyed’
q u a l i t a t i v e and q u a n t i t a t i v e information r e l a t i n g t o t h e cues observed. The f i r s t c a l l is “cue”; t h i s means
some recognizable part of t h e l i g h t i n g system o r runway environment is i n view and f u r t h e r cues w i l l be seen.
The second ‘ c a l l is “lateral”, which conveys t h e meaning t h e heads-up p i l o t h a s s u f f i c i e n t cues t o c o n t r o l t h e
v e h i c l e i n t h e l a t e r a l a x i s throughout t h e r e s t of t h e approach,and w i l l e x e r c i s e t h e p r e r o g a t i v e of i n p u t s t o
t h e l a t e r a l a x i s as he deems necessary. So now l a t e r a l path c o n t r o l is being e x e r c i s e d by two p i l o t s . L o g i c a l l y
one might assume a l l c o n t r o l of t h e l a t e r a l a x i s should be t r a n s f e r r e d t o t h e heads-up p i l o t ; however, i f t h i s
were done and a go-around i n i t i a t e d , t h e heads-down p i l o t would have t o re-acquaint himself with r o l l and yaw
parameters which would slow down h i s r e a c t i o n s during a c r i t i c a l phase of f l i g h t . The t h i r d and last c a l l is
“ u i s u a ~ ” ;t h i s is t h e c a l l f o r t h e heads-down p i l o t t o come heads up and c o n t r o l t h e a i r c r a f t v i s u a l l y , f o r t h e r e
a r e s u f f i c i e n t cues f o r maintaining both l a t e r a l and v e r t i c a l p a t h c o n t r o l . The heads-up p i l o t w i l l assist as
necessary a f t e r t h e v i s u a l c a l l , throughout t h e remainder of t h e approach. So it amounts t o a t o t a l crew concept
where each p i l o t s h a r e s r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s , and t a s k s a r e i n t e g r a t e d t o a common g o a l . A t h i r d p i l o t was used as a
systems monitor and a l s o had t h e a u t h o r i t y t o command a go-around based on h i s o b s e r v a t i o n s .

It can r e a d i l y be seen i t r e q u i r e s a g r e a t d e a l of t r a i n i n g , crew c o o r d i n a t i o n and crew confidence and under-

s t a n d i n g t o o p e r a t e i n t h i s low v i s i b i l i t y environment. As t h e v i s u a l range d e c r e a s e s toward 200 f e e t , t h e
u t i l i t y of cues d e c r e a s e s s h a r p l y . The heads-up p i l o t ’ s t a s k s a r e t o a s s i m i l a t e v i s u a l cues, supply q u a l i t a t i v e
and q u a n t i t a t i v e information and assist i n v e h i c l e c o n t r o l with i n p u t s i n t o f i r s t t h e lateral a x i s , t h e n t h e
v e r t i c a l a x i s i f s u f f i c i e n t cues e x i s t . I t was found t h e heads-up p i l o t could assist i n t h e lateral a x i s with
v i s u a l segments down t o 200 f e e t . If t h e heads-down p i l o t came up i n t h i s environment, he could not e f f e c t i v e l y
determine c r o s s - t r a c k r a t e and had no cues t o i n i t i a t e a f l a r e . The heads-up p i l o t a l s o has i n s u f f i c i e n t cues
t o f l a r e t h e vehicle.

Reaction time must be c a r e f u l l y considered when a t r a n s i t i o n is made from a heads-down instrument environment
t o a p a r t i a l real-world environment. To suddenly attempt a i r c r a f t c o n t r o l with a v i s u a l segment of 200 t o 600
f e e t t a k e s approximately t h r e e seconds of v i s u a l i n t e g r a t i o n . When t h e cues a r e seen, a i r c r a f t p o s i t i o n is known,
but more important, and what is n o t known at t h a t i n s t a n t , i s e x a c t l y what t h e a i r c r a f t is doing i n r e l a t i o n t o
t h e cues perceived. The time necessary t o i n t e g r a t e and determine lateral movement w i l l depend d i r e c t l y on t h e
l e n g t h and cues a v a i l a b l e w i t h i n a v i s u a l segment. Segments of 1200 f e e t o r g r e a t e r g e n e r a l l y p r e s e n t e d no prob-
lem t o p r o j e c t p i l o t s i n e i t h e r t h e l a t e r a l o r v e r t i c a l plane. However, as t h e segments decreased below 600 f e e t ,
 3- I

v i s u a l p e r c e p t i o n of l a t e r a l movement ( c r o s s - t r a c k r a t e ) became almost unrecognizable t o t h e p i l o t who suddenly

went from instrument t o complete v i s u a l c o n t r o l . It is believed a segment of 600 f e e t , which p r o v i d e s approxi-
mately h a l f t h e v i s u a l information, does not provide t h e needed p e r s p e c t i v e f o r t h e p i l o t t o i n t e g r a t e v i s u a l
cues w i t h i n h i s c a p a b i l i t y . H i s mental adjustment would have t o be t w i c e as f a s t with t h e s h o r t e r segment. This
is not p o s s i b l e s i n c e t h e p i l o t ’ s accommodation and r e a c t i o n time a r e p h y s i o l o g i c a l l y c o n s t a n t . Time is probably
t h e most important f a c t o r when o p e r a t i n g i n v i s i b i l i t i e s l e s s t h a n 600 f e e t . Consider a v e h i c l e which is moving
forward at about 225 f e e t p e r second and downward at 10 t o 15 f e e t p e r second and suddenly at 50 f e e t , a v i s u a l
segment of 600 f e e t is perceived. I f adaption time is 3 seconds, t h e a i r c r a f t w i l l be almost at touchdown before
a p i l o t is a l e r t t o t h e geometry of t h e f l i g h t path. Add then, c o n t r o l r e a c t i o n and a i r c r a f t response and t h e
s i t u a t i o n becomes completely unacceptable.

T h i s , t h e n , p o i n t s t o complete instrument f l i g h t and t h e need f o r a new parameter when o p e r a t i n g with r e s t r i c t e d

v i s u a l segments. An a n a l y s i s would i n d i c a t e a need f o r l a t e r a l v e l o c i t y information i n r e l a t i o n t o runway c e n t e r -
l i n e p r e s e n t e d and s c a l e d i n such a manner t o be f l y a b l e and command c o r r e c t i o n s t o r e t u r n t o c e n t e r l i n e .

A t n i g h t a v i s u a l range l e s s t h a n 600 f e e t i s i n s u f f i c i e n t t o p e r c e i v e depth f o r t h e f l a r e maneuver. A f e e l i n g

may e x i s t t h e a i r c r a f t i s s a i l i n g along s e v e r a l f e e t above t h e runway a f t e r touchdown has occurred. Another
v i s u a l e f f e c t may be of descending through a cone. This o p t i c a l i l l u s i o n may be caused by f i x a t i o n on a s i n g l e
l i g h t o r be due t o a c i r c u l a r scan about at midpoint. Daylight o p e r a t i o n i n t h e same weather allows t h e use of
t h e runway image f o r depth p e r c e p t i o n ; however, t h e f l a r e maneuver must be accomplished on instruments. P r o j e c t
p i l o t s p r e f e r t o remain on instruments f o r t h e f l a r e and touchdown.

To continue with an e x t e n s i v e d e s c r i p t i o n of o p e r a t i o n s i n deep f o g , o r cloud base fog, would be clearly redun-

dant. Therefore, only c e r t a i n a s p e c t s o f t h e general c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of each s h a l l be discussed.

Deep fog c o n d i t i o n s a r e t h o s e which e x i s t from t h e s u r f a c e of t h e runway up t o s e v e r a l hundred f e e t . The

v i s u a l cues a v a i l a b l e f o r p i l o t use w i l l g e n e r a l l y be t h e same with t h e exception of t h e ALS. During t h e e a r l y
p a r t of t h e approach t h e ALS w i l l not be v i s i b l e due t o t h e t h i c k n e s s of t h e fog. Also, t h i s fog w i l l tend t o
be more mature and homogeneous. The p i l o t should be p s y c h o l o g i c a l l y more prepared t o perform t h e l a t t e r p a r t
of t h e approach s i n c e he w i l l be on instruments f o r a longer p e r i o d of time.

Cloud base fog c o n d i t i o n s a r e similar i n height t o deep fog; however, p i l o t s can expect greater v i s u a l segments
as t h e fog l a y e r has formed above i n s t e a d of on t h e runway. T h i s fog forms a more d e f i n i t e c e i l i n g ; t h e r e f o r e ,
once t h e c e i l i n g is passed, more v i s u a l cues w i l l be a v a i l a b l e t h a n i n t h e o t h e r t y p e s of fog.

Regardless of t h e t y p e of fog, when t h e approach is performed o r t h e l i g h t i n g f a c i l i t i e s a v a i l a b l e at t h e des-

t i n a t i o n , instrument f l i g h t must be accomplished t o a p o i n t where the v i s i b i l i t y w i l l d i c t a t e v i s u a l c o n t r o l i s
p o s s i b l e . I n some c a s e s t h i s p o i n t is touchdown and r o l l o u t . Instruments, d i s p l a y s , c o n t r o l concepts, crew
procedures, t r a i n i n g requirements and t h e f u l l realm of both a i r b o r n e and ground based f a c i l i t i e s must be r e -
a l i s t i c a l l y evaluated i n terms of t h e environment p e r t i n e n t t o t h e o p e r a t i o n s of today and f a r i n t o t h e f u t u r e .
I t is hoped t h i s w r i t i n g w i l l provide some i n s i g h t i n t o problems p i l o t s f a c e i n t h e low v i s i b i l i t y environment.
and some c o n s i d e r a t i o n of i t s c o n t e n t s m a y be u s e f u l i n t h e development of f u t u r e systems.
3 -8

I AUTOMATIC
FLIGHT
CONTROL
I
PILOT- CO-PILOT

C O N T R O L FORCE

d ADAPTER <

MODE SELECTOR
LONGITUDINAL LATERAL

. HEADING
.ALTITUDE HOLD .CAPTURE
. LONG OFF . T R A C K
. LATERAL OFF

Figure 2
 4

NEW D E V E L O P M E N T S I N L A N D I N G S Y S T E M S

by

G. L i t c h f o r d

Litchford Systems
32 Cherry Lawn Lane
Northport, New York 11768, USA

(Consultant t o t h e US Air Force F l i g h t Dynamics Laboratory)

4
 4- 1

NEW DEVELOPMENTS I N L A N D I N G SYSTEMS

G. L i t c h f o r d

INTRODUCTION

The number of new developments i n landing systems has n e a r l y quadrupled i n t h e p a s t f i v e y e a r s . l e now have
i n t h e U . S . A . and Western Europe n e a r l y a dozen new developments. Many o p e r a t i o n a l l y d e s i r e d landing guidance
requirements f o r t h e wide spectrum of committed a i r c r a f t cannot be met by t h e e x i s t i n g VHF/UHF ILS (Instrument
Landing System). Man’s d e s i r e t o improve t h e s a f e t y and u s e f u l n e s s of modern a i r c r a f t has come f a c e t o f a c e
with a major challenge: t h e complexities of landing i n lower and lower v i s i b i l i t i e s with a i r c r a f t t h a t have
higher and higher performance demands. The economics of c i v i l o p e r a t i o n s and t h e increased military dependence
on a v i a t i o n f o r “tactical d e t e r r e n c e ” have r e s u l t e d i n increased a i r c r a f t populations with wider f l i g h t p e r f o r -
mance spectrum. The urgency of applying t h e s e a i r c r a f t where needed and when needed (with IFR and low v i s i b i l i t y
l i m i t a t i o n s reduced t o t h e a b s o l u t e minimum) is now apparent, warranting e x t e n s i v e e f f o r t s t o f i n d a “new” landing
system.

I n a d d i t i o n t o recognizing t h e need f o r a “new” system, we a r e a l s o a s s u r i n g t h e continued use of t h e “old”

VHF/UHF landing system f o r at least another decade. Many small a i r p o r t s and l e s s demanding a i r c r a f t w i l l r e c e i v e
b e n e f i t s from i n s t a l l a t i o n of low-cost ground u n i t s .

From t h i s l a r g e spectrum of a v a i l a b l e new developments i n landing systems, it is l i k e l y t h a t only one landing

system can evolve and be developed f u l l y . This does not imply t h e development of a s i n g l e “black-box’’ t h a t has
a l l t h e answers, but more of a “total-system” concept t h a t has been synthesized t o f i n a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , such
as a common r a d i o s i g n a l s t a n d a r d , d a t a formats, s u f f i c i e n t c u r r e n t and f u t u r e r a d i o channels, beamwidths, accu-
racies, e t c . Various c o n f i g u r a t i o n s have some commonality and c o m p a t i b i l i t y . j u s t as a modern t e l e v i s i o n s t a t i o n
can t r a n s m i t a r a d i o s i g n a l t h a t is common t o both a black and white r e c e i v e r and a c o l o r r e c e i v e r . Leaving t h e
o p t i o n t o t h e u s e r is e s s e n t i a l s i n c e performance needs and c o s t s w i l l vary with each class of u s e r .

Because t h e “old” landing system was designed some 30 years ago, with only minor improvements p o s s i b l e , its
l i m i t a t i o n s of accuracy, s u s c e p t i b i l i t y t o beam d i s t u r b a n c e s , and geometric c o n s t r a i n t s of a l l f l i g h t p a t h s of
a l l a i r c r a f t t o a s i n g l e g l i d e angle and aiming p o i n t t y p i f y problems t h a t must be overcome. Nearly a l l of t h e
dozen o r so new developments i n landing systems a r e i n t h e upper frequency r e g i o n s of t h e r a d i o spectrum. These
developments i n c l u d e equipments t r a n s m i t t i n g and r e c e i v i n g i n r a d i o bands such as L, S, C. K,. X, and K,. Two
popular bands (K, and C) each have two o r t h r e e major new landing system developments. Some of t h e s e systems
have been designed t o include modular d e s i g n s t o s a t i s f y a spectrum of u s e r s o r t o “ i n t e g r a t e ” with o t h e r i n t e r -
r e l a t e d e l e c t r o n i c needs. The i n t e g r a t i o n of new e l e c t r o n i c s i n t o fewer and fewer a i r c r a f t u n i t s f o r communica-
t i o n , n a v i g a t i o n ( i n c l u d i n g l a n d i n g ) , and i d e n t i f i c a t i o n i n t o t h e s o - c a l l e d “CNI” concept implies doing t h e landing
j o b i n a p a r t i c u l a r way t h a t is t i g h t l y r e l a t e d t o s a t e l l i t e n a v i g a t i o n , communications, and s e v e r a l o t h e r func-
t i o n s (1).

Other concepts less comprehensive i n c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s a r e based on t h e f a c t t h a t many s o l u t i o n s t o long-range

n a v i g a t i o n and communications e x i s t today; y e t , t h e one t h i n g s t i l l not p o s s i b l e with a m i l i t a r y or c i v i l j e t
a i r c r a f t is t o land i n lower and lower, and, if r e q u i r e d , “zero” v i s i b i l i t y . The s i x ICAO v i s i b i l i t y c a t e g o r i e s
of CAT I , 11-A, 1 1 - R , 1 1 1 - A , and 1 1 1 - C d e f i n e g o a l s from 2 , 4 0 0 f e e t of v i s i b i l i t y (RVR) i n CAT I t b as l i t t l e as
150 f e e t i n CAT 111-B. Unfortunately, t h e s e c a t e g o r i z a t i o n s a r e e s t a b l i s h e d i n v i s i b i l i t y u n i t s f o r e i t h e r manual
o r automatic landings while perhaps some o t h e r y a r d s t i c k of p r o g r e s s , such as accuracy, s e n s i t i v i t y , o r p o s s i b l y
t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p t o f l i g h t dynamics, is a l s o needed.

T h i s c a t e g o r i z a t i o n by v i s i b i l i t y u n i t s is probably because a l l c i v i l systems depend e x t e n s i v e l y on a g r e a t

v a r i e t y of l i g h t s f o r v i s u a l a i d , t o t h e p i l o t . The m i l i t a r y cannot always r e l y on such e x t e n s i v e l i g h t s when
r e q u i r e d t o o p e r a t e under t h e concepts of r a p i d l y deployed “tactical d e t e r r e n t ” f o r c e s u t i l i z i n g massive a i r l i f t :
landing must be p o s s i b l e at remote s t r i p s t h a t are h u r r i e d l y e s t a b l i s h e d f o r tactical use. I t is tactically un-
r e a l i s t i c t o assume e x t e n s i v e v i s u a l a i d s , and t h e m i l i t a r y must depend more on s u p e r i o r r a d i o guidance t o make
up f o r t h e s e d e f i c i e n c i e s .

T h i s view of emphasizing t h e s o l u t i o n of t h e most c r i t i c a l problem f i r s t , and one t h a t does not have an alter-
n a t e s o l u t i o n . l e a d s one t o a d i f f e r e n t r a t i o n a l e f o r “System-Synthesis” t h a n does t h e concept of CNI (Reference
1). There is no d i f f e r e n c e i n t h e o b j e c t i v e s , namely a r e d u c t i o n i n t h e number of i n d i v i d u a l a i r b o r n e e l e c t r o n i c
u n i t s by at l e a s t an o r d e r of magnitude. Only t h e s t a r t i n g p o i n t is i n question.
4-2

National and I n t e r n a t i o n a l “System-Synthesis” Leading t o a New Landing System

C u r r e n t l y s e v e r a l c a n d i d a t e s f o r f u t u r e landing systems a r e under development by such companies as B e l l ,
Cutler-Hammer, Westinghouse, Honeywell, LFE, GPL-Singer, Lockheed, Cubic, ITT. CSF, E l l i o t s , and s e v e r a l o t h e r s .
The agencies sponsoring t h e s e developments i n t h e US a r e t h e Navy, A i r Force, Army, NASA, and t h e FAA. System
names such as “STATE”, “TALAR”, “FLARESCAN”, “AUTOLAND”, “VAPS”, “AILS”, “MODILS”, “SAILS’, “CNI”, f i l l t h e
l i t e r a t u r e suggesting t h e i r s e l e c t i o n of C , L, X, or K band and c e r t a i n s i g n a l f e a t u r e s is t h e b e s t .

A s noted p r e v i o u s l y . it is impossible f o r many t e c h n i c a l and economic r e a s o n s f o r everyone t o win. An attempt

t o focus on some form of a coordinated n a t i o n a l e f f o r t i n t h e US, reducing somewhat t h e c h a o t i c c o n d i t i o n , has
been underaken. Now underway i n t h e US is a committee of an o r g a n i z a t i o n known as t h e RTCA (Radio Technical
Commission f o r Aeronautics) which is e s s e n t i a l l y a c t i n g as a forum f o r many i n d u s t r y and government agencies t o
meet and attempt t o come up with a common s e t of o p e r a t i o n a l and t e c h n i c a l requirements ( “ S i g n a l s i n Space”
s t a n d a r d s ) f o r a new, m u l t i f u n c t i o n a l landing system. Hopefully, some guidance w i l l be forth-coming by t h e end
of 1969. However, t h e r e is nothing binding i n t h e committee’s r e p o r t s , nor has RTCA any “power” economically or
l e g a l l y t o impose its s o l u t i o n . T h i s perhaps is j u s t as well s i n c e a p o o r l y conceived and c o n t r o v e r s i a l s o l u t i o n
is perhaps worse t h a n t h e continued l i m i t a t i o n s imposed with t h e use o f t h e VHF/UHF ILS. A new system must
succeed on its own m e r i t s .

Some h a l f dozen or more “configurations” with v a r i a t i o n s i n p r o p o r t i o n a l v e r t i c a l coverage, o p t i o n a l ( p r e c i s i o n )

DME, and p r o p o r t i o n a l azimuthal coverage have been prepared by t h e o p e r a t i o n a l requirements sub-committee of t h e
RTCA SC-117 (Reference 2 ) . This e f f o r t h a s permitted t h e many i n t e r f a c e s between i n d i v i d u a l m i l i t a r y s e r v i c e s ,
between t h e c i v i l and m i l i t a r y , between t h e domestic and i n t e r n a t i o n a l , g r o u ~ s ,p i l o t s and e n g i n e e r s , t o be exposed
. ,
and considered.

The S y n t h e s i s of Recent Developments I n t o a New Landing System

We a r e j u s t l e a r n i n g how t o make use of t h e v a s t technology t h a t e x i s t s today when applying i t t o a new l a n d i n g

system. The system s y n t h e s i s process l o g i c a l l y follows t h e r o u t e s of (a) o p e r a t i o n a l requirements, (b) f l i g h t
dynamic requirements, through t o (c) s e l e c t i o n of a r a d i o frequency (which microwave bands are b e s t ? ) through t o
(d) bandwidths, ( e ) d a t a rates, and ( f ) modulation c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . A l l t h i s w i l l determine f i n a l l y t h e number
of channels a v a i l a b l e f o r a new system and i d e n t i f y e a r l y problems such as weather p e n e t r a t i o n , spectrum c o n t r o l
and e f f i c i e n c y of spectrum usage. There is probably no one i n t e l l i g e n t enough o r with enough experience t o
a r b i t r a r i l y mandate t h e s e matters.

What is s o r e l y needed at t h i s s t a g e is a series of experimental elements of a new system f l e x i b l y designed t o

a r r i v e at t h e b e s t s t a n d a r d through c o n t r o l l e d and thoroughly planned f i e l d and f l i g h t tests. Such m a t t e r s as
t h e d i s t u r b a n c e of t h e guidance beams’ s i g n a l s as received by an approaching o r landing a i r c r a f t because of re-
r a d i a t i o n from preceding a i r c r a f t . monitoring r e l i a b i l i t y , f l e x i b i l i t y of l o c a t i n g t h e GPIP (Glide Path I n t e r c e p t
P o i n t ) a r e but a few c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s t h a t need examination by f u l l s c a l e t e s t i n g with experimental equipments,
using modern a i r c r a f t t y p e s . Too much DC-3 t e s t i n g of j e t landing or VSTOL landing systems can be misleading.

Many d e s i g n e r s p r e f e r “scanning” o r “stepped” microwave beams t o o b t a i n both accuracy and wide-proportional

guidance coverage (say 2 40’ of c e n t e r l i n e ) . Should t h e beams be scanned e l e c t r o n i c a l l y with phased but f i x e d
antenna a r r a y s , or by moving mechanical antenna a r r a y s ? Can t h e r e be d i f f e r e n t scanning rates f o r d i f f e r e n t
s e r v i c e s , or must t h e y a l l be t h e same? Can a narrow beam scan a wide angle of coverage with adequate sampling
r a t e s commensurate with f l i g h t dynamics and beam coupling? S i m i l a r l y , can a wide beam scan an even wider angle
f o r VSTOL (say _+ go’)? Can an e l e c t r o n i c a l l y scanned beam vary its width, angular v e l o c i t y , and scan r a t e t o
s u i t a given o p e r a t i o n a l requirement? Determination of beam geometry - p l a n a r , c o n i c a l , or s p h e r i c a l - must be
considered. The c o o r d i n a t e conversion of guidance geometrics from o f f s e t s i t e s t o t h e p r e c i s i o n needed on
runway c e n t e r l i n e must be demonstrated. Diminishing accuracy but p r o p o r t i o n a l d a t a at wide a n g l e s on e i t h e r
s i d e of t h e runway may a l s o be d e s i r a b l e .

The s y n t h e s i s of a tactical landing system (Reference 3) m a y r e s u l t i n somewhat d i f f e r e n t r e s u l t s t h a n a c i v i l

system. Yet t h e two (a c i v i l a p p l i c a t i o n and a m i l i t a r y a p p l i c a t i o n ) can be compatible because of agreed-upon
S i g n a l s i n Space s t a n d a r d s . Interchangeable usage can e x i s t so t h e most a i r c r a f t can land at e i t h e r m i l i t a r y or
c i v i l b a s e s i n t r a n s i t o r i n hazardous l o w - v i s i b i l i t y c o n d i t i o n s . We must avoid t h e n e c e s s i t y of c a r r y i n g 3 or
4 landing equipments i n a i r c r a f t or t o have a i r c r a f t l o s t because t h e r i g h t r e c e i v e r was not aboard.

The use of some of t h e microwave developments permit s t e e p g l i d e angles f o r h e l i c o p t e r s o r VSTOL a i r c r a f t t o

be generated with small, highly p o r t a b l e landing guidance u n i t s . F i e l d use i n tactical environments w i l l have
t h i s advantage - something d e f i n i t e l y not p o s s i b l e with VHF/ILS. The STOL and VSTOL a i r c r a f t t y p e s g e n e r a l l y
o p e r a t e at s t e e p e r a n g l e s s i n c e t h e j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r t h e i r use is o f t e n r e l a t e d t o landing i n r e s t r i c t e d areas
and over o b s t r u c t i o n s t h a t would not be p o s s i b l e with CTOL a i r c r a f t . Thus, i f t h e s e more f l e x i b l e v e h i c l e s a r e
t o be of f u l l value t o t h e i r military and c i v i l u s e r s , a landing means must be found f o r them t o reduce t h e
r i s k of o p e r a t i o n s i n t o t h e i r more r e s t r i c t e d and hazardous landing s i t e s i n IFR and nighttime. Hopefully, t h e
same s i g n a l s t a n d a r d can s a t i s f y t h e VSTOL and CTOL so t h a t two indepeqdent systems do not e x i s t . Some of t h e
s p e c i f i c “ c o n f i g u r a t i o n s ” of landing f a c i l i t i e s noted i n References 2 and 3 suggest how t h e new microwave guid-
ance developments should permit t h i s “ m u l t i f u n c t i o n a l ” s o l u t i o n .
 4-3

The Dilemma of t h e New Developments

I n some r e s p e c t s we a r e b l e s s e d w i t h what appears as r i c h e s of new technology t o s o l v e t h e p e r e n n i a l and vexing
landing problem. Almost t o o many o p p o r t u n i t i e s appear t o c o n f i g u r e a new landing system t h a t would supply t h e
much needed new f u n c t i o n s and t o u l t i m a t e l y r e p l a c e t h e e x i s t i n g ILS. However, there e x i s t s l i t t l e guidance f o r
t h e d e c i s i o n maker t o a r r i v e at t h e optimum r e l a t i o n s h i p of t h e many parameters noted. A f a r more s c i e n t i f i c
approach t o “System S y n t h e s i s ” than i n t h e p a s t must now be taken. A random s e l e c t i o n p r o c e s s or one d i c t a t e d
by a b u r e a c r a t i c d e c i s i o n is not l i k e l y t o work. It is far more d i f f i c u l t t o s a t i s f y t h e physical laws and
r e a l i t i e s of t h e landing problem than is y e t r e a l i z e d by many of t h e cognizant agencies.

Much of what we have today i n Avionics “grew” l o g i c a l l y as e a r l y technology permitted. But t h e new era of
“ t o t a l system s y n t h e s i s ” is now f o r c e d onto t h e d e c i s i o n maker whether he l i k e s it o r n o t . The consequences of
such new d e c i s i o n s a r e o f t e n hundred of t i m e s more s i g n i f i c a n t than 20 t o 25 y e a r s ago, when most of t h e d e c i s i o n s
r e l a t i n g t o such systems as VHF-ILS were made.

I n o r d e r t o make v a l i d and l a s t i n g d e c i s i o n s i n any matter, well e s t a b l i s h e d facts are f i r s t e s s e n t i a l . Such

t e c h n i c a l f a c t s cannot be obtained without c o n t r o l l e d r e s e a r c h and t e s t i n g of experimental u n i t s . T h i s is a
c o s t l y and time consuming e f f o r t , and most people a r e impatient t o g e t t o t h e s o l u t i o n , so some would p r e f e r t o
s k i p over t h i s phase and merely e s t i m a t e .

A continuous p r o c e s s of open, f u l l y - p u b l i s h e d tests of c a n d i d a t e landing t e c h n i q u e s measured a g a i n s t c e r t a i n

o p e r a t i o n a l o b j e c t i v e s can r e s u l t i n narrowing down t h e spectrum of new landing developments t o a reasonable s e t
of c o n f i g u r a t i o n s t h a t can then r e c e i v e some form of s t a n d a r d i z a t i o n . A s t h i s t e s t i n g and e v a l u a t i o n p r o c e s s
p r o g r e s s e s , l o g i c a l and l a s t i n g d e c i s i o n s can be made.

Once a new s i g n a l s t a n d a r d d e s c r i b i n g t h e new landing system is adopted, t h e r e w i l l be ample o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r

a l l q u a l i f i e d p a r t i c i p a n t s t o s h a r e . J u s t as t h e Color-TV s t a l e m a t e of 1948 t o 1954 prevented any s i d e from
winning adoption, so we now s t a n d i n a landing system s t a l e m a t e . A review of t h e s p e c i a l i s s u e s of t h e Proceed-
i n g s of t h e I n s t i t u t e of Radio Engineers d e a l i n g w i t h t h e c o m p l e x i t i e s and d i s p u t e s of Color-TV s t a n d a r d i z a t i o n
i n October 1951 and January 1954 should be ample warning t o t h o s e t h a t t h i n k otherwise. I t is i n t h e i n t e r e s t
of a l l parties t o f i n d an a c c e p t a b l e means of t e c h n i c a l a d j u d i c a t i o n of competing and c o n f l i c t i n g landing develop-
ment schemes.

I n t h e meantime, b a s i c knowledge of t h e p o t e n t i a l microwave bands should be improved. Such parameters as

weather a b s o r p t i o n t h a t does not a f f e c t some microwaves ( t h a t seem otherwise i d e a l l y s u i t e d f o r landing develop-
ment) should be f u l l y documented using typical beam c o n f i g u r a t i o n s and over t y p i c a l t r a n s m i s s i o n p a t h s ( v e r t i c a l
a n g l e , beamwidths, s i g n a l l e v e l , r a i n d e n s i t i e s , e t c . ) . Multipath r e f l e c t i o n s from known d i f f i c u l t a i r p o r t
o b j e c t s , such as hangars, standard aircraft, power l i n e s , fences, e t c . , need d e t a i l e d f i e l d s t u d i e s and measure-
ment s o t h a t t h e “mechanics” o f such multipath e f f e c t s are much more f u l l y understood t h a n at p r e s e n t .

Means f o r using t h e few frequency assignments now a v a i l a b l e i n t h e most e f f i c i e n t manner p o s s i b l e should be

f u l l y e x p l o i t e d . Perhaps some ,100 t o 200 channels w i l l e v e n t u a l l y be needed by t h e c i v i l and m i l i t a r y u s e r s f o r
landing guidance and c l o s e l y a s s o c i a t e d f u n c t i o n s t h a t would n a t u r a l l y be “ i n t e g r a t e d ” along t h e l i n e s of t h e
“CNI” concept. These include such f u n c t i o n s as t e r m i n a l - a r e a guidance, c o l l i s i o n avoidance, d a t a - l i n k , e t c .
Consequently, Poorly c o n t r o l l e d r a d i o f r e q u e n c i e s and modulation spectrums, whose c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s a r e not abso-
l u t e l y e s s e n t i a l f o r data t r a n s m i s s i o n of t h e landing guidance s i g n a l , must be avoided. The most e f f i c i e n t , yet
p r e c i s e , use of t h e s i g n a l s must be determined t o meet t h e new o b j e c t i v e s .

Radio Spectrum I s a Major Aviation Asset

I There is n o t adequate, u s e f u l r a d i o spectrum assigned t o a v i a t i o n t o do a l l t h e j o b s t h a t need being done i n

t h e next 2 t o 3 decades f o r a v i a t i o n ’ s growth and i n c r e a s e d performance. The most modern methods of channeliza-
t i o n , frequency and spectrum c o n t r o l must be employed from t h e o u t s e t . The 300 mhz band between 15.4 t o 15.7 ghz
and t h e 250 mhz band between 5.00 and 5.25 ghz w i l l probably prove t o be among t h e most v a l u a b l e p r o p e r t i e s t h a t
a v i a t i o n now holds. T h i s r a d i o spectrum is’ probably more v a l u a b l e than r e a l e s t a t e , or o t h e r n a t u r a l r e s o u r c e s
employed by a v i a t i o n i n t e r e s t s . Not only must t h e s e bands be “staked-out’’ by developments so t h e y w i l l not be
l o s t t o o t h e r non-aviation i n t e r e s t s demanding new r a d i o channels, but they should be “ c u l t i v a t e d ” SO t h a t t h e
maximum value w i l l be d e r i v e d from them i n t h e coming g e n e r a t i o n s as t h e y may well be t h e last of such u s e f u l ,
virgin t e r r i t o r y available t o aviation.

Each band has c e r t a i n p r o p e r t i e s t h a t a r e complementary t o t h e o t h e r , and it is l i k e l y when one c o n s i d e r s a l l

t h e a l l i e d ATC and landing f u n c t i o n s , both m i l i t a r y and c i v i l , t h a t t h i s t o t a l 550 Mc t o t a l from Ku and C band-
width w i l l be e s s e n t i a l . One cannot deny t h e arguments t h a t over 70 s e p a r a t e e l e c t r o n i c boxes i n a modern j e t
a i r c r a f t a r e t o o many. Yet, even i f accepted t h e y a r e inadequate f o r c r i t i c a l ATC and landing problems of today,
s i n c e t h e systems t h e y r e p r e s e n t a r e mostly World War I1 i n o r i g i n . The new i n t e g r a t i o n of ATC and landing func-
t i o n s w i l l s o r e l y need t h e s e two bands (Ku and C ) ; t h e y a r e complementary and s e r v e as c a n d i d a t e s f o r l a n d i n g ,
data l i n k , c o l l i s i o n avoidance, major r e d u c t i o n i n v i s u a l aids, r o l l - o u t guidance, s a t e l l i t e n a v i g a t i o n , t r a f f i c
c o n t r o l , t e r m i n a l a r e a guidance, and o t h e r f u n c t i o n s (or f u t u r e c a p a c i t y ) . Hopefully, t h e s e f u n c t i o n s can a l l
be accommodated i n a s i g n a l standard. T h i s s i g n a l s t a n d a r d h a s as its main o b j e c t i v e ( s i n c e it is t h e most de-
manding of a l l t h e parameters of system design) t h e f u l l s o l u t i o n of t h e landing problem.
 I
I
4-4

The S c i e n t i f i c Approach t o Landing System Design

From h e r e on out t h e new developments i n landing systems w i l l be both t e c h n i c a l and managerial i n c h a r a c t e r .

We must l e a r n t o make a s c i e n c e of t h e complex business of m u l t i f u n c t i o n a l system s y n t h e s i s and designs. For
s o l u t i o n s t o ATC and landing, t h e technology of new developments i n t h e form of a dozen o r so “candidate” develop-
ments i s h e r e ; we now need an e q u i t a b l e means f o r f l i g h t v a l i d a t i n g , f a c t f i n d i n g , and most important, decision-
making t h a t can s t a n d t h e t e s t of inter-agency views, time, and economics. Without such an approach t h e Landing/
ATC s t a l e m a t e w i l l g e t worse and continue i n d e f i n e t e l y . h r e n t u a l l y such a s t a l e m a t e w i l l c o s t more i n r e s t r a i n t s
on a v i a t i o n growth and value t o a l l u s e r s than t h e most wild e s t i m a t e s of t h e c o s t s of such a system-synthesis
p r o c e s s and a p p l i c a t i o n .

REFERENCES

1. Gabelman. 1 . J Improvements in c?vI - Will They Help Create a New A i r System?. A s t r o n a u t i c s and
Aeronautics (AIAA), February 1969.

2. Tentative Operational Requirements for a New Guidance System for Approach and
Landing. RTCA SC-117 D r a f t Reports, 19-69/SC 117-46, January 27, 1969.

3. L i t c h f o r d , G. Synethesis of a MuZtifunctional Tactical Landing System. Tech. Report AFFDL

TR-67-188; Air Force F l i g h t Dynamics Lab.
 5

AUTOMATIC LANDING SYSTEM O P T I M I Z A T I O N

U S I N G I N E R T I A L NAVIGATION DATA

AND MODERN C O N T R O L T H E O R Y

Dr Duncan MacKinnon

Massachusetts I n s t i t u t e of Technology
Instrumentat ion Laboratory
Cambridge, Mass. 02139
5

SUMMARY

Conventional automatic landing systems u t i l i z e information provided by t h e Instrument

Landing System (ILS) as t h e primary p o s i t i o n r e f e r e n c e during t h e a c q u i s i t i o n and approach
phases. ILS p o s i t i o n d a t a is c h a r a c t e r i z e d by a h i g h noise l e v e l due t o i r r e g u l a r i t i e s i n
t h e ILS s i g n a l s t r u c t u r e as a r e s u l t of r e f l e c t i o n s from o b j e c t s on t h e ground illuminated
by t h e ILS t r a n s m i t t e r antennas. The h i g h noise l e v e l , f i l t e r s r e q u i r e d t o reduce it t o
an a c c e p t a b l e l e v e l , s t a b i l i t y and s a t u r a t i o n c o n s t r a i n t s p l a c e s i g n i f i c a n t l i m i t a t i o n s on
t h e a b i l i t y of t h e conventional landing system t o r e s i s t t h e e f f e c t s of environmental
d i s t u r b a n c e s . Improved performance m a y be achieved by combjning d a t a from t h e ILS and an
onboard i n e r t i a l n a v i g a t o r . The r e s u l t a n t p o s i t i o n , v e l o c i t y and lagged a c c e l e r a t i o n
information is e s s e n t i a l l y f r e e from n o i s e . As a r e s u l t a new c o n t r o l system c o n f i g u r a t i o n I
f e a t u r i n g improved accuracy and r e s i s t a n c e t o d i s t u r b a n c e s m a y be c o n s t r u c t e d and its
performance compared t o t h a t of a conventional system.
 5-1

AUTOMATIC LANDING SYSTEM O P T I M I Z A T I O N

U S I N G I N E R T I A L NAVIGATION DATA
AND MODERN CONTROL THEORY

by Dr Duncan MacKinnon

1. INTRODUCTION

Increased a i r t r a f f i c d e n s i t y and t h e q u e s t f o r improved o p e r a t i o n a l s a f e t y and r e l i a b i l i t y have focussed

a t t e n t i o n on automatic f l i g h t c o n t r o l . The most c r i t i c a l c o n t r o l problem is a s s o c i a t e d with t h e t e r m i n a l
phases of f l i g h t which include a c q u i s i t i o n of t h e r e f e r e n c e landing g l i d e p a t h , r e f e r e n c e path t r a c k i n g , f l a r e o u t .
decrab and r o l l o u t . Over t h e past t e n years a c o n s i d e r a b l e amount of e f f o r t has been expended developing a u t o -
matic landing systems.* Conventional automatic landing system designs f o r commercial t r a n s p o r t s have been
p r i m a r i l y based on t h e u t i l i z a t i o n of Instrument Landing System (ILS) information t o provide t h e p o s i t i o n
r e f e r e n c e r e q u i r e d f o r a c q u i s i t i o n and t r a c k i n g of t h e landing g l i d e p a t h . The I L S system provides a n g u l a r
d e v i a t i o n d a t a r e l a t i v e t o two planes whose i n t e r s e c t i o n d e f i n e s t h e t e r m i n a l r e f e r e n c e t r a j e c t o r y as shown i n
Figure 1. Horizontal Y, and v e r t i c a l z, displacements r e l a t i v e t o t h e r e f e r e n c e p a t h a r e obtained by m u l t i -
p l y i n g t h e angular d e v i a t i o n s c$. and U, by t h e d i s t a n c e s dy and d, t o t h e l o c a l i z e r and g l i d e s l o p e
antennae r e s p e c t i v e l y using t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p s
Y, = dyuy (1)

The c o n v e n t i o n a l ILS c o u p l e r is designed t o g e n e r a t e approximation of y, and zy (by means of a programmed

g a i n ) . The c o u p l e r then o p e r a t e s on t h e approximate d a t a t o produce a s e t of a i l e r o n , rudder and e l e v a t o r
commands which modify t h e v e h i c l e path by a t t i t u d e change t o d r i v e y, and z, t o z e r o . A s i m p l i f i e d conven-
t i o n a l landing system is i l l u s t r a t e d i n F i g u r e 2.

E r r o r s i n l a t e r a l p o s i t i o n a r e c o r r e c t e d by t u r n i n g t h e v e h i c l e i n a coordinated f a s h i o n . I n a coordinated
t u r n t h e l a t e r a l a c c e l e r a t i o n y is r e l a t e d t o t h e r o l l angle by

i f 4 and t h e heading angle r e l a t i v e t o t h e v e r t i c a l r e f e r e n c e plane a r e small. V e r t i c a l e r r o r s are

c o r r e c t e d by p i t c h i n g t h e v e h i c l e using t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p

i 2 v,(u-S) . (4)

Since t h e a n g l e of a t t a c k U is e s s e n t i a l l y independent of 8 ( f o r small 8) Equation ( 4 ) reduces t o

i 2 - v p , (5)
where vp is t h e p a t h v e l o c i t y .

2. REDUCING SENSOR NOISE B Y COMBINING I L S A N D I N E R T I A L DATA

The s p a c i a l r e f e r e n c e s u r f a c e s d e f i n e d by t h e ILS s i g n a l s @ r e i d e a l l y p l a n e , however, as a r e s u l t of r e f l e c -

t i o n s from o b j e c t s on t h e ground i l l u m i n a t e d by t h e l o c a l i z e r and g l i d e s l o p e t r a n s m i t t e r antennas i r r e g u l a r i t i e s ,
r e f e r r e d t o as “beam bending” o r “beam noise” a r e ‘superimposed on t h e p l a n a r s u r f a c e s . Beam i r r e g u l a r i t i e s are
t h e most s i g n i ’ f i c a n t s o u r c e , o f n o i s e i n a conventional landing system. A t y p i c a l ILS l o c a l i z e r characteristic
is shown i n Figure 3.

I n e r t i a l information is r e l a t i v e l y f r e e from t h e high frequency n o i s e which ,plagues ILS d a t a , however, low

frequency, gyro d r i f t induced e r r o r s i n p o s i t i o n , v e l o c i t y and a c c e l e r a t i o n occur. The e r r o r i n p o s i t i o n
i n c r e a s e s approximately one n a u t i c a l mile f o r each hour of f l i g h t time: The e r r o r i n v e l o c i t y is o f t e n s e v e r a l
knots. As a r e s u l t i n e r t i a l information is not d i r e c t l y a p p l i c a b l e f o r p r e c i s e t r a j e c t o r y c o n t r o l during t h e
landing phase. In o r d e r t o use i n e r t i a l d a t a it is necessary t o combine t h e low frequency accuracy of ILS
information with t h e wide noise f r e e bandwidth of t h e i n e r t i a l measurements.

The combination of i n e r t i a l and ILS d a t a may he accomplished using a mathematical e s t i m a t i o n procedure.

The e s t i m a t i o n algorithm g e n e r a t e s t h e i n i t i a l system e r r o r s i n p o s i t i o n and v e l o c i t y .

’ See References 1 and 2.

5-2

which minimizes t h e i n t e g r a l perfortnance index

8xi (n) =
x i l - position error
xi2 - velocity error
1 t=O

where €(U) is t h e e r r o r between t h e a c t u a l arid modelled ILS r e c e i v e r o u t p u t s and & € ( U ) is t h e component of

€(CO due t o t h e p e r t u r b a t i o n 6xi(0) . Since t h e system is l i n e a r 8 ~ ( C o may be w r i t t e n

&(CO = II’(c0SXi(O) , (X)

where h(U) is a two dimension v e c t o r of time f u n c t i o n s . I t may then be shown t h a t t h e b e s t c h o i c e of

6 x i ( 0 ) is given by t h e equation
SXi(0) = - [ s,” h(ic)h’(ic) dC4l-I joth(ic)E(ic) dic ,

Once 8 x i ( 0 ) is computed t h e c u r r e n t output of t h e i n e r t i a l system x i ( t ) may be c o r r e c t e d y i e l d i n g x,(t)

using t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p
xc(t) = xi(t) t T(t)8xi(0) , (10)

where t h e matrix T(t) is d e f i n e d

The response c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of t h i s algorithm t o an i n i t i a l e r r o r i n p o s i t i o n (worst c a s e ) is shown i n Figure 4.

The convergence time is a f u n c t i o n of t h e time c o n s t a n t T, a s s o c i a t e d with t h e ILS r e c e i v e r . Since t h e i n i t i a l
e r r o r introduced by t h e algorithm is q u i t e l a r g e t h e c o r r e c t i o n T ( t ) 6 x i (0) is normally introduced g r a d u a l l y
over a period of 15 t o 30 seconds.

The response of t h e i n t e g r a t e d s e n s o r u n i t t o ILS beam noise is shown i n Figure 3. The performance of t h e

i n t e g r a t e d compared t o a pure ILS s e n s o r m a y be i n f e r r e d from Table I. I t is apparent from t h e s e r e s u l t s t h a t
s e n s o r i n t e g r a t i o n r e s u l t s i n e s s e n t i a l l y n o i s e and b i a s f r e e p o s i t i o n and v e l o c i t y information. The system
cannot, of c o u r s e , c o r r e c t r e s i d u a l b i a s i n t h e ILS s i g n a l .

3. INERTIAL STABILIZATION

The i n t e g r a t e d I L S - I n e r t i a l s e n s o r provides e s s e n t i a l l y n o i s e and l a g f r e e p o s i t i o n , v e l o c i t y , and a c c e l e r a -

t i o n d a t a p e r p e n d i c u l a r t o t h e r e f e r e n c e g l i d e p a t h i n t h e g l i d e s l o p e and l o c a l i z e r r e f e r e n c e p l a n e s . The
c o r r e c t e d i n e r t i a l information provides t h e b a s i s f o r t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n of a new s e t of c o n t r o l systems which
a r e shown i n Figure 5 .

L a t e r a l c o n t r o l is e f f e c t e d by commanding v e h i c l e r o l l , as be’fore; however, a s i g n i f i c a n t improvement i n

v e r t i c a l c o n t r o l system performance r e q u i r e d t h e u t i l i z a t i o n of d i r e c t - lift c o n t r o l ( s p o i l e r s ) . The s p o i l e r s
and t h e i r a s s o c i a t e d p r o c e s s i n g networks a r e designed t o handle high frequency t r a j e c t o r y c o r r e c t i o n s while
p i t c h a t t i t u d e is u t i l i z e d t o e f f e c t g r o s s v e r t i c a l c o r r e c t i o n s (as i n t h e conventional system). This approach
overcomes t h e problem of l i m i t e d s p o i l e r e f f e c t on t h e t o t a l l i f t v e c t o r magnitude. The n o i s e and l a g - f r e e
c h a r a c t e r of t h e s p a t i a l r e f e r e n c e v a r i a b l e s permits an i n c r e a s e i n p o s i t i o n and v e l o c i t y feedback g a i n s and
t h e c l o s u r e of a new loop on v e h i c l e a c c e l e r a t i o n . A s a r e s u l t t h e new c o n t r o l system c o n f i g u r a t i o n s a r e much
l e s s s e n s i t i v e t o environmental d i s t u r b a n c e s as shown i n a subsequent s e c t i o n .

4. N O N L I N E A R TRAJECTORY G E N E R A T I O N

In o r d e r t o t a k e f u l l advantage of t h e increased feedback g a i n s a s s o c i a t e d with t h e improved l a t e r a l and

v e r t i c a l p o s i t i o n c o n t r o l systems it is important t o avoid s a t u r a t i o n i n t h e v e h i c l e e f f e c t o r s (as a r e s u l t of
p h y s i c a l l i m i t a t i o n s on e f f e c t o r magnitude and r a t e ) and s a t u r a t i o n i n v e h i c l e parameters such as r o l l and r o l l
r a t e imposed by human f a c t o r s . S a t u r a t i o n is e x c i t e d by two s o u r c e s
1. Disturbances on t h e v e h i c l e .
2. Commanded t r a j e c t o r y r e f e r e n c e i n p u t s .

S a t u r a t i o n a r i s i n g from t h e f i r s t source is c o n t r o l l e d by l i m i t i n g t h e open loop gain of t h e c o n t r o l system.

S a t u r a t i o n from t h e second source may be c o n t r o l l e d by c a r e f u l l y s t r u c t u r i n g t h e shape of t h e t r a j e c t o r y which
t r a n s f e r s t h e v e h i c l e t o .the r e f e r e n c e g l i d e p a t h (during a c q u i s i t i o n ) and from t h e r e f e r e n c e g l i d e p a t h t o t h e
runway (during f l a r e o u t ) .

A c q u i s i t i o n , f o r example, is p r i m a r i l y a l a t e r a l c.ontro1 manoeuvre. A s such it is l i m i t e d by r e s t r i c t i o w

imposed by human f a c t o r s o r r o l l 4 and r o l l r a t e 4 :
 5-3

IS1 < +ma,

161 < &,,.

.. ...
A d d i t i o n a l c o n s t r a i n t s on r o l l a c c e l e r a t i o n 4 and r o l l a c c e l e r a t i o n r a t e 4 a r e imposed by t h e p h y s i c a l
l i m i t a t i o n s on a i l e r o n d e f l e c t i o n and d e f l e c t i o n r a t e r e s p e c t i v e l y . Control problems with s a t u r a t i o n con-
s t r a i n t s a r e conveniently formulated as minimal time problems as shown i n Reference 1.

A s t a t e vector x may be a s s o c i a t e d with t h e system by s e t t i n g

g t a n x1
x 2 = - - -3,
vP

i 3 = vP s i n x , = jr ,

where U is equal t o 4. I n v e c t o r n o t a t i o n Equations 14-16 a r e w r i t t e n

The i n c l u s i o n of X , = 4 i n t o t h e s t a t e v e c t o r x is necessary t o account f o r t h e dynamics a s s o c i a t e d with 4

and f a c i l i t a t e s a d i r e c t s o l u t i o n of t h e minimal time c o n t r o l problem which may now be d e f i n e d .

Definition of the Problem

Find a c o n t r o l u€C,(t,T)* which minimizes t h e i n t e g r a l performance index

subject t o a fixed terminal s t a t e

t h e nonholonomic c o n s t r a i n t

with t h e boundary c o n d i t i o n

and t h e s a t u r a t i o n c o n s t r a i n t s

A q u a s i - o p t i m a l s o l u t i o n d e r i v e d by applying time optimal c o n t r o l t h e o r y is i l l u s t r a t e d i n Figure 6. Such a

t r a j e c t o r y s e r v e s as a r e f e r e n c e i n p u t d u r i n g a c q u i s i t i o n . A similar approach may be used t o d e r i v e a f l a r e o u t
trajectory.

Generation of a s u i t a b l e t r a j e c t o r y does not y i e l d b e n e f i c i a l r e s u l t s u n l e s s t h e t r a j e c t o r y is p r e c i s e l y

followed by t h e v e h i c l e . T r a j e c t o r y t r a c k i n g p r e c i s i o n m a y be achieved using feedforward compensation. I n
t h e p r e s e n t d e s i g n r e f e r e n c e v e l o c i t y , and r e f e r e n c e a c c e l e r a t i o n a r e a p p l i e d t o t h e c o n t r o l system as well as
r e f e r e n c e p o s i t i o n t o compensate f o r feedback dynamics as d i s c u s s e d i n Reference 4.

5. COMPARING THE PERFORMANCE OF C O N V E N T I O N A L A N D

INERTIALLY STABILIZED L A N D I N G SYSTEMS

An automatic l a n d i n g system is s u b j e c t t o two d i s t u r b i n g i n p u t s , ILS beam n o i s e and aerodynamic f o r c e s . In

o r d e r t o compare t h e a b i l i t y of t h e v a r i o u s landing system c o n f i g u r a t i o n s t o combat d i s t u r b a n c e s a computer
s i m u l a t i o n was c o n s t r u c t e d . The v e h i c l e and e f f e c t o r s model are based on t h e Boeing 2707 Supersonic Transport.
A r o l l and p i t c h a t t i t u d e c o n t r o l system was designed f o r t h i s a i r c r a f t which i n c o r p o r a t e s a Boeing lateral
s t a b i l i t y augmentation system ( f o r t u r n c o o r d i n a t i o n ) . The v e h i c l e , e f f e c t o r s , and a t t i t u d e c o n t r o l system
were h e l d c o n s t a n t while t h e automatic landing system c o n f i g u r a t i o n was v a r i e d . A ' d e t a i l e d d e s c r i p t i o n of t h e
v e h i c l e and its a t t i t u d e c o n t r o l systems m a y be found i n Reference 4. While t h e a i r c r a f t is h y p o t h e t i c a l i n
n a t u r e , t h e performance achieved is comparable t o t h a t of conventional j e t t r a n s p o r t landing systems. The
c o n t r o l system parameters a r e shown i n Tables I1 and 111.

Disturbances m a y be dichotomized i n t o two components; c o n s t a n t elements which are d e t e r m i n i s t i c i n c h a r a c t e r

and s t o c h a s t i c components. The ILS s i g n a l , f o r example, m a y be d i v i d e d i n t o a c o n s t a n t b i a s due t o system
misalignments and quasi-random f l u c t u a t i o n s due t o beam bending. Aerodynamic n o i s e c o n s i s t s of d e t e r m i n i s t i c
components. wind v e l o c i t y and a c c e l e r a t i o n (windshear). and s t o c h a s t i c f l u c t u a t i o n s &s a r e s u l t of g u s t i n g .
~~

* The notation ueCn(t,T) indicates t h a t U i s a member of the family of functions w i t h continuous derivatives up to the
n t h ofder on the interval (t.T).
5-4

The random components a r e conveniently quantized by e v a l u a t i n g s t a t i s t i c a l parameters a s s o c i a t e d with t h e

s i g n a l . The average value of t h e random components was assumed t o be z e r o . The second moment was determined
by e v a l u a t i n g t h e time average assuming e r g o t i c i t y

E(x) = limit
T-m T
sT
o
x2 dt

The square r o o t of ( 2 4 ) y i e l d s t h e s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n

Beam bending i n t r o d u c e s n o n s t a t i o n a r y n o i s e i n t o c o n t r o l system v a r i a b l e s a s a r e s u l t of t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p

between t h e measured displacements y, and z r and t h e d i s t a n c e t o t h e l o c a l i z e r and g l i d e s l o p e antennae dy
and d, shown i n Equations (1) and ( 2 ) . As a r e s u l t , observed d e v i a t i o n s i n y and z must be divided by
d, and d, r e s p e c t i v e l y before a convergence of Equation ( 2 4 ) can be achieved.

The e f f e c t s of aerodynamic and beam d i s t u r b a n c e s were quantized by e v a l u a t i n g Equations ( 2 4 ) and (25) d u r i n g

s i m u l a t i o n . Random components of n o i s e were simulated by e x p o n e n t i a l l y c o r r e l a t i n g d i g i t a l l y generated gaussion
white n o i s e . Simulation runs were performed with t h e a i r c r a f t t r a j e c t o r y i n i t i a l l y a l i g n e d on t h e r e f e r e n c e
g l i d e p a t h . The d i s t u r b a n c e was then a p p l i e d and t h e p e r t u r b a t i o n s as a r e s u l t of t h e n o i s e observed. The
response of t h e c o n t r o l systems t o beam bending a r e compared i n Figures 7 and 8. Calculated v a l u e s of s t a n d a r d
d e v i a t i o n are given i n Table I V . The e f f e c t s of aerodynamic n o i s e are i l l u s t r a t e d i n Figures 9, 10, 11, and 12
and Table V.

The e f f e c t s of c o n s t a n t wind and a i r mass a c c e l e r a t i o n a r e important c o n s i d e r a t i o n s i n automatic landing

system design. A lateral component of wind v e l o c i t y w, , f o r example, must be counteracted by e s t a b l i s h i n g a
c r a b angle 3, i n t o t h e wind

+c = sin-' ".
vP

-.
- wY
b

vP

I f t h e c o n s t a n t component wind v e l o c i t y is changing with r e s p e c t t o t i m e , t h e c r a b angle must obey t h e equation

Thus, i f 6, is i n v a r i a n t , a c o n s t a n t heading r a t e must be e s t a b l i s h e d t o maintain t h e c o r r e c t c r a b angle. If

t h e i n t e g r a l compensator g a i n Kiy is z e r o t h e s t e a d y p o s i t i o n ' e r r o r ys is
L

The value of y r e p r e s e n t s t h e maximum s t e a d y state e r r o r due t o windshear. I n p r a c t i c e , t h e e f f e c t of i n t e g r a l

compensation w i l l reduce t h e magnitude of t h e maximum e r r o r . The response of t h e conventional and i n e r t i a l l y
aided c o n t r o l systems t o windshear is shown i n Figure 1 3 .

6 . CONCLUSIONS

The improved p o s i t i o n , v e l o c i t y and a c c e l e r a t i o n d a t a p e r p e n d i c u l a r t o t h e r e f e r e n c e g l i d e p a t h , provided by

combining ILS and i n e r t i a l d a t a p e r m i t s t h e s y n t h e s i s of a new automatic landing system which f e a t u r e s improved
r e s i s t a n c e t o environmental d i s t u r b a n c e s and a r e d u c t i o n i n t h e size of "beam bending" induced p a t h d e v i a t i o n s .

The r o o t mean square value of p a t h d e v i a t i o n a r i s i n g from beam bending divided by t h e d i s t a n c e t o t h e ILS

antenna w a s reduced by a f a c t o r of 4 . 7 0 i n t h e l a t e r a l d i r e c t i o n and 3 . 2 0 i n t h e v e r t i c a l d i r e c t i o n . A r e d u c t i o n
i n random aerodynamic n o i s e induced t r a j e c t o r y e r r o r s was a l s o observed. The standard d e v i a t i o n of t h e l a t e r a l
p o s i t i o n w a s reduced by a f a c t o r of 2.25 while t h e v e r t i c a l r o o t mean square e r r o r was d i v i d e d by 3 . 1 4 .
S i g n i f i c a n t l y , t h e s e improvements were achieved with only s m a l l i n c r e a s e s i n c o n t r o l e f f e c t o r a c t i v i t y l e v e l .
The a b i l i t y of t h e i n e r t i a l l y aided landing system t o r e s i s t windshear is even more impressive.

AC K N OWL EDGE M EN T

The a u t h o r wishes t o acknowledge t h e sponsorship of Robert Pawlak of t h e NASA E l e c t r o n i c s Research Center

whose i n t e r e s t i n i n e r t i a l l y aided automatic landing e s t a b l i s h e d t h e r e s e a r c h p r o j e c t (NAS 12-602) leading t o
t h e r e s u l t s r e p o r t e d i n t h i s paper. The c o n t r i b u t i o n s of Charles Broxmeyer and Paul Madden t o t h e r e s e a r c h
program are a l s o acknowledged.
 5-5

REFERENCES

1. - Standard Performance for Autopilot Coupler Equipment. Radio Technical Commission

f o r Aeronautics Report 31-63/D0118, March 14, 1963.

2. - Analog Computer Study of Category 111 ILS Airborne and Ground Equipment Standards.
Phase I V F i n a l Report FAA P r o j e c t 114-1312D.

3. Broxmeyer, C. Application of Inertial Navigation and Modern Control Theory to the All-Weather
et al. Landing Problem. MIT Instrumentation Laboratory, Report R-613, June, 1968.

4 . MacKinnon, D . Improving Automatic Landing System Performance Using Modern Control Theory and
Inertial Measurements. MIT Instrumentation Laboratory, Report R-628, January, 1969.
5-6

TABLE I

Mean Square Integrated Sensor Parameters

e ( a ) deg 0.224
Y

I e(: ) deg I 0.224

r 0.00511 l
TABLE I 1

GAINS
K l a t e r a l position gain 0 . 0 2 0 5 deglft
Y
K. l a t e r a l velocity gain 0.410 d e g l f t l s e c
Y
K. y intrgral compensator
'Y gain 0.005 s e c
K vertical position gain 0.041 deglft
z

K;. vertical velocity gain 0 . 2 0 5 deglftlsec

Kiz
z integral compensator
gain 0.005 s e c

Tr ILS receiver time

constant 0.40 secs

TV velocity filter time

constant 1.00 s e c s

TABLE I 1 1

?
CA I NS

Lateral position gain 0. 080 deglft

K. Lateral velocity gain 0.800 deglftlsec

Y
K.. Lateral acceleration gain 2 . 0 0 0 deglftlsec'
Y

I K
iY
Integral compensator gain 0.050 r a d l s e c

Lateral acceleration filter 0.100 seconds

a' time constant

~~

Vertical position gain 0.063 deglft

Vertical velocity gain 0.126 deglftlsec

Vertical acceleration gain 0 . 0 0 0 deglft /sec2

Integral compensator gain 0.050 radlsec

50.000
Spoiler lead network gain

Ta Vertical acceleration filter 0.100 seconds

time constant
Ts Spoiler lead network time 5.000 seconds
constant
 5-7

TABLE IV

Quantity Inertially Stabilized Conventional

System System

I efcl
Y
deg
I 0.114
I 0.114
I I

e( &)deg ' 0.038 0.180

Y

e(az) deg 0.105 0.105

z 0.038 0.120
e ( r ) deg
z

TABLE V

Root Mean Square Lateral Control System Parameter Values

From Aerodynamic Noise Tests

Quantity Inertially Stabilized Conventional

System

e(wn) fttsec 2.15 2.15

e(y) ft 0.494 1.11

e(i) ftlsec 0.192 0.297

2
e(?? f t l s e c 0.132 0.162

e(6a) deg .0.607 0.492

Root Mean Square Vertical Control System Parameter Values

From Aerodynamic Noise Tests

Quantity Inertially Stabilized Conventional System

System
I e(wn) fttsec
I 2.22 2.22

I e(ez) ft
I 3.77 11.81

e(;) ftlsec 1.70

0.656
5-8

\\ M I N I M U M ACQUISITION DISTANCE
CLI DESCOPE
OUTER MARKER
TRANSMITTER

,
,,,
,
LOCALIZER
TRANSMITEI

- ----

TOP VIEW

2 71 -3 DEGREES
T -I 1 1 I I
t\
Scale 1" = loo00 ft
SIDE VIEW

ACQUISITION *-
Fig.1
REFERENCE PATH TRACKING --* DECRAB
AND RAREOUT
ROCLOUT

Terminal r e f e r e n c e t r a j e c t o r y and Instrument Landing System geometry

I
+-+J dlM
Yr
VEHICLE
0

LOCALIZER COUPLER

aos
2 -2
.PI - t
1
\

AUTOPILOT
- be
VMICLE
,
e
z

\ -
GL IDESLOPE COUPUR
J

Fig.2 Conventional automatic landing system c o n f i g u r a t i o n s . Angular ILS r e c e i v e r o u t p u t s a r e converted t o

l i n e a r path displacements by m u l t i p l y i n g by d i s t a n c e s dloc and dgs t o t h e l o c a l i z e r and
g l i d e s l o p e antennae r e s p e c t i v e l y
 5-9

U U
A- % .%

-E

- x

- 0

z 0
5: 0

U
W
VI
z

rl
ld
.4
O
~nh
0)

VI VI VI
ne u
w

2
I >

d
3 U
0) r n w

ea
CI,
c
h
&

- W
N

-
%
n
F
0
.-
U
w
c
.-0
I
I

8
-n
.- ru
L
I
W
.-c
F
E
L
0
0
0
0 d m
Om ldc
m 0 Om 0 0 o w
r; r; N '4 m

h I
V&=- .Is=- .%!
I LA
ca
m
M
.d
G
5-10

- Kss
1,s '1
'sdc
TO DIRECT

I yC

CSP@ @d
TO ROLL ANGLE
I / T COWROL SYSTEM

1.1
*MAGNITUDE LIMITED
INTEGRAL COMPENSATION
+i

IC

Fig.5 I n e r t i a l l y s t a b i l i z e d v e r t i c a l and l a t e r a l f l i g h t path c o n t r o l systems. The d e s i r e d t r a j e c t o r y

c o o r d i n a t e s , Zd and yd , a r e d e f i n e d by t h e nonlinear t r a j e c t o r y g e n e r a t o r s NTGy and NTG, .
The p o s i t i o n r e f e r e n c e s y, and z, and t h e i r d e r i v a t i v e s a r e f u r n i s h e d by c o r r e c t i n g t h e
i n e r t i a l system o u t p u t s . The r o l l angle command s i g n a l p r o c e s s o r , CSP4 , limits commanded
r o l l angle r a t e and a c c e l e r a t i o n
 5-11

a!
c '3
0
C

a 33
U
0 .
4 0
0 0
c)+

0
x 0 0

m
6-
E

U
E x c
A 0

0 0 0

5: ?
W

M
..
-I
E
5-12

= 0 0 0 O

2 U
;
-
L

.*
N
VI
*
V
.*
VI
U
U)
U

C
 v) LII

U
v)
.-(
e

L
e
L L

-m
W
L
0

-
U - W

5w m
.-U
8 5>
.--
N
U
W
N
E
m
c
v)
-
.-
.-
n
-m
% c
m
v)

c
.-
0
-
.-m
%

c
E> 2
E
0
- C

-
c

3
0 c

3
0
0

In
N In
Y) N v)
NU N-
I I v) Y)
U
.N N
.-
2 NO

v)

c
.-0
-5
c
W
U
c
e
-Wm
.-
5
c
v)

-3
m
.-c
0
c
t,
w
E
0
U

0 0
0 0 0
v! OIn 0
"3 9
N N ln In
m CO
e 0 ro ro
5- 14

12.5'

'sd

Conventional system direct lift spoiler deflection

12.5'

'sd

0 41 secs
Inertially stabilized system direct lift spoiler deflection

2.5'

e o

Conventional system pitch angle

2.5'

e o

0 4 1 secs
Inertially stabilized system pitch angle

Fig.12 V e r t i c a l p o s i t i o n c o n t r o l system responses t o g u s t i n g . Root mean square gust v e l o c i t y e q u a l t o

1.46 ft/sec

Eft 25

ycs 0

15.0 ft

0 t
Conventionally stabilized lateral position

5ft 5

Yis 0
i.mfl

0 t
Inertially stabilized lateral position

Fig.13 Vehicle responses t o a s t e p l a t e r a l a c c e l e r a t i o n i n a i r mass of 0 . 2 5 f t / s e c 2 which could r e s u l t from

windshear near t h e e a r t h s s u r f a c e . The p o s i t i v e path p e r t u r b a t i o n is due t o a minute i n i t i a l
lateral drift velocity

I
 6

IMPORTANCE OF SPEED CONTROL RELATIVE

TO LONGITUDINAL TOUCHDOWN DISPERSION

R. G. Loome

Engineering Section Head

Flight Control Applications
Sperry Flight Systems Division
Sperry Rand Corporation
Phoenix, Arizona
6
 6-1

IMPORTANCE O F SPEED C O N T R O L R E L A T I V E TO L O N G I T U D I N A L T O U C H D O W N DISPERSION

R. G. Loome

1. INTRODUCTION

The u l t i m a t e goal of t h e automatic landing system is t o land t h e aircraft s a f e l y and smoothly on t h e runway
within c e r t a i n geometric, aircraft a t t i t u d e and dynamic boundaries-. The complete automatic landing system must
achieve t h i s g o a l r e s t r i c t e d by t h e performance c a p a b i l i t i e s of t h e v a r i o u s subaystems and under c e r t a i n
environmental c o n d i t i o n s . P a r t of t h e j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r t h e a u t o t h r o t t l e / s p e e d c o n t r o l subsystem is t h e
r e l a t i o n s h i p of speed c o n t r o l t o t h e autoland g l i d e s l o p e t r a c k i n g , f l a r e c o n t r o l laws, environment and
l o n g i t u d i n a l touchdown d i s p e r s i o n .

Speed c o n t r o l can and should be j u s t i f i e d over a broad a r e a of c r i t i c a l f l i g h t c o n d i t i o n s . However, it is

a l s o a very important c o n s i d e r a t i o n i n automatic landing. Besides t h e human engineering aspects of reducing t h e
p i l o t workload and of o v e r a l l system monitoring and management concepts, t h r u s t c o n t r o l is a primary input t o
t h e l o n g i t u d i n a l a x i s of t h e a i r c r a f t and must be coordinated with t h e remainder of t h e automatic landing system.
This can only be done i f t h e speed c o n t r o l is automatic.

This paper is p r i m a r i l y concerned w i t h t h e importance of speed c o n t r o l r e l a t i v e t o l o n g i t u d i n a l touchdown

d i s p e r s i o n . Longitudinal d i s p e r s i o n f o r automatic landing is s p e c i f i e d i n part i n t h e proposed “ C r i t e r i a f o r
Approval of Category IIIA Landing Weather Minima”, d r a f t e d by t h e Air Transport Association of America,
All-Weather Operations committee, as follows:

“The d i s p e r s i o n of t h e main landing gear touchdown p o i n t should not exceed 1500 f e e t t o t a l about
a nominal p o i n t on a two-sigma basis. T h i s nominal touchdown point and t h e performance limits
should be e s t a b l i s h e d on t h e basis of t h e d e s i r e d airplane/system c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , such t h a t t h e
a i r p l a n e w i l l touchdown 300 f e e t o r more beyond t h e t h r e s h o l d . ”

Some of t h e f a c t o r s c o n t r i b u t i n g t o l o n g i t u d i n a l d i s p e r s i o n a r e r a d i o a l t i m e t e r e r r o r s , a i r c r a f t p o s i t i o n
e r r o r s ( d e v i a t i o n from t h e g l i d e s l o p e beam c e n t e r at t h e i n i t i a t i o n of f l a r e ) and wind. F u r t h e r , t h e nominal
touchdown p o i n t is a f u n c t i o n of g l i d e s l o p e angle and a i r c r a f t a i r s p e e d . The e f f e c t of each of t h e s e f a c t o r s
on l o n g i t u d i n a l d i s p e r s i o n depends t o a l a r g e e x t e n t on t h e f l a r e c o n t r o l law implementation and t h e p a r t i c u l a r
a u t o l a n d / a i r c r a f t system. In g e n e r a l , t h e f l a r e maneuver is basically a p i t c h o r f l i g h t p a t h angle maneuver
with t h e o u t e r loop path p r a c t i c a l l y open loop. An a n a l y s i s of t h e s e f a c t o r s is b e s t determined f o r each
a i r c r a f t i n s t a l l a t i o n using l a r g e d i s t u r b a n c e equations of motion which include ground e f f e c t s and t h e p a r t i c u l a r
f l a r e c o n t r o l law implementation t o be used.

The e f f e c t s of r a d i o a l t i m e t e r e r r o r s , aircraft p o s i t i o n e r r o r s , and wind on t h e f l a r e i n i t i a t i o n p o i n t , r a t e

of descent at touchdown and l o n g i t u d i n a l d i s p e r s i o n using a f i x e d parameter, exponential f l a r e t r a j e c t o r y a r e
i l l u s t r a t e d i n t h i s paper. These same e f f e c t s a r e i l l u s t r a t e d simultaneously w i t h changes i n r e f e r e n c e a i r s p e e d
(Fig.1) and changes i n g l i d e s l o p e beam a n g l e s ( F i g . 2 ) .

Figure 3 i l l u s t r a t e s t h e e f f e c t of changing parameters of t h e f l a r e c o n t r o l law. Data presented in t h i s

paper demonstrates t h a t t h e effect of r e f e r e n c e a i r s p e e d changes on touchdown and f l a r e i n i t i a t i o n a l t i t u d e
d i s p e r s i o n s , c a n be reduced by varying t h e touchdown r a t e - o f - d e s c e n t parameter in t h e f l a r e c o n t r o l law as a
f u n c t i o n of r e f e r e n c e a i r s p e e d . It is f u r t h e r demonstrated t h a t v a r i a t i o n o f t h e f l a r e c o n t r o l law as a
f u n c t i o n of r e f e r e n c e a i r s p e e d and f l i g h t p a t h angle ( w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e a i r mass) can e l i m i n a t e d i s p e r s i o n
r e s u l t i n g from r e f e r e n c e a i r s p e e d and g l i d e s l o p e beam angle changes, and minimize d i s p e r s i o n r e s u l t i n g from
wind c o n d i t i o n s . The use of r e f e r e n c e a i r s p e e d a n d . f l i g h t p a t h angle parameter c o n t r o l would depend upon r i g i d
speed and p a t h c o n t r o l while t r a c k i n g t h e g l i d e s l o p e beam and minimum i n t e r a c t i o n between t h e speed and p a t h
c o n t r o l subsystems. This c a n ’ b e s t be accomplished w i t h t h e c o n s i s t e n c y o f automatic systems.

2. SIMULATION A N D B A S I C ASSUMPTIONS

The data presented i n t h i s paper is based on s e v e r a l s i m p l i f y i n g g e n e r a l i z a t i o n s t h a t v i v i d l y demonstrate

t h e e f f e c t of each c d n d i t i o n and parameter change. The a n a l y s i s was conducted on a d i g i t a l computer using an
exponential f l a r e c o n t r o l law based on r a d i o a l t i m e t e r data and a v a r i a b l e f l a r e i n i t i a t i o n a l t i t u d e . (Variable
f l a r e i n i t i a t i o n a l t i t u d e is used i n t h i s paper because it i l l u s t r a t e s t h e e f f e c t s of changing c o n d i t i o n s and
c o n t r o l parameters more c l e a r l y . It is recognized t h a t a f i x e d f l a r e i n i t i a t i o n a l t i t u d e is more a c c e p t a b l e t o
p i l o t s because it provides better monitoring of t h e expected p r o g r e s s of t h e automatic approach.) The b a s i c
assumptions f o r t h e s i m u l a t i o n were as follows:
 Each run o r approach/landing was i n i t i a t e d a t 100 f e e t above t h e runway a l t i t u d e .

The a i r c r a f t followed t h e commanded f l i g h t path and approach a i r s p e e d s with e r r o r s being r e f l e c t e d

i n t o commanded p r o f i l e s .

The commanded f l i g h t path from 100 f e e t t o t h e f l a r e i n i t i a t i o n was along an assumed g l i d e s l o p e

beam. From f l a r e i n i t i a t i o n t o touchdown an exponential f l a r e c o n t r o l law was followed:

J h t h t L = 0

where

J = F l a r e time constant
h = Altitude '

L = Touchdown b i a s .
Nominal touchdown r a t e w a s 2 . 5 f t per second.
Maximum r a d i o a l t i t u d e e r r o r was lt2 f t (ARINC).

Maximum g l i d e s l o p e beam d e v i a t i o n e r r o r was fG f t ( t h e CAT.11 t o l e r a n c e at 100 f t p r o j e c t e d t o 5 0 f t )

F l a r e i n i t i a t i o n p o i n t was determined t o be t h a t a l t i t u d e where t h e f l a r e c o n t r o l law output is zero.

The h o r i z o n t a l component of i n d i c a t e d a i r s p e e d was maintained c o n s t a n t throughout each run.

When landing i n t h e presence of headwind, t h e approach r e f e r e n c e a i r s p e e d was increased by h a l f
t h e headwind component up t o 2 0 knots of headwind (per t y p i c a l o p e r a t i n g procedure). This, i n
i t s e l f , reduces t h e l o n g i t u d i n a l d i s p e r s i o n caused by t h e allowable l a r g e headwinds.
The maximum wind c o n d i t i o n s were 2 5 knots of headwind and 10 knots of t a i l w i n d .

It was assumed t h a t t h e windshear s p e c i f i e d f o r CAT.111 would not r e s u l t i n a ground wind g r e a t e r

t h a n 2 5 knots headwind o r 10 knots t a i l w i n d . Therefore, i n i t i a l c o n d i t i o n s of winds were s e l e c t e d
t o r e s u l t i n 2 5 knots headwind and 10 knots t a i l w i n d at ground l e v e l f o r t h e 8 knots per 100 f t
headwind s h e a r and t a i l w i n d s h e a r , r e s p e c t i v e l y .

Dispersion was measured from t h e p o i n t of i n t e r c e p t i o n of t h e runway and t h e p r o j e c t e d nominal

g l i d e s l o p e beam c e n t e r .

3. F I X E D PARAMETER F L A R E C O N T R O L LAN

Table I A lists t h e l o n g i t u d i n a l d i s p e r s i o n s obtained f o r t h e s i m u l a t i o n described i n S e c t i o n 2 . based on a

f l a r e c o n t r o l law with f i x e d parameters. Landing approaches were made w i t h v a r i o u s g l i d e s l o p e beam angles.
The r e s u l t s a r e l i s t e d f o r a 2 . 5 - and 3-degree g l i d e s l o p e beam angle. The f l a r e i n i t i a t i o n a l t i t u d e s and
r a t e s of descent a t touchdown f o r each run a r e t a b u l a t e d i n Tables I B and I C , r e s p e c t i v e l y .

The d i s p e r s i o n s l i s t e d i n Table I A are t h e r e s u l t of equipment t o l e r a n c e s and environmental c o n d i t i o n s

which a r e t h e maximum allowed by ARINC and proposed Category I11 s p e c i f i c a t i o n s . The a i r s p e e d changes allow
f o r a reasonable spread of g r o s s weight and cg c o n d i t i o n s . These r e s u l t s do not r e p r e s e n t a s t a t i s t i c a l
p r e d i c t i o n of t h e l o n g i t u d i n a l d i s p e r s i o n s t h a t can be expected f o r a p a r t i c u l a r f l a r e c o n t r o l technique.
They demonstrate t h e e f f e c t s of parameter changes and t h e l o n g i t u d i n a l d i s p e r s i o n t h a t can be expected with
p e r f e c t maneuvering c a p a b i l i t y f o r e x p l i c i t , i n - t o l e r a n c e c o n d i t i o n s . The c a p a b i l i t y of a p a r t i c u l a r autoland/
a i r c r a f t system must be considered i n p r e d i c t i n g d i s p e r s i o n . To t h e r a d i o a l t i m e t e r e r r o r must be added t h e
c a p a b i l i t y t o d e t e c t an a l t i t u d e t r i p p o i n t , t o synchronize m u l t i p l e axes f l a r e computers and t o implement
t h e f l a r e c o n t r o l technique. C o n t r o l l i n g t o fG f t of t h e i d e a l g l i d e path c e n t e r is a formidable t a s k , t o say
t h e l e a s t . This must include beam bends and n o i s e , r e c e i v e r e r r o r s , ground i n s t a l l a t i o n e r r o r s , and autoland/
a i r c r a f t system t r a c k i n g c a p a b i l i t y . A s mentioned previously, c o n t r o l l i n g t h e a i r c r a f t t o a r e l a t i v e l y s h o r t
time c o n s t a n t f l a r e c o n t r o l law is extremely d i f f i c u l t . Open loop p i t c h commands and higher d e r i v a t i v e path
command s i g n a l s a r e g e n e r a l l y used t o reduce t h e e f f e c t of t h e l a g i n a i r c r a f t response, but t h e c l o s e d loop
response period is s t i l l q u i t e long compared t o t h e time c o n s t a n t of t h e d e s i r e d f l a r e path. The r e s u l t is
t h a t t h e f l a r e maneuver is f a i r l y p r e d i c t a b l e provided a d e v i a t i o n from t h e d e s i r e d path is not generated by a
t r a n s i e n t c o n d i t i o n at f l a r e i n i t i a t i o n o r a d i s t u r b a n c e d u r i n g t h e f l a r e maneuver.

Tables IIA. IIB, I I C . and F i g u r e 3 i l l u s t r a t e t h e e f f e c t of c o n t r o l l i n g t o a longer time c o n s t a n t f l a r e

maneuver. Although t h e t a s k of c o n t r o l l i n g t h e a i r c r a f t might become e a s i e r , t h e d i s p e r s i o n with given con-
d i t i o n s becomes g r e a t e r .

4. I M P O R T A N C E O F SPEED CONTROL

An important s t e p toward achieving even t h e touchdown d i s p e r s i o n i l l u s t r a t e d i n Tables I A and IIA is t o have

good speed c o n t r o l . It is assumed i n ' e a c h of t h e s e r u n s t h a t t h e speed c o n t r o l is p e r f e c t . V a r i a t i o n s i n
t h r u s t r e p r e s e n t a d i s t u r b a n c e t o an automatic system c o n t r o l l i n g t h e f l i g h t path through t h e e l e v a t o r . The
automatic system must r e t r i m f o r each a i r s p e e d and t h r o t t l e s e t t i n g . It t a k e s d e v i a t i o n s i g n a l and time t o
 6-3

e f f e c t t h i s r e t r i m . The f 6 f t g l i d e path e r r o r c o n d i t i o n s include t h e d e v i a t i o n s caused by a d i s t u r b a n c e while

t r a c k i n g the g l i d e s l o p e beam. However, an unwanted d i s t u r b a n c e just p r i o r t o or during t h e f l a r e maneuver
w i l l , i n a l l p r o b a b i l i t y , r e s u l t in a g r e a t e r d i s p e r s i o n t h a n t h a t shown. Weighting f a c t o r s and a d d i t i o n a l
d i s p e r s i o n s must be added t o those l i s t e d i n t h e t a b l e s i n accordance with t h e c a p a b i l i t y of a p a r t i c u l a r
system. The p r e d i c t e d d i s p e r s i o n d i s t r i b u t i o n w i l l be marginal enough without adding d i s t u r b a n c e s that could
be be eliminated by speed c o n t r o l .

F i g u r e 1 i l l u s t r a t e s t h e e f f e c t of a i r s p e e d changes on t h e p o i n t of touchdown f o r a given f l a r e c o n t r o l law.

This d i s p e r s i o n can be reduced by varying t h e touchdown b i a s parameter ( L ) , which w i l l vary t h e r a t e of descent
at touchdown, a s a f u n c t i o n of r e f e r e n c e a i r s p e e d .

Figure 2 i l l u s t r a t e s t h e e f f e c t of changing g l i d e s l o p e beam angle on t h e p o i n t of touchdown f o r a given

f l a r e c o n t r o l law. This d i s p e r s i o n can be reduced by varying the time c o n s t a n t and touchdown b i a s parameters
J and L, r e s p e c t i v e l y , as a f u n c t i o n of t h e f l i g h t path angle while t r a c k i n g t h e g l i d e s l o p e beam. Data on
both of t h e s e techniques a r e presented i n P a r t s 5 and 6.

5. TOUCIIDOWN R A T E O F D E S C E N T V A R I E D WITII R E F E R E N C E A I R S P E E D

I f r e f e r e n c e a i r s p e e d is a v a i l a b l e i n t h e speed c o n t r o l system, it may be used t o vary t h e touchdown r a t e

of descent and reduce d i s p e r s i o n . Table IIIA lists t h e d i s p e r s i o n r e s u l t i n g i f t h e L parameter i n t h e f l a r e
c o n t r o l law is v a r i e d as a f u n c t i o n of r e f e r e n c e a i r s p e e d . The d i s p e r s i o n w i t h a i r s p e e d changes f o r a nominal
g l i d e s l o p e a n g l e (2.75 d e g r e e s ) is reduced t o zero. I t should be noted t h a t t h e added a i r s p e e d b i a s f o r a
headwind c o n d i t i o n (one-half t h e headwind component up t o 20 knots of headwind) is not included i n t h e
determination of L parameter. The added b i a s is a l r e a d y i n a d i r e c t i o n t o reduce d i s p e r s i o n . Tahles IIIB and
IIIC i l l u s t r a t e t h e e f f e c t of varying L parameter with r e f e r e n c e a i r s p e e d on touchdown r a t e of descent and f l a r e
i n i t i a t i o n a l t i t u d e , r e s p e c t i v e l y . The compensating touchdown rate v a r i e d from 2 . 1 t o 2 . 9 f t per second w i t h
a i r s p e e d changes. This increased t h e touchdown r a t e f o r r a d i o a l t i m e t e r e r r o r s t o 1.7 and 3 . 3 f t per second.
This is somewhere near t h e maximum spread t h a t can he allowed f o r that magnitude of r a d i o a l t i m e t e r e r r o r .
The f l a r e i n i t i a t i o n a l t i t u d e s a r e grouped c l o s e r t o g e t h e r than i n Table IC. This would allow a more optimum
choice of f l a r e i n i t i a t i o n a l t i t u d e w i t h l e s s e f f e c t from wind changes during t h e period from f i x e d a l t i t u d e
f l a r e i n i t i a t i o n u n t i l t h e f l a r e c o n t r o l law equals z e r o .

6. F L A R E C O N T R O L LAW P A R A M E T E R S V A R I E D WITII F L I G H T PATI1 A N G L E AND R E F E R E N C E A I R S P E E D

Due t o t h e d i f f i c u l t i e s encountered i n t r y i n g t o c o n t r o l t h e a i r c r a f t t o t h e r e l a t i v e l y s h o r t time c o n s t a n t

f l a r e maneuver, a t t e m p t s t o reduce l o n g i t u d i n a l d i s t u r b a n c e s a r e b e s t s p e n t on long term information. C o r r e c t i n g
t h e f l a r e path or changing f l a r e parameters or i n i t i a t i o n p o i n t with s h o r t term t r a c k i n g , a i r s p e e d , o r r a t e - o f -
descent information would only l e a d t o u n p r e d i c t a b l e maneuvering. Reference a i r s p e e d is e x c e l l e n t long term
information. Another p o s s i b l e r e f e r e n c e is long term r a t e of descent. Rate of descent combined with r e f e r e n c e
a i r s p e e d can provide b a s i c information such as g l i d e s l o p e beam angle and a i r mass movement. The a i r c r a f t is
forced t o f l y t h e g l i d e s l o p e beam which, i n t u r n , is f i x e d with r e s p e c t t o t h e ground. I f r a t e - o f - d e s c e n t
d a t a is combined with a i r s p e e d d a t a , a f l i g h t path angle t h a t is r e l a t i v e t o t h e a i r mass can be computed.
F l i g h t path angle can provide a r e f e r e n c e f o r t h e v a r i a t i o n of t h e time c o n s t a n t and touchdown r a t e - o f - d e s c e n t
parameters of t h e f l a r e c o n t r o l law which w i l l reduce t h e d i s p e r s i o n due t o v a r i a t i o n s i n f l i g h t path angle
caused by g l i d e s l o p e a n g l e . This same r e f e r e n c e w i l l a l s o compensate f o r t h e e f f e c t s of s t e a d y - s t a t e wind.
The e f f e c t i v e n e s s of t h i s l a t t e r compensation depends upon t h e f i l t e r i n g r e q u i r e d i n t h e f l i g h t path a n g l e
computer and t h e amount of windshear below t h e f l a r e i n i t i a t i o n a l t i t u d e . Tables IVA, IVB and IVC list t h e
r e s u l t s of varying t h e J parameter of t h e f l a r e c o n t r o l law with a i r mass f l i g h t path angle and varying the L
parameter with r e f e r e n c e a i r s p e e d and f l i g h t path angle. The d i s p e r s i o n r e s u l t i n g from g l i d e s l o p e beam a n g l e
and a i r s p e e d changes is reduced t o z e r o . The d i s p e r s i o n r e s u l t i n g from wind and.windshear is reduced c o n s i d e r -
a b l y from its uncompensated value. The d i s p e r s i o n of r a t e of descent a t touchdown is e s s e n t i a l l y unchanged
from t h e r u n s compensated f o r a i r s p e e d only, but t h e d i s p e r s i o n of f l a r e i n i t i a t i o n a l t i t u d e s is a l s o reduced
c o n s i d e r a b l y from any of t h e previous runs.

7. CONCLUSIONS

The automatic f l a r e maneuver is a d i f f i c u l t t a s k a t b e s t and is very s u s c e p t i b l e t o e r r o r s i n b a s i c information

and t o d i s t u r b a n c e s . The l o n g i t u d i n a l d i s p e r s i o n c r e a t e d by input sensing and c o n d i t i o n s is l a r g e enough without
adding a i r s p e e d and t h r u s t d i s t u r b a n c e s . In a d d i t i o n , t h e t h r u s t c o n t r o l must be coordinated w i t h t h e o t h e r
f l a r e implementation elements i n o r d e r t o p r e d i c t t h e f l a r e path.

I f t h e speed c o n t r o l system can provide long term r e f e r e n c e a i r s p e e d and f l i g h t path angle information, t h i s
d a t a can be used t o vary f l a r e c o n t r o l parameters and reduce l o n g i t u d i n a l d i s p e r s i o n r e s u l t i n g from v a r i a t i o n s
i n approach r e f e r e n c e a i r s p e e d with a i r c r a f t weight and cg, from v a r i a t i o n s i n g l i d e s l o p e beam angle and from
l o n g i t u d i n a l component of wind.

Based on t h e e f f e c t of speed c o n t r o l on l o n g i t u d i n a l d i s p e r s i o n and t h e p o s s i b l e f u r t h e r r e d u c t i o n s i n

d i s p e r s i o n using speed c o n t r o l system o u t p u t s , it is more than j u s t i f i e d i n t h e autoland system.
6-4

TABLE IA

Longitudinal Touchdown Dispersion (Feet)

Flare Control Law & + h + 12.5 = 0

2.5-Degree Glide Slope 3-Degree Glide Slope

Conditions
-
115 125.5 136 115 125.5 136

NOMINAL 505 616 734 634 76 1 a95

ALTIMETER ERROR

2 Feet Above Actual 406 504 609 528 642 763

2 Feet Below Actual 629 755 aaa 766 908 1057

GLIDE PATH E R R O R

6 Feet Above Center 642 753 a7 1 749 876 1010

6 Feet Below Center 367 478 596 520 646 780

WIND

25-Knot Headwind 358 457 565 464 580 703

10-Knot Tailwind 612 730 a54 757 891 1031

WINDSHEAR

8 K n o t d l 0 0 Feet Headwind 367 468 577 477 594 720

8 K n o t d l 0 0 Feet Tailwind
-
599 715
--
a38 739 a7 1
-
1008

T A B L E 16

Rate of Descent a t Touchdown (Feet per Second)

Flare Control Law 5h + h + 12.5 = 0

2.5-Degree Glide Slope 3-Degree Glide Slope

Conditions Reference Airspeed (knots)

- -
115 125.5 136 115 125.5 136
- --
NOMINAL 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5

ALTIMETER ERROR

2 Feet Above Actual 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9

2 Feet Below Actual 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1

GLIDE PATH ERROR

6 Feet Above Center 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5

6 Feet Below Center 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5

WIND

25-Knot Headwind 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5

1QKnot Tailwind 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5

WINDSHEAR

8 K n o t d l 0 0 Feet Headwind 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5

8 K n o t d l 0 0 Feet Tailwind
- --
2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5
-2.5
 6 -5

TABLE IC

Variable Flare Initiation Altitude (Feet)

Flare Control Law 5h t h t 12.5 = 0

2.5-Degree Glide ~ 1 o ; e T ~ ~ e g r e Glide

e Slope ~

Conditions Reference Airspeed (knots)

-
115 125.5 136 115 I 125.5 136
-
NOMINAL 30 34 38 39 I 43 48

ALTIMETER E R R O R

2 Feet Above Actu-al 28 32 36 37 41 46

2 Feet Below Actual 32 36 40 41 45 50

GLIDE PATH E R R O R

6 Feet Above Center 30 34 38 39 43 48

6 Feet Below Center 30 34 38 39 43 48

WIND

25-Knot Headwind 25 28 32 32 36 41

10-Knot Tailwind 34 38 41 43 47 52

WINDSHEAR

8 K n o t d l 0 0 Feet Headwind 25 29 33 33 38 43

8 K n o t d l 0 0 Feet Tailwind
- --
33 36 40 41 46
-
50

TABLE IIA

Longitudinal Touchdown Dispersion (Feet)

Flare Control Law 6h t h t 15 = 0

2.5-Degree Glide Slope 3-Degree Glide Slope

Conditions Reference Airspeed (knots)

-
115 125.5 136 136
-
NOMINAL 606 739 88 1 761 913 I 1074

ALTIMETER E R R O R

2 Feet Above Actual 505 625 754 653 792 940

2 Feet Below Actual 727 87 5 I 1032 890 1057 1233

GLIDE PATH ERROR

6 Feet Above Center 744 877 1018 876 1028 1189

6 Feet Below Center 468 601 743 647 799 959

WIND

25-Knot Headwind 430 549 678 558 696 844

10-Knot Tailwind 734 876 1025 908 1069 1237

WIN DSHEAR

8 K n o t d l 0 0 Feet Headwind

8 Knots4100 Feet Tailwind

442

- --
717
564

855
695

loo2 L 1040
868

-
1205
6-6

T A B L E IIB

Rate of Descent a t Touchdown (Feet per Second)

Flare Control Law 6fi t h t 15 = 0

2.5-Degree Glide Slope 3-Degree Glide Slope

- - -
115 125.5 136 115 125.5 136

NOMI NA L 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5

ALTIMETER ERROR

2 Feet Above Actual 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8

2 Feet Below Actual 22 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2

GLIDE PATH ERROR

6 Feet Above Center 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5

6 Feet Below Center 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5

WIND

25-Knot Headwind 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5

10-Knot Tailwind 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5

WINDSHEAR

8 K n o t d l 0 0 Feet Headwind 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5

8 K n o t d l 0 0 Feet Tailwind
-
2.5 2.5 2.5
- 2.5 2.5 2.5

TABLE IIC

Variable Flare Initiation Altitude (Feet)

Flare Control Law 6h t h t 15 = 0

2.5-Degree Glide Slope I 3-Degree Glide Slope

Conditions Reference Airspeed (knots)

115 125.5 136 115 125.5 136

~~ ~ ~~ --
NOMINAL 36 41 45 46 52 57

ALTIMETER ERROR

2 Feet Above Actual 34 39 43 44 50 55

2 Feet Below Actual 38 43 47 48 54 59

GLIDE PATH ERROR

6 Feet Above Center 36 41 45 46 52 57

6 Feet Below Center 36 41 45 46 52 57

WIND

25-Knot Headwind 29 34 39 38 44 49

10-Knot Tailwind 40 45 50 52 57 63

W IN DSHEA R

8 K n o t d l 0 0 Feet Headwind 30 35 40 40 46 51

8 K n o t d l 0 0 Feet Tailwind 39 44
-
48
--- 49 55 60
 6-7

TABLE IIIA

Longitudinal Touchdown Dispersion (Feet)

Flare Control Law 5fi + h + f(IAS) = 0

1 3-Degree Glide Slope

~~~ ~

2.5-Degree Glide Slope

Conditions Reference Airspeed (knots)

-
115 I 125.5 136 115
-
125.5 136
-
NOMINAL 620 616 61 1 757 761 766

ALTIMETER ERROR

2 Feet Above Actual 499 504 508 627 642 655

2 Feet Below Actual 777 755 737 92 1 908 898

GLIDE PATH E R R O R

6 Feet Above Center 758 753 749 87 1 876 880

6 Feet Below Center 482 478 474 642 646 65 1

WIND

25-Knot Headwind 453 457 46 1 566 580 592

10-Knot Tailwind 741 730 720 893 89 1 889

WI N DSHE A R

8 K n o t d l 0 0 Feet Headwind 463 468 47 1 580 594 607

8 Knotsll00 Feet Tailwind 726 I 715

-
705 873 87 1 868

TABLE I I I B

Rate of Descent a t Touchdown ( F e e t per Second)

Flare Control Law 5fi t h t f(1AS) = 0

2.5-Degree Glide Slope 3-Degree Glide Slope

Conditions
- -
115 125.5 136 115 125.5 136

NOMINAL 2.1 2.5 2.9 2.1 2.5 2.9

ALTIMETER ERROR

2 Feet Above Actual 2.5 2.9 3.3 2.5 2.9 3.3

2 Feet Below Actual 1.7 2.1 2.5 1.7 2.1 3.3

GLIDE PATH ERROR

6 Feet Above'Center 2.1 2.5 2.9 2.1 2.5 2.9

6 Feet Below Center 2.1 2.5 2.9 2.1 2.5 2.9

WIND

25-Knot Headwind 2.1 2.5 2.9 2.1 2.5 2.9

10-Knot Tailwind 2.1 2.5 2.9 2.1 2.5 2.9

WI N DSHEA R

8 K n o t d l 0 0 Feet Headwind 2.1 2.5 2.9 2.1 2.5 2.9

8 Knots/100 Feet Tailwind 1 2.1 I 2.5 I 2.9 I 2.1 2.5 2.9

6-8

TABLE IIIC

Variable Flare Initiation Altitude (Feet)

Flare Control Law 5h + h + f(1AS) = 0

2.5-Degree Glide Slope 3-Degree Glide Slope

Conditions
- - -
115 125.5 136 115 125.5 136

NOMINAL 32 34 36 40 43 46

ALTIMETER ERROR

2 Feet Above Actual 30 32 34 38 41 44

2 Feet Below Actual 34 36 38 42 45 48

GLIDE PATH ERROR

6 Feet Above Center 32 34 36 40 43 46

6 Feet Below Center 32 34 36 40 43 46

WIND

25-Knot Headwind 26 28 30 34 36 39

10-Knot Tailwind 36 38 39 45 47 50

WIN DSHEA R

8 K n o t d l 0 0 Feet Headwind 27 29 31 35 38 41

8 Knots1100 Feet Tailwind 35

- 36
-- -
30 46
-
48 43

TABLE IVA

Longitudinal Touchdown Dispersion (Feet)

Flare Control Law f(r)h + h + f(y,IAS) = 0

2.5-Degree Glide Slope I 3-Degree Glide Slope

Conditions Reference Airspeed (knots)

115 125.5 136 115 125.5 136

- - -
NOMINAL 69 1 69 1 69 1 69 1 69 1 69 1

ALTIMETER ERROR

2 Feet Above Actual 568 578 586 562 573 582

2 Feet Below Actual 845 828 815 860 840 824

GLIDE PATH ERROR

6 Feet Above Center 828 828 828 806 806 806

6 Feet Below Center 553 553 553 577 577 57 7

WIND

25.Knot Headwind 575 580 585 598 612 625

10-Knot Tailwind 757 747 737 729 727 725

WI N DS HEA R

8 K n o t d l 0 0 Feet Headwind 579 585 590 589 603 616

8 K n o t d l 0 0 Feet Tailwind 767

- 755
-
743 747 744 741
 6-9

TABLE IVB

Rate of Descent a t Touchdown (Feet per Second)

Flare Control Law f Q ) h + h + f(y,IAS) = 0

2.5-Degree Glide Slope 3-Degree Glide Slope

Conditions

115 125.5 136 115 125.5 136

-
NOM IN A L 2.1 2.5 2.9 2.1 2.5 2.9

ALTIMETER ERROR

2 Feet Above Actual 2.5 2.9 3.3 2.6 2.9 3.3

2 Feet Below Actual 1.7 2.1 2.5 1.7 2.1 2.5

GLIDE PATH ERROR

6 Feet Above Center 2.1 2.5 2.9 2.1 2.5 2.9

6 Feet Below Center 2.1 2.5 2.9 2.1 2.5 2.9

WIND

25-Knot Headwind 2.1 2.5 2.9 2.1 2.5 2.9

10-Knot Tailwind 2.1 2.5 2.9 2.1 2.5 2.9

WINDSHEAR

8 K n o t d l 0 0 Feet Headwind 2.1 2.5 2.9 2.1 2.5 2.9

8 KnotdlOO Feet Tailwind 2.1 2.5 2.9

-
2.1 2.5 2.9

TABLE IVC

Variable Flare Initiation Altitude (Feet)

Flare Control Law f(y)h + h + f(y,IAS) = 0

2.5-Degree Glide Slope 3-Degree Glide Slope

Conditions Reference Airspeed (knots)

-
115 115 125.5 136
~~~ -
NOMINAL 36 38 40 37 39 41

ALTIMETER ERROR

2 Feet Above Actual 34 36 38 35 37 40

2 Feet Below Actual 38 40 42 39 41 43

GLIDE PATH ERROR

6 Feet Above Center 36 38 40 37 39 41

6 Feet Below Center 36 38 40 37 39 41

WIND

25-Knot Headwind 34 36 38 36 39 41

10-Knot Tailwind 36 37 39 41

WI N DSHEA R

8 K n o t d l 0 0 Feet Headwind 34 36 30 41

8 K n o t d l 0 0 Feet Tailwind
-
36
- 37 39
-41
6-10

NOMINAL CONDITIONS
FLARE CONTROL LAW 5 6 + h + 12.5 = 0

RUNWAY

-800
DISTANCE FROM GLIDE SLOPE ANTENNA

Fig.1 Flare trajectory - e f f e c t of airspeed changes

I
IEGREE GLIDE SLOPE
1
2.5. VERSUS IDEGREE GLIDE SLOPE
I I
1
NOMINAL CONDITIONS, 125.5 KNOTS IAS

3
I
CDEGREE GLIDE SLOPE FLARE CONTROL LAW 5 6 + h + 12 0
50

U)
0
z
3
P0 FLARE
w
+I
a

+
W
0
3

20

10

:HDOWN
EETEECOND

0
-.c'=
-800 -600 -400 -200 0 200 400 600 800
DISTANCE FROM GLIDE SLOPE ANTENNA

Fig.2 Flare trajectory - e f f e c t of beam angle changes

 6-11

-800 -600 -400 -200 0 200

DISTANCE FROM GLIDE SLOPE ANTENNA

Fig..3 Flare trajectory - e f f e c t of flare control law parameter change

 7

NEW G U I D A N C E D E V E L O P M E N T S

FOR A L L WEATHER L A N D I N G

David J. Sheftel

Federal Aviation Administration

Washington, DC
7
 7-1

NEW GUIDANCE DEVELOPMENTS

FOR ALL WEATHER L A N D I N G

David J. S h e f t e l

1. INTRODUCTION

Current o p e r a t i o n a l landing a i d s i n use by m i l i t a r y and c i v i l a u t h o r i t i e s r e f l e c t t h e s t a t e - o f - t h e - a r t i n

technology of two t o t h r e e decades ago. In a d d i t i o n , t h e o p e r a t i o n a l c a p a b i l i t y provided by t h e s e a i d s substan-
t i a l l y r e f l e c t needs encountered during t h e time period when they were o r i g i n a l l y designed.

There have s i n c e been s i g n i f i c a n t changes i n o p e r a t i o n a l requirements and a i r c r a f t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s which

i n d i c a t e t h e need f o r new landing a i d technology. There a r e v a r i o u s l e v e l s of need f o r c i v i l a i r p o r t s as well
as m i l i t a r y t a c t i c a l and s t r a t e g i c a p p l i c a t i o n s .

I n r e c e n t years t h e r e have been a number of f e a s i b i l i t y developments which o f f e r a spectrum of p o s s i b i l i t i e s

t o s a t i s f y c u r r e n t and a n t i c i p a t e d requirements.

These developments include f i x e s f o r c u r r e n t landing systems as w e l l as t o t a l l y new techniques t o r e p l a c e

and/or supplement c u r r e n t equipment. To f u l l y e v a l u a t e what a l t e r n a t i v e s a r e most responsive t o need, t h e r e
is a j o i n t concerted e f f o r t by c i v i l government, m i l i t a r y , and a i r c r a f t o p e r a t o r groups t o d e f i n e o p e r a t i o n a l
requirements and t o determine what maximum degree of commonality can be achieved toward a standard modular
system f o r common use. T h i s a c t i v i t y is sponsored under t h e a u s p i c e s o f t h e Radio Technical Commission f o r
Aeronautics and is d e s i g n a t e d S p e c i a l Committee 117.

The d e s i r a b i l i t y f o r achieving commonality is obvious. Mixed o p e r a t i o n s a r e t h e r u l e r a t h e r than t h e

exception. For example, m i l i t a r y a i r c r a f t o p e r a t e i n t o c i v i l a i r p o r t s , and small a i r c r a f t , which mainly u s e
g e n e r a l a v i a t i o n f i e l d s , o p e r a t e at large t e r m i n a l s , as well.

Therefore, t h e f i r s t i t e r a t i o n i n t h e search f o r new a i d s is t o f i n d one which lends i t s e l f , i n a modular

form, t o a l a r g e spectrum of o p e r a t i o n a l environments, and can be a d j u s t e d t o s u i t t h e economics o f t h e
s i t u a t i o n as w e l l as t e c h n i c a l requirements.

The c u r r e n t ILS system i s , of course, p r i m a r i l y implemented f o r c i v i l a p p l i c a t i o n . Its c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s

which f a l l s h o r t of meeting f u t u r e requirements are:
1. I t h a s proven t o be s u s c e p t i b l e t o i n t e r f e r e n c e e f f e c t s from t e r r a i n , s t r u c t u r e s , and a i r c r a f t i n t h e
a i r and on t h e ground;

2. I t i s h e a v i l y dependent on t h e t e r r a i n i n t h e immediate v i c i n i t y o f t h e antennas f o r generation of i t s

beams:

3 . I t is l i m i t e d t o providing p r o p o r t i o n a l d e v i a t i o n information on only one path;

4 . The s i z e and c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of t h e antennas do n o t lend themselves r e a d i l y t o i n s t a l l a t i o n at small

l a n d i n g areas, p a r t i c u l a r l y l o c a t i o n s l i k e l y t o be used f o r STOL and VTOL a i r c r a f t .

Perhaps t h e most s i g n i f i c a n t o v e r a l l impact of t h e s e l i m i t a t i o n s i s t h e t o t a l e f f e c t on i n c r e a s i n g a i r p o r t

c a p a c i t y . In t h e s e a r c h f o r ways t o boost runway c a p a c i t y and t o make more e f f i c i e n t u s e of high d e n s i t y
a i r p o r t r e a l e s t a t e , ILS s e n s i t i v i t y t o s t r u c t u r e s and t o both a i r b o r n e and s u r f a c e t r a f f i c p l a c e s s e r i o u s
c o n s t r a i n t s on t h i s goal.

In s p i t e of t h e s e l i m i t a t i o n s , t h e r e is a large consensus t h a t t h e p r e s e n t ILS is doing and w i l l continue t o

do a f i r s t r a t e j o b f o r many years. However, c o n s i d e r i n g t h e long implementation cycle f o r new f a c i l i t i e s ,
and t h e imminent requirements f o r STOL a i r c r a f t , t h e r e is an urgent need t o expedite t h e development program
f o r a new landing system.

2. RTCA ACTIVITY

Approximately one y e a r ago t h e Radio Technical Commission f o r Aeronautics e s t a b l i s h e d S p e c i a l Committee 117

f o r t h e e x p r e s s purpose of d e f i n i n g a new guidance system f o r approach and landing. The need f o r a new landing
a i d h a s been recognized by c i v i l and m i l i t a r y , i n t e r n a t i o n a l l y . The g o a l of t h i s s p e c i a l committee i s t o
explore t h e p o s s i b i l i t y of a new landing concept which could be implemented u n i v e r s a l l y a s a common system with
modular f e a t u r e s which would permit a p p l i c a t i o n t o t h e d i v e r s e l o c a t i o n s and missions d e s i r e d .
7-2

This committee has organized its t a s k i n t o t h r e e major aspects, o r phases:

(1) toclearlydefineoperationalrequirements based on u s e r needs;

(2) t o review and a s s e s s t h e t e s h n o l o g i c a l s t a t e - o f - t h e - a r t c o n s i d e r i n g a l l p o s s i b l e a p p l i c a b l e techniques: and

(3) s e l e c t t h e most promising technique and d e f i n e t h e b a s i c s i g n a l s t r u c t u r e which might achieve commonality
amongst u s e r s .

A s a s t e p toward t h e g o a l , SC-117 h a s agreed t o p o s t u l a t e s e v e r a l o p e r a t i o n c o n f i g u r a t i o n s which, though not

t o t a l l y i n c l u s i v e of a l l o p e r a t i o n a l missions, r e p r e s e n t enough spectrum o f u s e s t o form a b a s i s f o r e v a l u a t i n g
competing techniques. These seven t y p i c a l c o n f i g u r a t i o n s a r e a s follows:

1. P r e c i s e l a t e r a l approach guidance on one-approach course down t o an a l t i t u d e of 150’ above t h e runway with

optional basic distance service.

2. P r e c i s e lateral approach guidance and v e r t i c a l approach guidance on one approach p a t h down t o 150’ a l t i t u d e ,
with b a s i c d i s t a n c e s e r v i c e , f o r conventional a i r c r a f t o p e r a t i o n s .

3. P r e c i s e lateral approach guidance and a i r s e l e c t a b l e v e r t i c a l approach guidance on one approach path t o

150’ a l t i t u d e , with basic d i s t a n c e s e r v i c e , f o r both conventional and V/STOL a i r c r a f t o p e r a t i o n s .

4. P r e c i s e l a t e r a l and v e r t i c a l approach guidance on one approach path t o 50‘ a l t i t u d e , with b a s i c d i s t a n c e

s e r v i c e , f o r conventional a i r c r a f t o p e r a t i o n s .

5. P r e c i s e l a t e r a l and a i r - s e l e c t a b l e v e r t i c a l approach guidance on one approach path t o 50’ a l t i t u d e , with

b a s i c d i s t a n c e s e r v i c e , f o r conventional and V/STOL a i r c r a f t o p e r a t i o n s .
6. P r e c i s e lateral p o s i t i o n information i n a f40° s e c t o r with touchdown and r o l l o u t guidance, v e r t i c a l p o s i t i o n
information f o r f l i g h t p a t h coverage up t o 15’ and t o touchdown, p r e c i s e d i s t a n c e s e r v i c e , and missed
approach guidance.

7. P r e c i s e lateral p o s i t i o n information i n a a t90° s e c t o r with touchdown and r o l l o u t guidance, v e r t i c a l p o s i t i o n

information f o r f l i g h t path coverage up t o 15’ (and perhaps even h i g h e r ) and t o touchdown, p r e c i s e d i s t a n c e
s e r v i c e , missed approach s e r v i c e , and o b s t a c l e warning s e r v i c e .

A t t h i s w r i t i n g , steps (1) and (2) of t h e t h r e e phases mentioned above have been achieved. A team of e v a l u a t o r s ,
composed of e x p e r t s who have no vested i n t e r e s t s a s guidance hardware s u p p l i e r s , w i l l meet t o undertake s t e p
number (3) which undoubtedly is a most d i f f i c u l t and complex t a s k . I t is hoped by many.who wish t o begin hardware
development t h a t t h i s committee w i l l complete i t s t a s k t h i s y e a r .

3. ATC SYSTEM ASPECTS

The landing guidance system has become more than simply a means t o “ p o s i t i o n f i n d ” f o r accomplishing t h e l a n d i n g
f u n c t i o n . T h i s is so a t l e a s t i n t h e minds of t h o s e involved i n c o n s i d e r i n g t r a f f i c d e n s i t y problems o f f u t u r e
high volume c i v i l t e r m i n a l s .

T h i s aspect stems from t h e b a s i c premise t h a t a i r c r a f t must be closer spaced i n a l l phases o f t e r m i n a l f l i g h t

i n o r d e r t o satisfy forecast demands w i t h i n t h e next decade.

This premise raises t h e following q u e s t i o n s :

(1) i f c l o s e r spaced p a r a l l e l runways and c l o s e r l o n g i t u d i n a l s e p a r a t i o n s a r e implemented, is a s u r v e i l l a n c e
mode needed t o monitor t h e s i t u a t i o n ?

(2) do c l o s e r spaced d e p a r t u r e s , or missed approaches, r e q u i r e “backcourse” guidance coverage of s i m i l a r

q u a l i t y as t h e approach a r e a ?

( 3 ) should t h e landing a i d cover more than t h e approach zone (f40’) and should it become a t e r m i n a l a r e a
navigation a i d , as well?

( 4 ) i n a more h i g h l y automated environment, as implied by higher d e n s i t y , should t h e landing a i d transmission

be capable of automatic d a t a l i n k f o r ATC f u n c t i o n s ?

(5) should t h e l a n d i n g a i d be designed with t h e p o t e n t i a l t o cover more than one runway from each f a c i l i t y ?

These t y p i c a l q u e s t i o n s which evolve from t o t a l system c o n s i d e r a t i o n s may seem f a r fetched, but. when contem-
p l a t i n g a t e n - f o l d i n c r e a s e i n demand which some f o r e c a s t e r s p o s t u l a t e , i t q u i c k l y becomes apparent t h a t
d r a s t i c t e c h n o l o g i c a l s o l u t i o n s must be a p p l i e d unless demand is t o be constrained by regulation.

You might ask, what has t h i s capacity problem t o do w i t h t h e s e l e c t i o n o f a guidance technique? I t is r e a d i l y

apparent t h a t should any o r a l l of t h e f u n c t i o n s mentioned i n t h e above q u e s t i o n s be necessary f o r a f u t u r e ATC
system, t h e p o s s i b i l i t y of providing t h e s e f e a t u r e s a s a part of t h e landing a i d obviously can be b e s t explored
during t h e e a r l i e r phases of development. I n c o r p o r a t i o n o f a s x v e i l l a n c e mode o r a d a t a l i n k as an a f t e r t h o u g h t
would be a t l e a s t more d i f f i c u l t , i f not i m p r a c t i c a l .
 7-3

Though t h e problem of s e l e c t i o n and development of a new common landing a i d is a formidable one, t h e s t a t e of

knowledge of what t h e f u t u r e ATC system r e q u i r e s by f a r l a g s t h e c u r r e n t understanding of landing a i d s k i l l s .
There may t h e r e f o r e be m e r i t in g i v i n g s e r i o u s c o n s i d e r a t i o n and favour t o landing techniques which o f f e r promise
of expansion t o added f u n c t i o n s even though t h o s e f u n c t i o n s a r e not y e t c l e a r l y d e f i n e d .

4. C A N D I D A T E TECHNIQUES A N D E C O N O M I C S

Many of t h e proposed new t e c h n o l o g i e s f a l l i n t o t h e following g e n e r i c c l a s s e s :

( 1 ) microwave ILS ( a l a ILS)

( 2 ) scanning beams
(3) base l i n e schemes, o r i n t e r f e r o m e t r y

(4) radioactive

(5) airborne radar

(6) ground r a d a r

(7) ground beacons.

Within t h e s e c l a s s e s t h e r e a r e v a r i a t i o n s such a s frequency band. t e c h n i c a l concept of measurement and

performance. There a r e apparent p r o ’ s and c o n ’ s which can favour a p a r t i c u l a r u s e r group a t t h e expense of
a n o t h e r . I t i s n e e d l e s s t o say t h a t economics p l a y s an equal i f n o t more s i g n i f i c a n t r o l e than technique
appeal. I f commonality is t o be achieved a l i g h t p l e a s u r e a i r c r a f t must be capable of equipping a t an economi-
c a l l y v i a b l e c o s t . This a i r c r a f t c l a s s may wish no more than l i m i t e d Category I c a p a b i l i t y , but he must be
a b l e t o a f f o r d t h i s as he can today equip with ILS.

The q u e s t i o n of economics a p p l i e s e q u a l l y t o ground equipment. Since t h e f e d e r a l agencies which are r e s p o n s i b l e

f o r implementing ground f a c i l i t i e s a r e not u s u a l l y endowed with i n f i n i t e r e s o u r c e s , t h e e x t e n t t o which we can
expect runways t o be equipped i s h e a v i l y dependent on equipment u n i t c o s t .

There a r e now 282 runways served by ILS. There a r e s e v e r a l hundred a d d i t i o n a l runways which could c u r r e n t l y
q u a l i f y f o r a landing a i d under r e v i s e d c r i t e r i a which i s contemplated. During t h e next decade t h e number of
runways which w i l l warrant such a f a c i l i t y w i l l obviously i n c r e a s e d r a s t i c a l l y .

Most of t h e newer candidate l o c a t i o n s w i l l be of t h e type which warrant Category I c a p a b i l i t y . There w i l l , i n

a d d i t i o n , be a s i g n i f i c a n t number of new Category I1 and Category I11 runways during t h a t time period.

In summary on t h i s p o i n t , any s e l e c t i o n of a new guidance technique must adapt t o t h e economic p i c t u r e f o r

s u c c e s s f u l adoption as s u r e l y as it must perform t e c h n i c a l l y .

5 . FAA PROGRAM

The FAA h a s i n i t s development program c o n c e n t r a t e d p r i m a r i l y on improving ILS, upgrading t h e equipment with

more r e c e n t t e c h n o l o g i e s , and reducing f a c i l i t y c o s t s . In t h e upgrading process, i n a d d i t i o n t o adapting newer
components, improvements have been d i r e c t e d toward achievement of Category I1 and Category I11 performance. A t
a l e s s expedited pace, i n v e s t i g a t i o n s and developments have been achieved i n adapting supplements t o t h e ILS
and i n t h e a r e a of t o t a l l y new p o t e n t i a l replacement microwave systems. I n t h e l a t t q r category incouraging
p r o g r e s s has r e s u l t e d from t h e f e a s i b i l i t y s t a g e s of a microwave scanning beam system o p e r a t i n g at Ku Band. More
r e c e n t l y , a development was i n i t i a t e d f o r a scanning beam a t C Band s p e c i f i c a l l y f o r STOL a p p l i c a t i o n . The C
Band scheme is based on a phase scan type o$ antenna. T h i s work has n o t progressed t o a s t a g e worthy of r e p o r t i n g
s i n c e i t s i n i t i a t i o n was only weeks ago. However, although t h i s work is s p e c i f i c a l l y o r i e n t e d f o r STOL, it is
expected t o y i e l d s i g n i f i c a n t general value on t h e q u e s t i o n of t h e p o t e n t i a l of C Band v e r s u s Ku Band.

The subsequent paragraphs d e s c r i b e t h e Ku Band equipment developed f o r t h i s f e a s i b i l i t y t e s t and t h e r e s u l t s

of an e x t e n s i v e f i e l d t e s t program at t h e National Aviation F a c i l i t i e s Experimental Center (NAFEC), A t l a n t i c
C i t y , New J e r s e y . This information is presented in the context that this is a candidate landing aid technique
among other candidates for RTCA consideration.

AILS (Advanced I n t e g r a t e d Landing Guidance System) is shown i n block diagram form on Figure 1. The system
c o n s i s t s of an azimuth and e l e v a t i o n ground equipment, a ground d i s p l a y s i t e c o n t a i n i n g t h e PAR d i s p l a y console,
and t h e a i r b o r n e u n i t s . The azimuth s i t e i s l o c a t e d on t h e extended runway c e n t e r l i n e at t h e s t o p end of t h e
runway. The e l e v a t i o n s i t e , which a l s o houses t h e PAR console, is located along t h e s i d e of t h e runway approxi-
mately 2,500 f e e t from t h r e s h o l d . The DME transponder i s l o c a t e d at t h e azimuth s i t e . The DME transponder
delay can be a d j u s t e d t o provide z e r o range a t a p o i n t on t h e runway o p p o s i t e t h e e l e v a t i o n scanner. P r e c i s i o n
range information is a l s o provided along t h e e n t i r e runway length f o r “runway t o go” information. This particular
version is configured i n , probably, t h e most sophisticated o p e r a t i o n a l form.
 I
I
I
7-4

The AILS system i s a time multiplexed system t h a t u t i l i z e s a s i n g l e ground t o a i r r a d i o frequency. T h i s

means t h a t i n sequence, t h e ground s t a t i o n r a d i a t e s azimuth guidance, e l e v a t i o n guidance, azimuth r a d a r , DME,
and e l e v a t i o n r a d a r .

The azimuth and e l e v a t i o n guidance is r a d i a t e d from scanning antennas l o c a t e d as shown i n Figure 2. The
antennas r a d i a t e very narrow (3') fan-shaped beams. These beams scan f5' i n azimuth and 10 t o 0 degrees i n
e l e v a t i o n . A p a i r of s t a t i o n a r y antennas, located at t h e azimuth s i t e , provides t h e c l e a r a n c e s i g n a l which
extends t o +35' beyond t h e 5' a r e a which i s scanned i n azimuth. The azimuth s e c t o r scan of f5' was l i m i t e d 1
only t o simplify t h e hardware i n t h i s f e a s i b i l i t y s t a g e of development and should not be considered a constraint.

Angle information, i n t h e form of p u l s e p a i r spacing, is encoded on t h e scanning beams. The i n s t a n t a n e o u s

1
p o i n t i n g angle of t h e beams i s a s s o c i a t e d with a p u l s e p a i r spacing which t h e a i r b o r n e equipment decodes.
Angles are resolved t o increments of 0.01'. 1
The DME information, t r a n s m i t t e d through non-scanning f i x e d antennas l o c a t e d at t h e azimuth s i t e , is a l s o
i n t h e form of p u l s e p a i r s . The a i r b o r n e equipment i n t e r p r e t s range by decoding t h e spacing between its
i n t e r r o g a t i o n transmission and t h e r e p l y from t h e ground transponder:

6 . ELEVATION GUIDANCE

The c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of t h e e l e v a t i o n guidance s i g n a l a r e shown on Figure 3. The p u l s e width i s 0 . 2 micro-

seconds. The p u l s e s a r e p a i r e d , and i n t h e c a s e of t h e e l e v a t i o n guidance s i g n a l , a p u l s e p a i r spacing is
recognized i n t h e a i r b o r n e equipment and is channeled i n t o t h e a p p r o p r i a t e decoder and t r a c k e r c i r c u i t s . As
t h e beam sweeps from 10' t o 0'. t h e spacing between t h e p u l s e p a i r s e t s r e p r e s e n t s t h e e l e v a t i o n angle information.

7 . AZIMUTH G U I D A N C E S I G N A L

The n a t u r e of t h e Azimuth Guidance S i g n a l is shown on Figure 4. When t r a n s m i t t i n g azimuth information, t h e

antenna s c a n s from l e f t t o r i g h t (viewed from t h e antenna). A t a p o i n t i n g a n g l e 5' l e f t from runway c e n t e r l i n e ,
t h e spacing between pulse p a i r s e t s is 120 microseconds, at runway c e n t e r l i n e t h e spacing i s 80 microseconds,
and at 5' r i g h t from c e n t e r l i n e t h e spacing is 40 microseconds.

8 . DME MODE

The b a s i c o p e r a t i o n of t h e DME mode i s accomplished i n a conventional manner, i . e . , measuring t h e time r e q u i r e d

f o r a p u l s e t o t r a v e l from t h e a i r b o r n e i n t e r r o g a t o r t o t h e ground transponder and back t o t h e a i r c r a f t . The
n a t u r e of t h e DME s i g n a l i s shown on Figure 5. ~

I
I
9 . P A R MODE iI
Two i n t e r v a l s d u r i n g t h e AILS c y c l e a r e assigned t o t h e r a d a r f u n c t i o n . During t h e s e i n t e r v a l s , only t h e
ground based equipment, c o n s i s t i n g e s s e n t i a l l y of t h e p u l s e moderator, high-power t r a n s m i t t e r s , t h e scanning
beam and r e c e i v e r s a t t h e azimuth and a t t h e e l e v a t i o n s i t e s a r e ' i n v o l v e d . The a i r c r a f t cooperates as a
Passive r e f l e c t i n g t a r g e t . C i r c u l a r p o l a r i z a t i o n and MTI techniques a r e employed t o enhance t a r g e t recognition. 1

This, obviously, is an optional mode which has no e f f e c t on t h e guidance function.

10. A I R B O R N E E Q U I P M E N T

1
Figure 6 is a block diagram o f t h e a i r b o r n e equipment. The r e c e i v e r is a super-heterodyne t y p e with a c r y s t a l
c o n t r o l l e d s o l i d s t a t e l o c a l o s c i l l a t o r . A channel s e l e c t o r switch c o n t r o l s t h e l o c a l o s c i l l a t o r frequency and
10 channels a r e provided i n t h e frequency range 15.4 t o 15.7 GHz-

The accuracy of t h e AILS r e c e i v e r is achieved by making measurements only at t h e peak of t h e scanning beam.
Test r e s u l t s have shown t h a t r e f l e c t e d energy at a n g l e s o f o p e r a t i o n a l i n t e r e s t i n an a i r p o r t environment ( t e r r a i n .
hangars, e t c . ) can be expected t o be at least 6 db below path energy. Therefore, using only t h e beam peak in
making measurements, r e f l e c t i o n e f f e c t s a r e reduced. Peak-of-beam t r a c k i n g is achieved u s i n g r e c e i v e r AGC t o
c o n t r o l r e c e i v e r g a i n in such a manner t h a t t h e l a r g e s t incoming s i g n a l ( t h e peak of t h e incoming scanning beam)
is maintained l i n e a r and a t a predetermined l e v e l . A t h r e s h o l d l e v e l is s e t about 6 db below t h e peak l e v e l and
time measurements a r e only made on p u l s e s t h a t exceed t h i s t h r e s h o l d . AGC slewing r a t e s of 4 db per second a r e
more than adequate t o accommodate a l l s i g n a l l e v e l c o n d i t i o n s . I n a d d i t i o n t o AGC a c t i o n , system accuracy is
f u r t h e r enhanced by (1) t h e u s e of time r a t h e r than s i g n a l l e v e l measurements, ( 2 ) t h e use of a t r a c k g a t e t o
a s s u r e consistency from one measurement t o t h e n e x t , and ( 3 ) continuous c a l i b r a t i o n of t h e r e c e i v e r using a
c r y s t a l o s c i l l a t o r standard.
 7-5

11. TEST RESULTS

1 . The t e s t r e s u l t s from t h e NAFEC t e s t programs i n d i c a t e t h e following a c c u r a c i e s which a r e in terms of

one s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n :
E l e v a t i o n angle to.03'
Azimuth angle +O..05'
Range f l O O feet

2 . From t h e recorded d a t a compiled during random encounters with a i r c r a f t t a x i i n g in t h e v i c i n i t y of t h e

a c t i v e runway and from a i r c r a f t landing and t a k i n g o f f , i t was found t h a t AILS w i l l t o l e r a t e i n t e r f e r i n g
a i r c r a f t which d i s t u r b conventional ILS.

3 . The measured r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e e l e v a t i o n guidance accuracy is maintained down t o a n g l e s of 0.4'

4. Co-location of AILS and conventional ILS i s f e a s i b l e .

t
7 -6

AIRBORNE EQUIPMENT

FLIGHT PATR
DISPLAY AN0

Fig.1 Advanced I n t e g r a t e d Landing Guidance System (AILS)

FLY LEFT

/
/
/-/
A

Fig.2 Scanning antenna r a d i a t i o n p a t t e r n s

 7-7

A M T E M l I GUI D A M E
SCAM D I R E C l l O M

ELLVLl

W I L E FACTOR:
8 uieclotG~EE
AMOLE IMCREYEMT:
0.01 DLOREL

AZIYUTM lOEllTlTV

AZIMUTH SITE

SCALE FACTOR:
8 u8eclDEGIEE

ANOLE IICREYEUT:
0.01 DEQREE

Fig.4 Azimuth guidance s i g n a l

7-8

1 CHANNEL CODING
15 USEC TO 33 USEC

AIRBORNE INTERROGATION

TRANSPONDER RANGE
t = TURN AROUND t 492
DELAY

DME I D E N T I T Y = 8 USEC

0.2 U S E i I

GROUND TRANSPONDER REPLY

Fig.5 DME s i g n a l

t 1
RF MIXER - IF AMPLIFIER
DECODER-
AZIMUTH ANGLE
ATION ANGLE
FLIGHT
DIRECTOR
AND LOCAL ' * AND TRACKER
JJJJ
DME
'
AND/OR
OSCILLATOR DETECTOR
t 4 I AUTOPILOT
1
FLIGt
FREOUENCY DlREC OR
MONITOR
CHANNELIZATION
I FLAG ALARM
I, SIGN1 .s
DISPLAY
t 10 -CHANNEL SELECTOR I ~
AND
1, CONTROL
WIDANE RECEIVER IAIRCRAF T E W M E M
I
Fig.6 S i m p l i f i e d block diagram of a i r b o r n e equipment
 8

DEVELOPMENT OF AIRBORNE HARDWARE FOR AUTOMATIC

LANDING SYSTEMS

R. I. Bishop

Smiths I n d u s t r i e s Limited,
Aviation Division, Cheltenham, England
a
 8- 1

DEVELOPMENT OF AIRBORNE HARDWARE FOR AUTOMATIC

L A N D I N G SYSTEMS

R. I. Bishop

1. INTRODUCTION

Smiths I n d u s t r i e s Limited have been involved i n t h e design and manufacture of a i r c r a f t a u t o p i l o t s f o r many

years. I n 1947 t h e y s t a r t e d work, i n c l o s e c o l l a b o r a t i o n with t h e Royal A i r c r a f t Establishment Blind Landing
Experimental Unit, on t h e design of a m i l i t a r y autolanding system. These m i l i t a r y autolanding systems were of
a simplex c h a r a c t e r and were i n s t a l l e d i n many of t h e R. A. F.’ s bomber a i r c r a f t . By t h e mid-l95O’s, Smiths had
gained s u f f i c i e n t experience with a u t o l a n d i n g systems t o f e e l t h a t they were i n a p o s i t i o n t o develop a c i v i l
version. Considerations quickly l e d t o t h e need f o r a form of redundancy t o g i v e both f a i l - o p e r a t i o n a l and
f a i l - s o f t c a p a b i l i t i e s t o t h e a u t o p i l o t . Extensive r e s e a r c h and development went i n t o t h e v a r i o u s forms of
redundancy and t h e i d e a s had c r y s t a l i s e d by 1958. It was at t h i s time t h a t B.E.A. were n e g o t i a t i n g f o r t h e
purchase of t h e T r i d e n t a i r c r a f t . Smiths put forward p r o p o s a l s f o r f i t t i n g an a u t o p i l o t t o t h i s a i r c r a f t and
B.E.A. s p e c i f i e d t h a t t h e a u t o p i l o t should be capable of providing autolandings as a requirement i n t h e i r con-
tract with Hawker Siddeley.

The T r i d e n t is a 90-seat, high speed, s h o r t haul a i r c r a f t . I t has a high t a i l c o n f i g u r a t i o n with swept wings
and t h r e e engines mounted i n t h e t a i l c l u s t e r . Smiths redundancy concept had l e d them t o t h e T r i p l e x arrange-
ment of t h e a u t o p i l o t i n t h a t t h i s would g i v e a v o t i n g system t o g i v e f a i l - o p e r a t i o n f o r one f a i l u r e and f a i l -
s o f t f o r t h e second f a i l u r e . With t h e arrangement of t h r e e engines i n t h e T r i d e n t t h i s approach w a s clearly
f o r t i f i e d , as t h r e e power s u p p l i e s were b a s i c t o t h e aeroplane and following from t h i s , Hawker Siddeley designed
t h r e e h y d r a u l i c systems f o r o p e r a t i n g a l l t h e f l y i n g c o n t r o l s . The arrangement o f ’ t h e a i r c r a f t f l y i n g c o n t r o l s
and a u t o p i l o t and power supply arrangements n e a t l y d o v e t a i l e d t o g e t h e r t o form a very harmonious design f o r t h e
a i r c r a f t system redundancy.

‘ F a i l - o p e r a t i o n a l ” and “ f a i l - s o f t ” can be achieved i n more than one mechanisation. Early c o n s i d e r a t i o n s of

t h i s t o p i c i n c o l l a b o r a t i o n with t h e Air R e g i s t r a t i o n Board l e d t o a c l e a r need t o improve t h e c u r r e n t a i r c r a f t
landing a c c i d e n t f i g u r e s and it was from t h e s e d i s c u s s i o n s t h a t t h e now famous, one i n lo’, number appeared.
There is much controversy over t h i s approach, but it does form a u s e f u l y a r d s t i c k a g a i n s t which redundancy
techniques can be t e s t e d . From f a i r l y simple f a i l u r e rate c o n s i d e r a t i o n s of a i r b o r n e equipment, it is easy t o
s e e from whole f l i g h t numbers of t h e n c u r r e n t a u t o p i l o t s t h a t t h e T r i p l e x arrangement c l e a r l y gave a v a i l a b i l i t y
of t h e a u t o p i l o t during t h e landing manoeuvre amply i n s i d e t h i s t a r g e t f i g u r e . Development of t h e “numbers
game” has l e d t o c o n s i d e r a b l e refinement over t h e o r i g i n a l but simple approach; such a s p e c t s as system p e r f o r -
mance during t h e c r i t i c a l manoeuvres become as important as t h e a v a i l a b i l i t y .

I t is c l e a r l y not p r a c t i c a b l e t o introduce an e n t i r e l y new concept of c i v i l autolanding on a new aeroplane

i n one go without ending up with c o n s i d e r a b l e proving d i f f i c u l t i e s i n t h e e a r l y s t a g e s . For t h i s reason, a
l o g i c a l sequence of development of t h e a u t o p i l o t was adopted which went through stages of lowering t h e height
at which t h e d e c i s i o n t o land a u t o m a t i c a l l y was made. The f i r s t s t a g e w a s j u s t coupled approach - t h e s t a n d a r d
t h e n expected of any a u t o p i l o t - followed on at a duplex l e v e l of a u t o f l a r e . duplex autolanding, t r i p l e x auto-
landing, a l l o p e r a t i n g i n f a i r weather. I n t e r n a t i o n a l agreement on weather c a t e g o r i e s enabled c l e a r a n c e t o be
given f o r category 2 coupled approach, followed by autolanding i n category 2 and t h e n , f i n a l l y , a f t e r s u f f i c i e n t
a i r l i n e experience, t o autolanding i n category 3A and B c o n d i t i o n s .

2. WHOLE SYSTEM CONCEPT

With t h e Trident a i r c r a f t , ,most of t h e f l i g h t c o n t r o l system a v i o n i c s is made under Smiths design c o n t r o l .

This gave t h e Company t h e unique o p p o r t u n i t y t o f u l l y i n t e g r a t e t h e f l i g h t c o n t r o l system.

The manufacture of some of t h e sub-systems was i n a s s o c i a t i o n with t h e Sperry Company, mainly t h e a t t i t u d e

system, gyros and some d i s p l a y s . The a u t o p i l o t a c t u a l l y r e p r e s e n t s a f a i r l y small p a r t of t h e complete system
being only 36% by weight. T h i s is not t r u e of t h e amount of e f f o r t t h a t h a s gone i n t o i t s design.

3. TRIPLEX REDUNDANCY - PRINCIPLES OF OPERATION

The c o n s o l i d a t i o n p o i n t of t h e t h r e e sub-channels of t h e a u t o p i l o t i s t h e p o i n t at which t h e y connect t o t h e

f l y i n g c o n t r o l s . The connection of t h e a u t o p i l o t e l e c t r i c motors is v i a t h r e e e l e c t r i c c l u t c h e s and t h e o u t p u t s
of t h e t h r e e motors a r e then geared t o g e t h e r t o d r i v e t h e c o n t r o l s u r f a c e . The common path of t h e a u t o p i l o t t o
t h e c o n t r o l run is t h e r e f o r e very s h o r t , of extremely high r e l i a b i l i t y and s u b j e c t t o conventional a n a l y s i s .
8-2

Each a u t o p i l o t servomotor c o n t a i n s a torque switch device and it is through t h e s e torque switches t h a t t h e

v o t i n g between t h e t h r e e sub-channels takes place. Should one sub-channel develop a f a u l t , t h e n t h e torque from
t h e two good sub-channels overpowers t h e torque output of t h e f a u l t y sub-channel motor by t h e torque switch
opening and t h a t sub-channel being disconnected.

C l e a r l y , i f t h r e e independent a u t o p i l o t s were j o i n e d t o g e t h e r and were c o n t r o l l e d t o g i v e t h e same c o n t r o l

law, t h e r e would i n e v i t a b l y be d i f f e r e n c e s i n t h e i r o u t p u t s due e n t i r e l y t o t o l e r a n c e s . Therefore t h e e f f e c t
of t o l e r a n c e s has t o be c a t e r e d f o r within t h e design of t h e a u t o p i l o t so t h a t nuisance trips within t h e allow-
a b l e t o l e r a n c e bands of t h e equipment do not t a k e place. However, t h e allowable band must be c o n t r o l l e d , as
t o o 1 a r g e . a value could allow a f a u l t t o persist and s p o i l t h e a u t o p i l o t ’ s performance.

There are t h r e e main t y p e s of e l e c t r i c a l e q u a l i s a t i o n i n s i d e t h e a u t o p i l o t c o n t r o l loops and one p r i n c i p a l

form of e q u a l i s a t i o n o u t s i d e . I n s i d e t h e a u t o p i l o t t h e loops a r e (a) s h o r t term datum (b) g a i n , (c) long term
Outside t h e a u t o p i l o t t h e loop is (d) sensor e q u a l i s a t i o n .

Short Term Datum

This e q u a l i s a t i o n is a blanket e q u a l i s a t i o n of l i m i t e d a u t h o r i t y and looks a f t e r datum e f f e c t s i n t h e

s h o r t term. I t is r e l a t e d t o t h e input r a t e gyro s i g n a l s and is of t h e order of 0 . 2 degrees/second.
The s i g n a l looks a f t e r s h o r t period changes between t h e sub-channels.

Gain Equalisation

During manoeuvring l a r g e s i g n a l l e v e l s can be produced. The d i f f e r e n c e i n these s i g n a l s between sub-

channels m a y exceed t h e a u t h o r i t y of t h e s h o r t term datum. Therefore, it becomes necessary t o auto-
matically a d j u s t t h e gain of some of t h e s e s i g n a l c i r c u i t s .
The a u t h o r i t y of t h e g a i n c i r c u i t is f 15% i n duplex and f 30% i n triplex. Gain e q u a l i s a t i o n can t h e r e -
f o r e be seen t o be a very powerful cure f o r keeping t h e sub-channels of t h e a u t o p i l o t i n s t e p . The
design of t h e s e circuits is such t h a t f a u l t e f f e c t s have t o be minimized. S a t i s f a c t o r y demonstration h a s
been given t h a t t o l e r a n c e s up t o t h e l i m i t of t h e e q u a l i s a t i o n still provide s a t i s f a c t o r y a u t o p i l o t
performance.

Long Term Datum Balancer

These are provided as i n t e g r a t o r s i n each sub-channel and remove datum unbalance between sub-channels
and r e l i e v e t h e . s t r a i n on t h e s h o r t term datum e q u a l i s a t i o n . I n c e r t a i n modes of f l i g h t there is a l s o
fed i n t o t h e datum balancer t h e e x t e r n a l lock error or guidance s i g n a l s , so t h a t o v e r a l l balance of t h e
a u t o p i l o t is obtained.

Sensor Equalisation

T h i s form of e q u a l i s a t i o n is of a r a t h e r s p e c i a l n a t u r e and h a s only been applied t o t h e Radio Altimeters.

These devices have an error of 3 f t . or 3%, whichever is t h e g r e a t e r . Each Radio Altimeter is not looking
at t h e same p i e c e of ground below t h e aircraft and t h e s i g n a l s tend t o be noisy. I t h a s t h e r e f o r e been
necessary t o provide an e q u a l i s a t i o n which is s u f f i c i e n t t o cover t h e s e n o i s e and t o l e r a n c e e f f e c t s .
The e f f e c t of t h e Radio Altimeter n o i s e is magnified by d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n within t h e a u t o p i l o t . Thus t h e
Radio Altimeter d i f f e r e n c e s and noise a r e t o o great f o r t h e s h o r t term datum e q u a l i s a t i o n . A form of
e q u a l i s a t i o n i s shown i n Figure 1 and is made by looking at t h e d i f f e r e n c e s between each of t h e t h r e e
Radio Altimeters i n a symmetrical manner and a circuit is used whose n e t result is t o arrange t h a t t h e
input t o each sub-channel of t h e a u t o p i l o t is t h e average of t h e t h r e e r a d i o a l t i m e t e r s , providing t h a t
t h e s i g n a l added t o each sub-channel does not exceed 8 f t . Should t h e d i f f e r e n c e between one altimeter
and t h e o t h e r two exceed 8 f t . , then t h e f a u l t y a l t i m e t e r s i g n a l is disconnected, t h e a u t o p i l o t sub-
channel normally disconnects at t h i s time. It h a s been shown t h a t t h i s form of e q u a l i s a t i o n g i v e s
adequate p r o t e c t i o n a g a i n s t Radio Altimeter f a u l t s .

4. PROBLEMS ON PERFORMANCE

Modifications incorporated i n t o t h e a u t o p i l o t system t o improve i t s performance dur ng t h e early stages o f

development f l y i n g are f u l l y described i n Reference 1.

5. PROBLEMS ON AVAILABILITY

Not only must t h e redundant a u t o p i l o t performance i n autolanding be s a t i s f a c t o r y t o a high degree o f i n t e g r i t y ,

it must a l s o be a v a i l a b l e on a s u f f i c i e n t number of occasions such t h a t t h e p r o b a b i l i t y of c u t - o u t s i s s u f f i -
c i e n t l y remote t o meet t h e s a f e t y conditions. Nuisance cut-outs. o r nuisance t r i p s , must not t h e r e f o r occur t o o
f r e q u e n t l y nor must c u t - o u t s due t o f a u l t s . Equalisation is provided i n o r d e r t o minimise t h e e f f e c t of t o l e r -
ances. For t h e purpose of t h i s d i s c u s s i o n t h e d e f i n i t i o n of a nuisance t r i p is when t h e r e is a cut-out and t h e
equipment i s working within its s p e c i f i c a t i o n .
 a- 3

One of t h e e a r l y problems of t h e m u l t i p l e x system was a r a t h e r h i g h incidence of unwanted nuisance trips.

These c u t - o u t s were examined w i t h g r e a t c a r e and it was found necessary t o i n s t a l l s p e c i a l recording equipment
i n two of B.E.A. f l e e t a i r c r a f t i n o r d e r t o g a t h e r d a t a from t h e wider f l i g h t experience than t h a t provided by
f l i g h t trials. Nuisance c u t - o u t s can be grouped under t h e following main types:

(a) Environmental - power s u p p l i e s , v i b r a t i o n , e t c .

(b) Tolerances - s i g n a l phase r e l a t i o n s h i p s , g a i n s and datums.

(c) Timing - s y n c h r o n i s a t i o n of s i g n a l switching and s i g n a l t r a n s i e n t s .

For t h e e v a l u a t i o n of t h e system by Hawker Siddeley i n t h e i r f l i g h t t r i a l s , t h e y had i n s t a l l e d both d i r e c t

photographic paper r e c o r d e r s , and a l s o h i g h speed multi-channel magnetic r e c o r d e r s . From t h e s e r e c o r d e r s it
was p o s s i b l e , when c u t - o u t s occurred, t o analyse t h e s i g n a l s and t r a c e t h e causes'back t o minor d e f i c i e n c i e s
w i t h i n t h e a u t o p i l o t system. I n a d d i t i o n , t h e two a i r c r a f t instrumented i n B.E.A. s e r v i c e a l s o provided
v a l u a b l e information on t h e t y p e of f l i g h t p a t h s executed by t h e a i r c r a f t when c u t - o u t s occurred, and produced
v a l u a b l e supporting evidence.

The Type 5 b a s i c a u t o p i l o t , i n a d d i t i o n t o being i n s t a l l e d on t h e Trident aircraft, is a l s o i n s t a l l e d on t h e

B e l f a s t m i l i t a r y f r e i g h t e r . During t h e f l i g h t t r i a l s of t h i s a i r c r a f t , it w a s found t h a t when o p e r a t i n g at r o l l
g e a r i n g s found s a t i s f a c t o r y i n t h e T r i d e n t , p e r s i s t e n t nuisance c u t - o u t s occurred. F l i g h t r e c o r d s showed t h a t
more motor v o l t a c t i v i t y was t a k i n g p l a c e although t h e characteristics of t h e computer o u t p u t s were very similar,
and examination of t h e c o n t r o l r u n s i n t h e two a i r c r a f t revealed t h a t t h e a u t o p i l o t servomotors i n t h e T r i d e n t
were geared t o each o t h e r at a l a r g e r r a t i o v i a t h e f l y i n g c o n t r o l s t h a n i n t h e B e l f a s t . T h i s e x t r a g e a r i n g
gave more r e s i l i e n c e between t h e motors, and it a c t e d as a mechanical h i g h frequency n o i s e r e j e c t i o n c i r c u i t .
T h i s e f f e c t l e d t o t h e i n v e s t i g a t i o n of t o r q u e switch d e s i g n , and i t s r e l a t i v e p o s i t i o n i n t h e f l y i n g c o n t r o l s .
See S e c t i o n 7, Torque Switch Re-design.

6. NEED TO DEVELOP CONFIDENCE I N R E D U N D A N C Y

With a t r i p l e x a u t o p i l o t i n which v o t i n g is t o t a k e place such t h a t a f a u l t y sub-channel is outvoted by t h e

remaining two, it is c l e a r l y necessary t o have confidence t h a t t h e f a u l t y sub-channel w i l l be t h e one t h a t i s
r e j e c t e d , and not a s i t u a t i o n i n which one of t h e good sub-channels i s f i r s t r e j e c t e d , followed by a subsequent
r e j e c t i o n of t h e remaining duplex. T h i s s i t u a t i o n can be d e s c r i b e d as a non-viable duplex. It is t h e r e f o r e
necessary t o examine t h e a u t o p i l o t i n some d e t a i l t o s e e what mechanisms can occur which become l i m i t i n g i n
t h i s manner.

Mechanical Effects

A s t h e three e l e c t r i c servomotors of t h e a u t o p i l o t work i n p a r a l l e l t h e y a r e capable of producing f a i r l y h i g h

t o r q u e l e v e l s when working i n unison. Therefore, should t h e f r i c t i o n on t h e c o n t r o l run r i s e f o r any reason t o
a higher l e v e l t h a n was designed, it would be p o s s i b l e f o r a f a u l t t o disconnect a sub-channel and l e a v e t h e
remaining two sub-channels o p e r a t i n g at a l e v e l i n which t h e y a r e now incapable of d r i v i n g t h e c o n t r o l s u r f a c e
and, hence, t h e cut-out from a non-viable duplex s i t u a t i o n would r e s u l t . H a d t h e three e l e c t r i c servomotors
been f u l l y r e v e r s i b l e , w i t h no e x t r a d r i v i n g e f f o r t , it would have been p o s s i b l e t o have had e l e c t r i c a l d i s -
connection of a f a u l t y sub-channel i n s t e a d of a torque s w i t c h . However, t h e electric servomotors w i t h t h e i r
a s s o c i a t e d gearboxes a r e i n e f f i c i e n t and t h e back d r i v i n g t o r q u e s a r e i n excess of t h e forward d r i v i n g t o r q u e
c a p a b i l i t i e s , hence t h e t o r q u e s w i t c h e s must b e connected as near as p o s s i b l e t o t h e output s h a f t s . Figure 2
shows t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between c o n t r o l run f r i c t i o n , t o r q u e switch s e t t i n g , and t h e e f f e c t of t h e i n e f f i c i e n c y
of t h e gearboxes i n t h e output s t a g e of t h e motors. Using such c u r v e s it is p o s s i b l e t o s e e what t h e r a t i o
between t h e t o r q u e switch s e t t i n g and c o n t r o l run f r i c t i o n should be. For t h e T r i d e n t p i t c h channel t h e r a t i o
is 2 : 1 i . e . t h e f r i c t i o n must be h a l f t h e t o r q u e switch s e t t i n g . This is a l s o a convenient arrangement, as it
means t h a t each sub-channel of t h e a u t o p i l o t is capable of f l y i n g t h e aeroplane on its own, and t.his makes
ground t e s t i n g and ground running much simpler.

Electrical Equalisation and Tolerances

I n t h e method i n which e l e c t r i c a l e q u a l i s a t i o n is generated, t h e amount of a u t h o r i t y is doubled i n t r i p l e x .

Therefore, i f a s i t u a t i o n due t o t o l e r a n c e s a r i s e s , i n a t r i p l e x system, it is p o s s i b l e f o r more than h a l f t h e
e q u a l i s a t i o n t o be used up continuously, t h e n a non-viable duplex s i t u a t i o n occurs, as i n t h e presence of a
s i n g l e f a u l t , t h e whole system m a y be disconnected. T h i s arrangement is i l l u s t r a t e d i n F i g u r e s 3 and 4. I t
was found d u r i n g t h e t e s t i n g of t h e system t h a t t h e arrangement of e l e c t r i c a l e q u a l i s a t i o n . which was o r i g i n a l l y
i n a cyclic manner, produced lazy sub-channels and a non-viable duplex arrangement occurred f r e q u e n t l y . A r e -
designed arrangement of e q u a l i s a t i o n introduced t h e symmetrical mode, see Figure 5. I n a d d i t i o n t o t h e symmetric
mode, f u r t h e r g a i n e q u a l i s a t i o n was a p p l i e d t o t h e rate gyro s i g n a l , (it could e q u a l l y w e l l have been a p p l i e d t o
t h e input s i g n a l s ) , and' t h i s overcame t h e d i f f i c u l t y of c u t - o u t s due t o l a r g e s i g n a l s o c c u r r i n g i n manoeuvres.
F i g u r e 6 g i v e s t h e schematic arrangement of e l e c t r i c a l e q u a l i s a t i o n .

7. TORQUE SIVITCll R E - D E S I G N

High frequency sub-channel d i f f e r e n c e s which occur at a frequency higher t h a n t h e c o n t r o l frequency of t h e

a u t o p i l o t , can be ignored. Should t h e s e d i f f e r e n c e s tend t o cause c u t - o u t s , t h e n p r e c a u t i o n s a r e taken t o make
s u r e t h i s does not occur. One s t r a i g h t f o r w a r d w a y i n which h i g h frequency d i f f e r e n c e s can be prevented from
8-4

causing d i s c o n n e c t s is t o a r r a n g e r e l a t i v e motion between t h e sub-channels i n s i d e t h e t o r q u e s w i t c h s e t t i n g s

and from a pre-determined t o r q u e l e v e l . This arrangement g i v e s t h e a u t o p i l o t a c u t - o f f frequency, i n which
high frequency n o i s e cannot cause t o r q u e switch o p e r a t i o n . One of t h e developments of t h e t o r q u e switch d e s i g n
was t o i n v e s t i g a t e t h e allowable size of t h i s r e l a t i v e motion between torque switches. I f , say, 5 c y c l e s per
second is t h e maximum c o n t r o l frequency r e q u i r e d of t h e a u t o p i l o t , then a t o r q u e switch angle f o r no disconnection
can be determined knowing t h e a c c e l e r a t i o n and v e l o c i t y limits of t h e motor. In o r d e r t o support t h i s t h e o r e t i c a l
approach an i n v e s t i g a t i o n was carried o u t i n c o l l a b o r a t i o n w i t h Hawker Siddeley Aviation on t h e i r c o n t r o l s r i g .
T h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n e s t a b l i s h e d t h e r e l a t i v e motion allowable between two p i t c h sub-channels o f t h e a u t o p i l o t .

The angle allowed between t o r q u e switches and t h e d e t e n t p o i n t as determined by t h e r i g tests, works out at
600 degrees of motion at t h e output s h a f t of t h e a u t o p i l o t servomotor. This l a r g e angle posed an i n t e r e s t i n g
mechanical design problem. A s d i s c u s s e d i n t h e e a r l i e r s e c t i o n ; t h e r e is a r e l a t i o n s h i p between c o n t r o l run
load and t o r q u e switch setting. It was t h e r e f o r e necessary t o design t h e switch such t h a t t h e break-out p o i n t
and t h e switch opening p o i n t l a y w i t h i n t h e p r e s c r i b e d band. T h i s r e q u i r e d an almost c o n s t a n t t o r q u e charac-
t e r i s t i c . The torque/angle c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of t h e switch was achieved by using a long c l o c k s p r i n g held i n
b a r r e l . The working range w a s obtained by use of c a t c h p l a t e s , t h e t o t a l t r a v e l is r e s t r i c t e d t o j u s t under two
turns.

The c o n t r o l s u r f a c e angle of 0 . 8 degrees r e p r e s e n t e d by t h e t o r q u e s w i t c h is s a t i s f a c t o r y f o r s u r f a c e i n c r e -

ment i n f l a r e , but is l a r g e r than would be needed t o produce t h e l i m i t i n g stress c o n d i t i o n i n c r u i s e f l i g h t
modes. It is t h e r e f o r e necessary t o include two e l e c t r i c a l switches i n s i d e t h e assembly. The first switch is
s e t at 40 degrees and is used f o r c r u i s e f l y i n g and g i v e s t h e r e q u i r e d s u r f a c e increment well i n s i d e t h e maximum
allowable increment. The land s w i t c h is brought i n at GLIDE 2 (approximately 350 f e e t ) t o i n c r e a s e t h e immunity
t o n o i s e during t h e landing manoeuvre.

One small mechanical problem a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h e d e s i g n is t h e amount of energy r e l e a s e d when, after a d i s -

connect t a k e s p l a c e , t h e t o r q u e s w i t c h r e - s e t s through 600 degrees under t h e i n f l u e n c e of t h e s p r i n g . Extensive
t e s t i n g took p l a c e on t h e c a t c h f i n g e r s t o make s u r e t h a t t h e y were not damaged by t h e impact at re-set and had
a satisfactory service l i f e .

The r o l l servomotor h a s a similar long t r a v e l t o r q u e switch, but as t h e g e a r i n g t o t h e a i r c r a f t c o n t r o l run

is d i f f e r e n t t h e t o r q u e switch i s l i m i t e d t o 40 degrees, making it a somewhat easier d e s i g n problem.

8. ELECTRICAL EQUALISATION RE-DESIGN

Two f e a t u r e s , c y c l i c e q u a l i s a t i o n and t h e e f f e c t of l a r g e manoeuvre demand s i g n a l s , made it necessary t o re-

d e s i g n t h e e l e c t r i c a l e q u a l i s a t i o n . I n a d d i t i o n , t h e p o s s i b i l i t y o f a non-viable duplex system made it necessary
t o provide an i n d i c a t o r on t h e l e v e l of e q u a l i s a t i o n .

T e s t s were c a r r i e d o u t , i n c o l l a b o r a t i o n with Hawker Siddeley on t h e i r c o n t r o l s r i g , on a s u i t a b l e s e t t i n g

f o r a monitor on t h e l e v e l of t h e e l e c t r i c a l e q u a l i s a t i o n . A monitor set at h a l f t h e t r i p l e x value would
c l e a r l y d e t e c t t h e non-viable duplex s i t u a t i o n , but it is necessary t o show t h a t i f a system o p e r a t i n g i n duplex
is t o be f r e e of nuisance c u t - o u t s due t o t o l e r a n c e s , than t h e r e must still be a margin between its normal
o p e r a t i n g l e v e l and t h e cut-out p o i n t . The margin considered s a t i s f a c t o r y is one where t h e p r o b a b i l i t y of not
having a monitor on one landing and then having a cut-out due t o t h e equipment o p e r a t i n g at t h e same t o l e r a n c e
l e v e l on a subsequent landing, is less t h a n 1 i n 10'. The p r o b a b i l i t y o f having been reduced from t r i p l e x t o
duplex being a l s o less t h a n 1 i n lo4. A r i g programme was conducted i n which t h e t o l e r a n c e s w i t h i n t h e auto-
p i l o t , which had t h e most s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t on c r e a t i n g d i f f e r e n c e s between sub-channels, were examined. These
t o l e r a n c e s were then added and a p p l i e d i n o p p o s i t e d i r e c t i o n s i n t h e two sub-channels of a duplex a u t o p i l o t t o
g i v e t h e most adverse d i f f e r e n c e . The s e t t i n g of t h e e q u a l i s a t i o n l e v e l d e t e c t o r was then determined by a s e r i e s
of r u n s made w h i l s t i n j e c t i n g t u r b u l e n c e and r a d i o n o i s e and o t h e r d i s t u r b a n c e s i n t o t h e a u t o p i l o t . From t h e s e
r e s u l t s a f i g u r e of 80% of t h e duplex a u t h o r i t y is t h e . s e t t i n g f o r t h e monitor. The monitor looks d i r e c t l y at
t h e common e q u a l i s a t i o n s i g n a l through a lag of 250 m i l l i s e c o n d s needed t o remove n o i s e from t h e e l e c t r i c a l
signal.

Similar t e s t s were c a r r i e d o u t i n t h e r o l l channel of t h e a u t o p i l o t and t h e same-monitor s e t t i n g w a s s e l e c t e d .

The monitor is contained i n each Servo Amplifier Unit i n each sub-channel, and i s fed t o t h e Monitor Equalisa-
t i o n Display Unit (MED). T h i s u n i t h a s a memory c i r c u i t which, when a c t i v a t e d by a monitor s i g n a l from t h e Servo
Amplifier, l a t c h e s and is r e - s e t only by t h e maintenance engineers.

An I n t e g r i t y I n d i c a t o r is provided i n f r o n t of t h e p i l o t . T h i s i n d i c a t o r has t h r e e modes, GREEN, RED and OFF.

One of t h e i n p u t s t o t h e i n d i c a t o r is t h e E q u a l i s a t i o n l e v e l . A t t h e equipment d e c i s i o n h e i g h t of approximately
200 f t t h e p i l o t observes t h e i n t e g r i t y i n d i c a t o r and i f it is red. he must go-around at 65 f t i f not v i s u a l i n
Category 3 RVR and proceed t o another d e s t i n a t i o n . If t h e i n d i c a t o r is r e d , it w i l l remain l a t c h e d so t h a t t h e
maintenance engineers can be a l e r t e d and t h e system r e c t i f i e d b e f o r e t h e next autolanding. I n t h e normal landings
i n c l e a r weather and down t o Category 2 RVR c o n d i t i o n s , an overshoot is not necessary i f a red i n d i c a t o r shows,
an autolanding can c a r r y on as normal as t h e r e is s t i l l s u f f i c i e n t redundancy i n t h e f l i g h t c o n t r o l system t o
perform t h e landing s a f e l y . There is t h e p o s s i b i l i t y of a u t o p i l o t disconnect, but as t h e p i l o t is v i s u a l t h i s
is not unsafe.
 8-5

The a d d i t i o n a l f u n c t i o n s being monitored i n t h e Monitor E q u a l i s a t i o n Display Unit a r e as follows:

P i t c h and Roll sub-channel disconnect.
Ledex switching sequence synchronisation.
Radio Altimeter d i f f e r e n c e s .

The maintenance e n g i n e e r ’ s a t t e n t i o n is drawn, by t h e Technical Log, t h a t t h e i n t e g r i t y i n d i c a t o r shows red.

By p r e s s i n g t h e Read button on t h e f r o n t of t h e MED he can a s c e r t a i n t h e cause of t h e i n d i c a t o r being i n view
and t a k e t h e necessary maintenance a c t i o n .

As t h e e q u a l i s a t i o n l e v e l is set at a f i g u r e lower t h a n h a l f t h e maximum e q u a l i s a t i o n a u t h o r i t y , it is p o s s i b l e

f o r some f a u l t e f f e c t s , t o o p e r a t e a l l t h r e e e q u a l i s a t i o n l e v e l d e t e c t o r s i n e i t h e r p i t c h o r r o l l . T h i s s i t u a t i o n
would leave t h e maintenance engineer confused, and so a Counter Display Panel h a s been designed and t h i s c o u n t s
t h e occasions on which t h e e q u a l i s a t i o n exceeds i t s s e t t i n g value. By using t h i s panel it is p o s s i b l e t o s e e
which sub-channel h a s t h e l a r g e s t count and i s s t r a i n i n g t h e system. T h i s f a c i l i t y has been used during develop-
ment f l y i n g w i t h great s u c c e s s t o h i g h l i g h t f a u l t y u n i t s w i t h i n t h e system.

The Counter Display Panel a l s o counts t h e occasions on which t h e Radio Altimeter d i f f e r e n c e s exceed t h e i r
t r i g g e r l e v e l s and t h i s is l i k e w i s e used f o r maintenance.

The use of t h e MELl and its l a t c h i n g i n d i c a t o r s is a convenient w a y of i n t r o d u c i n g maintenance monitoring,

without having t o b u i l d very e x t e n s i v e i n - l i n e o r o t h e r monitoring f a c i l i t i e s . I t relies e n t i r e l y on t h e redun-
dancy i t s e l f t o i n d i c a t e when any sub-channel of t h e a u t o p i l o t has large t o l e r a n c e s , o r i n t h e event of a f a u l t
s i t u a t i o n , of i n d i c a t i n g which of t h e sub-channels is f a u l t y . This g r e a t l y i n c r e a s e s t h e speed i n which main-
tenance a c t i o n can t a k e p l a c e .

9. PREDICTIONS

A s said at t h e beginning of t h i s paper, t h e Numbers Game can form a u s e f u l y a r d s t i c k a g a i n s t which t h e d e s i g n s

can be evaluated. One approach t o t h i s is t o d i v i d e t h e d e s i g n aim as a p r o b a b i l i t y f i g u r e , between performance
and a v a i l a b i l i t y . These two d i v i s i o n s can again be f u r t h e r sub-divided w i t h i n s p e c i f i c a t i o n and o u t s i d e s p e c i f i -
c a t i o n , s e e F i g u r e 7. I d e a l l y , t h e system should e i t h e r perform p r o p e r l y i n s i d e t h e s p e c i f i c a t i o n , or it should
cause t h e sub-channel with a f a u l t t o be r e j e c t e d . Then it would only be necessary t o show t h a t t h e in-spec
performance of t h e a u t o p i l o t under a l l c o n d i t i o n s gave an acceptably low r i s k of touching down h e a v i l y , over-
shooting t h e runway, running o f f side-ways, e t c . and t o show t h a t t h e r e l i a b i l i t y of t h e system is high enough
such t h a t t h e p r o b a b i l i t y of t h e a u t o p i l o t f a i l i n g on t h e day is acceptable. However, it can be seen from t h i s
diagram t h a t t h e r e are two n a s t y problem a r e a s , i . e . when t h e system is out o f s p e c i f i c a t i o n but not causing
c u t - o u t s , and when t h e system is i n s p e c i f i c a t i o n but causing c u t - o u t s . It h a s been found from t h e work c a r r i e d
out d e s c r i b e d i n S e c t i o n 8, t h a t t h e monitor h e l p s very considerably here. The t o l e r a n c e s , which cause t h e
monitor t o o p e r a t e , have been shown t o be such t h a t t h e performance is a c c e p t a b l e , and t h e monitor w i l l r e v e a l
a s i t u a t i o n i n which t h e t o l e r a n c e s a r e beginning t o go o u t s i d e s p e c i f i c a t i o n . Likewise, t h e p r o b a b i l i t y of
nuisance d i s c o n n e c t s is greatly reduced as adverse t o l e r a n c e combinations are revealed e a r l y enough f o r c o r r e c t i v e
a c t i o n t o be taken.

One of t h e problems r e v e a l e d i n producing s a t i s f a c t o r y a v a i l a b i l i t y numbers f o r t h e a u t o p i l o t d u r i n g t h e auto-

landing manoeuvre, is “what i s t h e r i s k period f o r t h e a u t o p i l o t ” ? I f a c o n t r o l law is only used d u r i n g t h e
a c t u a l landing manoeuvre and is s u b j e c t t o f a i l u r e at any time during t h e previous f l i g h t , then t h e time at r i s k
is large compared w i t h t h e time t h e system is v u l n e r a b l e . T h i s has an adverse e f f e c t on t h e a v a i l a b i l i t y pre-
d i c t i o n s and t h e c i r c u i t must e i t h e r be monitored by some pre-landing check, o r a l t e r n a t i v e l y t h e c o n t r o l law
must be designed i n o r d e r t o use t h e c i r c u i t during a n o n - c r i t i c a l part of t h e f l i g h t , The Smiths Type 5 auto-
p i l o t has attempted t o use t h e maximum number of such c r i t i c a l c i r c u i t s at o t h e r times i n t h e f l i g h t t h a n during
t h e landing manoeuvre, and hence maintenance checks have been kept t o a reasonable l e v e l and frequency. I f t h e
a u t o p i l o t performed c o r r e c t l y on t h e last landing, then t h e p r o b a b i l i t y of cut-out during t h e critical phase on
t h e next landing, is extremely small.

10. CONCLUSIONS

Some of t h e m o d i f i c a t i o n s d e s c r i b e d i n t h i s paper are j u s t beginning t o appear i n B.E.A. s e r v i c e o p e r a t i o n

and from t h e experience gained, i n p a r t i c u l a r w i t h t h e l e v e l d e t e c t o r s and i n t e g r i t y i n d i c a t o r on f l i g h t t r i a l s ,
it appears t h a t some of t h e more d i f f i c u l t problem areas w i l l soon be removed. There have c l e a r l y been some
i n t r i g u i n g problems i n t r y i n g t o produce t h e world’s f i r s t automatic landing systhm f o r c i v i l o p e r a t i o n and t h e
problems of redundant o p e r a t i o n should not be minimized.

REFERENCES

1. Weston, J . L . The Development of Automatic Landing for B. E.A. Operation. AGARD Paper, Cambridge,
Mass., 20-22 M a y 1969.
8-6

q ~f I F C AND B o*.

lNPUTTOPITCH~RB

TRIPLEX
ClRCvrr
LOGIC ;g y c

PITCH COMPUTER
SUB CHANNEL
GAIN
Xf I F A AN0.C

X i IF A OR
o*.
C 041.

B+f[(A-Bl+lC-B)l
0
DUPLEX

Fig.1 Triplex Radio Altimeter equalisation

 OUTPUT
TOROUE SHAFT
SWITCH GEAR

GEARBOX
MOTOR

TI
CLUTCH

EARBOX
MOTOR

CLUTCH II

CLUTCH 'a

RATIO

-
1s I
LOAD

1sI

MAX LOA

7 5 010 0 0 .lo 0 5010 9Oo/o 9So/o looo/o

GEARBOX EFFICIENCY

Fig.2 Effect of gearbox efficiency

8-8

DUPLEX.

MUALISATION~
SIGNAL /

EQUALISATION AT THIS
LEVEL COULD RLSULT I N
A TRIPLEX CUTOUT UNDER

.
CERTAIN SINGLE FAULT
CON DIT IONS
\ LIMIT SET BY
S A f 3 T Y CONSIDERATIONS.

TRIPLEX.

SIGNAL
IN
SUB CHANNEL.
f
LQUA U SAT ION

-- -- - - - - - - - 0 EQUALRATION
LCVLL
DETECTOR
SETTING.

c
SUM OF
SUB CHANNEL INCREASING
DIFFERENCES

Fig.3 Equalisation
 8-9

DUPLEX

/\
I
I I
I I

I \
i I
lp-=b
I I
I
\
\ I
A

. b - EQUAL ISAT I O N I
I
LIMIT
I
I

I
I
TRIPLEX
-VE
I
I
I
I
.
I
SUB C H A N N E L A AND
DIFFERENCES
I
I
I

M O T O R VOLTS
B

I
I+VO
* ! I A I I @
I I
I I I
I
I
I I
I EQUALISATION I
I LEVEL
I I
I I I
I DETECTOR I
I I I
OPERATES I
I HERE I I
I I
I
I I
I I
I I

t- .....
......
.......
.........
....................
.....................
.......................
EOuAcLisATioN
I
I
I
I
I J I

/
NON -VIABLE DUPLEX
SUBCHANNEL A AND 8
WILL CUT OUT IF
SUBCHANNEL c
D I SC O N N ECTS
.) SUDCHANNEL A A N D B
D I FFE R ENC ES

Fig. 4 Cutouts
8-10

Fig.5 Triplex sub-channel equalisation signals

 8-11

IJVHS

l - 7

l w

3-
aLo
8-12

I MAGIC NUMBER
FOR
COMPLETE SYSTEM I

SYSTEM SYSTEM NOT AVAILABLE

AVAILADLE . - CUT O u t -
..

EQUIPMENT

SPECIFICATION

PERFORMANCE
DEMONSTRATED
TO BE
SATISFACTORY:
r) ON TEST AIRCRAFT
* ON RIGS
lk IN SERVICE
COULD BE
I I HAZARDOUS
I N u ) W WEATHER
COND IT1ON S

*I

INTEGRITY
MONITOR
DESIGNED TO FIND
THESE CONDITIONS
WITH A HIGH DEGREE
OF PRODABILITY
-

Fig. 7 Division of r i s k i n a u t o p i l o t system f o r Category I11 landings

 9

POST-1970 SCANNING BEAM APPROACH AND LANDING

by

Joseph E. Woodward

Airborne Instruments Laboratory

A Division of Cutler-Hammer, Inc.
Deer Park, New York 11729
9

1
I

I
I

i
I
I

I
 9-1

POST-1970 SCANNING BEAM APPROACH A N D L A N D I N G

Joseph E. Woodward

1. INTRODUCTION.

A t t h e e i g h t Agard Avionics Panel Symposium a t London, England, September 1964, a paper was given on “Scanning
Beam Guidance f o r Approach and Landing.” A t t h a t time, t h e b a s i c concepts o f u s i n g a narrow scanning microwave
beam t o transmit p r e c i s i o n angle d a t a t o an a i r b o r n e r e c e i v e r had been well e s t a b l i s h e d . That paper described
t h e a p p l i c a t i o n of t h e scanning beam technique t o a f u l l - s c a l e landing guidance system t h a t was being c o n s t r u c t e d
f o r t h e United S t a t e s Federal Aviation Agency. This system has now undergone a thorough t e c h n i c a l evaluation
and i s being used i n a number of f l i g h t t e s t programs at t h e Federal Aviation Administration National Aviation
F a c i l i t i e s Experimental Center (NAFEC).

The e a r l i e r paper a l s o b r i e f l y mentioned a number of o t h e r p o t e n t i a l a p p l i c a t i o n s o f scanning beam landing

guidance. Considerable p r o g r e s s has now been made toward b r i n g i n g some of t h e s e a p p l i c a t i o n s i n t o f r u i t i o n .
I t is t h e purpose of t h i s paper t o b r i e f l y cover t h e system d e s i g n s and f l i g h t test programs t h a t have been
accomplished i n t h e i n t e r v e n i n g y e a r s . The FAA system w i l l be reviewed t o illustrate t h e b a s i c concepts and
t h e i r a p p l i c a t i o n t o a f u l l - s c a l e system; t h e systems t h a t have been developed f o r a number of d i f f e r e n t
a p p l i c a t i o n s w i l l be d e s c r i b e d ; t h e r e s u l t s of a number of f l i g h t t e s t programs w i l l be d i s c u s s e d ; and a
f u r t h e r p r o j e c t i o n o f system a p p l i c a t i o n s w i l l be made.

2. FAA A D V A N C E D INTEGRATED L A N D I N G SYSTEM

The system t h a t was developed f o r t h e FAA, t h e s o - c a l l e d Advanced I n t e g r a t e d Landing System (AILS), i l l u s t r a t e s

t h e most s o p h i s t i c a t e d a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h e scanning beam technique t o d a t e . This system, with t h e ground based
equipment shown i n Figure 1, provides continuous p r e c i s i o n l o c a l i z e r , g l i d e s l o p e , and DME guidance throughout
approach, f l a r e o u t . touchdown, and r o l l o u t ; and i n c l u d e s s k i n - t r a c k PAR as a monitor and backup c a p a b i l i t y .
The b a s i c p r i n c i p l e s of t h e system a r e shown i n Figure 2 . Angle d a t a a r e t r a n s m i t t e d on narrow scanning microwave
beams i n t h e frequency band o f 15.4 t o 15.7 GHz. A train o f p u l s e s i s t r a n s m i t t e d on t h e beam such t h a t t h e
spacing between consecutive p u l s e p a i r s r e p r e s e n t s t h e p o i n t i n g angle o f t h e beam at any given i n s t a n t , and t h e
p u l s e p a i r i n t e r n a l spacing i d e n t i f i e s t h e function being t r a n s m i t t e d . A t a given runway i n s t a l l a t i o n , a l l ground-
t o - a i r t r a n s m i s s i o n are made on 1 of 10 a v a i l a b l e frequency channels. T h i s is done by an i n t e r f a c e time-sharing
method as i l l u s t r a t e d i n Figure 2. The a i r b o r n e equipment: (1) determines angular p o s i t i o n by decoding t h e
a n g l e d a t a contained i n t h e peak of t h e r e c e i v e d beams, and ( 2 ) determines d i s t a n c e by i n t e r r o g a t i n g and r e c e i v i n g
a r e p l y from a transponder a t t h e l o c a l i z e r s i t e . A common a i r b o r n e decoding c i r c u i t i s t i m e - s h a r e d f o r two a n g l e s
and DME ( t h e time between angle d a t a p a i r s is compatible with t h e DME r o u n d - t r i p t i m e ) ; each s u c c e s s i v e decoding
output is used t o update t h e a p p r o p r i a t e memory a t a r a t e o f 5 Hz. The e n t i r e angle d a t a encoding, transmission,
and decoding chain produces a n g l e measurements a c c u r a t e t o b e t t e r than 1 p a r t i n 20 of a half-power beamwidth.
DME accuracy is i n t h e 50 t o 100 f o o t region.

The angular coverage of t h e AILS is l i n e a r t o 10 degrees i n e l e v a t i o n and over f 5 degrees i n azimuth, with
nonambiguous c l e a r a n c e o u t t o +35 degrees i n azimuth. DME decoded range extends t o 17 m i l e s from t h e l o c a l i z e d
s i t e . The e l e v a t i o n and azimuth beams a r e both 0 . 5 degree at half-power p o i n t s i n t h e narrow dimension; t h i s
provides p r e c i s i o n e l e v a t i o n angle measurement down t o 0 . 5 degree or l e s s depending on t h e s i t e . An antenna
a p e r t u r e o f 8 f e e t i s r e q u i r e d t o produce t h e 0.5-degree beam. These antennas a r e o s c i l l a t e d a t a r a t e of 5.Hz
by means o f a t o r s i o n a l resonant scanning system t h a t has proven h i g h l y r e l i a b l e . A s t h i s system was designed
f o r use at a f i x e d i n s t a l l a t i o n , a s i n g l e t o r s i o n bar was used, with t h e s t a t i o n a r y end anchored t o a c o n c r e t e base.

The AILS system has now been i n s t a l l e d a t NAFEC f o r t h r e e y e a r s . Some of t h e p e r t i n e n t r e s u l t s from t h i s

t e s t period w i l l be given l a t e r .

3 . CURRENT SCANNING BEAM SYSTEMS

While many a p p l i c a t i o n s of scanning beam guidance have been f l i g h t t e s t e d with v a r i o u s v e r s i o n s of experimental

hardware, a number of s p e c i f i c system a p p l i c a t i o n s , i n a d d i t i o n t o AILS, have been developed t o d a t e . These
a r e a Navy c a r r i e r landing system, an Army h e l i c o p t e r landing system, and a Royal Swedish Air Force T a c t i c a l
Instrument Landing System (TILS).
9 -2

One important f e a t u r e o f a l l o f t h e systems being considered is t h e use of a common b a s i s of a n g l e d a t a

t r a n s m i s s i o n s . While t h e a n g l e d a t a format has changed s l i g h t l y over t h e y e a r s as t h e systems were being
developed, a l l of t h e p a s t equipments have been b a s i c a l l y compatible. The encoding c o n s t a n t s t h a t have now
evolved a r e believed a p p l i c a b l e t o a l l f o r e s e e a b l e systems.

The US Navy system, which s t a r t e d under t h e name C-SCAN, w i l l be deployed on c a r r i e r s a s t h e AN/SPN-41, on

s h o r e bases, as t h e AN/TRN-28, and i n a i r c r a f t a s t h e AN/ARA-63. Figure 3 shows a composite p i c t u r e of t h e
shipboard and a i r b o r n e equipment t h a t h a s been used i n a c a r r i e r test and e v a l u a t i o n program. This system
provides g l i d e s l o p e and l o c a l i z e r guidance t h a t is s t a b i l i z e d a g a i n s t s h i p ’ s motion. Approach guidance is
t r a n s m i t t e d throughout a s e c t o r of 10 degrees i n e l e v a t i o n and k20 degrees i n azimuth, providing a wide c a p t u r e
f u n n e l . I n t h i s a p p l i c a t i o n , t h e beamwidths may be somewhat l a r g e r than r e q u i r e d f o r AILS as t h e g l i d e s l o p e
does n o t have t h e requirement f o r very low angle coverage, and t h e l o c a l i z e d does n o t have t o p l a c e an a i r c r a f t
on a runway 10,000 f e e t away. Thus, t h e C-SCAN beamwidths a r e 1 . 3 degrees i n e l e v a t i o n and 2 . 0 degrees i n
azimuth with antenna a p e r t u r e s of 3 f e e t and 2 f e e t , r e s p e c t i v e l y . Torsion bar resonant s c a n n e r s a r e used t o
t r a n s m i t a 5-Hz d a t a r a t e t o t h e a i r b o r n e r e c e i v e r . In t h i s c a s e , two p a r a l l e l t o r s i o n b a r s were used--with
t h e antenna mounted on one, an i n e r t i a model o f t h e antenna mounted on t h e o t h e r , and t h e s t a t i o n a r y ends
connected by a s t i f f p l a t e . With t h e two resonant systems o s c i l l a t i n g o u t of phase, t h e combined system is
balanced and none of t h e scanning f o r c e s a r e t r a n s m i t t e u t o t h e s t a b i l i z i n g mount. This dual t o r s i o n bar
approach is used i n a l l b u t permanent fixed-based systems.

The i n i t i a l version of t h e C-SCAN equipment was f i r s t operated on two s h o r t s e a t r i a l s aboard t h e USS

America with test a i r c r a f t . This was followed by a formal o p e r a t i o n a l e v a l u a t i o n aboard t h e USS Independence,
with two squadrons of F-4 a i r c r a f t equipped with r e c e i v e r s . Based on t h e outcome o f t h e s e t e s t s , t h e Navy and
Marine Corps now have p l a n s f o r widespread deployment of t h e system on c a r r i e r s , l a n d s t a t i o n s . and Marine Corps
t a c t i c a l landing s t r i p s .

An a r t i s t ’ s s k e t c h of a p o s s i b l e method of packaging a land-based version of t h e Navy system is shown i n

Figure 4. The g l i d e s l o p e and l o c a l i z e r s t a t i o n s a r e s e l f - c o n t a i n e d i n r e l a t i v e l y small packages t h a t can be
e a s i l y t r a n s p o r t e d and i n s t a l l e d on any runway. Considerable experience with t e s t hardware having t h e same
beamwidths h a s shown t h a t low approach guidance of Category 11 q u a l i t y can be expected at any runway s u i t a b l e
f o r a i r c r a f t operations.

A landing guidance system h a s been developed f o r t h e US Army, p r i m a r i l y f o r use with h e l i c o p t e r s , t h a t is

known at t h i s time as A-SCAN. The requirements of t h i s system were s p e c i f i e d by t h e Army t o provide a f l e x i b l e
t o o l f o r a f l i g h t t e s t program t o b e t t e r determine t h e a c t u a l system requirements. The ground equipment, shown
i n Figure 5, i s composed of s e p a r a t e azimuth, e l e v a t i o n , and DME modules, so t h a t s i n g l e s i t e and s p l i t s i t e opera-
t i o n s can be evaluated. The beamwidths of t h i s system a r e 2 degrees i n e l e v a t i o n and 3 degrees i n azimuth, and
t h e antennas a r e scanned by continuous r o t a t i o n r a t h e r than o s c i l l a t i n g . Because o f t h e wide azimuth coverage
of +_60degrees, an o s c i l l a t i n g scanner would have t o mechanically scan more than +90 degrees, i n which case it is
more e f f i c i e n t t o r o t a t e t h e antenna. Elevation coverage is from -5 t o t 4 0 degrees, and DME is decoded t o a
range of 10 m i l e s .

In a d d i t i o n , The A-SCAN has ground-to-air d a t a l i n k c a p a b i l i t y t h a t is used i n e l e v a t i o n t o d e s i g n a t e t o

minimum o b s t r u c t i o n c l e a r a n c e and i n azimuth t o d e s i g n a t e t h r e e s e p a r a t e l o c a l i z e r approach c o u r s e s t h a t can be
s e l e c t e d i n t h e a i r b o r n e equipment. This allows t h r e e simultaneous approaches t o be made t o some p r e s c r i b e d
minimum d i s t a n c e from t h e ground s t a t i o n . Other f e a t u r e s of t h e a i r b o r n e r e c e i v e r a r e h e i g h t computation, range
rate computation, and t h e s e l e c t i o n of s e v e r a l d i f f e r e n t course widths and course s o f t e n i n g programs.

I t is s u r p r i s i n g t o f i n d t h a t so l i t t l e d e f i n i t i v e t e s t d a t a h a s been obtained t h a t w i l l permit t h e a c t u a l

guidance requirements for h e l i c o p t e r instrument approach t o be determined. Considerable work h a s been done by
a number of agencies t o i n v e s t i g a t e many important a s p e c t s of t h e problem, such as handling q u a l i t i e s , p i l o t
workload, c o c k p i t d i s p l a y , e t c . , but very l i t t l e on guidance requirements. One of t h e important o b j e c t i v e s
of t h e Army A-SCAN f l i g h t t e s t program w i l l be t o determine r e a l i s t i c requirements s o t h a t an o p e r a t i o n a l l y
s u i t a b l e tactical approach guidance system can be s p e c i f i e d . .

The Royal Swedish Air Force h a s s e l e c t e d scanning beam guidance a f t e r an i n t e n s i v e f l i g h t t e s t e v a l u a t i o n

of s e v e r a l d i f f e r e n t techniques. An o r d e r has now been placed f o r a scanning beam T a c t i c a l Instrument Landing
System (TILS) f o r u s e with t h e i r new Viggen supersonic a i r c r a f t . In t h i s c a s e , low approach guidance w i l l be
obtained from e l e v a t i o n and azimuth t r a n s m i s s i o n s from a s i n g l e s i t e . An a r t i s t ’ s s k e t c h of t h e TILS ground
s t a t i o n is shown i n Figure 6. The c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of TILS w i l l be very similar t o t h o s e of t h e U S Navy AN/SPN-41
and AN/TRN-28 i n terms of coverage, beamwidth, scan r a t e , e t c . The ground s t a t i o n w i l l normally be, s i t e d o f f s e t
from t h e runway a t t h e g l i d e s l o p e i n t e r c e p t point. The l o c a l i z e r course w i l l be a l i g n e d t o i n t e r s e c t t h e
extended runway c e n t e r l i n e a t a d i s t a n c e t h a t w i l l allow t h e p i l o t t o make a s i n g l e t u r n t o runway alignment. a f t e r
breaking o u t t o v i s u a l r e f e r e n c e . The design of t h e equipment w i l l permit t h e l o c a l i z e r course t o be reversed
so t h a t two s t a t i o n s can be used back-to-back f o r b i d i r e c t i o n a l o p e r a t i o n on a runway.
 9-3

4 . F L I G H T T E S T PROGRAMS

The AIL scanning beam guidance technique has undergone e x t e n s i v e f i e l d and f l i g h t t e s t i n g over a period of
almost 10 y e a r s . These t e s t s have involved a number of d i f f e r e n t v e r s i o n s o f t h e equipment, t e s t e d a t a wide
v a r i e t y of s i t i n g c o n d i t i o n s , with t e s t s being conducted by AIL and a number of agencies both i n t h e US and
Europe. From t h e s e t e s t s , we now have a very b a s i c understanding o f t h e c a p a b i l i t i e s and l i m i t a t i o n s of t h e
technique. Without going i n t o t h e d e t a i l s of each program, a b r i e f rundown of some of t h e more s i g n i f i c a n t
r e s u l t s w i l l be given.

The e a r l i e s t work with t h e scanning beam technique was concentrated on what is considered t o be t h e most
d i f f i c u l t requirement. This is t h e a b i l i t y t o provide p r e c i s i o n e l e v a t i o n guidance t o an a i r c r a f t throughout
f l a r e and touchdown. T h i s r e q u i r e s p r e c i s i o n e l e v a t i o n guidance of a n g l e s down t o a t l e a s t 0 . 5 degree above
t h e ground plane. Early a n a l y t i c a l work i n d i c a t e d t h a t guidance accuracy could be maintained a t a n g l e s down
t o one beamwidth above t h e plane of a r e f l e c t i n g s u r f a c e , such as t h e e a r t h . For t h i s reason, t h e e a r l y
development work was done i n t h e e l e v a t i o n domain, with low angle performance being probed with r e c e i v e r s
supported on p o r t a b l e towers. The systems were then f l i g h t t e s t e d b y c o n s t a n t angle f l i g h t s a t various angles,
l e v e l p a s s e s through t h e coverage, and by u s i n g t h e system f o r f l a r e o u t guidance as an extension o f a normal
ILS approach. I t was from t h i s use t h a t t h e system was named FLARESCAN. The r e s u l t s of t h e s e e a r l y measurements
confirmed t h a t p r e c i s i o n guidance could be c o n s i s t e n t l y obtained down t o within one beamwidth of t h e ground.
While t h e e a r l y experimental equipment used f o r t r a n s m i t t i n g and r e c e i v i n g angle d a t a l e f t much t o be d e s i r e d ,
t h e t e s t ‘data c l e a r l y showed t h a t a n g l e s could be measured t o a c c u r a c i e s of b e t t e r than 0.05 degree with an
e l e v a t i o n beamwidth of 0 . 5 degree. A p l o t o f one s e r i e s o f t e s t measurements is shown i n Figure 7, taken from
an FAA r e p o r t ( r e f e r e n c e 1). During t h i s same t e s t period conducted at NAFEC by t h e FAA, both manualandautomatic
f l a r e and touchdown were made i n a C-54 a i r c r a f t , with a r e p o r t e d average l o n g i t u d i n a l d i s p e r s i o n of f200 f e e t .
In t h e s e t e s t s , a FLARESCAN e l e v a t i o n system was used t o provide e l e v a t i o n guidance from a h e i g h t of about 150
f e e t t o touchdown. The ILS g l i d e s l o p e was used f o r i n i t i a l approach and t h e l o c a l i z e r used f o r t h e e n t i r e f l i g h t .

The u s e of t h e s i n g l e e l e v a t i o n angle measuring system (FLARESCAN) t o extend t h e normal ILS approach through
f l a r e and landing was e x t e n s i v e l y t e s t e d by t h e French Government a t t h e Centre d‘Essais en Vol (CEV) a t Bretigny.
During t h e period September 1962 t o May 1963, a C a r a v e l l e a i r c r a f t was used t o make some 300 landings with both
manual and automatic coupled f l i g h t s , with t h e m a j o r i t y of t h e s e landings documented with t h e o d o l i t e d a t a and
a i r b o r n e recordings. From t h e s t a n d p o i n t of angular accuracy, t h e r e p o r t on t h e s e tests ( r e f e r e n c e 2) shows
t h a t , although t h e r e was a s l o p e e r r o r i n r e c e i v e r o u t p u t of approximately 3 p e r c e n t , t h e random e r r o r , from a
l a r g e number o f landings, was 0.024 degree (2 sigma) f o r a n g l e s between 0.5 and 2.5 degrees. I t was a l s o noted
t h a t t h e magnitude o f t h e recorded e r r o r was of t h e same o r d e r a s t h e known t h e o d o l i t e e r r o r s . A comparison
of FLARESCAN and t h e o d o l i t e random e r r o r is shown i n Figure 8, taken from t h e referenced CEV r e p o r t .

A A s t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s i s o f t o u c h d o w n c o n d i t i o n s f o r 72 manual l a n d i n g s showed t h a t t h e l o n g i t u d i n a l d i s p e r s i o n
was 288 f e e t (2 sigma) and t h e touchdown s i n k r a t e was 2 . 3 f l . 0 f e e t per second. On 15 of t h e s e landings, i n
which t h e p i l o t kept t h e d e v i a t i o n from t h e command course very small ( c l a s s i f i e d “very w e l l flown”) t h e
d i s p e r s i o n s were 115 f e e t and 1 . 8 f 0 . 5 1 f e e t per second. For automatic landings, two methods of coupling t o t h e
a u t o p i l o t were used. In one, t h e FLARESCAN angle was used t o program a reduction i n command s i n k r a t e Proportion
t o reduction i n measured angle during f l a r e .

In t h e o t h e r , an angle v s d i s t a n c e f l a r e program was fed d i r e c t l y t o t h e a u t o p i l o t as a d e v i a t i o n - p l u s - r a t e -

o f - d e v i a t i o n s i g n a l . The d i s p e r s i o n s obtained f o r a group of 38 automatic landings were 328 f e e t and 2 . 1 f 0 . 3 9
f e e t per second. This i n c r e a s e i n l o n g i t u d i n a l d i s p e r s i o n over t h e manual mode was a s c r i b e d , t o some unknown
e x t e n t , t o an out of t o l e r a n c e c o n d i t i o n found i n t h e e l e v a t o r s e r v o channel.

In t h e French program, t h e e n g i n e e r i n g tests a t CEV, Brhtigny, were followed i n t h e winter o f 1965 by a

s e r i e s o f o p e r a t i o n a l t e s t s a t Orly Airport. In t h e s e t e s t s , DC-4 a i r c r a f t of t h e n f g h t mail s e r v i c e , Aeropostale,
used t h e system f o r manual l a n d i n g s i n normal o p e r a t i o n a l f l i g h t s i n t o Orly. These landings were a l l done at
n i g h t so that no a c c u r a t e a i r c r a f t p o s i t i o n d a t a could be recorded. Based on d a t a o b t a i n e d from p i l o t - a c t u a t e d
event marks ton an a i r b o r n e r e c o r d e r , t h e r e s u l t s o f some 80 l a n d i n g s show a 1-sigma l o n g i t u d i n a l d i s p e r s i o n of
480 f e e t . However, based on 16 l a n d i n g s i n which more p r e c i s e d a t a was o b t a i n e d , t h e d i s p e r s i o n was found t o
be 225 f e e t .

The conclusion of t h e r e p o r t on t h e Aeropostale o p e r a t i o n was t h a t t h e e l e v a t i o n guidance during f l a r e and landing

was s u i t a b l e f o r achieving t h e Category 3 A minima r e q u i r e d f o r t h i s s e r v i c e . However, t h e o p e r a t i o n a l t e s t d i d
emphasize t h e need f o r b e t t e r l a t e r a l guidance, t h e d e s i r a b i l i t y of p r e c i s i o n DME, and t h e need t o develop b e t t e r
d i s p l a y s and c o c k p i t t e c h n i q u e s i n o r d e r t o achieve instrument f l y i n g t o t h e d e s i r e d minima.

A s discussed e a r l i e r , t h e scanning beam technique has been incorporated i n t o a complete l a n d i n g guidance

system f o r t h e FAA. This system (AILS) provides e l e v a t i o n and azimuth a n g l e , p r e c i s i o n DME and a PAR r a d a r
s k i n t r a c k mode.

During t h e p a s t t h r e e y e a r s , c o n s i d e r a b l e performance t e s t d a t a has been o b t a i n e d , and t h e system has been

and is being used, i n a number of f l i g h t t e s t programs. A summary of t h e i n i t i a l t e s t i n g p e r i o d has been i s s u e d
by t h e FAA ( r e f e r e n c e 3 ) . A l a r g e number of s t a t i c measurements were made with a r e c e i v e r mounted on a p o r t a b l e
tower, with t h e r e s u l t s s t a t e d a s well within t h e s p e c i f i e d t o l e r a n c e s o f 0.03 degree i n e l e v a t i o n , 0.05 degree
i n azimuth, and 100 f e e t i n range.
9-4

F l i g h t s were conducted i n a DC-6 a i r c r a f t f o r t h e purpose o f compiling d a t a on system performance, such as

accuracy, coverage, s t a b i l i t y , e t c . The r e s u l t s of t h e f l i g h t t e s t were l i s t e d as follows, where accuracy is
expressed i n t e r m s of one s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n : e l e v a t i o n angle 0.028 degree, azimuth angle 0.021 degree, and
range 75 f e e t .

The referenced FAA r e p o r t a l s o p r e s e n t s d a t a showing t h e e f f e c t of o v e r f l y i n g a i r c r a f t on t h e scanning beam

system. . Both f l i g h t t e s t s and ground o b s e r v a t i o n s were made i n which AILS and s t a n d a r d ILS were simultaneously
recorded d u r i n g times t h a t a i r c r a f t were o v e r f l y i n g t h e runway. One t y p i c a l i l l u s t r a t i o n from t h e r e p o r t is
shown i n Figure 9 , i n which t h e o b s e r v a t i o n p o i n t i s 237 f e e t i n f r o n t of t h r e s h o l d and 10 t o 15 f e e t below
g l i d e path. I t is seen t h a t a t t h e p o i n t of t y p i c a l o v e r f l i g h t i n t e r f e r e n c e on t h e ILS l o c a l i z e r , no observable
'

d i s t u r b a n c e is seen on t h e AILS l o c a l i z e r .

The p o s s i b i l i t y of i n t e r f e r e n c e from o t h e r a i r c r a f t with scanning beam guidance was f u r t h e r i n v e s t i g a t e d d u r i n g

an Air Force t e s t a t w r i g h t - P a t t e r s o n Air Force Base. In t h e course o f a f l i g h t t e s t programby t h e F l i g h t Dynamics
Laboratory, tests w e r e m a d e t o determine t h e e f f e c t s of s h i e l d i n g f r o m a n a i r c r a f t immediately i n f r o n t o f t h e t e s t a i r -
c r a f t . A t y p i c a l v i e w f r o m t h e c o c k p i t o f t h e t e s t a i r c r a f t is shown i n F i g u r e 10. From photographic d a t a s u c h as t h i s ,
t h e d i s t a n c e t o t h e l e a d a i r c r a f t c a n b e c a l c u l a t e d , a n d t h e p o s i t i o n o f t h e lead a i r c r a f t r e l a t i v e t o t h e l i n e - o f - s i g h t
t o t h e e l e v a t i o n t r a n s m i t t i n g s t a t i o n determined. In Figure 10, t h e lead a i r c r a f t is about 5 0 0 f e e t away and is
o b s c u r i n g t h e g r o u n d s t a t i o n . An e x t e n s i v e s e r i e s o f t e s t s were runemploying anumber of d i f f e r e n t l e a d a i r c r a f t and
with s e p a r a t i o n s ranging down t o ones t h a t would be unsafe f o r normal o p e r a t i o n s . There were no n o t i c e a b l e
v a r i a t i o n s i n recorded angle d a t a , and a s t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s i s of t h e recorded d a t a could show no c o r r e l a t i o n
with s h i e l d i n g .

Both t h e FAA and Air Force t e s t s on i n t e r f e r e n c e g i v e confirmation t o what would be expected t h e o r e t i c a l l y . 'I
Some a d d i t i o n a l t e s t s have been conducted on s e v e r a l programs on t h e e f f e c t o f parked and moving a i r c r a f t .
These t e s t s have not been e x t e n s i v e o r p r o p e r l y documented, but t h e r e s u l t s have g e n e r a l l y shown t h a t only
l a r g e o b j e c t s located d i r e c t l y i n f r o n t of t h e ground s t a t i o n s have given t r o u b l e . And i n t h e s e c a s e s , t h e
i n d i c a t e d t r o u b l e has been l o s s of s i g n a l r a t h e r than erroneous d a t a .

A l l of t h e tests t h a t have been d i s c u s s e d so f a r were conducted with system beamwidths of 0 . 5 degree. While
such a narrow beam provides t h e high degree of immunity from r e f l e c t i o n s t h a t is needed f o r touchdown guidance,
t h e r e a r e numerous system a p p l i c a t i o n s where wider beams a r e p e r f e c t l y adequate.

A s long a s t h e angle d a t a t r a n s m i s s i o n s and scanning speed a r e such t o provide adequate h i t s p e r beamwidth,

t h e angular accuracy d e t e r i o r a t e s g r a d u a l l y with i n c r e a s e d beamwidth. In t h e c a s e where low approach r a t h e r
than f l a r e guidance is r e q u i r e d , p r e c i s e e l e v a t i o n d a t a down t o 1 . 5 d e g r e e s is adequate. This is t h e class
of s e r v i c e provided by t h e US Navy C-SCAN and Swedish A i r Force TILS systems. The beamwidths chosen i n t h i s
c a s e have been 1 . 3 degrees i n e l e v a t i o n and 2 degrees i n azimuth.

The US Navy system h a s been f l i g h t checked a t t h e Patuxent River NAS and i n a s e r i e s o f t h r e e s e a t r i a l s

aboard t h e USS America and USS Independence. The shore-based t e s t s v e r i f i e d t h a t t h e system accuracy was w i t h i n
t h e required 0 . 1 degree i n e l e v a t i o n and 0 . 2 degree i n azimuth. I t i s more d i f f i c u l t t o conduct meaningful
accuracy tests aboard a c a r r i e r due t o t h e s h i p ' s motion and lack of adequate r e f e r e n c e s . However, t e s t s
comparing t h e AN/SFN-41 C-SCAN recorded measurements with t h e AN/SPN-10 t r a c k i n g r a d a r i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e
ANISPN-41 system, including s t a b i l i z a t i o n , was within s p e c i f i c a t i o n . The most e x t e n s i v e use of t h e AN/SPN-41
occurred during an extended o p e r a t i o n a l e v a l u a t i o n aboard t h e USS Independence with two squadrons o f F-4 a i r -
c r a f t . These o p e r a t i o n a l t e s t s showed t h e need t o a d j u s t some parameters, such as course width and azimuth
s t a b i l i z a t i o n time c o n s t a n t , b u t were s u c c e s s f u l i n t h a t t h e system h a s been s e r v i c e approved.

The Royal Swedish Air Force conducted a f l i g h t t e s t e v a l u a t i o n of s e v e r a l landing guidance systems p r i o r

t o s e l e c t i n g t h e scanning beam system f o r t h e Viggen a i r c r a f t . I n t h a t program, recorded f l i g h t t e s t s were
conducted a t a number of l o c a t i o n s with c o n d i t i o n s s e l e c t e d t o s i m u l a t e d i f f i c u l t s i t i n g c o n d i t i o n s . The
r e p o r t on t h e s e t e s t s (an English language v e r s i o n t o be r e l e a s e d ) shows t h a t t h e equipment t e s t e d f u l l y
meets t h e requirements of Category. I performance. These tests covered such c o n d i t i o n s a s over-water approaches,
r i s i n g ground and h i l l s i n t h e approach zone, snow with a wet s u r f a c e , a t r e e l i n e a l o n g s i d e t h e runway, and
v e h i c l e s i n f r o n t of t h e ground s t a t i o n .

There are s e v e r a l f l i g h t t e s t programs now i n progress t h a t w i l l provide a d d i t i o n a l p e r t i n e n t d a t a on t h e

c a p a b i l i t y of t h e scanning beam technique. The FAA i s conducting a s e r i e s of s i t i n g t e s t s a t runways t h a t have
been, o r a r e a n t i c i p a t e d t o be, d i f f i c u l t ILS sites. This w i l l involve u s i n g a small p o r t a b l e scanning beam
ground t r a n s m i t t e r t h a t can f u n c t i o n as g l i d e s l o p e o r l o c a l i z e r t r a n s m i t t e r , as required. The beamwidths
employed a r e t h e same a s used i n C-SCAN and TILS; t h a t i s , 1 . 3 degrees e l e v a t i o n and 2.0 degrees azimuth.
The t e s t a i r c r a f t is equipped with an AILS r e c e i v e r and a multichannel r e c o r d e r .

A t each of t h e scheduled 28 s i t e s , performance and coverage d a t a w i l l be recorded, u s i n g a r a d i o theodol t e

t o determine a i r c r a f t p o s i t i o n . ILS d a t a w i l l be simultaneously recorded at t h e s i t e s so equipped. The S i e s
being t e s t e d are a mixture of l o c a l i z e r and g l i d e s l o p e , with t h e m a j o r i t y being g l i d e slope. The r e s u l t s
of t h i s t e s t program w i l l provide a p r a c t i c a l e v a l u a t i o n of t h e c a p a b i l i t y of meeting Category I o r I1 r e q u i r e -
ments with t h e scanning beam parameters being used.
 9-5

The US Army A-SCAN system, c u r r e n t l y i n f l i g h t t e s t , w i l l provide v a l u a b l e information on peformance of t h e

widest beamwidths and angular coverage s e c t o r s t h a t have been t e s t e d t o d a t e . These parameters, combined with
t h e s i t i n g and t e r r a i n c o n d i t i o n s t h a t can be expected, w i l l provide a s e v e r e t e s t of t h e c a p a b i l i t y of t h i s
v e r s i o n of t h e scanning beam technique. A system such as A-SCAN, f o r use with h e l i c o p t e r and l i g h t STOL
a i r c r a f t , does n o t have t h e s t r i c t accuracy requirements of a conventional landing guidance system. However,
even i n t h i s c a s e , smooth and c o n s i s t e n t guidance without bends and s c a l l o p i n g is necessary t o achieve p r a c t i c a l
low approach instrument f l y i n g .

The i n i t i a l Army f l i g h t t e s t i n g o f A-SCAN w i l l be done a t t h e FAA NAFEC t e s t c e n t e r , where t h e t e c h n i c a l

performance of t h e system w i l l be e v a l u a t e d . The primary o b j e c t i v e of t h e ensuing f l i g h t t e s t program w i l l be
t o use t h e A-SCAN guidance as a means o f determining t h e r e a l i s t i c requirements f o r h e l i c o p t e r low approach
o p e r a t ions.

5. FUTURE SYSTEMS

The foregoing d i s c u s s i o n h a s covered t h e e v o l u t i o n of t h e AIL scanning beam landing guidance techniques t o

t h e p r e s e n t time. The experience with t h e v a r i o u s systems h a s l e d t o a s t r o n g b e l i e f t h a t narrow f l a t o r plane
scanning beams o f f e r t h e b e s t t e c h n i c a l approach t o o b t a i n i n g high q u a l i t y and v e r s a t i l e landing guidance i n
realistic s i t i n g c o n d i t i o n s . The most important system parameter is t h e beamwidth t h a t should be employed f o r
any given a p p l i c a t i o n . The e l e c t r o n i c c i r c u i t s used f o r angle d a t a encoding and decoding, a r e b a s i c a l l y common
t o a l l systems, although d i f f e r e n t hardware c o n f i g u r a t i o n s may be used f o r d i f f e r e n t a p p l i c a t i o n s . Also, t h e r e
are some t r a d e - o f f s between such f a c t o r s as beamwidth, scan coverage, d a t a r a t e , t r a n s m i t t e r duty f a c t o r , DME
s e r v i c e , e t c . , t h a t must be optimized f o r any p a r t i c u l a r a p p l i c a t i o n . The s t a r t i n g p o i n t of any f u t u r e d e s i g n ,
however. i s t h e s e l e c t i o n o f t h e antenna beamwidth b e s t s u i t e d f o r t h a t system requirement.

While a l l o f t h e work done t o d a t e on t h i s scanning beam technique has made u s e of mechanically scanned antennas,
t h e r e i s no reason t h a t e l e c t r o n i c scanning cannot be used. E l e c t r o n i c scanning appears t o be t o o expensive and
complicated at t h i s time t o compete with mechanical scanning, b u t t h e s t a t e o f t h e a r t is advancing r a p i d l y , and
t h e r e are some a p p l i c a t i o n s where it may be used t o advantage i n t h e n o t t o o d i s t a n t f u t u r e . However, t h e r e is one
p o i n t t h a t should be emphasized: i t is most important t o u t i l i z e f l a t - p l a n e beams i n a l l but a few l i m i t e d a p p l i c a -
t i o n s . T h i s r e q u i r e s somewhat more s o p h i s t i c a t e d e l e c t r o n i c scanners than a r e commonly considered.

One f u t u r e system a p p l i c a t i o n t h a t has n o t been developed t o d a t e i s a manpack s e t f o r c e r t a i n requirements.

While t h e g r e a t m a j o r i t y of t a c t i c a l a i r c r a f t o p e r a t i o n s w i l l be a t s t r i p s with some minimal support where extreme
p o r t a b i l i t y is n o t a requirement, t h e r e does e x i s t a requirement f o r a system t h a t can be c a r r i e d t o remote loca-
t i o n s by ground t r o o p s . The design f o r such a system has been worked o u t i n fundamental d e t a i l . The System
would c o n s i s t of two 35-pound u n i t s t o provide b a s i c e l e v a t i o n and azimuth angle guidance (Figure 11). A t h i r d
35-pound u n i t would c o n t a i n an o p t i o n a l DME transponder. An a i r b o r n e r e c e i v e r , s p e c i f i c a l l y f o r use with t h i s
system, would weigh about 10 t o 1 5 pounds. However, any a i r b o r n e r e c e i v e r designed f o r u s e w i t h t h e o t h e r systems
w i l l o p e r a t e a g a i n s t t h e manpack system within t h e limit of t h e i r design c a p a b i l i t i e s . The performance c h a r a c t e r -
i s t i c s of t h e man-portable system a r e as follows:

Elevation: Beamwidth 3 . 0 degrees, coverage

0.12 degree
Azimuth: Beamwidth 4 . 0 degrees, coverage
l i n e a r +lo degrees
c l e a r a n c e k20 d e g r e e s

DME: Coverage 360 degrees, c a p a c i t y

50 a i r c r a f t
Data r a t e : 4 Hz

Operation with i n t e r n a l hours.

batteries:

Other systems t h a t a r e envisioned f o r t h e f u t u r e a r e b e l i e v e d t o be b a s i c a l l y v a r i a t i o n s o f one o f t h e family

of systems t h a t have been covered. For i n s t a n c e , t h e systems f o r Category I1 and Category I11 landing minimums
can be based on t h e parameters of t h e AN/TFtN-28 and t h e AILS r e s p e c t i v e l y . However, i n o r d e r t o meet t h e r e l i a -
b i l i t y requirements f o r t h i s s e r v i c e , redundant equipment and s u i t a b l e monitoring w i l l be required.

The one f e a t u r e t h a t must remain common t o a l l a p p l i c a t i o n s of t h e scanning be& technique is t h e s i g n a l - i n -

s p a c e format. This format c o v e r s such t h i n g s a s frequency channel assignments, angle d a t a code, f u n c t i o n i d e n t i t y
code, and message l i n k code. The format t h a t has evolved o v e r t h e p a s t decade has been found t o be s u i t a b l e f o r
all'known a p p l i c a t i o n s . With such a common s i g n a l - i n - s p a c e , any a i r b o r n e equipment can o p e r a t e with any ground
s t a t i o n .within t h e i r mutual c a p a b i l i t y . This commonality f o r a l l grades of s e r v i c e is considered one of t h e
most important requirements f o r any new landing guidance system.
9-6

I
REFERENCES I

Reference 1 Experimentation with FLARESCAN Vertical Guidance Landing System. FAA Report
No. RD-64-150, P r o j e c t No. 114-012-OOX, November 1964.

Reference 2 Test of the FLARESCAN Flareout System in Caravelle Number 02. M i n i s t e r e d e s

Armees ( A I R ) , D i r e c t i o n Technique et I n d u s t r i e l l e , Centre D’ Essais en Vol,
A p r i l 1964.

Reference 3 Advanced Scanning Beam Guidance System for A l l Weather Landing. FAA Report
No. RD-68-2, P r o j e c t No. 320-204-01N, February 1968.
 9-7

Fig. 1 Composite photo, AILS ground equipment

AIRCRAFT ELEVATION IS
AVERAGE OF INTERCEPTED
CODE SPACING CHANGES
DURING SCAN \ n ANGLE VALUES

ELEVATION AZ IM UT H SIMULATED
SCANNER SCANNER THIRD SCANNER

ELEVATION AZIMUTH
GUIDANCE RADAR

Fig.2 Angle d a t a transmission and time-sharing scan c y c l e

AN/ARA-63
RECEIVER

Fig.3 C-SCAN

Fig.4 Proposed C-SCAN land-based equipment

 9-9

6 FEET

Fig.6 TILS ground s t a t i o n

9-10

0.7
v)
0.6
W
W 0.5
a
c3 0.4
W
0.3
0
z 0.2
-
W
J 0.7
L3
z 0.6
a 0.5
z 0.4
-
0
a 0.3
l-
> 0.2
W
I - I-:'-'-
CENTER LINE SITES
-- Y ' " " ' ' " ' ~

J
w
0
0.7
W 0.6
>
W 0.5
>
a 0.4
2
0.3
v)

0.2 I I IFAR SIDE SITES I I I I

4 00 800 I200 I600 2000 2400 2800 3200 3400
DISTANCE FROM FLARESCAN ANTENNA IN FEET

Fig.? FLARESCAN t e s t data from FAA NAFM: t e s t

W
W
a 4
(3
W
0 RANDOM ERROR AT 2 U
a OF THE FLARESCAN ANGLE
LL
0 3
v)
I
l-
a
W
a
0 2
z
3
I
-
z
b I
(U

sa
0
a 0
a 0.5
w I .o I .5 2.0 2.5
MEASURED ANGLE IN DEGREES
Fig.8 FLARESCAN t e s t data from French CEV Br6tigny t e s t
 9-11

0.50
0.
0.
0.

0.50
0.25
0
0.25
0.50
W
v)
a
3
00 0.50
0.25
0
0.25
0.50
0 5 IO 15 20 25 30 35 40
TIME I N SECONDS
AILS AZIMUTH
I L S LOCAL I ZER ~,NE;.ARANCE

OBSERVATION /Lz7191
I
666'- -GI
RUNWAY

-F AILS ELEVATION
-
if0

48518'
POINT
Fig.9 AILS t e s t d a t a from FAA NAFEC t e s t
I
9- 12

Fig.10 A i r c r a f t s h i e l d i n g t e s t from USAF f l i g h t dynamics l a b o r a t o r y program

Fig. 11 Manpack landing system

 10

LANDING VTOL AIRCRAFT I N ADVERSE CONDITIONS

AND SOME P O S S I B L E S O L U T I O N S

D. J. Walters

Royal A i r c r a f t Establishment, Farnborough, Hampshire, UK

 10

CONTROL LAWS

Control director

Director dot

Nozzle director

N, = k , , (8' - Qj), i . e . nozzles held at oo

N,,, = k , , (45' -e,), i . e . nozzles held at 45O

N, = k,, - X, + k,, iN+ k , , (45' - B j ) .

Guidance display
 10

NOTATION

d e f l e c t i o n of t h e d i r e c t o r dot away from t h e c e n t r e o f t h e aircraft symbol i n t h e azimuth

(horizontal) direction

YE
d e f l e c t i o n of t h e d i r e c t o r dot away from t h e c e n t r e of t h e a i r c r a f t symbol i n t h e e l e v a t i o n
(vertical) direction

T d e f l e c t i o n of t h e t h r o t t l e symbol r e l a t i v e t o t h e wing of t h e aircraft symbol

N d e f l e c t i o n of t h e nozzle symbol r e l a t i v e t o t h e wing of t h e aircraft symbol

PCT d e f l e c t i o n of landing pad symbol c r o s s track

p,, d e f l e c t i o n of landing pad symbol f o r e and a f t

* aircraft heading

demanded a i r c r a f t heading

a i r c r a f t bank angle

c r o s s track e r r o r . Difference between p r e s e n t aircraft track and s e l e c t e d approach t r a c k

cross t r a c k velocity

p r e s e n t aircraft h e i g h t

demanded h e i g h t

a i r c r a f t v e r t i c a l speed

a i r c r a f t e l e v a t i o n angle

'SET
p r e s e t a i r c r a f t e l e v a t i o n angle

h, s e l e c t e d hover height p r i o r t o landing

V aircraft forward a i r speed

"D demanded a i r speed

Q a i r c r a f t forward a c c e l e r a t i o n

aircraft throttle setting

angle of t h r u s t v e c t o r r e l a t i v e t o conventional p o s i t i o n

range measured along s e l e c t e d approach track

aircraft v e l o c i t y measured along s e l e c t e d approach t r a c k

Suffices

1, 2, 3, used with d i s p l a y symbols - phase of t r a n s i t i o n

c o n s t a n t s and f i l t e r terms

limits
10
 10- 1

L A N D I N G VTOL A I R C R A F T I N ADVERSE C O N D I T I O N S
A N D SOME P O S S I B L E SOLUTIONS

D. J. Walters

1. One of t h e a t t r a c t i o n s of t h e v e r t i c a l t a k e - o f f and landing a i r c r a f t f o r t h e m i l i t a r y is i t s a b i l i t y t o

o p e r a t e i n t o and out of t a c t i c a l s i t e s which may be remote from, and have no connexion w i t h , conventional air-
f i e l d s . Typical of such s i t e s might be “holes i n t h e wood”, a r e s t r i c t e d c l e a r i n g surrounded perhaps by h i g h
o b s t a c l e s . That c u r r e n t VTOL aircraft can o p e r a t e i n t o such c l e a r i n g s by day i n c l e a r weather h a s been f r e -
quently demonstrated and although t h e r e s t r i c t i o n s on f l i g h t p a t h imposed by t h e surrounding o b s t a c l e s may
r e q u i r e very c a r e f u l f l y i n g one does not encounter unsurmountable d i f f i c u l t i e s .

2. However, t o be a b l e t o o p e r a t e only by day i n c l e a r weather is i n t h e long run almost c e r t a i n l y unaccept-

able t o m i l i t a r y u s e r s and it i s an unfortunate f a c t t h a t no t r u e VTOL a i r c r a f t at t h e p r e s e n t time has an
e f f e c t i v e poor weather c a p a b i l i t y , p a r t i c u l a r l y i n t o r e s t r i c t e d s i t e s .
T h i s i s c e r t a i n l y t r u e of any v e h i c l e not equipped w i t h a c o n s i d e r a b l e amount of a u t o s t a b i l i z a t i o n . The
workload on t h e p i l o t i n t r y i n g t o f l y t h e i n h e r e n t l y very u n s t a b l e a i r c r a f t , when h i s wide-angle view of t h e
o u t s i d e world is replaced by t h e l i m i t e d information on h i s instruments, r i s e s t o unacceptable l e v e l s P a r t i c u -
l a r l y i n t h e c a s e of a d e c e l e r a t i n g descent t o a p a r t i c u l a r geographical p o i n t . Other d i f f i c u l t f e a t u r e s , such
as an extremely low t o l e r a n c e t o s i d e s l i p or sideways v e l o c i t y , have shown themselves i n s e v e r a l VTOL aircraft
and p i l o t s have t o devote a c o n s i d e r a b l e amount of t h e i r a t t e n t i o n t o holding t h e i r v e h i c l e w i t h i n t h e s e l i m i t s .
The o v e r a l l workload i n c r e a s e s even f u r t h e r i f t h e o p e r a t i o n i s c a r r i e d out i n a combat area w i t h t h e need f o r
s w i f t and e f f i c i e n t a c t i o n .

3. I n o r d e r t o g e t first hand experience of o p e r a t i n g a j e t l i f t aircraft under d i f f i c u l t c o n d i t i o n s t h e

Royal A i r c r a f t Establishment c a r r i e d out f l i g h t t r i a l s by f l y i n g on u n s t a b i l i z e d P 1127 vectored t h r u s t air-
craft i n t o a r e s t r i c t e d s i t e by n i g h t . The p i l o t s were a l l experienced on P 1127 a i r c r a f t and acquired familia-
r i z a t i o n with t h e s i t e by i n i t i a l l y f l y i n g i n t o it by day and a l s o with h e l i c o p t e r s .
The landing a r e a was a 300 f t x 150 f t r e c t a n g u l a r c l e a r i n g c u t i n a 50-60 f t deep wood. The s i t e f l o o r was
poor and s p a r s e s h o r t grass but was f i t t e d w i t h a 50 f t x 50 f t SATS aluminium mat. The mat c e n t r e l i n e was
d i s p l a c e d from t h e long a x i s of t h e c l e a r i n g by 10 f t . For night f l y i n g t h e c l e a r i n g was well i l l u m i n a t e d w i t h
l i g h t s as shown i n F i g u r e 1. Sodium l i g h t s were arranged t o s h i n e a c r o s s t h e c l e a r i n g i t s e l f w h i l e v e r t i c a l
white l i g h t s i l l u m i n a t e d t h e t r e e s i n f r o n t and t o t h e s i d e of t h e c l e a r i n g . Two v i s u a l g l i d e p a t h i n d i c a t o r s
(red-green-amber) were s e t at a s t e e p angle (17’) t o i n d i c a t e a s a f e c l e a r a n c e p a t h over t h e t r e e t o p s as t h e
a i r c r a f t approached t h e edge of t h e s i t e . Two r e d beacons were s e t up at about 3000 f t and 4500 f t i n t h e under-
shoot t o a c t as range markers. Although t h e l i g h t s were not switched on f o r t h e day s o r t i e s t h e lamp bodies
themselves a c t e d as markers which aided t h e p i l o t when hovering within t h e c l e a r i n g .
There were no s i g n i f i c a n t o b s t a c l e s on t h e approaches or i n t h e c i r c u i t p a t t e r n apart from t h e t r e e s of t h e .
wood i t s e l f . I n g e n e r a l t h e weather was good w i t h only l i g h t winds (10 knots o r l e s s ) and v i s i b i l i t y v a r i e d
from 1 t o 5 nm on d i f f e r e n t s o r t i e s . V i s i b i l i t y as such was never r e a l l y a problem on t h e approach s i n c e t h e
l o c a l a r e a was so well known t o t h e p i l o t s . The n i g h t f l y i n g was done on a c l e a r but d ~ n ki g h t .

4. The f l i g h t technique r e q u i r e d t h a t t h e p i l o t o v e r f l y t h e s i t e and t h e n perform a c i r c u i t at about 800 f t

h e i g h t and a speed of about 160 k n o t s , w i t h t h e engine nozzle angle s e t t o 30’. or sometimes 45’. After t u r n i n g
on t o t h e f i n a l approach t h e a i r c r a f t was l i n e d up w i t h t h e markers and t h e nozzle angle i n c r e a s e d t o slow t h e
speed t o about 120 knots at t h e o u t e r marker. Height and speed were then f u r t h e r reduced, c r o s s i n g t h e i n n e r
marker at 70 k n o t s and 300 f t . A t t h e i n n e r marker t h e p o s i t i o n of t h e c l e a r i n g could j u s t be seen as a very
pale w h i t e glow and remained t h u s u n t i l range had dropped t o below 500 yds. . Height was held t o 200 f t and t h e
a i r c r a f t f u r t h e r d e c e l e r a t e d . A S more and more d e t a i l of t h e i l l u m i n a t e d s i t e became v i s i b l e t h e p i l o t was
b e t t e r a b l e t o judge h i s speed and range and attempted t o a r r i v e v e r t i c a l l y over t h e pad w i t h z e r o forward
speed. The f i n a l descent was then made v e r t i c a l l y using t h e i l l u m i n a t e d t r e e s and t h e ground l i g h t s f o r POSi-
t i o n a l reference.
The purpose of t h e g l i d e s l o p e i n d i c a t o r s was simply t o a c t as a safeguard a g a i n s t premature descent. They
d i d not provide d e c e l e r a t i o n guidance except by t e l l i n g t h e p i l o t t h a t he was (at 200 f t ) approaching t h e boun-
dary of t h e c l e a r i n g and should l o s e h i s last remaining forward speed.

5 . P i l o t s were very conscious of t h e a b s o l u t e need t o avoid overshooting t h e s i t e , and yet t h e need t o keep
o b s t a c l e s and t h e landing s i t e , i n view as t h e y d e c e l e r a t e d meant t h a t they had t o keep t h e nose of t h e a i r c r a f t
down and avoid a braking f l a r e at t h e last moment. This i n t u r n meant t h a t t h e i r judgement of t h e necessary
d e c e l e r a t i o n had t o be f a i r l y exact if t h e y were t o avoid overshooting on t h e one hand and a long slow approach
10- 2

on t h e o t h e r . A t n i g h t it was obvious t h a t t h e y could not do t h i s very a c c u r a t e l y even w i t h t h e a i d of t h e

range markers i n t h e undershoot and i f t h e s e had not been t h e r e it i s l i k e l y t h a t t h e manoeuvre would have been
impossible. I f not impossible it would have r e s u l t e d i n some very dangerous manoeuvres.
On t h e occasions when t h e y came i n t o o f a s t t h e y were f o r c e d t o e f f e c t a last minute d e c e l e r a t i o n by p u t t i n g
t h e nose up. T h i s r e s u l t e d i n a l o s s of d i r e c t view of t h e landing s i t e and t h e p i l o t was only conscious of a
vague glow over t h e nose of t h e a i r c r a f t . Sometimes, on p u t t i n g t h e nose down again a yaw e r r o r had occurred
and t h i s t h e n had t o be c o r r e c t e d . P i l o t s found t h a t no height assessment could be made by looking sideways
over t h e d a r k wood and so t h e l o s s of t h e view of t h e s i t e had a second dangerous e f f e c t . A p i l o t had r e a l l y
no o p t i o n but t o keep t h e s i t e i n view by holding t h e nose down, s t a r t i n g h i s d e c e l e r a t i o n e a r l y and making
many p r o g r e s s i v e small d e c e l e r a t i o n s e t t i n g s . T h i s r e s u l t e d i n a h i g h p i l o t ’ s workload and an approach which
was expensive of f u e l and which d i d not e x p l o i t t h e c a p a b i l i t i e s of t h i s t y p e of a i r c r a f t .

6 . The conclusion was inescapable t h a t t o g e t t h e b e s t o p e r a t i o n a l advantage one needed a f a i r l y a c c u r a t e

knowledge of p o s i t i o n r e l a t i v e t o t h e landing s i t e . When t h e v i s i b i l i t y was good t h i s presented l i t t l e problem
t o p i l o t s who knew t h e v i c i n i t y but on a dark night or i n bad weather some a d d i t i o n a l a i d was mandatory. Because
of t h e f l e x i b l e approach p a t h open t o a VTOL a i r c r a f t and, i n g e n e r a l , t h e need t o establish a z e r o some d i s t a n c e
v e r t i c a l l y above t h e pad, t h e conventional t y p e of f i x e d beam approach a i d does not marry very w e l l w i t h t h i s
type of o p e r a t i o n and so a t t e m p t s were made t o develop a technique which gave volume coverage (even UP t o hemi-
s p h e r i c a l coverage) and an a b i l i t y t o demand an approach p r o f i l e of any shape. I n a d d i t i o n , i f t h i s system were
t o o p e r a t e from tactical s i t e s it would have t o be small and t r a n s p o r t a b l e , a f a r cry from conventional ILS.

7. The t r a c k i n g method proposed by t h e Royal A i r c r a f t Establishment is based on t h e i n t e r f e r o m e t e r p r i n c i p l e ,

and is a technique of o b t a i n i n g angular information from a s t a t i c aerial system. This method depends f o r its
accuracy of measurement on t h e r e l a t i v e phase d i s c r i m i n a t i o n of an a p e r t u r e sampling system, and f o r a given
a p e r t u r e t h i s has p o t e n t i a l l y a g r e a t e r accuracy t h a n t h a t obtained by amplitude sampling methods. H i t h e r t o t h e
practical a p p l i c a t i o n of i n t e r f e r o m e t e r s has been l i m i t e d by t h e low frequency at which t h e y were operated, and
hence r e l a t i v e l y l a r g e aerial arrays. Recent y e a r s however has seen t h e development of s o l i d - s t a t e microwave
power s o u r c e s t h u s g i v i n g t h e a i r b o r n e t r a n s m i t t e r a s u b s t a n t i a l weight and s i z e saving, and, because of t h e
very s h o r t wavelength used, a p r o p o r t i o n a t e l y s m a l l e r aerial array on t h e ground.
F u r t h e r , t h e advent of m i c r o m i n i a t u r i s a t i o n of t h e a s s o c i a t e d e l e c t r o n i c s has a s s i s t e d i n making a t r a n s p o r t -
able p r e c i s i o n a i d a f e a s i b l e p r o p o s i t i o n . A t RAE an experimental system has been b u i l t based on t h e above
p r i n c i p l e s . While not f u l l y r e p r e s e n t a t i v e i n terms of m i n i a t u r i s a t i o n of t h e ground equipment it demonstrates
t h e p r i n c i p l e s involved and t h e r e are no t e c h n i c a l r e a s o n s why c o n s i d e r a b l e s i z e r e d u c t i o n s cannot be achieved.

8 . The basic d e s i g n philosophy h a s been t o keep t h e complexity on t h e ground and only t h e minimum of equipment
i n t h e a i r c r a f t . The major components of t h e system ( s e e Figure 2) a r e :
(a) Airborne Equipment
( i ) A small s o l i d - s t a t e beacon and a e r i a l
( i i ) A data l i n k r e c e i v e r and demodulator

(b) Ground Equipment

( i ) Aerial arrw
(ii) Range measuring system
( i i i ) Computer and c o n t r o l desk
(iv) Data Link t r a n s m i t t e r
(v) XY p l o t t e r and PPI p r e s e n t a t i o n (as r e q u i r e d f o r Air T r a f f i c Control purposes).

9. The beacon design, providing a continuous-wave output of 3 watt at 5 GHz u s e s v a r a c t o r m u l t i p l i e r techniques.

The fundamental source is a VHF crystal c o n t r o l l e d o s c i l l a t o r of h i g h s t a b i l i t y . With t h e p r e s e n t equipment t h e
s i g n a l - t o - n o i s e r a t i o limits t h e o p e r a t i n g range t o about 10 m i l e s but f u r t h e r developments should make con-
s i d e r a b l y longer ranges p o s s i b l e .
A small c a p a c i t y d a t a l i n k p r o v i d e s adequate c a p a b i l i t y f o r t h e p r e s e n t experiments. Data is t r a n s m i t t e d at
t h e r a t e of 30 words per second, each word comprising 25 b i t s . There is a nominal a l l o c a t i o n of 7 b i t s f o r each
of azimuth d e v i a t i o n (SA), e l e v a t i o n d e v i a t i o n (SE) and range e r r o r . The remaining d i g i t s are used f o r s e l e c t i v e
a i r c r a f t addressing when multiplexed experiments a r e performed. On t h i s basis three a i r c r a f t could r e c e i v e
updated information every t e n t h of a second and t h e s e s i g n a l s could be used t o d r i v e a s u i t a b l e d i s p l a y f o r t h e
p i l o t , o r even c o n t r o l an a u t o p i l o t . Larger capacity data l i n k s are c l e a r l y p o s s i b l e .

10. The p a s s i v e aerial system is designed t o g i v e hemispherical coverage, and c o n s i s t s of two orthogonal base
l i n e s . The o v e r a l l dimensions of t h i s S t a t i c Mills c r o s s c o n f i g u r a t i o n is about 6 f t and t h i s size h a s been
chosen t o permit t h e assessment of small base l i n e arrays. The largest spacing between a e r i a l pairs i s 25.6A
and t h i s determines t h e accuracy of t h e angular r e s o l u t i o n . However t h e number of ambiguous s e c t o r s is a h 0
p r o p o r t i o n a l t o t h e spacing (NA) and i n p r a c t i c e t h e s e can only be r e s o l v e d by using a number of more c l o s e l y
spaced pairs. I n t h i s p a r t i c u l a r i n s t a l l a t i o n t h e r a t i o between pairs is 8 and t h e r e f o r e N = 3 . 6 and N = 3 . 2
a r e used w i t h a d i f f e r e n c i n g technique g i v i n g t h e equivalent of t h e physically impractical N = 0 . 4 . Each p a i r
on r e c e i v i n g t h e t r a n s m i t t e d beacon s i g n a l provides t h e f r a c t i o n a l p a r t only of a phase d i f f e r e n c e measurement.
 10-3

These numbers, i n binary form, are computer r e s o l v e d i n t o an unambiguous d i r e c t i o n of t h e r a d i a t i n g source.

Other a d d i t i o n a l f a c t o r s determining angular accuracy a r e t h e equipment phase measuring accuracy, t h e e l e v a t i o n
angle being measured and t o propagational f a c t o r s . Neglecting t h e l a t t e r it can be shown t h a t f o r a h o r i z o n t a l
Mills cross:

where SA and 6E a r e i n r a d i a n s ,
N i s t h e wavelength spacing between a e r i a l s , and
66 is t h e o v e r a l l system phase measuring e r r o r ( w i t h t h e p r e s e n t equipment t h i s has been found In
p r a c t i c e t o be about 0 . 0 1 c y c l e s ) .

Therefore, f o r E = 5', 6A = 0.27 m i l l i r a d i a n s

8E = 3.1 m i l l i r a d i a n s ;
and, f o r E = 10'. SA = 0.28 m i l l i r a d i a n s and

SE = 1.6 m i l l i r a d i a n s .
While it is t r u e t h a t i n t h e e l e v a t i o n plane t h e measuring accuracy f a l l s o f f as e l e v a t i o n angle d e c r e a s e s
o t h e r aerial c o n f i g u r a t i o n s can, t h e o r e t i c a l l y , improve t h e s i t u a t i o n . C u r r e n t l y an a d d i t i o n a l v e r t i c a l element
i n t h e a e r i a l array is being s t u d i e d f o r improved e l e v a t i o n a c c u r a c i e s at low angles.

11. The i n t e r f e r o m e t e r is b a s i c a l l y an angular measuring system and w i l l d e f i n e t h e l i n e of s i g h t v e c t o r along

which t h e a i r c r a f t is s i t u a t e d . To o b t a i n a p o s i t i o n a l f i x one h a s t o r e s o r t t o either a t r i a n g u l a t i o n method
using m u l t i p l e i n t e r f e r o m e t e r s o r a propagational delay time method. For compactness i n a t a c t i c a l s i t u a t i o n
t h e l a t t e r method is p r e f e r r e d . I n t h e p r e s e n t system t h i s is achieved by t r a n s m i t t i n g over t h e data l i n k channel
a frequency whose wavelength is g r e a t e r t h a n 10 miles. T h i s t o n e is applied t o a p i n diode modulator and g i v e s
r i s e t o a c a r r i e r amplitude modulation of t h e 5 GHz beacon. The phase delay between t r a n s m i t t e d and received
t o n e a c t i v a t e s a timing gate which t h e n g i v e s t h e l i n e - o f - s i g h t range. The observed instrumental d i s c r i m i n a t i o n
of t h i s experimental equipment is e q u i v a l e n t t o about 15 f t . .

12. A small d i g i t a l computer (8,000 words memory) is programmed t o take t h e f r a c t i o n a l phase measurements and
t h e range measurements ( s i x , t e n b i t words f o r t h e former and one, twelve b i t word f o r t h e l a t t e r , a l l e n t e r e d
simultaneously at a rate of 60 per second). The ambiguities are r e s o l v e d and processed t o g i v e output data i n
any r e q u i r e d form (e.g. Azimuth, e l e v a t i o n and range, or X, Y, 2 e t c . ) and at a r a t e of 30 words per second.
The advantage of a computer c o n t r o l l e d system i s its extreme f l e x i b i l i t y . For example: I f an o f f s e t s i t e is
used t h e computer can relate t h e aircraft t o t h e s i t e by a simple c o o r d i n a t e t r a n s f e r , and can i f necessary,
r o u t e d i f f e r e n t aircraft i n t o d i f f e r e n t neighbouring s i t e s . Or by s t o r i n g t h e c o o r d i n a t e s of a curved approach
p a t h i n its memory t h e information passed along t h e d a t a l i n k can be r e l a t i v e t o t h a t curved path. Many alter-
n a t i v e p a t h s can be s t o r e d ' a n d c a l l e d up as r e q u i r e d or a l t e r n a t i v e l y it is q u i t e easy t o i n s e r t a new one.
I f experience shows t h a t t h e a i r c r a f t guidance could be improved by the u t i l i z a t i o n of some o t h e r d a t a (e.g.
e r r o r rates) it w i l l be q u i t e easy t o arrange t h i s at a later date s i n c e only softwave is involved.

Although perhaps of l i t t l e i n t e r e s t t o t h e m i l i t a r y it is worth mentioning t h a t t h e computer can a l s o be

programmed t o provide A i r Traffic Control data such as h e i g h t , p l a n p o s i t i o n , ground speed e t c . f o r ground t r a n s -
mission t o a Control Centre.

13. The data l i n k d e l i v e r s 4 watts at 244 MHz but c e r t a i n economies can be e f f e c t e d by o p e r a t i n g i n t h e same
frequency band as t h e i n t e r f e r o m e t e r . For .example sample s i g n a l s from t h e p r i i e power s o u r c e s , i. e . a i r c r a f t
beacon and d a t a l i n k t r a n s m i t t e r , can be used as l o c a l o s c i l l a t o r s o u r c e s f o r t h e d a t a l i n k and i n t e r f e r o m e t e r
receiver respectively.

14. One of t h e f a c t o r s most l i k e l y t o a f f e c t t h e accuracy performance of a microwave i n t e r f e r o m e t e r is t h e

i n s t a l l a t i o n environment. Multipath e f f e c t s , and t o a l e s s e r degree i r r e g u l a r i t i e s i n r e f r a c t i v e index, c o n t r i -
b u t e t o phase measuring i n a c c u r a c i e s . S u r f a c e roughness, i r r e g u l a r i t i e s i n t e r r a i n such as h i l l s , b u i l d i n g s ,
t r e e s , t h e v a r i a t i o n i n s u r f a c e c o n d u c t i v i t y or d i e l e c t r i c c o n s t a n t combine t o produce a complex p i c t u r e .
D i f f i c u l t i e s i n q u a n t i f y i n g these e r r o r s i n a practical environment l e d t o a tri,als programme i n v o l v i n g a typical
s i t e . I n a d d i t i o n t o t h e equipment a l r e a d y d e s c r i b e d there is a second s e t which h a s been b u i l t j u s t t o i n v e s t i r
gate and e v a l u a t e t h e s e phenomena. Computer models have been evolved t o p r e d i c t m u l t i p a t h e f f e c t s . and t h e s e . i n
combination with t h e experimental work, are being c u r r e n t l y analysed. This equipment is t r a n s p o r t a b l e and Can
r a p i d l y be deployed t o make environmental s t u d i e s of p r o j e c t e d s i t e s .

15. It is beyond t h e scope of t h i s paper t o d i s c u s s t h e propagation problem i n depth and it is somewhat Pro-
v o c a t i v e t o come t o d e f i n i t e conclusions from t h e small sample of r e s u l t s a l r e a d y taken. However f o r t h e sake
of completeness, and e x t r a p o l a t i n g e x i s t i n g d a t a t o t h e p o i n t of c o n j e c t u r e it appears t h a t f o r a horizontal
Mills c r o s s propagation e f f e c t s predominate above t h e i n s t r u m e n t a l i n a c c u r a c i e s at ranges of l e s s t h a n 300 f t .
10-4

Errors due t o t h i s e f f e c t can, f o r s h o r t p e r i o d s , f r e q u e n t l y be i n excess of t h e ambiguity t o l e r a n c e a s s o c i a t e d

with t h e c u r r e n t N r a t i o of 8. However i f t h i s , r a t i o were reduced t o , say, 2 then t h e p r o b a b i l i t y of occurrence
is considerably reduced. A r a t i o of 2 has a phase discrepancy of 67’ b e f o r e ambiguity i s l o s t .

16. The instrumental a c c u r a c i e s a r i s i n g from a system with N 25.6 and 8 + = 0 . 0 1 and given by t h e equa-
t i o n s i n Paragraph 10 a r e shown i n Figure 3. I f one c o n s i d e r s first height: For an assumed range measuring
accuracy of 30 f t , when looking v e r t i c a l l y t h i s is a l s o t h e h e i g h t e r r o r . Decreasing t h e e l e v a t i o n angle
reduces t h e range resolved component (which follows a s i n e f u n c t i o n ) but i n c r e a s e s t h e r e s o l v e d i n t e r f e r o m e t e r
component (a cosine f u n c t i o n ) . Figure 4 shows t h e n a t u r e of t h e height e r r o r contours f o r ranges up t o 1400 f t .
The l a r g e s t e r r o r s occur when measurements a r e made at t h e near v e r t i c a l o r h o r i z o n t a l p o s i t i o n s and F i g u r e 5
is another r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of t h e same effect and is more convenient f o r showing h e i g h t e r r o r s at larger ranges.
Typically, at 32.000 f t range and 10’ e l e v a t i o n (5000 f t a l t i t u d e ) t h e h e i g h t e r r o r is about 50 f t . A l l of
these accuracy f i g u r e s are at t h e one standard d e v i a t i o n l e v e l .

17. By comparing t h e p o s i t i o n of t h e a i r c r a f t w i t h a p r e - s t o r e d f l i g h t p r o f i l e we have s t a t e d t h a t it is easy

t o d e r i v e f l i g h t p a t h e r r o r s and t o communicate t h e s e along t h e data l i n k t o t h e a i r c r a f t . There they can be
used i n a v a r i e t y of ways, either t o c o n t r o l t h e aircraft a u t o m a t i c a l l y o r t o d e r i v e a s u i t a b l e d i s p l a y f o r t h e
p i l o t . To perform t h e first of t h e s e r e q u i r e s an adequate amount of multiplexing and monitoring i f t h e system
is t o be s a f e . The second can be achieved more economically but r e l i c s on t h e s k i l l of t h e p i l o t t o perform
t h e right actions. W e do not propose h e r e t o argue t h e c a s e f o r or a g a i n s t automatics but only t o d e s c r i b e a
s e r i e s of experiments c a r r i e d o u t on d i s p l a y s and based on t h e assumption t h a t t h e p i l o t is f i r m l y i n t h e
c o n t r o l loop.

18. The n a t u r e of t h e p i l o t ’ s d i s p l a y must be influenced both by t h e p a r t i c u l a r guidance system used and by

t h e n a t u r e of t h e a i r c r a f t , its propulsion, l i f t and c o n t r o l system. Thus a system f o r a two-pilot t r a n s p o r t
w i t h m u l t i p l e l i f t i n g engines and a t t i t u d e - h o l d w i l l be t o t a l l y d i f f e r e n t from t h a t f o r a s i n g l e - s e a t , vectored
t h r u s t s t r i k e a i r c r a f t . The RAE is c u r r e n t l y working on d i s p l a y s f o r both t h e s e c a s e s but t h i s paper d e s c r i b e s
only a system f o r t h e l a t t e r type of a i r c r a f t .
Most modern strike a i r c r a f t a r e a l r e a d y f i t t e d w i t h an e l e c t r o n i c Head Up Display as a prime f l i g h t informa-
t i o n d i s p l a y so it was considered d e s i r a b l e t o e x p l o i t t h i s as much as p o s s i b l e and only add a d d i t i o n a l symbols
i f they were a b s o l u t e l y necessary.
R i g h t at t h e o u t s e t of t h e work it became obvious t h a t there were two p o s s i b l e l i n e s of approach. A s t h e
a i r c r a f t moves-from wingborne t o j e t borne f l i g h t t h e r e s u l t s of v a r i o u s c o n t r o l a c t i o n s change over. Thus
opening t h e t h r o t t l e changes g r a d u a l l y from providing forward a c c e l e r a t i o n t o providing l i f t and p u l l i n g back
on t h e c o n t r o l s t i c k changes from providing increased climb angle t o e f f e c t i n g a forward d e c e l e r a t i o n . I n t h e
’
d i s p l a y philosophy one could e i t h e r assume t h a t t h e p i l o t could make t h e mental switch-over i n h i s c o n t r o l s as
he moved from wing-borne t o j e t - b o r n e f l i g h t , as he was used t o doing under VFR c o n d i t i o n s , or one could always
a s s o c i a t e a d i s p l a y e d demand w i t h a given c o n t r o l (e.g. t h r o t t l e ) and perform t h e changeover f o r him. Both
systems have t h e i r l o g i c a l j u s t i f i c a t i o n and a t t r a c t i o n s and t h e r e f o r e both were t r i e d . There a r e , i n a d d i t i o n ,
a number of s u b - v a r i a n t s based on t h e n a t u r e and f l e x i b i l i t y of t h e approach p a t h and on t h e c o n t r o l laws used
t o d r i v e t h e d i r e c t o r symbols ( i f any). A f u l l e r examination of t h e s e v a r i a n t s is s t i l l proceeding and t h e r e -
f o r e t h i s paper is i n t h e n a t u r e of an i n t e r i m r e p o r t . However, s u f f i c i e n t work has been done t o demonstrate
t h e v a l i d i t y of t h e technique and t h i s f a c t alone i s worth r e p o r t i n g .
The two b a s i c forms of d i s p l a y have been termed “guidance” and “ c o n t r o l d i r e c t o r ” simply t o d i s t i n g u i s h them
from each o t h e r and t h e forms of d i s p l a y s a r e shown i n F i g u r e s 6 and 7. I n each t h e winged c i r c l e is a l i g n e d
w i t h t h e l o n g i t u d i n a l f l i g h t datum of t h e a i r c r a f t , t h e s o l i d l i n e s on e i t h e r s i d e r e p r e s e n t t h e horizon and
t h e numbers a r e Airspeed ( t o p l e f t ) and Height ( t o p r i g h t ) . Additional information normally a v a i l a b l e c o n s i s t s
of Incidence angle (LHS), V e r t i c a l speed (RHS), Heading, s i d e s l i p and s i d e s l i p limits (along t h e bottom). The
l a y o u t d e l i b e r a t e l y corresponds t o t h e basic T f o r b l i n d f l y i n g instruments. Symbols p a r t i c u l a r t o t h e special
d i s p l a y s a r e added as follows:

( i ) Guidance - A t r a p e z o i d a 1 , “ p a d ” which is d r i v e n above o r below t h e aircraft symbol by a f u n c t i o n of

range and range rate. When t h e two symbols a r e c o i n c i d e n t t h e a i r c r a f t is d e c e l e r a t i n g
c o r r e c t l y . I n azimuth t h e trapezium g i v e s information on t h e displacement between track
l i n e and bearing.
A pyramid d i r e c t o r s d r i v e n i n t h e v e r t i c a l p l a n e by a f u n c t i o n of h e i g h t and height rate
and i n t h e azimuth by a f u n c t i o n of t r a c k e r r o r (as above) and heading e r r o r where t h e r e
is a p r e f e r r e d d i r e c t i o n of approach (e.g. because of wind).
( i i ) Control D i r e c t o r s - A l e t t e r T r e p r e s e n t i n g t h r o t t l e e r r o r and a < r e p r e s e n t i n g nozzle angle e r r o r .
I f e i t h e r is above t h e symbolic wings t h e a p p r o p r i a t e c o n t r o l l e v e r has t o be p u l l e d back
u n t i l t h e d i r e c t o r is nulled.

It can be seen t h a t t h e e s s e n t i a l i n p u t s a r e h e i g h t , height r a t e , range, range r a t e (or ground speed), bearing

t o pad, t r a c k angle, heading and p r e f e r r e d d i r e c t i o n of approach ( i f any). Some of t h e s e a r e obtained from t h e
a i r c r a f t ’ s own s e n s o r s but t h e o t h e r s a r e easily obtained from a ground a i d as d e s c r i b e d above.
One t y p i c a l approach p a t h which has been e x t e n s i v e l y examined i n simulated f l i g h t is shown i n Figure 8. The
o b j e c t was t o achieve an exponential decay simultaneously i n both forward speed and v e r t i c a l speed r e s u l t i n g i n
t h e a i r c r a f t a r r i v i n g at a p o i n t t y p i c a l l y 100 f t up and 100 yd back from t h e pad w i t h a r e s i d u a l speed of 30
knots. For reasons of l i m i t i n g c o n d i t i o n s t h e d e c e l e r a t i o n s do not start at t h e same p o i n t and t h e a c t u a l
 10-5

c o n t r o l laws used a r e given i n t h e Notation. Note t h a t t h i s t y p e of approach does not demand adherence t o a
r i g i d f l i g h t p a t h and t h e p i l o t i s , w i t h i n limits, a b l e t o ignore one axes and c o n c e n t r a t e on t h e o t h e r . He is,
however, always t o l d what t o do t o get t o t h e end p o i n t . T h i s freedom from a r i g i d p a t h e n a b l e s t h e VTOL
a i r c r a f t t o e x p l o i t its p a r t i c u l a r a b i l i t y of independent a c t i o n i n d i f f e r e n t axes.

Some f o r t y test P i l o t s of v a r i o u s n a t i o n a l i t i e s have been put through a simulator e x e r c i s e and each c a r r i e d

o u t s i x recorded s o r t i e s ranging from v i s u a l c o n d i t i o n s through t y p i c a l Category I1 t o f u l l y b l i n d c o n d i t i o n s .
Of t h e s e p i l o t s only e i g h t had p r e v i o u s j e t VTOL experience although f i f t e e n had flown h e l i c o p t e r s . They were
given only 2 hours t o f a m i l i a r i z e themselves with t h e vectored t h r u s t a i r c r a f t and t h e d i s p l a y (only a few had
even seen a HUD before) and t h e r e s u l t s were markedly s u c c e s s f u l . Out of t h e t o t a l s o r t i e s only 5% were aborted
and less t h a n 1%r e s u l t e d i n a crash. Although t h e aim is, of course, a success f i g u r e much b e t t e r than t h i s
t h e r e s u l t was considered encouraging with such novice VTOL p i l o t s .

The exponential decay i s not n e c e s s a r i l y t h e b e s t c o n t r o l law s i n c e it r e q u i r e s an i n i t i a l l a r g e d e c e l e r a t i o n

which is t h e n g r a d u a l l y eased o f f . I t was found t h a t when t h e work load i n c r e a s e d towards t h e end of t h e t r a n s i -
t i o n t h e p i l o t s “played s a f e ” by l e a v i n g t h e forward d e c e l e r a t i o n t o i t s e l f while t h e y attended t o some o t h e r
demand. T y p i c a l l y t h i s r e s u l t e d i n a speed of 30 knots at 0 . 5 mile range i n s t e a d of 60 knots. While q u i t e a
s a f e a c t i o n n e v e r t h e l e s s t h i s d i d not achieve t h e e f f i c i e n t o p e r a t i o n t h a t w a s being aimed at. I n an attempt
t h e r e f o r e t o reduce t h e p i l o t s workload while still ensuring a l a t e but e f f i c i e n t d e c e l e r a t i o n t h e c o n t r o l law
is being changed t o one where t h e demanded d e c e l e r a t i o n i s c o n s t a n t . Simulator t r i a l s are o n l y now being
s t a r t e d but i n i t i a l r e a c t i o n s a r e very good with improved accuracy a l l round.

P i l o t s were d i v i d e d i n t h e i r p r e f e r e n c e f o r a “guidance” o r a “contol d i r e c t o r ” d i s p l a y but both were shown

t o be f e a s i b l e . P i l o t s meeting t h e VTOL s i t u a t i o n f o r t h e f i r s t time tended t o p r e f e r t h e “ c o n t r o l ” d i s p l a y
while experienced VTOL p i l o t s p r e f e r r e d t h e “guidance” d i s p l a y . There were, of course, many d e t a i l e d P o i n t s
of view about t h e e x t e n t t o which t h e c o n t r o l laws should c o n t a i n quickening and t h e p r o v i s i o n o f supplementary
s i t u a t i o n informat ion.
The next s t a g e w i l l be t o r e p e a t i n f l i g h t t r i a l s as far as p o s s i b l e t h e two t y p e s of d i s p l a y . A P 1127 at
RAE has been modified f o r t h i s purpose and t r i a l s have already s t a r t e d . However s i n c e t h i s is a s i n g l e seat
a i r c r a f t we s h a l l not be a b l e t o e x p l o r e t h e b l i n d approach c a s e w i t h any degree of r e a l i s m and t h i s phase w i l l
have t o wait t h e a v a i l a b i l i t y of a two-seat j e t VTOL a i r c r a f t .
I n conclusion we can say t h a t given c e r t a i n b a s i c i n p u t s , a v a i l a b l e from a t r a n s p o r t a b l e r a d i o a i d , and
p r e s e n t e d on a novel form of d i s p l a y s u r f a c e , such as a HUD, it is p o s s i b l e f o r a s i n g l e seat j e t VTOL t o carry
o u t wing-borne t o j e t - b o r n e t r a n s i t i o n s under instrument c o n d i t i o n s . It is not claimed t h a t t h e equipments
d e s c r i b e d are t h e only p o s s i b l e form t o do t h i s but t h e y r e p r e s e n t a well considered l i n e of approach and a
s i g n i f i c a n t advance i n t h e state of t h e art at t h e p r e s e n t time.

Acknowledgements

I n p r e p a r i n g t h i s paper t h e author has been g r e a t l y a s s i s t e d by h i s c o l l e a g u e s Mr.C.H.Weaving, who W a s

l a r g e l y r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h e information on t h e r a d i o a i d , and Mr J.E.Nethaway, who provided information on t h e
low v i s i b i l i t y f l i g h t trials.
10-6

\ Edqe 06
v Sodium I;qhts

-
o White verticals
\wood U L A I I 4oods
\ Glide path indicators ( r e d - q m - a m b e r )
\ -:*I- Marker beacohs-(red)

f
'.-

50'

+ 300' -
~ ,'3000'*pprox
/ +
/
/

Fig..l Lighting p a t t e r n for K e s t r e l n i g h t o p e r a t i o n s i n t o Twinwoods c l e a r i n g .

MEASURING MEASURING
'
EQUIPMENT

FLIGHT
PATH
SELECTOR
,
Fig. 2
- -
COMPUTER
--

Experimental VTOL approach guidance system

A.T.C.
DISPLAY
 10-7

AZIMUTH ANGLE
80 70 60 50 40 30 20 IO 0
7
I
I
I
6 I
ERROR I HORIZONTAL MILLS CROSS INSTRUMENTAL ERRORS
mRADlANS I
I - 64 - 6
5 I - (6A)rms - Nfi cos E (6E)rme - N f i n: E
I
I 6A 8 6E = AZIMUTH 8 ELEVATION ERRORS (mR),,,
I 64 = SYSTEM PHASE MEASUREMENT ERROR (0.01 cycles)-
4 I
I N = SPACING BETWEEN AERIALS (25.6 wovelenqths)
I
I E = ELEVATION ANGLE
3 I
\
\
\
\
\
2
\
\ 6A
\ OR
\
I
,6E
%

----...--- - -------- - - - - C - - - . - - - -

IO 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

RANGE ( f t )

Fig.4 Height error contours for near ranges

10-8

FOR CONSTANT RANGE CONTOURS

100
HEIGHT
ERROR
00

IO
8
6
5
4
3

I
2O 9 4 " 5O6' IO" 30" 40'
ELEVATION ANGLE

Fig. 5

Guidance Cohtrol
so0
Is0 n 500 IS0

U
.

Fig.6 VSTOL instrument t r a n s i t i o n Fig. 7 VSTOL instrument t r a n s i t i o n

d i s p l a y . Guidance , d i s p l a y . Control d i r e c t o r

Start tra9sition
V
ej
--
mst. height
ISOkbe
45.
Start &Scent
6 dc (h-h)
I

I
I
I
I
I
I
1- n
s' I 0

Fig.8 Typical approach p a t h f o r instrument t r a n s i t i o n with vectored t h r u s t a i r c r a f t

 13

E X P E R I E N C E DU CENTRE D ’ E S S A I S EN VOL F R A N C A I S

D A N S L E DOMAINE DE L ’ A T T E R R I S S A G E TOUT T E M P S .

Y.Michot

Section Equipements CEV de Bretigny-sur-Orge, France

13
 13- 1

EXPERIENCE DU CENTRE D’ESSAIS EN VOL FRANCAIS

D A N S LE DOMAINE DE L’ATTERRISSAGE TOUT TEMPS

Y. Michot

Wand on p a r l e d’ expdrience dans l e domaine de 1’a t t e r r i s s a g e t o u t temps, il est n k c e s s a i r e de considdrer deux

aspects de c e t t e experience:
- tout d’ abord 1’experience d e s materiels permettant d’ e f f e c t u e r c e t a t t e r r i s s a g e e t deuxibmement, b i e n sur,
1’ experience d e 1’ u t i l i s a t i o n de c e s m a t k r i e l s en c o n d i t i o n s mktdorologiques re‘elles.

C a r il est bien dvident qu’ il n’ est p o s s i b l e d ’ o b t e n i r cette d e r n i h r e s a n s a v o i r m i s precedemment au p o i n t

l e materiel qui p e r m e t t r a de l ’ o b t e n i r .

Le problbme semble donc a s s e z complique car on ne peut mettre au p o i n t un m a t k r i e l sans s a v o i r c e qu’ il f a u t

f a i r e e t on ne peut s a v o i r ce qu’ il f a u t f a i r e s a n s a v o i r experiment6 en v r a i e s c o n d i t i o n s l e matkriel. La
demarche d o i t donc Gtre prudente et il s ’ a g i t de bien v e r i f i e r & chaque s t a d e que les hypotheses ayarit permis c e
stade sont bien verifikes.

Au Centre d ’ E s s a i s en Vol nous avons donc dte‘ m e n & ? envisager

i l e s d i f f e r e n t e s phases t e l l e s q u ’ e l l e s ont
&e‘ e’dictdes p a r 1’OACI. comme les paliers permettant d’ a r r i v e r 1’ a t t e r r i s s a g e 0 - 0. En p a r t i c u l i e r l a
phase I1 OACI n’ a pas et6 considdrke comme une e x t r a p o l a t i o n d e 1’ approche phase I c l a s s i q u e , mais b i e n au
c o n t r a i r e comme un p r e l i m i n a i r e d e l a phase I11 A. Mais pourquoi l e CEV a - t - i l ktd amen6 & d d s i r e r a c q u k r i r
une c e r t a i n e experience dans l e domaine d 1’ atterrissage t o u t temps. En dehors du f a i t qu’ il s’ agit d’ une
technique incontestablement d e p o i n t e dans l e domaine de l a conduite automatique du v o l . d e par ses f o n c t i o n s
cela l u i e t a i t n d c e s s a i r e . En e f f e t , en France, l e CEV e s t l’organisme charge d ’ e f f e c t u e r les essais en v o l de
c e r t i f i c a t i o n q u i permettent de d d l i v r e r l e c e r t i f i c a t de n a v i g a b i l i t k de chaque avion. D’ a u t r e p a r t , l e CEV e s t
charge de m e t t r e en oeuvre l e s avions bancs d’ essais permettant aux c o n s t r u c t e u r s f r a n c a i s de’ equipements de
m e t t r e au p o i n t l e u r s m a t e r i e l s . Ainsi l e CEV e f f e c t u e - t - i l deux t y p e s d ’ e s s a i s bien d i f f e r e n t s : d’une p a r t
s u p p o r t ae‘rien pour l a mise au p o i n t de c e r t a i n s m a t e r i e l s , d ’ a u t r e p a r t , e s s a i s de c e r t i f i c a t i o n .

Dans l e c a d r e de c e s essais e t a u s s i pour son information p e r s o n n e l l e , l e CEV e f f e c t u e de manibre systematique

chaque h i v e r une experimentation appele‘e “campagne t o u t temps”. Le p r i n c i p e de c e t t e compagne e s t de n e t t r e &
p r o f i t l e s c o n d i t i o n s r k e l l e s de b r o u i l l a r d e x i s t a n t en Europe. Sur en t e r r a i n quelconque d i s p o s a n t de 1’i n f r a -
s t r u c t u r e I . L S n e c e s s a i r e . Pour c e l a il f a u t m e t t r e en oeuvre un r e s e a u c e n t r a l i s a t e u r d e s i n f o r a t i o n s mktdo
couvrant 1’Europe e t donnant avec nn p r k a v i s de 12 h e u r e s les t e r r a i n s s u s c e p t i b l e s d e c o n d i t i o n s Phase 111.
C e t t e mkthode, quoique un peu l o u r d e , a donne jusqu’ & p r e s e n t d’ a s s e z bons r e s u l t a t s .

ESSAIS EN V O L -
Bien que cette p r e s e n t a t i o n p u i s s e a r e un peu a r b i t r a i r e nous p r k s e n t e r o n s l e s essais en f o n c t i o n d e s avions
sur l e s q u e l s ils o n t 6 t h r k a l i s d s .

Les Essais de Mise au Point

De 1962 & 1965, les essais ont eu l i e u sur d e s Morane S a u l n i e r 760 “Paris 11” b i r k a c t e u r s lkgers de t r a n s p o r t ,
p u i s d e 1966 k 1969, sur d e s Nord 262 bi-moteurs de t r a n s p o r t c i v i l . Parallklement & ces essais d e p i l o t e s
automatiques o n t eu eu l i e u d e p u i s 1964 d e s e s s a i s d e c o l l i m a t e u r s de p i l o t a g e ou “Head Up Displays” & 1’aide
d’un Nord 2500 bi-moteurs m i l i t a i r e d e t r a n s p o r t et de SE 210 C a r a v e l l e b i - r k a c t e u r s de t r a n s p o r t c i v i l .

Essais de Certification -
- C e r t i f i c a t i o n Phase I1 du m a t e r i e l Sud-Lear sur C a r a v e l l e .
- C e r t i f i c a t i o n Phase 111 A du m6me m a t e r i e l sur C a r a v e l l e , et

C e r t i f i c a t i o n Phase I1 du materiel SFENA sur Nord 262.

Le d e t a i l d e s approches, a r r o n d i s e t essais de pannes est donne en Annexe

Essais de Mise au Point -

11s comportent deux phases d i s t i n c t e s , l a mise au p o i n t du guidage proprement d i t et les essais d e pannes.
Le CEV a t t a c h e t o u j o u r s une extredie importance aux essais d e pannes qui r e p r e s e n t e n t un volume important d ’ h e u r e s
de vol.
13-2

M.S. 760 Paris 11

Le but d e c e s e s s a i s e'tait de v e r i f i e r l a v a l i d i t d du p r i n c i p e d' un p i l o t e automatique simple monitord. Ce
type de p i l o t e automatique k t a i t - i l s u f f i s a n t pour p a s s i v e r l e s e'volutions de l ' a v i o n en cas de p a n e d'un d e s
e'ldments du systeme et l a i s s a i t - i l l ' a v i o n dans une p o s i t i o n t e l l e que l a reprise en mains s o i t f a c i l e ? La
premiere t r a n c h e d' e s s a i s a bien siir eu pour but de m e t t r e au p o i n t l e s l o i s _du guidage j u s q u ' i l ' a r r o n d i y compris.
E n s u i t e nous avons m i s au p o i n t l e moniteur e t applique' aux e'le'ments de puissance de 1' avion d e s pannes simuldes.
d'amplitude e t de g r a d i e n t v a r i a b l e s . Ces e s s a i s ont montre' qu'en e f f e t les pannes r a p i d e s ou en e'chelon Q t a i e n t
t r d s b i e n c o u v e r t e s , en p a r t i c u l i e r l e moniteur de'braye l e p i l o t e automatique de 0,5 'a 0.8s apre's a p p l i c a t i o n d e
l a panne e t 1' d v o l u t i o n de 1' avion ne de'passe jamais quelques degrks en r o u l i s ou en tangage. Le f a i t d' a v o i r
un avion le'ger e t tres maniable 6 t a i t t r k s f a v o r a b l e pour c e s e s s a i s . En e f f e t . s u r un s i g n a l erron6 d'un d e s
e'l6ments d e puissance, sur c e t y p e d ' a v i o n , l ' d v o l u t i o n e s t trhs r a p i d e , donc nous avons dkduit que si S u i M.S.
760 l e moniteur limitait bien c e s pannes, a f o r t i o r i sur un avion p l u s l o u r d ou moins maniable c e l a serait-il
l e cas. Par c o n t r e les pannes l e n t e s ou d e f a i b l e amplitude sonk mal c o u v e r t e s par ce type de se'curite', l e
de'brayage i n t e r v e n a n t t a r d ou pas du t o u t . Le moniteur n' d t a i t donc p a s entidrement s a t i s f a i s a n t et il f a l l a i t
d i s p o s e r d' un systeme s u r v e i l l a n t l a t r a j e c t o i r e . Pour c e l a nous avons u t i l i s e ' simplement les signaux I. L. S.
eux-meles. Pour une v a l e u r donne'e du s i g n a l requ d bord d e 1' avion, deux lampes d i t e s "ecart e x c e s s i f " s' allument
et a v e r t i s s e n t l e p i l o t e que son avion s' 6 c a r t e t r o p de l a t r a j e c t o i r e ' the'orique e t qu' il l u i f a u t l e r e p r e n d r e
en mains. C e t t e combinaison dont l a mise au p o i n t d t a i t termine'e en 1965 a donne' e n t i h e s a t i s f a c t i o n . Eh e f f e t ,
si l a panne est v i o l e n t e l e moniteur de'braye l e p i l o t e automatique t o u t en l a i s s a n t 1' avion dans une p o s i t i o n
t e l l e que l a r e p r i s e en mains p a r l e p i l o t e s o i t t r h s aise'e. S i l a panne est moins f o r t e , l ' a v i o n ne s'embarque
p a s mais q u i t t e lentement 1'axe I.LS., les d c a r t s e x c e s s i f s a v e r t i s s e n t l e p i l o t e que l'atterrissage ne sera pas
p o s s i b l e e t q u ' i l d o i t donc reprendre en mains. Par c o n t r e . s i l a panne est suffisamment f a i b l e pour que ces
Qcarts ne s' allument pas, 1' avion v a s e poser normalement sur l a p i s t e .

Nord 262

Ce p r i n c i p e a i n s i mis au p o i n t f u t appliquk sur l e p i l o t e automatique SFENA 421 monte' sur Nord 262 e t pre'sente'
en c e r t i f i c a t i o n phase 11. L& a u s s i les essais de pannes o n t e'te' tr&spoussds pour b i e n s' a s s u r e r que l e s
r e s u l t a t s obtenus sur M. S. 760. e t les conclusions qui a v a i e n t &e' t i d e s k t a i e n t t o u j o u r s v a l a b l e s . En p a r t i c u l i e r
t o u t e s les pannes Q t a i e n t applique'es d 100 p i e d s ou au-dessous, l e p i l o t e e t a i t en V.S.V. simuld e t ne d e v a i t
r d a g i r que s u r a p p a r i t i o n d'une alarme. Nous avons a u s s i effectue' ces e s s a i s chaque f o i s que cela e'tait p o s s i b l e
en c o n d i t i o n s r e ' e l l e s d'emploi. Le systkme lui-mele posse'dait l a c a p a b i l i t e ' de l a phase I11 A, mais Pour d e s
r a i s o n s f i n a n c i h e s il n' a pas kte' p o s s i b l e d e m e t t r e e n t i h e m e n t au p o i n t 1' a r r o n d i e t l a remise dans 1' axe
automatique e t d e les certifier.

Caravel le et Systkme Sud-Lear

Pendant que s e de'roulaient l e s essais pre'ckdents, a v a i e n t l i e u s u r l a C a r a v e l l e les e s s a i s d e mise au p o i n t ,

P u i s d e c e r t i f i c a t i o n du systhme Sud-Lear s u r Caravelle. Contrairement au syst6me SFENA, p i l o t e automatique
simple monitord. dont l e p r i n c i p e a d' a i l l e u r s &e' reconnu v a l a b l e p a r bien d' a u t r e s que nous, l e materiel Sud-
Lear est un s y s t h e & s u r v e i l l a n c e e x t e r n e , c o n t r 6 l a n t uniquement que l e s e'volutions de l ' a v i o n s o n t peu impor-
t a n t e s . Les e s s a i s a v a i e n t commence' p a r l a mise au p o i n t e t l a c e r t i f i c a t i o n Phase I1 q u i e'tait acquise d&s
1965. 11s se s o n t p o u r s u i v i s par l a mise au p o i n t et l a c e r t i f i c a t i o n Phase I11 A a c q u i s e en 1967.

Pour c e t t e c e r t i f i c a t i o n , d ' a i l l e u r s , un problkme important s e p o s a i t . Qui d i t c e r t i f i c a t i o n d i t r e s p e c t de

c e r t a i n e s normes, o r dans ce cas pre'cis, l e s normes n ' e x i s t a i e n t que peu e t il a donc f a l l u les amdliorer; p u i s
au c o u r s d e s essais, v e ' r i f i e r q u ' e l l e s Q t a i e n t b i e n r e s p e c t e e s . ' Come pre'ce'demment, deux a s p e c t s s o n t &
considdrer: performances et se'curitds. A u p o i n t de vue performances, ce qu' il f a u t c' e s t que 1' avion se pose sur
l a p i s t e e t y r e s t e au c o w s du f r e i n a g e . P a r c o n t r e . au p o i n t d e vue s Q c u r i t e ' s , il f a u t qu' en aucun cas 1' avion
p u i s s e s e poser en dehors de cette p i s t e ou en s o r t i r . Cela conduit & abandonner l e concept de pannes t e l qu' il
e x i s t e encore pour l a phase 11. E s t considkre' comme panne maintenant t o u t fonctionnement anormal de n a t u r e &
compromettre l e bon a t t e r r i s s a g e , que c e l a provienne d' un guidage insuffisamment precis ou d' un s i g n a l errone'
a g i s s a n t s u r l e s dle'ments de puissance de 1' avion. Par s u i t e , il est n d c e s s a i r e que l e systkme i n s t a l l 6 & bord
de 1' avion indique t o u t moment que 1' avion se pre'sente bien, dans l e c a s c o n t r a i r e une alarme unique indique
au p i l o t e qu' il d o i t r e p r e n d r e 1' avion en mains c' e s t - & - d i r e de'brayer l e p i l o t e automatique e t f a i r e une remise
d e s gaz. I1 est d' a i l l e u r s admis que dans c e t t e remise d e s gaz, 1' avion p u i s s e toucher l a piste. En e f f e t , il
n ' e s t p a s re'aliste de penser qu'& trks basse a l t i t u d e (15 p i e d s p a r exemple) s u r un s i g n a l errone' & p i q u e r , l e
p i l o t e p u i s s e r e m e t t r e l e s gaz en coupant un re'acteur s a n s toucher l a ' p i s t e . Par c o n t r e , il est ne'cessaire de
v d r i f i e r que cet impact e'ventuel n' endommagera en r i e n une p a r t i e quelconque d e 1' avion. T e l est b i e n l e but
d e s e s s a i s de pannes q u ' e f f e c t u e l e CEV. I1 v e ' r i f i e qu'en aucun c a s , mefile l e p l u s c r i t i q u e , l a se'curitk est
mise en p e r i l pour l e s passagers. Ces e s s a i s bien sllr s o n t tr&slongs car il y a t o u j o u r s dans un systdme
complexe un grand nombre de pannes p o s s i b l e s . Je r a p p e l l e pour memoire que s u r C a r a v e l l e l e CEV a e f f e c t u d
1339 approches dont 576 avec pannes simule'es. Ld a u s s i chaque f o i s que cela a k t 6 p o s s i b l e , nous avons
effectue' ces e s s a i s en c o n d i t i o n s r e ' e l l e s me'te'orologiques. De p l u s , de maniere ?t t e n i r compte de l ' e n t r a i n e m e n t
p a r t i c u l i e r d e s p i l o t e s d ' e s s a i s , t o u s l e s r e ' s u l t a t s trouve's,ont e'tk major& d e 20% e t ce s o n t ces c h i f f r e s
majores que nous avons compare' aux exigences de l a norme. Ce materiel est d'ailleurs en e x p l o i t a t i o n dans une
compagnie f r a n q a i s e e t nous vous donnerons t o u t & 1' heure l e s r d s u l t a t s r k e l s obtenus en e x p l o i t a t i o n commerciale
avec passagers.
 13-3

CONCLUSIONS

De c e s e s s a i s , l e CEV a r e t i r d une c e r t a i n e experience.’ Tout d’abord ils l u i o n t permis de v e r i f i e r c e r t a i n e s

hypotheses f a i t e s s u r l e guidage hi-mefie. I1 d t a i t important de s a v o i r q u e l l e l o i de r k p a r t i t i o n r e p o n d s i t
l e guidage d’un avion. En e f f e t , c e guidage ne peut d t r e p a r f a i t , il e x i s t e t o u j o u r s un c e r t a i n d c a r t e n t r e l a
t r a j e c t o i r e thkorique e t l a t r a j e c t o i r e r k e l l e s u i v i e par 1’avion. Cet d c a r t e s t v d r i f i d certaines altitudes
impOrtante.5: 100 p i e d s . 50 p i e d s , 15 p i e d s et 1’ impact. Prenons l e c a s d e s performances de guidage mesurd
100 pieds. Le dkpouillement d e s d i f f e r e n t e s approches nous l i v c e un c e r t a i n nombre de v a l e u r s qui doivent
rkpondre i une l o i de r k p a r t i t i o n . I1 e s t fondamental d e c o n n a i t r e c e t t e l o i pour pouvoir e x t r a p o l e r d e s
quelques c e n t a i n e s d’ approches que nous avons f a i t e s , un r e ‘ s u l t a t qui s e r a v a l a b l e pour l e s d i z a i n e s de m i l l i e r s
d’approches q u i s e r o n t e f f e c t u d e s en l i g n e . Et malgrk l a forme b i z a r r e de l a d i s t r i b u t i o n expkrimentale on
montre p a r l e c a l c u l en u t i l i s a n t en p a r t i c u l i e r l e test du x 2 que l a p r o b a b i l i t k pour que l e guidage rkponde
h une l o i normale (ou l o i de Gauss) e s t t r b s s u p k r i e u r e b 99%.
D’ a u t r e p a r t , l ’ e x p d r i e n c e nous a confirm6 dans n o t r e i d e e qu’ il n’ d t a i t nullement besoin de doubler systk-
matiquement l e s p i l o t e s automatiques pour pouvoir f a i r e en t o u t e s d c u r i t k d e s approches e t atterrissages dans
l e s c o n d i t i o n s r d e l l e s de Phase I11 A.

En p a r t i c u l i e r pour les avions sur l e s q u e l s nous avons e f f e c t u e des essais, l a s k c u r i t d est t o u j o u r s g a r a n t i e

p a r l a p o s s i b i l i t k pour l e p i l o t e de reprendre en mains 1’avion. Ce p o i n t nous semble en e f f e t fondamental. Dans
t o u s les cas, q u e l l e que s o i t l a complexitk du p i l o t e automatique, il semble impensable d’ admettre qu’ en-dessous
d’ une c e r t a i n e a l t i t u d e , l e p i l o t e a i t comme consigne unique de laisser se d d r o u l e r 1’a t t e r r i s s a g e quoiqu’ il
advienne. I1 e x i s t e r a t o u j o u r s d e s pannes simples, ne s e r a i t - c e que c e l l e s d e l’kmetteur I.L.S., qui imposeront
que l e p i l o t e p u i s s e , s a n s c o u r i r de r i s q u e s graves, reprendre en mains son avion.

R k s u l t a t s de l ’ e x p l o i t a t i o n en l i g n e du systbme Sud-Lear, en c o w s de r e d a c t i o n .

ANNEXE 1

Essais E n
Appro c hes A r rondi s Essais D e Conditions
Panes Reelles

M. S.760 P a r i s 500 300 90

Nord 262 300 50 250 70
C a r a v e l l e Phase I1 740 120 130
C a r a v e l l e Phase I11 1340 540 580 100
Collimateur CSF 191 300 250 50
Collimateur CSF 193 800 700 150 100

Total 3980 1850 1190 450

 14

AUTOMATIC LANDING SYSTEMS ARE HERE

John L.Loeb

Deputy P r o j e c t Manager f o r t h e
Automated Control and Landing Systems P r o j e c t
Naval M a t e r i a l Command
Washington. D.C.
 14- 1

AUTOMATIC L A N D I N G SYSTEMS ARE HERE

John L.Loeb

The Navy, of n e c e s s i t y , has developed an automatic landing system f o r o p e r a t i o n a l use on a i r c r a f t c a r r i e r s

and f o r t r a i n i n g ashore. Automatic a i r c r a f t landings a r e r e q u i r e d t o enhance a l l - w e a t h e r c a p a b i l i t y and t o
i n c r e a s e f l i g h t s a f e t y . This paper w i l l d e s c r i b e t h e system, t r a c e t h e h i s t o r y of its development, d i s c u s s
problems and t h e i r s o l u t i o n s , enumerate f a i l - s a f e and s a f e t y f e a t u r e s , p o i n t o u t some hardware and software
i n t e r f a c e s , suggest f u t u r e improvements, and i n d i c a t e some l e s s o n s t o be learned.

1. SYSTEM DESCRIPTION

The All-Weather C a r r i e r Landing System (AWCLS) is a complex system which provides t h r e e modes of o p e r a t i o n .
Mode I is a f u l l y automatic, hands o f f , c o n t r o l t o touchdown; Mode I1 is an Instrument Landing System (ILS)
type p r e s e n t a t i o n t o t h e p i l o t on a c r o s s p o i n t e r o r heads-up d i s p l a y ; and Mode I11 is a Ground Controlled
Approach (GCA) system with a console o p e r a t o r g i v i n g t h e p i l o t changes i n heading and r a t e of descent t o
achieve t h e proper approach ( s e e F i g u r e 1). I n Mode I, t h e p i l o t u s e s t h e ILS c r o s s p o i n t e r or heads-up i n d i -
cator t o c o n s t a n t l y monitor t h e automatic landing. A t t h e same time, t h e console o p e r a t o r is monitoring t h e
automatic landing with t h e GCA d i s p l a y on t h e ship. Although it is p o s s i b l e t o provide a l l t h r e e modes i n one
system and hardware is s o designed, a s e p a r a t e , fully-redundant Mode I1 system is provided. It is believed
t h a t t o p r o t e c t a g a i n s t c a t a s t r o p h i c equipment f a i l u r e s during an automatic landing redundancy is e s s e n t i a l .
By providing t h e redundancy i n Mode 11, any discrepancy can be d e t e c t e d by t h e p i l o t i n time f o r him t o r e a c t .

The two independent systems which make up t h e AWCLS are h e r e i n a f t e r r e f e r r e d t o as Systems A and B. E i t h e r
system can be used s e p a r a t e l y ; however both a r e r e q u i r e d when automatic landings a r e made under c o n d i t i o n s of
z e r o c e i l i n g and z e r o v i s i b i l i t y . Under t h e s e c o n d i t i o n s redundant systems a r e r e q u i r e d t o i n s u r e t h e e s s e n t i a l
s a f e t y of f l i g h t . System B, which is a s i m p l e r and less c o s t l y system than System A, is c a l l e d o u t f o r installa-
t i o n on s h i p s and a t s h o r e s t a t i o n s where t h e need f o r l a n d i n g s does n o t j u s t i f y t h e added expense of @stem A.
System A is a complex group of systems c a l l e d t h e AN/SPN-42 and is a n outgrowth of t h e AN/SPN-10. However,
System A as described below i n c l u d e s o t h e r equipments and i n t e r f a c e s both on t h e s h i p and i n t h e a i r c r a f t .
System B i s r e f e r r e d t o as t h e AN/SPN-41. Here a g a i n System B as d e s c r i b e d below i n c l u d e s o t h e r equipments and
interfaces.

1.1 System A

This system c o n s i s t s of a Ka-band f i r e - c o n t r o l type r a d a r , a s t a b l e element, a high-speed general-purpose

d i g i t a l computer, d i s p l a y console, d a t a l i n k c o d e r / t r a n s m i t t e r and d a t a l i n k monitor on t h e c a r r i e r as shown
i n Figure 2. A f l i g h t p a t h r e c o r d e r is a l s o provided but i s n o t shown i n Figure 2. The Landing Control C e n t r a l
is t h e AN/SPN-42. I t i n t e r f a c e s t h e command d a t a l i n k which is made up of t h e AN/USQ-20 computer, AN/SSW-1C
encoder, and AN/SRc-31 d a t a l i n k t r a n s m i t t e r . The d a t a l i n k i s monitored by t h e OA-8435. I n t h e a i r c r a f t a
d a t a - l i n k receiver/decoder, automatic p i l o t c o u p l e r , automatic f l i g h t c o n t r o l system ( a u t p p i l o t ) , and r a d a r
augmentor are r e q u i r e d as shown i n F i g u r e s 3 and 4. The a i r c r a f t d a t a l i n k equipment is e i t h e r t h e AN/ASW-25
o r t h e AN/ASW-27 and AN/ARC-124. The nomenclature of t h e a u t o p i l o t and coupler d i f f e r s with each a i r c r a f t
type. The r a d a r augmentor may be e i t h e r a passi,ve c o r n e r r e f l e c t o r o r an a c t i v e r a d a r beacon. The AN/APN-154
bombing beacon i's modified f o r use as an a c t i v e augmentor. Automatic t h r o t t l e c o n t r o l i s a l s o r e q u i r e d i n t h e
a i r c r a f t , although n o t d i r e c t l y connected t o t h e automatic landing system. Both GFE and CFE a u t o t h r o t t l e s a r e
used. One GFE a u t o t h r o t t l e is designated t h e AN/ASN-54.

I n System A, an a i r c r a f t is flown through a p r e s c r i b e d approach a r e a , c a l l e d a r a d a r a c q u i s i t i o n window o r

g a t e , a t which p o i n t t h e r a d a r lodks on t o t h e a i r c r a f t and t r a c k s it t o touchdown (see Figure 5 ) . The angular
t r a c k i n g information of t h e r a d a r antenna and range t r a c k i n g information of t h e r a d a r a r e f e d from d i g i t a l
encoders t o t h e computer. The d i g i t a l l y encoded information from a s t a b l e element is a l s o fed t o t h e computer.
The two axis s t a b l e element a l s o i n c l u d e s a platform mounted v e r t i c a l accelerometer which is s t a b i l i z e d i n r o l l
and p i t c h . A d a t a s t a b i l i z a t i o n r o u t i n e i n t h e d i g i t a l computer removes t h e ' e f f e c t s o f s h i p ' s r o l l , p i t c h , yaw,
and heave from t h e a n g u l a r t r a c k i n g d a t a . The c o r r e c t e d d a t a , which p r e c i s e l y l o c a t e t h e a i r c r a f t i n space
c o o r d i n a t e s , a r e fed t o t h e f l i g h t computer r o u t i n e i n t h e computer where they are compared with a s t o r e d f l i g h t
p a t h optimized f o r t h e t y p e o f a i r c r a f t under c o n t r o l . E r r o r s i g n a l s a r e generated which can be t r a n s m i t t e d t o
t h e a i r c r a f t by means of a g r o u n d - t o - a i r d a t a l i n k and d i s p l a y e d t o t h e p i l o t on a c r o s s p o i n t e r i n d i c a t o r o r
heads-up d i s p l a y . Also s t o r e d i n t h e d i g i t a l computer is s u f f i c i e n t dynamic c o n t r o l information f o r each air-
c r a f t t y p e t o convert e r r o r s i g n a l s t o commands t o t h e a i r c r a f t a u t o p i l o t , t a k i n g i n t o account t h e response
c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s f o r d i f f e r e n t a i r c r a f t t y p e s . Autopilot commands are t r a n s m i t t e d t o t h e a i r c r a f t by means of
g r o u n d - t o - a i r d a t a l i n k i n t h e same message used t o transmit e r r o r signals. To l i m i t t h e d i s p e r s i o n i n heavy
14- 2

s e a s , deck motion compensation is used during t h e last 12 seconds t o f l y t h e a i r c r a f t t o t h e v e r t i c a l p o s i t i o n I

of t h e c a r r i e r deck touchdown p o i n t a t impact. Although t h e computer is programmed f o r c o n s t a n t angle
approaches normal t o c a r r i e r o p e r a t i o n s , it can j u s t as e a s i l y be programmed f o r f l a r e d approaches ashore o r I
f o r high angle V/STOL approach and hover needs. I
In p r a c t i c e , a Landing Control C e n t r a l , AN/SPN-42, provides two complete systems t o double t h e landing r a t e
and t o provide a high systems a v a i l a b i l i t y i n t h e event of component f a i l u r e . Each system u s e s a c o n i c a l scan
r a d a r antenna with a choice o f v e r t i c a l o r c i r c u l a r p o l a r i z a t i o n . A 4-fOOt r e f l e c t o r p r o v i d e s a beam width
Ii
of 0.5O. The r a d a r o p e r a t e s i n t h e 33.0 t o 33.4 GHz frequency band, with a p u l s e r e p e t i t i o n frequency of 2000
pulses/second and a peak power o u t p u t of 40 k i l o w a t t s . The r a d a r augmentor i n t h e a i r c r a f t is used t o e l i m i n a t e
t a r g e t s c i n t i l l a t i o n and a i d i n p e n e t r a t i o n of heavy r a i n f a l l .

The d i g i t a l computer, CP-848, has an 1 8 - b i t word and 32,000 word memory. The memory r e c y c l i n g time is 2
I
microseconds. Two computers a r e provided. Each computer performs a l l computations f o r two approaching a i r c r a f t
at a r a t e of 20 times/second.

A t t h e same time t h e computer performs o n - l i n e d i a g n o s t i c s throughout both systems. The second computer
s e r v e s as an o f f - l i n e monitor. Addressed d i g i t a l d a t a l i n k messages c o n t a i n i n g e r r o r and command s i g n a l s are
t r a n s m i t t e d t o each a i r c r a f t a t t h e r a t e of 10 times/second. In a d d i t i o n d i s c r e t e messages are t r a n s m i t t e d t o
i n d i c a t e “landing check”, “ACL lock-on”, “ a u t o p i l o t c o u p l e r a v a i l a b l e ” , “command c o n t r o l ” . “voice”, “10 seconds”,
and “wave-off”.

A d i s p l a y console ( s e e Figure 6 ) is provided t o monitor automatic approaches. The d i s p l a y provides an AZ-EL

p r e s e n t a t i o n which p e r m i t s t h e console o p e r a t o r t o perform Mode I11 “talk-downs”. Talk-down can be provided i f
t h e a i r c r a f t is not equipped with a d a t a l i n k o r i f t h e r e i s a f a i l u r e i n t h e d a t a l i n k , coupler, o r automatic
p i l o t . The console o p e r a t o r is a l s o provided with c o n t r o l s t o r e p o s i t i o n t h e g a t e , t o e n t e r t h e a i r c r a f t type
and d a t a l i n k a d d r e s s , and t o wave o f f an a i r c r a f t under c e r t a i n c o n d i t i o n s e s t a b l i s h e d by d o c t r i n e . The f l i g h t I
p a t h , a i r s p e e d , r a t e of descent, s h i p ’ s motion, and impact v e l o c i t y a r e recorded f o r each l a n d i n g and may be
used f o r d e b r i e f i n g p i l o t s when manual landings a r e made f o r t r a i n i n g purposes. ~

1.2 System 6
This system, which is completely s e p a r a t e from System A , c o n s i s t s of two %-band t r a n s m i t t e r s and antennas I
on t h e c a r r i e r and a receiver/decoder i n a i r c r a f t . (See Figure 7 . ) The receiver/decoder i n t h e a i r c r a f t
d i s p l a y s e r r o r s t o t h e p i l o t on t h e same c r o s s p o i n t e r o r heads-up d i s p l a y used f o r System A Mode 11. A
!
i
s e l e c t o r switch i s provided i n t h e c o c k p i t . The ship-board equipment, AN/SPN-41, o p e r a t e s on one of t e n
frequency channels i n t h e 15.4 t o 1 5 . 7 GHz band. The two t r a n s m i t t e r s o p e r a t e on t h e same frequency which i s
I
time-shared. One t r a n s m i t t e r and antenna provide azimuth scan coverage. This t r a n s m i t t e r and antenna a r e
l o c a t e d under t h e a f t end of t h e carrier deck and a r e s t a b i l i z e d f o r r o l l and yaw. The o t h e r t r a n s m i t t e r and
antenna, which provide e l e v a t i o n scan coverage, a r e l o c a t e d on t h e p o r t s i d e of t h e c a r r i e r , approximately I
80 f e e t a f t of t h e o p t i c a l landing system. (See Figure 8 . ) The e l e v a t i o n antenna is s t a b i l i z e d i n r o l l and
p i t c h . Both antennas a r e mechanically scanned. The azimuth antenna h a s a 2’ beam which is scanned +Zoo from
t h e c e n t e r l i n e of t h e landing a r e a . The e l e v a t i o n antenna h a s a 1.3’ beam which is scanned from 0 t o +ZOO
I
e l e v a t i o n . The antennas a r e v e r t i c a l l y p o l a r i z e d and t h e azimuth and e l e v a t i o n antennas a r e r e s p e c t i v e l y 2 f e e t
and 3 f e e t i n length. The mechanical scan of t h e antennas is g r e a t e r than t h e e l e c t r i c a l scan i n d i c a t e d above.
The peak power of each t r a n s m i t t e r is 2 k i l o w a t t s . Pulse p a i r coding is used t o d i s t i n g u i s h azimuth from
e l e v a t i o n and azimuth l e f t of c e n t e r l i n e from azimuth r i g h t o f c e n t e r l i n e . The spacing between p u l s e p a i r s i s
a measure of t h e a n g l e as shown i n Figure 9. Coding i s a l s o a v a i l a b l e f o r s t a t i o n i d e n t i t y and f o r o b s t a c l e
c l e a r a n c e i n s h o r e l o c a t i o n s . The antenna scan r a t e is 2% times/second and s i g n a l s a r e t r a n s m i t t e d i n both
l o c a t i o n s of scan t h u s p r o v i d i n g an information r a t e of 5 scans/second.

A i r c r a f t equipment, t h e AN/ARA-63, r e c e i v e s s i g n a l s on t h e channel s e l e c t e d by p i l o t and decodes t h e

information f o r d i s p l a y on t h e c r o s s - p o i n t e r o r heads-up d i s p l a y . The AN/ARA-63 a l s o p r o v i d e s o u t p u t s t o
o p e r a t e f l a g alarms and d r i v e t h e c r o s s p o i n t e r needles o f f s c a l e i n t h e absence of a s i g n a l above t h r e s h o l d .
The u s e o f t h e scanning beam technique p e r m i t s t h e s e l e c t i o n i n t h e a i r c r a f t of any azimuth o r e l e v a t i o n angle
( w i t h i n t h e scan coverage p a t t e r n ) f o r approach. The AN/ARA-63 i s s e t f o r an azimuth approach on c e n t e r l i n e ; Ii
however, t a p s a r e provided t o s e l e c t w i t h i n t h e decoder box t h e optimum g l i d e s l o p e f o r a p a r t i c u l a r a i r c r a f t I
type. In t h i s way it i s p o s s i b l e by means o f a minor wiring change t o s e l e c t d i f f e r e n t g l i d e s l o p e s f o r f i g h t e r I
a i r c r a f t , a t t a c k a i r c r a f t , and h e l i c o p t e r s . The Navy has e l e c t e d not t o make t h i s a m a t t e r f o r p i l o t d e c i s i o n
s i n c e t h e AN/SPN-42 and o p t i c a l landing system aboard s h i p e s t a b l i s h an optimum g l i d e s l o p e f o r each a i r c r a f t
t y p e and t h e t h r e e systems must agree. The AN/ARA-63 does not decode s t a t i o n i d e n t i t y o r o b s t a c l e c l e a r a n c e
i
i
information but t h e information i s brought o u t s o t h a t a s e p a r a t e decoder may be provided as part oA t h e I
i d e n t i t y o r obstacle clearance display. I

I t is a l s o p o s s i b l e t o time s h a r e a d i s t a n c e measuring s e r v i c e on t h e same AN/SPN-41 and AN/ARA-63 channel.

The Navy i s n o t planning t o provide DME ( d i s t a n c e measuring equipment) i n i t s shipboard i n s t a l l a t i o n ; however,
DME equipment w i l l be procured f o r test by t h e U.S.Marine Corps. It appears a t t h i s p o i n t t h a t t h e time
r e s e r v e d f o r DME s e r v i c e could b e t t e r be used a s h o r e f o r a second e l e v a t i o n scanned antenna and t h a t t h e new
I
d i g i t i z e d TACAN could, with minor m o d i f i c a t i o n , provide DME s e r v i c e with s u f f i c i e n t accuracy f o r landing.

,
 14- 3

A s s t a t e d below, System B complements System A when t h e two systems a r e used t o g e t h e r . I n normal use t h e
p i l o t w i l l be watching t h e c r o s s - p o i n t e r o r heads-up d i s p l a y generated by System B while t h e automatic p i l o t
r e c e i v e s its commands from System A. A n y d e v i a t i o n of t h e c o c k p i t d i s p l a y from an on-course i n d i c a t i o n w i l l
s e r v e as a warning t o t h e p i l o t t o t a k e over manually. Such a d e v i a t i o n would occur from a f a i l u r e i n e i t h e r
system on t h e s h i p o r i n t h e a i r c r a f t . It should be noted t h a t System B is a much less complex system than
System A; hence it i s i n h e r e n t l y more r e l i a b l e . It is a l s o less c o s t l y and t h e r e f o r e w i l l be more widely
i n s t a l l e d than System A.

2 . fIISTORY

The United S t a t e s Navy e s t a b l i s h e d t h e requirement f o r automatic c a r r i e r l a n d i n g s i n 1948. A t t h a t time

t h e need was t o enhance t h e a l l - w e a t h e r c a p a b i l i t y of c a r r i e r a i r c r a f t . It was n o t u n t i l much later with t h e
i n t r o d u c t i o n o f high performance j e t a i r c r a f t and f u l l scale o p e r a t i o n s a t n i g h t t h a t f l i g h t s a f e t y became a
very important f a c t o r i n t h e development o f an automatic landing c a p a b i l i t y .

A b a s i c requirement f o r t h e system t o be developed was t h a t t h e major space, weight, and complexity be

placed aboard t h e s h i p . I n o t h e r words, it was n o t reasonable t o assume v a r i o u s s e n s o r s and a computer i n t h e
a i r c r a f t . Also, t o permit automatic c a r r i e r l a n d i n g s i n an a i r b o r n e system, t h e motion of t h e deck would have
t o be conveyed i n some way t o t h e computer i n t h e a i r c r a f t . S t u d i e s were performed and it was decided t h a t
development of a shipboard system was f e a s i b l e and w i t h i n t h e s t a t e - o f - t h e - a r t .

I n 1951 two p a r a l l e l developments o f t h e shipboard system were i n i t i a t e d and a t t h e same time p a r a l l e l

developments of a command d a t a l i n k were a l s o undertaken. The landing systems d i f f e r e d i n t h a t one used a
%-band c o n i c a l scan, f i r e c o n t r o l type r a d a r and t h e o t h e r an X-band FM/CW doppler r a d a r . A i r c r a f t were
b a i l e d t o t h e two competitors and each provided h i s own c o n t r o l d a t a l i n k , a u t o p i l o t coupler, and a u t o p i l o t
modification. Both command d a t a l i n k s were of t h e time d i v i s i o n type. One was r e q u i r e d t o be time shared
with TACAN at L-band and t h e o t h e r with UHF communications i n t h e 225 t o 400 MHz band. The L-band system used
p u l s e modulations while t h e UHF system used frequency s h i f t keying.

I n 1954 both landing systems were taken t o t h e Naval A i r T e s t Center, Patuxent River, Maryland f o r t e s t and
e v a l u a t i o n . The mean d i s p e r s i o n f o r both systems was about f 6 0 f e e t . T h i s f a r exceeded t h e _+25 f e e t considered
e s s e n t i a l without s h i p s motion. An a n a l y s i s o f t h e d a t a showed, however, t h a t t h e s o u r c e of e r r o r i n t h e system
u s i n g t h e Ka-band r a d a r was t h e a i r c r a f t f l i g h t c o n t r o l system. The s o u r c e o f e r r o r i n t h e X-band system was i n
t h e r a d a r . A new s p e c i f i c a t i o n was w r i t t e n c a l l i n g o u t t h e Ka-band r a d a r and t h e t i g h t e r f l i g h t c o n t r o l system.
The model r e s u l t i n g from t h e new s p e c i f i c a t i o n was d e l i v e r e d i n 1957. T h i s model demonstrated a d i s p e r s i o n of
l e s s than k25 f e e t a t Patuxent River and with moderate motion aboard t h e USS ANTIETAM made 30 consecutive
automatic touch and go l a n d i n g s o r a r r e s t m e n t s . In f a c t t h e r e s u l t s i n September 1957 were so s u c c e s s f u l t h a t
it was decided t o buy a u t o m a t i c ' l a n d i n g systems f o r 12 c a r r i e r s and 2 s h o r e t r a i n i n g bases.

The s t e p i n going from a s i n g l e channel f e a s i b i l i t y model without deck motion compensation t o a d u a l channel
production model with deck motion compensation and capable o f meeting shipboard environmental requirements was
a huge s t e p indeed. The f e a s i b i l i t y model was contained i n f i v e equipment racks. The dual channel production
equipment r e q u i r e d 22 racks! Evaluation tests s t a r t e d i n 1963 and immediately ran i n t o problems. These
problems and t h e i r s o l u t i o n w i l l be d e s c r i b e d i n g r e a t e r d e t a i l i n t h i s paper. I t w i l l s u f f i c e h e r e t o p o i n t
o u t t h a t a l a r g e p a r t o f t h e i n c r e a s e i n complexity r e s u l t e d i n a consequent decrease i n r e l i a b i l i t y . In 1963
a t t h e time of t h e e v a l u a t i o n t e s t s t h e Mean Time Between F a i l u r e s was 11 hours. The MTBF given above r e l a t e s
only t o t h e shipboard equipment. The a i r b o r n e d a t a l i n k and t h e a u t o p i l o t / a i r c r a f t l e f t much t o be d e s i r e d i n
both performance and r e l i a b i l i t y .

More should be s a i d about t h e command d a t a l i n k . P a r a l l e l developments were b e g u n ' i n 1951. I n 1956 a

d e c i s i o n was made t o go t o t h e UHF d a t a l i n k . The d e c i s i o n was made a f t e r t h e f e a s i b i l i t y of each system was
proven but p r i o r t o comparative t e s t s . I t was based upon a d e c i s i o n of t h e US Air Force t o go "to a UHF d a t a
l i n k as developed by t h e US Navy. Since t h e Navy had two d a t a l i n k s , i t chose t h e UHF d a t a l i n k s o as t o be
compatible with t h e Air Force. I n 1963, 12 a i r c r a f t were equipped with a command d a t a l i n k . In production
q u a n t i t i e s , t h e c o s t of t h i s d a t a l i n k was quoted a t $88,000. I n s t a l l a t i o n of t h e d a t a l i n k was quoted a t
$300,000 per a i r c r a f t .

Late i n 1963 t h e Navy decid,ed t o r e a s s e s s t h e requirement f o r automatic carrier landings. The landing
system c o n t r a c t o r , t h e d a t a l i n k equipment c o n t r a c t o r , and t h e a i r f r a m e manufacturer each f e l t t h a t t h e blame
f o r poor r e l i a b i l i t y and performance lay with t h e o t h e r . A t t h i s p o i n t , a management o f f i c e was e s t a b l i s h e d
i n t h e Navy. T h i s o f f i c e was charged with g e t t i n g a s i c k program well. I n e s t a b J i s h i n g t h i s o f f i c e , t h e
assumption was made t h a t s t a r t i n g over was no s o l u t i o n a t a l l . The l e s s o n was n o t easy but it was one t h a t
could only have been l e a r n e d by experience and n o t by s t u d y , p r e d i c t i o n , ' o r simulation. I t has been a
f a s c i n a t i n g experience and much of t h e paper t o follow w i l l i d e n t i f y t h i s experience.

3 . PROBLEMS A N D SOLUTIONS

Problems occurred i n every p a r t of t h e system making it p a r t i c u l a r l y d i f f i c u l t t o assess r e s u l t s of t e s t i n g .

I n a d d i t i o n t h e shipboard equipment, t h e command d a t a l i n k , and t h e a u t o p i l o t / a i r f r a m e systems were f u r n i s h e d
by d i f f e r e n t c o n t r a c t o r s with t e c h n i c a l management i n d i f f e r e n t Bureaus. A few of t h e problems faced by t h e
new management o f f i c e s i n c e 1963 a r e d i s c u s s e d along with t h e i r s o l u t i o n .
14- 4

3.1 Problem - Reliability

A s p r e v i o u s l y s t a t e d t h e AN/SPN-10 had an 11 hour MTBF during t e s t s conducted i n 1963. In a d d i t i o n a i r b o r n e
d a t a l i n k equipment was u n r e l i a b l e . Claims were made t h a t command s i g n a l s i s s u e d by t h e AN/SPN-10 were
improperly coded by t h e command d a t a l i n k .

S o h t ion
A study of t h e AN/SPN-10 f a i l u r e p a t t e r n d i s c l o s e d 17 high f a i l u r e r a t e items. Concentrated e f f o r t t o
c o r r e c t t h e s e items p l u s a few o t h e r s which showed up l a t e r has i n c r e a s e d t h e AN/SPN-10 MTBF t o more than
50 hours. The longer range program t o r e p l a c e vacuum t u b e s and analog computers i n t h e AN/SPN-42 h a s
produced an MTBF exceeding 300 hours. The a i r b o r n e d a t a l i n k AN/ASW-21 used i n t h e 1963 t e s t s was a two-way
g r o u n d - t o - a i r and air-to-ground d a t a l i n k using an AN/ARC-88 t r a n s c e i v e r . I t was found t h a t t h e r e l a y used t o
switch t h e antenna from r e c e i v e t o t r a n s m i t f a i l e d . A t t h e t e n message p e r second r a t e , t h i s r e l a y switched
36,000 times p e r hour. The two m i l l i o n s w i t c h l i f e s p e c i f i e d f o r t h i s r e l a y was exceeded i n 60 hours. I t
became e v i d e n t t h a t s o l i d - s t a t e switching was r e q u i r e d ; however, f o r t h e t e s t s t h e r e l a y was wired i n r e c e i v e
only s i n c e t h e landing system r e q u i r e s only ground-to-air d a t a l i n k . The problem concerning command s i g n a l s
i s s u e d by t h e AN/SPN-10 and t r a n s m i t t e d by t h e command d a t a l i n k was solved by providing a Data Link Monitor.
The Data Link Monitor r e c e i v e s messages t r a n s m i t t e d by t h e command d a t a l i n k , decodes t h e s e messages, and
compares t h e t r a n s m i t t e d message with t h e AN/SPN-10 o r AN/SPN-42 computer o u t p u t . An alarm is given i f t h e
output and i n p u t do n o t agree.

3.2. Problem - Repeatability

R e s u l t s with t h e 1963 AN/SPN-10 were n o t r e p e a t a b l e . Automatic l a n d i n g s with low d i s p e r s i o n s were obtained

one day and with high d i s p e r s i o n s t h e next day.

Solution
This problem could be a t t r i b u t e d t o t h e analog computers. These computers involved continuous tweeking of
o p e r a t i o n a l s e r v o a m p l i f i e r g a i n s . I t took an engineer o r h i g h l y t r a i n e d t e c h n i c i a n t o check alignments b e f o r e
each f l i g h t p e r i o d . The d i g i t a l computer i n t h e AN/SPN-42 h a s e l i m i n a t e d t h i s problem. The performance i s t h e
same day a f t e r day. No adjustments are required. I t should be noted t h a t t h e AN/SPN-10 adjustments are n o t
c r i t i c a l f o r Modes I1 and I11 where t h e p i l o t r e v e r t s t o v i s u a l f l i g h t r u l e s at 200 f e e t and % mile.

3.3 Problem - Lack of P i l o t Monitor

The AN/SPN-10 and command d a t a l i n k as configured i n 1963 t r a n s m i t t e d e i t h e r commands (Mode I ) o r e r r o r s

(Mode 11). The thought was t h a t t h e console o p e r a t o r would t e l l t h e p i l o t how he was doing d u r i n g automatic
approaches. In f a c t s e v e r a l thousand automatic landings h a s been made ashore without t h e p i l o t s q u e s t i o n i n g
t h i s procedure. New p i l o t s brought i n t o t h e program found t h i s unacceptable.

Solution
The message s t r u c t u r e of t h e command d a t a l i n k was changed so t h a t both commands and e r r o r s were t r a n s m i t t e d
i n t h e same message t o permit t h e p i l o t t o s e e h i s e r r o r while under automatic c o n t r o l . This use of e r r o r
s i g n a l s t o monitor automatic landings placed g r e a t l y increased s i g n i f i c a n c e on t h e v a l i d i t y of t h e e r r o r
s i g n a l s . It became apparent t h a t s i n c e t h e same s e n s o r p r o v i d e d ’ b o t h commands and e r r o r s , t h e commands and
e r r o r s could correspond and both be wrong.

I n o t h e r words t h e system was no longer f a i l - s a f e . It was at t h i s p o i n t t h a t it was decided t o develop a

s e p a r a t e back-up t o produce e r r o r s i g n a l s (Mode 11) i n t h e a i r c r a f t . A review was made of f o u r systems under
development and agreement was reached by Navy L a b o r a t o r i e s and independent c o n s u l t a n t s t h a t t h e scanning beam
landing system developed f o r t h e F e d e r a l Aviation Administration w a s t h e only one of t h e f o u r which would meet
Navy requirements f o r c a r r i e r i n s t a l l a t i o n . Subsequent t e s t s and s e r v i c e approval of System B have borne
out t h i s d e c i s i o n .

3.4 Problem - Wrong Logic

In developing a system as complex as t h e AN/SPN-10 and t h e follow-on AN/SPN-42 c e r t a i n assumptions had t o be
made. One such assumption was t h a t a wave-off would be t r a n s m i t t e d t o t h e a i r c r a f t f o r any of a number of
reasons. For example, i f t h e a i r c r a f t e r r o r exceeded c e r t a i n limits t h e r e would be an automatic wave-off a t
any time, even at maximum range. Also it was assumed t h a t t h e console o p e r a t o r would decide which mode of
c o n t r o l t h e p i l o t would use. These two assumptions were wrong. In t h e f i r s t case a wave-off even a t range
does n o t permit t h e p i l o t t o c o n t i n u e h i s approach even though h e can s e e t h e c a r r i e r and is a b l e t o manually
c o r r e c t t o t h e proper course. In t h e second c a s e , it w a s decided t h a t t h e p i l o t should d e c i d e t h e mode of
c o n t r o l he d e s i r e s .

Solution
To c o r r e c t t h e s e i n c o r r e c t assumptions it w a s necessary t o change t h e systems l o g i c . The new l o g i c p r o v i d e s
Modes I , 11, and I11 simultaneously. (See F i g u r e 1.) The i n i t i a t i o n of landing message t o t h e a i r c r a f t causes
t h e “check-off” l i g h t t o come on. When t h e r a d a r l o c k s on t o t h e a i r c r a f t , t h e command d a t a l i n k sends a d i s c r e t e
 14-5

’
s i g n a l i n d i c a t i n g “ACL lock-on” t o t h e p i l o t . I f t h e a i r c r a f t is w i t h i n volume limits r e q u i r e d f o r an
automatic landing a d i s c r e t e s i g n a l c a u s e s t h e “coupler a v a i l a b l e ” l i g h t t o be lit. T h i s i n d i c a t e s t o t h e
p i l o t t h a t h e can couple h i s a u t o p i l o t f o r a Mode I automatic landing. He may a l s o e l e c t t o f l y Mode I1 o r
r e q u e s t a Mode I11 talkdown. When t h e “command c o n t r o l ” l i g h t comes on, he is r e c e i v i n g p i t c h and bank
commands f o r an automatic landing. I f t h e p i l o t couples p r i o r t o t h e “command control’’ l i g h t , he w i l l
r e c e i v e commands t o z e r o p i t c h and z e r o bank. If he couples h i s a u t o p i l o t and t h e aircraft exceeds a p r e s c r i b e d
volume s a f e f o r an automatic landing, t h e “coupler a v a i l a b l e ” l i g h t goes o u t and t h e a u t o p i l o t is a u t o m a t i c a l l y
disconnected. The p i l o t h a s t h u s r e v e r t e d t o Mode 11. I f t h e p i l o t f l y i n g Mode I1 r e t u r n s t o t h e s a f e auto-
matic landing volume, t h e “coupler a v a i l a b l e ” l i g h t w i l l a g a i n come on and t h e p i l o t i s f r e e t o recouple. On t h e
o t h e r hand, i f he exceeds t h e s a f e volume f o r Mode 11, he r e c e i v e s a “voice”, Mode 111, d i s c r e t e . A d i s c r e t e i s
t r a n s m i t t e d and “10 second” l i g h t is lit a t 10 seconds t o touchdown. F i n a l l y a t 10 seconds t o touchdown i f t h e
p i l o t exceeds t h e safe Mode I1 volume, he r e c e i v e s a “wave-off” d i s c r e t e . An i l l u s t r a t i o n of t h e landing p a t t e r n
is shown i n Figure 10.

3.5 Problem - Radar Augmentor

A r a d a r augmentor is r e q u i r e d i n t h e a i r c r a f t t o prevent r a d a r s c i n t i l l a t i o n c l o s e i n and t o extend t h e

r a d a r range i n heavy r a i n . I t was assumed t h a t a p a s s i v e r e f l e c t o r would be i d e a l s i n c e i t would have a high
r e l i a b i l i t y . To prevent s c i n t i l l a t i o n i t was decided t h a t t h e e f f e c t i v e r e f l e c t i n g area of t h e corner r e f l e c t o r
should be 10 db g r e a t e r t h a n . t h e a i r c r a f t (10 t i m e s ) . In o t h e r words i f t h e a i r c r a f t c r o s s - s e c t i o n i n t h e
landing c o n f i g u r a t i o n were 30 s q u a r e meters, t h e e f f e c t i v e c r o s s - s e c t i o n of t h e c o r n e r r e f l e c t o r must be 300
s q u a r e meters. T h i s r e q u i r e s a corner r e f l e c t o r of about 12 i n c h e s on a s i d e . In a d d i t i o n , t o g e t t h e b e s t
performance i n heavy r a i n t h e c o r n e r r e f l e c t o r should be c i r c u l a r l y p o l a r i z e d as is t h e r a d a r . To o b t a i n
c i r c u l a r p o l a r i z a t i o n , a t h i n d i e l e c t r i c s u r f a c e must be f a s t e n e d t o one f a c e of t h e r e f l e c t o r . F i n a l l y , t h e
c o r n e r r e f l e c t o r cannot be exposed during o p e r a t i o n s s i n c e it r e p r e s e n t s a tremendous t a r g e t f o r enemy r a d a r s
and h a s a very g r e a t drag. I t was assumed t h a t t h e r e f l e c t o r could be folded i n t o t h e wheel well. The assumption
t h a t a c o r n e r r e f l e c t o r t o meet t h e s e requirements would be r e l i a b l e w a s wrong. I t was a l s o wrong t o assume t h a t
t h e r e was space a v a i l a b l e i n t h e wheel well.

Solution
The s o l u t i o n r e q u i r e d t h e development of an a c t i v e augmentor o r radar beacon. Actually f o u r s e p a r a t e
t e c h n i q u e s were i n v e s t i g a t e d i n o r d e r t o a c h i e v e a s a t i s f a c t o r y , c o s t e f f e c t i v e s o l u t i o n . These e f f o r t s can be
c a t e g o r i z e d as: (1) a t r a v e l l i n g wave tube a m p l i f i e r , (2) a conventional Ka-band beacon using a magnetron
t r a n s m i t t e r , ( 3 ) a Ka-band beacon u s i n g a r e f l e x k l y s t r o n as a t r a n s m i t t e r , and (4) a cross-band beacon u s i n g
an X-band beacon a l r e a d y i n s t a l l e d i n most a i r c r a f t with which t o r e p l y . Beacons (Z), (3), and (4) were a l l
f l i g h t t e s t e d and provided s a t i s f a c t o r y performance. The d e c i s i o n was t o go t o t h e cross-band beacon because i t
r e q u i r e d t h e least a d d i t i o n a l space and c o s t less. This development was i n t e r e s t i n g because t h e Ka-band c o n i c a l
scanned r a d a r antenna does n o t r e c e i v e replies and cannot sense a i r c r a f t movement; hence, t h e aircraft must
s e n s e t h e amplitude modulation of t h e c o n i c a l scan and amplitude modulate t h e X-band beacon o u t p u t . This
amplitude modulator i s e x t e r n a l t o t h e i n s t a l l e d X-band beacon and r e q u i r e s only minor beacon modification.

3.6 Problem - Airborne Data Link I n s t a l l a t i o n C o s t s

I

I n 1963, twelve F-4 aircraft were equipped w i t h a two-way, g r o u n d - t o - a i r and air-to-ground data l i n k , t h e
AN/ASW-21. A s i n d i c a t e d above, t h i s data l i n k i n a d d i t i o n t o being u n r e l i a b l e c o s t $300,000 p e r a i r c r a f t t o
i n s t a l l . Some of t h e reasons f o r t h i s high i n s t a l l a t i o n c o s t were: (1) t h e large size made it necessary t o
modify a f u e l c e l l t o provide space, (2) t h e need f o r providing many d i g i t a l l y encoded s e n s o r s f o r a i r - t o -
ground t r a n s m i s s i o n , and (3) t h e ground-to-air data was i n an unusable form. Separate black boxes had t o be
provided t o i n t e r f a c e t h e a u t o p i l o t and c o c k p i t d i s p l a y s .
I

Sol u t i on

A new a i r b o r n e d a t a l i n k w a s developed at t h e Naval A i r Development Center, J o h n s v i l l e , Pennsylvania. T h i s

d a t a l i n k , t h e AN/ASW-25, is a one-way, ground-to-air equipment making maximum u s e of m i c r o e l e c t r o n i c technology.
More than 500 aircraft a r e now equipped. The AN/ASW-25 is a hard mounted u n i t 4 i n . wide x 7% i n . h i g h x 9% i n .
deep, weighing less than 10 pounds. (See Figure 11. ) ,It c o n t a i n s a 250 channel UHF r e c e i v e r , w i t h a frequency
s y n t h e s i z e r p e r m i t t i n g t h e p i l o t a choice of a l l 250 channels, d i g i t a l decoders, and d i g i t a l t o analog con-
v e r t e r s . Every s e t ’ i s f u l l y t e s t e d under AGREE environmental test c o n d i t i o n s f o r 1000 hour MTBF. A t t h i s p o i n t
i n t i m e , i n s t a l l e d equipments a r e exceeding t h e 1000 hour hfI’BF. The u n i t c o s t of t h e AN/ASW-25 i n production is
about $4,000. I n s t a l l a t i o n c o s t s are running from $15,000 t o $50,000 based upon t h e type o f a i r c r a f t , f u n c t i o n a l
use, and whether t h e i n s t a l l a t i o n is made d u r i n g production o r as a r e t r o f i t . The ope-way ground-to-air d a t a l i n k
can a c c e p t commands f o r a i r t r a f f i c c o n t r o l , i n t e r c e p t , and bombing as w e l l as f o r landing system c o n t r o l .

3.7 Problem - Approach Power Control (APC)

The automatic landing system, System A, commands t h e automatic p i l o t i n p i t c h and bank. It is e s s e n t i a l t h a t
t h e aircraft speed be held r e l a t i v e l y c o n s t a n t d u r i n g p i t c h up and p i t c h down commands. The Navy d e c i s i o n t o
provide an APC i n a l l carrier j e t a i r c r a f t was reached p r i o r t o t h e approval o f t h e automatic landings f o r c a r r i e r s .
A f t e r c o n s i d e r a b l e test and e v a l u a t i o n o f both a i r s p e e d and a n g l e of attack APCs, t h e angle of a t t a c k AFC was
s e l e c t e d . It should be noted t h a t t h e Navy APC is n o t p u r e l y a n g l e of a t t a c k . A v e r t i c a l accelerometer i s used
t o s e n s e changes due t o t u r b u l e n c e . The problems w i t h t h e APC have been numerous. F i r s t , t h e r e have been c o n s t a n t
14-6

changes i n t h e a i r c r a f t engines without updating t h e APC. Then, t h e APC does n o t respond t o a p i t c h command
but r a t h e r t o t h e change i n angle of a t t a c k which is delayed f o r an i n d e f i n i t e p e r i o d based upon t h e a i r c r a f t
response time. F i n a l l y , t h e APC is r e q u i r e d f o r both manual and automatic approaches. Since t h e response
time of t h e p i l o t is much slower than t h a t of t h e automatic system, t h e g a i n s and response c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s
favored by t h e p i l o t f o r manual approaches are u n s a t i s f a c t o r y f o r automatic landings.

Solution
The APC problems a r e n o t a l l solved. One s o l u t i o n t o t h e problem of a i r f r a m e and engine changes is t o
s p e c i f y t h e M C performance requirements and ensure t h a t t h e a i r f r a m e manufacturer be r e q u i r e d t o provide t h i s
performance a f t e r any airframe/engine modification. It is e a s i e r t o s p e c i f y t h i s performance f o r t h e
automatic l a n d i n g system than f o r t h e manual system which is more a n a t t e r of p i l o t opinion. It appears t h a t
a compromise between t h e manual and automatic requirements m a y n o t be p o s s i b l e . The m a t t e r of delay i n
response due t o t h e need f o r a change i n t h e angle of a t t a c k s e n s o r has been c o r r e c t e d . T h i s was done by
adding “ s t i c k ” i n p u t . Now t h e a u t o - t h r o t t l e responds when t h e c o n t r o l “ s t i c k ” is changed e i t h e r manually or
by automatic p i t c h commands. T h i s i n p u t is immediate and l e a d s t h e change i n angle of a t t a c k . A d d i t i o n a l
f l i g h t t e s t i n g is r e q u i r e d t o optimize.APC response c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s f o r automatic and manual landings. A t
t h i s time it appears t h a t a l i n e a r c o n t r o l i s r e q u i r e d f o r automatic landings and a n o n - l i n e a r c o n t r o l is
favored f o r manual approaches.

3.8 Problem - Deck l o t i o n

The space i n which a c a r r i e r a i r c r a f t must touchdown so as t o hook one of t h e a r r e s t i n g c a b l e s is about
130 f e e t long and 30 f e e t wide - e q u i v a l e n t t o two t e n n i s c o u r t s end-to-end. With a g l i d e path a n g l e of
3 degrees, a I - f o o t v e r t i c a l e r r o r w i l l cause a h o r i z o n t a l ( l o n g i t u d i n a l ) e r r o r of 20 f e e t . This would
i n d i c a t e a v e r t i c a l t o l e r a n c e of f.6.5 f e e t . However, t h e r e a r e two problems; f i r s t , t h e touchdown p o i n t is
moving up and down - it can move t12.5 f e e t , second, t h e ramp ( a f t end of t h e c a r r i e r deck) can move t25 f e e t .
These a r e extreme c o n d i t i o n s and f o r t u n a t e l y do n o t occur o f t e n . The p i l o t i s p a r t i c u l a r l y concerned with t h e
ramp and would always l i k e t o c l e a r it by 10 t o 12 f e e t .

Solution
E f f o r t s t o s o l v e t h e problem of ramp c l e a r a n c e and minimizing landing d i s p e r s i o n s t a r t e d i n 1951 with t h e
i n i t i a l systems development. C a r r i e r s were instrumented and c o n s i d e r a b l e deck motion information was
accumulated. One c a r r i e r recorded deck motion during a storm o f f Cape Magellan. The f a c t t h a t deck motion
is t h e r e s u l t of wind and waves and i s a p e r i o d i c was confirmed. S e v e r a l deck p o s i t i o n p r e d i c t o r s were t r i e d
and l i m i t e d s u c c e s s was a t t a i n e d i n p r e d i c t i n g deck motion approximately f i v e seconds i n advance. The plan
was t o f l y t h e a i r c r a f t t o t h e p r e d i c t e d p o s i t i o n of t h e deck. Although such a s o l u t i o n was t e c h n i c a l l y
f e a s i b l e , p i l o t s pointed out t h a t f l y i n g an a i r c r a f t t o t h e p r e d i c t e d deck p o s i t i o n was PSyChohgiCally
unacceptable. I f p r e d i c t i o n i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e deck would be down and t h e a i r c r a f t was pointed i n t h a t
d i r e c t i o n , t h e p i l o t would be aimed d i r e c t l y a t t h e ramp f i v e seconds i n advance. Also i f t h e p r e d i c t e d
p o s i t i o n of t h e touchdown p o i n t was a t t h e high p o i n t of t h e motion, ramp c l e a r a n c e would be c o n s i d e r a b l e below
t h e 10 t o 12 f e e t d e s i r e d . To overcome t h e s e psychological problems, it was decided t o use deck motion com-
pensation i n l i e u of p r e d i c t i o n . With deck motion compensation, a t a p o i n t 12.5 seconds from touchdown, t h e
a i r c r a f t is g r a d u a l l y s h i f t e d from f l y i n g a g l i d e path based upon averaging of t h e touchdown motion t o a g l i d e
path which moves with t h e motion of t h e touchdown p o i n t . To overcome t h e delay i n a i r c r a f t response t o
command d a t a , t h e deck motion phase is advanced approximatelylone second. Hence, t h e a i r c r a f t motion is
synchronized with motion of t h e touchdown p o i n t and ramp c l e a r a n c e i s maintained. F l i g h t t e s t s with deck
motion compensation have revealed a n o t h e r psychological block i n t h e p i l o t . During manual o p e r a t i o n s t h e p i l o t
f l i e s an average touchdown t o t h e deck. The Landing S a f e t y O f f i c e r (LSO) d e c i d e s whether t h e s h i p is i n a s a f e
p o s i t i o n t o a c c e p t t h e a i r c r a f t . I f not. t h e p i l o t r e c e i v e s a wave-off. During deck motion compensation t h e
p i l o t is w i l l i n g t o follow t h e deck up but n o t down. The p r e s e n t deck motion compensation, t h e r e f o r e , is a
compromise designed t o achieved p i l o t acceptance. F u r t h e r refinements a r e expected t o r e s u l t from t h e
experience of more p i l o t s and from t h e p i l o t s i n c r e a s i n g f a m i l i a r i t y with t h e system.

3.9 Problem - Turbulence

There i s a very t u r b u l e n t a r e a a f t of t h e c a r r i e r . T h i s turbulence is c r e a t e d by: (1) t h e motion of t h e
c a r r i e r through t h e a i r stream c r e a t i n g a vacuum i n i t s wake, (2) v o r t i c e s which occur a t t h e leading edge of
f l i g h t deck, and (3) turbulence c r e a t e d by t h e s u p e r s t r u c t u r e . The combination produces what is g e n e r a l l y
r e f e r r e d t o as t h e “ r o o s t e r t a i l ’ ’ o r “burble”. The amount of turbulence and t h e n a t u r e of t h e mixture v a r i e s
with t h e heading of t h e s h i p with r e s p e c t t o t h e wind, t h e f o r c e of t h e wind a c r o s s t h e deck, and t h e p i t c h
and r o l l motion of t h e deck. The t u r b u l e n c e is a l s o d i f f e r e n t f o r almost every c a r r i e r .

Solution
Turbulence a f t of an a i r c r a f t c a r r i e r is a f a c t of l i f e . Turbulence i s always t h e r e b u t i n varying and
u n p r e d i c t a b l e degrees. Some times it i n t e r c e p t s t h e g l i d e path and o t h e r t i m e s i t doesn’t. The h i g h e r t h e
g l i d e angle t h e less chance turbulence w i l l be noted; however, h i g h e r g l i d e a n g l e s r e s u l t i n g r e a t e r impact
v e l o c i t i e s and o v e r s t r e s s t h e landing gear. During manual o p e r a t i o n s , p i l o t s add t h r o t t l e a t a p o i n t where
they expect t o f i n d turbulence. In an automatic landing, t h r o t t l e can only be added by providing a p i t c h up
command. Therefore, t o reduce t h e e f f e c t s of t u r b u l e n c e , a s t e p p i t c h up command is being added. This has
 14-1

t h e e f f e c t of d e c r e a s i n g t h e r a t e of d e s c e n t i n t h e a r e a of turbulence. I f t h e a i r c r a f t i n t e r c e p t s t h e
t u r b u l e n t area, it does n o t drop below g l i d e path. I f t h e a i r c r a f t is above t h e turbulence it goes above t h e
g l i d e path. Future refinement m a y permit t h e Navy t o t a i l o r t h e s t e p command t o a s p e c i f i c c a r r i e r and wind
a c r o s s t h e deck.

3. 10 Problem - Human I n t e r f a c e
The human i n t e r f a c e i s a problem i n a l l man/machine systems and t h e All-Weather Carrier Landing System is
no exception. I n AWCLS t h e p r i n c i p a l manhachine i n t e r f a c e s occur a t t h e AN/SPN-42 Landing Control Console
and i n t h e a i r c r a f t c o c k p i t . Console o p e r a t o r s have found t h a t they have t o o many b u t t o n s t o push and
information of value i s n o t displayed. P i l o t s have complained about c o c k p i t i n s t r u m e n t a t i o n and l i g h t i n g .
In t h e case of t h e c o c k p i t instrumentation and l i g h t i n g , i t should be noted t h a t each a i r c r a f t type is d i f f e r e n t
and p i l o t acceptance v a r i e s from one a i r c r a f t type t o a n o t h e r .

Some of t h e complaints concerning t h e console were:

(1) The p o s i t i o n of t h e radar search g a t e was n o t i n d i c a t e d on t h e AZ-EL d i s p l a y .

(2) A f t e r each landing s i x o r seven b u t t o n s had t o be pushed t o e s t a b l i s h automatic o r manual o p e r a t i o n s f o r

t h e next landing.

(3) The console o p e r a t o r could not t e l l whether command, e r r o r , and d i s c r e t e d a t a l i n k messages were being
properly transmitted.
(4) S h i p ’ s heading, which changes with changes i n wind d i r e c t i o n , was not d i s p l a y e d on t h e console where it
is needed.

The p i l o t s ’ p r i n c i p a l concern is t h e smooth degradation o f t h e system from Mode I t o I1 t o 111. To i n s u r e

t h i s , instruments must be l o c a t e d p r o p e r l y i n t h e p i l o t ’ s s c a n p a t t e r n and warning l i g h t s must be clear as t o
meaning and e a s i l y v i s i b l e . Some of t h e complaints r e g i s t e r e d by p i l o t s were:

(1) C r o s s p o i n t e r n e e d l e s p r e s e n t e d on t h e A t t i t u d e - D i r e c t i o n I n d i c a t o r (ADI) r e q u i r e d e x c e s s i v e c o n c e n t r a t i o n
p a r t l y because o f overlapping n e e d l e s and p a r a l l a x .

( 2 ) In a t least one a i r c r a f t type d i s c r e t e and warning l i g h t s could n o t be dimmed s u f f i c i e n t l y f o r n i g h t

ope r a t i o n s .

( 3 ) The a u t o p i l o t was not disconnected a t touchdown.

Solution
To overcome console o p e r a t o r s ’ problems, c o n s o l e s have been modified t o : (1) provide a sweep on t h e AZ-EL
d i s p l a y t o show t h e p o s i t i o n o f r a d a r s e a r c h g a t e , (2) r e q u i r e only t h r e e buttons f o r automatic/manual s e l e c t i o n
with no r e s e t a f t e r each landing p a s s , and ( 3 ) r e c e i v e and d i s p l a y t o t h e console o p e r a t o r t h e same information
t r a n s m i t t e d t o t h e a i r c r a f t and displayed t o t h e p i l o t . Commands f o r t h e a i r c r a f t a u t o p i l o t a r e a l s o received
and d i s p l a y e d t o console o p e r a t o r . The malfunction i n t h e a i r b o r n e equipment is now more r e a d i l y d e t e c t e d
s i n c e t h e console o p e r a t o r can s e e both t h e data l i n k information and commands t r a n s m i t t e d t o t h e a i r c r a f t and
t h e a i r c r a f t response t o t h e s e transmissions. I t i s a l s o planned t o provide t h e console o p e r a t o r with a
r e p e a t e r d i s p l a y of s h i p s heading.

The problem of c o c k p i t l i g h t i n g i s not p e c u l i a r t o t h e landing system and must be worked out f o r each
a i r c r a f t type. To disconnect t h e a u t o p i l o t a “weight-on-wheels’’ switch o p e r a t e s t o disconnect t h e a u t o p i l o t
when t h e weight of t h e a i r c r a f t compresses t h e oleos. The problem with t h e i n d i c a t o r can be l a r g e l y overcome
by f a m i l i a r i z a t i o n and t r a i n i n g ; however, t h e r e is c e r t a i n t o be a d i f f e r e n c e of opinion between p i l o t s on t h e
proper way t o p r e s e n t t h e v e r t i c a l and h o r i z o n t a l e r r o r information. Some of t h e newer a i r c r a f t ‘ t y p e s a r e
r e c e i v i n g heads-up d i s p l a y s . Such a display.may be t h e b e s t s o l u t i o n t o t h e problem; however, no tests of t h e
Navy’s automatic landing system have been performed using a heads-up d i s p l a y .

4. SAFETY AND FAIL-SAFE FEATURES

Automatic landings e s t a b l i s h e d an awesome r e s p o n s i b i l i t y upon t h e d e s i g n e r s . No longer is it p o s s i b l e t o

a t t r i b u t e a c c i d e n t s t o p i l o t e r r o r . The e l e c t r o n i c system is f u l l y r e s p o n s i b l e and equipment must not only be
r e l i a b l e b u t f a i l - s a f e . A high percentage of t h e Navy’s e f f o r t h a s been devoted t,o i n s u r i n g p i l o t s a f e t y . The
most s e r i o u s a c c i d e n t experienced i n more than 1000 shipboard and 5000 shore automatic l a n d i n g s h a s been a blown
t i r e which occurred during t e s t i n g of a new c o n t r o l concept t h a t proved unacceptable. To o b t a i n t h e degree of
s a f e t y r e q u i r e d by t h e Navy, continuous a t t e n t i o n t o d e t a i l s must be applied.

I t is n o t p o s s i b l e h e r e t o enumerate a l l of t h e s a f e t y and f a i l - s a f e f e a t u r e s ; however, a number of f e a t u r e s

w i l l be described t o g i v e some i n d i c a t i o n o f t h e e f f o r t t h a t has been applied.
14-8

4. 1 S a f e t y and F a i l - s a f e F e a t u r e s Ahoard Ship

System A - AN/SPN-42
e Power supply v o l t a g e s , overloads t o s e r v o - a m p l i f i e r s used t o s t e e r r a d a r antennas, and r a d a r performance
(power output and p u l s e r e p e t i t i o n frequency) are continuously monitored w i t h a p p r o p r i a t e degradation
t o Mode I1 and Mode I11 i n t h e event of f a i l u r e .

e Response c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of s e r v o - a m p l i f i e r s and angular c a l i b r a t i o n of r a d a r antennas a r e a u t o m a t i c a l l y

checked a f t e r each landing.

e D i g i t a l s h a f t encoders used i n t h e r a d a r p e d e s t a l and s t a b l e element a r e continuously checked a g a i n s t

synchro o u t p u t s from t h e same s h a f t s t o determine any g r o s s e r r o r i n t h e d i g i t a l encoder information.

0 Two s t a b l e elements are supplied. One is used t o s t a b i l i z e both channels. The o t h e r continuously
checks t h e o n - l i n e s t a b l e element and s e r v e s as a back-up.

e Two general-purpose computers a r e s u p p l i e d . One performs c a l c u l a t i o n f o r both channels. The o t h e r

o f f - l i n e computer performs t h e same c a l c u l a t i o n s and checks t h e r e s u l t s of t h e o n - l i n e computer.

0 The o n - l i n e computer performs d i a g n o s t i c s both during and between approaches. I t e s t a b l i s h e s t e s t

r o u t i n e s and samples d a t a . F a u l t s o r f a i l u r e s a r e used t o degrade t h e system c a p a b i l i t y t o Modes I1
and I11 and t o p r i n t out information f o r t h e maintenance t e c h n i c i a n .

e The o n - l i n e computer c o n t i n u a l l y checks t h a t t h e information it is passing t o t h e Navy T a c t i c a l Data

System (NTDS) computer f o r transmission over t h e command d a t a l i n k is being c l e a r e d and t h a t t h e
l i n e s a r e open.

e Each computer performs c o n t i n u a l i n t e r n a l checks t o i n s u r e t h a t t h e computer is performing properly.

e The o n - l i n e computer c o n t i n u a l l y checks t h e b u f f e r i n g equipment and t h e input/output console.

System A - NTDS
e NTDS is a l a r g e computer complex with its own s e l f - c h e c k i n g r o u t i n e s . I t a l s o checks t h e command d a t a
l i n k which is considered t o be part of t h e NTDS complex.

System A - Command Data Link

0 The command d a t a l i n k is made up of t h e encoder/decoder AN/SSW-l, and t r a n s c e i v e r AN/SRC-31. Only t h e

encoder and t r a n s m i t t e r p o r t i o n s of t h e s e u n i t s a r e used. A d u p l i c a t e o f f - l i n e encoder b u i l t i n t o t h e
AN/SSW-1 checks t h e o n - l i n e encoder. An RF output monitor i n t h e AN/SRC-31 checks power output of t h e
AN/SRC-31 t r a n s m i t t e r . NTDS i n t u r n c o n t i n u a l l y checks t h e o f f - l i n e encoder and RF output f o r AN/SSW-1
o r AN/SRC-31 f a u l t s .

System A - Data Link Monitor

0 The Data Link Monitor, OA-8435/SPN-10, r e c e i v e s t h e transmission from t h e AN/SRC-31, decodes t h e s e

t r a n s m i s s i o n s , compares t h e command, e r r o r , and d i s c r e t e messages with t h o s e generated by t h e AN/SPN-42
and a p p r o p r i a t e l y degrades t h e landing system t o Mode 11, Mode 111, o r wave-off. The decoded d a t a l i n k
monitor t r a n s m i s s i o n s a r e a l s o d i s p l a y e d t o t h e console o p e r a t o r so t h a t he is a b l e t o s e e t h e commands
( c r o s s p o i n t e r ) , e r r o r s (second c r o s s p o i n t e r ) , and d i s c r e t e s ( l i g h t s ) being t r a n s m i t t e d t o t h e a i r c r a f t he
is c o n t r o l l i n g .

System A - Special Fail-safe Features

e The AN/SPN-42 w i l l normally be c o n t r o l l i n g two a i r c r a f t one minute o r two m i l e s a p a r t . I f t h e time

i n t e r v a l between t h e two a i r c r a f t becomes l e s s than 30 seconds, t h e f a r t h e s t a i r c r a f t r e c e i v e s a wave-off
d i s c r e t e . This time i n t e r v a l is a d j u s t a b l e .

0 The AN/SPN-42 c o n t i n u a l l y checks t h e c l o s i n g speed of t h e a i r c r a f t . I f t h i s speed exceeds t h e s a f e

landing speed f o r t h a t type a i r c r a f t t h e system is degraded t o Mode 11, Mode 111, o r waved-off as
1
appropriate.

0 I f t h e s h i p s motion exceeds a present maximum amount e s t a b l i s h e d f o r automatic l a n d i n g s , t h e AN/SPN-42

w i l l degrade t h e landing mode o r i n i t i a t e wave-off as a p p r o p r i a t e .

I f t h e AN/SPN-42 r e c e i v e s a s i g n a l from t h e c a r r i e r c o n t r o l tower (PRI-FLY) t h a t t h e deck is c l o s e d , it

a u t o m a t i c a l l y waves-off a l l a i r c r a f t when they reach a p o i n t 9 seconds from touchdown. It continues
t h i s procedure u n t i l an a l l c l e a r s i g n a l is received from PRI-FLY.
 14-9

I 0 The AN/SPN-42 g e n e r a t e s s a f e f l i g h t volumes f o r each a i r c r a f t about t h e optimum f l i g h t path. An a i r c r a f t

under landing c o n t r o l is degraded from Mode I t o Mode I1 i f it exceeds t h e Mode I s a f e volume. The
Mode I1 and l o d e I11 s a f e volumes are t h e same: however, any i n d i c a t e d degradation o r f a i l u r e of t h e
command d a t a l i n k c a u s e s t h e “voice” (Mode 111) d i s c r e t e t o be t r a n s m i t t e d t o t h e a i r c r a f t .

0 An AN/SPN-42 wave-off d i s c r e t e message can be generated both a u t o m a t i c a l l y and manually. A manual

wave-off can be commanded by e i t h e r t h e landing console o p e r a t o r o r t h e Landing S a f e t y O f f i c e r (LSO).
The LSO i n i t i a t e d command o v e r r i d e s a l l o t h e r commands.

System B
The AN/SPN-41 has both i n t e r n a l and e x t e r n a l checks. I n t e r n a l l y , a f a i l u r e of e i t h e r scanning beam
antenna t o g e t up t o synchronous speed o r amplitude i n h i b i t s t h e r e s p e c t i v e t r a n s m i t t e r .

0 F a i l u r e of t h e modulator t o reproduce encoded p u l s e s properly w i l l alarm o r s h u t down t h e t r a n s m i t t e r

(azimuth o r e l e v a t i o n ) as a p p l i c a b l e .

0 A g r o s s r e d u c t i o n i n t r a n s m i t t e r power ( 3 - 4 dB) w i l l alarm o r shut down t h e azimuth o r e l e v a t i o n

transmitter.

0 Aboard s h i p e x t e r n a l monitors (azimuth and e l e v a t i o n ) must be i n t h e near f i e l d , o f scanning beam antenna.

Each monitor checks t h e frequency, t h e category p u l s e spacing (azimuth l e f t , azimuth r i g h t , or e l e v a t i o n ) .
Each provides a g r o s s measure of t r a n s m i t t e r power output. Each monitor w i l l alarm o r shut down t h e
r e s p e c t i v e t r a n s m i t t e r . Aboard s h i p it is not p o s s i b l e t o check a n g l e coding because of t h e , s h i p ’ s r o l l ,
p i t c h , and yaw. The a n g l e coding can be checked by using s h i p s motion c o r r e c t i o n but t h i s is not done
i n t h e e x i s t i n g system.

0 Ashore where a f a r f i e l d monitor is provided, angle coding is checked i n both t h e azimuth and e l e v a t i o n
monitors.

4.2 Safety and Fail-safe F e a t u r e s i n t h e Aircraft

0 In t h e automatic landing (Mode I ) c o n f i g u r a t i o n , t h e p i l o t always r e t a i n s an a u t o p i l o t o v e r r i d e o r

disconnect c a p a b i l i t y . The c o n t r o l s t i c k remains a c t i v e and by e x e r t i n g f o r c e t o t h e s t i c k t h e p i l o t
o v e r r i d e s t h e a u t o p i l o t . A button on t h e s t i c k disengages t h e a u t o p i l o t .

0 In t h e landing c o n f i g u r a t i o n (Modes I. 11, o r 111). t h e p i l o t a l s o r e t a i n s o v e r r i d e o r disconnect

c a p a b i l i t y f o r t h e a u t o t h r o t t l e (AFT).

0 S t a l l warning is provided as part of t h e a i r f r a m e design.

System A - AN/ASR’- 25
0 The AN/ASW-25 receiver/decoder produces a “TILT” (Transmission f o r I n t e r c e p t and Landing Terminated)
l i g h t when no message is received f o r 2 seconds.

0 The receiver/decoder provides p a r i t y checks w i t h i n each message t o determine v a l i d i t y of information.

0 A switch on t h e AN/ASW-25 c o n t r o l panel has a t e s t p o s i t i o n . In t h e t e s t p o s i t i o n t h e AN/ASW-25

r e c e i v e s and decodes t h e Universal Test Message t r a n s m i t t e d by t h e command data l i n k every 6.3 seconds.
This message c o n t a i n s s t a n d a r d e r r o r and d i s c r e t e messages which permit t h e p i l o t t o observe t h a t t h i s
message is being p r o p e r l y decoded when t h e switch is held i n t h e t e s t p o s i t i o n .

System A - Automatic Flight Control System (Autopilot)

0 The a u t o p i l o t i n each aircraft is d i f f e r e n t and is c o n t r a c t o r furnished by t h e a i r f r a m e manufacturer.

Most a u t o p i l o t s provide some form of p i t c h and bank command l i m i t i n g i n t h e landing mode. This is done
t o prevent any s e r i o u s e f f e c t from s i g n a l s p i k e s o r equipment f a i l u r e s .

0 A “weight-on-wheels’’ s w i t c h d i s c o n n e c t s t h e a u t o p i l o t when t h e wheels impact t h e deck.

System A - Miscellaneous

hlost a i r c r a f t provide b u i l t i n test equipment f o r t h e landing subsystems. By pushing one o r more

b u t t o n s t h e a u t o p i l o t , o r d i s p l a y s , o r automatic t h r o t t l e can he checked. These b u i l t i n t e s t f e a t u r e s
vary w i t h t h e a i r c r a f t type but a r e becoming more common. D i g i t a l c i r c u i t r y lends i t s e l f t o t h i s t y p e
of subsystem checking.

0 There is a button f o r providing a check of t h e a c t i v e augmentor (beacon). In a d d i t i o n t h e r e is a l i g h t

on t h e beacon c o n t r o l u n i t which f l a s h e s when t h e AN/SPN-42 r a d a r s c a n s t h e aircraft ( p r i o r t o lock-on)
and remains on continuously as long as t h e r a d a r is locked-on.
14-10

System B - Ah'/ARA-63
Outputs a r e provided t o o p e r a t e s e p a r a t e f l a g larms and t d r i v e c r o s s p o i n t e r needles o f f s c a l e when
c e r t a i n f a u l t s are d e t e c t e d i n e i t h e r t h e h o r i z o n t a l o r v e r t i c a l beam. Some of t h e f a u l t s which cause
t h e receiver/decoder t o alarm a r e : (1) s i g n a l below t h r e s h o l d , (2) improper l a b e l (azimuth r i g h t ,
azimuth l e f t , e l e v a t i o n ) p u l s e coding, and (3) s i g n a l s p i k e s o r i n t e r f e r i n g s i g n a l s .

5. A I R TRAFFIC CONTROL A N D NTDS INTERFACES

The problem of providing s a f e spacing of a i r c r a f t i n t h e r e t u r n t o a c a r r i e r o r r e t u r n i n g t h e a i r c r a f t t o

t h e landing p a t t e r n a f t e r a missed approach (wave-off or b o l t e r ) is r e f e r r e d t o as Terminal A i r T r a f f i c Control.
The AN/SPN-42 is p r e s e n t l y programmed t o land a i r c r a f t a t about a one minute i n t e r v a l . This is based upon an
a i r c r a f t c l o s i n g speed of 120 knots (150 knot a i r speed f o r a carrier w i t h 30 !mots a c r o s s t h e deck) and a
landing gate at 4 miles. Each a i r c r a f t is on t h e system f o r two minutes. By using t h e two channels a l t e r -
n a t e l y a one minute i n t e r v a l is maintained. I f t h e landing g a t e were moved t o 2 m i l e s a half-minute i n t e r v a l
would be obtained.

Air T r a f f i c Control (ATC) is p r e s e n t l y being performed manually; however, t h e Navy Tactical Data System is
being programmed t o perform computer aided ATC o r e v e n t u a l l y automatic ATC. The AN/SPN-42 is designed t o
o p e r a t e from manual i n p u t s of t h e console o p e r a t o r ( a i r c r a f t t y p e , data l i n k i d e n t i t y and g a t e p o s i t i o n ) o r
a u t o m a t i c a l l y from NTDS i n p u t s . NTDS can move t h e lock-on range of t h e landing g a t e i n o r o u t t o vary t h e
landing r a t e . The minimum range w i l l be c o n t r o l l e d by t h e c a r r i e r acceptance r a t e and t h e AN/SPN-42 s a f e
s e p a r a t i o n c r i t e r i a . NTDS a l s o p r e s e n t s t o t h e landing system console o p e r a t o r t h e d a t a l i n k i d e n t i t y of t h e
a i r c r a f t he is c o n t r o l l i n g p l u s t h e i d e n t i t y of t h e f i r s t and second p r o s p e c t i v e a i r c r a f t t o follow.

Wave-offs and b o l t e r s ( a i r c r a f t which land but do not hook an a r r e s t i n g c a b l e ) have always c o n s t i t u t e d a

s e r i o u s problem i n carrier o p e r a t i o n s . Good r a d a r c o n t r o l is r e q u i r e d f o r t h e s e a i r c r a f t t o i n s u r e t h a t they
are f e d back i n t o t h e landing p a t t e r n with a minimum delay. The Navy is now i n s t a l l i n g a new ATC r a d a r , t h e
AN/SPN-43. This S-band r a d a r with about a 1.25 megawatt peak power provides s o l i d coverage on our s m a l l e s t
j e t s from 250 y a r d s t o about 50 miles. The s h o r t minimum range permits t h e ATC o p e r a t o r t o d e t e c t an a i r c r a f t
leaving t h e c a r r i e r on t h e f i r s t r a d a r scan. The AN/SPA-18, a 7-inch r a d a r d i s p l a y , is mounted j u s t above t h e
AN/SF"-42 console so t h a t t h e landing system console o p e r a t o r has a c l e a r p i c t u r e of a i r t r a f f i c c l o s e t o t h e
c a r r i e r including t h e approach and t h e wave-off/bolter p a t t e r n s , As an a d d i t i o n a l a i d t o t h e landing console
o p e r a t o r t h e AN/SPA-18 a l s o d i s p l a y s t h e range and azimuth of t h e AN/SPN-42 landing g a t e . I f f o r some reason
t h e o p e r a t o r d e t e c t s t h a t an a i r c r a f t w i l l miss t h e g a t e , he can change t h e range o r azimuth of t h e g a t e as
displayed on t h e AN/SPA-18 t o i n t e r c e p t t h e a i r c r a f t .

The AN/SPN-43 ATC r a d a r antenna has mounted on it and r o t a t e d c o a x i a l l y an A i r T r a f f i c Control Radar Beacon
System (ATCRBS) antenna. Another Navy development t h e AN/SYA-11 has r e c e n t l y completed e x t e n s i v e t e s t s i n t h e
f i e l d . The AN/SYA-11, as shown i n Figure 12, c o n s i s t s of a beacon video d i g i t i z e r , a NTDS input b u f f e r , a
d i s p l a y p r o c e s s o r , and a two-gun b r i g h t d i s p l a y . The two-gun d i s p l a y is capable of d i s p l a y i n g AN/SPN-43
raw video on one gun and processed ATCRBS i d e n t i t y and a l t i t u d e on t h e o t h e r gun. I d e n t i t y and a l t i t u d e a r e
displayed as a numeric readout a d j a c e n t t o each t a r g e t o r as requested. In t e s t s using s i d e lobe suppression it
was p o s s i b l e t o d i s p l a y a i r c r a f t i d e n t i t y and a l t i t u d e a l o n g s i d e t h e t a r g e t when t h e a i r c r a f t was on t h e deck
l e s s than 300 f e e t from t h e antenna. Also with t h e NTDS b u f f e r , it was p o s s i b l e t o provide automatic t r a c k
information t o t h e NTDS computer at a l l ranges. This is t h e information r e q u i r e d by NTDS t o make automatic
ATC a r e a l i t y .

6. FUTURE IMPROVEMENTS

The U.S. Navy has made g r e a t s t r i d e s i n t h e last f i v e y e a r s . We b e l i e v e we are considerably ahead of o t h e r

s e r v i c e s and c i v i l a v i a t i o n i n t h e f i e l d of automatic ATC and landing. However, i n a f i e l d where t h e s t a t e of
t h e art is changing s o r a p i d l y , , f u t u r e planning is a must. This paper w i l l d i s c u s s a few of t h e programs
underway t o extend t h e Navy's ATC and landing c a p a b i l i t y .

6.1 E l e c t r o n i c a l l y S t e e r e d Antenna Array

One of t h e l i m i t i n g f a c t o r s i n use of t h e AN/SPN-42 system is t h e f i r e - c o n t r o l t y p e r a d a r s . With two r a d a r s
and two antennas only two a i r c r a f t can be t r a c k e d simultaneously. Although t h e AN/SPN-43 can d e t e c t and d i s p l a y
o t h e r a i r c r a f t i n t h e p a t t e r n , t h e AN/SPN-42 only d i s p l a y s t h e a i r c r a f t t h a t are locked-on and under q c o n t r o l .
The use of an e l e c t r o n i c a l l y s t e e r e d antenna array and r a d a r would permit t h e landing system t o search t h e
a r e a and simultaneously t r a c k f o u r o r f i v e a i r c r a f t .

The redundancy of antenna elements i n an e l e c t r o n i c a l l y s t e e r e d a r r a y p l u s t h e e l i m i n a t i o n of mechanical

gimbals and r o t a t i n g j o i n t s would g r e a t l y enhance t h e r a d a r r e l i a b i l i t y . The Navy is looking at both phase/phase
and phase/frequency s o l u t i o n s . It is a l s o l i k e l y t h a t both Ku and X-bands w i l l be considered s i n c e t h e new
f i x e d antenna would occupy t h e space now r e q u i r e d f o r two Ka-band r a d a r p e d e s t a l s and r e f l e c t o r s . Other Navy
antenna developments a r e being i n v e s t i g a t e d f o r p o s s i b l e a d a p t a t i o n t o AN/SPN-42 use.
 14-11

6.2 Adaptive Programs

The computations performed i n t h e AN/SPN-42 by t h e general-purpose d i g i t a l computers are i n d i c a t e d under
t h e systems d e s c r i p t i o n . A s was s t a t e d commands a r e based upon s t o r e d dynamic c o n t r o l information f o r each
a i r c r a f t type. The commands are based upon t h e a i r c r a f t n o t varying more than 10 percent from t h e s t o r e d
c o n t r o l equation. I f an a i r c r a f t is damaged. t h i s 10 percent margin could well be exceeded. Automatic landing
c o n t r o l would be a g r e a t a i d t o t h e p i l o t under c o n d i t i o n s of aircraft.damage. Using an a d a p t i v e computer
program, t h e computer would compare t h e a i r c r a f t performance t o a l e a r n i n g curve and change its commands t o
c o r r e c t f o r changes i n t h e dynamic performance of t h e a i r c r a f t .

Another a p p l i c a t i o n f o r an a d a p t i v e program o c c u r s i n t h e area of turbulence a f t of t h e s h i p . This t u r b u l e n c e

v a r i e s from c a , r r i e r t o c a r r i e r ; it varies with t h e heading of t h e s h i p with r e s p e c t t o t h e wind; and it v a r i e s
with r e s p e c t t o t h e s h i p s p o s i t i o n i n t h e s h i p s motion c y c l e a t t h e time of t h e a i r c r a f t approach. I f t h e
a i r c r a f t ' s f l i g h t path i n t e r c e p t s t h e a r e a of t u r b u l e n c e d u r i n g an approach, t h e a i r c r a f t drops below g l i d e
p a t h r a p i d l y . A t p r e s e n t t h e r e is no way of knowing whether or not it w i l l i n t e r c e p t t h e programmed f l i g h t
p a t h during any s i n g l e approach. An a d a p t i v e program would be designed t o r e a c t more r a p i d l y t o any l o s s of
a l t i t u d e i n t h e a r e a of t u r b u l e n c e a f t of t h e s h i p .

It h a s been noted t h a t t h e r e is a d e f i n i t e c o r r e l a t i o n between t h e v e l o c i t y and d i r e c t i o n of t h e wind a c r o s s

t h e deck and t h e l o c a t i o n of t h e mean p o i n t of t h e a i r c r a f t touchdown d i s p e r s i o n . Since t h e v e l o c i t y and
d i r e c t i o n of t h e wind a r e a l r e a d y i n p u t s t o t h e AN/SPN-42, an a d a p t i v e computer program can be designed t o
compensate f o r changes i n wind and hold t h e mean point of t h e d i s p e r s i o n a r e a f i x e d . In t h i s way t h e use of an
a d a p t i v e program would g r e a t l y reduce t h e o v e r a l l d i s p e r s i o n with wind changes. In g e n e r a l t h i s would reduce
t h e number of b o l t e r a i r c r a f t under c o n d i t i o n s o f heavy s h i p s motion where t h e d i s p e r s i o n is g r e a t e s t .

6.3 AN/SPN-41 GCA

The AN/SPN-41 t o g e t h e r with t h e AN/ARA-63 is described as System B under SYSTEU DESCRIPTION, above. The US
Navy is now developing a crossband Ground Controlled Approach (GCA) system as an adjunct t o System B. What
makes t h i s development so a t t r a c t i v e is t h a t no a d d i t i o n a l hardware is r e q u i r e d i n t h e a i r c r a f t and a v a i l a b l e
equipment can be used on t h e s h i p o r shore.

I n t h e AN/SPN-41, t h e azimuth and e l e v a t i o n antennas scan t h e a i r c r a f t with a narrow K,-band beam. I f , when
t h e s e beams Pass through t h e a i r c r a f t , it responds on L-band using t h e ATCRBS beacon, t h i s can be received at a
s h i p o r shore base on an ATCRBS i n t e r r o g a t o r r e c e i v e r and displayed on an AZ-E% scope with sweep synchronized
t o t h e KuLband antenna sweep. The i n t e r r o g a t i o n r a t e o f Ku-band system is very low and would i n no w a y overload
t h e a i r b o r n e ATCRBS. I f t h e ATCRBS a i r b o r n e beacon is wired t o respond i n Mode I11 it would be p o s s i b l e t o
d i s p l a y t h e a i r c r a f t i d e n t i t y on t h e AZ-EL scope.

The AN/SPN-41 GCA r e q u i r e s t h a t t h e AN/ARA-63 and ATCRBS beacon be i n s t a l l e d i n t h e aircraft; however, t h i s

equipment is now scheduled f o r i n s t a l l a t i o n i n almost a l l carrier a i r c r a f t . An a d d i t i o n a l t r i g g e r c a b l e must
be provided i n t h e a i r c r a f t from t h e AN/ARA-63 t o t h e ATCRBS beacon. There a r e some advantages t o a beacon
t y p e GCA. For example, t h e d i s p l a y w i l l not show s e a o r ground c l u t t e r . A s a r e s u l t it w i l l be a c l e a n e r
d i s p l a y but w i l l n o t mark o b s t a c l e s t o be avoided. For s h o r e i n s t a l l a t i o n s a gound p r o f i l e could be marked on
t h e scope with a g r e a s e p e n c i l o r overlay. The f a c t t h a t t h e system w i l l not d i s p l a y a i r c r a f t t h a t a r e not
equipped with both t h e AN/AFZA-63 and t h e ATCRBS transponder can be considered a d i s t i n c t disadvantage.

6.4 Direct L i f t

The US Navy h a s been experimenting with d i r e c t l i f t f o r years. T h i s is a technique by which t h e l i f t of an

aircraft can be i n c r e a s e d o r decreased t o produce i n s t a n t a n e o u s small changes i n a l t i t u d e . This technique has
been q u i t e e f f e c t i v e i n Navy high performance a i r c r a f t . A l t i t u d e changes a r e made without changing t h e a i r c r a f t
p i t c h angle. There h a s been no attempt as y e t t o command d i r e c t l i f t using t h e automatic landing system;
however, t h i s could well come as a f u t u r e refinement.

D i r e c t l i f t is achieved by lowering t h e a i l e r o n s p a r t way as a p a r t of t h e landing c o n f i g u r a t i o n . The bank

a n g l e of t h e a i r c r a f t is t h u s l i m i t e d i n t h e landing mode. With t h e a i l e r o n s now o p e r a t i n g as p a r t o f t h e
l i f t i n g s u r f a c e , s l i g h t changes up o r down decrease o r i n c r e a s e t h e d i r e c t . l i f t . S i n c e t h e a i l e r o n s are
l o c a t e d c l o s e t o t h e f o r e and a f t c e n t e r of g r a v i t y l i t t l e change i n t h e p i t c h a t t i t u d e is experienced as a
r e s u l t o f a change i n a i l e r o n ' l i f t . It is a l s o d e s i r a b l e t o l i m i t t h e bank angle i n t h e landing mode s o t h a t
t h i s change imposes no hardship.

7. LESSONS TO BE LEARNED

There is more than' one way t o provide f o r t h e automatic landing of a i r c r a f t . The US Navy has developed a
number of systems f o r a i r c r a f t approach and landings. The Navy has been i n t h e f o r e f r o n t of developments
f o r Ground Controlled Approach (GCA), Instrument Landing Systems (ILS), and Automatic Landing Systems.

Described here is a combination of landing systems t o provide automatic landings aboard aircraft c a r r i e r s .
This o v e r a l l system was designed t o enhance t h e s a f e t y of c a r r i e r o p e r a t i o n s and as such must provide t h e
u l t i m a t e i n inherent s a f e t y . A s a r e s u l t o f more than f i v e y e a r s experience i n f l i g h t t e s t i n g o f an automatic
14-12

landing system on c a r r i e r s and ashore, it was decided t h a t f u l l y redundant systems were required. F a i l - s a f e
and s a f e t y f e a t u r e s are provided t o i n s u r e a s a f e degradation o f t h e automatic landing mode o f operation.

To o b t a i n p i l o t acceptance an a i r b o r n e monitor is required. This is furnished i n t h e form of a c r o s s p o i n t e r

o r heads-up d i s p l a y . Range t o t h e c a r r i e r is provided by TACAN. A u t o t h r o t t l e response t i m e s are c r i t i c a l
p a r t i c u l a r l y i n t h e presence of t h e turbulence t o be found a f t of an a i r c r a f t c a r r i e r . It is q u i t e l i k e l y t h a t
t h e a u t o t h r o t t l e response c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s f o r automatic and manual landings are d i f f e r e n t .

Navy a i r c r a f t are c o n s t a n t l y being improved. In t h e past changes i n t h e a i r f r a m e , engine, o r a u t o p i l o t have

been made with l i t t l e regard f o r how they a f f e c t e d t h e a u t o t h r o t t l e o r dynamic c o n t r o l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s f o r
automatic landings. Landing c o n f i g u r a t i o n performance data supplied by t h e airframe manufacturer f o r simulation
s t u d i e s bore l i t t l e resemblance t o t h e performance of a i r c r a f t d e l i v e r e d . It h a s been necessary t o prepare
s p e c i f i c a t i o n s not only f o r what is r e q u i r e d by an automatic landing system but a l s o t o i n s u r e t h a t t h e airframe
manufacturer tests h i s a i r c r a f t under t h e dynamic c o n t r o l environment t o be experienced i n automatic c a r r i e r
landings. Changes i n a i r f r a m e , engine, a u t o p i l o t , o r a u t o t h r o t t l e r e q u i r e retest.

There is l i t t l e doubt t h a t t h e automatic landing system designed by t h e US Navy f o r c a r r i e r o p e r a t i o n s and

f o r t r a i n i n g ashore could a l s o meet t h e needs of t h e I n t e r n a t i o n a l C i v i l Aviation Organization (ICAO) f o r
Category I11 landings a t c i v i l a i r p o r t s . I t is doubtful t h a t t h e c o s t of t h e system d e s c r i b e d h e r e i n would
meet ICAO and c i v i l requirements. For shore use, however, where s h i p s motion is not a f a c t o r and f o r c i v i l
a v i a t i o n where t h e using a i r c r a f t must carry t h e brunt of t h e c o s t of complexity, System B o f f e r s an i d e a l
s o l u t i o n . Scanning beams coded t o f 40' i n azimuth and from 0 t o +20° i n e l e v a t i o n can be provided on 40
channels. The use of a TACAN beacon at t h e landing s i t e would provide d i s t a n c e measurement f o r f l a r e c o n t r o l
and f o r runway r o l l o u t . TACAN b e a r i n g can provide 360' coverage f o r terminal a r e a feed i n and f o r back courses.
There a r e 40 TACAN DME channels which are now assigned f o r ILS beacons. The Navy is now o r d e r i n g a i r b o r n e
TACAN s e t s with m i c r o e l e c t r o n i c d i g i t a l c i r c u i t s . Distance measuring accuracy when used with an ILS beacon is
expected t o be about f 50 f t . In order t o provide System B and t h e TACAN beacon with t h e redundancy e s s e n t i a l
t o automatic landings c i v i l a i r c r a f t would continue t o carry t h e e x i s t i n g s t a n d a r d ICAO ILS as a monitor f o r
the pilot.
 14-13

M O D E Ill M O D E II MODE I

Ground Instrument Automatic

Controlled Landing Landing
Approach System System
tal kdown cross pointer autopilot coupled

Fig.1 Landing control designations

OATA LINK RECEIVER/OECODER

AUTOMATIC PILOT COUPLER
RADAR AUGMENTOR
AUTOMATIC THROTTLE CONTROL

TRANSMlTTED

/
COMMAND & ERROR SIGNALS

DATA LINK
COMMAND SIGNAL
/
r----------------------------
1

OATA LINK I
I
SIGNAL
ROUTINE
4
STORED
DYNAMIC
CONTROL INFO
4

- DATA
STABILIZATION
ROUTINE
+
I
I
I RADAR
SENSOR

MONITOR I I
A I
4 I L I RELATIVE
I
I
AIRCRAFT POSlTlON I AM WSN~ON
I
I 1, I
DISPLAY
CONSOLE
I
'!
RIGHT
COMPUTER
ROUTINE
b------------------------"
e 1
STORED
RIGHT
PATH
- DECK MOTION
COMPENSATION
ROUTINE
eI
I

I
I

U
STABLE
ELEMENT

ERROR SIGNAL

Fig.2 All-weather carrier landing system (system A)

14-14

@ PILOT DISPLAYS @ COUPLER

@ APC @ AFCS
@) RADAR AUGMENTOR @ MONITOR RECEIVER- DECODER

Fig.3 Typical AWCLS airborne subsystem (F-4G installation)

FLIGHT COMMAND INDICATOR

(DISCRETE MESSAGE DISPLAY) ATTITUDE DIRECTOR INDICATOR
(FLIGHT PATH INDICATOR)

MOOE SELECTOR CONTROL

ENGAGING CONTROLLER

AFCS EMERGENCY
DISCONNECT SWITCH DUPLICATE FLIGHT
COMMAND INDICATOR

UHF RADIO DATA LINK CONTROL

Fig.4 Typical AWCLS cockpit controls (F-4G installation)

 14-15

MARSHALLING

\ PLATFORM WINDOW

C O N T R O U E L I - A-
P-
-P R O A C H ~ ~

NOTE: RAMR AMllllSlTlON WINOOW

SHOWN AT 4 N. MI.

Fig.5 lypical AWCIS flight path

Fig. 6
14-16

RECEIVER-DECODER

Fig.7 All-weather carrier landing system (system B)

ELECTRONIC
6LIOE SLOPE

A. ELEVATION GUIDANCE

B. LATERAL GUIDANCE

Fig. 8 AN/SPN-41 scan coverage

 14-17

SCANNEO ZWSEC.

SCANNED

Fig.9 vertical scanning beam

MARSHAL POINT

COUPLER AVAILABLE

COMMAND CONTROL

Fig. 10 Mode I aDDrOach sequence

14-18
 15

AIDED INERTIAL FLIGHT TEST EXPERIMENTS

Ronald J. Madigan
Edmund J. Koenke

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Electronics Research Center
Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA
15

SUM 1A R Y

The g o a l of t h e E l e c t r o n i c Research Center V/STOL f l i g h t r e s e a r c h program is t o develop

t h e n a v i g a t i o n , guidance and c o n t r o l system concepts, requirements, f l i g h t hardware and
software which can make a l l weather V/STOL o p e r a t i o n s t e c h n i c a l l y f e a s i b l e .

The a v a i l a b i l i t y of t h e Gemini space v e h i c l e guidance and communication systems along

with t h e supporting ground systems equipment allowed t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o t e s t , w i t h hard-
ware, t h o s e guidance and c o n t r o l concepts which had been s t u d i e d i n r e l a t i o n s h i p t o aided
i n e r t i a l systems f o r a i r c r a f t a p p l i c a t i o n s . There was no doubt t h a t ground based p o s i t i o n
information could improve knowledge of v e h i c l e s t a t e , but s o l u t i o n s t o problems on d a t a
mixing, frequency of update, weighting of information, and o t h e r q u e s t i o n s c r i t i c a l t o
system performance and c o s t were not apparent from a n a l y t i c s t u d i e s . Furthermore, even
those problem s o l u t i o n s which could be obtained by a n a l y s i s and s i m u l a t i o n a r e always
s u b j e c t t o q u e s t i o n s i n c e t h e s o l u t i o n s obtained depend h e a v i l y upon t h e system models
which are used. V e r i f i c a t i o n of t h e s e models t h u s became one of t h e most important
a s p e c t s of t h e program. For t h e s e reasons, t h e i n i t i a l f l i g h t t e s t i n g was c o n t r i v e d t o
e s t a b l i s h navigation and guidance system performance using r a d a r p o s i t i o n d a t a f o r up-
d a t i n g i n t h e on-board computer.

The b a s e l i n e f l i g h t system i n c l u d e s t h e Gemini i n e r t i a l r e f e r e n c e u n i t : Gemini f l i g h t

computer: Gemini data t r a n s m i s s i o n system; Gemini d i g i t a l command system: and a f l i g h t
system p a l l e t with a c o n t r o l and monitor panel which c o n t a i n s a d a t a i n s e r t i o n u n i t f o r
computer access.

Assorted Gemini ground equipments include a support van f o r t h e guidance system; a

t e l e m e t r y van w i t h a decommutating s t a t i o n , magnetic tape r e c o r d e r , d i g i t a l p r i n t e r and
analog r e c o r d e r s ; a d i g i t a l d a t a t r a n s m i t t i n g s t a t i o n (van) which r e c e i v e d t h e analog
radar p o s i t i o n information, d i g i t i z e d and formatted t h e d a t a and t r a n s m i t t e d it d i r e c t l y
t o t h e f l i g h t computer f o r processing.
 15-1

AIDED INERTIAL FLIGHT TEST EXPERIMENTS

Ronald J. Madigan and Edmund J. Koenke

1. INTRODUCTION

The advent of t h e V/STOL a i r c r a f t promises one p o s s i b l e s o l u t i o n t o t h e complex l o g i s t i c s problem of a r a p i d ,

economical, s h o r t haul air t r a n s p o r t a t i o n system. However, care must be taken t h a t we do not compromise t h i s
promise by applying o b s o l e t e concepts toward t h e design of f l i g h t system and ground system equipments and t h u s
s e v e r e l y l i m i t t h e t o t a l system c a p a b i l i t y which can be achieved.

T o t a l c a p a b i l i t y can be achieved only i f t h e a i r c r a f t e l e c t r o n i c system complex is c o n s i s t e n t with t h e a i r

t r a f f i c c o n t r o l system and ground e l e c t r o n i c system. Therefore, it is important t h a t development work i n air-
c r a f t e l e c t r o n i c systems should a n t i c i p a t e developments i n both t h e a i r t r a f f i c c o n t r o l and ground e l e c t r o n i c
systems technology.

I f we a r e t o r e a l i z e a V/STOL t r a n s p o r t a t i o n system which can c a r r y l a r g e numbers of people i n a r a t h e r

crowded a i r s p a c e , and do so s a f e l y and without delays, t h e n , t h e t o t a l system c a p a b i l i t y should provide f o r :
0 s e l e c t i o n of a l t e r n a t i v e t r a j e c t o r i e s ( f o r purpose of economical o p e r a t i o n )
0 increased t r a f f i c d e n s i t i e s (even under poor weather condition's)
0 t o t a l system r e l i a b i l i t y f o r s a f e operation i n t h e event of malfunction of e i t h e r a i r b o r n e
o r ground equipment i n s t a l l a t i o n s .

C l e a r l y , each one of t h e s e f u n c t i o n a l requirements i n f l u e n c e s t h e e n t i r e a i r t r a n s p o r t a t i o n system. I m p l i c i t

i n each one is t h e requirement f o r p r e c i s e navigation and p o s i t i v e a i r c r a f t c o n t r o l . The f u n c t i o n a l list can
be expanded and under each category many s u b - d i v i s i o n s can be made, however, an underlying theme i n a l l
c a t e g o r i e s is a requirement f o r t h e continuous measurement of t h e navigation and guidance and c o n t r o l s t a t e
v a r i a b l e s and t h e optimal c o n t r o l t o a d e s i r e d state.

2. THE FLIGHT PROGRAM

The f l i g h t program plan c a l l e d f o r a two phase operation with n a v i g a t i o n and guidance experiments i n t h e
f i r s t phase and navigation, guidance and c o n t r o l i n t h e second phase.

Phase I is divided i n t o t h r e e sub-phases:

(I-A) - System ODerability and Performance T e s t s - includes e v a l u a t i o n of t h e i n e r t i a l system, t h e r a d a r
system, t h e d a t a c o l l e c t i o n and transmission systems.
(I-B) - Aided I n e r t i a l Systems T e s t s - includes performance e v a l u a t i o n of t h e system i n a p o s i t i o n
v e l o c i t y update mode.
(I-C) - Aided I n e r t i a l and P i l o t Display T e s t s -includes performance evaluation of t h e system i n a
-
p o s i t i o n v e l o c i t y - a t t i t u d e update mode with t h e p i l o t c l o s i n g t h e guidance loop v i a computer
driven d i s p l a y s .

Phase I1 is i n t h e design stage and is o u t l i n e d here only f o r t h e purpose of completeness.

I
The o b j e c t i v e of Phase I1 is t o implement a d i g i t a l (strapdown) guidance and c o n t r o l system i n a CH-46
h e l i c o p t e r and t o include a f l i g h t computer-data a d a p t e r combination which w i l l handle t h e navigation
guidance and c o n t r o l functions and i n a d d i t i o n , allow i n p u t s from a v a r i e t y of e x i s t i n g navigation a i d s .

Both Phase I and Phase I1 a r e focused on those c r i t i c a l p o r t i o n s of V/STOL f l i g h t , namely, t h e approach

and landing. This phase of f l i g h t c o n t a i n s t h e c r i t i c a l problem of t r a n s i t i o n (from, f i x e d wing t o v e r t i c a l
I
a i r c r a f t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s ) as well as t h o s e problems a s s o c i a t e d with Category I1 and Category I11 approaches.

Because of t h e high frequency c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of t h e i n e r t i a l system and t h e low frequency c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s

of t h e approach r a d a r system, it is p o s s i b l e t o o b t a i n a broad band terminal guidance system. The question of
system accuracy is determined by i n d i v i d u a l sub-system a c c u r a c i e s and f i l t e r i n g processes.

Phase I p r i m a r i l y addresses t h e question of what sub-system a c c u r a c i e s are required t o navigate and guide
t h e aircraft t o a landing within a p r e - s p e c i f i e d volume.
15-2

Figure 1 is a much s i m p l i f i e d g r a p h i c a l p r e s e n t a t i o n of t h e problem. A l l performance tests end a t t h e

h e l i p o r t which is surveyed i n l a t i t u d e , l o n g i t u d e and a l t i t u d e and provide t h e b a s e l i n e a g a i n s t which performance
can be measured. Terminal c o n d i t i o n s a r e v a r i e d by changing t h e dimensions and l o c a t i o n of t h e e n t r y volume,
approach a n g l e , i n e r t i a l system accuracy, r a d a r system accuracy, and update f i l t e r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . The
measurement from t h e h e l i p o r t surveyed p o i n t t o t h e touchdown p o s i t i o n is t h e system performance e r r o r .

T e s t i n g c o n s i s t e d of f l y i n g v a r i o u s t r a c k s t o and from t h e h e l i p o r t w h i l e t h e system o u t p u t s o f l a t i t u d e ,

l o n g i t u d e , and a l t i t u d e were recorded. The East-West runway w i t h its ane thousand f o o t markers provided a good
y a r d s t i c k f o r e x e r c i s i n g t h e l o n g i t u d e only information channel.

A. General System Configuration

The major sub-systems are:

F l i g h t Equipment
Ground Support Equipment
GSN-5 Navigation Aid.

The system f o r Phase I B is b a s i c a l l y t h e same as configured i n Phase I A . Major d i f f e r e n c e s are i n t h e

system software and i n t h e sub-system i n t e r c o n n e c t i o n s . The f l i g h t system f o r Phase I C is t h e same as i n Phase
I B w i t h t h e a d d i t i o n of d i g i t a l t o analog c o n v e r t e r s i n t h e p o s i t i o n and v e l o c i t y output channels as well as
t h e i n c l u s i o n of an approach guidance mode and o t h e r software f e a t u r e s .

Flight System

The hardware d i f f e r e n c e between Phase I A and I B is t h e a d d i t i o n of t h e d i g i t a l command sub-system i n Phase IB.

For t h e f l i g h t equipment it meant t h e a d d i t i o n of a small antenna, t h e command system box, and t h e i n t e r f a c e
with t h e f l i g h t computer. The h a r n e s s i n t h e f l i g h t p a l l e t had been wired t o accept t h e s e a d d i t i o n s and i n t e r -
f a c i n g was minimized.

The f l i g h t system has some d e t a i l e d f e a t u r e s which bear mentioning:

Flight Equipment P a l l e t

The equipment p a l l e t s e r v e s as t h e mounting s t r u c t u r e f o r a l l of t h e f l i g h t equipment. It a l s o s e r v e s

as t h e e l e c t r i c a l mechanical and thermal i n t e r f a c e between t h e f l i g h t hardware and t h e a i r c r a f t .

I n t h e f l i g h t c o n f i g u r a t i o n , t h e f l i g h t equipment i n t e r f a c e s are:

E l e c t r i c a l - Ships power is provided through a f l i g h t system power r e g u l a t o r , and an emergency power o f f

switch f o r t h e p i l o t . I n t e r f a c e t o t h e guidance equipment support van v i a an u m b i l i c a l provides ground
power, p l a t f o r m t o r q u i n g c u r r e n t and miscellaneous computer and platform s i g n a l s .

Mechanical -An i n t e r f a c e g r i d which picks up t h e a i r c r a f t s t r i n g e r s remains i n t h e aircraft f o r t h e

f l i g h t t e s t period. The f u l l y loaded pallet weighs approximately 500 pounds and is i n s t a l l e d with a small
f l o o r crane with an extension boom which s u p p o r t s a s p e c i a l p a l l e t b r i d l e .

Thermal - Two 125 C.F.M. A.C. f a n s c i r c u l a t e ambient air under t h e cold plate t o which t h e computer is
mounted.

e Control and Monitor Unit

The c o n t r o l and monitor u n i t s e r v e s as t h e c o n t r o l and o p e r a t o r i n t e r f a c e f o r t h e f l i g h t system. A l l

power is brought i n through t h i s u n i t which c o n t a i n s c i r c u i t b r e a k e r s , volt/amp meters, and malfunction
i n d i c a t o r s . The o p e r a t o r a c t i v a t e s t h e f l i g h t system, monitors c r i t i c a l parameters, i n s e r t s q u a n t i t i e s
i n t o t h e f l i g h t computer and i n i t i a t e s t h e f l i g h t t e s t problem by means of t h e equipment on t h e panel.

MDIU
Manual Data I n s e r t i o n Unit allows d i r e c t computer access t o LOAD accelerometer and gyroscope compensation
v a l u e s . Other q u a n t i t i e s which can be loaded include navigation c o n s t a n t s of g r a v i t y , f i e l d l a t i t u d e ,
l o n g i t u d e , a l t i t u d e , update frequency, weighting c o n s t a n t s and t h e l i k e . MDRU (read-out u n i t ) v e r i f i e s
q u a n t i t i e s i n computer memory v i a a call up code through t h e keyboard u n i t on t h e c o n t r o l and monitor Panel.

e ACPU
A u x i l i a r y computer power u n i t p r o t e c t s computer a g a i n s t t r a n s i e n t s . I f power drops below twenty-five
p e r c e n t o f r a t e d f o r g r e a t e r than 150 m i l l i s e c o n d s an automatic computer shutdown occurs, i n o r d e r l y f a s h i o n ,
and t h u s p r o t e c t s q u a n t i t i e s s t o r e d i n memory.
 15-3

0 Power Transfer Battery

Holds f l i g h t system v o l t a g e when t r a n s f e r r i n g from ground t o s h i p s power and v i c e v e r s a . This was a

hand c a r r i e d u n i t which could be recharged between f l i g h t tests.

0 Environmental Recording Sub-System

This is not normally c a r r i e d as part of t h e f l i g h t system, but was used t o e s t a b l i s h q u a l i t y of v i b r a t i o n

environment. This package w i l l s e e more use during Phase I1 strapdown system f l i g h t t e s t i n g .

Ground System

Phase I B r e q u i r e d t h e a d d i t i o n of t h e Digital Command S t a t i o n (DCS) (van), hook-up from GSN-5 t o t h e

D.C.S. through t h e analog t o d i g i t a l c o n v e r t e r , and t h e coupling in of t h e time r e f e r e n c e s i g n a l . Time
synchronization w a s accomplished by a p u l s e which o r i g i n a t e d when t h e computer "Start Comp." button on t h e
c o n t r o l and monitor panel was depressed. This i n i t i a t e d t h e navigation test by r e l e a s i n g t h e i n e r t i a l p l a t f o r m ,
s t a r t i n g t h e n a v i g a t i o n computation and providing sync s i g n a l s t o t h e t e l e m e t r y van and t h e d i g i t a l command
stat ion.

The r a d a r p o s i t i o n d a t a w a s brought d i r e c t l y t o t h e d i g i t a l command s t a t i o n , d i g i t i z e d and t r a n s m i t t e d t o

t h e computer.

Navigation Aid

The GSN-5 r a d a r sub-system has two d i s h e s ; one is f i x e d i n azimuth and t h e o t h e r can be r o t a t e d manually
about a f i x e d p o s i t i o n . The power supply van and o p e r a t o r s ( i n s t r u m e n t a t i o n ) van completes t h e system.
C a l i b r a t i o n is achieved by ranging on surveyed r e f l e c t o r s . S a l i e n t f e a t u r e s a r e :

0 33 KhlC Conical scan

0 Nutation r a t e 60/sec
0 Beam width 0.5'
0 Angular Coverage f 45' Az
t 30' El
- IO' El
0 Analog Computation of p o s i t i o n .

The h e l i c o p t e r was o u t f i t t e d w i t h a simulated ILS r e c e i v e r / d i s p l a y f e d by t h e GSN-5.

B. Phase IA O b j e c t i v e s
0 E s t a b l i s h sub-system o p e r a b i l i t y i n its o p e r a t i n g environment.
0 E s t a b l i s h sub-system performance i n its o p e r a t i n g environment.
. 0 E s t a b l i s h F l i g h t Line C a l i b r a t i o n and Alignment Procedures.
0 E s t a b l i s h F l i g h t Plans and Operating Procedures.
E s t a b l i s h Data Requirements and g e n e r a t e Data Reduction Programs.
0 E s t a b l i s h Simulation Programs and Verify Assumed Models.

The f i r s t major test o b j e c t i v e w a s t h e shake-down t e s t i n g of t h e system components. Primary concern was

f o r t h e f l i g h t equipment, e s p e c i a l l y t h e guidance system, which had been designed f o r s p a c e c r a f t environments.
Secondary concerns were f o r t h e a b i l i t y of t h e r a d a r t o a c q u i r e and lock on t h e h e l i c o p t e r which would be i n
v a r i o u s o r i e n t a t i o n s and f i e l d l o c a t i o n s during f l i g h t and f o r t h e a b i l i t y o f t h e telemetry equipment t o
maintain b i t synchronization during f l i g h t .

Shake-Down Tests

Typically, t e s t e were performed t o e s t a b l i s h system o p e r a b i l i t y i n t h e environment of:

0 high ambient temperatures

0 power f l u c t u a t i o n s
0 aircraft h i g h frequency ( f l i g h t ) v i b r a t i o n
0 aircraft low freQuency ( t a x i ) v i b r a t i o n
0 f l i g h t system i n s t a l l a t i o n and removal
0 f i e l d geometry and t e r r a i n .

H e l i c o p t e r environmental test f l i g h t s include:

0 engine on, r o t o r o f f
0 r o t o r on
0 taxi tests
15-4

0 hover tests
0 accelerated turns
0 s t e e p descent
0 miscellaneous f i e l d proximity f l i g h t s .

Performance T e s t s
These tests had two major purposes. F i r s t , e s t a b l i s h a b a s e l i n e of performance f o r comparison i n Phase I B .
Second, e s t a b l i s h nominal performance f o r s i m u l a t i o n development and t o v e r i f y assumed system models. S p e c i f i c
t e s t o b j e c t i v e s a r e d e t a i l e d below:

0 Flight Equipment T e s t O b j e c t i v e s
E s t a b l i s h guidance system e r r o r as a f u n c t i o n of i n i t i a l alignment accuracy, compensation c a p a b i l i t y and
time.

The c u r v e s presented as Figure 2 a r e t y p i c a l and include t o t a l system e r r o r s i n c e t h e guidance system

information was t r a n s m i t t e d , received decommutated. recorded, t r a n s f e r r e d and hand p l o t t e d .

0 a - 5 Test O b j e c t i v e s
E s t a b l i s h r a d a r system e r r o r s including s c a l e f a c t o r d r i f t , and bias o f f s e t s t a b i l i t y . Evaluate hand-
o f f procedures between r a d a r d i s h e s and e v a l u a t e range c a l i b r a t i o n s e t t i n g s . F l y t h e h e l i c o p t e r a g a i n s t
t h e r a d a r by hovering alongside runway markers.

0 Ground Equipment T e s t O b j e c t i v e s
Check t h i s equipment f o r performance by observing system o u t p u t s w i t h t h e f l i g h t system o p e r a t i n g w h i l e
t h e h e l i c o p t e r is s t a t i o n a r y .

0 Procedures and Programs

The r e s t of t h e I A o b j e c t i v e s are continuing type of o b j e c t i v e s and carry over i n t o I B and I C and w i l l
provide a format f o r Phase 11.

C. Phase IA Test Summary

S p i c a 1 r e s u l t s obtained when f l y i n g t h e i n e r t i a l system a g a i n s t t h e r a d a r a r e shown i n Figure 3. The

telemetered aircraft p o s i t i o n (as derived by t h e guidance system and transformed i n t o t h e r a d a r c o - o r d i n a t e
system) is compared t o t h e r a d a r t r a c k . Assuming a p e r f e c t r a d a r , a simple s u b t r a c t i o n g i v e s t o t a l f l i g h t
system e r r o r denoted h e r e as IMU e r r o r .

For t h e p a r t i c u l a r f l i g h t i l l u s t r a t e d , t h e r a d a r antenna was o r i e n t e d t o cover longitude (East-West)

flights. Radar coverage was l o s t at t = 3 3 minutes when t h e p i l o t flew South.

After s e v e r a l minutes of North-South f l i g h t t h e aircraft landed and parked ( t = 4 2 minutes) a t its i n i t i a l

take-off p o s i t i o n . The guidance system was l e f t on and allowed ' t o d r i f t u n t i l t = 5 6 minutes. Since i n i t i a l
and f i n a l l o c a t i o n s were e x a c t l y t h e same and because of e r r o r behaviour during r a d a r coverage, a smooth
curve drawn between t = 3 3 and t = 4 2 can be used t o e s t i m a t e system e r r o r f o r t h a t p o r t i o n of f l i g h t .

I f we c o i n c i d e n t a l l y observe t h e l o n g i t u d e and l a t i t u d e t r a c k s we can r e c o n s t r u c t t h e f l i g h t which was

i n i t i a l l y East-West ( l o n g i t u d e ) only. Minor d i s t u r b a n c e s i n t h e l a t i t u d e channel were caused by t h e t e a r - d r o p
t u r n s and occur a t t h e times of maximum excursion i n longitude. When t h e p i l o t f l e w h i s aircraft South ( t = 3 3 )
( t o look f o r prominent land marks.for f u t u r e f l i g h t p l a n s ) h i s t u r n s were much broader and show up as smooth
o s c i l l a t i o n s i n longitude.

Note a l s o t h e o s c i l l a t o r y n a t u r e of t h e v e r t i c a l channel of t h e i n e r t i a l system. The v e r t i c a l channel was

bounded by use of a f i c t i c i o u s a l t i m e t e r input namely, f i x i n g a l t i t u d e i n t h e n a v i g a t i o n equations.

Several f l i g h t s of t h e above t y p e were conducted t o e s t a b l i s h r e p e a t a b i l i t y and t o o b t a i n s t a t i s t i c a l d a t a

on t h e system.

It was e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t a l l t e s t o b j e c t i v e s had been r e a l i z e d and i n e r t i a l navigation a c c u r a c i e s comparable

t o s t a t e - o f - t h e - a r t a i r c r a f t n a v i g a t o r s were obtained from t h e Gemini i n e r t i a l navigator.

Upon completion of t h i s t e s t i n g , i n t e g r a t i o n of t h e d i g i t a l command system was i n i t i a t e d i n p r e p a r a t i o n f o r

t h e update experiments t o be performed i n Phase I B .
 15-5

D. Phase I B O b j e c t i v e s
The major o b j e c t i v e s added f o r Phase I B were:

0 Demonstrate f l i g h t o p e r a b i l i t y of Digital Command System.

Demonstrate a i d e d - i n e r t i a l system performance as a f u n c t i o n of system v a r i a b l e s .

System Integration

The accomplishment of t h e f i r s t of t h e s e o b j e c t i v e s r e q u i r e d t h e following:

1. System checkout of t h e newly i n t e g r a t e d components which included t h e DCS f l i g h t equipment, DCS ground
s t a t i o n , analog t o d i g i t a l c o n v e r t e r and, t h e r a d a r i n t e r f a c e .
2. Environmental tests t o r e - a f f i r m newly configured system o p e r a b i l i t y . P a r t i c u l a r concern was f o r e f f e c t
a d d i t i o n a l components might have on computer s e n s i t i v i t y t o noise.

3. V e r i f i c a t i o n of t h e update l o g i c . The ground system had t o be a b l e t o a d d r e s s t h e f l i g h t system v i a

t h e DCS u p - l i n k and i n s e r t t h e t r a n s m i t t e d q u a n t i t i e s i n t o t h e proper computer l o c a t i o n s . The computer,
i n t u r n , s e n t a v e r i f y s i g n a l v i a t h e t e l e m e t r y down-link t o show t h a t a proper word had been received.
The s u c c e s s f u l i n t e g r a t i o n of t h e up-link completed t h e system c a p a b i l i t y r e q u i r e d t o demonstrate aided
i n e r t i a l system performance.

Performance Testing of Aiding System

These tests had two major purposes. F i r s t , demonstrate t h e t o t a l system performance.as a f u n c t i o n o f :

1. F l i g h t P r o f i l e

2. Degraded I n e r t i a l System Accuracy

3. Degraded Radar System Accuracy

4. Frequency of Update
5. Time of Last Update.

Second, e s t a b l i s h t r a d e - o f f s of i n d i v i d u a l system parameters as a f u n c t i o n of t o t a l system performance.

Flight Profile Tests

The system w a s s u b j e c t e d t o v a r i o u s cruise/approach speeds, coupled with d i f f e r e n t a l t i t u d e s Other t e s t s

included one-half g r a v i t y t u r n s and g l i d e s l o p e s g r e a t e r than three degrees.

Degraded Inertial System Accuracy

Gyroscope and accelerometer compensation c o - e f f i c i e n t s were given f a l s e v a l u e s and i n s e r t e d n t o t h e

computer v i a t h e MDIU. This had t h e e f f e c t of d e l i b e r a t e l y mis-aligning t h e i n e r t i a l p l a t f o r m and i n c r e a s i n g
t h e i n e r t i a l system d r i f t rate.

Degraded Radar System Accuracy

Based on radar system c a l i b r a t i o n d a t a , a n o i s e g e n e r a t o r was i n s e r t e d i n t h e l i n e t o t h e DCS t o degrade t h e

r a d a r system information. The value of t h i s t e s t is s p e c u l a t i v e s i n c e t h e i n i t i a l update r e s e t t h e i n e r t i a l
system p o s s i t i o n d a t a t o t h e r a d a r system p o s i t i o n d a t a and, t h e r e f o r e , t h e e f f e c t of a l e s s a c c u r a t e o r noisy
a i d can be determined by a n a l y s i s .

Frequency of Update
These t e s t s were developed t o g a i n i n s i g h t i n t o t h e e f f e c t s of time, approach speeds, d i s t a n c e from touch-
down, coupled with i n e r t i a l system accuracy.

Time of Last Update

T h i s parameter was important f o r e s t a b l i s h i n g t h e value of t h e i n e r t i a l system i n a t e r m i n a l s i t u a t i o n i f

t h e landing a i d f a i l e d .

Update Information

Because t h e GSN-5radar p o s i t i o n information is an analog s i g n a l , it was decided not t o update v e l o c i t y

based on radar d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n , but t o d i f f e r e n t i a t e t h e mixed r a d a r and i n e r t i a l d i g i t a l d a t a i n t h e on-board
computer. The d e r i v e d v e l o c i t y s i g n a l is c l e a n e r b u t quantum e f f e c t s have n o t y e t been thoroughly i n v e s t i g a t e d .

F u r t h e r , based on knowledge of p r e v i o u s p o s i t i o n s poor r a d a r information is r e j e c t e d i n t h e computer.

15-6

E. Phase I B Test Summary

0 P o s i t i o n and V e l o c i t y Update Mode

F i g u r e s 4 and 5 g r a p h i c a l l y d e s c r i b e a t y p i c a l t h r e e degree (3O) approach p r o f i l e with updating every
t e n seconds. Updating of p o s i t i o n (and v e l o c i t y ) i n Figure 4 was terminated approximately 100 seconds
from touchdown while i n Figure 5 updating was continued t o touchdown. The f i n a l system e r r o r a t t h e
touchdown p o i n t r e p r e s e n t s t h e d i f f e r e n c e between t h e recorded system o u t p u t s and t h e surveyed ground
p o s i t ion.

F i g u r e s 6 and 7 show t y p i c a l p o s i t i o n and v e l o c i t y e r r o r growth curves as f u n c t i o n s of time, i n e r t i a l

system performance and, t h e amount of p r i o r knowledge t h e system is “allowed” t o r e t a i n (mixing
co-efficient).

It is clear from t h e s e curves and Figure 2 t h a t an i n e r t i a l system which h a s accumulated time s i n c e

i n i t i a l alignment and c a l i b r a t i o n cannot, by i t s e l f , guide an a i r c r a f t t o a pre-determined touchdown
p o i n t on a runway even i f it had been updated i n p o s i t i o n and v e l o c i t y at t h e i n n e r marker. I n e r t i a l
systems d r i f t as a f u n c t i o n of t i n e and as shown i n Figure 2, a f t e r some time has been accumulated t h e
growth r a t e is very f a s t .

0 P o s i t i o n V e l o c i t y and A t t i t u d e Update Mode

If we examine t h e e r r o r curves, it becomes apparent t h a t t h e i n e r t i a l system performance could be
improved i f we could o p e r a t e t h e system on t h e lower p o r t i o n s of t h e curve. Obviously, we can “start
over” i f we completely r e - i n i t i a l i z e t h e system i n f l i g h t .

Simulations were performed t o examine t h e value of updating a t t i t u d e , i n t h e computer, as w e l l as

updating p o s i t i o n and v e l o c i t y .

Figures 8 and 9 are s i m u l a t i o n s using t h e system model with an e q u a l l y weighted gyroscope t r i a d each
of which has a d r i f t r a t e of 0.5’/hr. The s i m u l a t i o n p o i n t s up t h e advantage t o be gained i f a t t i t u d e is
a l s o updated.

F i n a l l y , Figure 10 examines t h e e r r o r propagation of Figures 8 and 9 i n c l o s e r d e t a i l .

F. Phase I C O b j e c t i v e s

The prpsent p l a n s f o r Phase I C are:

0 I n c o r p o r a t e t h e a t t i t u d e update mode (equations and l o g i c a l flow) i n t h e f l i g h t computer.
0 Couple t h i s a t t i t u d e updated p o s i t i o n and v e l o c i t y information i n t o f l i g h t d i r e c t o r with t h e p i l o t
c l o s i n g t h e guidance loop.
0 Incorporate automatic alignment and c a l i b r a t i o n scheme developed on “open loop” basis. Note! This
scheme is part of an AIM paper submitted f o r t h e Guidance and Control Panel meeting t o be h e l d at
P r i n c e t o n University i n August 1969. The scheme is o u t l i n e d i n t h e appendix.

Figures 1 1 a n d 1 2 are s i m u l a t i o n s t o examine t h e p o s i t i o n and v e l o c i t y information d u r i n g t h e update c y c l e

as it would appear f o r processing f o r d r i v i n g a d i s p l a y w i t h and without a t t i t u d e update. The update c y c l e
was once every 10 seconds and is l i m i t e d , i n t h i s case, by t h e p a r t i c u l a r program i n t h e f l i g h t computer.

111. CONCLUSIONS:

I t should not be concluded t h a t t h e i n e r t i a l n a v i g a t i o n system performance was improved by updating b u t ,

r a t h e r , an .improved t o t a l navigation c a p a b i l i t y can be achieved by t h e j u d i c i o u s employment of a v a i l a b l e
technology.

It is c e r t a i n t h a t i n e r t i a l system updating should include a t t i t u d e and, q u e s t i o n s such as how a c c u r a t e , how

far o u t from touchdown and how o f t e n can be determined from a n a l y s e s based on mission requirements.

It has been shown t h a t w i t h an accumulation of equipment which is t e c h n i c a l l y t e n years o l d it is p o s s i b l e

t o p r e d i c t t h e a i r c r a f t touchdown p o i n t t o within a t e n f o o t c r o s s s e c t i o n on t h e runway. However, q u e s t i o n s
r e l a t i n g t o t h e use of o t h e r e x i s t i n g r a d i o a i d s , t h e p o s s i b l e use of i n e r t i a l system information f o r a s s i s t i n g
i n t h e f l i g h t c o n t r o l function’, a l t e r n a t i v e system mechanizations, a l l warrant i n v e s t i g a t i o n .

This reDort marks only a beginning i n a s e r i e s of t a s k s t o be accomplished i f a t o t a l system c a p a b i l i t y is t o

be achieved.

REFERENCES

1. Trueblood. R.B. “Advanced F l i g h t Control Concepts f o r KWL A i r c r a f t ” . Massachusetts I n s t i t u t e

of Technology Instrumentation Laboratory E-1898.
 15-7

APPENDIX A

Alignment and C a l i b r a t i o n Technique

P r i o r t o each f l i g h t a technique was developed t o determine

0 System f l i g h t r e a d i n e s s and
0 System c a l i b r a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s

The essence of t h i s technique was a s t a t i o n a r y n a v i g a t i o n t e s t performed f o r a period of 30 minutes. This

t e s t was performed on ground power with both t h e d i g i t a l command system and t h e d a t a a c q u i s i t i o n system i n t h e
loop. The s p e c i f i c test c o n s i s t e d of l e t t i n g t h e system n a v i g a t e f o r a period of time a t a f i x e d point. The
i n e r t i a l system o u t p u t s of p o s i t i o n and v e l o c i t y were telemetered and d i s p l a y e d on analog s t r i p c h a r t r e c o r d e r s .
Deviations from t h e i n i t i a l l a t i t u d e and longitude were noted and by means of a s e t of pre-computed s e n s i t i v i t y
c o e f f i c i e n t s , t h e e q u i v a l e n t system compensations were c a l c u l a t e d and i n s e r t e d v i a t h e hDIU i n t o t h e computer.
By means of t h i s technique t h e system equivalent l e v e l gyro d r i f t r a t e s and a l l t h r e e accelerometer b i a s e s can
be estimated. With t h e s e new e s t i m a t e s , t h e system can be re-tuned. Upon s u c c e s s f u l completion of t h i s test
which was performed once each morning, t h e system was considered t o be f l i g h t ready. Before each f l i g h t , t h e
countdown procedures had a b u i l t - i n 10-minute s t a t i o n a r y n a v i g a t i o n t e s t . This allowed t h e t e s t conductor t o
e s t a b l i s h t h a t no l a r g e s h i f t s i n s e n s o r performance had occured and t h a t t h e system was o p e r a t i n g s a t i s f a c t o r i l y
p r i o r t o each f l i g h t . Note t h a t t h i s test was performed simultaneously with o t h e r o p e r a t i o n s so t h a t it d i d
not extend p r e f l i g h t time i n and of i t s e l f .

A computer program t o a u t o m a t i c a l l y e s t i m a t e and up-date t h e i n e r t i a l system alignment and c a l i b r a t i o n is

f e a s i b l e . Since t h e system is i n t h e n a v i g a t e mode d i s t u r b a n c e s w i t h i n t h e system bandwidth should not a f f e c t
t h i s method and t h e computer should be a b l e t o c o n t i n u a l l y e s t i m a t e even while loading and f u e l i n g o p e r a t i o n s
t a k e place.
15-8

APPENDIX B

Recorded Parameters

Data L i s t

For quick look e v a l u a t i o n l a t i t u d e , longitude and a l t i t u d e ( e a r t h r a d i u s ) were recorded on continuous

s t r i p c h a r t . The c o - o r d i n a t e frame f o r Phase I A was Earth Centered I n e r t i a l (ECI) as it was i n Gemini.

1. P i t c h gimbal angle
2. Yaw gimbal angle
3. Roll gimbal angle
4. sum x accelerometer counts

5. Sum Y accelerometer counts

6. Sum Z accelerometer c o u n t s

7. F l i g h t time

8. Flow t a g and computation c y c l e time

9. Radius ( t o e a r t h c e n t e r )

10. Earth r e f e r e n c e v e l o c i t y

11. F l i g h t path angle

12. X' - ECI p o s i t i o n

13. Y - ECI p o s i t i o n

14. Z - ECI p o s i t i o n
15. Latitude
16. Longitude
17. VX - ECI v e l o c i t y
18. W - ECI v e l o c i t y
19. VZ - ECI v e l o c i t y
20. I n t e g r a t i o n time

21. Earth referenced heading.

 15-9

ALTITUDE

-
CRUISE EXIT
VOLUMES
c _ _

CRUISE
77
/ \ \
\

FINAL UPDATE

LTERMINAL
UPDATES-I

Fig..l Typical p o s i t i o n error volumes

c.
"'7
30,000

25,000
PRIZDICTED ERROR/
0: 0.1 YHR
An I O 0 pg

/
/
/
/

/
,'
PREDICTED ERROR
/ 08 0.01 V H R
A: SO pQ

I-
LL
Y

a
0
20,000
W
z
0
I- PREDICTED ERROR
I
Ji 15,000 ,~

01 0.025 YHR
2 A. 2s pg
v)
v)
a
lO.000

5000

0 IO 20 30 40 50 60
TIME (MIN)

Fig.2 H-19-1A F l i g h t test data 3

15-10

1000 -
/
0
-1000 -
-2000 -
-3000 -
-4000 -
-5000 -

- -6000 -
w -7000 -
U
3 -8000 -
laz -9000:
-10.000 -
-11,000 -
-12.000 " I ' ' ' " ' ' I '
25
I " '
30 35
l
40
l l l
45
. . l
50
l . l
55
l
5 IO 15 20

-
0

- 1 I \I IFRADAR
-1000
-
I-
LL -2000
W IMU unin
0 -3000
z
-4000
DATA
E -5000
-6000
-7000
-8000
5 IO 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
TIME (MINI

, , , , , , I ,
45 50 55
TIME ( M I N I

Fig.3 H-19-1A Flight test data

 15-11

FIRST UPDATE
INBWND T= 16.4mln.
T= 15.8min.

1000

c
'c
Y
AT HELIPORT
W 1. 2O.lmin.
0 AFTER UPDATE
3
k
2 500 -

4 3
SUBSCRIPTS
R'DIFFERENCE BETWEEN IOS LL RADAR YC
G=DIFFERENCEBETWEEN IOS LL OROUND (SOUTH)

Fig.4 F l i g h t test D3-06 September 13, 1968

FIRST UPDATE
r T = 18.7 M I N
1000
SU BSC R I PTS
R = DIFFERENCE BETWEEN IGS a RADAR
G = DIFFERENCE BETWEEN IGS a GROUND
BEFORE UPDA
800

TOUCHDOWN
c
I AT HELIPORT
Z 600 AFTER 27 UPDATES
w
0 , T - 2 3 . 2 MIN
3
k AXg' 8.3 f t
I-
-1
a 400
AYG
AZg
-- 1.8 11
3.5 f t

(UP)

20 0

4 3 2
RANGE TO HELIPORT
(NAUT. MILES) Yc (SOUTH)

Fig.5 F l i g h t t e s t E2-04 September 24, 1968

15-12

ID UPDATE SPEED M I X I N G SYSTEM

-
1
FREQ. (KNOTS) COEFF.
10 S E C . 50 .7
2 10 30 .7
15001 3 20 50 .0
c 4 60 50 .7
LL
Y 5 60 50 .95
t- 6 10 50 .7
a
0
a. *REFLECTS GYROS DEGRADED BY . 2 5 0
2 1000
I
I-
U
>
U
U
a
3
U
U
4
x
2
E 500
ln
0
0-

ln
v)
a

0 I 2 3 4

TIME IN I N E R T I A L S I N C E F I N A L UPDATE ( M I N )

Fig.6 Landing accuracy versus time i n i n e r t i a l mode f o r E f l i g h t test s e r i e s . Position

15
-
ID UPDATE S P E E D MIXING
FREQ (KNOTS) COEFF
SYSTEM
PERF
h
U
1 10 S E C 50 .7 . 0 7 QIHR
w 2 10 30 .7 * 10
rn 50 .a .07
1 3 20
E
c 4 60 50 .7 .12
v 5 60 50 .95 .11
E
d
0
PI
sw 10
X
E
4
r
U
4
d
3
U
U
4
w
c
U

z 5
cl
w
3
2
rn
m 4
e:

I
0
I
I
I I
1
I I I I t
1 2 3 4
TIME I N I N E R T I A L S I N C E F I N A L UPDATE ( H I N )

Fig.7 Landing accuracy versus time i n i n e r t i a l mode f o r E f l i g h t test series. Velocity

 15-13

15

NO
ATTITUDE
UPDATE

10
X
z

e:
0
e:
e:
W

-
z
0

c
I4
GYRO D R I F T RATE
Io OF 0 . 5 O / H R .
P 5
In
Io
e:

0
5 10
TIME S I N C E LAST UPDATE, MIN.

Fig.8 Propagation of p o s i t i o n e r r o r s a f t e r r a d i o navaid update

300

/ NO A T T I T U D E

200
rn
P
Lr

d
C
d
d
Li:

r
w
Y
U
C GYRO D R I F T
el
W
R A T E OF 0 . 5 0 /m.
> 100
V.
rn
d

0
5 10

T I H E S I N C E LAST U P D A T E , MIN.

Fig.9 Propagation of v e l o c i t y e r r o r a f t e r r a d i o navaid update

15-14

RSS VELOCITY
ERROR

RSS P O S I T I O N
ERROR

GYRO D R I P T O R A T E
OF 0 . 5 IHR.

0 5 10

TIME S I N C E L A S T UPDATE, M I N .

Fig. 10 Propagation of errors a f t e r radio navaid update (position, velocity, and attitude update)

500

400

d
0
d
5 300
z
0
Y
i-l
U
m
0
p1 200
m
rn
rz,

100

0
0 100 200 300

T I M E S I N C E B E G I N N I N G UPDATES, SEC.

Fig.11 RSS position error during update process

 15-15

50

1 T O 93.2 F T I S E C .

40
\ NO A T T I T U D E UPDATE
H
Lr.
GYRO D R I F Z R A T E
e: OF 0.5 /HR.
C
30
>
H
U
U
0
cl
w
> 20
v)
rn a
e:
,
WITH ATTITUDE

10 UPDATE

0
0 100 200 300
TIME S I N C E BEGINNING UPDATES, SEC.

Fig.12 RSS v e l o c i t y error during update process a f t e r c r u i s e for one hour

15-16

30

BEFORE
CALIBRATION /
/
h

c
W
:2 0
0
0
0
7
v

LL
0
p:
p:
W

-
Jz
0
c
c.
g 10
n
in

v)

p:

0 10 20 30
T I M E (MINUTES)

Fig..Al Analytic p r e - f l i g h t c a l i b r a t i o n "Open Loop"

5000

4000
ACTUAL ERROR @ @ @ @

c S I M U L A T I O N ERROR
W
W
L
'3000
zz
0
CI

t;
v)
0
2000
v)

in

p:

1000

T I M E (MINUTES)

Fig.A2 Deterministic r e s u l t s
 1
15-11

lo0T
80

c
R
60
*0
*LII A
W 0 P L I G A T DATA
2
0
c 40
M
M
111
0
D4
- SIMULATION

111
111
a
20

0
20 40 60 a0 100 120

TIME S I N C E L A S T U P D A T E , SEC.

Fig.A3 Position error propagation after update

Figure A4
15-18

Figure A5
 16

THE DEVELOPMENT OF AUTOMATIC LANDING

FOR BEA OPERATION

J. L. Weston

Smiths I n d u s t r i e s Limited, Aviation Division

Bishops Cleeve, Cheltenham, UK
16
 16-1

THE DEVELOPMENT OF AUTOMATIC L A N D I N G

FOR BEA OPERATION

J.L.Weston

1. INTRODUCTION

B r i t i s h European Airways a r e c u r r e n t l y o p e r a t i n g Hawker Siddeley T r i d e n t a i r c r a f t , equipped with t h e Smiths

SEP.5 t r i p l e x a u t o - p i l o t , which a r e a u t h o r i s e d t o perform automatic landings i n ICAO Category 2 weather c o n d i t i o n s .
On June l o t h , 1965 BEA became t h e w o r l d s f i r s t a i r l i n e t o land passengers a u t o m a t i c a l l y when a T r i d e n t l C , with
8 3 passengers on board, completed an a u t o f l a r e i n t o London (Heathrow) A i r p o r t . Since then t h e i r i n - s e r v i c e
experience of automatic landing h a s been i n c r e a s i n g s t e a d i l y t o t h e p r e s e n t s i t u a t i o n where BEA a r e r e g u l a r l y
performing 300 automatic touchdowns a month.

The a n c e s t r y of t h e SEP.5 Automatic Landing System can be t r a c e d back t o t h e formation of t h e Royal A i r c r a f t

Establishment Blind Landing Experimental Unit i n 1947. Much of t h e e a r l y work was d i r e c t e d towards providing
s i n g l e channel, o r simplex, systems f o r t h e Royal Air Force and it was with such systems t h a t over 10,000
automatic l a n d i n g s were made, using s e v e r a l d i f f e r e n t a i r c r a f t t y p e s , before commencement of t h e Trident f l i g h t
t r i a l s programme. Many o f t h e s e l a n d i n g s were i n s t r o n g and gusty winds and some i n t h i c k fog. I n 1956 Smiths
commenced work on t h e design of a m u l t i p l e x system, based on t h e experience o f t h e simplex systems, s u i t a b l e
f o r c i v i l a p p l i c a t i o n . When, i n 1959, BEA s p e c i f i e d a f u l l automatic landing c a p a b i l i t y f o r t h e T r i d e n t ,
Smiths were chosen as t h e a u t o p i l o t manufacturer. The f i r s t automatic l a n d i n g of a T r i d e n t by t h e SEP.5
a u t o p i l o t was e a r l y i n 1964.

The c u r r e n t c e r t i f i c a t i o n standard of Category 2 Autoland is a major milestone i n t h e l o g i c a l development

t o an eventual Category 38 o p e r a t i o n a l s t a n d a r d . The work necessary t o demonstrate t h a t t h e system h a s t h e
c a p a b i l i t y of s a f e Category 3A o p e r a t i o n is nearing completion. A f t e r a period of recorded i n - s e r v i c e o p e r a t i o n
it i s a n t i c i p a t e d t h a t BEA w i l l seek Board of Trade approval f o r Category 3A o p e r a t i o n by l a t e 1970. The
development f l y i n g on t h e Category 3B a s p e c t s o f t h e system a r e now complete and t h e t a r g e t d a t e f o r approval
of t h i s f a c i l i t y is 1971.

This paper i s p a r t i c u l a r l y concerned with t h e i n - f l i g h t experience of t h e a u t o p i l o t system and t r a c e s t h e

important s t a g e s of t h e f l i g h t t r i a l s i n t h e development a i r c r a f t through t o t h e c e r t i f i c a t i o n demonstrations.
Furthermore t h e experience of BEA i n o p e r a t i n g t h e system, i n s t a l l e d i n t h e i r f l e e t , is examined. Some of t h e
problems revealed by t h e s e t r i a l s , and t h e many thousands of l a n d i n g s c a r r i e d out d u r i n g t h e supporting r i g
programmes, a r e examined i n some d e t a i l .

2. DESCRIPTION O F THE TRIDENT A U T O L A N D I N C SYSTEM

The BEA f l e e t of Trident a i r c r a f t i n c l u d e s both t h e 1 C and 2E v a r i a n t s . The Trident is powered by t h r e e

R o l l s Royce Spey by-pass j e t engines l o c a t e d i n a r e a r mounted c l u s t e r . Aerodynamically i t is of swept wing,
high t a i l design f i t t e d with high l i f t d e v i c e s i n c l u d i n g l e a d i n g edge droop. The t r i p l e x f l y i n g c o n t r o l s a r e
h y d r a u l i c a l l y operated and t h e t a i l p l a n e is an a l l moving s u r f a c e . The 1 C maximum a l l up weight is 114,000 l b ,
and 94 passengers can be c a r r i e d . The 2E v a r i a t i o n is s i m i l a r with t h e exception t h a t t h e l e a d i n g edge droop
is replaced by a slat. I t is considerably h e a v i e r a t 142,000 l b and h a s twice t h e range of 1C.

During t h e c r u i s e phases t h e SEP.5 a u t o p i l o t p r o v i d e s two a x i s c o n t r o l of t h e a i r c r a f t , through t h e t a i l p l a n e

and a i l e r o n s , and is supplemented by r o l l and yaw dampers. For t h e landing sequence t h e r o l l damper is auto-
m a t i c a l l y disconnected while t h e yaw dampers a r e augmented by an a u t o p i l o t yaw channel, and speed c o n t r o l l e d by
an a u t o - t h r o t t l e system. The SEP.5 is a rate-rate a u t o p i l o t , manoeuvre demands are f o r r a t e of change of air-
c r a f t a t t i t u d e and a r e s a t i s f i e d by s i g n a l s fed back from resolved r a t e gyros and from t h e servomotor t a c h o
generators. The r e l a t i v e m e r i t s of r a t e and p o s i t i o n a u t o p i l o t s w i l l not be discussed i n t h i s paper, however
t h e p r i n c i p l e of r a t e c o n t r o l is c o n s i s t e n t with t h e T r i d e n t Automatic Landing System. The p i t c h c o n t r o l o f
t h e t a i l p l a n e i s through t h e a i r c r a f t trim system, t h i s i s made p o s s i b l e by t h e method of achieving c r u i s e
s a f e t y and while t h i s method of c o n t r o l i n t r o d u c e s c e r t a i n problems, it does e l i m i n a t e t h e need f o r automatic
trim and a f f o r d s some advantages i n t h e landing phase. The SEP.5 a u t o p i l o t achieves t h e redundancy, necessary
f o r a f a i l o p e r a t i o n a l c a p a b i l i t y , by means of t r i p l e x p i t c h and r o l l channels, t h r e e i d e n t i c a l sub-channels
being coupled mechanically and i n p a r a l l e l , t o t h e r e l e v a n t c o n t r o l s u r f a c e . Such an arrangement is shown
i n Figure 1. The presence of a f a u l t is d e t e c t e d by t h e voting a c t i o n of t h e t h r e e sub-channel t o r q u e s w i t c h e s
and t h e f a u l t y sub-channel i s r e j e c t e d l e a v i n g a c o n t r o l l i n g duplex channel. The presence of a subsequent f a u l t
is recognised and t h e channel disconnected without s i g n i f i c a n t d i s t u r b a n c e t o t h e a i r c r a f t f l i g h t path. The
a u t o p i l o t c r u i s e s a f e t y does n o t r e l y on conventional a u t h o r i t y l i m i t i n g d e v i c e s i n t h a t a runaway sub-channel
i s prevented from applying c o n t r o l s u r f a c e by t h e o t h e r r e a c t i n g sub-channel o r sub-channels. T h i s method
16-2

of p r o t e c t i o n h a s t h e advantage of providing a f a i l o p e r a t i o n a l o r f a i l s t e a d y f a c i l i t y throughout t h e o p e r a t i o n a l

envelope of t h e a i r c r a f t . One consequence of t h i s is t h a t i t is p o s s i b l e t o provide p i t c h c o n t r o l by means of
d r i v i n g through t h e trim system. The rudder channel is at duplex l e v e l only as t h e r e is no need f o r a f a i l
o p e r a t i o n a l c a p a b i l i t y i n t h e yaw a x i s .

The sequence of o p e r a t i o n s of t h e Automatic Landing system a r e shown i n Figure 2. This i n d i c a t e s t h e method I

of c o n t r o l i n p i t c h and i n azimuth d u r i n g each phase of t h e approach and landing. The f u n c t i o n s of t h e auto- I
t h r o t t l e system a r e a l s o shown. The l o c a l i s e r i n t e r c e p t i o n phase u t i l i s e s heading and r a d i o d e v i a t i o n , changing
t o a r a d i o r a t e damped c o n t r o l once t h e g l i d e path has been coupled. When t h e a i r c r a f t is s t a b i l i s e d on both
t h e l o c a l i s e r and g l i d e path c e n t r e l i n e s , a t about 1000 ft. t h e p i l o t is r e q u i r e d t o i n i t i a t e t h e remainder of
t h e landing sequence by t h e a c t i o n o f Priming Land. Not only does t h i s a c t i o n arm t h e system t o accept t h e
subsequent switching sequences b u t a l s o i t engages t h e rudder channel and i n t r o d u c e s a d d i t i o n a l s t a b i l i s i n g
and d i s t u r b a n c e compensating terms i n t o both t h e p i t c h and r o l l channels. A t approximately 350 f t t h e g l i d e 1
g e a r i n g is reduced t o p r e s e r v e s t a b i l i t y . I t i s worth noting, a t t h i s p o i n t , t h a t t h e manoeuvre r a t e demand
l i m i t s , by providing i n c r e a s i n g a t t e n u a t i o n of l a r g e demands, e l i m i n a t e t h e need f o r f u r t h e r reduction o f t h e
g l i d e gearings. A t 130 f t coupling t o t h e g l i d e path is discontinued and t h e a i r c r a f t i s c o n t r o l l e d t o an I

a t t i t u d e r e f e r e n c e e s t a b l i s h e d d u r i n g t h e approach; t h e d i s t u r b a n c e compensation is maintained through t h i s

phase and, indeed, down t o touchdown. A t 65 f t t h e F l a r e phase is i n i t i a t e d and t h e p i t c h c o n t r o l is generated i
from t h e r a d i o a l t i m e t e r s i g n a l s ; at t h e same h e i g h t t h e a u t o - t h r o t t l e system c e a s e s t o maintain a i r s p e e d and
c l o s e s t h e t h r o t t l e s . A t 12 f e e t t h e rudder, which t h i s f a r h a s been providing conventional yaw damping, r e a c t s
t o heading e r r o r s i g n a l s from t h e f l i g h t compasses i n o r d e r t o a l i g n t h e a i r c r a f t ’ s heading with t h e runway.
On touching down t h e p i l o t d i s c o n n e c t s t h e a u t o p i l o t , by means of h i s i n s t i n c t i v e c u t - o u t b u t t o n , lowers t h e
nosewheel onto t h e runway and guides t h e a i r c r a f t along t h e runway. In t h e Category 38 system t h e rudder a l s o
r e a c t s t o l o c a l i s e r r a d i o and r a d i o r a t e s i g n a l s from 12 f t . The cut-out button no longer d i s c o n n e c t s t h e
rudder channel, which c o n t r o l s t h e a i r c r a f t t o t h e c e n t r e l i n e u n t i l rudder e f f e c t i v e n e s s i s l o s t d u r i n g t h e I
r o l l o u t . F a i l u r e s u r v i v a l is provided by independent head-up guidance t o t h e p i l o t and t h i s i s r e t a i n e d u n t i l I
t h e a i r c r a f t i s brought t o r e s t . I t i s a l s o a v a i l a b l e f o r t a k e o f f . The Category 38 system w i l l a l s o i n c l u d e
a simple Ground Speed and Distance-to-Go I n d i c a t o r . There a r e no plans, t o extend t h e system f o r Category 3C
operation. I

3. CERTIFICATION PROCESSES

The design and development of t h e SEP.5 a u t o p i l o t i n t h e T r i d e n t was based on providing a system which could
be shown t o comply with t h e c e r t i f i c a t i o n requirements of t h e A i r R e g i s t r a t i o n Board. The Board’s views a r e
i
I

l a i d down i n Reference 1. One e s s e n t i a l requirement is t h a t any submission f o r c e r t i f i c a t i o n of an Automatic

Landing System s h a l l i n c l u d e a s a f e t y assessment. T h i s s a f e t y assessment must c o n t a i n a s t a t i s t i c a l summation
of t h e r i s k s , a t t r i b u t a b l e t o t h e use of t h e system, which shows an average r i s k o f no more than 1 x per
landing and a l i m i t i n g r i s k of n o t more than 3 x per landing. The average r i s k is taken as being t h e r i s k
averaged over a l l landings i n v i s i b i l i t y c o n d i t i o n s below t h e Category 1 minima. The l i m i t i n g or s p e c i f i c r i s k ~

is t h e maximum allowable r i s k when any p a r t i c u l a r known f a c t o r i s a t its most adverse. This i s t h e maximum r i s k
which t h e Captain should be allowed t o t a k e without t h e s p e c i f i c i n s t r u c t i o n t o d i v e r t . Perhaps t h e most s i g -
n i f i c a n t of t h e Board’s o t h e r requirements is t h a t concerning t h e i n - s e r v i c e proving phase. Before any system I
can be c e r t i f i c a t e d t o o p e r a t e i n Category 3 c o n d i t i o n s t h e Board r e q u i r e s evidence t o be c o l l e c t e d from ( i ) about
1000 l a n d i n g s t o show t h a t t h e performance p r e d i c t e d f o r t h e s a f e t y assessment is achieved during i n - s e r v i c e
o p e r a t i o n s and ( i i ) a s u f f i c i e n t number of landings t o s u b s t a n t i a t e t h e adequacy of t h e system redundancy. In
t h e case of a system having t h e c a p a b i l i t y of s u r v i v i n g one f a u l t a s u f f i c i e n t number of l a n d i n g s could be /(IO7).
~

One major source of r i s k is poor performance which may cause t h e a i r c r a f t e i t h e r t o land (or run) o f f t h e
runway, or d i r e c t l y hazard t h e a i r c r a f t by landing with t o o high a r a t e of d e s c e n t o r i n a dangerous a t t i t u d e .
From an examination of many landing i n c i d e n t s t h e Board have a l l o c a t e d i n c i d e n t t o a c c i d e n t r a t i o s f o r each form
of landing i n c i d e n t . Poor performance may be a t t r i b u t a b l e t o a system working within its s p e c i f i c a t i o n b u t
influenced by e x t e r n a l d i s t u r b a n c e s o r may be due t o a f a u l t o r f a u l t s w i t h i n t h e system.

The p r e c i s i o n and consistency o f an automatic landing manoeuvre, when t h e system i s working within s p e c i f i c a t i o n ,
can be adversely influenced by atmospheric d i s t u r b a n c e s , r a d i o n o i s e and beam bends, t e r r a i n p r o f i l e , system I
t o l e r a n c e s e t c . The e f f e c t of t h e s e random i n f l u e n c e s i s t o produce a s c a t t e r i n t h e a i r c r a f t touchdown para-
meters. Consequently i t is necessary t o show t h a t t h i s s c a t t e r w i l l not hazard t h e a i r c r a f t a t t o o high a r i s k
l e v e l . The primary means o f a s s e s s i n g t h e s c a t t e r i n performance is by f l i g h t demonstration. The Board’s
i
requirement is f o r i n f l i g h t demonstration, by t h e manufacturer, of 100 landings. C l e a r l y e x t r a p o l a t i n g t h e s e
r e s u l t s t o t h e o r d e r o f l o 7 landings i s a s p e c u l a t i v e p r o c e s s u n l e s s some supporting evidence can be produced
which would indice.te t h e means o f e x t r a p o l a t i o n .

The only p r a c t i c a l method i s by means of ground r i g s and simulation. To support t h e i r f l i g h t programme

I
Hawker Siddeley have made e x t e n s i v e use of a f u l l s c a l e f l y i n g c o n t r o l s r i g coupled t o a complete a u t o p i l o t
and a u t o - t h r o t t l e system. The aerodynamic, kinematic and geometric loops a r e closed .by means of an analogue
s i m u l a t o r ; and t h e accuracy of t h e analogue model was c a r e f u l l y checked a g a i n s t measured a i r c r a t performance
t o provide a c c u r a t e agreement.

A s e r i e s of samples of simulated l a n d i n g s , i n c o n t r o l l e d environmental c o n d i t i o n s , have been c a r r i e d o u t t o

i
determine t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p s between a i r c r a f t performance and, f o r example, t h e l e v e l of atmospheric turbulence.
BY compounding t h e p r o b a b i l i t y o f experiencing each l e v e l of t u r b u l e n c e with t h e p r o b a b i l i t y o f an i n c i d e n t
 16-3

a t t h a t l e v e l of t u r b u l e n c e , it was p o s s i b l e t o compute a d i s t r i b u t i o n f o r each c r i t i c a l touchdown parameter

which is v a l i d up t o t h e i n c i d e n t l e v e l . The e x t r a p o l a t i o n o f t h e f l i g h t r e s u l t s were based on t h e agreement
achieved with t h e r i g . Figure 3 shows an example o f t h i s by comparing t h e f l i g h t r e s u l t s of r a t e o f descent
a t touchdown with a d i s t r i b u t i o n deduced from r i g r e s u l t s . From t h i s comparison i t i s c l e a r l y shown t h a t an
e x t r a p o l a t i o n from f l i g h t r e s u l t s on t h e b a s i s o f a Gaussian d i s t r i b u t i o n would r e s u l t i n an e s t i m a t e which
is o p t i m i s t i c by s e v e r a l o r d e r s . (This revealed a need t o reduce t h e s c a t t e r i n touchdown performance from
t h a t o r i g i n a l l y considered necessary. The m o d i f i c a t i o n s introduced t o e f f e c t t h e r e q u i r e d improvements a r e
d e s c r i b e d l a t e r ) . The reasons f o r t h i s d i s t o r t i o n of t h e b a s i c Gaussian d i s t r i b u t i o n are twofold. F i r s t l y
t h e i n f l u e n c e of atmospheric t u r b u l e n c e is such t h a t both t h e mean and standard d e v i a t i o n of r a t e of descent
at touchdown i n c r e a s e as t h e i n t e n s i t y of t u r b u l e n c e i n c r e a s e s . The e f f e c t o f compounding i n d i v i d u a l Gaussian
d i s t r i b u t i o n s having d i f f e r e n t mean v a l u e s is non-Gaussian. Secondly i s t h e i n f l u e n c e of heavy turbulence on
t h e r a t e of descent at t h e s t a rt of t h e f l a r e manoeuvre. The f l i g h t r e s u l t s showed t h e r e t o be l i t t l e c o r r e l a t i o n
between t h e r a t e s of descent at touchdown and f l a r e , t h i s is shown i n Figure 4 . However f u r t h e r r i g i n v e s t i g a -
t i o n s showed t h e r e t o be a break p o i n t and Figure 4 a l s o shows t h e r e s u l t of t h e s e t r i a l s where t h e r a t e of
d e s c e n t at touchdown is i n s e n s i t i v e t o t h e e s t a b l i s h e d r a t e o f descent a t f l a r e u n t i l high r a t e s . a r e experienced.
C l e a r l y t h i s i m p l i e s t h a t , even i f t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n of r a t e o f descent a t f l a r e is Gaussian, t h e r a t e of d e s c e n t
a t touchdown cannot be.

The foregoing i s only one example of t h e a p p l i c a t i o n of ground r i g s i n support of f l i g h t t r i a l s and i n d i c a t e s

t h e n e c e s s i t y f o r such support. The o t h e r f a c t o r which can i n f l u e n c e t h e a i r c r a f t / a u t o p i l o t performance i s t h e
presence of a f a u l t o r f a u l t s . The design of t h e system is such t h a t a p o t e n t i a l l y hazardous s i n g l e f a u l t is
d e t e c t e d and r e j e c t e d b e f o r e it can i n f l u e n c e t h e a i r c r a f t performance s i g n i f i c a n t l y . I t i s , however, necessary
t o show t h a t f a u l t s cannot b u i l d up t o p r e s e n t a hazardous s i t u a t i o n . The presence o f such f a u l t s would not
n e c e s s a r i l y cause an i n c i d e n t but might i n c r e a s e t h e p r o b a b i l i t y of an i n c i d e n t . In o r d e r t o complement t h e
work of t h e F a u l t Analysts, who c a l c u l a t e t h e p r o b a b i l i t y of an undetected f a u l t s i t u a t i o n , it is necessary t o
provide an e s t i m a t e of t h e risk c o n t r i b u t i o n should such be p r e s e n t . To t h i s end s e v e r a l thousand r i g larLdings
have been completed, i n t h e presence o f d e l i b e r a t e channel f a u l t s , i n o r d e r t h a t weighting f u n c t i o n s , o f t h e
r i s k c o n t r i b u t i o n s of v a r i o u s f a u l t e f f e c t s , may be constructed. Figure 5 shows an example wherein t h e r i s k ,
given a change i n t h e f l a r e switching h e i g h t , is evaluated. It w i l l be seen t h a t t h e r i s k of an a c c i d e n t is
i n c r e a s e d from 1 . 3 x l o - ' t o 5 x l o - * i f t h e switching height is halved and t o 6 . 5 x i f t h i s height is
doubled. I t should of c o u r s e be s t r e s s e d t h a t such a s i t u a t i o n can only occur with two o r more f a u l t s w i t h i n
t h e system and such a p r o b a b i l i t y is, i n i t s e l f , extremely remote.

Another hazard t o t h e a i r c r a f t i s t h e t o t a l l o s s of c o n t r o l from t h e a u t o p i l o t p i t c h o r r o l l channels during

t h e f i n a l s t a g e s of t h e automatic landing. This i s only considered t o c o n s t i t u t e a hazard i n Category 3 c o n d i t i o n s
and, u n t ' i l more evidence is a v a i l a b l e t o t h e c o n t r a r y , t h e Air R e g i s t r a t i o n Board hold t h e view t h a t t h e l o s s
of an a u t o p i l o t channel, below some c r i t i c a l h e i g h t , is l i k e l y t o be f a t a l . I t i s t h e r e f o r e necessary t o
demonstrate t h a t t h e p r o b a b i l i t y of t h e t o t a l l o s s of an a u t o p i l o t channel below, s a y , 100 f t due t o e i t h e r
nuisance c u t - o u t s or f a i l u r e s , is l e s s than some proportion o f

As w i l l be shown l a t e r t h e e a r l y duplex development, and i n - s e r v i c e , autolanding experienced nuisance c u t -

p a r t i c u l a r l y i n t h e f l a r e phase. In t h i s c o n t e x t nuisance c u t - o u t s a r e taken t o be c u t - o u t s due t o adverse
system t o l e r a n c e s and n o t t o f a u l t s . The methods adopted t o overcome t h e problem of nuisance c u t - o u t s a r e .
d i s c u s s e d i n Reference 2 . I t w i l l be seen t h a t t h e problem i s t a c k l e d i n two ways: f i r s t l y by t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n
of equipment design m o d i f i c a t i o n s d i r e c t e d towards i n c r e a s i n g t h e system compliance without s i g n i f i c a n t l y
i n c r e a s i n g t h e d i s t u r b a n c e s t r a n s m i t t e d t o t h e a i r c r a f t ; and secondly by i n c o r p o r a t i n g monitoring techniques
which d e t e c t t h e b u i l d up of i n d i v i d u a l system t o l e r a n c e s i n t o a high r i s k s i t u a t i o n , and prevent t h e use o f
t h e system i n Category 3 c o n d i t i o n s . Thsu having recognised t h e problem of nuisance c u t - o u t s it is necessary
t o demonstrate t h a t t h e modified system i s s a f e f o r Category 3 o p e r a t i o n s . The method adopted i s , again, by '
e x t e n s i v e u s e of t h e Hawker Siddeley r i g . Having shown t h a t t h e r i g and t h e a i r c r a f t d i s p l a y s i m i l a r c h a r a c t e r -
i s t i c s i n t h e presence o f t o l e r a n c e s , an e x t e n s i v e s e r i e s o f r i g programmes was c a r r i e d o u t t o e s t a b l i s h t h e
e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f t h e m o d i f i c a t i o n s i n preventing c u t - o u t s i n t h e c r i t i c a l o p e r a t i o n a l phase. Figure 6 shows t h e
r e s u l t s o f one such e x e r c i s e wherein t h e p r o b a b i l i t y , with an unmonitored system, of a c u t - o u t , from duplex,
due t o s e l e c t e d adverse t o l e r a n c e s is g r e a t e r than t h e t a r g e t by a f a c t o r of 100. When t h e system is
monitored t h e p r o b a b i l i t y of t h i s t o l e r a n c e s i t u a t i o n remaining undetected and causing a c u t - o u t improves t o
1.2 x

The system i s designed so t h a t a f a i l u r e i n a sub-channel w i l l cause t h a t sub-channel t o be r e j e c t e d . I t

follows t h a t two f a i l u r e s i n s e p a r a t e sub-chanhels w i l l r e s u l t i n t h e t o t a l r e j e c t i o n of t h a t t r i p l e x - c h a n n e l .
Thus, t o hazard t h e a i r c r a f t : both t h e s e f a i l u r e s would need t o occur during t h e last 20 seconds or so of f l i g h t .
The system r e l i a b i l i t y , f o r such a requirement, can be met e a s i l y . I f , however, t h e r e a r e p a r t s of t h e system
which can f a i l at any time during t h e f l i g h t , but a r e such t h a t t h e r e s u l t a n t c u t - o u t w i l l only occur d u r i n g
t h e c r i t i c a l f i n a l phases, t h e r e l i a b i l i t y requirements, i n t h e s e a r e a s , a r e more s e v e r e . For example i f 1%
of t h e system is i n t h i s category and i s a t r i s k f o r t h e d u r a t i o n of a 2 hour f l i g h t , then, on t h e b a s i s of a
homogeneous f a i l u r e p a t t e r n , t h i s would impose a more s t r i n g e n t requirement on t h e equipment r e l i a b i l i t y t o
a f a c t o r of n e a r l y four. Such an argument n e c e s s i t a t e d a change t o t h e Trident r o l l channel l o g i c which w i l l
be d i s c u s s e d l a t e r .
16-4

I
4. DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMMES

The Trident a i r c r a f t f i r s t flew e a r l y i n 1962, s i n c e which d a t e t h e r e have been s e v e r a l d i f f e r e n t phases of

development f l y i n g through t o t h e r e c e n t l y completed Category 3B programme. These v a r i o u s s t a g e s have culminated
i n progressive c e r t i f i c a t i o n standards. These programmes, which have covered t h e T r i d e n t s 1 C and 2E, are b e s t
i l l u s t r a t e d by r e f e r e n c e t o Figure 7 . The following paragraphs t r a c e t h e d e t a i l s of t h e development f l i g h t
t r i a l s through t o each c e r t i f i c a t i o n standard.

The T r i d e n t 1 C went i n t o BEA s e r v i c e with a Category I Coupled Approach c e r t i f i c a t e , which was awarded i n
February, 1964. T h i s p a r t of t h e o v e r a l l programme i s of very l i m i t e d i n t e r e s t i n t h e l i g h t of subsequent
e v e n t s , and i t is s u f f i c i e n t t o n o t e t h a t , a f t e r a s e r i e s o f t e e t h i n g problems, a very s a t i s f a c t o r y demonstration
programme of 58 coupled approaches ( t h e m a j o r i t y remaining coupled t o well below 100 f t ) and 12 f l i g h t d i r e c t o r
approaches was completed.

The n e x t s t a g e of development was f o r t h e standard known as Autoflare. In t h i s t h e sequence o f e v e n t s is as

shown i n F i g u r e 2 except t h a t t h e azimuth c o n t r o l r e v e r t s t o manual by 150 f t . The f i r s t a u t o f l a r e achieved
i n a Trident was i n a development a i r c r a f t i n March. 1964, t h e f a c i l i t y was c e r t i f i c a t e d some f i f t e e n months
l a t e r , and, on June 10th. 1965. a BEA a i r c r a f t landed f a r e paying passengers f o r t h e f i r s t time. During t h e
period preceeding t h e c e r t i f i c a t i o n over 700 a u t o f l a r e s were i n i t i a t e d of which approximately 450 were s u c c e s s f u l .
T h i s represented a success rate o f 64% but, due t o a p r o c e s s o f continuously re-optimising t h e equipment g e a r i n g s ,
o p e r a t i n g techniques and equipment design, t h i s success r a t e improved t o 97% f o r t h e c e r t i f i c a t i o n t e s t f l i g h t s .
One important reason f o r an e a r l y c e r t i f i c a t i o n of Autoflare was t o g e t feedback from l i n e p i l o t s of automatic
o p e r a t i o n . This d i d n o t t a k e long and t h e main comment was of t h e f l a r e p r o f i l e . Consequently a supplementary
programme was c a r r i e d o u t , i n p a r a l l e l with t h e subsequent Autoland development, t o re-optimise t h e f l a r e shape.
The p i l o t s c r i t i c i s e d an apparent “ o v e r f l a r i n g ” followed by t h e a i r c r a f t ‘dropping on’ . This p r o f i l e followed
from t h e high gearing necessary t o provide t h e manoeuvre r e q u i r e d i n adverse environmental c o n d i t i o n s . The
r e - o p t i m i s a t i o n was based on reduced g e a r i n g s which could only be achieved by u s i n g r e s i d u a l engine t h r u s t t o
touchdown. Accordingly i n November, 1966, t h e f l e e t g e a r i n g s were modified and o p e r a t i n g i n s t r u c t i o n s r e - w r i t t e n
r e q u i r i n g t h e c e n t r e engine t o remain a t a s e l e c t e d s e t t i n g of 10.800 r.p.m. throughout t h e f l a r e r a t h e r than t h e
previous p r a c t i c e o f t h e p i l o t c l o s i n g t h e c e n t r e engine t h r o t t l e at t h e same time a s t h e automatic c l o s u r e of
t h e two o u t e r engines. During t h i s development programme t h r e e problems were revealed, namely nuisance c u t - o u t s ,
which l e d t o t h e i n v e s t i g a t i o n s and m o d i f i c a t i o n s d e s c r i b e d i n Reference 2, and two performance problems.

One performance problem was r e l a t i v e l y minor and concerned t h e A t t i t u d e phase. In t h e A t t i t u d e phase t h e

a u t o p i l o t c o n t r o l s t h e a i r c r a f t towards a p i t c h a t t i t u d e r e f e r e n c e e s t a b l i s h e d d u r i n g t h e Glide phase. During
t h e i n i t i a l a u t o f l a r e development t h i s c o r r e c t i o n demand was derived from t h e g l i d e d e v i a t i o n signal. This
was shown, however, t o be u n s u i t a b l e p a r t i c u l a r l y i n t h e presence o f beam bends, consequently use of t h e g l i d e
path s i g n a l f o r t h i s purpose was discontinued, and a very s a t i s f a c t o r y and simple method u s i n g a lagged p i t c h
r a t e s i g n a l was s u b s t i t u t e d . I t was found a l s o t h a t t h e presence of t h i s s i g n a l d u r i n g g l i d e phase improved
t h e g l i d e path s t a b i l i t y .

The o t h e r problem was r a t h e r more important and concerns t h e i n f l u e n c e of atmospheric turbulence on t h e

landing manoeuvre. A s d i s c u s s e d i n Chapter 3 t h i s was h i g h l i g h t e d by t h e supporting r i g programme. A t h e o r e t i c a l
s t u d y was i n i t i a t e d t o i n v e s t i g a t e means of reducing t h e i n f l u e n c e of atmospheric t u r b u l e n c e . The r e s u l t s of
t h i s study are examined i n d e t a i l later. Pending t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n t h e a u t o f l a r e f a c i l i t y was c e r t i f i c a t e d i n
reduced wind limits.

The Autolanding f a c i l i t y was c e r t i f i c a t e d f o r Category I o p e r a t i o n i n A p r i l 1967, and during May of t h a t y e a r

an i n t e n s i v e o p e r a t i o n a l programme by BEA. with s e l e c t e d s e n i o r c a p t a i n s , took t h e f i r s t s u i t a b l y equipped
a i r c r a f t on a passenger c a r r y i n g t o u r of most of t h e major European A i r p o r t s during which 29 a u t o l a n d i n g s were
completed s a t i s f a c t o r i l y on 14 runways. This i n i t i a l Category I Autoland System was t o an i n t e r i m s t a n d a r d and
d i d not c o n t a i n many o f t h e refinements which were introduced during t h e development programme. I t was however
s u i t a b l e f o r Category I o p e r a t i o n and enabled BEA t o o b t a i n e a r l y experience of Autolanding.

The Category I coupled approach c l e a r a n c e was achieved with t h e l o c a l i s e r r a d i o guidance received v i a an

a f t mounted aerial. I t was intended t o d e r i v e t h r e e independent r a d i o d e v i a t i o n s i g n a l s from t h r e e s e p a r a t e
a e r i a l s , one being located i n t h e nose, another on t o p of t h e c e n t r e engine i n t a k e and one on t h e v e r t i c a l
s t a b i l i s e r . I t was quickly a p p r e c i a t e d t h a t t h e signals d e r i v e d i n t h i s manner were i n s u f f i c i e n t l y a l i k e
t o be s u i t a b l e f o r m u l t i p l e x operation. Furthermore t h e performance achieved u s i n g t h e a f t aerials was found
t o be inadequate f o r automatic landing w h i l s t use o f t h e nose a e r i a l r e s u l t e d i n good performance. I t was
decided t o feed a l l sub-channels from a common nose a e r i a l which w a s developed t o provide t h e high i n t e g r i t y
necessary t o s a t i s f y t h e ARB., T h i s t r i p l e x aerial w a s incorporated i n t o a l l BEA’s a u t o l a n d i n g a i r c r a f t .

The autolanding p r i n c i p l e s o f t h e SEP.5 are based on t h e i n c l u s i o n o f a Kick-off-Drift phase. The o r i g i n a l

design was f o r t h e a i l e r o n c o n t r o l t o r e v e r t t o a wings l e v e l l i n g mode while t h e rudder caused t h e a i r c r a f t
t o a l i g n with t h e runway. T h i s technique provided an a c c e p t a b l e manoeuvre under normal c o n d i t i o n s but i t was
recognised t h a t a combination of c r o s s wind and longer than average Kick-off-Drift phase could r e s u l t i n t h e
a i r c r a f t d r i f t i n g down-wind. This problem was resolved i n two ways. F i r s t l y t h e requirement f o r a complete
alignment with t h e runway was re-examined and it became e v i d e n t t h a t p i l o t s p r e f e r r e d t o s e e a p a r t i a l manoeuvre.
As t h e T r i d e n t landing gear h a s s u f f i c i e n t s t r e n g t h t o accommodate d r i f t a t touchdown t h e r e i s no s a f e t y
i m p l i c a t i o n i n t h i s p r a c t i c e . Secondly it was found t o be unnecessary t o d i s c o n t i n u e t h e r a d i o guidance kick-
o f f - d r i f t . Superposition o f azimuth manoeuvring, i n response t o r a d i o s i g n a l s , onto t h e k i c k - o f f - d r i f t manoeuvre
r e s u l t e d i n a reduced lateral scatter with l i t t l e i n c r e a s e i n bank angle.
 16-5

A f u r t h e r modification which s i g n i f i c a n t l y influenced t h e azimuth performance r e s u l t e d from an examination

o f t h e system f a i l u r e modes. The i m p l i c a t i o n s of t h i s m o d i f i c a t i o n a r e examined i n some d e t a i l l a t e r i n t h i s
paper.

During t h e development f l y i n g , aimed s p e c i f i c a l l y a t e s t a b l i s h i n g and d e f i n i n g a s u i t a b l e autolanding f a c i l i t y ,

i t was r e a l i s e d t h a t a very a c c e p t a b l e Category 2 Coupled Approach s t a n d a r d could be achieved, with very l i t t l e
a d d i t i o n a l e v a l u a t i o n . Accordingly t h e necessary t r i a l s were re-arranged and i n January, 1968, t h e ARB granted
c e r t i f i c a t i o n f o r Category 2 with an a u t o p i l o t disengagement h e i g h t of 65 f t . The Board o f Trade a u t h o r i s e d
BEA t o o p e r a t e t o Category 2 l i m i t s , i n February 1969.

The Category 2 coupled approach t e c h n i q u e s are i d e n t i c a l t o t h o s e used f o r autolanding except t h a t , i n o r d e r

t o prevent t h e automatic t h r o t t l e c l o s u r e , t h e p i l o t d i s c o n n e c t s t h e a u t o p i l o t by 65 f t . The BEA monitored
approach procedure is u t i l i s e d i n which t h e approach, and i f necessary t h e go-around, i s c a r r i e d o u t by t h e
F i r s t O f f i c e r with t h e Captain assuming c o n t r o l when he has adequate v i s u a l c o n t a c t . The t h i r d crew member.acts
as an a d d i t i o n a l monitor and s u p p l i e s information, a s necessary, t o t h e o t h e r crew members.

In o r d e r t o reduce t h e monitoring load during low weather approach procedures automatic f l i g h t path monitoring
was introduced which warns t h e crew of s i g n i f i c a n t d e v i a t i o n from t h e l o c a l i s e r and g l i d e path c e n t r e l i n e s .
Also included i n t h i s monitoring u n i t is l o g i c which provides warning of f a i l u r e of t h e g l i d e path r e c e i v e r s and
l o c a l i s e r and g l i d e path ground t r a n s m i t t e r s , f a i l u r e of t h e l o c a l i s e r r e c e i v e r s being r e a d i l y d e t e c t e d within
t h e multiplex autopilot.

A s p a r t of t h e - e v i d e n c e r e q u i r e d t o support t h e submission f o r Category 2 c e r t i f i c a t i o n a programme o f low

l e v e l manual overshoots was c a r r i e d o u t . In o r d e r t h a t t h e overshoots should be r e p r e s e n t a t i v e , twenty six
BEA F i r s t O f f i c e r s took p a r t i n t h e programme and, i n a l l , n e a r l y 100 overshoots (almost one q u a r t e r following
d e l i b e r a t e malfunctions) were c a r r i e d o u t e n t i r e l y s a t i s f a c t o r i l y . These t e s t s were done i n wind s t r e n g t h s
varying from calm t o a r e p o r t e d 26 knots. The mean height l o s s , from t h e f a u l t f r e e runs, was adout 25 f t ,
while t h e standard d e v i a t i o n was less than 10 f t .

Having achieved c e r t i f i c a t i o n f o r Category I autolanding and Category 2 coupled approach, a p p l i c a t i o n was

made f o r a Category 2 autolanding c e r t i f i c a t i o n . This p a r t i c u l a r submission i s p r i m a r i l y f a l l out from t h e
work necessary f o r Category 3A i n t h a t i s was only necessary t o provide t h e p a r t i c u l a r f a u l t a n a l y s i s , r e l e v a n t
t o Category 2 i n s t a l l a t i o n s and environments, over and above t h a t work g e n e r a l l y aimed at Category 3A. A
category 2 autolanding c e r t i f i c a t e was awarded i n September 1968, and t h e Board of Trade a u t h o r i s e d BEA t o
o p e r a t e i n February 1969.

For t h e s t a n d a r d s of c e r t i f i c a t i o n s o f a r discussed t h e r e h a s been no requirement f o r o t h e r than a f a i l steady

a u t o p i l o t . Consequently a necessary and s u f f i c i e n t standard of t h e SEP.5 equipment has been duplex. However
as t h e f l e e t i s p r o g r e s s i v e l y converted t o T r i p l e x Category 2 o p e r a t i o n s have been a b l e t o continue as t h e
c e r t i f i c a t i o n s t a n d a r d s apply e q u a l l y t o T r i p l e x and Duplex equipment f i t s . For Category 3A o p e r a t i o n s t h e
T r i p l e x v e r s i o n becomes e s s e n t i a l t o provide t h a f a i l o p e r a t i o n a l c a p a b i l i t y . The m u l t i p l e x philosophy i n t h e
c o n t e x t of Category 3 o p e r a t i o n s i s d i s c u s s e d i n depth i n Reference 2 and w i l l n o t be repeated here. The
development f l y i n g on t h e T r i d e n t 1C was completed i n January 1967, by which time t h e performance had been
p r o g r e s s i v e l y r e f i n e d t o a s t a n d a r d which is s u i t a b l e f o r Category 3A and, indeed, f o r t h e a i r b o r n e requirements
of Category 38. During t h i s period o f development t h e system was shown t o have i n s u f f i c i e n t f l e x i b i l i t y t o
absorb every t r a n s i e n t sub-channel e r r o r and c u t - o u t s r e g u l a r l y occurred u n t i l modification a c t i o n was taken.
Although t h e experimental m o d i f i c a t i o n s had eliminated c u t - o u t s a s a hindrance t o t h e f l i g h t t r i a l s programme,
t h e r e was i n s u f f i c i e n t evidence t o demonstrate t h a t they a f f o r d e d s u f f i c i e n t p r o t e c t i o n t o enable t h e t a r g e t t o
be met. This proof could only come from t h e r i g , and an e x t e n s i v e e x e r c i s e revealed t h e need f o r f u r t h e r
refinements. These have been flown, in production form, i n t h e T r i d e n t 2E development a i r c r a f t with complete
satisfaction.

One important f a c i l i t y which w i l l be necessary f o r Category 3 operation is Automatic Go-around. On t h e a c t i o n

o f t h e p i l o t s e l e c t i n g f u l l power, t h e a u t o p i l o t p i t c h channel i n i t i a l l y c o n t r o l s t h e a i r c r a f t smoothly and
r a p i d l y through an angle of about seven degrees, t h e p i t c h c o n t r o l then r e v e r t s t o t h e s e l e c t e d approach a i r -
speed f o r t h e ensuing climb-out. The p i l o t can then a d j u s t t h e a i r s p e e d datum f o r t h e r e q u i r e d climb procedures.
I n azimuth t h e c o n t r o l r e v e r t s t o z e r o bank demand with t h e r o l l compensation terms superimposed t o counter t h e
e f f e c t of atmospheric or o t h e r d i s t u r b a n c e s . On t h e subsequent a c t i o n of s e t t i n g t h e Prime Switch t o Off t h e
c o n t r o l r e v e r t s t o heading s t e e r i n g , allowing t h e p i l o t t h e necessary manoeuvring f l e x i b i l i t y . Although t h i s
go-around f a c i l i t y .has been demonstrated s u c c e s s f u l l y a t a l l h e i g h t s down t o touchdown, its o p e r a t i o n a l use w i l l
normally be r e s t r i c t e d t o above t h e i n i t i a t i o n height of Kick-off-Drift which is set t o be 1 2 f t . The r e s u l t s
of t h e demonstration t r i a l s a r e summarised i n Figure 8 which shows t h e c o r r e l a t i o n between h e i g h t l o s s and r a t e
o f descent at i n i t i a t i o n . From t h i s very c o n s i s t e n t s e t o f r e s u l t s , backed up by a r i g programme of n e a r l y 2000
go-arounds, i t is c a l c u l a t e d t h a t t h e p r o b a b i l i t y of an i n c i d e n t , during an automatic overshoot, is acceptably small.

The major problem which has t o be resolved before Category 3 o p e r a t i o n s can be undertaken i s t h a t of ILS i n t e r -
f e r e n c e . ILS i n t e r f e r e n c e occurs when s p u r i o u s r e f l e c t i o n s o r t r a n s m i s s i o n s i n t e r f e r e with t h e propagated
r a d i o s i g n a l s c r e a t i n g p a t t e r n s which appear as g r o s s c e n t r e l i n e d i s t o r t i o n s . From s t u d i e s o f recorded i n t e r -
f e r e n c e p a t t e r n s it is c l e a r t h a t c e r t a i n examples o f t h e s e p a t t e r n s could d i s r u p t any form o f automatic landing
which is based on ILS guidance, e i t h e r by degrading t h e performance o r by inducing c u t - o u t s . While s t r i c t
t r a f f i c and o t h e r c o n t r o l can s i g n i f i c a n t l y reduce t h e number of such occurrences t h e r e is s t i l l a need f o r
t h i s problem t o be t a c k l e d i n s u f f i c i e n t depth t o enable a guarantee t h a t s e r i o u s i n t e r f e r e n c e w i l l n o t occur on
Category 3 beams or a t least t o provide a r e l i a b l e means o f d e t e c t i n g and warning of such an occurrence.
16-6

The demonstration, necessary f o r Category 3A o p e r a t i o n , t h a t t h e system has s u f f i c i e n t compliance t o overcome

t h e problem o f sub-channel o r duplex nuisance c u t - o u t s is e s s e n t i a l l y a r i g e x e r c i s e . However experience o f t h e
m o d i f i c a t i o n s , d e t a i l e d i n Reference 2. which were i n s t a l l e d and instrumented i n t h e development a i r c r a f t have
given confidence t h a t t h e system is capable o f t h i s demonstration. By instrumenting sub-channel d i f f e r e n c e s
both e l e c t r i c a l l y , i n t h e form of e q u a l i s a t i o n s i g n a l s , and mechanically, by means of t h e l o s t motion i n t h e
s e r v o motors, i t was p o s s i b l e t o determine q u a n t i t a t i v e l y how c l o s e any sub-channel came t o experiencing a c u t -
o u t during any p a r t i c u l a r manoeuvre. Use o f t h i s method of i n s t r u m e n t a t i o n was o f c o n s i d e r a b l e value i n
d e t e c t i n g u n i t s , o r combination of u n i t s , which c a r r i e d a higher c u t - o u t r i s k . I t i s j u s t t h i s p r i n c i p l e of
monitoring which i s being automated and included i n t h e Category 3A i n s t a l l a t i o n s . Such was t h e e f f e c t i v e n e s s
of t h e s e m o d i f i c a t i o n s t h a t within a few weeks of i n s t a l l i n g t h e experimental l o s t motion mechanism i n t h e
s e r v o motor, on 4th November, 1966 i n fog c o n d i t i o n s defined by a r e p o r t e d RVR of 150 metres a touch and go
and a f u l l s t o p autolanding were completed i n t o London (Heathrow) Airport. Later i n t h e month a f u r t h e r
demonstration of fog l a n d i n g s occurred when f i v e automatic landings were made into,Heathrow. On t h i s occasion
s e n i o r personnel from BEA were aboard t h e a i r c r a f t t o experience l a n d i n g s i n r e p o r t e d c o n d i t i o n s of 50 metres
RVE. F i g u r e 9 shows t h e development a i r c r a f t G-ARPB r e t u r n i n g t o t h e Hawker Siddeley a i r f i e l d at H a t f i e l d
where a f u r t h e r low weather.automatic touchdown was made.

The SEP.5 Automatic Landing System was designed t o provide f u l l automatic c o n t r o l t o touchdown, but d i d
n o t i n c l u d e any means f o r c o n t r o l l i n g t h e ensuing r o l l o u t . As such i t i s s u i t a b l e f o r t h e weather c o n d i t i o n s
now d e f i n e d as Category 3A. To meet BEA’s low weather operation requirements t h e p o s s i b i l i t y t o extending t h e
system c a p a b i l i t y t o i n c l u d e Category 3B o p e r a t i o n s was examined. Based on a t h e o r e t i c a l study a s e t of
experimental equipment was prepared f o r an e v a l u a t i o n i n t h e Trident 2E development a i r c r a f t and t h i s has j u s t
been completed. Unlike t h e higher weather minima c a t e g o r i e s , o p e r a t i o n s i n Category 38 may r e q u i r e d i r e c t o r
a s s i s t a n c e d u r i n g take-off as well as d u r i n g t h e r o l l o u t following an automatic landing. The philosophy of
Category 38 o p e r a t i o n s has been based on t h e v i s i o n c u t o f f o f t h e Trident c o c k p i t geometry and t h e ICAO Category
2 runway l i g h t i n g and marking s t a n d a r d s , although most of the Category 38 assessment t r i a l s have been with t h e
p i l o t behind opaque s c r e e n s where no v i s u a l r e f e r e n c e is a v a i l a b l e . In p r a c t i c e , with t h e a i r c r a f t on t h e runway,
50 metres RVE w i l l allow t h e p i l o t t o s e e one l i g h t a t a l l times while 100 metres RVR w i l l allow him t o s e e two
l i g h t s at a l l times.

The method of o p e r a t i o n developed f o r automatic landings i n Category 38 c o n d i t i o n s is unchanged from t h a t

e s t a b l i s h e d f o r Category 3A c o n d i t i o n s u n t i l t h e Kick-off-Drfit phase is reached. This phase w i l l be modified
t o include l o c a l i s e r r a d i o and r a d i o rate superimposed on t h e e x i s t i n g rudder commands. On touchdown, o p e r a t i o n
of t h e c u t - o u t button w i l l no longer disconnect t h e rudder channel which w i l l then continue t o c o n t r o l t h e a i r c r a f t
t o t h e l o c a l i s e r c e n t r e l i n e . A t t h e time t h e rudder l o s e s i t s e f f e c t i v e n e s s c o n t r o l is disconnected a u t o m a t i c a l l y ,
by means o f a speed d i s c r i m i n a n t , and c o n t r o l r e v e r t s t o t h e p i l o t who t a k e s h i s guidance e i t h e r from e x t e r n a l
v i s u a l r e f e r e n c e or from an azimuth PVD ( P a r a Visual Display). PVD guidance is independent o f t h e automatic
c o n t r o l and is t h e r e v e r s i o n a r y f a c i l i t y i n t h e event of a f a i l u r e of t h e autbmatic system. The guidance phase
a l s o i n c o r p o r a t e s l o c a l i s e r r a d i o and r a d i o r a t e which t h e p i l o t backs o f f with a yaw r a t e gyro feedback. The
t r i a l s showed t h i s combination of automatic c o n t r o l and guidance r e v e r s i o n t o be s a t i s f a c t o r y even under a r t i f i c a l
c o n d i t i o n s of d e l i b e r a t e l a t e r a l o f f s e t s o r o f prolonged touch-and-gos. The l i m i t i n g c o n d i t i o n in t h e automatic
phase was found t o be asymmetry due e i t h e r t o d i f f e r e n c e s i n t h e a p p l i c a t i o n of r e v e r s e t h r u s t o r t o unequal
landing g e a r drag which was s u f f i c i e n t t o d i s p l a c e t h e a i r c r a f t from t h e c e n t r e l i n e . Provision of a d d i t i o n a l
r a d i o r a t e c o n t r o l allowed t h e c e n t r e l i n e t o be maintained with s u f f i c i e n t accuracy and d i d n o t introduce
a n t i c i p a t e d problems w i t h r a d i o noise.

The need f o r t a k e - o f f a s s i s t a n c e is l e s s c e r t a i n i n t h a t qnder homogeneous fog c o n d i t i o n s with f u l l y o p e r a t i o n a l

runway l i g h t i n g , t h e r e should be no problem i n holding t h e c e n t r e l i n e f o r a normal take-off. However cover
p o s s i b l e blocks o f dense fog o r t h e f a i l u r e of runway l i g h t s o r t o assist during an a c c e l e r a t e s t o p it is considered
t h a t t h e guidance system should be a v a i l a b l e a s a reversion f o r t h e p i l o t when he s u f f e r s a temporary l o s s of
v i s u a l cues. The t r i a l s demonstrated t h a t t h e p i l o t had no d i f f i c u l t y i n maintaining o r r e g a i n i n g t h e c e n t r e
l i n e during t a k e o f f s and a c c e l e r a t e s t o p s when behind f u l l y opaque s c r e e n s .

5. SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS

As mentioned i n preceding Chapters c e r t a i n performance m o d i f i c a t i o n s have been introduced during t h e develop-

ment programme. Many of t h e s e were incorporated before a s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t sample o f l a n d i n g s had been
made. I t i s t h e r e f o r e not p o s s i b l e t o d i s c u s s t h e r e s u l t s of t h e s e changes q u a n t i t a t i v e l y . Other changes
were made i n o r d e r t o i n c r e a s e p i l o t confidence and, as such, d i d n o t n e c e s s a r i l y r e s u l t i n a q u a n t i t a t i v e
improvement. I t has been p o l i c y , under such circumstances, t o i n c o r p o r a t e t h e r e q u i r e d m o d i f i c a t i o n s provided
t h e r e was no s i g n i f i c a n t i n c r e a s e i n a c a l c u l a b l e r i s k . The following paragraphs examine t h e r e s u l t s of
v a r i o u s developments t o improve t h e system performance. A s s t a t e d i n Chapter 4 a u t o f l a r e was re-optimized
with d i f f e r e n t g e a r i n g s and a r e v i s e d handling technique. Table I lists t h e s t a t i s t i c a l v a l u e s of s e v e r a l
important parameters measured d u r i n g c e r t i f i c a t i o n and development t r i a l s .
 16-7

TABLE I
I n f l u e n c e o f Modified F l a r e Gearings and Operation Technique

Modified Gearings
Initial Autoflare Revised
Technique being
Certification Autof lare
optimized

Rate of Descent 12.4 12.9 12.2

at F l a r e 1.8 1.4 0.8
ft/sec 99 91 16
Rate of Descent 2.7 2.3 2.0
at Touchdown 0.95 0.85 0.90
ft/sec 99 91 16
~~ ~

Speed Loss M 14.3 10.2 8.2

in Flare U 2.6 2.0 1.6
knots n 99 91 16
F l a r e time M 8.5 8.7 9.4
secs U 0.7 1.3 1.3
n 60 91 16
Pitch Attitude M 6.8 6.2 7.2
at Touchdown U 0.65 1.0 0.95
degs n 99 91 16
~ ~~

\
Touchdown M 650; 640
p o s i t i o n with U 250' 330
respect t o n 44
GP TX f t

Reported 10.0 9.4 6.7

wind speed 4.4 3.9 1.6
knots 99 91 15

* estimated values. M mean value. U = s t a n d a r d deviation. n = sample s i z e ,

The f i r s t column shows t h e performance defined by t h e i n i t i a l a u t o f l a r e c e r t i f i c a t i o n . The second column is

with t h e r e v i s e d g e a r i n g s but spread over t h e t r i a l s t o optimize t h e c e n t r e engine power s e t t i n g . I t w i l l be
seen t h a t t h e r e is a general r e d u c t i o n i n t h e r a t e of descent a t touchdown coupled with reduction i n t h e speed
l o s t during t h e f l a r e manoeuvre, t h i s is n o t s u r p r i s i n g as t h e a d d i t i o n a l t h r u s t of t h e c e n t r e engine w i l l i n c r e a s e
t h e t o t a l energy through t h e f l a r e . The t h i r d Column i s a small sample with t h e optimized power s e t t i n g . Whilst
it i s n o t very s i g n i f i c a n t s t a t i s t i c a l l y it does confirm t h e t r e n d s .

Perhaps t h e most important refinement o f t h e p i t c h performance r e s u l t e d from t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n of Airspeed

Compensation. I t was s t a t e d e a r l i e r t h a t supporting r i g t r i a l s revealed t h e o r i g i n a l system t o be t o o s u s c e p t i b l e
t o atmospheric t u r b u l e n c e and t h a t a t h e o r e t i c a l study was i n i t i a t e d t o consider t h e means by which t h i s i n f l u e n c e
could be reduced. Airspeed Compensation was t h e s o l u t i o n recommended. The r i g t r i a l s had shown t h e h o r i z o n t a l
components o f turbulence t o be more s i g n i f i c a n t than t h e v e r t i c a l component. This i s p r i m a r i l y because t h e s c a l e
l e n g t h of v e r t i c a l t u r b u l e n c e t e n d s t o be p r o p o r t i o n a l t o height whereas t h e s c a l e l e n g t h of h o r i z o n t a l turbulence
does n o t . A s it i s t h e lower f r e q u e n c i e s of t h e turbulence s p e c t r a , and t h e s e can be taken t o i n c l u d e wind s h e a r s ,
which have t h e most i n f l u e n c e on t h e a i r c r a f t it follows t h a t v e r t i c a l turbulence becomes less o f a problem a s t h e
landing progresses. A s t h e a i r c r a f t meets a l o n g i t u d i n a l g u s t so t h e d i r e c t l i f t on t h e a i r c r a f t changes and i t s
f l i g h t path is d i s t u r b e d . The p r i n c i p l e involved i n Airspeed Compensation is t o d e t e c t t h e change i n i n d i c a t e d
a i r s p e e d and t o p i t c h t h e a i r c r a f t i n t h e sense t o provide a complementary change of incidence thereby preserving
l i f t . I t should be noted t h a t t h i s form of command i s i n t h e r e v e r s e sense t o t h a t of a conventional a i r s p e e d
lock and i s , t h e r e f o r e , d e s t a b i l i z i n g . I n t h e environment of t h e o t h e r a u t o p i l o t and a u t o t h r o t t l e c o n t r o l loops
t h i s d e s t a b i l i z i n g i n f l u e n c e is i n s i g n i f i c a n t . As t h e compensation would d e t e c t and c o r r e c t f o r t h e normal speed
r e d u c t i o n during f l a r e , a programmed model is introduced a t F l a r e which e f f e c t i v e l y v a r i e s t h e a i r s p e e d datum i n
accordance with t h e average f l a r e manoeuvre. I t follows t h a t t h e system is now l e s s s u s c e p t i b l e t o e r r o r s i n t h e
selected residual thrust.

The underlying theory of Airspeed Compensation i s i l l u s t r a t e d by t h e following s i m p l i f i e d a n a l y s i s . The

i n t r o d u c t i o n o f a i r s p e e d compensation i n t o t h e SEP.5 Autopilot r e s u l t s i n t h e form of c o n t r o l .

D? = G(D0 + K(degs/knot)Du t o t h e r terms} .

I f l i f t is maintained, t h a t is i f a c o n s t a n t f l i g h t path i s achieved,
Y = 0-cc = 0 .
16-8

Then t h e aerodynamic l i f t f o r c e s must balance,

zuii t z,u+ Zn?j = 0 .
I t is a l s o necessary t o maintain trim,

m,U t m,?j = 0 .
The non-dimensionalised speed change i s
U
ii = 5 7 . 3 -.
V

For e q u a t i o n s (1) t o ( 5 ) t o be c o n s i s t a n t i t i s necessary t h a t

0 GKD 0 GD -D
0 0 - 1 1 0
zu 0 2, 0 z, = o ,
0 0 m, 0 m,
-57.3
1 - 0 0 0
V

which is s a t i s f i e d f o r v a l u e s of K

and i f , as is u s u a l , m,, = z, then

For a f i x e d a u t o p i l o t gearing G t h e i d e a l value of K depends on speed, l i f t c o e f f i c i e n t and c.g. p o s i t i o n .

However over the,normal range of landing c o n d i t i o n s t h e v a r i a t i o n of t h e i d e a l K value is n o t e x c e s s i v e and a
compromise value can be s e l e c t e d .

Having decided t h a t Airspeed Compensation was l i k e l y t o provide t h e answer t o t h e performance problems t h e

method of i n c l u d i n g it i n t o t h e system had t o be resolved. The a u t o p i l o t r e c e i v e s a i r s p e e d information from
two independent a i r d a t a systems, consequently t h i s information cannot be used t o feed d i r e c t l y i n t o t h e t h r e e
independent sub-channels of a t r i p l e x i n s t a l l a t i o n . The p o s s i b i l i t y of providing a t h i r d source of air d a t a
was examined but was r e j e c t e d s i n c e an adequate but simpler s o l u t i o n was found. This s o l u t i o n hinged on t h e f a c t
t h a t , while Airspeed Compensation improved t h e c o n s i s t e n c y of t h e landing manoeuvres, automatic l a n d i n g s could
be made without i t , a l b e i t a t a higher r i s k l e v e l . I t was t h u s permissable t o use a monitored simplex Airspeed
Compensation demand, feeding through s u i t a b l e i s o l a t i n g c i r c u i t r y i n t o each o f t h e t r i p l e x sub-channels. The
arrangement is shown s c h e m a t i c a l l y i n Figure 10 with t h e two a i r s p e e d s i g n a l s s u b j e c t t o i d e n t i c a l and independent
shaping with t h e i r l i m i t e d o u t p u t s compared and t h e master f e d t o t h e t h r e e p i t c h computers. In t h e event of a
f a i l u r e i n e i t h e r t h e master o r monitoring computations t h e demands are removed from each sub-channel and an
i n d i c a t i o n is given t o t h e p i l o t . The p i l o t w i l l d i s c o n t i n u e t h e automatic l a n d i n g i f t h i s i n d i c a t i o n appears
above t h e equipment d e c i s i o n height and t h e r e p o r t e d wind i s high. A s t h e Airspeed Compensation f a c i l i t y may be
switched o u t , due t o a s i n g l e f a u l t at any time, c l e a r l y t h e r e s u l t i n g d i s t u r b a n c e must always be small. T h i s
h a s made e s s e n t i a l t h e concept t o t h e programmed model through t h e f l a r e and has a l s o determined t h e t h r e s h o l d
and delay on t h e comparator o p e r a t i o n .

The e f f e c t , on t h e a i r c r a f t performance, of Airspeed Compensation is i l l u s t r a t e d by r e f e r e n c e t o Table I1

which compares t h e performance with a i r s p e e d compensation, with t h e previous landings, without a i r s p e e d compensation.

It w i l l be seen from t h e s e r e s u l t s t h a t t h e touchdown r a t e of descent, mean and standard d e v i a t i o n , is

smaller when a i r s p e e d compensation is included (even i n t h e r a t h e r higher wind c o n d i t i o n s ) . While t h e s e improve-
ments may seem modest they a r e very important, p a r t i c u l a r l y when e x t r a p o l a t e d t o l i m i t i n g c o n d i t i o n s . The
improvement i n r a t e of descent i s n o t obtained without t h e penalty of t h e a i r c r a f t landing deeper. This
i n c r e a s e s t h e r e q u i r e d runway t o s t o p but i t is n o t considered t o be a s e r i o u s p e n a l t y i n r e l a t i o n t o t h e
probable Category 3 runway margins. The supporting r i g evidence, s e e Figure 11, provides r e l a t i o n s h i p s between
t h e mean and s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n of t h e r a t e o f d e s c e n t a t touchdown and t h e RMS h o r i z o n t a l turbulence. The
s c a t t e r i n t h e d e f i n i n g p o i n t s i s due t o d i f f e r e n t l e v e l s o f RMS g l i d e path r a d i o n o i s e used i n t h e v a r i o u s
s e t s of r e s u l t s and a l s o t o t h e r e l a t i v e l y small sample i n each set. Nevertheless t h e r e s u l t s do confirm t h e r e
t o be a reduction i n both mean and standard d e v i a t i o n o f t h e r a t e o f d e s c e n t a t touchdown a t t r i b u t a b l e t o Air-
speed Compensation.

I t was s t a t e d e a r l i e r t h a t maintaining l o c a l i s e r guidance t o touchdown prevented t h e a i r c r a f t from d r i f t i n g

downwind during t h e k i c k - o f f - d r i f t phase. This i s i l l u s t r a t e d i n Table 111.
 16-9

TABLE 11.
I n f l u e n c e o f Airspeed Compensation

\ Standard No Airspeed Compensation Autoland certification

Parameter
\I U
T
opt imised
e I
1

I
I
~
Revised ~
Autof lare
I
I
I
trials with Airspeed
GmPeniation
~
G-ARPB
I
I
~
G-ARPP

Rate 11.2
Descent a t 1.6
Flare
ft/sec. 57

Rate of 1.6
Descent a t 0.6
Touchdown
ft/sec. 57

Speed l o s s 13.6 13.0

in Flare 3.1 4.0
knots 142 57

F l a r e time

secs.
Pitch Attitude 7.4
at Touchdown
degs.

\I I
Touchdown 640 1050 930
p o s i t i o n with U 330 360; 361
respect t o
GP TX f t . n 44 140 50

Reported M 9.4 6.7 9.2 17.5

wind speed U 3.9 1.6 15:.2 5i.5
knots n 91 15

* This f i g u r e i n c l u d e s r e s u l t s with an ILS i n s t a l l a t i o n which is now

thought t o have been u n s u i t a b l e at t h e time o f t h e trials. I f t h e
r e s u l t s from t h i s i n s t a l l a t i o n are excluded t h e mean is v i r t u a l l y
unchanged at 1040 f t while t h e s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n is reduced t o
274 f t . t h e sample reduced t o 125.

TABLE 111.
I n f l u e n c e of Retaining L o c a l i s e r Control t o Touchdown

Standard Local iser cont ro 1

Localiser control
discontinued at
to touchdown
Parameter Kick -off -Dri f t

M 6 . 6 Left 7 . 5 Right
displacement (T

a t touchdown f t n
-
M 1 . 2 Right 3.9 Left
displacement U 7.3 4.9
I
i
a t touchdown pAl n 1 34 I 98

1' Bank a n g l e at
touchdown
deg
Wind speed
M
(T

M
n
0.9
0.8
34
11.5
I 0 . 2 Stbd.

15i.l

9.2
, (T 4. 0 5.2
knots n 34 150

* The s c a t t e r given f o r t h i s parameter is c a l c u l a t e d

i g n o r i n g t h e v a r i a t i o n s due t o t h e i n d i v i d u a l IIS
installations.
16-10

A s might be expected t h e improved l a t e r a l s c a t t e r i s at t h e expense of a s l i g h t i n c r e a s e i n t h e bank angle

v a r i a t i o n , brought about by low a l t i t u d e manoeuvring.

I t was s t a t e d i n Chapter 4 t h a t a modification, which r e s u l t e d from an i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f f a i l u r e modes, had

a s i g n i f i c a n t i n f l u e n c e on t h e system performance. In o r d e r t o expand on t h i s statement it is necessary t o
develop t h e r o l l c o n t r o l concepts i n some d e t a i l . The a c t i o n of k i c k i n g - o f f - d r i f t , i n t r o d u c e s r o l l i n g moments
d i r e c t l y from t h e rudder and i n d i r e c t l y from t h e r e s u l t a n t yaw r a t e and s i d e s l i p . I t was c a l c u l a t e d t h a t t h e s e
moments could endanger t h e a i r c r a f t by i n c r e a s i n g t h e p o s s i b i l i t y of a wingtip touching t h e ground. I t w i l l be
shown t h a t r o l l i n g moments can be compensated by d e t e c t i n g t h e i r s o u r c e s and applying a i l e r o n , t o produce
c o u n t e r i n g moments. The compensation terms were included i n t h e a u t o p i l o t design and switched i n t o t h e a i l e r o n
c o n t r o l loop a t t h e Kick-off-Drift phase; t h e c o n t r o l was most e f f e c t i v e i n maintaining low bank a c t i v i t y
d u r i n g t h e t r a n s i e n t k i c k - o f f - d r i f t d i s t u r b a n c e s and i n t h e presence of l a t e r a l turbulence.

The form o f c o n t r o l employed i n t h e Trident d e r i v e s i t s compensation from s i g n a l s taken from a l a t e r a l

pendulum and from a yaw rate gyro. This is one of s e v e r a l means of achieving s a t i s f a c t o r y compensation as
shown by t h e following a n a l y s i s . The l a t e r a l moment e q u a t i o n s a r e

(9)

A s i m p l i f i e d a i l e r o n c o n t r o l law, can be w r i t t e n , non-dimensionally, i n t h e form

I f t h i s c o n t r o l law i s t o maintain z e r o bank f o r a l l d i s t u r b a n c e s then t h e equations (11) must be c o n s i s t e n t .

-le

-"f 0.

-1

There a r e f o u r unknowns i n t h e s e t h r e e equations consequently t h e r e i s an i n f i n i t e number of s o l u t i o n s which

include t h e f o u r s p e c i a l c a s e s of any one F s e l e c t e d t o zero. Then s o l v i n g f o r t h e o t h e r t h r e e F v a l u e s
i t has been p o s s i b l e t o s y n t h e s i s e a form of a i l e r o n c o n t r o l based on measurable q u a n t i t i e s which, i f maintained
p e r f e c t l y , w i l l ensure z e r o bank a c t i v i t y . One form o f c o n t r o l allowed by t h i s argument is

5 = F , P + F , A ~ Y-+ F & Y . (12)

In p r a c t i c e i t was p r e f e r r e d t o u t i l i z e a s i g n a l derived from c . g . mounted l a t e r a l pendulum r a t h e r than from

aerodynamic s i d e - s l i p . This lateral pendulum o u t p u t can be shown t o be

I t follows from similar arguments, t h a t , on s u b s t i t u t i o n i n t o t h e above equations. s u i t a b l e c o n t r o l could

be obtained from t h i s pendulum s i g n a l p l u s any two from t h e rudder, yaw r a t e and yaw a c c e l e m t i o n . The
p r e f e r r e d form of c o n t r o l , when r e f e r r e d back t o dimensional form is

This form o f c o n t r o l can only be p r e c i s e f o r one s p e c i f i c f l i g h t and loading condition. Furthermore a u t o p i l o t

l a g s and t o l e r a n c e s . as well as c o n t r o l run n o n - l i n e a r i t i e s , could d e t r a c t from t h e accuracy. Nevertheless
c o n t r o l based on t h i s form of compensation can be c a l c u l a t e d t o reduce t h e bank excursions, very s i g n i f i c a n t l y ,
over t h e whole o f t h e a i r c r a f t envelope.

I t w i l l be appreciated t h a t t h e s e compensation terms employ s e v e r a l s e n s i n g and computing elements which do

n o t become a c t i v e u n t i l t h e Kick-off-drift phase i s reached, t h e r e f o r e t h e i r a v a i l a b i l i t y i s n o t continuously
monitored u n t i l a f t e r t h e a i r c r a f t h a s descended through t h e equipment d e c i s i o n height. A f a i l u r e o f t h e s e
elements w i l l remain undetected and be at r i s k during t h e whole o f t h e period s i n c e they were last used o r t e s t e d .
A f a i l u r e a n a l y s i s showed t h a t t h e r i s k period between automatic l a n d i n g s i s t o o long t o allow s a f e o p e r a t i o n
and r e q u i r e d a more p o s i t i v e means o f t e s t i n g t h e c o n s t i t u e n t elements. One very convenient means of t e s t i n g
t h e s e elements i s , of course, f o r them t o be a c t i v e during a n o n - c r i t i c a l phase of o p e r a t i o n . Accordingly t h e
s u i t a b i l i t y was i n v e s t i g a t e d of i n t r o d u c i n g t h i s compensation a t 1000 f t when t h e Prime Switch is s e t t o t h e
Land p o s i t i o n .
 16-11

The e f f e c t on performance o f t h e compensation terms from Prime Land was evaluated by comparative computer
and r i g t e s t s t o provide a q u a n t i t a t i v e measure of t h e i r influence. This was i n p a r a l l e l with a f l i g h t a s e s s -
ment o r q u a l i t a t i v e a p p r a i s a l o f t h e c h a r a c t e r of t h e c o n t r o l .

A d i g i t a l computer study, u s i n g s p e c t r a l a n a l y s i s techniques, was used t o provide a d i r e c t comparison o f t h e

system responses t o both t u r b u l e n c e and l o c a l i s e r r a d i o noise. The r e s u l t s , a t a f i x e d range of 10,000 f t from
t h e l o c a l i s e r t r a n s m i t t e r , a r e shown i n TableIV a s a r a t i o of t h e RMS v a l u e s of r e l e v a n t parameters, with and
without compensation.

T A B L E IV.

D i g i t a l Computer (and Rig) Study of

I n f l u e n c e of Compensation Terms

Ratio of RMS value with and

Parameter without compensation due to

Turbulence I Radio Noise

Bank 0.318 (0.25) 1.055

Lateral
0.571 (0.69) 1.02
Deviation
Sideslip 0.988 1.05
Aileron 0.933 (1.18) -

I t can be seen t h a t both t h e bank a c t i v i t y and t h e l a t e r a l d e v i a t i o n e r r o r s , i n t h e presence of turbulence,

are reduced s i g n i f i c a n t l y by t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n of t h e compensation terms and have been achieved without any
i n c r e a s e i n a i l e r o n a c t i v i t y . The response t o l o c a l i s e r r a d i o n o i s e is unaffected. The numbers shown i n b r a c k e t s
are derived from similar r i g t e s t s which use t h e a c t u a l a u t o p i l o t hardware and show broad confirmation o f t h e
d i g i t a l study p r e d i c t i o n s .

The a i r c r e w ’ s q u a l i t a t i v e assessment was t h a t t h e wings were being maintained l e v e l very a c c u r a t e l y at t h e

expense of a i l e r o n a c t i v i t y , however t h i s was accepted as t h e l a t e r a l s t i c k movement could be seen t o be s e n s i b l e .
The f l i g h t crew were a l s o conscious o f a change i n yaw a c t i v i t y and were concerned t h a t r e a r cabin passengers
might be aware of e x c e s s i v e l a t e r a l a c c e l e r a t i o n . In subsequent heavy turbulence passengers were placed i n t h e
rear s e a t s and, s u r p r i s i n g l y p r e f e r r e d t h e r i d e with compensation. A d i r e c t comparison o f t h e e f f e c t o f i n c l u d i n g
t h e s e compensations, throughout t h e approach, can be made from t h e following Table V. which d e t a i l s t h e r e s u l t s
of touchdown p a r a m e t e r s d u r i n g t h e c e r t i f i c a t i o n t r i a l s i n thedevelopment a i r c r a f t andsubsequent confirmatory t r i a l s
i n t h e production a i r c r a f t . The improvement h e r e is l e s s obvious, i n f a c t t h e bank angle s c a t t e r has increased
s l i g h t l y , but t h e t r i a l s i n c l u d i n g t h e compensation from 1000 f t were conducted i n much higher wind c o n d i t i o n s .

TABLE V .

I n f l u e n c e of Compensation Terms

\I Parame t e r
Standard Compensation Terms
from Ki;:;;ff-Drift

7.5 Right
Compensation Terms
from Prime Land

10.2 L e f t

Localiser 3.9 L e f t 1.5 Right

4.9 4.3

1; I
98 57
Bank Angle 0.2 s t b d . 0.2 p o r t
a t touchdown 1.1
degs. 150
Wind M , 9.2 17.5
Speed U 5.2 4.5
knots n 150 59
16-12

The primary reason f o r i n v e s t i g a t i n g t h i s modification was t o improve t h e system s a f e t y , by causing f a u l t

c o n d i t i o n s t o be revealed s a f e l y a t 1000 f t r a t h e r than suppressed u n t i l a few seconds before touchdown. I t
was c a l c u l a t e d t h a t t h e p r o b a b i l i t y of a r o l l channel cut-out due t o f a u l t s i n t h e l a s t twenty f i v e seconds o f
an automatic landing could be 2 . 1 x lo-’ which is twice t h e t o t a l t a r g e t r i s k l e v e l and t h e r e f o r e u n s a t i s f a c t o r y .
With i n c o r p o r a t i o n of t h i s modification t h e c a l c u l a t e d p r o b a b i l i t y improves t o 0 . 5 x which is a reasonable
proportion of t h e t a r g e t r i s k .
,

6. IN-SERVICE EXPERIENCE

BEA have been conducting automatic touchdowns f o r n e a r l y four y e a r s d u r i n g which time over f o u r thousand
o p e r a t i o n s have been logged. However BEA e s t i m a t e t h a t between two and t h r e e times t h i s number have a c t u a l l y
been c a r r i e d o u t . Figure 12 shows how t h e r a t e has a c c e l e r a t e d over t h e f o u r y e a r s t o t h e c u r r e n t v a l u e s of
n e a r l y 300 per month. Superimposed on t h e rate can be seen an annual c y c l e r e f l e c t i n g t h e higher a i r c r a f t
u t i l i z a t i o n over t h e summer months. The low u t i l i z a t i o n d u r i n g t h e e a r l y months i s n o t unexpected when t h e
following f a c t o r s a r e borne i n mind:- The a i r c r a f t d e l i v e r i e s and m o d i f i c a t i o n s of a u t o f l a r e equipment were
p r o g r e s s i v e ; t h e i n i t i a l crew t r a i n i n g programme was r e s t r i c t e d t o a r e l a t i v e l y small number o f s e l e c t e d
c a p t a i n s ; because o f t h e high d e n s i t y summer s e r v i c e s t h e crew t r a i n i n g programmes could n o t be continued f o r
some time: f i n a l l y only a few runway i n s t a l l a t i o n s had been c l e a r e d f o r automatic touchdown. Thus t h e p r o b a b i l i t y
of a modified a i r c r a f t being operated i n t o an approved s i t e by a t r a i n e d Captain was n o t very high. There i s
s t r o n g evidence t o suggest t h a t some Captains a r e using t h e f a c i l i t y f a r more r e a d i l y than o t h e r s , and as shown
i n Figure 13. h a l f t h e t o t a l automatic touchdowns have been c a r r i e d o u t by 24 Captains r e p r e s e n t i n g 15.5%of t h o s e
experienced i n Automatic o p e r a t i o n s . This r a t h e r lop-sided d i s t r i b u t i o n h i g h l i g h t s t h e problem o f persuading t h e
a i r c r e w t o make more use o f Automatic Landing operations. A s would be expected t h e m a j o r i t y of landings have
been c a r r i e d o u t i n t o London (Heathrow) Airport. Figure 14 shows how t h e landings have been d i s t r i b u t e d
throughout t h e major European a i r f i e l d s and, i n a l l , 55 i n s t a l l a t i o n s have been used. U n t i l a comprehensive i n -
s e r v i c e r e c o r d i n g system is i n s t a l l e d and proved o p e r a t i o n a l l y t h e method of r e c o r d i n g Automatic f l a r e s and l a n d i n g s
landings is by means of p i l o t r e p o r t i n g , f o r which BEA have introduced a pro-forma means of logging. In a d d i t i o n
t o n o t i n g r e p o r t e d wind v e l o c i t i e s , RVR cloudbase and ambient temperature t h e p i l o t is r e q u i r e d t o s e p a r a t e
automatic landings i n t o t h o s e which he c o n s i d e r s t o be f u l l y s a t i s f a c t o r y a n d t h o s e which h e c o n s i d e r s t o be
u n s a t i s f a c t o r y i n some manner. A landing may be deemed as u n s a t i s f a c t o r y f o r one o f t h r e e primary reasons: i f
t h e r e is a c u t - o u t of an a u t o p i l o t channel: i f t h e p i l o t d e l i b e r a t e l y disengages t h e a u t o p i l o t i n o r d e r t o
continue with a manual landing, o r go-around: and i f t h e r e is any a s p e c t of t h e manoeuvre or touchdown which
t h e p i l o t c o n s i d e r s t o be u n s u i t a b l e . On t h i s b a s i s t h e o v e r a l l percentage of s a t i s f a c t o r y automatic touchdowns,
o r s u c c e s s r a t e , is 69%. This f i g u r e h a s included p e r i o d s of o p e r a t i o n when t h e modification s t a t e of t h e air-
borne equipment was t o a lower s t a n d a r d than a t p r e s e n t and Figure 15 shows how t h e success rate has progressed
through t h i s period.

I n o r d e r t o a s s e s s t h e i m p l i c a t i o n s of what appears t o be a low s u c c e s s r a t e it is necessary t o c o n s i d e r

whether any o f t h e “ u n s a t i s f a c t o r y ” l c d i n g s could happen i n Category 3 o p e r a t i o n , and i f they could whether
they would c o n s t i t u t e a hazard t o t h e a i r c r a f t . In Category 3 o p e r a t i o n l o s s of an a u t o p i l o t channel above
t h e equipment d e c i s i o n h e i g h t w i l l r e q u i r e a go-around t o be executed. While t h i s is u n d e s i r a b l e it is n o t
unsafe. About one q u a r t e r o f t h e r e p o r t e d c u t - o u t s a r e i n t h i s category. The remainder f a l l i n t o two d i s t i n c t
p a t t e r n s : e i t h e r forming a run o f c u t - o u t s which ceased when a p a r t i c u l a r p i e c e of a i r b o r n e equipment was
changed, o r t h o s e which a r e purely random.

Experience o b t a i n e d from t h e instrumented development a i r c r a f t p o i n t s t o t h e former s i t u a t i o n a r i s i n g when

adverse equipment t o l e r a n c e s o r minor f a u l t s a r e p r e s e n t which r o u t i n e maintenance is unable t o r e v e a l . The
m o d i f i c a t i o n s d e s c r i b e d i n Reference 2. gyro g a i n e q u a l i s a t i o n and sub-channel monitoring, have proved
very e f f e c t i v e i n t h e t r i a l s a i r c r a f t but have y e t t o be introduced i n t o s e r v i c e . From t h e development e x p e r i -
ence random c u t - o u t s occurred because t h e system had i n s u f f i c i e n t a b i l i t y t o absorb t r a n s i e n t sub-channel
d i f f e r e n c e s a r i s i n g from n o i s e o r t o l e r a n c e s i n t h e high frequency terms i n t h e system t r a n s f e r f u n c t i o n s .
These c u t - o u t s v i r t u a l l y disappeared on t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n of mechanical l o s t motion i n t o t h e p i t c h and r o l l s e r v o
motors. The foregoing comments r e f e r t o t h e duplex i n s t a l l a t i o n s , t h e conversion t o t r i p l e x is n o t y e t complete
and it is t o o early t o s e e its f u l l e f f e c t on t h e incidence of c u t - o u t s .

The r e a s o n s f o r many of t h e disengagements is n o t obvious and u n t i l t h e i n - s e r v i c e recording is incorporated

t h e underlying reasons can only be t h e s u b j e c t of s p e c u l a t i o n . C e r t a i n p a t t e r n s however are emerging. A
s i g n i f i c a n t number o f disengagements occurred f o r reasons of c o c k p i t management, ATC requirements, changes i n
t h e ambient s i t u a t i o n , (For example an i n c r e a s e i n t h e wind s t r e n g t h ) a n d o t h e r s a r e c l e a r l y due t o temporary
v a r i a t i o n s i n t h e q u a l i t y of t h e ground r a d i o i n s t a l l a t i o n . A p o s s i b l e reason f o r o t h e r s may l i e i n t h e
d i f f e r e n c e between t h e a u t o p i l o t f l a r e o u t and t h e low f l a r e manual techniques used by some p i l o t s . Another
probable explanation stems from t h e e a r l i e r equipment s t a n d a r d , which was l e s s a b l e t o reduce d i s t u r b a n c e s due
t o o c c a s i o n a l g u s t s . The expected improvement on f i t m e n t of Airspeed Compensation d i d n o t m a t e r i a l i z e a t
first. The reason is b e l i e v e d t o be t h a t t h e e x t r a a u t h o r i t y , a f f o r d e d by Airspeed Compensation, caused t h e
P i l o t s t o c o n s i d e r t h e a u t o p i l o t t o be o v e r a c t i v e . Another and s u f f i c i e n t reason f o r disengaging i s where
landings occur which are p e r f e c t l y s a f e but of a lower s t a n d a r d t h a n t h e average. In c o n d i t i o n s of good v i s i b i l i t y
t h e p i l o t f e e l s e n t i t l e d t o disengage t h e a u t o p i l o t t o g i v e h i s passengers a smoother touchdown.
 16-13

The f i n a l category c o n t a i n s t h e landings which a r e allowed t o continue t o touchdown b u t c o n t a i n some a s p e c t

considered u n s a t i s f a c t o r y by t h e p i l o t . The reported incidence o f 5% i m p l i e s t h a t t h e p i l o t s a r e recognising,
and complaining o f , landings where performance i s worse than about two s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n s from t h e mean. This
does n o t seem an unreasonable t h r e s h o l d . For p e r s i s t e n t p i l o t ’ s comments BEA a r e playing back t h e mandatory
c r a s h r e c o r d e r s i g n a l s . While t h e s e a r e n o t i d e a l l y s u i t e d f o r an examination of t h e landing manoeuvre, they
have n o t revealed any i n s t a n c e s o f abnormal manoeuvres.

In o r d e r t o provide t h e evidence t h a t t h e performance, demonstrated by t h e c e r t i f i c a t i o n t r i a l s , is maintained

d u r i n g s e r v i c e o p e r a t i o n s , BEA a r e providing an extension t o t h e mandatory c r a s h recorder. This t a k e s t h e form
of a small plug-in c a s s e t t e which w i l l carry t h e recorded autolanding parameters and w i l l be replaced as necessary
by t h e p i l o t . The d a t a , c a r r i e d on t h e s e c a s s e t t e s , w i l l be processed a u t o m a t i c a l l y and w i l l provide r o u t i n e
s t a t i s t i c a l evidence on t h e landing c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of a l l landings, manual and automatic. I f any l a n d i n g
r e q u i r e s f u r t h e r i n v e s t i g a t i o n , e i t h e r a s a r e s u l t of an unfavourable r e p o r t from t h e p i l o t or i f t h e r o u t i n e
s t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s i s r e v e a l s a s i g n i f i c a n t e r r o r i n any of t h e touchdown parameters, then t h e d a t a can be
analysed t o determine t h e reasons.

7 . CONCLUDING REMARKS

Thus, a f t e r more than t e n y e a r s of design, development and i n - s e r v i c e experience, t h e world’s f i r s t venture

t o provide Automatic Landing f o r A i r l i n e o p e r a t i o n s i s within s i g h t of reaching a s u c c e s s f u l conclusion. The
SEp.5 system w a s conceived and l a r g e l y designed before t h e ICAO low weather d e f i n i t i i n s were formulated and is
proving s u i t a b l e , with r e l a t i v e l y few modifications, f o r c e r t i f i c a t e d o p e r a t i o n s i n Category 38 c o n d i t i o n s .
With Category 3A o p e r a t i o n s j u s t around t h e c o r n e r , it is necessary t o r e - i t e r a t e t h e o u t s t a n d i n g problem
a r e a s which r e q u i r e r e s o l u t i o n before t h e f u l l b e n e f i t can be e x p l o i t e d . (1) The problems of c o n t r o l l i n g i n t e r -
f e r e n c e on t h e ILS r a d i o beams r e p r e s e n t s , perhaps, t h e major a r e a r e q u i r i n g s o l u t i o n o r at least I n t e r n a t i o n a l
agreement on means o f very s t r i c t c o n t r o l . ( 2 ) While t h e Automatic system is providing a very s a t i s f a c t o r y
landing manoeuvre it is proving t o be l e s s a c c e p t a b l e t o some p i l o t s than o t h e r s . There remains a c o n t i n u i n g
programme of education t o e n s u r e t h a t a l l crews gain s u f f i c i e n t experience and confidence of t h e system.

A s a r e s u l t of t h e experience gained on t h i s f i r s t g e n e r a t i o n of c i v i l automatic landing, Smiths are c u r r e n t l y

engaged i n t h e design of t h e i r second generation system designated SEP.8. . This system is designed t o meet t h e
f u l l o p e r a t i o n a l requirements of t r a n s p o r t a i r c r a f t f o r t h e 1970’s. The redundancy requirement f o r SEp.8 is met
by employing m u l t i p l e x o p e r a t i o n and t h i s h a s been designed t o o f f e r maximum f l e x i b i l i t y i n t h e u s e of s e n s o r s
and a c t u a t o r s . The engineering design makes use o f a l l modern techniques, but t h e s e a r e always employed w i t h i n
t h e framework of proven concepts.

8. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The Author is endebted t o AGARD Guidance and Control Panel f o r t h e i n v i t a t i o n t o prepare t h i s paper, t o Hawker
Siddeley Aviation Limited and B r i t i s h European Airways f o r f u l l co-operation and permission t o i n c o r p o r a t e t h e i r
data and t o Smiths I n d u s t r i e s f o r t h e i r a s s i s t a n c e and encouragement.

REFERENCES

16.1 Airworthiness Requirements for Automatic Landing. ARB Technical Note No.92.

:l6.2 Bishop, R . I . Development of Airborne Hardware for Automatic Landing Systems. Cambridge, Mass;
20-22nd May 1969. (Paper 8 of t h i s volume.)
16-14

f
RATE GYRO EQWLlSATlON
L , SERVO
MOTOR
TACH0 CLUTCH TORQUE
SWITCH
GEAR
TRAIN
n

Fig.1 Schematic of t r i p l e x system

GLIDE
ACQUIRE AUTOMATIC GO-AROUND AVAILABLE
c PRIME
LAND

HE~GHT
FEET
350

Is0

AIRSPEED COMPENSATION
PITCH MANUAL
IATTITUDE I FLARE OUT

ROLLING M O M E N T COMPENSATION
ROLL MANUAL
I.&. LOCALISER COUPLED

YAW
I YAW DAMPING KICK OFF
DRIFT
GROUND ROLL
CONTROL

THROTTLES AIRSPEED CONTROL THROTTLES MANUAL

CLOSE

Fig.2 Trident automatic landing sequence

 16-15

0 2 4 6 8 10 I2 14
RATE OF DESCENT FTlS

Fig.3 P r o b a b i l i t y of exceeding given r a t e of descent at touchdown

MAXIMUMALOWA8LE
RATE OF DESCENT

10 -
RATE OF
AT TOUCHDOWN
- R I G RESULTS IN STILL AIR WITH
VARIOUS GLIDEPATH SLOPES
FT I S X FLIGHT RESULTS

5 -

X I

2
RATE OF DESCENT AT FLARE INITIATION F T l S

Fig.4 Dependence of r a t e of descent a t touchdown on t h e r a t e of descent a t f l a r e i n i t i a t i o n

16-16

20 40 60 Bo 100 I20 I4 0
FLARE SWITCHING HEIGHT (FEET)

Fig.5 Weighting function of risk contribution due to incorrect switching to flare

 16 -1 7

0.9

0.5

0.2

0.I

PROBABILITY

1Cj2

-PROBABILITY OF NO MONITOR
I
= 1-5 x IO+
I
PROBABILITY OF TRIPLEX CUT-OUT IN CATEGORY 3
CONDITIONS = PROBABILITY OF SUB-CHANNEL
FAILURE X PROBABILITY OF NO MONITOR
OPERATION ON THE APPROACH X PROBABILITY
OF DUPLEX CUT-OUT.
=l*5X10-3 X 0.8 X X PROBABILITY O F SUB-
CHANNEL FAILURE
= 1.2 x 10-5 x (< < 1.2 x
I I
IO 20 30 40
MAXIMUM TORQUE SWITCH TRAVEL CUT 8 U T
I I I I 1
0 5 IO I5 20
NUMBER OF MONITOR OPERATIONS ON APPROACH

Fig.6 Effect of sub-channel monitoring on t h e c u t o u t r i s k

1962 1963 1964 I965 1966 1967 I968 1969 1970 1971 1972

WPLEX
COUPLED
APPROACH
TRIPLEX

DUPLEX
AUTO FLARE

TRIPLEX

AUTO U N D
DUPLEX

TRIPLEX
- 3
L I
I
r -- -
I
71
--- - --.
GROUND ROLL ==B
I
I
I
I'
r-----

7 DEVELOPMENT CATEGORY I I ' CAT. 2 I CAT. 3A I CAT.38 I

0 IN-SERVICE

Fig.7 Trident autoland programme

16-18

Fig.8 Height loss during automatic go-around

Fig.9 H.S. Trident I C autolanding i n cat.3A weather c o n d i t i o n s

 16-19

f I
I
I
k--- FLARE COMPARATOR
I
I

f -

3
MEAN
RATE OF
DESCENT
FT.S-I
2 'p/

0 AIRSPEED COMPENSATION OPERATIVE

0 AIRSPEED COMPENSATION INOPERATIVE

STANDARD2 -
DEVIATION-
RATE OF
DESCENT
FT. S-I

0 2 4 6 B IO
INTENSITY OF HORIZONTAL TURBULENCE - FT. s - 1 RMS

Fig.11 Rig results - dependence of rate of descent a t touchdown on intensity of turbulence and presence of
airspeed compensation
 16-20

4000

300C

2 ooc

IOOC

0
1965 -+1--- 1966 _* 1967 -+ 4-- I968 __* + I 9 6 9

Fig.12 BEA a u t o f l a r e and autolanding experience

20

NUMBER O F
CA PTA INS
50%

15
129 CAPTAINS (84 5%1 24 CAPTAINS l15.5Vo1

10

0 I 5 5 7 V II I3 IS I7 19 21 2$ 2S 21 2V II B U I7 SO 48 43 4S 41 4V SI S3 U S I SO 61 63 6S 67 69 71 83 8s E7 1%
2 4 a (I m 12 U 16 18 20 U w 26 28 UI Y n 36 18 40 U 44 46 e so 52 Y s6 18 60 s2 M db 68 m 72 74 1 n 80 P (14 a i ta ma 2S8 344
NUMBER OF AUTOMATIC TOUCHDOWNS

Fig.13 D i s t r i b u t i o n of automatic landings between t r a i n e d autoland c a p t a i n s

 16-21

COPENHAGEN
VIENNA \- /=BRUSSELS

Fig.14 D i s t r i b u t i o n of automatic o p e r a t i o n s throughout European a i r f i e l d s

l o 0 l

80
SUCCESS
RATE
%

60

40

20

0
- I 9 65 +'+ I9 66 ++
' I 9 67 ,
iI 9 68 +%I969

Fig.15 Percentage of automatic o p e r a t i o n s d e c l a r e d f u l l y s a t i s f a c t o r y

 17

EXPERIENCE GAINED BY B.A.C. AND ELLIOTT IN THE DEVELOPMENT

AND SERVICE USE OF AUTOMATIC LANDING SYSTEMS

M. F. Moul t o n

E l l i o t t Brothers (London) Ltd

Transport A i r c r a f t C o n t r o l s Division
E l l i o t t F l i g h t Automation
Airport Works, Rochester, Kent
17
 17-1

EXPERIENCE G A I N E D BY B . A . C . A N D ELLIOTT I N THE DEVELOPMENT

A N D SERVICE USE OF AUTOMATIC L A N D I N G SYSTEMS

by M.F.Moulton

1. INTRODUCTION

The B r i t i s h A i r c r a f t Corporation Super VC.10 made its f i r s t automatic landing i n passenger s e r v i c e on May 16th,
1968 which marked t h e beginning of s e r v i c e use of t h e automatic landing system by B r i t i s h Overseas Airways
Corporation. The a i r c r a f t a r e equipped with a f a i l - o p e r a t i v e automatic landing system based on t h e d u a l monitored
concept which was f i r s t recognised as a v i a b l e s o l u t i o n t o s a f e low v i s i b i l i t y automatic landing at t h e d e s i g n
s t a g e of t h e VC.10 and has s i n c e been a p p l i e d i n p r i n c i p l e t o t h e Super BAC One-Eleven and t o t h e Anglo French
Concorde SST.

A l l weather landing development i n t h e United Kingdom was commenced with t h e formation of t h e Blind Landing
Experimental Unit by t h e Royal A i r c r a f t Establishment i n September 1946. This Unit i n i t i a t e d t h e development of
improved automatic p i l o t s and ILS c o u p l e r s , r a d i o a l t i m e t e r s and a low l e v e l azimuth guidance system based upon
magnetic l e a d e r c a b l e .

By 1957 t h e Unit had accomplished 2000 automatic landings with t r a n s p o r t a i r c r a f t and had c o n f i d e n t l y p r e d i c t e d
t h a t automatic landing systems would be, i n t h e f u t u r e , t h e most l i k e l y b a s i s f o r c i v i l a i r t r a n s p o r t a l l weather
landing systems. The achievement and p r e d i c t i o n s of t h e BLEU had been c l o s e l y followed by B r i t i s h Overseas
Airways Corporation and i n 1958 they requested Vickers Armstrong ( A i r c r a f t ) Limited ( l a t e r BAC) and E l l i o t t t o
make p r o v i s i o n f o r t h e f u t u r e i n s t a l l a t i o n of automatic landing i n t h e new VC.10 t r a n s p o r t a i r c r a f t .

The d e c i s i o n by BAC, BOAC. and E l l i o t t on how t o achieve t h i s w a s made a f t e r y e a r s of study. I t is perhaps

i n t e r e s t i n g t o trace t h e many s i m i l a r i t i e s between t h e d e s i g n s chosen f o r t h e VC.10 and what has been s p e c i f i e d
f o r t h e new o p e r a t i o n of a i r c r a f t which w i l l appear i n t h e next decade. Such s i m i l a r i t i e s i n c l u d e : -
- “ s p l i t surface” flying controls
- d u a l monitored a u t o p i l o t s
- a u t o t h r o t t l e as b a s i c equipment ( t h e VC.10 has a d u a l system)
- “brick-wall’’ philosophy of s e p a r a t i n g t h e d u a l e l e c t r i c a l , e l e c t r o n i c and h y d r a u l i c systems
- i n - l i n e monitored g l i d e s l o p e r e c e i v e r s , a i r d a t a equipment and r a d i o a l t i m e t e r s
-’ f a i l - o p e r a t i v e automatic trim system
- integrated autopilot/flying control actuation
- f a i l - o p e r a t i v e automatic landing c a p a b i l i t y
- s e r i e s yaw damper c a p a b i l i t y w i t h i n t h e a u t o p i l o t .

Accepted as b a s i c f e a t u r e s t h e s e days, t h e y r e p r e s e n t e d innovations a decade ago. It should be remembered

t h a t t h e s e f e a t u r e s were chosen n o t a g a i n s t t h e background of today’s experience but i n a n t i c i p a t i o n of a number
of formidable new problems. These included: -
- p i l o t acceptance of automatic landing
- passenger acceptance
- economic j u s t i f i c a t i o n i n a c c u r a t e terms
- whether ILS would be v i a b l e as t h e approach guidance system i n terms of s a f e t y and performance
- how t o q u a n t i f y t h e s a f e t y requirements f o r o p e r a t i n g i n low v i s i b i l i t y environment
- how t o q u a n t i f y t h e performance needed f o r s a f e t y r e p e a t a b i l i t y and (hence) p i l o t acceptance
- what l i m i t a t i o n s were l i k e l y t o be imposed by f a c t o r s o u t s i d e t h e a i r c r a f t - e . g . i n t e r f e r e n c e on t h e
guidance system due t o o t h e r a i r c r a f t and t h e l i m i t a t i o n s due t o t u r b u l e n c e and windshear.
- how t o c e r t i f i c a t e t h e chosen system by a c c e p t a b l e performance demonstrations and how t o document t h e
evidence.

In t h e s o l u t i o n of t h e s e problems, t h e work done i n t h e United Kingdom by t h e Blind Landing Experimental Uni.t

of t h e Royal A i r c r a f t Establishment, t h e continuing i n t e r e s t of t h e A i r R e g i s t r a t i o n - B o a r d and t h e support and
encouragement of t h e M i n i s t r y of Aviation (now t h e M i n i s t r y of Technology) cannot be h i g h l y enough p r a i s e d . It
would not be p o s s i b l e t o g i v e an adequate account h e r e of t h e work done by t h e s e o r g a n i s a t i o n s . I t is however,
important t o p o i n t out t h a t t h e e x c e l l e n t s t a n d a r d of support and co-operation with i n d u s t r y c r e a t e d a good
environment f o r t h e new problems t o be solved.
17-2

Of c o u r s e it would have been impossible f o r s o many new problems t o have been resolved w i t h i n t h e t i m e s c a l e
of t h e f i r s t ‘ c e r t i f i c a t e d a i r c r a f t and a means had t o be found t o proceed by s t a g e s . A t f i r s t t h e following
broad s t a g e s were defined.

- c e r t i f i c a t i o n of d u a l a u t o p i l o t / a u t o t h r o t t l e
- extension t o fail-operative pitch control t o touchdown ( a u t o f l a r e )
- addition of f a i l - o p e r a t i v e azimuth c o n t r o l t o touchdown
- r e d u c t i o n of o p e r a t i n g minima a f t e r i n - s e r v i c e experience.
The f i r s t of t h e s e s t a g e s was achieved i n 1964, when t h e VC.10 e n t e r e d a i r l i n e s e r v i c e with its dual-monitored
a u t o p i l o t . It is apparent t h a t t h e stages o r i g i n a l l y chosen r e p r e s e n t e d milestones i n t h e t e c h n i c a l and opera-
t i o n a l t a s k of p u t t i n g i n t o s e r v i c e a b l i n d landing system. These milestones were t o become modified i n t h e
l i g h t of f u r t h e r experience although t h e end o b j e c t i v e h a s never changed, nor has t h e t e c h n i c a l d e s i g n philosophy.

By 1963, world wide i n t e r e s t i n a l l weather landing l e d t o t h e IATA conference i n Lucerne being devoted t o
t h i s s u b j e o t . A p h i l o s o p h i c a l d i f f e r e n c e emerged between t h e United Kingdom. On t h e one hand, l i m i t e d advances
i n a i r b o r n e nardware and crew t r a i n i n g were t o lead t o a gradual r e d u c t i o n i n o p e r a t i n g minima, t h e i n t e n t i o n
being t o w h i t t l e away t h e normal break-off h e i g h t and runway v i s u a l range r e s t r i c t i o n s without reducing s a f e t y .

Here t h e j u s t i f i c a t i o n w a s t h a t r a p i d implementation of such a programme would b r i n g about s i g n i f i c a n t improve-

ments i n o p e r a t i o n a l r e g u l a r i t y without t h e need t o t a c k l e t h e more fundamental problems of automatic b l i n d land-
i n g u n t i l later. On t h e o t h e r hand, t h e UK p o s i t i o n was t h a t a programme t o and including automatic b l i n d landing
u s i n g f a i l - o p e r a t i v e automatic landing systems was t h e only v i a b l e way t o achieve r e g u l a r i t y and s a f e t y i n low-
weather o p e r a t i o n s with any i n t e r m e d i a t e stage of o p e r a t i o n being regarded as v i a b l e i f based on a f a i l - o p e r a t i v e
automatic system.

I n f a c t , t h e r e w a s t o be both merit and r i s k i n both philosophies. I n t h e United Kingdom, where t h e problems

of f a i l - o p e r a t i v e automatic landing were s y s t e m a t i c a l l y t a c k l e d , it was t o prove a long and arduous t a s k t o
achieve both of t h e s e o b j e c t i v e s i n a i r l i n e s e r v i c e and t h e p e n e t r a t i o n of low minima o p e r a t i o n s is still below
t h e o r i g i n a l e x p e c t a t i o n . I n t h e United S t a t e s , t h e gradual development of lower minima o p e r a t i o n s was t o pose
new problems f o r a i r l i n e s and manufacturers a l i k e . I n France something l i k e a compromise s o l u t i o n w a s adopted,
i n which t h e r e d u c t i o n of minima was based on automatic landing but without t h e same f a i l - o p e r a t i v e philosophy.
Nowadays, of c o u r s e , a l l major c i v i l t r a n s p o r t a i r c r a f t have f a i l - o p e r a t i v e automatic landing s p e c i f i e d as
“ i n i t i a l - ‘ f i t ” equipment. The Elliott/SFENA AFCS on t h e Concorde was t o be t h e f i r s t c i v i l a i r c r a f t t o have t h i s
s p e c i f i e d as “ j u s t another mode of t h e a u t o p i l o t ” .

A s experience was gained i n t h e development of t h e VC.10 a u t o f l a r e system it became apparent t h a t a “ s p l i t

c o n t r o l ” concept was not d e s i r a b l e from t h e p i l o t i n g view p o i n t . The a u t o f l a r e system put a i l e r o n and rudder
c o n t r o l under t h e command of t h e p i l o t w h i l s t t h e f a i l - o p e r a t i v e a u t o p i l o t c o n t r o l l e d t h e e l e v a t o r s u n t i l touch-
down. A u t o f l a r e had always been a t e c h n i c a l milestone r a t h e r t h a n an o p e r a t i o n a l one, and i n o r d e r t o s e e k t h e
advantages of o p e r a t i n g i n reduced weather minima, BOAC decided t o s p e c i f y automatic c o n t r o l t o touchdown of
a i l e r o n s and e l e v a t o r s , with r u d d e r s f r e e d a f t e r f l a r e commencement.. This enabled s p l i t c o n t r o l t o be avoided
and enabled t h e p i l o t t o execute t h e decrab manoeuvre.

Figure 3 shows t h o s e o p e r a t i o n a l c a t e g o r i e s of a l l - w e a t h e r landing, which came t o be accepted by ICAO and

t h e s t a n d a r d s of c o n t r o l and guidance equipment which are g e n e r a l l y h e l d t o correspond. On t h i s b a s i s , t h e
extended a u t o f l a r e system became known as t h e “Category II/II.I A system”.

1.1 Description o f the VC. 10 Automatic Landing System

The system whose major components a r e i l l u s t r a t e d below, is a dual-monitored a u t o p i l o t g i v i n g t h e following

facilities: -

d u a l “series” yaw damper ( a v a i l a b l e s e p a r a t e l y o r t o g e t h e r )

an a d d i t i o n a l t h i r d yaw damper (standby channel)
yaw damper s e l f t e s t f a c i l i t y
dual autopilots for cruise f l i g h t
d u a l a u t o t h r o t t l e (used s e p a r a t e l y )
d u a l monitored automatic c o n t r o l t o touchdown
- i n p i t c h plane ( a u t o f l a r e )
- i n azimuth plane
- i n yaw a x i s t o 50 f t .

The approach and landing system can be armed as soon as t h e ILS f l a g s a r e c l e a r . Normally t h e system is
operated w i t h Glideslope Auto and L o c a l i s e r Mode s e l e c t e d . I n t h i s mode, c a p t u r e of t h e g l i d e s l o p e from above
o r below t h e beam is p o s s i b l e although BOAC normally c a p t u r e a u t o m a t i c a l l y from a l t i t u d e lock mode. Approaches
and landings m a y be made with e i t h e r one o r with both a u t o p i l o t s s e l e c t e d .

The system r e q u i r e s t h e minimum of p i l o t checking t o ensure c o r r e c t and s a f e o p e r a t i o n . The d e s i r e d mode of

t h e a u t o p i l o t is s e l e c t e d on a r o t a r y mode s e l e c t o r switch which is arranged s o t h a t t h e approach and landing
 17-3

p o s i t i o n s follow i n a n a t u r a l sequence from t h e e n - r o u t e n a v i g a t i o n modes. This permits t h e a u t o p i l o t system

t o be used from j u s t a f t e r t a k e o f f u n t i l touchdown with t h e minimum of r e - s e l e c t i o n of modes and t h e s i m p l e s t
of c o n t r o l p a n e l p r e s e n t a t i o n .

When t h e s e l e c t o r is s e t t o t h e “GS AUTO” p o s i t i o n , t h e a i r c r a f t w i l l a u t o m a t i c a l l y c a p t u r e and t r a c k t h e

ILS l o c a l i s e r and g l i d e s l o p e beams g i v i n g guidance i n azimuth and p i t c h towards t h e runway. P r i o r t o i n t e r -
cept!on of t h e l o c a l i s e r , t h e p i l o t can s e t up any d e s i r e d i n t e r c e p t angle on h i s f l i g h t instruments and vary
t h i s , according t o ATC requirements, still under a u t o p i l o t c o n t r o l . Automatic t h r o t t l e c o n t r o l is engaged and
t h e p i l o t s e l e c t s h i s approach speed t o s u i t t h e a i r c r a f t c o n f i g u r a t i o n and e x t e r n a l wind c o n d i t i o n s .

A t any time d u r i n g t h i s process t h e second a u t o p i l o t is s e l e c t e d and this w i l l a u t o m a t i c a l l y o p e r a t e i n a

“standby” mode, ready t o t a k e c o n t r o l i n s t a n t a n e o u s l y if t h e first a u t o p i l o t should f a i l . ( A n y f a i l u l e of t h e
“standby” a u t o p i l o t would cause it t o d i s c o n n e c t , still l e a v i n g t h e f i r s t a u t o p i l o t i n c o n t r o l and a warning
s i g n a l l e d t o t h e p i l o t . ) During c a p t u r e , t h e f i r s t a u t o p i l o t is d e l i b e r a t e l y s e l e c t e d out and t h e p i l o t checks
t h a t t h e changeover t o t h e second a u t o p i l o t is completed s u c c e s s f u l l y and smoothly. The f i r s t a u t o p i l o t is
t h e n re-engaged and resumes c o n t r o l . Before automatic engagement of t h e g l i d e s l o p e , a confidence check is
c a r r i e d o u t on t h e d u a l monitored r a d i o a l t i m e t e r s , which provide guidance information f o r t h e automatic
f l a r e o u t . The r a d i o a l t i m e t e r monitoring becomes f u l l y e f f e c t i v e at about 1100 f t and a blue l i g h t on t h e
instrument panel t h e n f l a s h e s t o warn t h e p i l o t t h a t t h e system is ready f o r t h e s e l e c t i o n of t h e “Flare”
(automatic touchdown) mode. On s e l e c t i o n of “Flare” t h e l i g h t goes t o a s t e a d y b l u e t o confirm t h e mode
s e l e c t i o n . I f f l a r e is not s e l e c t e d t h e blue l i g h t c o n t i n u e s t o f l a s h and automatic disconnection of t h e
a u t o p i l o t s w i l l occur a t 150 f t accompanied by a raucous a u d i b l e warning. T h i s f e a t u r e guards a g a i n s t f a i l u r e
t o arm t h e automatic touchdown f a c i l i t y .

From t h e i n s t a n t of “Flare” s e l e c t i o n t o touchdown, t h e a i r c r a f t t r a c k s t h e I L S l o c a l i s e r using a p r e c i s i o n

c o n t r o l law which compensates f o r v a r i a t i o n s i n c r o s s wind. P r e c i s i o n c o n t r o l i n p i t c h is maintained on t h e
g l i d e s l o p e u n t i l t h e 120 f t p o i n t is s i g n a l l e d by t h e r a d i o a l t i m e t e r . A t t h i s p o i n t , t h e g l i d e s l o p e c o n t r o l
is d i s c o n t i n u e d and t h e aircraft commences an “ a t t i t u d e hold” mode i n p i t c h u n t i l t h e commencement of f l a r e - o u t
at 5 0 f t . A t t h i s h e i g h t t h e t h r o t t l e s c l o s e p r o g r e s s i v e l y t o reduce speed f o r touchdown and a u t o p i l o t c o n t r o l
of t h e rudders is d i s c o n t i n u e d . During t h e automatic f l a r e o u t , t h e p i l o t is f r e e t o a l i g n t h e a i r c r a f t heading
with t h e runway c e n t r e l i n e u s i n g t h e rudder p e d a l s . By t h i s means, he removes any d r i f t angle due t o c r o s s
wind u n t i l t h e a u t o p i l o t maintains t h e f l i g h t p a t h along t h e runway and holds t h e wings l e v e l .

When t h e main wheels a r e on t h e ground, t h e nose is g e n t l y lowered by t h e a u t o p i l o t and t h e p i l o t d i s c o n n e c t s

t h e a u t o p i l o t s manually t o t a k e c o n t r o l of t h e r o l l o u t , u s i n g r e v e r s e t h r u s t as necessary.

2. DEVELOPMENT EXPERIENCE

2.1 Basic F a i l - O p e r a t i v e Configuration

BOAC had s p e c i f i e d a d u a l a u t o p i l o t concept with t h e i n t e n t i o n of achieving two o b j e c t i v e s : -

- achieving an u l t i m a t e f a i l - o p e r a t i v e automatic landing system

- t o o b t a i n a higher a u t o p i l o t r e l i a b i l i t y on “round t h e world” o p e r a t i o n s .
It followed, t h e r e f o r e , t h a t t h e two a u t o p i l o t s had of n e c e s s i t y t o be independent of each o t h e r . To achieve
t h e r e l i a b i l i t y r e q u i r e d by t h e second o b j e c t i v e , each a u t o p i l o t had t o have f a i l u r e modes which were e n t i r e l y
independent. This meant t h e d u a l i t y of a u t o p i l o t , power s u p p l i e s and a c t u a t i o n based on t h e “ b r i c k wall“
philosophy mentioned. Combining t h i s with t h e f i r s t ’ o b j e c t i v e meant t h a t each a u t o p i l o t had t o be capable of
d e t e c t i n g its own f a i l u r e s independently of its neighbour. Figure 6 shows t h e f i r s t , c o n f i g u r a t i o n considered.

This system was d i s c a r d e d due t o : -

- Difficulty i n i n s t a l l i n g quadruple s e n s o r s , a e r i a l s etc.
- Excessive c o s t of t o t a l i n s t a l l a t i o n
- Inter-dependence of f a i l u r e modes between a u t o p i l o t s 1 and 2 due t o t h e i r simultaneous connection t o t h e
common o u t p u t .

F i g u r e 7 shows a development of t h e “double dual” theme, with an apparent s i m p l i f i c a t i o n . Here a t h i r d

channel of a u t o p i l o t was used f o r comparison purposes and was kept “off l i n e ” . This arrangement had an advantage
t h a t one l a n e of a u t o p i l o t could be e l i m i n a t e d but had t h e s e v e r e disadvantage t h a t t o l e r a n c e s i n f a u l t d i s -
c r i m i n a t i o n were even worse. It was d u r i n g t h e s e s t u d i e s t h a t t h e now dreaded term “nuisance disconnect” w a s
coined. Avoidance of nuisance alarms caused by u n r e l i a b l e d i s c r i m i n a t i o n between t o l e r a n c e s and f a i l u r e s w a s
t o become a major f e a t u r e of a l l f a i l - o p e r a t i v e systems development.

T h i s system was favoured at f i r s t as it reduced t h e main disadvantages of double d u a l concepts but w a s later-
discarded due t o : -
- D i f f i c u l t y i n providing t r i p l e s e n s o r s , aerials, etc.
- Cross comparison and i n t e r l o c k w i r i n g complexity
- High complexity and low confidence f a c t o r i n c e r t i f i c a t i o n f a i l u r e analysis.
17-4

The last c o n f i g u r a t i o n shows t h e philosophy chosen f o r t h e VC.10. This system w a s chosen as g i v i n g t h e b e s t

o v e r a l l s i m p l i c i t y , lowest weight and i n t e g r i t y and minimum s e n s o r and aerial requirements. It marked t h e
b i r t h of t h e d u p l i c a t e monitored concept. It comprised two s e l f monitored a u t o p i l o t s only one of which a c t u a l l y
drove t h e output a t any time. This e l i m i n a t e d t h e problem of f a u l t d i s c r i m i n a t i o n (between a u t o p i l o t s ) but
r a i s e d a new problem i n t h a t f a u l t s u r v i v a l was achieved through t h e engagement of a h e a l t h y a u t o p i l o t r a t h e r
t h a n j u s t through t h e disengagement of an unhealthy one.

This problem was not however, without a s o l u t i o n . I t was found t h a t , with one monitored a u t o p i l o t engaged
and t h e o t h e r i n a “standby” mode, ready t o t a k e over should t h e f i r s t one f a i l , it was p o s s i b l e t o monitor
both a u t o p i l o t s continuously and independently and t o make t h e process of changeover i t s e l f f a i l - o p e r a t i v e .
This was achieved by making a l l t h e a c t u a t i o n of t h e “standby” a u t o p i l o t a c t i v e by causing it t o follow up
t h e output of t h e f i r s t . F a i l u r e t o follow-up meant t h a t t h e standby a u t o p i l o t was i n o p e r a t i v e and t h i s was
d e t e c t e d through monitoring. The computing of t h e “standby” a u t o p i l o t was normally disconnected from i t s
a c t u a t i o n but f u l l y self-monitored. In t h i s way, t h e s a f e t y of t h e f a i l u r e s u r v i v a l mechanism was dependent
on t h e monitoring, t h e disconnection of a f a u l t y a u t o p i l o t (as is always t h e c a s e ) and t h e f u l l engagement of
an a l r e a d y o p e r a t i n g s e l f - c h e c k e d , standby a u t o p i l o t (a process which could be made as f a i l - s a f e as a u t o p i l o t
d i s c o n n e c t i o n ) . This p r o c e s s was known as “autochangeover” and was t o prove h i g h l y s u c c e s s f u l i n o p e r a t i o n .

The f i r s t time it was used “ i n anger” on t h e VC.10 was i n t h e autumn of 1966 when a f u l l y automatic landing
was completed following t h e i n j e c t i o n of a f u l l r a t e runaway at t h e start of f l a r e - o u t . Since t h a t occasion
t h e f a i l u r e s u r v i v a l c a p a b i l i t y has enabled t h e VC.10 t o demonstrate Category-IIIA landings on s e v e r a l o c c a s i o n s
(such weather being p l e n t i f u l i n t h e UK). On more than one occasion, automatic landings were accomplished under
t h e c o n d i t i o n s following changeover due t o genuine f a u l t s i n t h e a u t o p i l o t .

Of c o u r s e , c o n s i d e r a b l e d e t a i l e d development of t h e b a s i c philosophy i l l u s t r a t e d was necessary f o r automatic

landing. This development was h i g h l y s i g n i f i c a n t i n terms of what has now become accepted p r a c t i c e and included:-
- proving t h a t i n - l i n e monitoring was s a f e , p r a c t i c a l and e f f e c t i v e f o r t h e complete system ( i n c l u d i n g
sensors)
- development of more r e l i a b l e monitoring techniques by t h e use of “ s i g n a l c o n s o l i d a t i o n ” t o minimise
nuisance d i s c o n n e c t s
- proving t h e i n t e g r i t y of a changeover mechanism.

The last p o i n t was t o prove one of t h e h a r d e s t , not because of t e c h n i c a l problems but because a r e a c t i o n
developed a g a i n s t a concept of “changing over” c o n t r o l as it was f e l t t h a t t h i s could mean r e l i a n c e on a standby
a u t o p i l o t whose performance was unknown. The ways i n which t h i s is avoided have a l r e a d y been b r i e f l y d e s c r i b e d
and t h e only f u r t h e r j u s t i f i c a t i o n which can be given h e r e is t h a t t h e system works very e f f e c t i v e l y .

Furthermore, t h e performance v a r i a t i o n s between a u t o p i l o t s due t o normally expected t o l e r a n c e s do not i n any

way a f f e c t t h e f a i l - o p e r a t i v e process or t h e o v e r a l l performance of t h e a i r c r a f t d u r i n g landing. This means
t h a t t h e performance of t h e system with e i t h e r one o r with both a u t o p i l o t s s e l e c t e d is t h e same and t h i s was t o
make t h e p r o c e s s of t e s t i n g and c e r t i f i c a t i o n of t h e system very much more s t r a i g h t f o r w a r d than would otherwise
have been t h e c a s e .

Despite t h e f a c t t h a t t h e VC.10 was t h e f i r s t a i r c r a f t i n t h e world with a c e r t i f i c a t e d f a i l - o p e r a t i v e a u t o -

matic landing system, and t h e f a i t h which p i l o t s have demonstrated by using t h e system under b l i n d landing
c o n d i t i o n s , t h e r e s t i l l e x i s t s a body of opinion i n favour of p h i l o s o p h i e s similar t o t h o s e discarded by BAC
and E l l i o t t p r i o t t o 1960. I n f a c t , E l l i o t t i n i t i a t e d f u r t h e r r e s e a r c h i n t o more advanced methods of b r i n g i n g
t o g e t h e r t h e o u t p u t s ( o r “ c o n s o l i d a t i n g ” ) f a i l u r e s u r v i v a l systems i n 1961. This led t o t h e development of
f a i l u r e s u r v i v a l a c t u a t o r s which optimise t h e i n t e r f a c e between t h e channels of a u t o p i l o t and t h e f l y i n g c o n t r o l s .
I n 1969, t h e s e a c t u a t o r s a r e regarded as t h e optimum s o l u t i o n t o t h e p h i l o s o p h i c a l problems described b u t , s i n c e
they a r e not a p a r t of t h e VC.10 system they a r e not described here.

I n s t e a d , it is considered more u s e f u l t o d i s c u s s t h e experience gained i n t h e development and s e r v i c e use of

t h e VC. 10 system and t o c o n c e n t r a t e on t h o s e t o p i c s which have a l r e a d y become u n i v e r s a l l y adopted.

2.2 lhe Basic I n t e g r i t y of In-Line Monitoring

The VC.10 automatic landing system comprises two i n - l i n e monitored a u t o p i l o t s , each of which is capable of
g i v i n g “fail-passive’’ o p e r a t i o n . The j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r t h e use of i n - l i n e monitoring at a l l as a h i g h - i n t e g r i t y
means of g i v i n g f a i l - p a s s i v e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s was fundamental t o a l l d u a l , “double dual”, d u p l i c a t e monitored
f a i l - p a s s i v e and f a i l - o p e r a t i v e systems.

When c o n s i d e r i n g t h e means of designing a high i n t e g r i t y f a i l u r e - d e t e c t i n g system, t h e f i r s t scheme t h a t

comes t o mind is t o use two i d e n t i c a l channels s i d e by s i d e with a comparator a t t h e output checking f o r
d i f f e r e n c e s between t h e two channels (duplex system). As t h e d u p l i c a t i o n is complete, no f a i l u r e can escape
unnoticed, a t l e a s t i n a p e r f e c t system. However, i n p r a c t i c e t h e r e a r e t o l e r a n c e problems, which n e c e s s i t a t e
some element of c r o s s - s y n c h r o n i s a t i o n and a wide comparator t h r e s h o l d is r e q u i r e d t o avoid nuisance disconnects.

These problems can be g r e a t l y m i t i g a t e d by t h e s u b s t i t u t i o n of “ i n - l i n e ” monitored s e n s o r s i n s t e a d of f u l l

d u p l i c a t i o n . Both main and comparison o u t p u t s a r e then derived from t h e same s e n s o r i n each c a s e , and disconnect
demands a r e a f u n c t i o n of i n d i v i d u a l s e n s o r genuine f a i l u r e s , and n o t t h e cumulative t o l e r a n c e e r r o r s of a l l
 17-5

s e n s o r s t o g e t h e r . This is t h e b a s i c reason, a p a r t from weight c o n s i d e r a t i o n s , f o r using t h e i n - l i n e monitored

technique. However t h e r e d u c t i o n i n equipment does not mean a r e d u c t i o n i n f a i l u r e d e t e c t i o n i n t e g r i t y as is
i l l u s t r a t e d by t h e s u c c e s s i v e d e r i v a t i o n of t h e monitored p r i n c i p l e from t h e duplex p r i n c i p l e .

Hence t h e i n - l i n e monitored d u p l i c a t e moiiitored and “double-dual” concepts were shown t o be v i a b l e and

e s p e c i a l l y a t t r a c t i v e i n t h e c a s e where self-monitored s e n s o r s could be used. The fundamental work conducted
by BAC and E l l i o t t with t h e c o l l a b o r a t i o n of t h e Marconi Company and STC i n t h e VC.10 programme l e d t o t h e
c r e a t i o n of new s t a n d a r d s of a i r b o r n e monitored equipment.

2.3 Development o f I n - L i n e Monitoring

During t h e period 1959-1960, a s e r i e s of d e s i g n s and development programmes were undertaken by E l l i o t t with
t h e knowledge and approval of BAC and BOAC.

I n - l i n e monitoring was f i r s t a p p l i e d and t e s t e d f o r an automatic t h r o t t l e c o n t r o l system, t h e s p e c i a l technique

being used p r i m a r i l y i n t h e a i r s p e e d manometric t r a n s d u c e r . This system can d e t e c t i n t r i n s i c a l l y any f a i l u r e ,
anywhere w i t h i n i t s e l f .

E l l i o t t automatic t h r o t t l e systems f o r t h e VC.10, t h e BAC One-Eleven and t h e Anglo French Concorde were
developed d i r e c t l y from t h i s technology. E l l i o t t was t h e f i r s t company t o apply monitored A i r Data Systems t o
a i r c r a f t and u s e s t h e s e techniques e x t e n s i v e l y i n its C e n t r a l Air Data Computers. Some (but not a l l ) of t h e s e
p r a c t i c e s have s i n c e been approved by ARINC.

E l l i o t t developments followed q u i c k l y on i n - l i n e monitored d e s i g n s a c r o s s t h e breadth of automatic landing

system requirements. The i n - l i n e monitored r a d i o a l t i m e t e r achieves complete f a i l u r e d e t e c t i o n c a p a b i l i t y by
d u p l i c a t i o n only of t h e r e c e i v e r p o r t i o n , one h a l f of which i n c o r p o r a t e s a s e r i e s delay l i n e . The a e r i a l
i n s t a l l a t i o n is t h e same as r e q u i r e d f o r a simple a l t i m e t e r . This technique was f i r s t used i n t h e STR 51 r a d i o
a l t i m e t e r and is p a r t of t h e b a s i c automatic landing system f i t t e d t o BOAC’s Super VC.lO’s. S i n c e t h e s e develop-
ments, an ARINC c h a r a c t e r i s t i c has emerged.

I n - l i n e monitoring of ILS r e c e i v e r s was achieved by employing t h e two techniques of s e l f - c h e c k i n g of t h e main

r e c e i v e r element and d u p l i c a t i o n with c r o s s comparison of t h e f i l t e r output s t a g e s . This r e c e i v e r uses t h e same
a e r i a l i n s t a l l a t i o n as a simple r e c e i v e r . The VC.10 was t h e f i r s t a i r c r a f t i n t h e world t o have an i n - l i n e
monitored g l i d e s l o p e r e c e i v e r f i t t e d . I n c o l l a b o r a t i o n with E l l i o t t and BAC, t h e Marconi Company had f u l l y
developed and q u a l i f i e d its monitored r e c e i v e r by 1962, and it was f i t t e d as b a s i c equipment on every VC.10.
This technique was extended, t o ILS l o c a l i s e r r e c e i v e r s i n 1967. Since t h e s e achievements, very similar techniques
have received ARINC approval.

E l l i o t t has s i n c e designed s e v e r a l i n - l i n e monitored gyro packages ranging from a two wheel a t t i t u d e r e f e r e n c e ,

through a d i r e c t i o n a l and a t t i t u d e r e f e r e n c e (Fig. 17) t o a self-monitored i n e r t i a l platform ( E l l i o t t E5) which
employs f o r monitoring, t h e redundant axis of twin, two axis gas s p i n gyros. A l l of t h e s e u n i t s have servoed-
gimbals, which play an important p a r t i n t h e monitoring concept used. These developments were not a p p l i e d t o t h e
VC-10 b u t have s i n c e become s t a n d a r d p r a c t i c e i n i n e r t i a l platform technology.

I n - l i n e monitoring of a r a t e gyro is achieved by i n s t a l l i n g a narrow angle magnetic p u l s e g e n e r a t o r i n t h e

wheel. This can g i v e information t o determine wheel speed, d i r e c t i o n and gimbal s t i f f n e s s , which is s u f f i c i e n t
t o check o p e r a t i o n completely. These developments were not a p p l i e d t o t h e VC.10 s i n c e monitoring of t h e r a t e
gyroscopes was found t o be n o n - c r i t i c a l , but t h e developed gyroscopes were a p p l i e d t o m i l i t a r y VTOL a u t o -
s t a b i l i s e r systems from 1964 a f t e r c o n s i d e r a b l e p r i o r development and t e s t i n g . The gyros a t p r e s e n t a r e f i t t e d
t o a Royal A i r c r a f t Establishment a i r c r a f t which is being used f o r r e s e a r c h i n t o f a i l - o p e r a t i v e a u t o s t a b i l i s a -
t i o n and e l e c t r i c a l s i g n a l l i n g . To d a t e , t h e r e is no comparable monitored r a t e gyroscope a v a i l a b l e anywhere i n
t h e world.

2.4 Improved Self-Monitoring Techniques

I t has been r e a l i s e d p r i o r t o 1961 t h a t t h e use of i n - l i n e monitored s e n s o r s would give r i s e t o a s i g n i f i c a n t
reduction i n t h e t o l e r a n c e s a s s o c i a t e d with f a i l u r e d e t e c t i o n . Indeed, i n an i d e a l s i t u a t i o n , each of t h e d u a l
a u t o p i l o t s w a s s e e n t o be b e s t regarded as t h e sum of a number of s e r i e s monitored elements. Evidently t h e
more of t h e s e elements t h e r e were! t h e b e t t e r t h e d i s c r i m i n a t i o n between f a i l u r e s and t o l e r a n c e s due t o t h e
i n t r o d u c t i o n of “ c o n s o l i d a t i o n ” t e c h n i q u e s .

Furthermore, t h e very e x i s t e n c e of d i s t r i b u t e d monitored elements made it p o s s i b l e t o i d e n t i f y f a u l t s t o a

s p e c i f i c a r e a w i t h i n t h e system. The use of a number of monitor d e v i c e s f o r f a u l t d i a g n o s i s was a l s o based on
experience gained i n t h e development of t h e VC.10 automatic landing system.

The p r i n c i p l e s of s i g n a l c o n s o l i d a t i o n and of continuous monitoring with maintenance annunciation were

recognised very early i n t h e VC.10 development programme and have s i n c e become s t a n d a r d techniques. The use
of monitored computing elements extended beyond d i s c r e t e Line Replaceable Units (LRU) t o small s e c t i o n s of
computing, r e s u l t i n g i n 1962, i n t h e d e s i g n of a Monitored A u t o f l a r e Computer c o n t a i n i n g t h r e e i n d i v i d u a l
monitored d e v i c e s . In t h o s e days, before t h e common use of m i c r o e l e c t r o n i c s , it was not unreasonable t o use
a s e p a r a t e LRU f o r t h e computation of t h e p i t c h c o n t r o l f o r f l a r e - o u t . The p r e f a c e of computer t i t l e s by t h e
word “monitored” stems from t h i s d a t e and is now commonplace.
17-6

I n 1964 E l l i o t t designed an “ i n t e r l o c k Monitor” system t o l o c a t e which element of t h e automatic landing

system had f a i l e d i n t h e event of an i n t e r l o c k opening and causing a u t o p i l o t disconnect. I n t h o s e days,
a u t o p i l o t engagement was permitted when a d i s c r e t e number of s e r i e s r e l a y c o n t a c t s had been c l o s e d by t h e
d i s c r e t e monitor c i r c u i t s . The n a t u r e of t h e design was t h a t , i f one r e l a y opened, t h e r e would be subsequent
o p e r a t i o n of t h e o t h e r r e l a y s due t o t h e f a i l - s a f e method of combining t h e f a u l t d e t e c t i n g r e l a y c o n t a c t s .

F i g u r e 19 shows t h e equipment which was added t o t h e automatic landing system t o make use of t h e f a u l t
d e t e c t i o n l o g i c f o r “on aircraft” f a u l t d i a g n o s i s . It comprises a small d i g i t a l computer and a simple m u l t i -
lamp d i s p l a y panel and r e s e t switch. The I n t e r l o c k Monitor Computer s c a n s t h e s e r i e s of r e l a y i n t e r l o c k s and
d e t e c t s which one opens f i r s t . This t h e r e f o r e l o c a t e s t h e f a i l u r e t o t h e p a r t i c u l a r comparator, i d e n t i f i e d by
a corresponding lamp number on t h e d i s p l a y p a n e l . On t h e VC.10, t h e d i s p l a y panel is mounted at t h e F l i g h t
Engineer’s S t a t i o n , t h e computer being l o c a t e d i n t h e r a d i o compartment below t h e f l o o r .

The equipment was f i r s t used i n 1965 during f l i g h t t e s t i n g and was t o become s t a n d a r d equipment f o r BOAC
Considerable problems were encountered due t o t h e l a r g e number of i n t e r l o c k s which were i n use over long
p e r i o d s i n f l i g h t . The I n t e r l o c k Monitor was e v e n t u a l l y a b l e t o d i s c r i m i n a t e f a u l t s t o an a c c e p t a b l e l e v e l
of non-ambiguity only a f t e r c o n s i d e r a b l e refinement of t h e i n - l i n e monitoring design.

The use of “continuous monitoring” f o r maintenance purposes has now become accepted u n i v e r s a l l y and t h e
equipment used on t h e VC.10 is being a p p l i e d a l s o t o t h e Super BAC One-Eleven a i r c r a f t with very l i t t l e modifi-
c a t i o n . The Elliott-SFENA AFCS f o r Concorde a l s o has “ i n t e r l o c k ” monitor equipment as p a r t of its f l i g h t t e s t I

i n s t r u m e n t a t i o n package on t h e two p r o t o t y p e a i r c r a f t .

Nevertheless, t h e use of continuous monitoring techniques, where monitors a r e continuously scanned f o r long
p e r i o d s of time, has proved t o be prone t o “nuisance” i n d i c a t i o n s . The exposure t o t o l e r a n c e s is very s e v e r e
during long f l i g h t s under v a r y i n g f l i g h t modes of o p e r a t i o n and t h i s imposes requirements f o r h i g h l y a c c u r a t e
computing and monitoring.

The concept of continuous monitoring w a s a l s o a p p l i e d t o t h e t a s k of checking t h e i n t e g r i t y of t h e monitor

c i r c u i t s . This was t o e l i m i n a t e t h e p o s s i b i l i t y of undetected double f a i l u r e s causing a hazard. I n - l i n e
monitoring w a s found t o r e l y on t h e equipment being continuously i n o p e r a t i o n (such t h a t f a i l u r e s were immedi-
a t e l y apparent and r e c o g n i s e d ) . I t was necessary t o check t h e i n t e g r i t y of monitored d e v i c e s which were not
i n continuous use and which could f a i l i n an undetectable manner. T h i s a p p l i e d p a r t i c u l a r l y t o t h e r a d i o
a l t i m e t e r and t h e c i r c u i t r y used f o r t h e f l a r e o u t and landing c o n t r o l . S e v e r a l techniques were t r i e d , including:-

- p i l o t - i n i t i a t e d automatic monitor check (as p a r t of t h e o v e r a l l system s e l f check).

- a u t o m a t i c a l l y - i n i t i a t e d monitor check
- p r e - f l i g h t checks.

A d e c i s i o n was taken i n 1966 t o s e t t l e f o r t h e last method s i n c e it was t h e e a s i e s t t o embody at t h e time.

S i n c e t h a t time, of c o u r s e , automatic monitor checks have become normal p r a c t i c e .

2.5 P i l o t Displays

I t w a s recognised from t h e v e r y beginning t h a t p i l o t acceptance of automatic b l i n d landing would never be

obtained without some form of v i s u a l d i s p l a y . The aim was not t o put t h e p i l o t i n t o t h e c o n t r o l loop but t o
e n a b l e him t o e x e r c i s e h i s command and use h i s judgement throughout t h e landing.

An e a r l y d e c i s i o n was made t o i n c o r p o r a t e t h e d i s p l a y information “head up”. In 1962 when t h i s work began,

t h e r e was not a v a i l a b l e a s u i t a b l e f u l l y - c o l l i m a t e d Head-Up Display system (HUD) f o r use with t h e automatic
landing system. It was decided t o develop a s p e c i a l coaming-mounted d i s p l a y s o t h a t monitoring of t h e approach
and landing could be c a r r i e d o u t by t h e c a p t a i n while he searched f o r v i s u a l cues. It w a s hoped t h a t a minimum
of r e - f o c u s i n g could be achieved by a s l i m - l i n e coaming mounted u n i t . This came t o be known as a “ s i t u a t i o n
display”.

Figure 2 1 shows t h e kind of information which was considered a p p l i c a b l e t o t h e s i t u a t i o n d i s p l a y . A white

a r e a i n t h e c e n t r e showed a gradually-reducing ”manoeuvre boundary” with a height t a p e d r i v e n by a r a d i o
altimeter. A r o t a t i n g c y l i n d e r e i t h e r s i d e of t h e white a r e a showed p i t c h and azimuth d e v i a t i o n about t h e
normal a n t i c i p a t e d f l i g h t p r o f i l e . This d i s p l a y was intended t o be “ a t t e n t i o n g e t t i n g ” once a f i x e d e r r o r
t h r e s h o l d had been achieved. On e i t h e r s i d e of t h e d e v i a t i o n c y c l i n d e r were event i n d i c a t o r s s i g n a l l i n g t h e
important phases of t h e approach and landing.

S e v e r a l d e s i g n s were evaluated i n t h e l a b o r a t o r y and on a t e s t a i r c r a f t . The l a s t type i l l u s t r a t e d was

f i t t e d t o t h e VC.10 d u r i n g i t s f l i g h t t e s t programme but was only marginally s a t i s f a c t o r y t o t h e f l i g h t crew.
Despite t h e very much s i m p l i f i e d d e v i a t i o n information, it was found t h a t t h e p i l o t s tended t o c o n c e n t r a t e
t h e i r a t t e n t i o n c l o s e l y while “head-up’’ during a landing and even t h i s s i m p l i f i e d p r e s e n t a t i o n could not be
e f f e c t i v e l y a s s i m i l a t e d . D i f f i c u l t i e s were a l s o encountered i n g i v i n g good c o n t r a s t without d i s t r a c t i o n and
r e f l e c t i o n s under a l l .day/night c o n d i t i o n . Furthermore, t h e use of a d i g i t a l v e r t i c a l t a p e r a d i o a l t i m e t e r
d i s p l a y was found much l e s s s a t i s f a c t o r y than t h e conventional c i r c u l a r instrument and, i n 1966 t h e s e develop-
ments were abandoned. The experience gained with them was, however, i n v a l u a b l e as background t o t h e f i n a l
d e s i g n chosen. I t was a s u r p r i s i n g outcome from t h i s work t h a t v i s u a l performance monitoring even u s i n g very
 17-7

much s i m p l i f i e d information was not v i a b l e d u r i n g l o w - v i s i b i l i t y landings. A l l t h a t could be a s s i m i l a t e d i n

t h i s environment was simple event information and a “go/no-go” performance monitor. This was c e r t a i n l y t r u e
of t h e Category I1 s i t u a t i o n , where v i s u a l c l u e s were c r i t i c a l t o t h e o p e r a t i o n and where missed approach
procedures had t o be i n i t i a t e d d e c i s i v e l y when necessary.

The VC-10 was f i t t e d i n 1967 with simple warning l i g h t s mounted under t h e coaming.

These showed:-

Land Arm - f l a s h i n g blue when land mode was a v a i l a b l e - changing t o s t e a d y b l u e when land was
selected

A t t i t u d e Hold - white l i g h t when g l i d e s l o p e c o n t r o l d i s c o n t i n u e d , t h e l i g h t extinguished at f l a r e o u t

initiation

ILS L i m i t - a r e d l i g h t which i n d i c a t e d degraded performance down t o t h e start of f l a r e o u t .

I n a d d i t i o n , an ILS d e v i a t i o n i n d i c a t o r g i v i n g h i g h - l o w - l e f t - r i g h t information was mounted i n t h e c e n t r e of

t h e instrument panel. This was used t o g i v e a confidence-check t h a t t h e ILS l i m i t monitoring w a s o p e r a t i v e
and was used d u r i n g c a p t u r e of t h e ILS.

The philosophy behind t h e ILS l i m i t alarm boundary was t h a t it measured t h e mean d e v i a t i o n about t h e ILS
l o c a l i s e r and g l i d e s l o p e and showed a warning i f t h i s exceeded approximately t h r e e times t h e standard d e v i a t i o n
of a “good” system.

3 . E N G I N E E R I N G D E V E L O P M E N T S OF T H E V C . 1 0 S Y S T E M

By 1959, E l l i o t t had b u i l t a complete breadboard of t h e d u a l a u t o p i l o t and i n t e g r a t e d it with an a u t o p i l o t

systems r i g .

A f u l l analogue r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of t h e a i r c r a f t was included i n t h e r i g using E l l i o t t G-PAC analogue computers.

The loop was c l o s e d through t h e system gyroscopes by t h e simple expedient of using a converted “Link” t r a i n e r .
This proved e f f e c t i v e i n i t i a l l y although it d i d cause some c o n s t e r n a t i o n once when’the analogue computing was
switched t o “ten t i m e s r e a l time” mode (having been l e f t i n t h i s c o n d i t i o n a f t e r some pure aerodynamic work).
The c o n s t e r n a t i o n was purely because someone was i n t h e Link t r a i n e r at t h e time!

A t f i r s t t h e loop was c l o s e d one a x i s at a time by t h e use of a power c o n t r o l u n i t i n t h e l a b o r a t o r y . This

was u s e f u l i n e s t a b l i s h i n g t h e s e r v o loop o p e r a t i o n and s t a b i l i t y but proved somewhat noisy.

I n 1960, t h e E l l i o t t r i g components were moved t o t h e BAC ( t h e n Vickers) “ i r o n b i r d ” r i g a t Weybridge, Surrey

and t h e a u t o p i l o t was married t o t h e f l y i n g c o n t r o l s , e l e c t r i c a l g e n e r a t i o n , h y d r a u l i c system and a i r c r a f t wiring
i n s t a l l a t ion.

The i r o n b i r d r i g had a t h r e e a x i s gyro t a b l e d r i v e n from t h e analogue computing which, with t h e breadboard

a u t o p i l o t , was l o c a t e d i n a s e p a r a t e Control Room. The a u t o p i l o t breadboard was r a c k mounted t o g e t h e r with its
t e s t equipment. E x t r a wiring looms connected t h e a u t o p i l o t t o t h e r e p r e s e n t a t i v e r a d i o racking on t h e i r o n b i r d
s o t h a t t h e l a t e r i n t r o d u c t i o n of black boxes could be a p p l i e d e i t h e r i n s i d e t h e c o n t r o l room o r i n t h e r a d i o
racking. The concept of s e p a r a t i o n of t h e two h a l v e s of t h e d u a l system ( t h e “brick wall” philosophy) was a l s o
s t r i c t l y a p p l i e d t o t h e breadboard phase of t h e programme.

Considerable development e f f o r t was a p p l i e d t o t h e i n t e g r a t e d autopilot/power c o n t r o l i n t e r f a c e and t e s t s were

a l s o conducted on t h e i r o n b i r d t o e s t a b l i s h p i l o t acceptance of t h i s system.

The i r o n b i r d r i g was t o prove an invaluable a s s e t t o t h e programme and was e x t e n s i v e l y used throughout f l i g h t

t e s t i n g of t h e a i r c r a f t . I t enabled t h e many novel f e a t u r e s of t h e system c o n f i g u r a t i o n t o gain acceptance by
p i l o t s and t h e c e r t i f i c a t i n g a u t h o r i t i e s and was t h e main means of t r a i n i n g personnel involved i n t h e c l e a r a n c e
and acceptance of t h e a i r c r a f t .

I t was l a r g e l y due t o t h e work done on t h e i r o n b i r d t h a t t h e VC.10 flew with o p e r a t i v e yaw a u t o s t a b i l i s a t i o n

on its maiden f l i g h t i n 1963. During t h e programme which followed, “ i r o n b i r d ” was used f o r simulated f l i g h t
t e s t work and led t o d a t a being published i n support of t h e a i r c r a f t c e r t i f i c a t i o n . The t e s t s were complementary
t o t h o s e c a r r i e d out i n f l i g h t and covered performance and f a i l u r e e f f e c t s i n g r e a t d e t a i l . S u f f i c i e n t compara-
t i v e measurements were t a k e n t o enable r e l a t i o n s h i p between f l i g h t t e s t and i r o n b i r d r e s u l t s t o be compared.
I n g e n e r a l , it was found t h a t t h e a i r c r a f t was more f o r g i v i n g than i r o n b i r d s o t h a t , f o r t h e i n i t i a l s t a n d a r d
of c e r t i f i c a t i o n , acceptance of r i g r e s u l t s was s t r a i g h t f o r w a r d .

One i n t e r e s t i n g technique e s t a b l i s h e d d u r i n g t h e development of t h e c r u i s e a u t o p i l o t wa-, t h e i n c l u s i o n of

a i r d a t a equipment i n t h e simulated dynamic c o n t r o l loop, without complicated manometric devices (which were
l a t e r t o be used d u r i n g automatic landing development). This coupled analogue s i g n a l s from t h e s i m u l a t o r
/
d i r e c t l y i n t o t h e Air Data Computer c a p s u l e s e r v o loop s o t h a t manometric modes couJd be t e s t e d very r e a l i s t i c a l l y

During t h e i r o n b i r d system c e r t i f i c a t i o n programme, a i r crew t r a i n i n g was c a r r i e d out a t Weybridge and t h i s

helped t o ease t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n i n t o s e r v i c e of t h i s comparatively s o p h i s t i c a t e d a i r c r a f t .
17-8

I n 1964 t h e i r o n b i r d was up dated t o include autoflare,components including t h e autochangeover c a p a b i l i t y .

This f a i l u r e - s u r v i v a l technique was thoroughly t e s t e d f o r a y e a r and underwent c o n s i d e r a b l e d e s i g n improvement
during t h i s period.

Due t o t h e comparatively small number of VC.10 a i r c r a f t being b u i l t and t h e i r revenue earning c a p a b i l i t y ,

it proved t o be d i f f i c u l t t o o b t a i n a l l o c a t i o n of an a i r c r a f t t o t h e a u t o f l a r e programme u n t i l 1965. The
f l i g h t t e s t programme proved t h a t t h e achievement of a very high accuracy of approach and touchdown performance
would be necessary t o o b t a i n p i l o t acceptance. Considerable d i f f i c u l t y was experienced i n t h e development of
t h e g l i d e s l o p e c o n t r o l t o achieve t h i s aim without undue c o n t r o l a c t i v i t y . Moreover, t h e achievement of
adequate s t a b i l i t y margins could only be assured by t h e use of phase-advance. T h i s made t h e system p a r t i c u l a r l y
s e n s i t i v e t o n o i s e on t h e guidance beam.

After 150 a u t o f l a r e s had been accomplished, it became c l e a r t h a t a u t o f l a r e as an a i r l i n e s t a n d a r d of equip-

ment was u n d e s i r a b l e . Already elsewhere i n t h e world developments towards Category I1 o p e r a t i o n were proceeding.
Furthermore, t h e p r a c t i c e of p i l o t c o n t r o l i n r o l l with a u t o p i l o t c o n t r o l i n p i t c h was not l i k e d by p i l o t s .

Accordingly, i n 1966, a programme f o r t h e extension of t h e a u t o f l a r e system t o f u l l automatic landing was

commenced. An improved “ i n t e g r a l bank c o n t r o l law” (which had been s t u d i e d f o r t h e VC.10 i n 1961 and c e r t i f i -
c a t e d on t h e E l l i o t t 2000 s e r i e s a u t o p i l o t f o r t h e BAC One-Eleven i n 1965) was a p p l i e d . A programme of develop-
ment and c e r t i f i c a t i o n f l y i n g was embarked on i n August 1966 which was completed i n January 1967. The first
time t h a t runaways were i n j e c t e d i n t o t h e p i t c h plane during f l a r e o u t was i n t h e Autumn of 1966 and t h e f a i l u r e
s u r v i v a l system worked p e r f e c t l y . S i n c e t h e n n e a r l y 700 f u l l y automatic landings were c a r r i e d o u t at e i g h t
s u i t a b l e a i r f i e l d s i n t h e United Kingdom. This work led t o t h e system being a s s e s s e d as s a t i s f a c t o r y by t h e
Air R e g i s t r a t i o n Board and r e t r o s p e c t i v e modification work on production hardware commenced.

Clearance of t h e system was based on a d e t a i l e d f a u l t a n a l y s i s i n which t h e f a i l u r e modes and t h e i r e f f e c t s

were f u l l y documented. This was organised bearing i n mind t h e known d e s i g n philosophy and its primary purpose
was t o show t h a t t h e s t a t e d s a f e t y f e a t u r e s of t h e design were achieved i n p r a c t i c e . The e f f e c t i v e n e s s of t h e
i n - l i n e monitoring i n p r o t e c t i o n a g a i n s t system f a i l u r e s had been comprehensively e v a l u a t e d and documented
following f l i g h t t e s t i n g and work done on i r o n b i r d . An a d d i t i o n a l but v i t a l piece of c e r t i f i c a t i o n documenta-
t i o n was an i n t e g r i t y a n a l y s i s whose purpose was t o prove t h a t t h e s t a n d a r d of performance achieved was accept.-
a b l y s a f e . T h i s a n a l y s i s was based on a s t a t i s t i c a l assessment of r i s k s and took account of a l l t h e “what i f s ”
which t h e design teams and t h e c e r t i f i c a t i n g a u t h o r i t i e s could t h i n k o f . It was a g a i n s t t h i s a n a l y s i s and t h e
f l i g h t t e s t performance d a t a t h a t t h e c e r t i f i c a t i o n and l i m i t i n g wind c o n d i t i o n s were based. The compilation
of s t a t i s t i c a l performance d a t a was based on t h e p r e p a r a t i o n of performance histograms which included measured
environmental c o n d i t i o n s and t h e e f f e c t s of f a i l u r e modes.

3.1 Important F e a t u r e s of t h e F l i g h t T e s t Programme

The f l i g h t test programme c a r r i e d out i n 1966 and 1967 was aimed at proving:-

- performance of t h e approach and landing c o n t r o l system

- e f f e c t i v e n e s s of t h e i n - l i n e monitoring i n g i v i n g each a u t o p i l o t a f a i l - p a s s i v e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c
- e f f e c t i v e n e s s of t h e f a i l - o p e r a t i v e c o n t r o l i n g i v i n g an adequate and s a f e landing following i n j e c t i o n
of f a i l u r e s i n t o e i t h e r a u t o p i l o t
- acceptance by f l i g h t t e s t and a i r l i n e p i l o t s of t h e approach procedures and performance
- acceptance by ground crews of t h e standard and t h e r e q u i r e d maintenance procedures.
Of t h e s e a r e a s , t h e f i r s t f o u r were developed and proved by f l i g h t t r i a l s and ground based systems a n a l y s i s
while ground based a n a l y s i s and t h e p a r t i c i p a t i o n of BOAC maintenance engineers ensured t h e last aim.

Also included as a maintenance a i d was t h e E l l i o t t I n t e r l o c k Monitor which i d e n t i f i e d any a u t o p i l o t s a f e t y

i n t e r l o c k t h a t , o p e n e d i n f l i g h t . This w a s invaluable i n “debugging” t h e i n - l i n e monitoring system and a l s o
confirmed t h e o p e r a t i o n of t h e monitoring when f a i l u r e s were i n j e c t e d i n f l i g h t .

Items which experience had shown t o be of p a r t i c u l a r importance were:-

- t h e performance of t h e l o c a l i s e r and g l i d e s l o p e c a p t u r e and holding, speed holding, a t t i t u d e hold,
f l a r e - o u t and l o c a l i s e r holding d u r i n g decrab.

- t h e v a r i a b i l i t y of performance due t o : -
- change of a i r c r a f t c o n f i g u r a t i o n e . g . weight, approach speed, f l a p s e t t i n g s
- wind g u s t s , t u r b u l e n c e and s h e a r
- ILS beam n o i s e and bends
- Radio Altimeter t e r r a i n n o i s e
- v a r i a t i o n of ILS beam s e n s i t i v i t y .
- t h e e f f e c t of f a i l u r e s e . g . : -
- a u t o p i l o t runaways
- trim and engine f a i l u r e s .
- the e f f e c t of v i s i b i l i t y of t h e o p e r a t i o n under f o g - s c r e e n , a c t u a l fog, r a i n , snow and f a l l i n g snow
cond i t ions.
 17-9

To demonstrate t h e a c c e p t a b i l i t y of t h e system, it was necessary t o g a t h e r and p r o c e s s a c o n s i d e r a b l e q u a n t i t y

of d a t a . . Experience showed t h a t t h e assessment of o v e r a l l performance by t h e f l i g h t crew was as v i t a l as t h e
performance d a t a . Indeed, s p e c i a l t e c h n i q u e s were t o be developed i n o r d e r t o a s s e s s both t y p e s of d a t a
adequately.

Airborne r e c o r d i n g f a c i l i t i e s c o n s i s t e d of an a i r c r a f t and a u t o p i l o t i n s t r u m e n t a t i o n system i n a d d i t i o n t o

t h e c o n v e n t i o n a l camera r e c o r d i n g s of primary instruments and c r a s h r e c o r d e r system.. Outputs of both primary
d a t a and a u t o p i l o t - p r o c e s s e d s i g n a l s and a u t o p i l o t mode and engagement switching were obtained v i a t e s t s o c k e t s
on t h e a u t o p i l o t black boxes and t r a n s d u c e r s on t h e a i r f r a m e . Analogue p r e s e n t a t i o n of t h e d a t a was decided
on s i n c e t h i s made f o r a q u i c k e r understanding of t h e o v e r a l l o p e r a t i o n of t h e system.

Each a u t o p i l o t had its a s s o c i a t e d i n s t r u m e n t a t i o n patch-board on which was s e l e c t e d t h e s i g n a l s t o be recorded.

These were f e d t o 50 channel F and E u l t r a - v i o l e t r e c o r d e r s v i a b u f f e r , demodulator and c a l i b r a t i o n processing
u n i t s . To avoid any danger of degrading t h e i n t e g r i t y of t h e a u t o p i l o t s , s t r i c t s e p a r a t i o n of t h e two instrumen-
t a t ion channels was maintained.

Ground based r e c o r d i n g systems comprised a synchronised d u a l k i n e - t h e o d o l i t e i n s t a l l a t ion at t h e Royal A i r c r a f t

Establishment a i r f i e l d at Bedford and p o r t a b l e d e v i a t i o n cameras provided by t h e B r i t i s h A i r c r a f t Corporation.
The k i n e - t h e o d o l i t e s enabled s p a t i a l d e v i a t i o n s and d e v i a t i o n rates t o be computed i n a l l t h r e e axes below 500 f t
a l t i t u d e while t h e d e v i a t i o n cameras, mounted 500 f t from runway t h r e s h o l d , gave l o n g i t u d i n a l and l a t e r a l d i s p e r -
s i o n s a t touchdown.

The p r o c e s s i n g of d a t a was aimed a t demonstrating: -

- compliance with t h e s p e c i f i c a t i o n agreed between BAC, BOAC and E l l i o t t
- s a t i s f y i n g t h e requirements of t h e c e r t i f i c a t i n g a u t h o r i t y
- providing s t a t i s t i c a l d a t a f o r assessment of l i m i t i n g c o n d i t i o n s f o r t h e system.

For purpose o f development, t h e e f f e c t s on performance of a i r c r a f t c o n f i g u r a t i o n , wind speed and d i r e c t i o n ,

t u r b u l e n c e , f a i l u r e c a s e s and a i r f i e l d c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s ( i n c l u d i n g ILS beams) needed t o be known s o t h a t design
a c t i o n could be t a k e n t o e l i m i n a t e any unnecessary over-dependence on any one c r i t e r i o n .

To t h e s e ends, t h e performance histograms were grouped t o show p a r t i c u l a r t r e n d s of i n t e r e s t . I n a d d i t i o n ,

t h e r e s u l t s which r e l a t e d t o i n - s p e c i f i c a t i o n c o n d i t i o n s were combined t o i n d i c a t e compliance with s p e c i f i c a t i o n
on a s t a t i s t i c a l b a s i s . The d a t a flow is i l l u s t r a t e d . F a i l u r e cases were superimposed on t h e normal performance
c a s e s i n o r d e r t o demonstrate t h a t t h e s p e c i f i c a t i o n was being met d e s p i t e i n j e c t i o n f a i l u r e s .

The r e s u l t s i l l u s t r a t e d a r e t y p i c a l of what was achieved d u r i n g 1966 t o 1967.

3.2 Problems Encountered d u r i n g 1967 and 1968

Due t o high s t a n d a r d of performance being achieved, it was found t h a t t h e margin between performance and
s t a b i l i t y w a s narrow when t h e r e a l e f f e c t s of n o i s e , l i n e a r i t y and t o l e r a n c e s were taken i n t o account. Over
t h e , l o n g p e r i o d of development, equipment m o d i f i c a t i o n s had grown t o a very l a r g e number indeed. Although
t h i s number of m o d i f i c a t i o n s had covered c o n s i d e r a b l e innovations i n automatic landing technology, it proved
t o be a problem when t h e system was “productionised”. One outcome was t h a t t h e “end t o end” c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s
of t h e system hardware normally measured i n production proved inadequate t o d e f i n e t h e l i n e a r i t y and dynamic
response which t h e high performance r e q u i r e d . S t a b i l i t y of g l i d e s l o p e and l o c a l i s e r t r a c k modes with “Land”
s e l e c t e d was marginal and o s c i l l a t i o n s were found t o occur. F o r t u n a t e l y , t h e performance with “Land” not
s e l e c t e d w a s a c c e p t a b l e . Accordingly, c e r t i f i c a t i o n of t h e system was r e s t r i c t e d when BOAC took d e l i v e r y of
t h e i r a i r c r a f t (one of t h e new Super V C . l O s ) . A programme of a n a l y s i s t o compare production and f l i g h t test
hardware was t h e n embarked on u s i n g dynamic t e s t i n g t e c h n i q u e s and t h i s enabled a i r c r a f t t o a i r c r a f t and
system t o system v a r i a b i l i t y t o be accounted f o r i n meaningful terms. Although BOAC gave every a s s i s t a n c e
p o s s i b l e , a i r c r a f t were only a v a i l a b l e f o r t h i s a n a l y s i s work f o r s h o r t p e r i o d s of time. During t h e period
1967 t o 1968, d e s i g n improvements were introduced t o minimise v a r i a b i l i t y e f f e c t s . This led t o c e r t i f i c a t i o n
being achieved i n 1968 and BOAC c a r r i e d o u t t h e i r f i r s t automatic. landing with passengers on May 1 6 t h 1968.
This was t h e f i r s t time a f a i l - o p e r a t i v e automatic landing system was used i n passenger c a r r y i n g o p e r a t i o n s .

During t h e subsequent o p e r a t i o n s i n BOAC s e r v i c e , an unexpected v a r i a b i l i t y i n touchdown rates of descent

w a s a l s o encountered and immediate d e s i g n improvements were put i n hand. A f t e r thorough s i m u l a t i o n and system
t e s t i n g , t h e modified f l a r e o u t law was embodied i n February 1969 and t h i s gave rise t o a g r e a t l y reduced
performance s c a t t e r and touchdown s i n k r a t e . The r e s u l t of a l l t h i s i n - s e r v i c e exnerience and product improve-
ment was t o produce a more r e l i a b l e and repeatabLe system f o r BOAC. I t culminated i n Super VC.10 G-ASGR
c’arrying out f u l l automatic landing on i t s f i r s t t e s t f l i g h t on March 8 t h . On March 1 4 t h t h e world’s a i r l i n e s
r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s f l e w on t h i s same a i r c r a f t at t h e Royal A i r c r a f t Establishment, Bedford, England. On t h e morning
of t h e demonstration, t h e a i r c r a f t made two Category I I I B landings at London (Gatwick) a i r p o r t on its t h i r d t e s t
f l i g h t . These r e s u l t s demonstrate t h e i n c r e a s i n g confidence i n t h e use of t h e system and its importance as a
major a i r c r a f t system.
17-10

4 . C O N C L U S I O N S B A S E D ON T H E E X P E R I E N C E G A I N E D

The programme t o d a t e has t a k e n more than t e n years of r e s e a r c h and development t o achieve a s a t i s f a c t o r y

standard i n o p e r a t i o n . During t h i s period many innovations were developed i n o r d e r t o make t h e d u a l f a i l u r e -
s u r v i v a l system p r a c t i c a l . These innovations d i r e c t l y relate t o what is now recognised technology. It w a s
found t h a t no amount of t h e o r e t i c a l a n a l y s i s could compensate f o r t h e p r a c t i c a l t e s t i n g of hardware on r i g s ,
o n - a i r c r a f t ground checks and i n f l i g h t . I n o r d e r t o make t h e b e s t p r o g r e s s , it was b e s t t o carry out q u i t e
e l a b o r a t e o n - a i r c r a f t t e s t i n g u s i n g aerodynamic s i m u l a t o r s and dynamic response t e s t equipment t o ensure a
r e p e a t a b l e s t a n d a r d of performance during f l i g h t t e s t . These t e s t s were repeated t o good e f f e c t d u r i n g t h e
i n i t i a l phases of production c l e a r a n c e .

This background of d e t a i l e d experience has l e d t o a number of n o t a b l e achievements i n a v i o n i c systems f o r

modern c i v i l t r a n s p o r t a i r c r a f t . These r e f l e c t t h e growing importance of a v i o n i c systems as f e a t u r e s of t h e
b a s i c a i r c r a f t . The experience gained by BAC and E l l i o t t i n making a v i o n i c systems s a f e and dependable h a s
r e f l e c t e d i n t h e following s i g n i f i c a n t m i l e s t o n e s : -

- vc.10 maiden f l i g h t with o p e r a t i v e yaw dampers i n 1962

- vc.10 f a i l - o p e r a t i v e automatic landing d u r i n g f i r s t test f l i g h t i n March 1969

- Concorde i n c o n j u n c t i o n with Sud Aviation and SFENA, a t h r e e a x i s f a i l - o p e r a t i v e a u t o s t a b i l i s e r and

automatic t h r o t t l e system engaged and i n use t o touchdown on its maiden f l i g h t i n March 1969.

Achievements l i k e t h i s t a k e on a s p e c i a l importance as c i v i l a i r c r a f t are r e q u i r e d t o o p e r a t e at higher

speeds and i n reduced landing v i s i b i l i t y . The growth of passenger t r a f f i c which is p r e d i c t e d t o c o n t i n u e , can
only come about through more a i r c r a f t movements o r through bigger a i r c r a f t . More movements can only happen
given more r o u t e s , more r e g u l a r i t y , o r more speed ( i . e . more a i r c r a f t ) while t h e growth i n s i z e e n a b l e s fewer
a i r c r a f t t o c a r r y more passengers - provided t h e y have a high despatch and a r r i v a l r e l i a b i l i t y . Thus a v i o n i c s
have become a major f e a t u r e of a i r c r a f t programmes and t h e success of a i r l i n e o p e r a t i o n s i n t h e n e a r f u t u r e
w i l l depend l a r g e l y on t h e r e l i a b i l i t y and a v a i l a b i l i t y of t h o s e a i d s which enable c i v i l a i r c r a f t t o o p e r a t e
f a s t e r o r t o more r e l i a b l e schedules. The VC. 10 and Concorde were two a i r c r a f t with i n t e g r a t e d a i r f r a m e / a v i o n i c s
programmes and t h e s e have made c o n s i d e r a b l e in-roads i n t o t h e t e c h n i c a l and management problems involved i n
achieving dependable a v i o n i c s .

One s i g n i f i c a n t l e s s o n learned through t h e s e developments is t h e v i t a l importance of programme c o n t i n u i t y .

The f a c t t h a t , f o r Concorde, automatic landing was regarded as “ j u s t a n o t h e r a u t o p i l o t / f l i g h t d i r e c t o r mode”,
has c o n t r i b u t e d t o t h e i n i t i a l s u c c e s s e s with t h a t p a r t i c u l a r programme.

E l l i o t t has been undertaking p r i v a t e developments i n t o extending t h i s s t a t e of t h e art still f u r t h e r with

t h e aim of f u r t h e r reducing t h e programme t i m e s c a l e f o r i n t r o d u c i n g automatic landing on new a i r c r a f t . This
has been t a c k l e d by a newer technology which g i v e s t h e a b i l i t y t o develop systems more r a p i d l y and f l e x i b l y
and t o produce them e a r l i e r i n t h e programme s o t h a t q u a n t i t y d e l i v e r i e s t o a i r l i n e s can be a t t h e f u l l a u t o -
matic landing s t a n d a r d from f i r s t c e r t i f i c a t i o n . The achievement of dependable automatic landing and p r o f i t a b l e
o p e r a t i o n s by a i r l i n e s has been shown by experience t o be as dependent on t h e continuous a p p l i c a t i o n of new
t e c h n o l o g i c a l t h i n k i n g as on a s y s t e m a t i c development programme.
 11-11

Fig.1 Swer VC.10

" I
M P l O V
FEELLNT

Fig.2 VC.10 s p l i t surface flying controls

Fig.3 Categories of automtic landing

17-12

Fig.4 Automatic approach and landing aewence

Fig.5 VC. 10 duplicate monitored autogilot

 Auioriior ENOAOE
DEVICE

COMPAR110U
AYIOPILDI No.1

COMPARATOR
(2 INPUT1
L--.---J
-*' FLUNG
CONTROLS

Fig.6 Double-dual installation Fig.? Dual a u t o p i l o t with shared monitor

Fig. 8 Duplicate monitored concept Fig. 9 Duplex system

Fig. 10 One s e n s o r monitored Fig. 11 A l l s e n s o r s monitored

Key t o Figures 9 t o 13

RA : Radio Altimeter ACT : Actuator

R, : Ground Guidmce Receiver (e.g. ILS) A &C : Adder and Comparator
G : Gyro INV RESP : Inverse @agowe of Actuator Bema
C : Cownter MON RA : Monitored Radio Altimeter
Aa9 : A i r hrta System MON % : Monitored Radio Receiver (e.g. 116)
6 : W n c h r o n i s e r (low a u t h o r i t y ) MON 0 : Monitored Gyro
0 : Disconnect Device W N ADS : Monitored A i r Data System
11-14

Fig. 12 Completely monitored system

Fig. 13 Duplicate monitored system

Fig.15 S e l f monitored rsdio altimeter

Fig. 14 Monitored automatic throttle system

Fig. 16 Self monitored glideslope receiver

Fig. 17 R i n c i v l e of self monitored attitude reference

, I .

i,.

Fig.18 Principle of s e l f monitored rate w r o s c o w ~ i g19

. 1n-line monitored vrincivle aDvlied t o a
f a i l - v m s i v e autovi1ot
 11-15

Fig. 20 Interlock monitor system

Fig.21 An early design of situation display (1962)

Fig.22 Other designs evaluated between 1963 and 1966

17-16

Fig. 23 VC. 10 autopilot rig (Borehamwood)

Fig.24 VC. 10 autopilot rig (Waybridge)

Fig.25 VC.10 three axis gyro table

 17-17

D E V I AT ION
\\- DUAL KINE

THEODOLITES
CAMERAS
F I L M O/P

I I
'7''v I
READER READER

D I G I T A L COMPUTER(S1

*
P E FO R M A N C E H I S T O G R A M S

Fig.26 Derivation of performance histograms

N=260
S.D. About Beam = 1 2 1 mv.

N=258
S.D. About Beam = 4 0 mv.

Fig.27 Histogram of deviation cr 100' Fig.28 Histogram of deviation p 100'

17-18

N = 126
Mean = 2.79 ft./sec.
S.D. About Mean = 087ft.lsec.

1 J 4 5
r l . / H c.

Fig.29 Histogram of the v e r t i c a l v e l o c i t y at touchdown

N = 89
Mean Beyond I.L.S. Ref. Point = 1,002ft.
S.D. About Mean = 190ft.
YI

(0

JO
NO
10

1100 1400 Id00

Fig.30 Histogram of longitudinal touchdown points

1<

I*

.'OI

I1

Fig.31 Variations of standard deviations with range

 18

THE ,AUTOPILOT FOR THE C-141

ALL WEATHER LANDING SYSTEM

Thomas L. Cronley' and Robert E. Glackent

*Lockheed-Georgia Company
Division of Lockheed Aircraft Corp., Marietta, Georgia.

tNavigation and Control Division

The Bendix Corporation, Teterboro, New Jersey.
18

I
 THE AUTOPILOT FOR THE C - 1 4 1
ALL WEATHER L A N D I N G SYSTEM

Thomas L.Cronley and Robert E.Glacken

1. INTRODUCTION

The A l l Weather Landing System (AWLS) concept i n v o l v e s t h e i n t e g r a t i o n of v a r i o u s subsystems c o n s i s t i n g of

t h e a u t o p i l o t , which is t h e major concern of t h i s paper, t h e F l i g h t D i r e c t o r System (FDS), A u t o - t h r o t t l e System
(ATS), Rotation Go-Around Computer (RGA), t h e means f o r d e c i s i o n h e i g h t i d e n t i f i c a t i o n , f a i l u r e monitoring, and
t h e ground based Instrument Landing System (ILS) equipment. The AWLS of which t h i s a u t o p i l o t is a p a r t exceeds
t h e minimum a i r b o r n e equipment c o n s i d e r a t i o n s of FAA Advisory C i r c u l a r 120-20 f o r r e a s o n s of t h e Autoland capa-
b i l i t y and t h e a n t i c i p a t i o n of t h e a d d i t i o n of an automatic decrab function.

The system i n essence meets a Category I1 and a h a l f c r i t e r i o n wherein automatic touchdown under v i s u a l condi-
t i o n s is p e r m i t t e d below t h e Category I1 d e c i s i o n a l t i t u d e . The a u t o p i l o t used i n t h e Lockheed C-141 AWLS
i n s t a l l a t i o n provides t h i s capability.

The Category I1 c o n d i t i o n s per FAA AC120-20 permit a minimum d e c i s i o n a l t i t u d e (MDA) of 100 f e e t and a runway
v i s u a l range (RVR) of 1200 f e e t .

The p r e s e n t Autoland system p r o v i d e s t i g h t t r a c k i n g of t h e l o c a l i z e r and g l i d e s l o p e beams, an improved wind-

s h e a r c a p a b i l i t y , f l a r e computation and beam g a i n d e s e n s i t i z i n g as a f u n c t i o n of radar a l t i t u d e .

T h i s system h a s s u c c e s s f u l l y executed thousands of automatic l a n d i n g s both o p e r a t i o n a l l y and during f l i g h t

t e s t . The f l i g h t t e s t demonstration r e s u l t e d i n o v e r a l l landing d i s p e r s i o n s as shown i n Figure 1.
I
The system u t i l i z e s redundancy and monitoring of t h e approach f u n c t i o n s , whose o p e r a t i n g c o n d i t i o n i s i n t e r -
rogated by a Test Programmer and Logic Computer (TPLC). The TPLC a l s o programs an en r o u t e and preland t e s t t o
e x e r c i s e t h e a u t o p i l o t f u n c t i o n s t o determine i f t h e system is s a t i s f a c t o r i l y configured f o r an approach.

C e r t i f i c a t i o n f o r t h i s system was granted by t h e FAA i n October 1967, a f t e r a s u c c e s s f u l f l i g h t test program

under t h e d i r e c t i o n of t h e Lockheed-Georgia Company i n cooperation w i t h t h e Air Force and FAA.

During f l i g h t t e s t more than 800 s a t i s f a c t o r y coupled approaches were made o f which more than 95% were t o
1;ouchdown. The automatic system kept t h e a i r c r a f t w e l l w i t h i n t h e window as shown i n Figure 2 at t h e Category
:[I Id0 f e e t d e c i s i o n a l t i t u d e .

2:. A N A U T O L A N D APPROACH

A g e n e r a l procedure is followed t o configure t h e AWLS f o r a Category I1 Autoland Approach. Prior t o penetration

t h e p i l o t performs an en r o u t e preland test.

Maneuvering of t h e a i r c r a f t is somewhat r e s t r i c t e d d u r i n g t h i s t e s t t o prevent large s i g n a l s frdm o f f s e t t i n g

t h e t e s t i n p u t s . \ Experience h a s shown t h a t t h i s t e s t can be s a t i s f a c t o r i l y performed under a v a r i e t y of f l i g h t
c ondit ions.

T h i s en r o u t e test i s a u t o m a t i c a l l y preceded by a p r e l a n d t e s t wherein t h e system comparators are f a u l t e d and

healed. The en r o u t e p o r t i o n a p p l i e s s i g n a l s t o t h e a u t o p i l o t t o c h e c k , t h e computational s i g n a l flow from t h e
i n p u t source t o t h e s e r v o outputs., Various f u n c t i o n s are e x e r c i s e d t o modify t h e s i g n a l l e v e l s and e n s u r e t h a t
such f u n c t i o n s a r e o p e r a t i v e . During t h i s en r o u t e t e s t i n g which l a s t s approximately t h r e e minutes t h e a u t o p i l o t
s e r v o s a r e declutched.

Upon s a t i s f a c t o r y completion of t h e test t h e a u t o p i l o t can be re-engaged and t h e r e c e i v e r s tuned t o a l o c a l i z e r

frequency. A l o c a l i z e r i n t e r c e p t and c a p t u r e is performed i n a normal manner u t i l i z i n g e i t h e r P r e s e t Heading o r
Compass Heading t o set up, t h e i n t e r c e p t angle r e l a t i v e t o course o r runway heading.

I n t h e p i t c h channel an automatic mode such as a l t i t u d e hold, Ver Nav o r a t t i t u d e s t a b i l i z a t i o n could be engaged.

L o c a l i z e r c a p t u r e as shown i n Figure 3 occurs at approximately 2 d o t s d e v i a t i o n . A t c a p t u r e t h e course and

d e v i a t i o n s i g n a l s a r e coupled t o t h e r o l l channel and t h e p r e s e t o r compass heading s i g h a l s are removed. These
a t r u p t l e v e l changes are s o f t e n e d by a command modifier i n t h e r o l l channel.
18-2

A s t h e l o c a l i z e r i n t e r c e p t is made t h e a i r c r a f t approaches t h e beam and t u r n s towards t h e runway course

heading .

A command c r o s s f e e d is introduced a t t h i s time t o t h e rudder and Yaw Damper and t h e r o l l channel a t t i t u d e

g a i n is doubled. This c r o s s f e e d and g a i n change provides a very responsive a u t o p i l o t / a i r c r a f t combination.

The a u t o p i l o t limits t h e i n t e r c e p t heading t o 22 degrees. A s t h e beam c l o s u r e continues t h e aircraft heading

comes o f f t h e 22 degree l i m i t and at a value of 17.5 degrees w i t h a one dot beam d e v i a t i o n t h e course heading
e r r o r is washed o u t . The washed out course s i g n a l s e r v e s as a beam damping f u n c t i o n f o r t r a c k u n t i l e l i d e s l o p e
engage at which time t h e c o n f i g u r a t i o n is changed. The p i l o t at some time between L o c a l i z e r Capture and Glide
Slope Engage arms t h e Glide Slope and AWLS modes by p o s i t i o n i n g t h e a p p r o p r i a t e s w i t c h e s on t h e Autopilot Control
Panel. Arming t h e s e s w i t c h e s t o o e a r l y could r e s u l t i n a f a l s e g l i d e s l o p e capture.

A s t h e a i r c r a f t c o n t i n u e s i n t h e l o c a l i z e r mode a g l i d e s l o p e i n t e r c e p t t a k e s p l a c e at 8 microamps, very n e a r l y

beam c e n t e r at an a l t i t u d e of about 1500 f e e t . This c l o s e - i n c a p t u r e p r e v e n t s an a i r c r a f t climb. Several e v e n t s
take p l a c e at g l i d e s l o p e engage as t h e aircraft noses over t o begin t h e f i n a l approach.

A preland t e s t is a u t o m a t i c a l l y i n i t i a t e d which f a u l t s and h e a l s t h e system comparators, i n i t i a t e s a f l a r e

computer s e l f - t e s t but u n l i k e , t h e en r o u t e t e s t does not apply s i g n a l i n p u t s . The l o c a l i z e r i n t e g r a t o r is
turned on and t h e command c r o s s f e e d removed from t h e damper f i l t e r but not from t h e rudder. T h i s preland t e s t
is a c t u a l l y a c t i v a t e d by t h e F l i g h t D i r e c t o r Glide Slope Engage which p r e c l u d e s t h e Autopilot by 4 o r 5 seconds.
A n y change i n t h e Autopilot c o n f i g u r a t i o n is i n i t i a t e d by t h e a u t o p i l o t g l i d e s l o p e engage. The LAND and LAND
Model f u n c t i o n s a r e a c t i v a t e d which a t t e n t u a t e t h e washed o u t p r e s e t course s i g n a l and i n t r o d u c e s a r o l l l a g
function. The g l i d e s l o p e command w i t h a c c e l e r a t i o n damping is coupled i n t o t h e p i t c h channel r e p l a c i n g any
p r e v i o u s l y s e l e c t e d modes such as A l t i t u d e Hold.

D e s e n s i t i z a t i o n of t h e beam s i g n a l , a s a f u n c t i o n of radar a l t i t u d e , would begin s t a r t i n g at 1000 f e e t . Above

1000 f e e t , t h e d e s e n s i t i z a t i o n g a i n is c o n s t a n t . A backup d e s e n s i t i z a t i o n c o n t r o l e x i s t s as a f u n c t i o n of time
and would begin immediately at g l i d e s l o p e engage, i f t h e radar a l t i t u d e d e s e n s i t i z a t i o n is i n o p e r a t i v e . T h i s
time f u n c t i o n is independent of t h e i n t e r c e p t a l t i t u d e . The Control \meel S t e e r i n g c o n f i g u r a t i o n i s changed
from a r a t e command system (deg/sec/lb) t o a displacement command system (deg/lb).

A t s u c c e s s f u l completion of t h e Preland T e s t , which r e q u i r e s about 25 seconds, t h e p i l o t r e c e i v e s an Approach

A r m (AA) l i g h t . A t AA, s e v e r a l a d d i t i o n a l e v e n t s occur and t h e a i r c r a f t is considered “on t r a c k ” f o r both loca-
l i z e r and g l i d e s l o p e . The model channel used f o r monitoring is now considered “on-line” and t h e WLC w i l l now
u t i l i z e any f a u l t e d comparator c o n d i t i o n f o r purposes of p i l o t d i s p l a y and automatic disconnect of t h e f a i l e d
a x i s where a p p r o p r i a t e .

S p l i t a x i s c o n t r o l is p o s s i b l e . That is one a x i s a u t o m a t i c a l l y coupled w i t h t h e o t h e r a x i s manually c o n t r o l l e d

by t h e p i l o t . I n such an e v e n t , p i l o t s have shown a preference t o leave CWS o f f i n t h e operable a x i s due t o a
d i s p r o p o r t i o n a t e f e e l between t h e two axes. The use of CWS, i n any e v e n t , d u r i n g an AWLS approach is somewhat
c o n t r o v e r s i a l . Over use could prevent t h e system from s t a b i l i z i n g on t r a c k s i n c e t h e system i n t e g r a t o r s a r e
stopped. Its use is u s u a l l y l i m i t e d t o a s s i s t i n g t h e a u t o p i l o t should l a r g e c o r r e c t i o n s be r e q u i r e d . Actually
w i t h t h e good t r a c k i n g c a p a b i l i t y of t h e system CWS is seldom r e q u i r e d .

A t AA t h e r o l l a t t i t u d e and r a t e limits a r e e s t a b l i s h e d and t h e t o r q u e l i m i t i n g t h a t e x i s t e d on t h e s e r v o s

f o r c r u i s e is removed.

No a d d i t i o n a l e v e n t s occur as t h e aircraft c o n t i n u e s t r a c k i n g from AA t o MDA p o i n t o t h e r than t h e continuous

monitoring of t h e approach f u n c t i o n s and t h e c o n s t a n t c o r r e c t i o n t o maintain t r a c k i n g r e s u l t i n g from t h e auto-
p i l o t computations. While most of t h e s e computations a r e conventional, t h e r e are some; such as, r o l l l a g and
t h e p i t c h channel e q u a l i z a t i o n , which would not have e x i s t e d were it not f o r t h e Category I1 c o n f i g u r a t i o n and
t h e monitoring c o n s i d e r a t i o n s .

The MDA l i g h t comes on at 100 f e e t at which p o i n t t h e p i l o t a s s e s s e s whether he is i n p o s i t i o n f o r c o n t i n u i n g

t h e approach t o touchdown by being w i t h i n a window e s t a b l i s h e d as f 13 f e e t from g l i d e s l o p e and f 75 f e e t from
l o c a l i z e r . Assuming t h i s c r i t e r i a is s a t i s f i e d and t h e a i r c r a f t is p a r a l l e l t o o r converging on t h e runway, t h e
descent c o n t i n u e s on automatic c o n t r o l w i t h t h e same f u n c t i o n a l c o n f i g u r a t i o n .

A t 45 f e e t an automatic f l a r e engage occurs which couples t h e flare p a t h e r r o r t o t h e e l e v a t o r channel. A t

t h i s a l t i t u d e t h e g l i d e s l o p e s i g n a l is completely d e s e n s i t i z e d such t h a t t h e only o u t e r loop p i t c h command is
t h a t derived from t h e f l a r e maneuver. The l o c a l i z e r s i g n a l at t h i s a l t i t u d e has a l s o reached its minimum desen-
s i t i z a t i o n gain of 45%. The r o l l channel c o n t i n u e s i n t h e same f u n c t i o n a l c o n f i g u r a t i o n t o touchdown.

A t 30 f e e t t h e f l a r e computation t r a n s m i t s a s i g n a l t o t h e t h r o t t l e s f o r r e t a r d a t i o n . The f i n a l f l a r e maneuver

is executed and t h e a i r c r a f t touches down at a s i n k r a t e of approximately 3 f e e t per second.

This r a t e is somewhat h i g h e r than would occur f o r a manual ‘ f l a r e but has proved acceptable t o t h e P i l o t s .

While t h e e x t e n t o f t h e automatic c o n t r o l d e s c r i b e d w a s e s s e n t i a l l y from i n t e r c e p t t o touchdown t h e use of

t h e V e r t i c a l Navigation System provides t h e c a p a b i l i t y of extending t h i s c o n t r o l from letdown at a l t i t u d e s of
40,000 f e e t and a range up t o 100 n a u t i c a l miles.
 18- 3

I f necessary, any time during an AWLS approach, a R o t a t i o n Go-Around m a y be i n i t i a t e d . When s e l e c t e d by t h e

p i l o t t h e Go-Around b u t t o n i n t h e c o n t r o l wheel is depressed causing disengagement of t h e AWLS including t h e
n u t o p i l o t and a u t o t h r o t t l e systems. The a i r c r a f t is t h e r e b y r e t u r n e d t o manual c o n t r o l with t h e p i l o t f l y i n g
t o t h e a n g l e - o f - a t t a c k e r r o r commands presented on t h e ADI.

3. B A S I C CONFIGURATION N O N - M O N I T O R E D

The foregoing has d e s c r i b e d some of t h e o p e r a t i o n a l a s p e c t s of t h e system. Following is a d i s c u s s i o n of some

s p e c i f i c s of t h e system. Figure 4 is a g e n e r a l block diagram of t h i s c o n f i g u r a t i o n .

The l a t e r a l and l o n g i t u d i n a l axes a r e conventional i n t h a t t h e a i r c r a f t c o n t r o l system is d i s p l a c e d by e l e c t r i c

a u t o p i l o t s e r v o s i n t h e coupled approach as a f u n c t i o n of command e r r o r s i g n a l s . S p l i t Axis o p e r a t i o n is p o s s i b l e
due t o s e p a r a t e manual d i s c o n n e c t s f o r p i t c h and r o l l .

Control Wheel S t e e r i n g (CWS) i s a v a i l a b l e i n t h e approach c o n f i g u r a t i o n as a displacement t y p e c o n t r o l . T h a t .

is, a t t i t u d e is commanded as a f u n c t i o n of a p p l i e d f o r c e . In cruise, t h e s e f o r c e i n p u t s command a t t i t u d e r a t e .

During t h e approach a f t e r g l i d e s l o p e engage t h e descent of t h e aircraft along a converging beam would cause
an apparant change i n system g a i n . T h i s is a r e s u l t of t h e a i r c r a f t c o n s t a n t l y c o r r e c t i n g f o r e r r o r s o f f t h e
beam i n terms of degrees d e v i a t i o n from t h e g l i d e p a t h r a t h e r than i n terms of f e e t . The beam s e n s i t i v i t y i s a
c o n s t a n t i n microamps p e r degree but a v a r i a b l e i n microamps p e r f o o t . Since t h e a i r c r a f t d e v i a t i o n is i n f e e t
then it is necessary t o implement t h e system command as a c o n s t a n t o r near c o n s t a n t i n terms of microamps per
foot.

This i s accomplished by d e s e n s i t i z i n g t h e g a i n as a f u n c t i o n of a l t i t u d e such t h a t at lower a l t i t u d e s where

t’he beam converges t h e microamps p e r f o o t d e v i a t i o n is h e l d at a value near t h a t at t h e h i g h e r a l t i t u d e . The
a l t i t u d e s under c o n s i d e r a t i o n are i n t h e range of 1000 f e e t down t o t h e runway t h r e s h o l d of 45 f e e t .

These d e s e n s i t i z a t i o n programs a r e d i f f e r e n t f o r r o l l and p i t c h . P i t c h , of course, r e q u i r e s a t r a n s i t i o n

from g l i d e s l o p e c o n t r o l t o f l a r e c o n t r o l at 45 f e e t . Therefore, its g a i n should be z e r o at t h i s p o i n t . Roll
g a i n does not go t o z e r o at t h i s a l t i t u d e but t o 45% of t h e g a i n of 1000 f e e t . T h i s value of g a i n change is
dependent on a d e s i r e d system g a i n at t h i s a l t i t u d e p l u s t h e c o n s i d e r a t i o n t h a t t h e l o c a l i z e r t r a n s m i t t e r ,
u n l i k e t h e g l i d e s l o p e t r a n s m i t t e r , is at t h e outbound end of t h e runway. The r o l l d e s e n s i t i z a t i o n is l i n e a r .
P i t c h d e s e n s i t i z a t i o n is d i s c o n t i n u o u s such t h a t a l i n e a r change o c c u r s t o 25% at an a l t i t u d e of 75 f e e t at
which p o i n t t h e s l o p e is changed t o achieve z e r o g a i n at 45 f e e t . T h i s is necessary t o ensure t h a t adequate
g l i d e p a t h c o n t r o l e x i s t s t o t h e f l a r e engage p o i n t .

The s e r v o t o r q u e r e q u i r e d d u r i n g approach is higher t h a n t h a t allowable f o r c r u i s e . A high c r u i s e t o r q u e

could r e s u l t i n u n d e s i r a b l e a c c e l e r a t i o n f o r c e s . However, at t h e low “q” approach c o n d i t i o n s , t h e maximum s e r v o
f o r c e s and a u t h o r i t y necessary f o r t i g h t t r a c k i n g do not c r e a t e an a c c e l e r a t i o n problem. These servo f o r c e
limits a r e removed at Approach Arm.

The system a u t h o r i t y concerning body r a t e s and command limits a r e a l s o s e l e c t e d i n c o n s i d e r a t i o n of p e r f o r -

mstnce and s a f e t y . These v a l u e s a r e a f u n c t i o n of modal switching as shown i n Figure 4.

Shauld CWS be s e l e c t e d on approach t h e a t t i t u d e l i m i t r e v e r t s t o 30 degrees. The high r a t e limits permit

response t o c o r r e c t f o r d e v i a t i o n from t h e l o c a l i z e r f l i g h t p a t h . The 7 . 5 degree a t t i t u d e l i m i t o c c u r s approxi-
me.tely 30 seconds a f t e r g l i d e s l o p e engage. T h i s l i m i t p r e v e n t s l a r g e e x c u r s i o n s on approach and is a d e s i r a b l e
f e a t u r e near t h e ground. Due t o t h e t i g h t t r a c k i n g c a p a b i l i t y of t h e system t h i s v a l u e does not compromise
performance.

The p i t c h limits as shown i n Figure 4 a r e s e t at approximately 7 . 5 degrees f o r g l i d e s l o p e . .

System o f f s e t s from t h e commanded input are removed on a long term basis by t h e use of i n t e g r a t o r s . The s i g n a l s
being i n t e g r a t e d d u r i n g approach a r e t h e g l i d e s l o p e and l o c a l i z e r e r r o r commands. T h i s i n t e g r a t i o n f o r c e s t h e
a i r c r a f t t o remain on beam c e n t e r and enhances t i g h t t r a c k i n g . ‘Both i n t e g r a t o r s assume t h e approach c o n f i g u r a t i o n
at g l i d e s l o p e engage.

Auto-trim is o p e r a b l e during’approach as well as c r u i s e . The s t a b i l i z e r p o s i t i o n s i g n a l which is used f o r

improving l o n g i t u d i n a l s t a b i l i t y d u r i n g t h e A l t i t u d e Hold Mode is removed as a f u n c t i o n of f l a p s .

The p i t c h rate gyro f i l t e r i s bypassed i n t h e approach mode. T h i s f i l t e r is p r i m a r i l y t o block rate s i g n a l s

i n t o t h e p i t c h channel d u r i n g a t u r n and such t u r n s a r e not experienced on approach. Removal of t h i s f u n c t i o n
allows a l e s s complicated p i t c h r a t e implementation when redundancy i s considered.

R o l l lag is a f u n c t i o n considered necessary f o r Category I1 due t o t h e rvindshear c o n d i t i o n at a l t i t u d e s below

200 f e e t . An a i r c r a f t d e v i a t i o n c a u s e s a lagged roll a t t i t u d e s i g n a l t o be summed as a psuedo-course s i g n a l .
T h i s f u n c t i o n i s a c t i v a t e d at g l i d e s l o p e engage at which time t h e P r e s e t Course washed out s i g n a l is a t t e n u a t e d
t o a low l e v e l . E s s e n t i a l l y , t h e r o l l lag t a k e s over t h e damping provided by a course s i g n a l .

The advantage of r o l l l a g f o r beam damping i n l i e u of p r e s e t course is t h a t f o r changing windshear c o n d i t i o n s

thi2 a i r c r a f t weathercocks more favorably. A course s i g n a l would t e n d t o oppose t h e weathercocking whereas lagged
ro:L1 does not.
 18-4

The command c r o s s f e e d from r o l l t o yaw introduced at l o c a l i z e r c a p t u r e i s i n a d d i t i o n t o t h e r o l l a l t i t u d e

and r o l l rate c r o s s f e e d f o r dutch r o l l damping and t u r n c o o r d i n a t i o n .

Normal a c c e l e r a t i o n is provided i n t h e Glide Slope Mode f o r beam damping. T h i s damping term is d e r i v e d by

lagging normal a c c e l e r a t i o n .

The computation which Performs t h e f l a r e f u n c t i o n f o r autoland u t i l i z e s normal a c c e l e r a t i o n and r a d a r a l t i t u d e

s i g n a l s f o r g e n e r a t i o n of t h e f l a r e e r r o r command h e t o t h e e l e v a t o r channel. This e r r o r is c o n s t a n t l y being
computed from an a l t i t u d e of 130 f e e t . This e r r o r is i n i t i a l l y l a r g e due t o t h e manner i n which it is derived.
The gain and time c o n s t a n t s h a v e b e e n s e l e c t e d s u c h t h a t t h e f l a r e e r r o r i s n e a r z e r o at an a l t i t u d e of 45 f e e t which
is t h e f l a r e engage p o i n t . For d i f f e r e n t wind c o n d i t i o n s t h i s e r r o r w i l l have some value. However, a
synchronizer s t o r e s any such e r r o r s p r i o r t o f l a r e engage and p r e v e n t s p i t c h channel t r a n s i e n t s . T h i s engage
e r r o r becomes t h e c o n t r o l l i n g p i t c h command about which t h e f l a r e maneuver is executed. The synchronizer r e v e r t s
t o an i n t e g r a t o r t o a s s i s t i n minimizing t h e f l a r e e r r o r . The p i t c h command limits t h a t e x i s t e d during g l i d e
s l o p e a r e modified such t h a t nose down is l i m i t e d t o 0 . 7 5 degrees. T h i s value is a compromise concerning s a f e t y
and t h e n e c e s s i t y f o r minimizing d i s p e r s i o n s i n t h e presence of head winds.

P r i o r t o f l a r e engage t h e a i r c r a f t was descending at a nominal s i n k r a t e of 10 f e e t / s e c . As t h e aircraft

descends below 45 f e e t t h e Radar A l t i t u d e ( h R A )component d e c r e a s e s f o r c i n g t h e a l t i t u d e r a t e through t h e
washout t o d e c r e a s e t o maintain he at n u l l f o r c i n g t h e a i r c r a f t t o follow.

This is e s s e n t i a l l y how t h e f l a r e maneuver is a u t o m a t i c a l l y executed s i n c e t h e a i r c r a f t r a t e of descent is

forced t o d e c r e a s e such t h a t at touchdown t h e e r r o r approaches t h e p r e s e t touchdown r a t e (hTD) of approximately
3 feet/sec.

The hAuG s i g n a l u t i l i z e s a lagged normal accelerometer s i g n a l summed with t h e a l t i t u d e r a t e developed from

t h e c o n s t a n t l y d e c r e a s i n g radar a l t i t u d e s i g n a l h,, . The summation of t h e s e s i g n a l s is then washed out. The
time c o n s t a n t s and g a i n s of t h e s e f i l t e r s provide an tiAuG s i g n a l which does not have t h e u n d e s i r a b l e n o i s e
c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of an a l t i t u d e r a t e r e f e r e n c e s i g n a l but does provide t h e high frequency component necessary
f o r damping.

4. DESIGN FOR SAFETY - REDUNDANCY A N D MONITORING

Redundancy

To provide a means of e n s u r i n g t h a t t h e system w i l l s u c c e s s f u l l y complete i t s autoland approach, a c e r t a i n

: amount of redundancy, and monitoring t o g e t h e r with a means of t e s t i n g t h e approach f u n c t i o n s en r o u t e a r e i n -
corporated i n t h e system.

P r i o r t o e s t a b l i s h i n g t h e monitoring c o n f i g u r a t i o n a redundancy concept had t o be developed. Since t h e

primary f u n c t i o n s concerned are t h o s e a s s o c i a t e d with t h e approach mode it follows t h a t t h e s e f u n c t i o n s only
are considered. Approach mode c o n f i g u r a t i o n being defined f o r purposes of redundancy and monitoring as t h o s e
f u n c t i o n s operable a f t e r g l i d e s l o p e engage. Not a l l approach f u n c t i o n s are redundant as shown i n Figure 5.
The t r i p l e redundant Yaw Damper is not included s i n c e it is u t i l i z e d f o r c r u i s e as well as approach.

The r a d a r a l t i t u d e s i g n a l conunon t o both axes is a l s o redundant.

The c o n t r o l l i n g computation is termed t h e a c t i v e channel, and t h e redundant f u n c t i o n s t h e model channel. An

exception is t h e g l i d e s l o p e d e s e n s i t i z a t i o n which is t r i p l i c a t e d such t h a t one d e s e n s i t i z e r is provided f o r
automatic c o n t r o l and one f o r each f l i g h t d i r e c t o r . The redundant r o l l d e s e n s i t i z a t i o n is f o r a model compari-
son only s i n c e t h e f l i g h t d i r e c t o r f o r t h e AWLS approach does not use d e s e n s i t i z a t i o n .

Switching i n t h e model channel i s kept t o a minimum t o improve r e l i a b i l i t y and t h u s remove t h e need f o r redun-
dant switching f u n c t i o n s t o back up t h e primary mode switching. I n some c a s e s t h i s is e a s i l y accomplished s i n c e
it is only necessary t o provide a block of gain r e p r e s e n t i n g t h e a c t i v e channel. I n c a s e s where t h e r e are time
dependent f u n c t i o n s t h a t a r e switched i n t o t h e a c t i v e channel f o r an approach c o n d i t i o n t h i s same switching was
d u p l i c a t e d i n t h e model channel t o maintain channel matching.

An example of t h i s is r o l l lag. Since it i s not r e q u i r e d u n t i l g l i d e s l o p e engage t h e model channel would

have t o be switched i n at t h e same time or t h e r e could be a discrepancy between channels due t o i t s being a time
dependent f u n c t i o n .

Those f u n c t i o n s which a r e not switched i n t h e model channel a r e i n a compute c o n d i t i o n whether i n t h e approach

mode o r not. During a c r u i s e mode f o r example t h e a c t i v e channel could be i n VOR and t h e model channel i n t h e
L o c a l i z e r c o n f i g u r a t i o n . This would not a f f e c t performance s i n c e t h e model channel is used f o r monitoring pur-
poses only and mismatches a r e i r r e l e v a n t u n t i l approach.

A s i n g l e f o r c e s e n s o r is provided i n p i t c h and r o l l f o r development of t h e CWS s i g n a l . This f u n c t i o n is

a v a i l a b l e f o r approach with d u a l computational c i r c u i t r y . This d u a l i t y maintains channel matching, when CWS is
used on approach. By moving t h e computational d u a l i t y back t o t h e f o r c e sensor t h e monitoring i s s i m p l i f i e d and
t h e only p r o t e c t i o n deemed necessary is a h i g h t h r e s h o l d d e t e c t o r on t h e sensor output t o d e t e c t a hardover
s i g n a l . A d u a l f o r c e sensor is not r e q u i r e d s i n c e p a s s i v e f a i l u r e s would not r e s u l t i n a hazardous c o n d i t i o n .
 18-5

The washed o u t P r e s e t Course s i g n a l i s non-redundant s i n c e almost 90% of it is removed at g l i d e s l o p e engage.

The i n t r o d u c t i o n of r o l l lag and beam i n t e g r a t i o n t a k e over t h e f u n c t i o n s that would be provided by a course
s i g n a l o r i t s washout. Removal of t h e course and i n t r o d u c t i o n of r o l l l a g also allows t h e weathercocking capa-
b i l i t y p r e v i o u s l y discussed.

S t a b i l i z e r p o s i t i o n feedback is non-redundant and easyed-off a s a f u n c t i o n of f l a p s . Its primary purpose is

t o provide a l t i t u d e hold s t a b i l i t y and is t h e r e f o r e not necessary f o r approach.

Since l a r g e s u s t a i n e d bank a n g l e s a r e not experienced on approach t h e u p - a t t i t u d e s i g n a l is not included i n

t h e model channel nor removed from t h e a c t i v e channel.

C o n t r o l l e r i n p u t s a r e not redundant s i n c e t h e i r use is not a part of an approach procedure.

P i t c h trim is non-redundant s i n c e i t s purpose i s t o remove t h e a u t o p i l o t servo load. T h i s s i t u a t i o n does

not e x i s t i n t h e model channel s i n c e t h e model servo is unloaded and a trim command s i g n a l does not occur.

The beam i n t e g r a t o r f o r g l i d e s l o p e and l o c a l i z e r have d i f f e r e n t concepts concerning redundancy. The g l i d e

s l o p e i n t e g r a t o r is repeated i n t h e model channel. However, such an open loop device, r e q u i r e s some means t o
maintain channel matching ( s e e Figure 6 ) . T h i s is accomplished by an e q u a l i z a t i o n method such t h a t p r i o r t o
g l i d e s l o p e engage t h e model i n t e g r a t o r is i n a synchronizer e q u a l i z e r mode. A t g l i d e s l o p e engage it r e v e r t s
t o t h e i n t e g r a t o r e q u a l i z e r c o n f i g u r a t i o n . The i n t e g r a t i o n r a t e is similar t o t h a t of t h e a c t i v e channel.
E q u a l i z a t i o n is accomplished by summing t h e d i f f e r e n c e between t h e s u r f a c e servo and model s e r v o o u t p u t s through
a limiter w i t h t h e e r r o r being i n t e g r a t e d . The s e r v o summation i s l i m i t e d t o provide an e q u a l i z a t i o n rate t h a t
c o r r e c t s f o r channel mismatching on a long-term basis. T h i s l i m i t e n s u r e s t h a t a run-away i n t e g r a t o r i n e i t h e r
channel would not be equalized r e s u l t i n g i n apparent channel matching but would provide a s i g n a l s u i t a b l e t o
alarm t h e p i t c h comparator.

Model channel i n t e g r a t i o n on t h e g l i d e s l o p e s i g n a l is d i s a b l e d at F l a r e Engage; however, t h e e q u a l i z a t i o n

c o n t i n u e s t o touchdown when both channels a r e o p e r a t i n g on t h e p i t c h command generated from t h e flare computation.

The l o c a l i z e r channel u t i l i z e s a s i n g l e i n t e g r a t o r f o r both t h e a c t i v e and model channel. The monitoring

d e t e c t s both p a s s i v e and a c t i v e f a i l u r e s of t h i s f u n c t i o n . E i t h e r type of i n t e g r a t o r implementation is con-
c e p t i o n a l l y a c c e p t a b l e ; however, t h e l o c a l i z e r i n t e g r a t o r o p e r a t e s on DC s i g n a l s which made i t s method of moni-
t o r i n g l e s s complex t h a n i f t h e same method was a p p l i e d t o t h e g l i d e s l o p e i n t e g r a t o r which o p e r a t e s on AC
signals.

To p r e c l u d e t h e n e c e s s i t y of d u p l i c a t i n g t h e p i t c h r a t e f i l t e r i n t h e model channel t h e f u n c t i o n i s bypassed

a t g l i d e s l o p e engage s i n c e its primary purpose t o block p i t c h r a t e commands developed during a t u r n is not
.needed i n an approach condition.

The o t h e r non-redundant f u n c t i o n s Mach Hold, A l t i t u d e Hold, and Ver Nav do not c o n t r i b u t e s i g n a l s d u r i n g

:approach and a r e t h e r e f o r e not necessary concerning d u p l i c a t i o n i n t h e model channel.

The f l a r e computation is completely redundant including t h e synchronizer/integrator. Since t h e f l a r e f u n c t i o n

i s 03 f o r only about 8 seconds t h e a c t i v e and model i n t e g r a t o r s do not r e q u i r e e q u a l i z a t i o n as t h e time is t o o
s h o r t f o r any l a r g e d i s c r e p a n c i e s t o occur between channels r e s u l t i n g from t h e open loop c h a r a c t e r i s t i c , at t h e
riodel i n t e g r a t o r . Switching of t h e s y n c h r o n i z e r / i n t e g r a t o r i s r e q u i r e d i n t h e model channel s i n c e t h e f u n c t i o n
must be changed from one of synchronization t o i n t e g r a t i o n .

The g l i d e s l o p e t r i p l e redundant d e s e n s i t i z e r s provide a f a i l - o p e r a t i v e c o n f i g u r a t i o n such t h a t a s i n g l e

f a i l u r e w i l l s t i l l allow completion of t h e AWLS approach. Depending on which d e s e n s i t i z e r f a i l s t h e approach
may have t o be changed from automatic t o manual c o n t r o l .

The l o c a l i z e r d e s e n s i t i z e r s a r e d u a l redundant s i n c e i n t h e AWLS mode t h e f l i g h t d i r e c t o r s i g n a i s a r e not

d e s e n s i t i z e d . The only purpose of two d e s e n s i t i z e r s is f o r monitoring.

The remaining f u n c t i o n s : r o l l c r o s s f e e d . a t t i t u d e , normal a c c e l e r a t i o n , a t t i t u d e r a t e , and basic s i g n a l chain

c:omputations a r e repeated i n i d e n t i c a l g a i n form i n t h e , m o d e l channel.

tloni tor ing

Monitoring as r e l a t e d t o t h i s a p p l i c a t i o n has t o do w i t h t h e a b i l i t y of t h e systems comparators t o d e t e c t and
i d e n t i f y t h o s e f u n c t i o n s necessary f o r an autoland approach, t h e method i n which t h e i r v a l i d i t y and t h e approach
c o n f i g u r a t i o n a r e v e r i f i e d , and t h e e v e n t s t h a t ocour when a comparator r e p o r t s a f u n c t i o n as being u n s u i t a b l e
for an autoland approach.

I n providing a model channel f o r purposes of monitoring c o n s i d e r a t i o n h a s t o be given concerning nuisance

d i s c o n n e c t s at t h e p o i n t s where both channels were compared. These nuisance d i s c o n n e c t s could r e s u l t from t o l e r -
ance build-ups or o f f s e t s adding t o t h e s i g n a l computation. T h i s could a l s o have t h e u n d e s i r a b l e e f f e c t of
compensating f o r a mismatched channel.
 I
I
18-6 ~

Vhere t h e s i g n a l flow path c o n s i s t s of a r e l a t i v e l y small t o l e r a n c e c o n t r i b u t i o n t h i s could be c o n t r o l l e d by

u t i l i z i n g special g a i n a d j u s t procedures i n t h e equipment p r i o r t o i n s t a l l a t i o n . However, t o maintain a f l e x i b l e
system such t h a t u n i t s o r modules of t h e same type a r e inter-changeable r e q u i r e d a more r e a l i s t i c scheme. I t
would not be d e s i r a b l e t o r e q u i r e manual channel matching procedures whenever a u n i t was changed i n t h e a i r c r a f t .
I t was necessary t o c o n f i g u r e t h e redundancy i n a manner t h a t permitted t h e i n t e r - c h a n g e a b i l i t y and f l e x i b i l i t y
while s t i l l ensuring t h a t f a i l u r e s would be d e t e c t e d .

Figure 7 i l l u s t r a t e s how a long computational chain would c o n t r i b u t e t o t o l e r a n c e s d e t r i m e n t a l t o comparison

monitoring.
I
The method of redundant implementation used t o minimize p o t e n t i a l nuisance d i s c o n n e c t s c o n s i s t s of t h e nlethod
of Figure 7A when small t o l e r a n c e s i g n a l p a t h s e x i s t and t h e method shown i n Figure 78 f o r large t o l e r a n c e s i g n a l ~

paths.

This l a t t e r method reduces t h e t o l e r a n c e buildup at down stream comparators s i n c e t h e maximum t o l e r a n c e d i f f e r -

e n t i a l c o n t r i b u t i o n is a f u n c t i o n of t h e computation between common j u n c t i o n p o i n t s . The o v e r a l l t o l e r a n c e b u i l d - I
up of t h e f u l l l e n g t h of t h e s i g n a l chain does not appear a t any one comparator. Therefore, t h i s method p r o v i d e s
a means f o r adequate comparison monitoring while minimizing channel mismatch due t o t o l e r a n c e buildups. I t a l s o
i
minimizes propagation of f a i l u r e s .

The obvious q u e s t i o n when examining F i g u r e 7 is how a r e f a i l u r e s at t h e common j u n c t i o n p r i o r t o s e p a r a t i o n

of t h e channels d e t e c t e d . A t f i r s t it appears t h a t an open j u n c t i o n would not be recognized. Such a f a i l u r e is
d e t e c t a b l e by t h e wiring layout used as shown i n Figure 8.

Any open wire o r p a s s i v e f a i l u r e i n t h e computation would not compromise t h e c a p a b i l i t y t o develop a d i f f e r -

e n t i a l v o l t a g e a c r o s s t h e comparator t o cause an alarm when t h e t h r e s h o l d i s exceeded.

With t h i s method of s e c t i o n a l i z a t i o n comparators a r e l o c a t e d at each such j u n c t i o n p o i n t . The comparators I

I
w i t h i n t h e a u t o p i l o t perform t h e f u n c t i o n of r e p o r t i n g t o t h e Test Programmer and Logic Computer (TPLC) t h e
c o n d i t i o n of channel matching. A mismatch above a p r e s e t l e v e l t r a n s m i t s a l o g i c s i g n a l t o t h e TPLC i n d i c a t i v e
of t h i s c o n d i t i o n . These l e v e l s were determined d u r i n g f l i g h t t e s t and s i m u l a t i o n s t u d i e s i n c o n s i d e r a t i o n of
s a f e t y ' a n d nuisance disconnects. To minimize t h e l a t t e r each comparator h a s a time d e l a y of approximately . 3 I
seconds. The TPLC upon r e c e i v i n g a f a i l e d i n d i c a t i o n d i s c o n n e c t s t h e a f f e c t e d a x i s where a p p l i c a b l e and pro-
v i d e s t h e p i l o t through t h e F a u l t I n d i c a t i o n Panel (FIP) a v i s u a l i n d i c a t i o n of t h e system s t a t u s f a i l u r e . I
I
A t o t a l of 13 comparators and 2 t h r e s h o l d d e t e c t o r s a r e used i n t h e a u t o p i l o t . Their p h y s i c a l l o c a t i o n s are
spread through t h e system as shown i n F i g u r e 9.

The comparators have two s e p a r a t e o u t p u t s , a v a l i d i t y and a super v a l i d i t y . The v a l i d i t y o u t p u t s i d e n t i f y

a f u n c t i o n such as F l a r e . The super v a l i d i t y o u t p u t s a r e i n s e r i e s and a r e a summation of a l l f u n c t i o n s p e c u l i a r
t o a s p e c i f i c manual o r automatic mode. As an example, t h e comparator v a l i d i t y i d e n t i f y i n g F l a r e provides i t s
super v a l i d i t y output t o i d e n t i f y t h e need f o r a p i t c h channel disconnect and warning. I n g e n e r a l , t h e super
v a l i d i t i e s i d e n t i f y t h e following modes.

Glide Slope Automatic

Glide Slope Manual 1 ( D e s e n s i t i z a t i o n t o FD 1)
Glide Slope Manual 2 ( D e s e n s i t i z a t i o n t o FD 2)

Flare
L o c a l i z e r Automatic

These f a i l u r e s a r e presented on a f a u l t i d e n t i f i c a t i o n panel (FIP) with o t h e r a v i o n i c equipment c o n d i t i o n s .

The comparator assignments are, shown i n Figure 10.

A G.S. Auto. o r f l a r e f a i l u r e w i l l disengage t h e p i t c h channel e i t h e r before o r a f t e r f l a r e engage.

G.S. Manual I o r 2 a l e r t s t h e p i l o t t h a t t h e # 1 or # 2 F l i g h t D i r e c t o r System is not operable.

A Roll Auto f a i l u r e w i l l disengage t h e r o l l channel. With t h e s p l i t a x i s c a p a b i l i t y a p i t c h a u t o p i l o t f a i l u r e

as an example could still allow a coupled r o l l approach i n conjunction with a p i t c h F l i g h t D i r e c t o r approach.

The l o c a l i z e r i n t e g r a t o r is a l s o a non-redundant f u n c t i o n but used i n a redundant manner, t h a t i s i t s output

f e e d s both t h e a c t i v e and model channel.

This f u n c t i o n u n l i k e CWS must be monitored f o r both performance and p a s s i v e and a c t i v e f a i l u r e s s i n c e i t i s

I
a major f u n c t i o n i n maintaining beam t r a c k i n g .

Figure 11 i l l u s t r a t e s t h e s i g n a l flow and monitoring of t h i s f u n c t i o n . The i n t e g r a t o r is turned on at g l i d e

!
s l o p e engage. A t t h e time t h e monitoring i s put on l i n e ( i n t e r r o g a t e d by t h e TPLC) t h e aircraft has a c t e d on
t h e s i g n a l t o be i n t e g r a t e d f o r approximately 30 seconds allowing s u f f i c i e n t time f o r t h e monitor l e a d - l a g
c i r c u i t s t o s t a b i l i z e . For a s a f e c o n d i t i o n t o e x i s t such t h a t t h e comparator does not t r i p t h e summation of
t h e l e a d - l a g o u t p u t s must be n u l l . The c o n d i t i o n s t o cause t h i s are e i t h e r an i n t e g r a t o r input p r e s e n t and t h e
i n t e g r a t o r o p e r a t i n g o r no i n p u t present and t h e i n t e g r a t o r not o p e r a t i n g .
 18-7

Any o t h e r c o n d i t i o n w i l l cause a v o l t a g e t o appear at t h e l e a d lag o u t p u t s whose magnitude i f l a r g e enough,

i n d i c a t i n g a f a i l u r e w i l l cause a comparator alarm.

5. PRELAND A N D EN ROUTE T E S T

The determination as t o t h e system c o n d i t i o n f o r a monitored Category I1 Approach i s accomplished by t h e t e s t

program of t h e TPLC.

T h i s program c o n s i s t s of two major phases, Preland T e s t and En Route Test. The f o r m e r ' s main purpose is t o
t e s t t h e system comparators o p e r a t i o n i n a manner t h a t does not d i s t u r b an engaged system while t h e l a t t e r ' s
t e s t e x e r c i s e s t h e system computations t h u s r e q u i r i n g an automatic disconnect p r i o r t o t h i s t e s t such t h a t t e s t
i n p u t s a r e not evidenced as d i s t u r b a n c e s t o t h e a i r c r a f t c o n t r o l system.

When an en r o u t e t e s t is i n i t i a t e d , it is a u t o m a t i c a l l y preceded by a preland t e s t . However, a preland test

can be accomplished independent of an en r o u t e t e s t ,

The en r o u t e t e s t i s performed p r i o r t o i n i t i a l letdown. The preland t e s t when performed independently is

i n i t i a t e d upon r e c e i p t of a g l i d e s l o p e engage s i g n a l from t h e F l i g h t D i r e c t o r System.

The en r o u t e t e s t is i n i t i a t e d by t h e p i l o t p r e s s i n g t h e AWLS t e s t - r e s e t button. A t t h i s time, t h e a u t o p i l o t

could be engaged. The AWLS switch must be i n t h e AWLS p o s i t i o n . The procedure f o r t h e next 3 minutes is com-
p l e t e l y automatic. The a u t o p i l o t c l u t c h e s a r e disengaged. However, t h e a u t o p i l o t computations a r e a c t i v e and
t h e system is placed i n a l o c a l i z e r / g l i d e s l o p e c a p t u r e c o n f i g u r a t i o n . During t h i s time i n t e r v a l manual c o n t r o l
should be l i m i t e d t o 5' i n p i t c h and 10' i n bank. S t a b i l i z e r trim should not exceed 2'. Exceeding t h e s e limits
could upset t h e d e s i r e d e f f e c t of t h e t e s t s t i m u l i .

The preland p o r t i o n of t h e en r o u t e t e s t c o n s i s t s of 15 two second time segments each with a one second t e s t
and a one second h e a l c o n d i t i o n . These t e s t and h e a l c o n d i t i o n s whether f o r preland o r en r o u t e t e s t a r e by
d e f i n i t i o n t h e a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h e s i g n a l during t h e test i n t e r v a l and its removal at t h e h e a l i n t e r v a l . The
test p o r t i o n normally is intended t o alarm a comparator and t h e h e a l p o r t i o n t o allow it t o r e t u r n t o t h e s a f e
c o n d i t i o n . The a u t o p i l o t is assigned s e v e r a l of t h e s e segments and r e c e i v e s s i x preland test l o g i c s i g n a l s t o
check a l l t h e comparators i n s p e c i f i c groups r e l a t e d t o f u n c t i o n a l c o n f i g u r a t i o n and a l s o t o p l a c e t h e F l a r e
Computer i n automatic s e l f t e s t .

These'preland t e s t l o g i c s i g n a l s a r e l i s t e d i n Figure 12 and d e f i n e t h e comparator test grouping.

The comparators during Preland Test r e c e i v e t h e s e l o g i c s i g n a l s at i n p u t s o t h e r t h a n t h e normal comparison

p o i n t s s i n c e t h e purpose of t h e t e s t is t o ensure t h a t t h e comparator w i l l o p e r a t e without d i s t u r b i n g t h e s i g n a l
chain. The two segment i n t e r v a l c o n s i s t s of a p p l i c a t i o n of t h e l o g i c f o r t h e f i r s t second and removal of t h e
l o g i c at t h e end of t h i s f i r s t second. The alarm and s a f e state a r e i n t e r r o g a t e d at t h e end of ,each second.

The f l a r e t e s t which starts at PLT 3 c o n t i n u e s f o r 15 seconds. A t t h e end of t h i s t e s t , t h e s u c c e s s f u l

completion o r f a i l u r e of t h i s t e s t i s t r a n s m i t t e d t o t h e TPLC.

The e x t e n t of t h e f l a r e t e s t which is s e l f - c o n t a i n e d w i t h i n t h e computer is summarized as follows:

( i ) Every switch i s t e s t e d i n both i t s opened and c l o s e d state.

(ii) The Normal Accelerometer i n t e r f a c e and its s e l f test response is t e s t e d .

(iii) A l l f l a r e computational f u n c t i o n s a r e t e s t e d .

( i v ) The f l a r e comparator is t e s t e d i n both t h e f a u l t and h e a l c o n d i t i o n s .

(v) Each amplitude d e t e c t o r i s t e s t e d i n terms of its t h r e s h o l d .

A t t h e completion of t h e preland p o r t i o n of t h e t e s t , t h e en r o u t e phase commences. T h i s phase c o n s i s t s of

13 segments each with a t e s t and h e a l state. Unlike t h e preland t e s t , t h e s e segments are of varying t i m e s
ranging from 2.6 seconds t o 24 seconds. The t e s t and h e a l s t a t e s of each segment a r e approximately symmetrical
ranging from 1 . 3 seconds t o 12 seconds.

A t t h i s p o i n t t h e TPLC has c o n t r o l of t h e l o c a l i z e r , g l i d e s l o p e , radar a l t i t u d e and a t t i t u d e i n p u t s t o t h e

.autopilot. These s i g n a l s along with En Route Test (EFtT) l o g i c i n p u t s 3, 4, 5, 6,. 7 and 8 a r e t h e s t i m u l i t o
'the a u t o p i l o t computations t o e x e r c i s e t h e s i g n a l c h a i n s and f a u l t and heal t h e comparators as shown i n Figure
13 t h e Autopilot En Route T e s t .

R e f e r r i n g t o Figure 13 t h e l o c a l i z e r and g l i d e s l o p e i n p u t s a r e e s t a b l i s h e d at 38 and 32 microamps respec-

t i v e l y . The radar a l t i t u d e s i g n a l s which c o n t r o l t h e beam d e s e n s i t i z e r s are s e q u e n t i a l l y stepped between B

:simulated a l t i t u d e s of 1000, 400 and 45 f e e t . T h i s a l t i t u d e program changes t h e l o c a l i z e r and g l i d e s l o p e

:signal l e v e l s as t h e y propagate through t h e system and f a u l t and heal t h e d e s e n s i t i z e r comparators. A t T4,
IWT 3 is introduced t o t h e e l e v a t o r and a i l e r o n model channels changing t h i s g a i n t o develop an o f f s e t between
t h e a c t i v e and model channels t o alarm t h e servo comparators. A t T5, EFtT 4 i n t e r r u p t s t h e i n p u t t o t h e Coupler
 j

18-8

P i t c h computer and removes t h e lagged s i g n a l used f o r monitoring of t h e washed o u t l o c a l i z e r i n t e g r a t o r output

t o f a u l t t h e Coupler P i t c h and Roll Comparators. Since t h e l o c a l i z e r i n t e g r a t o r is running due t o a s i g n a l
input t h i s lag s i g n a l removal v e r i f i e s t h a t i t s monitoring is o p e r a t i v e . ERT 5 is introduced at T6 which
a p p l i e s s e l f contained test s i g n a l s w i t h i n t h e a u t o p i l o t computers t o t h e p i t c h and r o l l c o n t r o l wheel s t e e r i n g

i
amplitude d e t e c t o r s t o t e s t t h e i r v a l i d i t y .

ERT 6 which o c c u r s at T7 i n t r o d u c e s t h e a i l e r o n model channel c r o s s f e e d t o t h e Yaw Damper Comparator t o

verify its operation.

A t T8 t h e l o c a l i z e r and g l i d e s l o p e s i g n a l s a r e removed from t h e model channels causing t h e r e c e i v e r compara-

t o r s t o f a u l t . , A t T9 t h e radar a l t i m e t e r comparator i s t e s t e d i n a similar manner by removing t h e model channel
input.

F l a r e Engage 1 and 2 a r e engaged at T11 along with ERT 7 and 8. This c o n f i g u r a t i o n a p p l i e s an i n t e r n a l t e s t

s i g n a l t o both t h e a c t i v e and model f l a r e i n t e g r a t o r s which a r e allowed t o run up f o r 22 seconds at which time
t h e p i t c h Comparator should not alarm t h u s ensuring proper channel matching. A t T12 t h e model f l a r e i n t e g r a t o r I

i s placed i n t h e synchronization o r F l a r e Off mode causing t h e p i t c h comparator t o alarm. During t h e second I

h a l f of TI2 t h e o t h e r F l a r e Engage s i g n a l is removed causing t h e comparator t o h e a l .

Returning t o t h e T11 c o n d i t i o n , ERT 7 is a l s o used t o i n t r o d u c e a s e l f - c o n t a i n e d t e s t s i g n a l t o t h e model

channel r o l l l a g t o check i t s o p e r a t i o n s through t h e r o l l comparator.

A t t h e end of T12 t h e En Route test i s complete and t h e p i l o t examines h i s Fault I d e n t i f i c a t i o n Panel f o r

system s t a t u s .

6. P R O B L E M S E N C O U N T E R E D DURING F L I G H T TEST

During t h e course of t h e f l i g h t t e s t program, modifications were made t o t h e system some of which were r e l a t e d
t o hardware and o t h e r s t o performance. The hardware problems do not warrant any d i s c u s s i o n s i n c e t h e reasons f o r
t h e s e changes involved b a s i c d e s i g n problems common t o any developmental program.

The m o d i f i c a t i o n s t o a f f e c t improvement in-performance o r b a s i c concept changes w i t h i n t h e framework of t h e I

o v e r a l l concept a r e of s p e c i a l i n t e r e s t i n c l u d i n g t h o s e a s s o c i a t e d with t h e preland and en r o u t e t e s t programs. I
C e r t a i n o p e r a t i o n a l procedures a l s o manifested unforeseen problems.

Of t h e performance m o d i f i c a t i o n s , not i n c l u d i n g g a i n o p t i m i z a t i o n , t h e most s i g n i f i c a n t involved beam damping,

t h e f l a r e maneuver and c o n t r o l wheel s t e e r i n g .
I
~

While t h e r o l l lag f u n c t i o n served adequately f o r l o c a l i z e r beam damping, it was necessary t o l e a v e i n a small

amount of p r e s e t course under s e v e r e upset c o n d i t i o n s . This combination, however, d i d not compromise t h e weather-
cocking c a p a b i l i t y achieved with r o l l lag.

I n g l i d e s l o p e , it was found t h a t f o r c e r t a i n d i s t u r b a n c e s t h e damping r a t i o was very low, about 0 . 1 . By t h e

a d d i t i o n of lagged normal a c c e l e r a t i o n t h e damping r a t i o w a s g r e a t l y improved.

During t h e i n i t i a l f l i g h t t e s t i n g of t h e f l a r e maneuver, t h e c o n f i g u r a t i o n was modified s e v e r a l times. A

nose-up ramp b i a s t h a t i n i t i a t e d at f l a r e engage was deemed u n s a t i s f a c t o r y s i n c e it a f f e c t e d l o n g i t u d i n a l d i s -
p e r s i o n s . Also t h e o r i g i n a l nose-down l i m i t of 0 degrees r e q u i r e d opening t o 0 . 7 5 degrees t o a l s o minimize
i
d i s p e r s o n s . The f l a r e i n t e g r a t o r which was before t h e l i m i t e r e v e n t u a l l y was modified such t h a t it would not
i n t e g r a t e nose-down commands t h u s e f f e c t i v e l y blocking t h e l i m i t e r f o r nose-up commands depending on t h e i n t e -
gration rate.

Extensive m o d i f i c a t i o n s were made t o t h e Control Wheel S t e e r i n g implementation. One of t h e more s i g n i f i c a n t

being t h e g e n e r a t i o n of a d e g r e e s i p e r pound c o n f i g u r a t i o n i n l i e u of t h e degrees p e r second per pound u t i l i z e d
f o r c o n d i t i o n s o t h e r than approach.

h r a l u a t i o n of t h e preland and en r o u t e test i n t e r f a c e r e q u i r e d many m o d i f i c a t i o r ; t o prevent t r a n s i e n t s and

preclude a c t i v a t i o n of modes d e t r i m e n t a l t o t h e i n t e n t of t h e t e s t i n g . The o r i g i n a l concept of a c t i v a t i n g
time d e s e n s i t i z a t i o n during en r o u t e t e s t was discarded s i n c e it compromised t h e proper programming of t h e
d e s e n s i t i z e r s as a f u n c t i o n of simulated radar a l t i t u d e s i g n a l s . During t h e preland f l a r e s e l f - t e s t t h e s i g n a l
l e v e l changes were of t o o g r e a t a magnitude t o be p r a c t i c a l l y handled by t h e f l a r e synchronizer i n t h e . a u t o -
p i l o t . Therefore during t h e f l a r e t e s t t h e a c t i v e p i t c h channel command was i n t e r r u p t e d j u s t a f t e r t h e f l a r e 1
e r r o r computation.

Many minor c o n f i g u r a t i o n changes r e s u l t e d from o p e r a t i o n a l procedures. However, t h e more important observa-

t i o n s r e s u l t i n g from f l i g h t t e s t concerning o p e r a t i o n s were i n t h e a r e a of c o n t r o l wheel s t e e r i n g , t h e en r o u t e
t e s t , t h e f l a r e maneuver, and t h e v e c t o r i n g of t h e a i r c r a f t f o r t h e approach.
I
Control wheel s t e e r i n g was determined not t o be necessary f o r approach due t o t h e t i g h t t r a c k i n g c a p a b i l i t y
of t h e automatic system. I n f a c t as mentioned, it can even be d e t r i m e n t a l s i n c e it i n t e r r u p t s t h e i n t e g r a t o r s
which a r e themselves attempting t o enhance t h e beam t r a c k i n g . Its use is recommended t o smooth beam i r r e g u -
larities o r external disturbances.
 18-9

I n g e n e r a l , concerning t h e en r o u t e t e s t i n g , it was found undesirable t o t h e p i l o t s because of t h e l e n g t h of

time, about 3 minutes, during which a i r c r a f t maneuvering i s mildly r e s t r i c t e d .and F l i g h t D i r e c t o r o p e r a t i o n is
interrupted.

The f l a r e was i n i t i a l l y d i s c o n c e r t i n g t o t h e p i l o t s due t o t h e l a c k of a p o s i t i v e pitch-up maneuver. The

automatic f l a r e i s a r e l a t i v e l y slow, smooth, p i t c h up t o decrease s i n k r a t e . However, i n g e n e r a l , t h e f l a r e
performance was considered o u t s t a n d i n g .

Vectoring of t h e a i r c r a f t t o o c l o s e i n t o t h e o u t e r marker r e s u l t e d i n . a n automatic g l i d e s l o p e engage before

t h e a i r c r a f t was on l o c a l i z e r t r a c k . This adversely a f f e c t e d t h e pre-land t e s t which commences at g l i d e s l o p e
engage. I t is d e s i r a b l e t o be c e n t e r e d on l o c a l i z e r p r i o r t o g l i d e s l o p e engage and is not an u n r e a l i s t i c re-
quirement f o r an a l l - w e a t h e r approach. However, i f a c l o s e i n c a p t u r e is necessary, t h e i n i t i a t i o n of t h e
pre-land test could be reconfigured t o occur at a lower a l t i t u d e than t h a t at g l i d e s l o p e engage.

7. SYSTEM G A I N S

Pitch
Symbo 1 Nomenclature Interface Source Sens i ti v i ty Comments

e Pitch Attitude V e r t i c a l Gyro 200 mV/deg

e P i t c h Rate Rate Gyro 200 mV/deg/second

P Glide Slope Dev. Glide Slope Receiver 215 pA/deg I n t o a 1000 0 load

1; A l t i t u d e Rate CADC 250 mV/1000 ft/minute

h Altitude CADC 10 mV/ft Same f o r Ver Nav

Source

M Mach CADC 1 V/O.Ol M

MB Mach Beeper Control Panel - 0 . 3 V/sec

~ R A Radar A l t i t u d e Radar A l t i t u d e 0 . 2 V + 10mV/ft

F l a r e Command F l a r e Computer 200 mV/ft/sec

Bh Acceleration Accelerometer 8 V/g

- P i t c h Cont. Command Control Panel 1 2 . 5 mV/deg .wheel

- P i t c h Wheel Force Wheel Force Sensor 29 mV/lb

I

se Elev. Surface Airframe 325 mV/deg A s read at Servo

F.U. 100%

SFLAP Flap Surface A i r f r ame 200 mV/deg A s read at Elev.

Comp. Input

%TAB Stabilizer Air f r ame 1.5 V/deg A s read at Elev.

Comp. Input

- Output t o F l i g h t Coupler 215 mV/deg I n t o a 500 0 load

Director

AD1 Input Coup1e r 75 mV/DOT

18- 10

R o l l and
Yaw Nomenclature Interface Source Sensitivity Commen t s
Symbo 1

'p Roll Attitude V e r t i c a l Gyro 200 mV/deg

ri) R o l l Rate Rate Gyro 200 mV/deg/second

77 Nav. Beam Nav. Rcvrs. 75 pA/deg LOC, 15 pA/deg/VOR,

50 pA/mile/Doppler, 500 pA/mile
Doppler A i r Drop - A l l i n t o a
1000 fl Load

- Turn Cont. Control Panel 5 . 4 V (1 - COS f0.643 'pT1),

p
', = Degrees of C o n t r o l l e r

- Roll Wheel Wheel Force 4 8 . 3 mV/lb

Force Sensor

IC, Heading Compass 360 mV/deg 3 wire source

IC, P r e - s e t Course HSI 360 mV/deg

3 Pre-select HSI 360 mV/deg

Heading

5 Yaw Rate Rate Gyro 200 mV/deg/second

'A
Aileron Surface Air f r m e 168 mV/deg A s read at
Servo F.U. 100%

R' Rudder A i r f r me 430 mV/deg A s read at

Servo F.U. 100%

PI TCB

A i r c r a f t Linkage 'e = 0 . 2 4 deg/deg. Lo q = 0.21 deddeg. H i P

'Servo

Glide Slope -
'e = 4.52 deg/deg. Lo q
6

Glide Slope -
'e = 3.04 deg/deg. LO q = 0.64 deg/deg. Hi 9
6

Glide Slope = 3.75 deg/deg/sec. Lo P

S
Glide Slope = 1.34 deg/deg/sec. Lo q = 0 . 2 8 deg/deg/sec. H i q ~

(S t 0.67)

F l a p s Up = 1.56 deg/deg. Lo q = 0 . 3 7 deg/deg. H i q

CWS-Anticipation -
'e = 0.038 deg/lb. Lo q = 0.033 deg/lb. H i q
lb

CWS-Glide Slope
6
-
lb
= 3.48 d e d l b . ( 0. 135
S + 0. 135
)
CWS-Glide Slope = 0 . 1 5 deg/sec/lb.

6
A l t . Hold - = 0.0578 d e g / f t . + 0.0015 d e g / s e c j f t
h
 18-11

A l t . Hold (Rate)
6
- = 0.027 d e g / f t . / s e c .
ti

Ver Nav = 0.024 d e g / f t . -t 0.087 deg/sec/ft

VN TFLK = 0,024 d e g / f t . t 0,002 deg/sec/ft.

VN A l t . Hold = 0.0578 d e g / f t . -+ 0.002 deg/sec/ft.

VN AH Capture = 0.024 d e g / f t t 0.087 d e g / s e c / f t .

Glide Slope = 42 deg/deg + 2 . 7 deg/sec/deg

Mach Hold = 1 . 9 deg/O.Ol M t 0.34 deg/sec/O.Ol M

Flare = 0 . 8 5 d e g / f t / s e c t 0 . 2 5 deg/sec/ft/sec

Accel. (
= 65 d e d g 5 2 . 5 S
52.5 S
) (z)
t 1 5 S t 1

Controller = 0.039 deg/deg

Flaps = 0.27 deg/deg

- (1 - COS Cp) 6 x 0.5

IJp A t t i t u d e -
11.5 s i n 6 0.85

Limits Flare

Up A t t i t u d e 6' 6 Synch T = 0.034

Glide Slope 7.5' 6 Command T.D. Rate hTD = -2.25 f t / s e c
Flare 8.0' 6 Nose Up Time Constant TF = 6.43
Flare 0.75' 6 Nose Down
Mach Beeper 0.045 Mach

Signal Switching

G S Engage Below Beam 4 8 pA F l a r e Eng = 45 f t

GS Engage Above Beam > 50pA T h r o t t l e Retard = 30 f t
T r i m Cut o f f 7 . 6 l b Land Arm = 100 f t
CWS On 2.5 l b
cws Off 1.7 lb

Misc. -2gs

p 0.48 sec t 0.11 sec

F l a r e 0. 11 s e c
18- 1 2

Comparators Desensitizer Gain Program

Coupler
C-18 GS RCVR 0. 1' 3
C-16 Des 3-2 t = o 1.0 1.0

,1
f(t)
C-15 Des 2-1 0. 1' 0 t = 120 .25 . 18
C-17 Des 3-1 Non-Des.
1000 f t 1.0 1.0
c-19 e 10 e
C-10 Rdr A l t . 100 f t
Elevator
C-4 Surface 1.27' 6
c-5 cws 17.2 l b

Flare Gain a t t = 120 Same at t =

C-20 S i n k Rate 4 ft/sec Gain = 0 a t hRA= 0

ROLL - YAW

A i r c r a f t Linkage - Roll = 0.486 deg/deg

Loc/coup = 3 . 2 6 deg/deg

Loc/couP = 1 . 6 3 deg/deg

Loc/coup = 3.64 deg/deg/sec

Loc/coup = 1.82 deg/deg/sec

A i r c r a f t Linkage - Yaw = 0.476 deg/deg

S(S + 1 . 7 5 )
Yaw Damper = 1.04 deg/deg/sec
[(S + 0.5).]

*Roll XFD-L/C.GS Des = 0.165 deg/deg, S R - R'

- 0 . 2 8 deg/deg/sec, - -
- 0 . 6 2 deg/deg
rp 'PC

*Roll XFD-L/C.GS Des = 0.165 deg/deg, -$ = 0 . 2 8 deg/deg/sec, = 0.043 deg/deg

rp 'PC

CWS - Anticipation = 0.26 deg/lb

csw - Loc/coup = 20 deg/lb

CWS - LOC/COU~ = 0.88 deg/sec/lb

Heading Hold = 3 . 5 deg/deg

PSH = 3.85 deg/deg

 18- 13

PSC LOC. Land = 1.4 r 1

I

PSC LOC. Land = 0.21 L J

I *Roll Lag = 4.85 deg/deg ( 17.5 S + 1

**Controller = 10 deg/V
Cont

Nav Modes

LOC = 32 deg/deg + 0.38 deg/sec/deg

!
VOR/TAC = 5 1 deg/deg

VOR/TAC/TRK = 16 deg/deg
1
17.5 S + 1
STA. PASS = 2 . 3 deg/deg
I

Doppler or Air Drop

cp
-
77
= 52 deg/mile J
*cpc = Coupler Output = 100 mV/deg Roll Command. **See s e n s i t i v i t i e s

Limits

H.S. or Coup 30' Cp

Roll L i m i t 7.5' Cp

Other 36' rP

220 $J
VOR/TAC
VOR/T AC/TRK
Dopp 1e r
32'
120
30'
$J
9!J
9!J
CWS Deadspot - 3 lb
Roll t o Yaw XFD Com. S o f t 7 = 9 sec

Com.
r Pre-engage 22O cp/sec
4.8O cp/sec
Mod.
22' cp/sec
22' cp/sec

6, from coup 4.50 6,

XFD i n G S Des 1.20 6,

Signal'Switching
CWS On 1.8 lb Doppler Engage 124 pA
cws Off 1. 15 lb pSC Washout-Loc 75 p A + 17.5' P E
LOC Engage 175 pA PSC Washout-VT 12 p A + 17.5' P E
VT Engage 75 PA PSC Washout-Dop 124 p A + 17.5' PSC
VTT Engage 12 p A + 17.5' PSC Roll Down rp <p0
S t a . Entry >65 pA RCWS-No Force
Sta. E x i t <65 p A + 14 s e c w i l l Hold Cp i f rp 2 3'
18- 14

Comparators Desensitizer Gain Program .

.. .
Coupler
*Des 2 AP. FD
C-14 LoC RCVR 0.20 Des 1 FD
C-13 Des 2-1 0.2' 7 Non-Des.
c-9 'p 3.30 rp
0.45
Aileron
C-2
c-3
Surface
cws
2.8'
13.8
CP
lb
f(h,A)
1000 f t
45 f t 1 1.0
0.45

Yaw Damper
c-1 XFD 40 6, Gain = 0 . 4 5 a t t = io, h,, =0
Yaw Rate 1.8' $'/sec (Y. R. F i l t e r ) *FD Des not used on AWLS
Surface 1.8' 8,
 18- 15

Me an One Sigma Deviation

Longitudinal 353 f e e t beyond 253 f e e t

GS/RW i n t e r c e p t

Lateral 6.78 f e e t l e f t of 10.49 f e e t

Runway c e n t e r l i n e

Sink Rate at 3.39 feet/second 0.96 feet/second

Touchdown

Fig. 1 Landing d i s p e r s i o n s

GLIDESLOPE7 ',

AIRPLANE MUS1

Fig.2 Accuracy c r i t e r i a at 100 f e e t f o r Category 2 approaches

MODEL CHANNEL 6 COMPARATORS"0N.LIWE"

Sequence
Lower Sear Aircraft Holds
Flaps at 15%

ARM AWLS Redoce Roll Angle Limit

increase Roil Rate Limit
6s Aotoengaga and Capture
lotomatic Test Sequence Initiate
Flaps at 100%
111. Hld. Disengaged
Airspeed to 1.3vs
6
Aircraft Holds Airspsad
Roll LA6 titage
Raduce PSC Washout 6ain

Fig. 3 Locckheed C - 1 4 1 AWLS sequence

18- 16

-*

Fig. 4 Basic c o n f i g u r a t i o n

I n t h e R o l l Axis t h e Redundant Functions I n t h e P i t c h Axis t h e Redundant

are: Functions are:
Attitude Attitude
A t t i t u d e Rate A t t i t u d e Rate
CWS (Common Force Sensor) CWS (Common Force Sensor)
Servo Model Servo Model
Command Modifier and Command Limiter Glide Slope I n t e g r a t o r (with
, equalization)
Roll t o Yaw Crossfeed
R o l l Lag Glide Slope Deviation and
Desensitization
L o c a l i z e r Deviation and D e s e n s i t i z a t i o n
F l a r e Computation
Normal Acceleration

Non-Redundant Functions are: Non-Redundant Functions a r e :

C o n t r o l l e r Input C o n t r o l l e r Input
CWS Force Sensor CWS Force Sensor
Localizer Integrator Stabilizer Position
P r e s e l e c t Heading P i t c h Trim
P r e s e t Course Versine - Up A t t i t u d e
Compass Heading A t t i t u d e Rate Washout
Mach Hold
A l t i t u d e Hold
V e r t i c a l Navigation

Fig. 5 Redundant f u n c t i o n s
 18- 17

Fig. 6 Equalization

Fig. 7 Methods of redundant s e c t i o n a l i z a t i o n

Fig. 8 Common j u n c t i o n monitoring

18-18

Fig. 9 Comparator l o c a t i o n

Threshold

c-1 R o l l XFD 4 . 0 deg Rudder

C-2 A i l S i g Ch 2 . 8 deg A t t i t u d e
C-3 RCWS 13.8 l b
C-4 Elev S i g Ch 1 . 3 deg A t t i t u d e
c-5 PCWS 17.2 l b
C-9 Roll Coup S i g . 3 . 3 deg A t t i t u d e
* C-10 Radar A l t . 100 f e e t
C-13 LOC Des 0 . 2 deg Beam
C-14 LoC RCVR 0 . 2 deg Beam
C-15, C17 G S Des 1 0 . 1 deg Beam
C-16, C15 G S Des 2 0 . 1 deg Beam
C-16, C17 G S Des 3 0 . 1 deg Beam
C-18 GS RCVR 0 . 1 deg Bern
C-19 P i t c h COUP Sig. 1 . 0 deg A t t i t u d e
*C-20 F l a r e 4 feet/second

* F a u l t s i n t h e F l a r e System are announced when d e t e c t e d , and r e s u l t i n a u t o p i l o t p i t c h disconnect and

F l i g h t D i r e c t o r p i t c h warning at 100 f e e t .

Fig. 10 Comparator assignments

 18-19

, INTEgffRTOR

LERD
+ I

c-/3
I

MODEL
LOC I
DESEh'S.

Fig.11 L o c a l i z e r i n t e g r a t o r monitoring

Preland Test Comparators Tested Comments

PLT - 1 Glide Slope and L o c a l i z e r

Receivers

PLT - 2 P i t c h and R o l l D e s e n s i t i z e r s

PLT - 3 P i t c h and R o l l Commands Start F l a r e Test 5

PLT - 4 P i t c h and R o l l Control Wheel

Steering

PLT - 5 P i t c h and R o l l Servos

PLT -6 Yaw Damper Crossfeed and Radar

Altimeter

Fig.12 Preland t e s t s i g n a l s

T-TmT
H-HEAL

1.38 IY

1.32 pa

0-TIME
=DESE=.
-1000 Ft
1-IUMR
DGSEKS.
1.100 Ft.
suNlh15q

Fig. 13 Eh r o u t e t e s t
:

i
i
I

i
I

I
I
I

i
I
i

I
I
 19

D I R E C T L I F T CONTROL FOR APPROACH AND L A N D I N G

by

Robert C. Lorenzetti

Flight Control Division (FDCL)

Air Force Flight Dynamics Laboratory
Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio 45433, USA
19
 19- 1

DI’RECT L I F T C O N T R O L FOR A P P R O A C H A N D L A N D I N G

Robert C. Lorenzett i

1. INTRODUCTION

During t h e p a s t decade, t h e production of l a r g e r , heavier, higher performance a i r c r a f t has r e q u i r e d a rapid

advance i n f l i g h t c o n t r o l system technology t o maintain acceptable handling q u a l i t i e s . S o p h i s t i c a t e d s t a b i l i t y
augmentation systems a r e c u r r e n t l y s t a n d a r d i n t h e WAF century s e r i e s f i g h t e r s as well as i n many o t h e r high
performance a i r c r a f t . Even more advanced s e l f - a d a p t i v e c o n t r o l systems a r e now appearing on production a i r c r a f t .
I n t r a n s p o r t a i r c r a f t , increased s i z e , weight, and airspeed have reduced t h e r a t i o of aerodynamic t o i n e r t i a l
moments, producing a “sluggishness” of response. P r e c i s e c o n t r o l of t h e s e a i r c r a f t is d i f f i c u l t i n c e r t a i n
f l i g h t regimes due t o l a g s i n l i f t buildup and excessive p i t c h r a t e overshoot while c o n t r o l l i n g f l i g h t path.
These regimes include approach and landing f l a r e , i n - f l i g h t r e f u e l i n g , t e r r a i n following, and cargo drop.
Attempts t o make small c o r r e c t i o n s i n f l i g h t p a t h angle can r e s u l t i n undesirable t r a n s i e n t s . These problems
e x i s t because both l i f t and normal a c c e l e r a t i o n are c o n t r o l l e d by p i t c h i n g t h e a i r c r a f t . Thus, i t is d e s i r a b l e
t o provide t h e p i l o t with a more d i r e c t c o n t r o l over l i f t without applying an undesirable p i t c h i n g moment.

2. DEFINITION

Direct l i f t c o n t r o l (DLC) is a system which produces l i f t f o r c e s i n t h e d i r e c t i o n t h e p i l o t d e s i r e s t o move

t h e a i r p l a n e without s i g n i f i c a n t p i t c h i n g moment. DLC enhances p r e c i s i o n l o n g i t u d i n a l maneuvering c a p a b i l i t y
by providing a change i n a l t i t u d e o r r a t e of climb without a change i n p i t c h a t t i t u d e and without t h e i n i t i a l
a c c e l e r a t i o n r e v e r s a l , delay i n l i f t build-up, and excessive p i t c h rate overshoot a s s o c i a t e d wit.h conventional
e l e v a t o r c o n t r o l . This is accomplished by moving an a u x i l i a r y l i f t s u r f a c e ( s ) such a s biased s p o i l e r s , sym-
metricalcly operated a i l e r o n s , f l a p s , or canards i n a d d i t i o n t o t h e e l e v a t o r , a s shown i n Figure 1. DLC systems
can be e i t h e r blended (responding t o normal l o n g i t u d i n a l s t i c k movements) o r s e p a r a t e ( a c t i v a t e d by a thumb-
wheel o r o t h e r a u x i l i a r y l e v e r ) . They can be open loop (with f i x e d r a t i o interconnect between t h e e l e v a t o r and
DLC s u r f a c e ) o r closed loop (with feedbacks of p i t c h angle, p i t c h r a t e , p i t c h a c c e l e r a t i o n , and/or normal
a c c e l e r a t i o n ) . Figure 2 p r e s e n t s some DLC mechanization options. In general, blended c l o s e d loop systems g i v e
t h e b e s t performance but are t h e most expensive. Additional DLC b e n e f i t s i n c l u d e reduction i n ,normal a c c e l e r a -
t i o n o f t h e a i r c r a f t c e n t e r o f g r a v i t y , improved handling i n turbulence, and reduction i n p i l o t workload.

3. HISTORY OF DLC IN APPROACH AND LANDING

The o r i g i n a l motivation f o r study of DLC systems i n t h i s country was provided by t h e US Navy’s c a r r i e r landing
requirements. The i n i t i a l commercial DLC systems, on t h e Lockheed L-1011 and t h e McDonnell-Douglas DC- 10, w i l l
also be used f o r approach and landing. Thus, a d i s c u s s i o n of t h e h i s t o r y of DLC i n approach and landing covers
t h e m a j o r i t y of DLC work. A word of caution, however. Although t h i s d i s c u s s i o n i s l i m i t e d t o DLC i n approach
and landing, i n keeping with t h e conference theme, t h e DLC designer must not so l i m i t h i s thinking. Depending
on t h e DLC mechanization and t h e a i r c r a f t mission, a DLC i n s t a l l a t i o n intended p r i m a r i l y as an approach and
landing a i d can a l s o provide gust a l l e v i a t i o n i n c r u i s e , easy i n - f l i g h t r e f u e l i n g , p o s s i b l e i n c r e a s e i n a i r c r a f t
s t r u c t u r a l l i f e , and improved s t a t i o n keeping, cargo drop, t e r r a i n following, t a c t i c a l maneuvering, and weapons
delivery capabilities.

3. 1 Initial DLC S t u d i e s
A s a l r e a d y s t a t e d , t h e US Navy sponsored t h e f i r s t DLC work i n t h i s country. motivated by t h e requirements
of c a r r i e r landings. A c o n t r a c t was l e t t o Douglas A i r c r a f t Company i n 1961 t o study means o f generating l i f t
without p i t c h ’ . Douglas proved t h e f e a s i b i l i t y of t h e i d e a , and designed t h e f i r s t d i r e c t l i f t c o n t r o l system.
Test p i l o t s who flew t h i s system ( v i a a cockpit s i m u l a t o r t i e d t o an analog computer) were e n t h u s i a s t i c about
t h e improved handling q u a l i t i e s and p r e c i s e maneuvering c a p a b i l i t i e s provided by DLC.

3.2 Navy Tests

Following t h i s study, t h e Navy and Ling-Temco-Vought conducted wind t u n n e l , simulator, and f l i g h t t e s t s of a
Navy c a r r i e r - l a n d i n g a i r c r a f t . DLC w a s accomplished by r a p i d l y varying t h e d e f l e c t i o n o f t h e a i l e r o n s , which
were drooped symmetrically as wing t r a i l i n g edge f l a p s . The e l e v a t o r was interconnected with t h e system t o
approximately cancel t h e small p i t c h i n g moment produced by t h e a i l e r o n s . This was a s e p a r a t e , open-loop system.
The p i l o t commanded DLC by t u r n i n g a spring-loaded-to-neutral c o n t r o l wheel mounted on t o p of t h e normal c o n t r o l
stick.
 19- 2

DLC s i g n i f i c a n t l y i n c r e a s e s t h e p i l o t ’ s a b i l i t y t o c o n t r o l g l i d e s l o p e . . . and reduces average s i n k speed,

It improves o v e r a l l landing approach c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s mainly by allowing r a p i d and p r e c i s e v e r t i c a l g l i d e
p a t h c o r r e c t i o n s without t h e n e c e s s i t y f o r p i t c h a t t i t u d e changes . . . A reduction i n recommended approach
speed may be achieved when using DLC . . . (5: 1 ) .

More r e c e n t Navy DLC work has included f e a s i b i l i t y s t u d i e s f o r s e v e r a l c a r r i e r - l a n d i n g a i r p l a n e s , f l i g h t t e s t s

o f a spoiler-mechanized DLC, and recommendations f o r DLC on f u t u r e c a r r i e r - l a n d i n g aircraft (3 and 10).

3.3 NASA/Ames Convair 990

Of c o u r s e , DLC o f f e r s b e n e f i t s t o commercial a i r l i n e s as well as m i l i t a r y a i r c r a f t . Thus, t h e NASA Ames

Research Center conducted f l i g h t t e s t s of a Convair 990 j e t l i n e r , using biased s p o i l e r s (speed brakes) t o pro-
v i d e DLC during t h e landing approach. Before e n t e r i n g t h e approach p a t t e r n , t h e s p o i l e r s were p a r t i a l l y extended
( b i a s e d up) and t h e a i r p l a n e was trimmed t o f l y in t h i s c o n d i t i o n . L i f t could then be i n c r e a s e d by p a r t i a l l y
r e t r a c t i n g t h e s p o i l e r s , or decreased by extending them s t i l l f u r t h e r . This system is a d m i t t e d l y crude, s i n c e
t h e p i l o t must manipulate a DLC ( s p o i l e r ) c o n t r o l l e v e r , which is i n ’ a n awkward p o s i t i o n , simultaneously with
t h e t h r o t t l e and c o n t r o l s t i c k . Nevertheless, t h e t e s t p i l o t s were a g a i n impressed by t h e improved maneuvering
c a p a b i l i t y provided by DLC. Follow-on s i m u l a t i o n s at Ames t e s t e d s e v e r a l o t h e r open-loop c o n f i g u r a t i o n s ,
i n c l u d i n g a blended system and a DLC c o n t r o l l e d by t h e t h r o t t l e . NASA has done f u r t h e r DLC work, mainly i n
connection with n o i s e abatement approach research. Test a i r c r a f t i n c l u d e t h e Navy F-8, an F-100, and t h e Boeing
Dash 80 (707 p r o t o t y p e ) . See References 11, 12, 17 and 18.

3.4 AFFDL Simulations

The Air Force F l i g h t Dynamics Laboratory r e c e n t l y sponsored a one-year study of t h e a p p l i c a b i l i t y o f DLC t o

cargo p l a n e s , fighter-bombers, and s t r a t e g i c bombers. With Honeywell, I n c . , as t h e c o n t r a c t o r , t h i s s t u d y was
conducted t o determine t h e i n c r e a s e d mission e f f e c t i v e n e s s t h a t can be achieved with c o n t r o l systems using
d i r e c t l i f t c o n t r o l . A p i l o t - i n - t h e - l o o p simulator s t u d y was performed using c u r r e n t cargo and f i g h t e r p l a n e s
a s t e s t b e d s , with approach and l a n d i n g as one of t h e f l i g h t c o n d i t i o n s i n v e s t i g a t e d . The a i r c r a f t t e s t e d showed
50% reduction i n p i t c h r a t e overshoot and much f a s t e r normal a c c e l e r a t i o n response t o a s t e p f o r c e i n p u t when
equipped with DLC. Volume 11, pages 56-57 o f Reference 14 ( t h e f i n a l r e p o r t ) s t a t e s i n part:
P i l o t ’ s p r e f e r e n c e f o r t h e c o n t r o l c o n f i g u r a t i o n s was i n t h i s o r d e r , f i r s t t o last: blended closed-loop;
blended open-loop DLC: conventional e l e v a t o r c o n t r o l . . . Blended closed-loop DLC w a s r a t e d one Cooper
r a t i n g b e t t e r than conventional e l e v a t o r and o n e - h a l f Cooper r a t i n g b e t t e r t h a n blended open-loop DLC.
Closed-loop DLC g u s t a l l e v i a t i o n was n o t i c e d by t h e p i l o t s and was weighted s i g n i f i c a n t l y i n t h e i r
ratings.
Based on t h e r e s u l t s of t h e s e s i m u l a t o r t e s t s , it is a n t i c i p a t e d t h a t f l i g h t t e s t s w i l l demonstrate:
1. S i g n i f i c a n t improvements i n t h e p i l o t ’ s a b i l i t y t o c o n t r o l an a i r c r a f t t o t h e g l i d e s l o p e and t o t h e f l a r e
p a t h and thereby a s i g n i f i c a n t l y reduced number of go-arounds and hard landings.

2. C o n t r o l l a b i l i t y t h a t w i l l c o n t r i b u t e t o t h e lowering of instrument approach weather minimums.

3. An improvement i n both t h e p r e c i s i o n of t h e mission t a s k accomplishment and r e d u c t i o n i n p i l o t f a t i g u e

factor.
4. Increased e f f e c t i v e n e s s f o r e v a s i v e maneuvers r e q u i r i n g r a p i d pull-ups.

5. A more s t a b l e p l a t f o r m (with reduced normal a c c e l e r a t i o n and p i t c h rate response t o d i s t u r b a n c e s ) f o r

weapon d e l i v e r y .

3.5 LAMS A i r c r a f t
In 1968, t h e author and Captain Gary Nelsen, a l s o of t h e USAF, a p p l i e d o p t i m i z a t i o n t h e o r y t o t h e design of
a blended closed-loop DLC system f o r t h e MAS* a i r c r a f t ” . A d i g i t a l computer program was w r i t t e n based on
Kalman’ s “ l i n e a r state r e g u l a t o r ” optimal c o n t r o l t h e o r i e s . Using a q u a d r a t i c c o s t f u n c t i o n , t h e computer
program d e f i n e s c o n t r o l l e r feedbacks through s o l u t i o n of t h e m a t r i x Riccati equation. This computer program,
coupled w i t h a simple two-degree o f freedom analog s i m u l a t i o n makes p o s s i b l e r a p i d and a c c u r a t e DLC f e a s i b i l i t y
s t u d i e s o f v a r i o u s a i r c r a f t . Such a s t u d y , f o r approach and landing c o n d i t i o n s , w i l l be d i s c u s s e d i n d e t a i l
later.

The DLC surfaces f o r t h i s s t u d y were t h e s p o i l e r s , with +Zoo a u t h o r i t y from a 20’ up b i a s p o s i t i o n , and t h e

small LAMS a i l e r o n s with +17O symmetric d e f l e c t i o n a u t h o r i t y . Constant a t t i t u d e systems, u s i n g p i t c h a t t i t u d e ,
p i t c h r a t e , and normal a c c e l e r a t i o n feedbacks were emphasized. Using such a system, a p i l o t could e s t a b l i s h
t h e proper g l i d e p a t h a t t i t u d e through a pre-programmed or thumbwheel c o n t r o l l e d “ f a l s e a t t i t u d e e r r o r ” s i g n a l .
The DLC system then a l l o w s a change i n t h e r e s u l t i n g r a t e o f ;limb (descent) up t o 500 f e e t p e r minute without

LAMS. Load Alleviation and,Mode Stabilization, is an Air Force F l i g h t Dynamics Lab s t u d y of methods t o increase t h e
I structural l i f e of large flexible a i r c r a f t . Contractors were the Boeing Company and Honeywell, Inc. The LAMS a i r c r a f t
is a modified and heavily instrumented bomber. The control surfaces themselves (ailerons. spoilers, and elevators) are
standard, b u t they have been f i t t e d w i t h new fast-responding broad bandwidth actuators which w i l l accept e l e c t r i c a l
i n p u t s . LAMS information w a s presented at the AGARD meeting i n Oslo, Norway. 3-5 September 1968. by M r Robert Johannes.
 19-3

changing aircraft a t t i t u d e . Within t h e aerodynamic limits o f t h e DLC s u r f a c e s , t h e p i l o t ' s normal longitudinal

s t i c k movements a r e i n t e r p r e t e d e s s e n t i a l l y as r a t e of climb commands, allowing p r e c i s e maneuvering during t h e
landing approach and a e r i a l r e f u e l i n g . With large s t i c k movements, t h e a i r c r a f t response is similar t o C*
with p i t c h i n g moments and a i r c r a f t r o t a t i o n .

Several t e s t f l i g h t s o f t h i s c o n s t a n t - a t t i t u d e DLC were conducted by t h e Boeing F l i g h t Test Division at

Wichita, Kansas, through t h e e f f o r t s o f Mr Paul B u r r i s , LAMS Engineering Program Manager. The t e s t p i l o t s
reported t h e a i r p l a n e was extremely easy t o f l y along t h e ILS beam, and showed e x c e l l e n t speed s t a b i l i t y .
Reference 19, page 33, s t a t e s i n p a r t :
Both evaluation p i l o t s r a t e d t h e a i r p l a n e with t h e d i r e c t l i f t c o n t r o l system engaged during t h e ILS
approach at a Cooper r a t i n g of 2.0. The time h i s t o r i e s i n Figures 3 and 4 show t h e a i r p l a n e a c t i v i t y during
t h e approach with and without DLC. Like t h e r e f u e l t r a c e s , t h e a c t i v i t y on t h e p i t c h a t t i t u d e and c . g .
a c c e l e r a t i o n t r a c e s i s much l e s s with DLC than without . . . .
The evaluation p i l o t s were very well pleased with t h e d i r e c t l i f t c o n t r o l system during t h e approach
t e s t i n g . With DLC, d u r i n g t h e ILS approaches, very l i t t l e p i l o t e f f o r t was r e q u i r e d t o maintain t h e g l i d e
p a t h and g l i d e slope. There was a l s o l i t t l e e f f o r t required t o maintain a i r s p e e d during t h e approach because
of t h e improved p i t c h a t t i t u d e and drag c o n t r o l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of t h e DLC mode.

The DLC system a l s o performed well during r e f u e l i n g . I n f a c t , t o demonstrate t h e f l e x i b i l i t y and c o n t r o l -

l a b i l i t y of DLC, tanker c o n t a c t was even e s t a b l i s h e d and maintained while i n a t u r n maneuver. This LAMS work
r e p r e s e n t s t h e f i r s t f l i g h t t e s t o f a blended, closed-loop, constant a t t i t u d e DLC system.

3.6 Flaps as a DLC Surface

Captain Richard Olson, Air Force I n s t i t u t e of Technology, r e c e n t l y completed a DLC simulation program with a
c u r r e n t f i g h t e r design, using f l a p s as t h e primary DLC s u r f a c e . Performance of t h i s simulation i n t h e approach
and landing t a s k was very impressive. The c o n t r o l l e r s are again based on optimization t h e o r y , but only a few
degrees o f DLC f l a p a u t h o r i t y were required2'.

3.7 Commercial Developments

Lockheed A i r c r a f t Company and McDonnell-Douglas Corporation have announced DLC systems f o r t h e i r a i r b u s designs,
t h e L-1011 and DC-10. r e s p e c t i v e l y . Both systems are intended s o l e l y as approach and landing a i d s .

Lockheed ' h a s done much i n t e r e s t i n g (but t o t h e a u t h o r ' s knowledge, unpublished) simulation work i n marrying
DLC t o an automatic landing system. M r Gorham of Lockheed r e p o r t s t h a t DLC reduced t h e l o n g i t u d i n a l d i s p e r s i o n
of automatic landings 50%, while improving v e r t i c a l touchdown d i s p e r s i o n by a f a c t o r of e i g h t t o one. S p o i l e r s
were used as t h e DLC s u r f a c e .

McDonnell-Douglas h a s conducted a DC-10 f l i g h t development program using a DC-8 Super 63 f o r f l i g h t t e s t s .

The DC-10 system u s e s t h e f l i g h t s p o i l e r s as t h e DLC s u r f a c e , and is s a i d t o provide p r e c i s e f l i g h t p a t h c o n t r o l ,
improved f l a r e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , and a minimum d i s p e r s i o n i n touchdown p o i n t f o r both human p i l o t and t h e auto-
land systemI6.

3 . 8 Advantages of DLC Systems i n Approach and Landing

A number of advantages of DLC systems i n approach and landing have been discussed i n connection with t h e
h i s t o r y of DLC. These include:
(a) Elimination of normal a c c e l e r a t i o n r e v e r s a l and d e l a y i n l i f t build-up, speeding normal a c c e l e r a t i o n
response, as shown i n Figure 5.

(b) Reduction of p i t c h rate overshoot i n maneuvering, which is also i l l u s t r a t e d i n Figure 5.

( c ) Reduced h o r i z o n t a l and v e r t i c a l d i s p e r s i o n i n both p i l o t e d and automatic landings.

(d) Improved r i d e and handling due t o gust a l l e v i a t i o n (closed-loop system o n l y ) , as i n d i c a t e d i n Figure 6.

(e) P r e c i s e c o n t r o l of r a t e of climb (with c o n s t a n t p i t c h a t t i t u d e , i f d e s i r e d ) y i e l d i n g improved beam-

following a b i l i t y , as shown i n f i g u r e 7.
( f ) P r e c i s i o n v e r n i e r c o n t r o l changes upon break-out from weather and t r a n s i t i o n t o v i s u a l f l i g h t (VFR)
conditions without a f f e c t i n g t h e trim o f t h e a i r c r a f t .

4 . THREE-AIRCRAFT DLC FEASIBILITY STUDY

A s mentioned e a r l i e r , t h e LAMS DLC study produced a d i g i t a l computer optimization program t h a t makes p o s s i b l e

r a p i d DLC f e a s i b i l i t y s t u d i e s . I t is used i n conjunction with a two degree of freedom analog simulation* for

Simulation requires 45 amplifiers, 55 potentiometers, a control s t i c k , and several voltmeters. A program for demonstrating
an a i r c r a f t with and without DLC in the approach and landing condition can be requested from the author.
19-4

e v a l u a t i o n of f l y i n g q u a l i t i e s . Reference 15 t e s t e d DLC systems i n both two and s i x degrees of freedom, and

found t h a t DLC performance f i g u r e s and handling q u a l i t i e s c o r r e l a t e d very well.

Such a f e a s i b i l i t y study was conducted i n May 1968 f o r t h r e e a i r c r a f t i n t h e approach and landing c o n d i t i o n .

They a r e t h e Ames Large Transport (ALT), a l a r g e cargo a i r c r a f t ; t h e Jumbo Jet Bus ( J J B ) , a t y p i c a l l a r g e sub-
s o n i c j e t l i n e r ; and t h e Boeing 2707-200 Supersonic Transport (SST), t h e now-discarded v a r i a b l e sweep wing design.
Reference 22 r e p o r t s results on a l l t h r e e a i r p l a n e s . Here, f o r b r e v i t y , t h e d i s c u s s i o n i s l i m i t e d t o t h e d i g i t a l
o p t i m i z a t i o n program and t h e SST r e s u l t s . . However, one i n t e r e s t i n g comment on handling q u a l i t i e s i n v o l v e s a l l
three aircraft.

Several s t a n d a r d maneuvers such as shown i n Figure 8 were flown with b a s i c and DLC v e r s i o n s of each a i r c r a f t
by a USAF p i l o t and a n o n - p i l o t . The p i l o t had no problems. The n o n - p i l o t had l i t t l e d i f f i c u l t y with t h e JJB.
The b a s i c ALT is r a t h e r s l u g g i s h and r e q u i r e d more f i n e s s e , b u t was c o n t r o l l a b l e . The n o n - p i l o t ’ s a t t e m p t s t o
f l y t h e b a s i c SST produced chaos. However, he found t h e DLC v e r s i o n s of a l l t h r e e a i r c r a f t easy t o f l y .

4.1 Optimal Control Theory

The computer o p t i m i z a t i o n program which s e l e c t s t h e feedback g a i n s is based on t h e Linear State Regulator
Theory o r i g i n a l l y advanced by R.E.Kalman. The s t a t e equation f o r a completely controllable linear time invariant
system i s

where A and B a r e time i n v a r i a n t m a t r i c e s . Kalman’s s t a t e v e c t o r , X ( t ) , r e p r e s e n t s an a r r a y of response

v a r i a b l e s . The aerodynamic s u r f a c e a r r a y , V_(t), is t o be c o n t r o l l e d t o minimize a weighted sum of t h e squared
e r r o r s of t h e response v a r i a b l e s p l u s t h e squared s u r f a c e d e f l e c t i o n s . The q u a d r a t i c c o s t f u n c t i o n , which is
merely a mathematical statement of t h e above “ l e a s t squares” requirement is

J = XTFK t
6 F(XTQX t UTRV_) d t .

I f t h e f i n a l time. t, , is i n f i n i t y , then t h e r e s u l t i n g optimal feedback system is l i n e a r and time i n v a r i a n t .

The R matrix, t h e c o s t o f c o n t r o l , m u s t be p o s i t i v e d e f i n i t e ; t h e Q matrix, t h e c o s t of non-zero states,
need only be p o s i t i v e s e m i d e f i n i t e , and F can be t h e z e r o matrix. R ( 1 , l ) weights t h e c o s t of u s i n g U ( 1 ) ,
t h e e l e v a t o r , R ( 2 , 2 ) weights s p o i l e r usage, and R(3,3) weights a i l e r o n ( o r canard) d e f l e c t i o n s . S i m i l a r l y ,
Q(1,1) is t h e c o s t of non-zero X(1) , normal a c c e l e r a t i o n , while Q(2, 2) and Q(3.3) weight p i t c h angle and
p i t c h rate r e s p e c t i v e l y . Manipulation of t h e o f f - d i a g o n a l elements of t h e Q and R m a t r i c e s , which were
always z e r o in t h i s s t u d y , is d i s c u s s e d i n Reference 15 (pp.47-51).

With U ( t ) not c o n s t r a i n e d , Kalman .has shown t h a t an optimal c o n t r o l e x i s t s , is unique, is s t a b l e , and is

given by

g(t) = -R-’ BTCX(t) = [ c o n t r o l l e r m a t r i x ] [X(t)] , (3)

where C is t h e c o n s t a n t n x n p o s i t i v e d e f i n i t e matrix o b t a i n e d by i n t e g r a t i n g t h e matrix Riccati equation

dC(t) = -C(t)A - ATC(t) t C(t)BR-’BTC(t) - Q (4)

backwards i n time with t h e boundary c o n d i t i o n

C(t,) = F = 0 .

A s backward i n t e g r a t i o n proceeds, t h e t r a n s i e n t due t o t h e “ i n i t i a l c o n d i t i o n ” C(t,) = 0 damps o u t , and a l l

elements of t h e C m a t r i x become c o n s t a n t . The c o n t r o l l e r m a t r i c e s i n F i g u r e 9, are t h e n computed by
Equation ( 3 ) .

4.2 Design Criteria

While a l l c o n t r o l l e r s produced by t h e d i g i t a l computer program are optimal f o r t h e c o s t s assigned i n t h e Q

and R m a t r i c e s , t h e y are n o t n e c e s s a r i l y p r a c t i c a l [ U ( t ) is u n c o n s t r a i n e d l , nor are handling q u a l i t i e s always
a c c e p t a b l e t o t h e p i l o t . After some e x p e r i e n c e with t h e program, two o r t h r e e r u n s (one minute of IBM 7094 time
each) u s u a l l y s u f f i c e t o achieve t h e d e s i r e d a i r c r a f t response, with good handling q u a l i t i e s , at t h e d e s i r e d
gain levels.

F i r s t t h e d e s i g n e r chooses Q(2.2). . Figure 9 shows a l a r g e Q ( 2 , 2 ) which produces a c o n s t a n t a t t i t u d e DLC,

and a small Q ( 2 , 2 ) f o r a normal blended system. Q(1.1) is manipulated t o produce a normal a c c e l e r a t i o n feed-
back t h a t provides adequate gust a l l e v i a t i o n and smooth r a t e o f climb t r a c e s without f i g h t i n g p i l o t command
i n p u t s . Examination of t h e c o n t r o l l e r m a t r i c e s shows t h a t t h e magnitude of normal a c c e l e r a t i o n feedback is
q u i t e small t o b e s t accomplish t h e s e c o n f l i c t i n g o b j e c t i v e s . Q ( 1 , l ) must be about one o r d e r o f magnitude
s m a l l e r t h a n t h e o t h e r Q s t o accomplish t h i s . Q ( 3 , 3 ) is manipulated t o o b t a i n a p i t c h rate feedback t h a t
p r o v i d e s good s t a b i l i z a t i o n , e l i m i n a t e s e x c e s s i v e p i t c h r a t e overshoots, and r e s u l t s i n good handling q u a l i t i e s .
 19-5

The main diagonal elements o f t h e R matrix can be made equal u n l e s s c o n t r o l s u r f a c e e f f e c t i v e n e s s v a r i e s

g r e a t l y (as i n t h e SST c a n a r d s ) or feedbacks t o one or both a u x i l i a r y s u r f a c e s a r e not d e s i r e d . C o n t r o l l e r
SST/DLC-1 ( F i g . 9 ) u s e s open-loop s p o i l e r s f o r DLC while R ( 1 . 1 ) is made small t o allow e l e v a t o r use i n main-
t a i n i n g t h e c o n s t a n t a t t i t u d e d i c t a t e d by t h e l a r g e Q ( 2 . 2 ) . With R(Z.2) and R ( 3 , 3 ) l a r g e i n r e l a t i o n t o
R ( l . l ) , t h e program s p e c i f i e s no feedbacks t o s p o i l e r s and low canard feedbacks. The gain l e v e l o f t h e e n t i r e
c o n t r o l l e r is conveniently c o n t r o l l e d through t h e R matrix. For i n s t a n c e , i f lower g a i n s than t h o s e obtained
a r e r e q u i r e d due t o s t r u c t u r a l o r o t h e r c o n s i d e r a t i o n s , t h e y a r e e a s i l y obtained, s t i l l i n an optimal r a t i o , by
increasing t h e R matrix values.

Equation (2) could be used t o compute a “cost” of responding t o some i n i t i a l d i s t u r b a n c e with v a r i o u s con-
t r o l l e r s , but t h i s information has no p r a c t i c a l value. The u l t i m a t e design c r i t e r i a a r e t h a t t h e system:
(a) Provide a c c e p t a b l e s t a b i l i z a t i o n of t h e a i r c r a f t . This is accomplished by t h e feedback loops t o t h e
e l e v a t o r j u s t as i n an o r d i n a r y s t a b i l i t y augmentation system.
(b) Provide t h e unique advantages o f t h e a u x i l i a r y d i r e c t l i f t s u r f a c e . . . e l i m i n a t i o n of normal a c c e l e r a t i o n
r e v e r s a l , t h u s speeding a i r c r a f t response, and r e d u c t i o n of p i t c h r a t e overshoot t o a d e s i r a b l e l e v e l .
(c) Provide s u p e r i o r handling q u a l i t i e s as evaluated by a p i l o t i n simulation t e s t s .

The r e l a t i o n s h i p between p i t c h r a t e and normal a c c e l e r a t i o n is u n a l t e r a b l e in a conventional e l e v a t o r control

system, p l a c i n g a b a s i c l i m i t on performance and handling q u a l i t i e s . Direct L i f t Control removes t h e s e limita-
t i o n s . These c r i t e r i a a r e common t o a l l closed-loop DLC systems. The d i g i t a l computer program is merely a
means of s a t i s f y i n g t h e c r i t e r i a i n an optimal manner. The r e q u i r e d manipulation o f t h e Q and R m a t r i c e s
is an e a s i l y - l e a r n e d a r t .

4 . 3 Control S u r f a c e s

The SST s p o i l e r s a r e o p e r a t e d open loop t o provide d i r e c t l i f t i n response t o l o n g i t u d i n a l stick movements.

Authority was f l O o from a 10’ up b i a s p o s i t i o n . Maximum e l e v a t o r and canard d e f l e c t i o n s were a l s o ?lo0. The
s i m u l a t i o n f l e w e q u a l l y well with t h e p i l o t c o n t r o l l i n g e i t h e r e l e v a t o r o r canard, so t h e r e s u l t s shown a r e
with canard c o n t r o l t o provoke thought*.

4.4 DLC Actuators

In t h i s s t u d y , a l l s e r v o time c o n s t a n t s were s e t at 0.167 seconds t o reasonably s i m u l a t e t h e actual a i r c r a f t

equipment. However, Reference 14, Vol. I, pp. 8-9 shows t h a t t h e a u x i l i a r y DLC s u r f a c e ( f l a p s i n t h i s case) can
provide s i g n i f i c a n t r e d u c t i o n s of a i r c r a f t normal a c c e l e r a t i o n i n t u r b u l e n c e with a time c o n s t a n t as l a r g e as
one second, and a 0 . 4 second time c o n s t a n t f o r t h e DLC s u r f a c e r e p r e s e n t s a good compromise between performance
and a c t u a t o r power requirements.

I n Reference 20, f l a p a c t u a t o r time c o n s t a n t s of about 0 . 5 second were used i n t h e DLC s i m u l a t i o n w i t h good

r e s u l t s . The author has s i m u l a t e d DLC s u r f a c e a c t u a t o r s with time c o n s t a n t s v a r i e d f r a n 0. 1 second t o s e v e r a l
seconds with l i t t l e e f f e c t on DLC performance i n smooth a i r . The p o i n t is t h a t DLC does n o t depend on e x o t i c
high-speed a c t i v a t o r s . S u r f a c e a c t u a t o r s can be chosen based on c o n s i d e r a t i o n s of c o s t , s i z e , a v a i l a b l e hydrau-
l i c power, e t c . Some p r o v i s i o n s f o r a c c e p t i n g e l e c t r i c a l c o n t r o l i n p u t s a r e , of c o u r s e , e s s e n t i a l f o r t h e
closed- loop DLC systems.

4.5 PITCH HOLD Control

In References 15 and 21, a l l c o n t r o l l e r s were designed t o hold 8 t o z e r o degrees. To add f l e x i b i l i t y t o

t h e DLC system, t h e s i m u l a t i o n f o r t h i s study was changed t o allow t h e p i l o t t o maintain any d e s i r e d p i t c h
a t t i t u d e . T h i s was done by simply adding a A8 i n t e g r a t o r f e d through a switch ( l a b e l e d PITCH HOLD) by 8 ,
and using t h e output as t h e c o n t r o l l e r p i t c h a n g l e feedback. With t h i s system, t h e p i l o t can r o t a t e t h e air-
c r a f t t o any d e s i r e d a t t i t u d e i n a normal manner, t u r n on t h e PITCH HOLD s w i t c h , . a n d t h e n use DLC t o vary h i s
r a t e of climb about t h e nominal v a l u e e s t a b l i s h e d by h i s p i t c h a t t i t u d e . The p i t c h rate and normal a c c e l e r a t i o n
feedbacks a r e not a f f e c t e d by t h e PITCH HOLD system and t h e a u x i l i a r y c o n t r o l s u r f a c e s a r e s t i l l i n use. Thus
t h e p i l o t can make a change in p i t c h a t t i t u d e without p i t c h r a t e overshoot and without t h e r e v e r s a l of normal
a c c e l e r a t i o n and l a g i n l i f t buildup which may be p r e s e n t i n t h e b a s i c a i r c r a f t .

A l l DLC c o n t r o l l e r s p r e s e n t e d h e r e a r e operated by t h e p i l o t ’ s normal l o n g i t u d i n a l s t i c k or column movements.

When PITCH HOLD is used, column movement is i n t e r p r e t e d as a rate of climb command. Otherwise, t h e p i l o t commands
a blend of p i t c h rate and normal a c c e l e r a t i o n its i n t h e C* system.

, 3 . 6 Independent A t t i t u d e Control

mis is a n o t h e r e a s i l y implemented DLC refinement t h a t i s used i n conjunction with PITCH HOLD. A r a t e -

c o n t r o l l e r i n t e g r a t o r f e d through a switch by a thumbwheel potentiometer is used t o slowly produce a false
:pitch a n g l e e r r o r s i g n a l which is summed with t h e output of t h e A8 i n t e g r a t o r d e s c r i b e d above. The d i r e c t

* The present Boeing 2707-300 SST does not include a canard. However, future a i r c r a f t design could consider an e l e c t r i c a l
f l i g h t control system between the pilot and the distant elevator, w i t h a mechanical connection t o the near-by canard as
a completely independent emergency system.
19-6

l i f t c o n t r o l l e r responds by p i t c h i n g t h e a i r c r a f t t o cancel t h e f a l s e 8 e r r o r . Note t h a t t h i s is a c l o s e d -

loop system, and t h e thumbwheel can be c a l i b r a t e d i n degrees change from e x i s t i n g a t t i t u d e . Figure 11 shows
t h a t t h i s system changes t h e a i r c r a f t a t t i t u d e smoothly and without overshoot. The p i l o t could use t h i s inde-
pendent c o n t r o l t o e s t a b l i s h t h e proper a t t i t u d e f o r g l i d e - s l o p e o r f l a r e , then use s t i c k - c o n t r o l l e d DLC t o
c a p t u r e t h e g l i d e - s l o p e or touch down.

4.7 SST Simulation’

Linearized two degree o f freedom p e r t u r b a t i o n equations were used. f o r both t h e d i g i t a l o p t i m i z a t i o n program
and t h e analog s i m u l a t i o n . Thus, a l l recorded s t r i p c h a r t parameters a r e changes from e q u i l i b r i u m c o n d i t i o n s .

Here, “basic SST” means a v e h i c l e without canards, a s t h e r e was some d i f f i c u l t y i n determining t h e d e s i g n e r ’ s

t h i n k i n g on canard usage. Wing sweep was set t o landing configuration.

Recordings of t h e Figure 8 maneuvers f o r t h e b a s i c SST a r e shown i n Figure 10. With a s t e p s t i c k i n p u t , t h i s

s i m u l a t i o n (two degrees of freedom) shows very n o t i c e a b l e r e v e r s a l of normal a c c e l e r a t i o n and r a t e of climb,
with a heave crossover time of two t o t h r e e seconds. Longitudinal response is very s l u g g i s h .

C o n t r o l l e r SST/DLC-1 uses moderate 8 feedback and low N, feedback, s i n c e high N, feedback t e n d s t o

e x c i t e t h e s t r u c t u r a l modes of a very f l e x i b l e a i r c r a f t such as t h e SST. T h i s i s a c o n s t a n t - a t t i t u d e system.
R e s u l t s f o r t h e maneuvers of Figure 8 a r e shown i n Figure 11.

For c o n t r o l l e r SST/DLC-2. t h e Q m a t r i c has been manipulated t o reduce N, and 8 feedbacks e s s e n t i a l l y

t o zero. Thus, Figure 12 shows a normal a i r c r a f t p i t c h response d u r i n g t h e Figure 8 maneuvers. However, t h e
p i t c h r a t e feedback t o t h e e l e v a t o r s t a b i l i z e s t h e plane, and use of t h e DLC canard makes t h e r a t e of climb
response more r a p i d and p r e c i s e , as seen by comparing Figures 10 and 12. The small 8 feedback t o t h e canards
was l a t e r e l i m i n a t e d with l i t t l e e f f e c t . I f s p o i l e r s a r e not used, and f u l l f 1 0 degrees e l e v a t o r a u t h o r i t y is
allowed i n t h e DLC feedbacks, c o n t r o l l e r SST/DLC-l can change its r a t e of climb about 400 f e e t per minute without
changing p i t c h a t t i t u d e .

5. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

( a ) The u s e f u l n e s s of DLC a s a landing a i d is well e s t a b l i s h e d by t h e v a r i o u s s i m u l a t i o n and f l i g h t t e s t

programs discussed. The improved p r e c i s i o n l o n g i t u d i n a l maneuvering c a p a b i l i t y reduces p i l o t workload. Some
systems, such as t h a t on t h e LAMS a i r c r a f t , also o f f e r improved speed s t a b i l i t y . Touchdown d i s p e r s i o n is
reduced as much as 50% f o r both manual and automatic landings. Touchdown s i n k rate can be p r e c i s e l y c o n t r o l l e d .
The closed-loop systems o f f e r improved r i d e due t o g u s t a l l e v i a t i o n . Handling q u a l i t y r a t i n g s a r e enhanced by
t h e more r a p i d response r e s u l t i n g from e l i m i n a t i o n of t h e normal delay i n l i f t b u i l d - u p , and r e d u c t i o n of p i t c h
r a t e overshoot.

The author f e e l s t h a t c l o s e d - l o o p systems such as SST/DLC-I a r e b e s t f o r t h e approach and landing t a s k s .

R e s t r i c t i n g t h e feedbacks t o a s i n g l e c o n t r o l s u r f a c e s i m p l i f i e s t h e hardware, while t h e open-loop use o f
s p o i l e r s or symmetric a i l e r o n s p r o v i d e s t h e normal DLC b e n e f i t s . The p i t c h a t t i t u d e feedback is high enough
t o allow use of an “ a t t i t u d e hold” mode while r a t e of climb is v a r i e d up t o 400 f.p.m. On t h e o t h e r hand, t h e
p i l o t can disengage “ a t t i t u d e hold” at w i l l without a d v e r s e l y a f f e c t i n g a i r c r a f t s t a b i l i t y o r DLC’s o t h e r
performance f e a t u r e s . This system a l s o allows use of a simple a l t i t u d e hold c i r c u i t (15:56).

(b) There is a DLC system f o r every budget. Systems such as t h e s e p a r a t e , open-loop c o n t r o l l e r s t e s t e d by

t h e Navy a r e r e l a t i v e l y inexpensive and could be r e t r o f i t i f o p e r a t i o n a l c o n s i d e r a t i o n demanded t h e improved
performance. A t t h e o t h e r end of t h e spectrum a r e t h e blended closed-loop systems which a r e r e l a t i v e l y expensive,
but o f f e r a d d i t i o n a l v e r s a t i l i t y and whose use is not r e s t r i c t e d t o t h e approach and landing t a s k . In t h e f u t u r e ,
f o r a i r c r a f t equipped with a fly-by-wiret f l i g h t c o n t r o l system, blended closed-loop DLC w i l l be an inexpensive
a d d i t i o n a l f e a t u r e , and w i l l be t h e p r e f e r r e d system.

( c ) Very high speed a c t u a t o r s are not required. However, closed-loop systems r e q u i r e p r o v i s i o n s f o r e l e c -

t r i c a l inputs.

(d) Depending on t h e a i r c r a f t mission and t h e mechanization chosen, a DLC intended p r i m a r i l y as an approach

and landing a i d can a l s o provide g u s t a l l e v i a t i o n i n c r u i s e , easy i n - f l i g h t r e f u e l i n g , improved s t a t i o n keeping,
cargo drop, and t e r r a i n - f o l l o w i n g c a p a b i l i t i e s , and a p o s s i b l e i n c r e a s e i n a i r c r a f t s t r u c t u r a l l i f e .

( e ) I p r e d i c t t h a t , as a minimum, DLC w i l l appear on a l l large/heavy and carrier l a n d i n g a i r c r a f t of t h e

f u t u r e . Performance o f t h e L-1011 and t h e DC-10 w i l l i n s u r e u s e of DLC for approach and landings, and f l i g h t
t e s t demonstrations w i l l l e a d t o t h e eventual use of DLC whenever f a s t response and p r e c i s i o n c o n t r o l are
required.

This is the variable-sweep wing 2707-200. Characteristics of the fixed-wing 2707-300 are not available and can not be
inferred from any information presented here.

t An e l e c t r i c a l primary f l i g h t control system where airplane motion, rather than surface position, is the controlled variable.
 19-7

REFERENCES

T h i s is a comprehensive bibliography o f DLC p u b l i c a t i o n s . The a u t h o r knows o f at l e a s t two o t h e r DLC f l i g h t

tests, but was unable t o l o c a t e published information. DLC a u t h o r s a r e i n v i t e d t o submit b i b l i o g r a p h i c d a t a t o
FDCL, Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio 45433 f o r i n c l u s i o n i n f u t u r e lists.

1. Simulator Study of Direct Lift Control During Carrier Landing Approaches. Douglas
A i r c r a f t Report No. LB-31253, Long Beach, C a l i f o r n i a , McDonnell Douglas Corporation,
8 April 1963.

2. Etheridge, J . D. Direct Lift Control as a Landing Approach Aid, Simulator and Flight Tests. Ling-
Mattlage, C. E. Temco-Vought Report No. 2-53310/4R- 175, December 1964.

3. Performance and Mechanical Design Analysis of Direct Lift Control for Improving
the Carrier Landing Characteristics of Five Naval Airplanes. Report No.NADC-ED-6460,
J o h n s v i l l e , Pennsylvania, US Naval Air Development Center, 30 June 1965, AD 474041.

4. Drake. D. Direct Lift Control During Landing Approaches. A I A A Paper 65-316, Presented at
AIAA Meeting, San Francisco, C a l i f o r n i a , 26-29 J u l y 1965.

5. Gralow, L t R.T. Evaluation of a Direct Lift Control System Installed in (a carrier landing) Air-
et al. Plane. Report No. FT-51R-65, Patuxent River, Maryland, Naval Air Test Center,
13 August 1965, AD 468464.

6. Solith, L.R. Direct Lift Control as a Landing Approach Aid. AIAA Paper 66-14, Presented at
e t al. AIM Meeting, New York, New York, 24-26 January 1966.

7. Condit, P.M. Direct Lift Control on the SST. Document D6A-10454-1, Renton, Washington, The
Shomber, H. A. Boeing Company, October 1966.

8. A' Harrah. R.C. A Study of Terminal Flight Path Control in Carrier Landings. North American
S i e v e r t , R. F. Rockwell. Columbus Division, Columbus, Ohio: North American Rockwell Corporation,
February 1967.

9. Durand, ' T. S. Factors I f luencing Glide Path Control in Carrier Landing. Journal o f A i r c r a f t ,
Wasicko, R. J. 4: 146, March-April 1967.

10. Weber, W.B. Model . . . Direct Lift Control. MDC Report E907, S t . L o u i s , Missouri: McDonnell
e t al. Douglas Corporation, 1 September 1967.

11. F l o r a , C.C. Design Report on a Direct Lift Control Flap for the 367-80 Airplane. Boing Docu-
Taylor, C.R. ment D6-19580/NASA CR 73147, (For NASA Ames Research Center) Renton, Washington:
The Boeing Company, 19 September 1967.

12. Bleeg, R . J . Large Transport Approach and Landing Simulation: Direct Lift Control Applied to
e t al. Noise Abatement Approaches and Supersonic Transport Handling Qualities. Boeing
Document D6-19581/NASA CR 73148 ( f o r NASA Ames Research C e n t e r ) . Renton, Washington:
The Boeing Company, 22 September 1967.

13. K l e i n , Donald G. APreliminary Investigation of the Use of Lift Control in Maneuvering Flight.
Report 808, P r i n c e t o n , New J e r s e y : . P r i n c e t o n University. June 1967.

14. Chase, T. W. Study and Simulation Program to Investigate Mechanization of an Aircraft Flight
et al. Control System that Employs Direct Lift. Air Force F l i g h t Dynamics Laboratory
Technical Report No.AFFDL-TR-68-69 ( 3 Volumes by Honeywell, I n c . ) . Wright-Patterson
AFB, Ohio: AFFDL (FDCL), June 1968:

15. L o r e n z e t t i , Capt. R.C. Direct Lift Control for the LAMS (Aircrpft). AFIT Thesis GGC/EE/68-8. Wright-
Nelsen, Capt. G. L. P a t t e r s o n AFB, Ohio: Air Force I n s t i t u t e of Technology, June 1968, AD 831091 and
AFFDL- TR-68- 134.

16. Jansen, G. R. Flight Evaluation of Direct Lift Control on the DC-8 Super 63. Douglas Paper 5196,
Presented t o S o c i e t y of Experimental Test P i l o t s , Los Angeles, C a l i f o r n i a , 27
September 1968.

17. Crane, H.L. Effects of Reduced Airspeed for Landing Approach on Flying Qualities of a Large
e t al. Jet Transport Equipped With Powered Lift. NASA TN D-4804 Langley Research Center,
Hampton, V i r g i n i a : National Aeronautics and Space Administrat i o n , October 1968.

18. S t i c k l e , J. W. Flight Tests of a Direct Lift Control System During Approach and Landing. NASA
et al. TN D-4854, Langley Research Center, Hampton. V i r g i n i a : National Aeronautics and
Space Administration, November 1968. ,
19-8

19. LAMS Outer Loop Control System Compatibility Test. The b e i n g Company, Document
D3-7902-5. Wichita, Kansas; December 1968.

20. Olson, R. Direct Lift Control for a Variable Sweep Wing Aircraft. AFIT T h e s i s GGC/EE/69-X.
Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio: Air Force I n s t i t u e of Technology, t o be published,
June 1969.

21. L o r e n z e t t i , Capt.R. C. Computerized Design of Optimal Direct Lift Controller. Journal of A i r c r a f t , t o

et al. be published.

22. L o r e n z e t t i , Capt. R. C. Direct Lift Control for Approach and Landing. J o u r n a l of A i r c r a f t , May-June 1969.
e t al.

23. Abzug. Malcolm J. An Automatic Pilot System for Use in Rough Air. Great Neck, N. Y. : Sperry Gyro-
scope Corp., 10 January 1950.

24. P h i l l i p s , William H. Theoretical Study of Some Methods for Increasing the Smoothness of Flight Through
K r a f t , C. C. , Jr Rough Air. NACA TN 2416, 1951.

25. Boucher, Robert W. Analysis of a Vane - Controlled Gust Alleviation System. NACA TN 3597, 1956.
K r a f t , C. C . , Jr
 19-9

APPENDIX I

L i s t of Symbols

U angle of a t t a c k
~

0 p i t c h angle, p o s i t i v e up

B pitch rate

'can canard d e f l e c t i o n . T.E. down is p o s i t i v e

elevator deflection. T.E. down is p o s i t i v e

spoiler deflection. T.E. up is p o s i t i v e

l i f t coefficient

l i n e a r blend of normal a c c e l e r a t i o n , p i t c h r a t e , and p i t c h a c c e l e r a t i o n

I d time d e r i v i t i v e

change i n a l t i t u d e

r a t e of climb, p o s i t i v e up

normal a c c e l e r a t i o n a t c e n t e r of g r a v i t y , p o s i t i v e up.
19- 10

APPENDIX I 1

Speak t o Me i n DLC

This is a list of a few i n d i v i d u a l s i n various USA o r g a n i z a t i o n s who are i n t e r e s t e d and knowledgeable i n

DLC systems. I t is published with t h e hope of speeding and s i m p l i f y i n g t h e exchange of DLC information. The
author apologizes i n advance t o t h o s e whose names should appear on t h i s l i s t , but do not.

US Air Force The Boeing Company

Captain Robert Lorenzetti Mr Harry C.Higgins

Mr Paul Blatt The Boeing Company
AF F l i g h t Dynamics Laboratory (FDCL) Commercial Airplane Division
Wright-Patterson AFB. Ohio 45433 Supersonic Transport Branch
Phone: 513-255-4607 S t a b i l i t y and Control Unit Chief
Post Office Box 3733
L t Col. Roger W. Johnson S e a t t l e , Washington 98124
AF I n s t i t u t e o f Technology Mr Paul B u r r i s
AFIT-SEE The Boeing Company
Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio 45433 LAMS Engineering Program Manager
Phone: 513-255-3450 Wichita, Kansas 67210
Phone: 316-687-2731

US Navy
Honeywell, Inc.
Mr William Koven Mr John C. Larson
Mr Harold Andrews Mr Davib, Mellen
Naval Air Systems Command Mr Vic Faulkner
Code A I R 53011 Mr Thomas Chase
Washington, DC 20360 Honeywell, Inc.
Phone: 202-0x6-7424 Aerospace Division
2600 Ridgway Road
Minnewolis, Minnesota 55413
National Aeronautics and Space Phone: 6 12-331-4141
Administration (NASA)

Mr Richard Wasicko McLkmnell-Douglas Corporation

NASA Headquarters Mr B i l l Weber - Department 241 (Aerodynamics)
Code RA0 Mr Roger Mathews - Department 238 (Guidance and
Washington, DC 20546 Control Mechanics)
Phone: 202-962-460 1 Post O f f i c e Box 6101
Lambert F i e l d , Missouri 63145
Mr C.Thomas Snyder
Mr Hervey Quigley Mr George R. Jansen
NASA Ames Research Center 3855 qakewood Boulevard
MS- 211-2 Long Beach, C a l i f o r n i a 90801
Moffett F i e l d , C a l i f o r n i a 94035 Phone: 213-593-5511
Phone: 415-961-1111, Ext. 2014
Lockheed A i r c r a f t Company
Mr Joseph W.Stickle
NASA Langley Research Center Mr W. M. Magruder
Langley S t a t i o n Mr H. K. Richter
Hampton, V i r g i n i a Mr John A. Gorham
L-1011 Avionics and Controls
Box 551
Burbank, C a l i f o r n i a 91503
Phone: 213-847-3543
 19- 11

WHAT I T I S HOW I T DOES I T

USE OF TWO FORCING FUNCT ONS TO DISPLACES THE LIFT CURVE B Y USE OF
CONTROL THE LONGITUDINAL MOT ONS FLAPS, S PO ILERS, SYMMETRI C A ILERONS,
OF THE AIRCRAFT OR CANARDS

e- ADDITIONAL LIFT n
t- CL
TRAILING EDGE FLAPS

MOMENT BASIC W I N G
CANCELLATION
/ 1

Fig. 1 Basic concept of Direct L i f t Control

PITCH RATE AND PILOT'S

ACC E LERATION

ELEVATOR AIRCRAFT

A. CONVENTIONAL ELEVATOR CONTROL WITH SAS

1
PITCH ATTITUDE*
---- 7
\
\
PITCH RATE AND PILOT'S \
ACCELERATION

B. BLENDED CLOSED-LOOP DLC

AIRCRAFT

Fig. 2 DLC Mechanization Options

19-12

Fig.3 LAMS f l i g h t t e s t , ILS approach, DLC o f f

+ I

-I
- 1 0

t!n
0

-20
Cl0

40
-40

tb
-20

Fig.4 LAMS f l i g h t t e s t , ILS approach, DLC on

 19- 13

PITCH
RATE
----- \
\
\
\
I
I
I
I
T I ME

I-
4
g COMMAND
NORMAL
ACCEL-
ERATION TH DLC
THOUT DLC
0
0
TIME

Fig.5 Maneuverability improvements with DLC

GUST
DISTURBANCE /

/-
4,

ACCELERATION OF C. G.
WITH DIRECT LIFT

h 4 4

ACCELERATION OF C. G.
WITHOUT DIRECT LIFT

Fig.6 Ride comfort

19- 14

Fig. 7 Beam following

1. PITCH OVER 2'.

2. M A I N T A I N 500 F P M RATE OF DESCENT. (USE PITCH HOLD W TH

CONSTANT ATTITUDE DLC. 1

3. DECREASE RATE OF DESCENT TO 300 F P M FOR 15 SECONDS.

4. INCREASE RATE OF DESCENT TO 700 F P M FOR 15 SECONDS.

5. M A I N T A I N 500 F P M RATE OF DESCENT UNTIL FLARE.

6. FLARE FOR "TOUCHDOWN" AFTER 1000 FT. DESCENT. (TURN OFF

PITCH HOLD I N CONSTANT ATTITUDE DLC).

Fig. 8 Standard approach p r o f i l e

 19-15

FEEDBACK GAINS
Q MATRIX Contro IIer SST/D LC-1

.1 0 0 .OI N ~ @ e+
0 15 0 e‘ ,0374 11.20 12.47

0 0 15 * SSP 0 0 0

scan 0 - .2818 -.3137

R MATRIX

.1 0 0
CONSTANT ATTITUDE DLC
0 15 0

0 0 30

0 .05 0 se .0387 ,0282 12.62

0 0 20 * SSP 0 0 0

Scan 0 0 -.3175
R MATRIX

.1 0 0
NORMAL BLENDED DLC
0 15 0

0 0 30

*SPOILERS USED OPEN-LOOP

@ FEEDBACK G A I N IN 0.01 FT/SEC/SEC PER RADIAN SURFACE MOVEMENT.
# FEEDBACK G A I N IN RADIANS PER RADIAN CONTROL SURFACE MOVEMENT
+ FEEDBACK G A I N IN RAD/SEC PER RADIAN CONTROL SURFACE MOVEMENT.

Fig.9 SST DLC controllers

Fig. 10 SST/basic aircraft

19- 1 6

Fig. 1 1 SST/DLC-1 constant attitude DLC

Fig. 1 2 SST/DLC-2 normal blended DLC

 20

LE PILOTE AUTOMATIQUE
TAPIR

par

M. Pagnard

S o c i e t e F r a n c a i s e D equipements pour
La Navigation Aerienne
25 A 29, rue du Pont -
92 NEUILLY (France)
20
 20-1

LE PILOTE AUTOMAT QUE

TAPIR
( T r a n s i t i o n e t A t t e r r i s s a g e P i l o t k s p a r I n e r t i e e t p a r Radio)

1. CONCEPTION BASIQUE

La conception d e s p i l o t e s automatiques modernes e s t soumise B d e s i m p k r a t i f s commerciaux dos aux d k s i r s

p a r t i c u l i e r s d e s d i v e r s e s compagnies a k r i e n n e s e t aux d i v e r s t y p e s d ' a v i o n s kquiper. I1 k t a i t donc u t i l e
d e crker un matkriel d o n t l a s o u p l e s s e d' emploi permette d e s p o s s i b i l i t k s d' extension, ?i p a r t i r d'un choix de
f o n c t i o n s simples. Un t e l materiel e s t a i n s i s u s c e p t i b l e d e r k s e r v e r 1' a v e n i r puisque 1' u t i l i s a t e u r , s' i l n' e s t
Pasencorecompl&tement dkcidk quant aux choix f i n a l d e complexitk de son programme, d i s p o s e a i n s i d e l a f a c u l t k ,
p a r une a d a p t a t i o n p r o v i s i o n n e l l e prkalable. d e complkter son i n s t a l l a t i o n s a n s m o d i f i c a t i o n s complexes e t cotlteuses.

Fonctions R e a l i s e e s Organes Propres Organes Faisant P a r t i e

Au P i l o t e A u t o m a t i q u e d e L ' e q u i p e m e n t d e bord

Stabilisation autour des 3 axes. - Un Poste de Commande. - Une installation de cap.

Prise e t tenue de cap prdsklectk. - Detecteurs gyro acce'16rom6triques. - Un appareil h affichage de
cap
Virage h a s s i e t t e late'rale choisie. - Re'fe'rences de pression statique e t (plateau de route, par exemple).
Tenue d' a l t i t u d e et de vitesse dynamique. - Un re'cepteur de radioguidage.
indique'e. - Un Horizon Transmetteur ou - Une Centrale de Verticale.
Monte'e e t descente a s s i e t t e - Un Mano-Contacteur de re'glage de
constante. gain.
Interception automatique des - Deux Calculateurs 1/2 ATR court.
faisceaux VOR, LOC e t GLIDE-SLOPE. - Trois Servo-Moteurs et t r o i s coupleure
Asservissement aux faisceaux de - Deux potentiometres d' asservissement.
radio-guidage jusqu' i 60 m. - Un Dynamometre e t un servo-moteur de
Guidage sur' 1' a r r i e r e d' un trim.
faisceau LOCALIZER.
Se'curite' croisiere.
Couplage un Directeur de Vol.

Plus Plus Plus

Asservissement aux faisceaux de - Un Horizon transmetteur ou - Une Centrale de verticale.
radio-guidage jusqu' & 30 m. - Deux Acce'lerom6tres de verticale. - Une Radi-Sonde (avec deux
Remise des gaz automatique. - Deux boctiers de securite' 1 / 2 ATR indicateurs) .
Surveillance automatique de la VI court.
par la chafne des gaz (optionnelle). - Deux Potentiometres d' asservissement.
Se'curite' Dar charnes auto- - Un Panneau d' alarme.
surveille'es. - Un Boftier de Commande des voyants
Couplage & un Directeur de Vol. d'alarme 1/4 ATR court.
Plus Plus Plus
Arrondi automatique. - Un Potentiornetre d' asservissement - Une Radi-Sonde.
Dhcrabe automatique. - Une Installation de cap.
Guidage sur l a p i s t e pendant les
premiers instants de roulement. c
c
Se'curite' par c h a h e s auto-
surveillees pour ces nouvelles
fonctions.
Remise de gaz sEre.
- Un Horizon de secours
Couplage h un Directeur d e Vol. transmetteur.

Le p i l o t e automatique TAPIR dont l e s l o i s b a s i q u e s dkcoulent d e l a s u c c e s s i o n d e t r a v a u x e n t r e p r i s d e p u i s d e

nombreuses annkes, a vu son o r g a n i s a t i o n f o n c t i o n n e l l e complktke en 1967. Conpu dans 1' e s p r i t indiquk prkckde-
m e n t . i l e s t basiquement capable d' a s s u r e r 1' ensemble d e s o p k r a t i o n s d e c a t k g o r i e I . Des a d j o n c t i o n s s u c c e s s i v e s
s i m p l e s permettent l ' e x t e n s i o n d e son emploi aux c o n d i t i o n s d e l a c a t k g o r i e IIIa. I1 s u f f i t pour l ' u t i l i s a t e u r d e
P r e v o i r d 8 s l e dkbut d e 1' kquipement d e 1' avion, les cLblages p r o v i s i o n n e l s correspondant & 1' &ape u l t i m e qu' i l
d e s i r e envisager. I1 ne h i restera e n s u i t e qu' A se p r o c u r e r l e s organes complkmentaires correspondant ?i 1' k t a t
d e complexitk qu' il a u r a c h o i s i .
20-2

2. TECHNOLOGIE

La r e a l i s a t i o n r d c e n t e du p i l o t e automatique TAPIR a permis d’ importants progres s u r l e plan technologique.

C ‘ e s t a i n s i que l ’ o n ddcida. par un choix non d6pourvu de r i s q u e s , de f a i r e immddiatement confiance aux c i r c u i t s
i n t d g r d s analogiques dont l a s o r t i e s u r l e march6 6 t a i t peine amorcde. Ce choix s’ e s t avdr6 j u d i c i e u x car
t o u t e s les f o n c t i o n s de c a l c u l u t i l i s e n t d e s a m p l i f i c a t e u r s i n t d g r d s en remplacement d e s modules cordwood
soudds dlectriquement, i n i t i a l e m e n t prdvus. I1 en r d s u l t e une grande s i m p l i f i c a t i o n de l a c o n s t r u c t i o n , Par
s u i t e une r e d u c t i o n d e s coGts e t une amdlioration s e n s i b l e de l a f i a b i l i t d comme l e ddmontrent l e s r d s u l t a t s
op6rationnels.

A b s t r a c t i o n f a i t e d e c e t t e importante innovation, q u i a f a i t de TAPIR l ’ u n d e s premiers, s i n o n l e premier P.A.

en opdration commerciale r d g u l i k r e f a i s a n t appel aux c i r c u i t s i n t d g r d s analogiques, aucune r d v o l u t i o n technologique
n’ e s t appliqu6e. Des b o f t i e r s d l e c t r o n i q u e s aux dimensions ATR s t a n d a r d . s o n t dquipds de c a r t e s f o n c t i o n n e l l e s
e n f i c h a b l e s . L’importance de l ’ a s p e c t f i a b i l i t 6 a guidd l a conception du systeme. La soudure h l a vague a
permis d’ o b t e n i r une e x c e l l e n t e homogdnditd de f a b r i c a t i o n e t un c o n t r s l e sdvhre de c e procddd g a r a n t i t sa
q u a l i td.

Le p o t e n t i e l de c r o i s s a n c e de TAPIR est assurd s o i t par 1’ adjonction de b o f t i e r s ou de d d t e c t e u r s , s o i t par

c e l l e s de c a r t e s dans l e s b o f t i e r s d d j h e x i s t a n t s : l e c a r a c t e r e f o n c t i o n n e l d e s c a r t e s ou groupes de c a r t e s
permet ais6ment ces modifications.

3 . PHILOSOPHIE RETENUE POUR TAPIR I11

P i l o t a g e Aatomatique

Le c a l c u l a t e u r du p i l o t e automatique e s t conpu pour commander dgalement l e s barres de tendance du D i r e c t e u r

d e Vol. Les signaux s o n t s d l e c t i o n n d s dans l e s c a l c u l a t e u r s avant i n t d g r a t i o n . Un l e v i e r d’ engagement permet
d ’ a d r e s s e r l e s o r d r e s d e p i l o t a g e au D i r e c t e u r de Vol en l ’ a b s e n c e d e p i l o t e automatique.

Sur ve i 11ance

I1 est admis que t o u t e panne a c t i v e du p i l o t e automatique e s t passivde par ddconnection commandde au moyen
d’ un moniteur.

La cmsdquence d’une panne, A basse a l t i t u d e e t dans les c o n d i t i o n s de l a c a t d g o r i e I I I a , est une remise d e s

gaz.

Les s d c u r i t d s s o n t d6composdes en s d c u r i t d c a l c u l e t s d c u r i t d puissance.

La conception d e s chafnes e s t t e l l e qu’une s e p a r a t i o n e s t f a i t e e n t r e l’kldment c a l c u l . q u i f o u r n i t en un

c e r t a i n p o i n t une information v a l a b l e A l a f o i s pour l e D i r e c t e u r d e Vol. e t pour l e servo-moteur e t l’ensemble
puissance ( a m p l i f i c a t e u r de puissance e t servo-moteur).

La s d c u r i t d c a l c u l c o n s i s t e h v e r i f i e r 1’e x a c t i t u d e de 1’information h c e p o i n t . Si une e r r e u r a p p a r a f t

h cet e n d r o i t . une information sGre dlaborde & p a r t i r d’une source t r i p l e d ’ a s s i e t t e . e s t adressde au D i r e c t e u r
de Vol e t au servomoteur. E l l e a s s u r e l a remise d e s gaz q u i ,est ddclenchde par l ’ a c t i o n du p i l o t e sur l e s
manettes d e s gaz.

La s d c u r i t d puissance ddbraye l a chafne d e puissance en cas de panne de c e l l e - c i - La remise d e s gaz sGre

se f a i t a l o r s au D i r e c t e u r de Vol. Une panne de l a chafne de d i r e c t i o n q u e l l e q u ’ e l l e s o i t . est a s s i m i l d e une
panne de puissance e t t r a i t d e comme telle.

Un panneau d’alarme permet de donner au p i l o t e une i n d i c a t i o n s y n t h d t i q u e de l ’ d t a t du p i l o t e automatique.

I1 f o u r n i t les i n d i c a t i o n s d’ al’arme s u i v a n t e s :

- E c a r t s e x c e s s i f s longitudinaux et latdraux.
- Absence d e couplage au VOR ou au LOC, e t au GLIDE.
- Panne puissance.

- Panne c a l c u l .
- Automanette d6brayde.
- Panne d’ a l i m e n t a t i o n ou a p p a r i t i o n d’ un s i g n a l d’ alarme dans l e s moniteurs des systemes pdriphkriques ~

u t i l i s e s par l e p i l o t e automatique.
- Panne du trim mtomatique.

- Calcul du ddcrabe i n c o r r e c t .
 20-3

Le panneau d’alarme comprend kgalement un commutateur d ’ d c l a i r a g e j o u r - n u i t , un bouton d e t e s t d e s lampes du

pa+neau. un commutateur q u i dlimine l e s lampes dventuellement allumkes par 1’ a p p a r i t i o n d’ une panne. L’ i n d i c a t i o n
de la panne r e s t e cependant en mdmoire e t r d a p p a r a f t si l e commutateur est bascule en s e n s inverse.

Ce panneau est compldtd par l a prdsence d’un voyant “Flash” placd bien en kvidence, e t qui rdpbte t o u t e
i n d i c a t i o n lumineuse a p p a r a i s s a n t s u r l e panneau.

Un t e s t gdndral du systbme AMV est e f f e c t u d pendant l’approche pour v e r i f i e r l a q u a l i t d des d i s p o s i t i f s d e

d6connection.

4. DESCRIPTION

Les c o n s t i t u a n t s du p i l o t e automatique TAPIR sont prdsentds dans l e s vues d e s planches 1 e t 2.

TAPIR I

I1 comprend:

- Un p o s t e de Commande

- Un B o f t i e r d e d e t e c t i o n gyro e t acckldromdtrique
- Un Horizon Transmetteur
- Une Rkfkrence d e p r e s s i o n s t a t i q u e e t un rdfdrence de p r e s s i o n dynamique

- Un Manocontacteur de rkglage de gain

- Un C a l c u l a t e u r l o n g i t u d i n a l 1/2 ATR c o u r t
- Un C a l c u l a t e u r l a t e r a l 1/2 ATR c o u r t
- T r o i s Servomoteurs a s s o c i d s avec t r o i s coupleurs dlectromagndtiques
- Deux Potentiombtres d’asservissement
- Un Servomoteur de T r i m e t un Dynamomktre associd.

TAPIR I1

E s t obtenu en a j o u t a n t :
- Un Horizon Transmetteur

- Deux Acc6ldrom6tres de v e r t i c a l e
- Des C a r t e s suppldmentaires dans les c a l c u l a t e u r s de pilotage
- Un B o f t i e r d e s d c u r i t d ( c a l c u l ) 1/2 ATR c o u r t
- Un B o f t i e r d e s k c u r i t d (puissance) 1/2 ATR c o u r t
- Deux Potentiombtres d‘asservissement moniteurs
- Un B o f t i e r de commande d e s voyants d’alarme 1/4 ATFt court
- Un Panneau d‘ alarme.

TAPIR I11

E s t obtenu en a j o u t a n t :

- Des Cartes suppldmentaires dans l e s c a l c u l a t e u r s de p i l o t a g e e t de moniteur

- Un potentiom&tre d’ asservissement (en l a c e t ) .

- La chafne d e s gaz q u i comprend:

- Un P o s t e de Commande
- La Rdfdrence > d e p r e s s i o n dynamique d e j a u t i l i s d e
- Un Calculateur

- Deux Servomoteurs a s s o c i d s A l e u r s coupleurs dlectromagndtiques.

La chafne d e s gaz e s t o p t i o n n e l l e pour TAPIR 11.
20-4

5 . LOIS DE PILOTAGE

Lacet
C e t t e chafne a s s u r e l e c o n t r a l e de l a s t a b i l i t k & c o u r t terme e t du dkrapage. L’ information d i f f k r e n c i k e
d’ un gyrometre commande l a v i t e s s e de l a gouverne. Un accklkromktre mesurant 1’a c c k l k r a t i o n t r a n s v e r s a l e .
p r o p o r t i o n n e l l e au dkrapage, a d r e s s e directement un s i g n a l A 1’ a m p l i f i c a t e u r de commande du servomoteur, en
p a r a l l k l e avec l e s i g n a l venant du gyrometre. L’ o r d r e accklkromktrique a i n s i i n t k g r k , r e c e n t r e l a gouverne
e t l u i f a i t prendre une p o s i t i o n annulant l e dkrapage.

Roulis

La gouverne e s t a s s e r v i e en p o s i t i o n . A 1’ embrayage. l e p i l o t e automatique c o n t r s l e l e cap a c t u e l synchronisk,

par 1’ i n t e r m e d i a i r e de 1’ a s s i e t t e l a t k r a l e . Une manette dont l e positionnement permet l e debrayage du cap e t
sa synchronisation, a s s u r e l a commande de v i r a g e s & a s s i e t t e l a t k r a l e c h o i s i e . Le r e t o u r & z k r o de l a manette
r e t a b l i t l a s u r v e i l l a n c e de cap a c t u e l . Un a f f i c h a g e de cap p r i s sur l e plateau de route permet, en appuyant
sur l e bouton “cap”, de r e j o i n d r e l e cap a f f i c h k .

La navigation est assurke par un couplage au f a i s c e a u VOR au moven du bouton VOR-APPROCHE. L’ i n t e r c e p t i o n

en VOR e s t e f f e c t u k e pour un k c a r t au f a i s c e a u , l u en PA, constant, Au-del& de 20 milles nautiques. 1’angle
d ‘ i n t e r c e p t i o n peut a t t e i n d r e 90’. Le passage au-dessus d e l a b a l i s e e s t d k t e c t k par l e niveau de l a ddrivke
du s i g n a l d’ k c a r t .

En approche. une i n t e r c e p t i o n e s t p o s s i b l e jusqu’h 90’. La d i s t a n c e depend de l a q u a l i t 6 du f a i s c e a u e t

de l a v i t e s s e de l ’ a v i o n . La l i m i t a t i o n de l ’ a n g l e de r o u l i s s e f a i t B 28’. Le p o i n t d ’ i n t e r c e p t i o n e s t
d d f i n i par l e rapport e n t r e 1’ k c a r t au f a i s c e a u et l a v i t e s s e de rapprochement.

L’ approche peut 6 t r e e f f e c t u k e , s o i t en enfonpant l e bouton VOR-APP, auquel c a s l a l i m i t e o p k r a t i o n n e l l e

correspond & l a phase I . s o i t en enfonpant l e bouton AMV q u i permet d ’ u t i l i s e r l e P.A. dans l e s c o n d i t i o n s
de l a c a t k g o r i e IIIa.

h phase f i n a l e , bouton AMV, l e s i g n a l d ’ k c a r t d e cap e s t supprimd. L’amortissement e s t donne par la dkrivke

d e l ’ k c a r t au f a i s c e a u .

A t r o i s metres du s o l , un o r d r e de dkcrabe e s t envoy6 s u r l a gouverne de d i r e c t i o n e t aprbs impact, l a l o i

de p i l o t a g e t r a n s v e r s a l e est adresske a l a gouverne de d i r e c t i o n .

Tangage
La gouverne e s t a s s e r v i e en p o s i t i o n . Le mode basique & l’embrayage est l a tenue d ‘ a s s i e t t e l o n g i t u d i n a l e .
Le p i l o t e automatique e s t synchronisk avant 1’embrayage & 1’a i d e d’ u n d d i s p o s i t i f klectromdcanique s i t u k dtrns
l e p o s t e de commande, en l i a i s o n d i r e c t e avec une molette de commande manuelle. Apres embrayage, c e t t e m o l e t t e
permet l a commande de changement d ’ a s s i e t t e l o n g i t u d i n a l e . La s u r v e i l l a n c e d ’ a l t i t u d e a c t u e l l e e s t obtenue en
enfonqant l e bouton ALT. La p o s i t i o n de gouverne d q u i l i b r a n t l e vol h o r i z o n t a l e s t tenue par l ’ i n t e r m k d i a i r e d’un
d i s p o s i t i f i n t k g r a t e u r . Un mode “tenue de v i t e s s e ” par l a gouverne de profondeur peut kgalement e t r e u t i l i s k .

Le bouton AMV, lorsqu’ il e s t enfoncd a s s u r e l a c a p t u r e du f a i s c e a u g l i d e e t l e dkroulement d e s o p k r a t i o n s

a b o u t i s s a n t d 1’a t t e r r i s s a g e . i e s parambtres u t i l i s e s dans l a l o i de guidage s o n t essentiellenient:

- 1’ k c a r t au f a i s c e a u g l i d e progressivement d k s e n s i b i l i s k & 1’ a i d e du r a d i o a l t i m e t r e .
- 1’a s s i e t t e l o n g i t u d i n a l e .
- un s i g n a l accklkrom6trique klabork q u i f o u r n i t une information d e n a t u r e t r h s v o i s i n e de l a v i t e s s e v e r t i c a l e .

L’ a r r o n d i e s t dkclenchk par 1’i n t r o d u c t i o n p r o g r e s s i v e it 50 d’ un s i g n a l provenant du r a d i o a l t i m h t r e , d h f i n i s s a n t

une commande de v i t e s s e v e r t i c a l e limite q u i est c e l l e c h o i s i e pour l’impact.

La f o n c t i o n “remise d e s gaz” obtenue par l ’ a c t i o n du p i l o t e s u r l a m a n e t t e des gaz, e s t c o n t r s l k e par une l o i

d e tenue d’ a s s i e t t e s . En cas de panne d e s organes de puissance. l e p i l o t e humain peut e f f e c t u e r l a remise d e s
gaz d l ’ a i d e du D i r e c t e u r d e Vol.
, I

Un trim automatique annule en moyenne les e f f o r t s au niveau du servomoteur de profondeur.

Cha€ne d e s gaz

L’kcart de v i t e s s e akrodynamique e t sa dkrivke commandent l a v i t e s s e de dkbattement d e s manettes de gaz.

 20-5

6. PERFORMANCES P.A. TAPIR

1. Phase I (60m)

C r o i s i b r e (mode d e b a s e ) , ( a i r calme):
- Tenue d ’ a s s i e t t e @ It 0 . 5 dg. 5 2 0.6
assiette 4 rt 1 dg. 5 2 0.6
dkrapage I, f 0.01 g. 5 2 0.6.

Trajectoire
- Tenue d ’ a l t i t u d e zp : f 5 m en l i g n e d r o i t e

zp : 5 13 m en v i r a g e
- 25 m en a c c e l e r a t i o n
t ou d e c e l e r a t i o n avec s o r t i e de v o l e t s .
zp:
-’Tenue de cap (cap a c t u e l ou cap a f f i c h e ) : f 0 . 5 dg. ( r d f k r e n c e de cap & l ’ e n t r k e du P.A.).
- A c q u i s i t i o n d e cap a f f i c h e : depassement maxi: 1 dg.

- Mode r a d i o :

VOR DQpassement maxi & 1’ i n t e r c e p t i o n 75 mV

P r e c i s i o n de guidage f 35 mV
LOC Depassement maxi & 1’ i n t e r c e p t i o n 50 mV
P r e c i s i o n de guidage f 25 mV
Sur f a i s c e a u d e Cat. I
GLIDE P r k c i s i o n d e guidage f. 50 mV

- Pannes:

C r o i s i e r e ( d 8 l a reprise en main 3 . 5 sec.) : A, < f 1 g .

Approche ( d k l a i r e p r i s e en main 1 . 5 s e c . ) : A, p e r t e d ’ a l t i t u d e 18 m .
2. Phase I1

(Hauteur d e d e c i s i o n 30 m )
(Hauteur minimale d’ emploi (15 m (bi-moteur)
(22 m (mono-moteur)
Guidage (performances):
LOC e n t r e 60 m e t 30 m :
, E c a r t moyen 7 mV 8. 2 c en bi-moteur
Ecart moyen 9 mV & 2 (T en mono-moteur
GLIDE e n t r e 60 m et 30 m :
Ecart moyen 45 mV & 2 (J en bi-moteur
Ecart moyen 45 mV & 2 (J en mono-moteur

- Tenue de V I : k 2 k t s en atmosphere calme

Remise d e s gaz automatique:

- La perte d ’ a l t i t u d e A, est infkrieure & 6 m .

- Dix secondes apres l a remise d e s gaz, l a v i t e s s e v e r t i c a l e p o s i t i v e a t t e i n t e est 500 ft/mn.

- La p e r t e maximum de V I est d e 2 k t s pendant l a phase t r a n s i t o i r e . Dix secondes apres l e debut de l a remise

d e s gaz, l’accroissement de, VI e s t s u p k r i e u r ou & g a l h 4 k t s par ‘rhpport h l a V I normale d e descente.

Pannes:

Bi-moteur = panne a 15 m, perte d ’ a l t i t u d e 6 7 . 5 m

Mono-moteur = panne & 22 m. p e r t e d’ a l t i t u d e 6 11 m.
Ces P e r t e s d’ a l t i t u d e permettent d e determiner l a h a u t e r minimale d’ emploi.
20 -6

3. Phase 111

V i t e s s e v e r t i c a l e h l’impact:
Valeur l a p l u s probable : 0.40 m/sec
Dispersion dans 95% d e s cas: 0.20 m/sec < 0 . 8 0 m/sec
Ecart par r a p p o r t au f a i s c e a u l o c a l i z e r h l’impact: ? 8 mV s o i t f 6.5 m & 2 Q

Distance e n t r e 1’ impact e t 1’e n t r k e de bande (pour une b a l i s e g l i d e placke a‘ 300 m ) : 485 m f 138 m h 2 U.

7. SITUATION COMMERCIALE ACTUELLE

Le p i l o t e automatiqua TAPIR est actuellement c e r t i f i 6 en c a t k g o r i e I1 pour les a v i o n s NORD 262.

I1 kpuipe 22 avions FOKKER F.27-500 u t i l i s k s par AIR-INTER e t l e s S e r v i c e s Postaux Frangais. Les a v i o n s

d’ AIR-INTER ont r e p l e s i n s t a l l a t i o n s p r o v i s i o n n e l l e s q u i permettent, h p a r t i r de l a v e r s i o n .catkgorie I
o p k r a t i o n n e l l e actuellement. d’ a j o u t e r u l t k r i e u r e m e n t les complkments de cat6gori.e I I I a .

h v i r o n 20 NORD 262 a i n s i qu’ un Dassault FALCON, doivent S t r e kquipks dans l e courant d e 1’ annke 1969 e t l a
production de l a SFFNA est s u s c e p t i b l e , d e s maintenant, de f o u r n i t des kquipements dans d e s d k l a i s trhs b r e f s .

8. SYSTEME EN C O U R S DE DEVELOPPEMENT: L E SUPER-TAPIR

L’ experience a c q u i s e avec l e s ktudes, expkrimentations. dkveloppements e t production de TAPIR a i n s i que celle

que c e l l e decoulant du programme Concorde ouvrent l a voie h l a nouvelle gknkration d e s p i l o t e s automatiques
“Super Tapir”.

Ceux-ci, d i s p o s a n t d’ une c a p a c i t k f o n c t i o n n e l l e e t o p k r a t i o n n e l l e accrue, peuvent d t r e a p p l i q u e s h des

programmes d’avions commerciaux d e p l u s grande envergure.

C e t t e a p t i t u d e s e manifeste p a r l e s klkments s u i v a n t s :

- Amklioration de l a maintenance par une o r g a n i s a t i o n r a t i o n n e l l e pousske de l a connaissance d e 1’ ktat

opkrationnel du m a t k r i e l .
- E f f o r t technologique p o r t a n t sur 1’ a r c h i t e c t u r e de 1’k l e c t r o n i q u e , 1’i n t r o d u c t i o n d e composants nouveaux
e t l a p o u r s u i t e d e 1’ amklioration du MTBF.
- Choix d e l o i s de p i l o t a g e ou d ’ a d a p t a t i o n s o r i g i n a l e s .
- Adjonction p o s s i b l e d e modes p a r t i c u l i e r s t e l s que l e p i l o t a g e t r a n s p a r e n t .
- Gknkralisation d e l a philosophie multiplex.

C e t t e philosophie q u i u t i l i s e simultankment de manibre a c t i v e une p a r t i e ou l a t o t a l i t e d e s klkments redondants

p r k s e n t e d e s avantages’ s i g n i f i c a t i f s , notamment:
- Survivance n a t u r e l l e h t o u t e premiere panne s a n s qu’ i l s o i t besoin d’ e f f e c t u e r aucune commutation, partir
d’une t r i p l e redondance.
- P a s s i v a t i o n n a t u r e l l e de t o u t e seconde panne, a p r b s l a premiere, ou survivance & c e t t e panne a p r e s k l i m i n a t i o n
de 1’ kldment ddfectueux ayant provoquk l a premiere dans l e c a s d‘ une quadruple redondance.
- Amklioration s t a t i s t i q u e de l a p r e c i s i o n par s k l e c t i o n d’une mkdiane dans l e c a s d’un systbme t r i p l e x ou d‘une
mkdiane basse dans l e c a s d’ un quadruplex.

C e t t e philosophie, abondamment ktudike d e p u i s cinq a n s dans l e s secsystemes d6veloppks p a r l a SFFXA e t au

s u j e t desquels c e l l e - c i a f a i t une communication devant 1’AGARD i l y a deux ans peut maintenant e t r e l a base
de systemes d e p i l o t a g e tres modernes t e l s que Super Tapir. On pourra avec de t e l s systemes envisager des
a t t e r r i s s a g e s dans les c o n d i t i o n s de l a c a t k g o r i e IIIB. Mais i l ne f a u t pas p e r d r e de vue que l e m a t d r i e l
embarquk ne peut & l u i t o u t s e u l r k a l i s e r c e s performances. Les moyens au s o l s o n t i n d i s p e n s a b l e s e t , dans c e
domaine. il r e s t e encore beaucoup h f a i r e a u s s i bien en c e q u i concerne l e s probl&mes de s k c u r i t k que ceux
r e l a t i f s h l a precision.

Enfin, on ne s a u r a i t t r o p i n s i s t e r s u r l e c a r a c t e r e impkratif d e l a l u t t e c o n t r e l a s o p h i s t i c a t i o n . La
s i m p l i c i t k , s u r t o u t pour l e s m a t k r i e l s u t i l i s e s en phase f i n a l e est de r i g u e u r , si 1’ on ne veut pas d t r e amen6
f a b r i Q u e r d e s m a t e r i e l s magnifiques mais dont l e c a r a c t h e opkrationnel s e r a indkfiniment mis en doute par l e s
u t i 1i sat eu rs.
 20-1

I 1

Figure 1

Figure 2
 21

FLIGHT CONTROL SYSTEMS WITH RESPECT TO

V/STOL AUTOMATIC LANDING

H. G. Schumann and R. Staufenbiel

Vereinigte Flugtechnische Werke GmbH

Bremen, Germany
21

SUMMARY

To perform instrument and automatic landings w i t h VTOL-Aircraft a number of preliminary

i n v e s t i g a t i o n s has been carried out by VFW, Bremen with t h e view t o e s t a b l i s h i n g t h e speci-
f i c a t i o n s f o r t h e ground and a i r b o r n e equipment concerned.

This paper t r a c e s t h e s p e c i a l problems of optimizing landing p r o f i l e s , p i l o t handling and

d i s p l a y systems as well as t h e i n f l u e n c e s of f l i g h t c o n t r o l and automatic f l i g h t c o n t r o l
systems. E s p e c i a l l y t h e development s t a t u s of hardware f o r i n - f l i g h t simulations of i n s t r u -
ment and automatic l a n d i n g s with t h e hovering test r i g , SG 1262, is discussed.
 21- 1

FLIGHT CONTROL SYSTEMS WITH RESPECT TO

V/STOL AUTOMATIC L A N D I N G

H. G. Schumann and R. Staufenbiel

1. INTRODUCTION

The landing p r o f i l e s o f VTOL aircraft permit t h e use o f r a t h e r simple instrument and automatic landing pro-
cedures which a r e b a s i c a l l y d i f f e r e n t from t h o s e used f o r conventional aircraft. For once, t h e d i f f e r e n c e s a r e
due t o t h e f a c t t h a t VTOL aircraft can perform landing approaches from a l l d i r e c t i o n s , a n d , secondly, t h e landing
p r o f i l e s are much simpler and more e a s i l y followed up than t h o s e of conventional a i r c r a f t . Therefore, new and
s p e c i a l components w i l l have t o be developed f o r both ground equipment and a i r b o r n e systems t o perform i n s t r u -
ment and automatic landings with VTOL a i r c r a f t . With a view t o e s t a b l i s h i n g t h e s p e c i f i c a t i o n s f o r t h e ground
and a i r b o r n e equipment concerned, it w i l l be necessary t o c a r r y o u t a number o f preliminary i n v e s t i g a t i o n s . I n
t h i s connection s p e c i a l importance i s a t t r i b u t e d t o t h e following:

1. Optimization of landing p r o f i l e s and p i l o t handling with a view o f reducing work load;

2. Determination of t h e most s u i t a b l e d i s p l a y system f o r t h e p i l o t as f a r as VTOL instrument landings are

concerned;
3. Establishment o f s p e c i f i c a t i o n s f o r f l i g h t c o n t r o l and automatic f l i g h t c o n t r o l systems with a view t o
instrument and automatic landings.

Within t h i s framework it seems advisable t o also consider t h e landing p r o f i l e s of conventional a i r c r a f t as a

comparison w i l l permit a b e t t e r understanding and assessment of t h e s p e c i f i c q u a l i t i e s and p o s s i b i l i t i e s of VTOL
landings. The following w i l l d e a l , f i r s t , with some b a s i c i n v e s t i g a t i o n s regarding p i l o t handling and d a t a
d i s p l a y f o r VTOL landings and secondly, with t h e a v a i l a b i l i t y o f automatic c o n t r o l system hardware i n s o f a r as
such hardware may c o n t r i b u t e towards improving instrument and automatic landing procedures. F i n a l l y , an account
w i l l be given of t h e work performed, and t h e status reached, with r e s p e c t t o i n - f l i g h t landing simulations,
c a r r i e d out by means of a hovering t e s t r i g , designated SG 1262.

2. PILOT H A N D L I N G A N D DATA DISPLAY FOR VTOL AIRCRAFT

The landing p r o f i l e of a VTOL a i r c r a f t is much l e s s complex than t h a t of a conventional a i r c r a f t . Conse-

quently, t h e p i l o t w i l l n o t have t o handle as much information i n t h e individual phases of a VTOL landing as he
would be compelled t o handle i n t h e case of a conventional landing. To be a b l e t o make f u l l use o f t h e s e b a s i c
VTOL advantages, it is necessary t o study, and optimize, t h e d i s p l a y f o r VTOL landings with p a r t i c u l a r c a r e .

2.1 Landing P r o f i l e of VTOL A i r c r a f t

The d i s t r i b u t i o n o f a c c i d e n t s over t h e individual phases of a conventional landing ( F i g . 2 . l ) is d i r e c t l y

r e l a t e d t o t h e p i l o t work load. Obviously, it is p a r t i c u l a r l y i n t h e f i n a l landing phase t h a t t h e degree of
complexity r i s e s considerably. Table I c o n s t i t u t e s an attempt t o e s t i m a t e t h e degree of complexity f o r a con-
ventional landing. To t h i s end, s p e c i f i c numbers according t o t h e increasing degree of complexity, namely 1
through 3, a r e r e l a t e d t o t h e c o n t r o l o f t h e individual f l i g h t parameters. The assessment, i n t h i s c a s e , was
concerned with t h e information rate ( a s given by t h e accuracy and t h e band width) necessary f o r c o n t r o l l i n g t h e
i n d i v i d u a l f l i g h t parameters.

A corresponding e s t i m a t e f o r VTOL a i r c r a f t is shown i n Table XI.. The r e s u l t a n t comparison of t h e degrees of

complexity f o r VTOL and CTOL aircraft is represented i n Figure 2.2. The lower degrees o f complexity throughout
a VTOL landing are p r i m a r i l y due t o t h e f a c t t h a t t h e runway is s h i f t e d i n t h e air. Therefore t h e r e a r e only
low a i r s p e e d s i n t h e f i n a l phase which i n t u r n allow t h e p i l o t a l a r g e r degree of freedom with r e s p e c t t o
s e l e c t i n g t h e touchdown time. He w i l l perform t h e touchdown as soon as t h e c o n t r o l l e d v a r i a b l e s have been
brought i n t o a permissible range.

2.2 Display f o r VTOL Instrument Landings

To be a b l e t o t a k e f u l l advantage o f t h e simpler VTOL landing p r o f i l e s performing instrument landings an
optimal d i s p l a y system must be s e l e c t e d . I n t h i s connection, VFW has developed landing d i s p l a y s f o r s i m u l a t i o n s
and f l i g h t tests. For purposes of optimization, shape and number o f symbols could e a s i l y be changed by pro-
gramming. The optimization procedure s e l e c t e d aims a t enabling t h e p i l o t t o c a r r y o u t l a n d i n g s with a minimum
of information. Additional information w a s added only i f t h i s proved necessary. This approach is completely
d i f f e r e n t from t h a t o f attempting t o modify a d i s p l a y used f o r conventional landings.
21-2

The b a s i c f e a t u r e s o f t h e d i s p l a y are shown i n Figure 2.3. By means of a p l a n view d i s p l a y t h e p i l o t is

informed about t h e p o s i t i o n of t h e aircraft r e l a t i v e t o t h e landing s i t e which, on t h e d i s p l a y , is surrounded
by d i s t a n c e c i r c l e s . Another s o l u t i o n , which is t o be t r i e d i n f l i g h t t e s t s , provides f o r t h e a i r c r a f t symbol
t o be surrounded by t h e d i s t a n c e circles. The scale of t h e s e c i r c l e s can be a l t e r e d during t h e landing.

The d i s p l a y s e t - u p t a k e s i n t o account a s p e c i f i c c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of VTOL landings:

Owing t o t h e fact t h a t VTOL a i r c r a f t a r e not r e s t r i c t e d t o p a r t i c u l a r approach d i r e c t i o n s , it is o f minor
importance f o r t h e p i l o t t o observe and c o n t r o l any p r e c i s e approach t r a c k . Consequently, as r e g a r d s t h e
landing approach an e n t i r e s e c t o r range h a s been predetermined i n t h e d i s p l a y . This kind o f information
should not cause t h e p i l o t t o perform l a t e r a l f l i g h t path c o r r e c t i o n s as long as he keeps within t h e p r e s c r i b e d
s e c t o r . T h i s c o n t r i b u t e s t o achieving a considerable reduction i n p i l o t work load during t r a n s i t i o n phase
with i t s reduced maneuveribility. The s e c t o r s were used t o safeguard a g a i n s t t h e hazard o f c o l l i s i o n s i n
t h e event t h a t s e v e r a l a i r c r a f t simultaneously approach a landing s i t e from d i f f e r e n t d i r e c t i o n s . With a
s e c t o r of 30' and a s a f e t y s e c t o r of equal width on e i t h e r s i d e , it is p o s s i b l e f o r s i x a i r c r a f t t o approach
simultaneously.

A s regards d i s p l a y i n t h e v e r t i c a l plane, t h e s p e c i f i c VTOL landing p r o f i l e h a s again been used as a basis.

VTOL aircraft a r e not r e q u i r e d t o adhere t o any p a r t i c u l a r approach g l i d e path. Whereas, i n t h e case o f

conventional a i r c r a f t , p i l o t e r r o r s d u r i n g landing f l a r e w i l l a f f e c t both t h e impact speed a t touchdown and t h e
l o c a t i o n of t h e touchdown p o i n t , t h e r e is no such coupling o f e f f e c t s i n t h e case of a VML a i r c r a f t because of
t h e p o s s i b i l i t y o'f performing a t r u e v e r t i c a l landing. As t h e a i r c r a f t w i l l descend at, a very s t e e p angle
(approx. 90') i n t h e f i n a l phase of a VTOL landing, t h e p a t h angle at which t h e aircraft approaches t h e l a n d i n g
s i t e is l a r g e l y o p t i o n a l and only l i m i t e d by o b s t a c l e clearance. For t h e p i l o t , t h e simplest approach and t h e
e a s i e s t one t o handle would be t h a t o f a v i r t u a l l y l e v e l f l i g h t path and a subsequent v e r t i c a l descent.

I n any c a s e , i t is t h e rate o f descent (and not t h e a l t i t u d e ) t h a t c o n s t i t u t e s t h e most important information

f o r t h e p i l o t i n t h e f i n a l phase o f a VTOL landing. I t is f o r t h i s reason t h a t t h e r e is only a d i g i t a l reading
of t h e f l i g h t a l t i t u d e on t h e i n d i c a t o r while t h e r a t e o f descent is represented d i r e c t l y on t h e d i s p l a y by means
of analog symbol. I f an approach on a s t e p g l i d e p a t h is used t o g e t i n t o r e s t r i c t e d sites rough information
w i l l be required with r e s p e c t t o keeping within a c e r t a i n a l t i t u d e and speed range i n t h e v e r t i c a l plane ( s i m i l a r
as i n t h e h o r i z o n t a l plane).

Generally, t h e following p r i n c i p l e f o r d i s p l a y optimization should be adhered t o :

I f t h e degree of accuracy required f o r c o n t r o l l i n g a f l i g h t parameter i s low, t h i s should be accounted f o r
by s e l e c t i n g a s u i t a b l e symbol arrangement. S p e c i a l c a r e should be taken t o avoid d i s p l a y i n g any information
which might cause t h e p i l o t t o c o n t r o l f l i g h t parameters at a degree of accuracy higher t h a n t h a t required.
This is t h e only way of r e a l i z i n g t h e reduction i n p i l o t work load which, on p r i n c i p l e , may well be achieved
i n t h e case of VTOL instrument landings.

It i s along t h i s l i n e t h a t a i r s p e e d w i l l be displayed, as shown i n Figure 2.4. Here w a s t h e i n t e n t i o n t o

provide t h e p i l o t , d u r i n g t h e landing t r a n s i t i o n , with only rough information as t o a i r s p e e d d e v i a t i o n s from a
c e r t a i n d e s i r e d value. By means o f a p p r o p r i a t e s c a l e s , accounting f o r t h e e c c e n t r i c i t y of t h e e l l i p s e s , t h e
degree of accuracy of t h e d a t a can be v a r i e d and optimized.

3 . AUTOMATIC CONTROL A I D S FOR INSTRUMENT A N D AUTOMATIC VTOL L A N D I N G S

I n t h e f i n a l phase o f a VTOL l a n d i n g t h e necessary f l i g h t movements i n t h e h o r i z o n t a l plane are normally

c o n t r o l l e d by way o f changing t h e a t t i t u d e angles ( p i t c h and r o l l a n g l e s ) , and those i n t h e v e r t i c a l p l a n e by
way of changes i n t h e l i f t engine t h r u s t l e v e l . Therefore, as far as h o r i z o n t a l movements are concerned, two
coupled c o n t r o l loops (about each a x i s ) must be c l o s e d by t h e p i l o t ( s e e Figure 3 . 1 ) :
( a ) an i n n e r c o n t r o l loop f o r a t t i t u d e s t a b i l i z a t i o n :
(b) an o u t e r c o n t r o l loop f o r c o n t r o l of t r a n s l a t o r y motion.

A s f a r as t h e o u t e r c o n t r o l loop is concerned, t h e p i l o t w i l l o b t a i n t h e d a t a necessary f o r an instrument land-

i n g from t h e mentioned d i s p l a y c o n t r o l l e d by ground and a i r b o r n e systems (navigation computer).

I n p r a c t i c e , t h e inner c o n t r o l loop f o r its own r e q u i r e s considerable e f f o r t s on t h e p a r t of t h e p i l o t because

of t h e l a c k of damping during low-speed f l y i n g of a VTOL a i r c r a f t . The predominant mode o f t h e s t a b i l i z a t i o n
loop determined with a p i l o t t r a n s f e r f u n c t i o n

FP
-
-
e-Td S ''+ TLp
(3. 1 )
1 t T, s

shows (Fig.3.2) t h a t t h e p i l o t must g e n e r a t e l a r g e phase advance (given by l e a d time c o n s t a n t T) t o achieve

s a t i s f a c t o r y damping (given by 6 ) i n t h e c o n t r o l loop. Figure 3.2 a l s o r e v e a l s t h a t t h e damping is r a t h e r
s e n s i t i v e t o changes i n p i l o t g a i n K . Strong r e a c t i o n s of t h e p i l o t t o gust d i s t u r b a n c e s o r t h e d e s i r e t o
o b t a i n a t t i t u d e changes quickly (high w o ) w i l l considerably reduce t h e damping of t h e a t t i t u d e s t a b i l i z a t i o n
system ( s e e Figure 3.3).
 21-3

Under v i s u a l f l i g h t c o n d i t i o n s t h e experienced p i l o t w i l l have l e s s d i f f i c u l t i e s i n performing t h e s t a b i l i z a -

t i o n t a s k , as f l i g h t experience on v a r i o u s VTOL a i r c r a f t , i n p a r t i c u l a r t h e P 1127, has.shown. The f u l l spectrum
of d i f f i c u l t i e s mentioned above w i l l , however, be encountered by t h e p i l o t under instrument f l i g h t conditions.
Then it is imperative t h a t t h e p i l o t be eliminated e n t i r e l y from t h e a t t i t u d e s t a b i l i z a t i o n loop. This may be
ach.ieved by means o f an automatic a t t i t u d e c o n t r o l system which is described i n Figure 3.4. Such an a t t i t u d e
c o n t r o l l e r w i l l enable t h e a i r c r a f t t o c a r r y out a t t i t u d e changes proportional t o t h e d e f l e c t i o n of t h e c o n t r o l
s t i c k , providing f o r an optimum t r a n s i e n t ( a t t i t u d e c o n t r o l ) . Even under d i s t u r b a n c e s , e.g. e c c e n t r i c engine
f a i l u r e , t h e commanded a t t i t u d e angles w i l l be maintained automatically. Therefore, t h e p i l o t w i l l never be
r e q u i r e d t o observe t h e a t t i t u d e angles f o r feedback purposes. This considerably reduces t h e d i f f i c u l t i e s
involved i n ,an instrument landing.

The n e c e s s i t y of i n c o r p o r a t i n g a t t i t u d e c o n t r o l c a p a b i l i t y is i l l u s t r a t e d by t h e fact t h a t even with auto-

matic a t t i t u d e c o n t r o l , c o n t r o l of t h e t r a n s l a t o r y motion during instrument l a n d i n g s s t i l l r e q u i r e s considerable
e f f o r t s on t h e p a r t of t h e p i l o t . To i n v e s t i g a t e t h i s s i t u a t i o n , t h e root l o c i were determined with a p i l o t
t r a n s f e r f u n c t i o n given i n Equation (3. 1).

Figure 3.5 shows t h a t a considerable phase advance, namely

TLp = 2 - 4 sec

h a s t o be generated by t h e p i l o t t o o b t a i n a s u f f i c i e n t s t a b i l i t y margin. An a d d i t i o n a l phase advance i n t h e

landing d i s p l a y by superimposing ground speed:

w i l l c o n t r i b u t e towards improving t h e s t a b i l i t y margin. This l e a d term means t h a t it is n o t t h e momentary

d i s t a n c e between t h e a i r c r a f t and t h e landing s i t e which is i n d i c a t e d but r a t h e r t h e d i s t a n c e at t h e time

Figure 3.6 shows t h e c o n s i d e r a b l e improvement o f t h e s t a b i l i t y margin which can be achieved with a minor
l e a d term o f , t h e p i l o t (e.g. T L =~ 0 . 5 s ) with values of T L =~ 1 - 2 sec.

For automatic landings, t h e landing s i t e displacement w i l l c o n t r o l t h e d e s i r e d a t t i t u d e angle, e.g.

l t T L s
9 = ' X . (3.2)
l + T N s

Owing t o t h e absence o f dead time, t h e s t a b i l i t y margin w i l l i n c r e a s e without r e q u i r i n g high phase advance

( s e e Figure 3.7). As f a r as a t t i t u d e c o n t r o l is concerned, d i f f i c u l t i e s may a r i s e on account of t h e f a c t t h a t ,
because o f t h e l i m i t e d c o n t r o l power a v a i l a b l e , l a r g e r changes i n a t t i t u d e can only be e s t a b l i s h e d with over-
shoots. T h i s l i m i t a t i o n e f f e c t i s increased considerably i n t h e presence o f simultaneous disturbance s i g n a l s .
T h i s influence is shown on Figure 3.8 which was t a k e n d u r i n g a t e s t f l i g h t o f t h e SG 1262 hovering test r i g
(Fig.3.9). In t h i s test f l i g h t , speed was picked up by banking t h e hovering t e s t r i g . This caused considerable
r o l l i n g moments on account of engine i n t a k e momentum counteracting t h e bank a t t i t u d e . The p i l o t was t o slow
down t h e v e h i c l e by way o f sudden banking i n t h e o p p o s i t e d i r e c t i o n . T h i s caused a high r a t e o f r o l l which
r e s u l t e d i n a considerable overshoot o f t h e commanded bank a t t i t u d e . This e f f e c t is due, t o t h e f a c t t h a t t h e
high rate o f r o l l is b u i l t up by t h e i n f l u e n c e s of d i s t u r b a n c e and c o n t r o l s i g n a l s a c t i n g i n t h e sane d i r e c t i o n ,
while only t h e d i f f e r e n c e between t h e disturbance and t h e c o n t r o l s i g n a l s is a v a i l a b l e for slowing down t h e
movement. Such, s a t u r a t i o n e f f e c t s may be a l l e v i a t e d by reducing t h e loop gain. T h i s , however, would e n t a i l a
d e t e r i o r a t i o n i n f l i g h t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s f o r a l l commands, and t h e c o n t r o l accuracy at touchdown would be reduced.

The i d e a l s o l u t i o n f o r covering t h e s e problems seems t o be a non-linear c o n t r o l l e r which responds very fast

t o small a t t i t u d e changes but less f a s t as l a r g e r a t t i t u d e changes a r e commanded. Such a c h a r a c t e r i s t i c can be
obtained, f o r instance, by reducing t h e g a i n with i n c r e a s i n g a t t i t u d e e r r o r .

Figure 3.10 shows t h e s t e p responses for d i f f e r e n t a t t i t u d e commands as obtained by such a non-linear

controller.

A non-linear c o n t r o l l e r h a s meanwhile been developed f o r t h e SG 1262. I t is undergoing t e s t i n g at present.

The overshoot described i n Figure 3.5 can be l a r g e l y reduced by t h e non-linear c o n t r o l l e r (see Figure 3.11).
Figure 3.12 i n d i c a t e s another advantage of t h e non-linear a t t i t u d e c o n t r o l l e r , namely t h a t of an increased
s t a b i l i t y margin at l i m i t e d c o n t r o l r a t e s , as encountered, f o r instance, i n t h e case o f t h r u s t modulation c o n t r o l
on account of t h e f a c t t h a t t h e engine r.p.m. and t h r u s t r a t e i s limited.

The incorporation of t h e non-linear c o n t r o l l e r o f f e r s advantages f o r both instrument and automatic landings

because it e l i m i n a t e s very important c o n s t r a i n t s with r e s p e c t t o magnitude and r a t e o f a t t i t u d e commands and
g i v e s a remarkable b e t t e r maneuverability with a t t i t u d e c o n t r o l systems.
21-4

4. RELIABILITY OF FLIGHT CONTROL AND AUTOMATIC FLIGHT CONTROL SYSTEMS

The high c o n t r o l performance including t h e p o s s i b i l i t y f o r countering engine f a i l u r e s r e q u i r e s an a t t i t u d e

s t a b i l i z a t i o n system with f u l l a u t h o r i t y . The c o n t r o l power o f VTOL aircraft manufactured s o f a r are consider-
a b l e ; angular a c c e l e r a t i o n s o f up t o 2 rad/sec‘ have been used.

Such a high c o n t r o l power involves a problem i n s o f a r as, i n c a s e of c o n t r o l l e r f a i l u r e s ( e s p e c i a l l y with

hard-over s i t u a t i o n s ) , heavy r o t a t i o n a l movements a r e introduced. The p i l o t g e n e r a l l y a c t s t o o l a t e t o avoid
dangerous f l i g h t conditions. But even i f t h e f a i l e d c o n t r o l l e r can be i s o l a t e d f a s t enough, t h e f l i g h t charac-
t e r i s t i c s without t h e c o n t r o l l e r - t o g e t h e r with t h e unfavorable i n i t i a l s i t u a t i o n caused by t h e f a i l u r e - are
inadequate so t h a t o f t e n t h e a i r c r a f t cannot be mastered any longer i n an instrument f l i g h t . I n t h i s r e s p e c t
i t appears somewhat detrimental t h a t modern automatic c o n t r o l mechanism o f f e r t h e p i l o t such tremendous improve-
ments of t h e b a s i c c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f t h e a i r c r a f t t h a t any r e t u r n t o t h e s e q u a l i t i e s a f t e r f a i l u r e o f t h e
c o n t r o l l e r , i f at a l l , is only p o s s i b l e by way o f continuous and expensive t r a i n i n g .

Therefore, highly r e l i a b l e automatic f l i g h t c o n t r o l systems have been developed, p a r t i c u l a r l y f o r t h e VTOL

a i r c r a f t designed i n Germany. With t h e s e c o n t r o l systems a complete f a i l u r e (during t h e j e t - s u p p o r t e d phase
5 min) should occur only a f t e r two o r t h r e e individual f a u l t s , with a p r o b a b i l i t y o f approximately IO-’.

Such s t r i n g e n t r e l i a b i l i t y requirements could be f u l f i l l e d only by combining t h e following measures:

1. m u l t i p l i c a t i o n (redundancy) of c o n t r o l l e r components

2. design of an automatic monitoring system including t h e following functions:

(a) p r e f l i g h t system check,
(b) f a i l u r e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n ( i n f l i g h t ) and f a i l u r e i n d i c a t i o n ,
( c ) f a i l u r e elimination.

The system designs t h a t have been made a v a i l a b l e f o r VTOL a i r c r a f t i n Germany p r a c t i c a l l y r e l y on only two
redundancy p r i n c i p l e s :
1. t r i p l i c a t e d systems and monitoring v i a s i g n a l comparison

2. duplicated systems and monitoring o f t h e components o f each h a l f (function monitoring o r s i g n a l comparison

Whereas t h e ; t r i p l e x system with monitoring by comparison o f t h e output s i g n a l s has g e n e r a l l y been accepted f o r

t h e e l e c t r o n i c part o f t h e c o n t r o l l e r , t h e r e a r e d i f f e r e n t s o l u t i o n s f o r adapting t h e t r i p l i c a t e d c o n t r o l l e r
s i g n a l s t o t h e s e r v o s which normally have t o o p e r a t e with only d u p l i c a t e hydraulic energy supply systems.

In t h e Do 31 a i r c r a f t , f o r i n s t a n c e , t r i p l i c a t i o n is taken up t o t h e servo motor which is also t r i p l i c a t e d

(Fig.4.1). I n t h i s c a s e t h e load p r e s s u r e s at t h e i n d i v i d u a l a c t u a t i n g p i s t o n s a r e monitored i n pairs. This
s o l u t i o n is an i d e a l one i f t h r e e independent hydraulic supply systems a r e a v a i l a b l e . Otherwise, two s e r v o
motor chains a r e connected t o one supply c i r c u i t and- have t o be changed over i n case o f supply system f a i l u r e .

Another s o l u t i o n provides f o r t r i p l i c a t i n g t h e components o n l y as f a r as t h e servo valves which o p e r a t e one

common spool valve. This valve, i n t u r n , a c t u a t e s a j a c k system which is only d u p l i c a t e d , each one being fed
by one supply system. A s regards t h i s s o l u t i o n , t h e servo v a l v e s s t i l l have t o be switched o v e r i n c a s e o f a
supply system f a i l u r e . Monitoring is again e f f e c t e d by a “hydrologic” similar t o t h e l o g i c used f o r t h e servo
motor i n Figure 4.1.

Fbr t h e VAK 191 B a duplex servo system has been developed. The servo u n i t s a r e each monitored by an elec-
t r o n i c simulation (analogon) o f t h e s e r v o t r a n s f e r function ( s e e Figure 4 . 2 ) . A h y d r a u l i c analogon is a l s o
being prepared as a f u n c t i o n a l model.

In a l l t h e t r i p l e x systems r e a l i z e d s o f a r i n Germany t h e f i r s t f a u l t is automatically eliminated. B a s i c a l l y

f o r t h i s e l i m i n a t i o n t h e r e a r e t h r e e d i f f e r e n t techniques which can a l s o be used i n any combination. F a u l t
compensation is e f f e c t e d

1. according t o t h e majority p r i n c i p l e (majority v o t e r )

2. by t h e s e l e c t i o n of t h e median s i g n a l (median v o t e r )

3. by averaging t h e s i g n a l s .

So far t h e t h i r d method h a s been used only for t r i p l e x servo u n i t s with forcebalancing o f t h e t h r e e a c t u a t i n g

p i s t o n s . Owing t o t h e high p r e s s u r e gain o f e l e c t r o - h y d r a u l i c s e r v o s , only minor e r r o r s occur i n t h e r e s u l t i n g
servo output even i n c a s e o f a hard-over condition. Averaging o f t h e p o s i t i o n o r t h e s i g n a l s i n t h e e l e c t r o n i c
part o f t h e c o n t r o l l e r does n o t provide for t h i s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c and is t h e r e f o r e n o t used.

When monitoring according t o t h e above-mentioned procedures 1 and 2, t h e f a i l e d c o n t r o l l e r chain is completely

eliminated. With t h e majority p r i n c i p l e , t h e s i g n a l which d e v i a t e s from t h e o t h e r two s i g n a l s i s i d e n t i f i e d as
f a u l t y . According t o t h e procedure 2, t h e s i g n a l which l i e s between t h e o t h e r two i n terms o f magnitude is
i d e n t i f i e d as c o r r e c t . Method.2 can t h u s eliminate one malfunction without having t o i d e n t i f y o r i s o l a t e t h e
f a u l t y s i g n a l . A second f a u l t , however, cannot be covered by t h i s technique nor can t h e e r r o r be displayed
 21- 5

for t h e p i l o t . For t h i s reason modern s o l u t i o n s r e l y on a combination o f methods 1 and 2 o r e x c l u s i v e l y employ

method 1.

The m a j o r i t y v o t e r is based on a comparison o f s i g n a l s (two each) between t h e s i g n a l chains t o be monitored

and, by way o f l o g i c a l i n t e r c o n n e c t i o n s , i d e n t i f i e s f a i l u r e s which can be i n d i c a t e d t o t h e p i l o t . The l o g i c of
such a monitoring system is shown i n Figure 4 . 3 . Whereas t h e f i r s t f a i l u r e can be l o c a l i z e d , t h e presence o f
a second f a u l t can be determined, but not l o c a l i z e d .

The e s s e n t i a l advantages o f t h e m a j o r i t y p r i n c i p l e are t h a t , a f t e r i s o l a t i n g a f a i l e d s i g n a l chain a second

f a u l t i n t h e c o n t r o l l e r can u s u a l l y be overcome as well. There have been various proposals f o r coping with t h e
second f a u l t ; t h e s e depend on t h e e f f e c t s o f t h e f a i l u r e and on t h e f l i g h t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s (without a c o n t r o l l e r )
o f t h e VTOL a i r c r a f t concerned. With t h e DO 31 f o r example, t h e c o n t r o l l e r is switched o f f a f t e r t h e second
breakdown whose e f f e c t s a r e minimized by t h e combined a c t i o n o f two chains. Instead, a mechanical back up
c o n t r o l having t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f an a c c e l e r a t i o n c o n t r o l is used.

I n VTOL f l i g h t phases another technique can be employed where a f t e r t h e f i r s t breakdown an i n t a c t chain is

switched o f f as a stand-by simultaneously with i s o l a t i n g t h e chain t h a t h a s f a i l e d (see Figure 4 . 4 ) . Should a
second malfunction occur i n t h e a c t i v e chain t h e p i l o t (observing i r r e g u l a r f l i g h t movements and a s s i s t e d by a
d i s p l a y ) can change over t o t h e last stand-by chain. This technique has been used f o r t h e VAK 191 B. A s a
f u r t h e r development o f ' t h i s method, monitoring o f t h e two remaining chains is coupled, a f t e r t h e f i r s t break-
down, with r e a c t i o n s o f p i l o t i n s t i c k movements. When t h e p i l o t i n s t i n c t i v e l y c o u n t e r a c t s i r r e g u l a r angular
motions caused by f a u l t s , t h e second f a i l e d chain can a l s o be i d e n t i f i e d . By interconnecting t h e two chains
t h e e f f e c t s of hard-over are reduced. The f u l l s t a b i l i z a t i o n c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of a c o n t r o l l e r i s t h u s a v a i l a b l e
even a f t e r a second malfunction.

Another advantage o f t h e majority p r i n c i p l e is t h a t t h e components o f t h e monitoring system can a l s o be used

f o r p r e f l i g h t system checks. For t h e check system o f t h e VAK 191 B AFCS. f o r instance, u s i n g t h e monitoring
equipment a d d i t i o n a l components amounting t o only 5 pe,r cent o f t h e AFCS weight were needed.

A s a disadvantage t h e majority p r i n c i p l e r e q u i r e s synchronization of t h e t h r e e chains within c l o s e t o l e r a n c e s .

I f t h i s cannot be achieved, t h e i s o l a t i n g t h r e s h o l d s w i l l be t o o high, and considerable changeover t r a n s i e n t s
w i l l occur. Using modern components no a d d i t i o n a l e g a l i z a t i o n was needed with t h e exception o f c o n t r o l loops
using i n t e g r a t i n g networks.

5. IN-FL'IGHT SIMULATION OF INSTRUMENT A N D AUTOMATIC LANDINGS

WITH THE SG 1 2 6 2 H O V E R I N G TEST R I G

5.1 Introduction
The S G 1262 hovering test r i g ( s e e Figure 3.9) i s p a r t i c u l a r l y s u i t a b l e as a t e s t r i g f o r i n - f l i g h t simula-
t i o n f o r t h e following reasons:

1. The f l i g h t s a f e t y o f t h e Xi 1262 is e s p e c i a l l y high owing t o

( a ) t h e high degree of r e l i a b i l i t y o f t h e c o n t r o l and automatic c o n t r o l system, achieved by t r i p l i c a t i n g
t h e e l e c t r o n i c components and d u p l i c a t i n g t h e servo u n i t s ;
(b) a high thrust-to-weight r a t i o (T/W > 1 . 2 with T. 0. Weight)
( c ) adequate c o n t r o l l a b i l i t y and automatic momentum compensation i n c a s e of engine f a i l u r e s .
2. The c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f f l i g h t c o n t r o l (fly-by wire) and of automatic f l i g h t c o n t r o l can e a s i l y be v a r i e d
by a l t e r i n g t h e networks of o p e r a t o r a m p l i f i e r s i n t h e s e s i g n a l p a t h s . Therefore a wide range o f a t t i t u d e
loop c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s can be covered.

5.2 Mode and Purpose of t h e Projected Simulations

The S G 1262 hovering t e s t r i g i s designed i n such a way t h a t . h o v e r i n g f l i g h t s can be c a r r i e d o u t a t speeds
of up t o 40 knots. Thus, instrument landings can be simulated only f o r t h e f i n a l phase o f a landing t r a n s i t i o n
u n t i l touchdown. T h i s phase, however, is o f p a r t i c u l a r importance.

To perform real instrument landings o r even automatic landings with VTOL a i r c r a f t , a s u i t a b l e ground system
is required as a navigation a i d . Although v a r i o u s developments have been i n i t i a t e d , a VTOL landing system i s
not a v a i l a b l e a t t h i s moment.

For t h i s reason t h e concept of i n - f l i g h t landing s i m u l a t i o n s has been developed, where ground navigation a i d
is superseded by i n c o r p o r a t i n g an i n e r t i a l platform and a r a d a r a l t i m e t e r . These devices supply t h e components
o f displacement and o f c l o s i n g speed from a v i r t u a l landing s i t e ( i n a s a f e a l t i t u d e p o s i t i o n ) . A s approaches
last l e s s than 1 min i n t h e f i n a l phase t h e r e are p r a c t i c a l l y no d r i f t problems i n using t h e i n e r t i a platform.
Moreover, t h e s e mock a i r f i e l d s can be changed more f r e q u e n t l y during a f l i g h t - an advantage o f t h i s p a r t i c u l a r
method. Accordingly, t h e p i l o t can o b t a i n t h e information about t h e p o s i t i o n o f t h e v i r t u a l landing s i t e o n l y
from h i s instrument d i s p l a y . Using v i s u a l information would d i v e r t h i s a t t e n t i o n and would t h e r e f o r e y i e l d
even worse r e s u l t s . T h i s i s another advantage o f landing simulations pursuant t o t h e method suggested here.
21-6

The information required f o r instrument landings is i n d i c a t e d t o t h e p i l o t on a s p e c i a l landing display. For

t h i s purpose an o p e r a t i o n a l d i s p l a y has been developed which is s u f f i c i e n t l y f l e x i b l e i n t h e t y p e and number o f
symbols used f o r optimization on t h e b a s i s of f l i g h t t e s t results and p i l o t s ’ assessment inputs. S p e c i a l i n t e r -
face u n i t s have been developed f o r adapting t h e navigational d a t a t o t h e display: they also permit programming
o f t h e t a s k s t o be performed by t h e p i l o t (programming o f various l a n d i n g s i t e s t o be changed i n f l i g h t ) . I n
a d d i t i o n , t h e i n t e r f a c e i s provided with means f o r s t o r i n g t h e d a t a t r a n s m i t t e d t o t h e display.

These d a t a are recorded on a t m e recorder i n s t a l l e d i n t h e hovering t e s t r i g and a r e a v a i l a b l e f o r a n a l y s i s

o f t h e simulated landings. I n o r d e r t o r e l i e v e t h e p i l o t from monitoring functions as f a r as p o s s i b l e - t h e
monitoring f u n c t i o n s r e q u i r e d f o r t h e SG 1262 (e.g. engine monitoring) a r e not n e c e s s a r i l y t y p i c a l f o r a l l VTOL
a i r c r a f t - e s s e n t i a l d a t a a r e t r a n s m i t t e d by telemetry t o t h e ground and monitored i n quick look instruments.
In a d d i t i o n , t h e test range clearance is c o n t r o l l e d by means o f a ground r a d a r system.

A l l t h e s e a i d s - t o g e t h e r with t h e above measures taken f o r i n c r e a s i n g t h e r e l i a b i l i t y o f t h e e s s e n t i a l

systems o f t h e SG 1262 - are t o ensure t h a t t h e p i l o t w i l l concentrate on t h e landing t a s k .

The program of t h e landing s i m u l a t i o n s is t o be c a r r i e d o u t i n d i f f e r e n t phases. I n t h e f i r s t phase i t seems

appropriate t o deal with navigation i n t h e h o r i z o n t a l plane only and t o optimize t h e d a t a d i s p l a y f o r t h i s
function. In o r d e r t o c a r r y o u t t h i s first phase, an a l t i t u d e c o n t r o l l e r has been developed t o assume t h e
automatic a l t i t u d e hold function.
I
I n a second phase, f u l l mode landings are p o s s i b l e , including “touchdown” a t a s a f e a l t i t u d e . Here, t h e
descent and t h e touchdown o p e r a t i o n s are e f f e c t e d e i t h e r exclusively manually o r with t h e a i d o f t h e a l t i t u d e
c o n t r o l l e r , which is provided with a “ v e r t i c a l speed c o n t r o l ” mode for t h i s purpose.

I n a t h i r d phase, automatic landings can be simulated where t h e navigation s i g n a l s from platform and radar
a l t i m e t e r a r e fed t o t h e a t t i t u d e c o n t r o l loop and t o t h e a l t i t u d e c o n t r o l l e r . I n t h i s phase t h e p i l o t merely
t a k e s over monitoring functions. The purpose o f t h e landing s i m u l a t i o n s - beginning i n J u l y 1969 - i s t o pre-
p a r e automatic f l i g h t c o n t r o l , f l i g h t c o n t r o l and d a t a d i s p l a y systems f o r instrument and automatic landings
as well as t o o b t a i n timely experience f o r e s t a b l i s h i n g ground system s p e c i f i c a t i o n s . I n t h i s r e s p e c t , s p e c i a l
emphasis is t o be placed on t h e optimization o f t h e man-machine system i n VTOL landings. The methods t o be
worked o u t t o t h i s end w i l l be of importance a l s o f o r a c t u a l landing t e s t s using s p e c i a l ground systems l a t e r
available. 1

!
 21-7

TABLE I

Degree of Risks at Conventional Landings

4
FLIGHT
PHASE DESCENT APPROACH FLARE TOUCH- DOWN

DISTANCE FROM
TOUCH-DOWN x 0 1 1 - 2 1 2 I 2 I
ALTITUDE h 1 2 3 3
RATE OF DESCENT h'
OR PITCH ANGLE 3

SPEED V

COURSE 2
HEADING V
OR LATERAL SPEED \i
SUM 4 1 9 1 1 s I 15 I
TABLE I 1

Degree of Risks at Vertical Landings

TOUCH -DOWN
NUMBER OF ACCIDENTS

500

400

300
I
190
I
I 11

200

100

0
28 24 20 16 12 8 4 0 -2 km
DISTANCE FROM TOUCH -DOWN

Fig. 2 . 1 Accidents a t landings (1946-58) aircraft T..O. weight 6TU

DEGREE OF COMPLEXITY

'I I
I
:I
I
I

lot

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 t E e 4

Fig. 2 . 2 Comparison o f conventional and vertical landings

I /

DI STANCE

Fig. 2 . 3 Landing display

 21-9

SPEED TO HIGH SPEED CORRECT SPEED TO LOW

Fig. 2 . 4 Symbolic p r e s e n t a t i o n of a i r s p e e d e r r o r

POSITION
DISTANCE LANDING
I
DISPLAY
PLACE

ACTUAL POSITION
OF AIRCRAFT
i I I
'I
II I
HORIZON

I I a

I .I
-
X I I
0 - I
9
I
- I
AIRCRAFT I
L----------J
STABILIZATION LOOP

Fig. 3 . 1 Block diagrams of coupled c o n t r o l loops i n VTOL-landings

1 2 3 4 5 6
K, [ r a dradI s e c 21
Fig.3.2 S t a b i l i t y and damping c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of a t t i t u d e s t a b i l i z a t i o n
. .,A.'.&. ..

21- 10

1
t

PITCH ANGLE
.5

STICK DEFLECTION STICK DEFLECTION

5 sec
-
Fig. 3 . 3 Quck a t t i t u d e change ( a c c e l e r a t i o n c o n t r o l )

PILOT - STICK
L
POT.
4
L

_I
SUMMING
AMPLIFIER m
I+

z
SERVO -

L--- AIRCRAFT a

Fig. 3 . 4 A t t i t u d e c o n t r o l loop
 21-11

DISPLAY I PILOT @T L
@ TLP
=~ 1
=2
sec
sec
-
GI
sec-1
without phase advance Td = 0,3 sec
T N ~ =0,2 sec
@T L =~ 4 sec
@ T L ~= 8 sec

-
3
-

3 21
/
4'

-0-
I
d
-
sec''
-r
Fig. 3 . 5 Root l o c i of h o r i z o n t a l movement ( d i s p l a y T, = 0)
1 *. ..

21- 12

DI S P L A Y P I LOT -
0
sec
O TLD = 0,ssec * = 0,3 sec
@ TLD = 1,O sec T N =~ 0,2 sec
@ TLD = 2,0 sec T L ~= 0,s sec
@ TLD = 4.0 sec

-3 -2 -1 0

Fig. 3.6 Root l o c i of h o r i z o n t a l movement (display with phase advance)

 21-13

DISPLAY -
w
TN = 0,l sec sec

@ T L = 0 sec
@ T L = 1 sec
@ TL = 2 sec
@ TL = 4 sec
7

$2

/
-2

I
;z . .o/
v’

Fig. 3.7 Root l o c i of h o r i z o n t a l movement i n automatic landing

21-14

-1 5'
a

45 ROLL ALTl TU DE

.
Kts 1 LATERAL WIND VELOCITY
Fig.3.8 Roll response a t lateral wind (step commands in wind direction)

1- -

Fig.3.9 Hovering test r i g SG 1262

 21- 15

Fig. 3.10 S t e p response using nonlinear c o n t r o l l e r

OV ERSHOOT
[ O/oJ
100

80

60

40

20

OJ 002 003 004 .. 005 006

9 DISTURBANCE
( 3 CONTROL I max

Fig.3.11 Reduction of overshoot using a n o n l i n e a r c o n t r o l l e r

21- 16

6 Band width
Hz of S e r v o
5 (limited rate 1

0 I 1 1

1 10 20 30 40
gain VK

2J0rtg5 non Ii near

step command

180 -

0 10 20 30 VK 40
~oopgain [&I
Fig. 3. 12 S t a b i l i t y boundaries at l i m i t e d servo rades

Subridiory Piston Pick-0th

D:ffewntial Linkag.
Subsidiary Piston
Moin Piston

Figure 4. 1
 21- 17

Ill
WARNLNG INDICATION

I I

[CONTROL SURFACE I

Fig. 4 . 2 Duplex servo with hydraulic monitor system

failure channel A

failure channel B

failure channel C

Differentio1 Logic I Logic 1

Amplifier and
Schmitt -Trigger

Logic Et

failures in 2 channels

Fig. 4. 3 F a i l u r e d e t e c t i n g c i r c u i t (majority v o t e r )

._ 1 LOw
FAILED

FAILURE SWITCH+
$b
ACTUATOR

Fig. 4 . 4 Simplified block diagram o f t h r e e channel monitor ( a f t e r f i r s t f a i l u r e )

 22

SYSTEMES D’ATTERRISSAGE DE THOMSON/CSF

LS 371 - SATRAM - SYDAC/ILS

P.Dautrement (France)

55 rue Greffuhle
92 Levallois Perret
France
22
 22-1

S Y S T E I E S D’ ATTERRISSACE DE THOMSON/CSF
LS 3 7 1 - SATRAM - S Y D A C ILS

P. Dautrement ( F r )

1. CENERALITES

Dans c e t t e pdriode, od c i v i l s e t m i l i t a i r e s se prdoccupent de p l u s en p l u s d e s problkmes posds par l’approache

et l’atterrissage d e s d i f f d r e n t s t y p e s d’avions, on c o n s t a t e que d e s travaux importants s o n t e f f e c t u d s t a n t s u r
l e s systhmes e x i s t a n t s que sur ceux q u i p a r a i s s e n t promettre d e s c a r a c t d r i s t i q u e s i n t d r e s s a n t e s pour l e prochain
avenir.

Dans c e s deux domaines. la Thomson/CSF a e f f e c t u d d e s travaux importants e t continue d ’ d t u d i e r l e s ddveloppe-

ments n d c e s s a i r e s aux d i f f d r e n t s systkmes.

Pour ce q u i concerne 1’ILS c l a s s i q u e . l ’ d t a t d e la technique e t des performances demanddes s o n t t e l l e s que

1’on peut maintenant proposer un materiel ayant l e s perfectionnements u l t i m e s p o s s i b l e s e t -
les limitations
propres ce systkme & a n t reconnues - f o u r n i r un s e r v i c e a p p r e c i a b l e a l l a n t d8s maintenant jusqu’a l ’ a t t e r r i s s a g e
t o u s temps ou Catkgorie 111, s e l o n l’OAC1, La f a m i l l e d’dquipement LS 371 de l a Thomson/CSF f o u r n i t un t e l
s e r v i c e aux usagers c i v i l s .

Un besoin important des m i l i t a i r e s e s t d e permettre une approche p r e c i s e dans d e s s i t e s d e c o n f i g u r a t i o n s

d i f f i c i l e s , d’avions de t o u s t y p e s mais spdcialement ADAC e t ADAV. L’kquipement SATRAM a d t d ktudid pour
rdpondre & c e besoin.

Enfin e t dgalement A d e s f i n s m i l i t a i r e s , il e s t i n t d r e s s a n t de d i s p o s e r d’un dquipement aisdment i n s t a l l a b l e

e t r d g l a b l e , r u s t i q u e e t f o u r n i s s a n t 1’ information d’approche dans des s i t e s e n c a i s s d s , d i f f i c i l e s , en un mot
un systeme t a c t i q u e facilement mis en oeuvre. C’est ce & quoi rdpond l e systkme SYDAC/ILS.

2. ILS TYPE O A C I

2.1

Chacun c o n n a i t l e s c a r a c t 6 r i s t i q u e s techniques e t o p d r a t i o n n e l l e s de c e syst8me. I1 en e s t d e mdme pour s e s

l i m i t a t i o n s q u i s e t r a d u i s e n t principalement par deux d i f f i c u l t d s :
(a) l ’ o b t e n t i o n de s t r u c t u r e d’axe s a n s “accident” (scaloping) dans d e s c o n d i t i o n s de s i t e moyennes ou
difficiles

(b) 1’ i n f l u e n c e des o b s t a c l e s mobiles dans les zones l a t d r a l e s s u r l a s t a b i l i t d de 1’ information.

Ces d i f f i c u l t d s s o n t ddtermindes en t r k s grande p a r t i e par l e s g a m e s de frdquence u t i l i s d e s e t nous v e r r o n s

p l u s l o i n comment les systkmes nouveaux p o u r r a i e n t s’ en a f f r a n c h i r .

P o u r t a n t , t e l l e s que ‘ s o n t c e s s p k c i f i c a t i o n s , l a technique moderne permet d’ o b t e n i r de tres bonnes perform-

ances dans l a grande m a j o r i t d d e s u t i l i s a t i o n s . C’en est au p o i n t que l ’ o n a reconnu que l e systkme 6 t a i t
capable de f o u r n i r 1’informat ion p r i n c i p a l e d’ un systkme d’ a t t e r r i s s a g e t o u s temps.

On peut a i n s i dnumdrer l e s techniques mises en j e u :

1’ - Antennes de grande d i r e c t i v i t d diminuant 1’i n f l u e n c e d e s o b s t a c l e s l a t d r a u x
2’ - U t i l i s a t i o n de l ’ e f f e t de c a p t u r e , en dmettant l e s signaux de converture e t du s e c t e u r d’approche &
d e s frdquences p o r t e u s e s ldgkrement d i f f d r e n t e s

Ces techniques ont d t 6 employdes avec succks a u s s i bien pour l e L o c a l i z e r que pour l e Glide.

De p l u s , o u t r e l e s performances a b s o l u e s , l ’ a c c e n t a d t d mis au f u r e t mesure d e s progrks techniques s u r

l ’ o b t e n t i o n d’une grande f i a b i l i t d e t s u r t o u t s u r une grande s d c u r i t 6 d’emploi. Dans c e s domaines, ont d t d
utilisds:
1’ - La t r a n s i s t o r i s a t i o n complkte d e s dquipements
2’ - L’elimination de t o u s d i s p o s i t i f s de f a i b l e f i a b i l i t d comme r e l a i s , moteurs, t u b e s , e t c
3’ - La redondance a u s s i b i e n dans les systkmes d’kmission que dans l e s d i s p o s i t i f s de c o n t r d l e
22-2

4O - Des d i s p o s i t i f s de c o n t r d l e trks dlabords

5O - L’alimentation d i r e c t e s u r b a t t e r i e a f i n d ’ d v i t e r t o u t e i n t e r r u p t i o n d e l‘dmission.

2.2
Toutes ces c a r a c t k r i s t i q u e s s o n t i n c l u s e s dans l e nouveau materiel LS 371 de Thomson/CSF.Mais, comme les
c o n d i t i o n e d’emploi peuvent e t r e d i f f d r e n t e s d’un u t i l i s a t e u r tl l ’ a u t r e , e t s u r t o u t & r e f o n c t i o n d e s
c a r a c t d r i s t l q u e s d e 1’environnement, t o u t e une f a m i l l e d’ dquipements e s t proposde pour l e s s a t i s f a i r e , f a m i l l e
composde par modularit6 i n t h g r a l e .

Ainsi L o c a l i z e r et Glide peuvent & r e f o u r n i s en v e r s i o n monofrdquence pour d e s c o n d i t i o n s d e s i t e normales

ou en v e r s i o n bifrdquence dans les cas d i f f i c i l e s .

Les ensembles d’dmlssion e t de c o n t r d l e peuvent &re simples ou doubles ou m b e triples (pour l e c o n t r 6 l e ) .

c e c i a f l n d ’ o b t e n i r l e taux d e pannes r e q u i s par l e fonctionnement “tous-temps”.

Divers rdseaux d’ antennes s o n t proposes a f i n d e pouvoir s’ a d a p t e r aux c o n d i t i o n s l o c a l e s :

- a i n s l , l e rdseau l e p l u s simple pour l e L o c a l i z e r comprend 5 antennes dldmentaires avec ou s a n s c o u v e r t u r e
arr i k r e
- l e rdseau l e p l u s dlabord comprend un systkme B r d f l e c t e u r parabolique de grande envergure (110 p i e d s
2 35 mbtres) pourant dmettre s o l t en monofrdquence s o i t en bifrdquence (pour l ’ e f f e t de c a p t u r e )
- Pour l e Glide, l e s antennes s o n t t o u t e s d i r e c t i v e s en azimuth e t comportent deux ou t r o i s s o u r c e s kldment-
a i r e s . Le diagramme d t a n t formd grace B l a r d f l e x i o n s u r l e s o l , l a hauteur du s y s t h e d’antennes est
comprise e n t r e 30 et 45 pieds.
- Les dquipements. g r b e tl l a t r a n s i s t o r i s a t i o n complkte e t l ’ d l i m i n a t i o n de t o u s moteurs. relais, pieces
mobiles, o n t une MTBF t r k s dlevde.

11s s o n t aliment& directement s u r b a t t e r i e avec chargeur e t contenus dans une s e u l e b a i e . mbe pour les
systemes doubles bifrdquence.
- l’kqulpement l e p l u s simple peut & r e l o g e dans un c a i s s o n t r k s p e t i t , facilement t r a n s p o r t a b l e
(H 120 m, L O , 60 m, P 0.0,50m) et d e f a i b l e consommation (100 watts). Chaque c a i s s o n ( L o c a l i z e r ou Glide)
peut & r e i n s t a l l d directement au pied d e s antennes r e s p e c t i v e s

2.3
Les performances obtenues par les m a t e r i e l s peuvent v a r i e r s u i v a n t les s i t e s de l a c a t d g o r i e I A l a c a t d g o r i e
111. 11s s o n t donc adaptds au t r a v a i l que l’on exige d’eux, pour l e moins dans l e domaine c i v i l . Sans n u l
doute, c e r t a i n e s de c e s d l f f i c u l t d s p o u r r a i e n t &re surmontkes par exemple par l’emploi de frkquences p l u s
dlevdes. Ces l i m i t a t i o n s , comme chacun sait. f o n t l ’ o b j e t de t e n t a t i v e s de s o l u t i o n , en p a r t i c u l i e r par l e
t r a v a i l . e x h a u s t 1 f e n t r e p r i s par RTCA e t l e SC-117, en vue de d k f i n i r un systkme nouveau. I1 est pourtant reel
que l e s y s t h e a c t u e l peut f o u r n i r dans l a grande m a j o r i t d des cas une information suffisamment p r e c i s e pour .
p e r m e t t r e une percde et mCe un a t t e r r i s s a g e . Ainsi c e materiel peut etre e t est i n s t a l l d s u r des t e r r a i n s
militaires q u i a s s u r e n t l e t r a f l c d e s avions l o g i s t i q u e s et meme des avions opdrationnels. I1 en e x i s t e
d ’ a i l l e u r s parmi ces d e r n i e r s q u i s o n t dqulp6s de r d c e p t e u r s ILS, dans l e but d ’ a s s u r e r une u t i l i s a t i o n t o t a l e
de 1’ I n f r a s t r u c t u r e c i v i l e e t mllitaire du pays.

3. LE SATRAM

3.1 Gdndralitds - Principes

Le systhme d t u d i d par l a Thomson/CSF, sous l ’ d g i d e du STTA (Service Technique d e s Tdldcommunications d e 1 ’ A l r )
a p p o r t e une s o l u t i o n i n t k r e s s a n t e aux problkmes posks par 1’ILS a c t u e l . Ce systkme “coopdratif” permet de
determiner avec une grande p r d c l s i o n e t l ’ i n t d r l e u r d’un volume dtendu, l a p o s i t i o n d’un adronef & bord mhe
de c e l u i - c i , grfice aux signaux repus d’une s t a t i o n t e r r e s t r e . On peut a i n s i g u i d e r l’adronef l e long d’une
t r a j e c t o i r e d’ a t t e r r i s s a g e quelconque mise en mdmoire dans un c a l c u l a t e u r .

3.1.1 Principes du Systeme

Les informations a n g u l a i r e s s o n t t r a n s m i s e s par deux f a i s c e a u x E, e t E, k m i s par l a s t a t i o n 0 ( f i g . 1 ) q u i 1
balayent pkriodiquement l e volume d e s s e r v i , respectivement en gisement e t en s i t e . Le f a i s c e a u E, a l a forme
d’un e v e n t a i l v e r t i c a l ; l e f a i s c e a u E, s e d 6 p l o i e l e long d’un s e c t e u r conique dont l ’ a n g l e au sommet e s t
v a r i a b l e . Chaque f a i s c e a u est d t r o i t s u i v a n t l a coordonnde qu’ il transmet e t couvre t o u t le domaine de l ’ a u t r e
coordonnde.

Les balayages s o n t e n t r e l a c d s car les f a i s c e a u x rayonnent a l t e r n a t ivement s u r l a m6me p o r t e u s e un s i g n a l

module en frkquence une frdquence F ( G ) ou F (S) f o n c t i o n l i n d a i r e c r o i s s a n t e de G ou de S. A bord, pendant
qu’un f a i s c e a u d k f i l e s u r la p o s i t i o n de l ’ a d r o n e f M, on mesure par une mdthode numdrique l a frdquence de
modulation moyenne du s i g n a l repu: e l l e e s t dgale F (GM) ou F (SM), d’oh l ’ o n dkduit GM e t SM.
 22-3

Grace & un d i s p o s i t i f s e u i l . on n ’ u t i l i s e que le s i g n a l requ pendant l e dkfilement d e l a zone c e n t r a l e du

lobe p r i n c i p a l : on klimine complktement les informations p a r a s i t e s q u i p o u r r a i e n t &re apportkes par l e s lobes
s e c o n d a i r e s ou du f a i t des r d f l e x i o n s ’ s u r les o b s t a c l e s quand l e s f a i s c e a u x viennent & l e s k c l a i r e r .

La d i s t a n c e est mesurke de fagon c l a s s i q u e au moyen d’un i n t e r r o g a t e u r impulsions s i t u 6 & bord e t d’un

rkpondeur au sol.

3.2 C a r a c t k r i s t i q u e s g6nkrales
Le s i t e et l e gisement s o n t t r a n s m i s dans l a bande 10 - 10.5 GHz. C e l l e - c i r e p r k s e n t e l e m e i l l e u r compromis
e n t r e d e s frkquences p l u s basses oh l a r e a l i s a t i o n de f a i s c e a u x f i n s n k c e s s i t e r a i t de tr&sgrandes antennes e t
d e s frkquences p l u s klevkes ob l ’ a b s o r p t i o n par l a p l u i e ou l e b r o u i l l a r d n ’ e s t souvent pas ndgligeable.

Le systeme de mesure d e d i s t a n c e opkre dans l a bande 5 - 5.25 GHZ. I1 c o n s t i t u e un ensemble indkpendant du

systkme de mesure d e s a n g l e s . On estime que c e t t e conception e s t j u s t i f i k e p a r l e f a i t que c e r t a i n s u t i l i s a t e u r s
ne d k s i r e n t pas de mesure de d i s t a n c e . De p l u s c e t t e s k p a r a t i o n d e s f o n c t i o n s c o n t r i b u e amkliorer l a
f i a b i l i t d g l o b a l e du systkme en l e s c i n d a n t en deux s o u s - s y s t h e s s p d c i a l i s k s .

Couverture e t p r k c i s i o n s o n t ktk c h o i s i e s par l e STTA. I1 va de s o i que l e systhme p o u r r a i t 6 t r e adapt6

d e s caractkrist iques d i f f d r e n t e s .

Les v a l e u r s a c t u e l l e s s o n t l e s s u i v a n t e s :

- Portke : 20 km.
- Couverture en s i t e : 2’ & 15’
- Couverture en gisement : 60’
- Prkcisions:
sur la distance : * 10 m, ou 3%
s u r l e s i t e : O,lo, ou 5%
s u r l e gisement : 1’ (on o b t i e n t rkellement e t aiskment moins 0’25)

Les o u v e r t u r e s a n g u l a i r e s de f a i s c e a u x de s i t e e t de gisement dkterminkes en f o n c t i o n des p r k c i s i o n s

d k s i r k e s , s o n t de 1,5O e t 6’ respectivement. La frkquence de balayage e s t d e 5 Hz environ. Les frdquences
maximales de modulation sont i n f k r i e u r e s 1 150 kHz.

3 . 3 Description du m a t 6 r i e l

La f i g u r e 2 donne l e schkma d e l a s t a t i o n expkrimentale “site-gisement”. Les mouvements de balayage s o n t

obtenus en f a i s a n t o s c i l l e r & 2,5 Hz l ’ e x c i t a t e u r de l ’ a n t e n n e de s i t e e t l ’ a n t e n n e de gisement dans son
ensemble.. Les frkpuences de modulation s o n t engendrees par des condensateurs v a r i a b l e s commandks par les axes
”site” e t “g isement ”.

V e m e t t e u r e s t dquipk d’un TOP q u i d k l i v r e 10 1 15 W. La puissance modulke est dirige‘e a l t e r n a t i v e m e n t v e r s

l’une ou l ’ a u t r e antenne par un commutateur B f e r r i t e .

L’kquipement de bord expkrimental (Fig.3) comprend une t 6 t e HF de 7 dm3, un module “angles” de 1/2 ATR
c o u r t , un module “ d i s t a n c e ” de mLe volume, un c a l c u l a t e u r analogique loge dans l e t a b l e a u de commande, un
i n d i c a t e u r ILS muni d’une k c h e l l e pdriphkrique de d i s t a n c e , un i n d i c a t e u r d e v i t e s s e . Le c a l c u l a t e u r
analogique permet d e c h o i s i r l a p e n t e e t l e gisement de l ’ a x e d ’ a t t e r r i s s a g e a i n s i que l e point de c o n t a c t par
r a p p o r t a la s t a t i o n , de r k g l e r l e s s e n s i b i l i t d s d e s i n d i c a t i o n s d ’ d c a r t , de f a i r e v a r i e r c e l l e s - c i en f o n c t i o n
de l a d i s t a n c e de c a l c u l e r l a v i t e s s e radiale.

Dans une v e r s i o n dkveloppke, l’dquipement d e bord serait c o n s t i t u k par une t & e HF d e 2 dm3 e t deux modules
1/4 ATR c o u r t .

3.4 Performances - applications

Une premi&re maquette q u i ne comportait que les f o n c t i o n s “ s i t e ” e t ’ “ d i s t a n c e ” a permis de v k r i f i e r l a

v a l i d i t k d e s p r i n c i p e s du systkme. En p a r t i c u l i e r l e s p r k c i s i o n s ont et8 m e i l l e u r e s que c e l l e s indiqudes c i -
dessus, et c e c i dans un s e c t e u r de s i t e de 40’.

Dans l ’ a v e n i r , l e systkme p o u r r a i t d t r e u t i l i s e de p l u s i e u r s fagons. Figure 4.

Scindk en 2 s t a t i o n s inddpendantes - Azimuth e t k l d v a t i o n ( a c e t t e d e r n i k r e p o u r r a i t d t r e a d j o i n t o p t i o n n e l l e -

I

ment un kquipement DME). C’est l a c o n f i g u r a t i o n d’implantation de l’kquipement ILS OACI. Dans c e cas, l a l o i
de modulation p o u r r a i t etre s i m p l i f i k e a f i n de ne f o u r n i r l e cas dchdant que les informations analogues & celles
de 1’ILS a c t u e l .

Rkunis en une s t a t i o n unique, p l a c e s en un p o i n t c e n t r a l d’un t e r r a i n , des dquipements p e r m e t t r a i e n t de

d e s s e r v i r simultankment au moins deux pistes. 11s p e r m e t t r a i e n t certainement d e s a t t e r r i s s a g e s de c a t k g o r i e I1
e t mdme de c a t k g o r i e I11 s u r l e s p i s t e s dont l ’ e n t r e e n ’ e s t pas p l u s de 100 & 500 m de l a s t a t i o n .
22-4

En r a i s o n de sa q u a s i - i n s e n s i b i l i t d , d l’environnement, ddmontrde par l’expkrience, l e systbme p o u r r a i t &re

i n s t a l l 6 s u r des t e r r a i n s ob 1’ILS e s t absolument i n u t i l i s a b l e . Cette q u a l i t e , j o i n t e d 1’encombrement
r e l a t i v e m e n t f a i b l e de l a s t a t i o n q u i p o u r r a i t etre t r a n s p o r t d e p a r h d l i c o p t b r e . en bloc ou dkcoupde en t r o i s
ou q u a t r e dldments, l e rend apte d f a i r e f a c e d d e s missions militaires dans d e s c o n d i t i o n s d i f f i c i l e s .

En rdsumd, on peut d i r e que s e s dimensions f a i b l e s permettent de l ’ u t i l i s e r dans t o u t e s l e s c o n f i g u r a t i o n s

imaginables, y compris c e l l e d’ un systkme d’ approche s u r porte-avion, ob dvidemment chacune d e s s t a t i o n s
d e v r a i t etre montke s u r plateforme s t a b i l i s d e .

3.5 Flexibilitk - Configurations du m a t d r i e l

On d o i t remarquer que l’dquipement peut &re rendu t r k s souple d’emploi e t s ’ a d a p t e r aux b e s o i n s d e s

u t i l i s a t e u r s en j o u a n t s u r l a complexitk des s t a t i o n s s o l s e t d e s matkriels d e bord.

Les c a r a c t d r i s t i q u e s d e base q u i a s s u r e n t l a c o m p a t i b i l i t e e n t r e l e s deux classes d’ dquipement sont

essentiellement:
- la fr6quence p o r t e u s e e t les canaux d’dmission
- le type de modulation e t sa lei. Cette d e r n i b r e peut p o u r t a n t s e s i m p l i f i e r si par exemple il ne s’agit
de d e s s e r v i r qu’une p i s t e . De mbe un r d c e p t e u r s i m p l i f i d peut d t r e “ca16” s u r une s e u l e frdquence de
modulation, il ne retirera a l o r s de t o u t e dmission s o l qu’une i n d i c a t i o n d ’ d c a r t par r a p p o r t d un axe donnd.

3.6 P o s s i b i l i t k s f u t u r e s

Ce q u i a d t d d d c r i t ne concerne que l a conception de base e t l a r d a l i s a t i o n expdrimentale a c t u e l l e . I1 est

kvident que l e s p o s s i b i l i t d s f u t u r e s s o n t grandes pour un t e l systkme.

1’ - Tout d’abord l e balayage des diagrammes d’antenne pourra s a n s doute e t r e , dans un proche a v e n i r , obtenu
dlectroniquement , supprimant a u s s i s e s organes mdcaniques r e l a t i v e m e n t l o u r d s e t peu f i a b l e s . Les
p r e c i s i o n s r e q u i s e s sont dks maintenant p o s s i b l e s . mais il r e s t e d pouvoir p r o d u i r e les d i s p o s i t i f s
correspondants i n d u s t r i e l l e m e n t d’ une maniere Bconomique.
2’ - On v o i t dks maintenant apparaftre l a p o s s i b i l i t d d’dmettre les puissances n d c e s s a i r e s m L e d 10 GHz d
partir de sources s o l i d e s . Cela t e n d r a d r d d u i r e l e poids, l a t a i l l e , l a consommation de l’dquipement,
ce q u i amdliorera encore l a f a c i l i t d d’ i n s t a l l a t i o n e t l a mise en oeuvre r a p i d e de c e t dquipement.
3’ - Le m a t d r i e l de bord une f o i s ddveloppd sera e x t r b e m e n t compact. Les t e c h n o l o g i e s d e microdlectronique
e x i s t e n t d e j d ou s o n t trks prometteuses m b e dans l e domaine hyper-frdquence. La s o r t i e d e s informations
d i r e c t e s sous forme d i g i t a l e f a c i l i t e l ’ i n t r o d u c t i o n et l e u r t r a i t e m e n t dans un c a l c u l a t e u r de bord.
Dans l e cas c o n t r a i r e , un c a l c u l a t e u r analogique s p d c i a l i s d trks simple t e l que nous l’avons
expdrimentd sera employd.
4’ - 11 est dvident que l e s techniques de redondance e t de c o n t r 6 l e pourront d t r e employees comme pour
1’ILS OACI. En e f f e t , si l ’ u t i l i z a t i o n l ’ e x i g e , l a s t a t i o n partie d l e c t r o n i q u e de l a s t a t i o n sera
doublke e t l e basculement automatique s e r a ddclenchd par un d i s p o s i t i f de c o n t r s l e p l a c d dans l e champ
rayonnd par l’antenne. T o u t e f o i s . l’on peut remarquer que techniquement e t du f a i t d e s e s dimensions
r d d u i t e s . l a s t a t i o n complkte (y compris les a d r i e n s ) p o u r r a i t & r e double. I1 s’agit 1d d’un problbme
e s s e n t i e l l e m e n t dconomique et d’ homogdnditd du m a t d r i p .

De p l u s , d t a n t donnd que l e diagramme formd depend extr6mement peu du s o l e t d a s o b s t a c l e s proches, un

d i s p o s i t i f de c o n t r 6 l e basd s u r d e s coupleurs i n t e r n e s parait s u f f i s a n t .

En conclusion, l e SATRAM r e p r d s e n t e une conception t r k s souple e t trks prometteuse q u i s ’ a p p u i e sur d e s

s o l u t i o n s dprouvdes et permet de rdpondre d 1’importante gamme d e s besoins militaires e t s a n s doute c i v i l s .

4. LE SYDAC/ILS

4.1 ’

Nous avons vu que l a grande m a j o r i t d des l i m i t a t i o n s d’emploi de 1’ILS OACI d t a i t due d sa g a m e de

frequence. Par a i l l e u r s , sa carrikre s e r a certainement encore longue. Non seulement on continue d dquiper d e s
a d r o p o r t s mais l a cadence s ’ a c c r o i t car l e t r a f i c s e ddveloppe rapidement. Rares s o n t l e s adronefs, , c i v i l s ou
militaires dont on peut a s s u r e r qu’ i l s ne frkquenteront jamais de t e r r a i n s d o t e s d’ ILS, qu’ ils ne se t r o u v e r o n t
jamais dans l a n d c e s s i t d d’y a t t e r r i r par mauvais temps. De p l u s en p l u s nombreux s o n t l e s adronefs, c i v i l s ou
m i l i t a i r e s encore, q u i p r a t i q u e n t l e v o l IFR en espace a k r i e n c o n t r 6 l d e t s o n t de c e f a i t presque ndcessairement
munis d’un r d c e p t e u r VOR, ou, pour un f a i b l e surcro,€t de poids e t de p r i x , d’un rdcepteur VOR-ILS.

I1 e s t dvident qu’un systkme d ’ a t t e r r i s s a g e q u i p e r m e t t r a i t d ’ u t i l i s e r l e r d c e p t e u r ILS moyennant l ’ a d j o n c t i o n

d’un p e t i t c i r c u i t d ’ a d a p t a t i o n serait t r k s avantageux. C’est dans c e t e s p r i t q u ’ e s t conqu l e m a t d r i e l que l a
Thomson/CSF a dtudid d ’ l a demande du S e r v i c e Technique des Tdldcommunications de 1’Air (STTA)
 22-5

4.2 C a r a c t d r i s t i q u e s gkndrales
Le systkme e s t c o n s t i t u d au s o l p a r deux radiophares q u i j o u e n t s l e s mbmes r a l e s que l e radiophare d ’ a l i g n e -
ment de p i s t e (RAF’) e t le radiophare d’alignement de d e s c e n t e (RAD) de 1’ILS c l a s s i q u e . Les &missions o n t l i e u
dans la bande 5 - 5 , 2 5 GHz s u r deux frkquences c h o i s i e s d e fagon h donner. a p r h battement dans 1’a d a p t a t e u r de
bord avec une frkquence l o c a l e unique e t f i x e de 4 , 9 GHz. deux frdquences v o i s i n e s d e 110 MHz e t de 330 MHz
a p p a r i d e s c o n f o r d m e n t aux p r e s c r i p t i o n s de 1’OACI.

Les p r d c i s i o n s a b s o l u e s d e s o s c i l l a t e u r s , l e s c a r a c t d r i s t i q u e s d e s modulations, s o n t c h o i s i e s de fagon que

les signaux obtenus h bord h l a s o r t i e d e 1’a d a p t a t e u r e t i n j e c t d s dans l e r k c e p t e u r ILS s o i e n t en t o u s p o i n t s
conformes aux normes de 1’OACI. Les s e u l e s l i b e r t k s qu’ on a prises concernent les c o u v e r t u r e s et l e s p o r t k e s .
E l l e s s o n t respectivement de 30’ en gisement e t de 15 m i l l e s pour l e RAP, de 20’ en gisement e t de 10 milles
pour l e RAD. Ces c a r a c t k r i s t i q u e s repondent aux b e s o i n s du STTA. Mais r i e n n’ empbcherait de r d a l i s e r un
syst&me q u i r e s p e c t e r a i t d’ a u t r e s s p d c i f i c a t i o n s kgalement h ce p o i n t d e vue.

La pente d e l ’ a x e e s t r e g l a b l e par i n c l i n a i s o n d e l ’ a n t e n n e , du RAD. La couverture e n s i t e s’ktend j w q u e

7’ environ.

4.3 D e s c r i p t i o n du materiel

Les 6metteurs s o n t congus s u i v a n t l e schema c l a s s i q u e de 1’IIS “h z e r o de rdfdrence”; ils d d l i v r e n t aux

antennes une onde “porteuse modul6e” e t une onde “bandes l a t 6 r a l e s ” e t l ’ o n a g i t s u r l ’ o u v e r t u r e du s e c t e u r
d’ alignement par l e r d g l a g e du niveau de cette d e r n i b r e onde.

La s t a b i l i t d d e frdquence r e q u i s e e s t procurbe par d e s o s c i l l a t e u r s p i l o t e s m i n i a t u r e s PSM 108 de la

Thomson/CSF q u i conservent l a frkquence h mieux que lo-’ pres pendant p l u s i e u r s mois. La v a l e u r m&me d e l a
frdquence est d k f i n i e par un o s c i l l a t e u r a u x i l i a i r e h q u a r t z q u i b a t avec 1’o s c i l l a t e u r p i l o t e .

Les frdquences f i n a l e s d’ emission s o n t a t t e i n t e s h t r a v e r s d e s chaPnes de m u l t i p l i c a t e u r s h v a r a c t o r s .

Les puissances h 5 GHz s o n t de l ’ o r d r e de 400 mW pour l e RAP e t de 30 mW pour l e RAD. E l l e s o n t 6 t h c h o i s i e s
d e f q o n h laisser une grande marge de s k c u r i t d e t en t e n a n t compte de l a d e f i n i t i o n R E A de l a s e n s i b i l i t d
d e s r e c e p t e u r s ILS.

Les antennes ne ddpassent pas 1 , 2 0 m de hauteur. Cependant, grace & l a v a l e u r dlevde de l a frdquence, l e s
f a i s c e a u x s o n t f i n s dans l e plan v e r t i c a l e t i n s e n s i b l e s & l a prdsence du s o l . La l a r g e u r d e s antennes ddpend
de l a c o u v e r t u r e en gisement recherchde; e l l e est d e l ’ o r d r e de 0.30 m pour les s t a t i o n s a c t u e l l e s .

Chaque radiophare c o n s t i t u e un ensemble compact. On peut l e r e p l i e r pour l e t r a n s p o r t . Le poids est de

l ’ o r d r e de 30 kg. Chaque s t a t i o n consomme moins d e 70 W e t e s t alimentde par une b a t t e r i e 24 V. E l l e
comporte d e s c i r c u i t s de c o n t r 6 l e e t d’alarme. Le RAP dmet un s i g n a l d ” i d e n t i f i c a t i o n .

L’dquipement d e bord a d d i t i o n n e l s e r d d u i t & une t o u t e p e t i t e antenne, un a d a p t a t e u r et un commitateur. l e

t o u t p e s a n t moins d e 1 kg. L’adaptateur c o n t i e n t l ’ o s c i l l a t e u r de t r a n s p o s i t i o n e t l e s deux p r d a m p l i f i c a t e u r s
q u i s d p a r e n t l e s deux v o i e s ILS. Le r61e du commutateur & diodes est de connecter l e r d c e p t e u r IIS s o i t aux
qntennes ILS normales s o i t & l ’ a d a p t a t e u r .

4.4 Performances e t l i m i t a t i o n s

Les d d f a u t s bien connus d e 1’ILS s o n t d e s problhmes d’ implantation et de s e n s i b i l i t d aux r d f l e x i o n s parasites.

Le nouveau systhme n ’ u t i l i s e p a s l e s o l pour l a formation d e s diagrammes. L ’ i n s t a l l a t i o n en e s t simple e t

r a p i d e et ne n d c e s s i t e pas de travaux d’amdnagement cotlteux.

Pour ce q u i e s t d e s r d f l e x i o n s , l e systkme y sera moins s e n s i b l e que 1’ILS c l a s s i q u e . En e f f e t , souvent les

o b s t a c l e s s o n t a s s e z dlevds pour & r e f r a p p e s p a r l e s maxima d e s l o b e s du RAP. a l o r s que l ’ a d r o n e f . t o u t au
long de l’approche, e t s u r t o u t au moment de l ’ a t t e r r i s s a g e s e t r o u v e b i e n au-dessous de ces maxima q u i s o n t
s i t u d s v e r s 10’. Au c o n t r a i r e , les antennes du nouveau systhme peuvent & r e i n c l i n d e s de faqon que l ’ a x e
s u i v i par l’adronef se t r o u v e dans l a region de c h q p maximal. On gagne a i n s i au moins 10 dB dans l e r a p p o r t
e n t r e l e champ u t i l e e t l e champ p a r a s i t e .

D’autre part, 5 GHz, l e s f r a n g e s d’ i n t e r f e r e n c e e n t r e les deux champs s e r o n t cinquante f o i s p l u s s e r r d e s

qu’ti 110 MHz, e t quinze f o i s p l u s qu’ti 330 MHz. Le r d c e p t e u r e t l ’ a d r o n e f se comportant c o m e un f i l t r e
passe-bas dont l a frdquence de coupure e s t de l ’ o r d r e du h e r t z , l e s s i n u o s i t d s d e l ’ a x e passeront inaperques
dans bien d e s cas.

L’expdrience a ddjd confirm6 ces iddes. La CSF a largement expdrimentd a u t r e f o i s s u r d i v e r s t e r r a i n s l e

systkme ASV 23 q u i f o n c t i o n n a i t & 1200 MHz. L’axe d d f i n i a t o u j o u r s d t d de bonne q u a l i t d . m L e dans d e s
c o n d i t i o n s ddfavorables s u r d e s p i s t e s borddes de grands hangars.

4.5 Application du SYDAC/ILS

Le systsme grace & sa l d g h r e t d permet d’ dquiper rapidement d e s t e r r a i n s au c o u r s d ’ o p d r a t i o n s m i l i t a i r e s .

e t s u i v a n t les c o n d i t j o n s l o c a l e s ( o b s t a c l e s ) et les types
La pente d e l ’ a x e peut d t r e r d g l d e aisdment
22-6

d’adronefs. I1 n’y a pas d’opdration de rdglage 8. e f f e c t u e r . I1 s ’ a g i t donc d’un m a t d r i e l t a c t i q u e trhs

i n t d r e s s a n t . Sa s i m p l i c i t k sa r o b u s t e s s e , s e s techniques dprouvdes g a r a n t i s s e n t des performances optimum pour
l e coot dconomique qu’ il r e p r d s e n t e .

Ses c o n f i g u r a t i o n s de ddploiement sont les m&es que pour l e SATRAM. I1 e s t dvident que l e radioalignement
de p i s t e (RAP : L o c a l i z e r ne d o i t pas e t r e d i s p o s e t r o p pres du p o i n t d’ impact. La convergence d e s l i g n e s
d’dgale information peut rendre l e p i l o t a g e p l u s d i f f i c i l e 8. partir de d i s t a n c e de quelques c e n t a i n e s de mhtres.
Si un d i s p o s i t i f suppldmentaire permet d ’ o b t e n i r l a d i s t a n c e , il sera p o s s i b l e 8. bord de “ d d s e n s i b i l i s e r ” les
informations a n g u l a i r e s et a i n s i de r e n d r e 1’approche p o s s i b l e jusqu’ & proximitd immediate d e la s t a t i o n .

h f i n l e SYDAC/ILS peut dgalement &re implant6 s u r porte-avion od l e problhme 8. rdsoudre c o n s i s t e e s s e n t i e l l e -

ment g u i d e r d e s avions v e r s l a “ f e n e t r e ” oh ils s e r o n t p r i s en charge par l e systeme d’approche lumineuse.

Dans c e cas, l e systhme sera p o r t d par des plateformes s t a b i l i s d e s a f i n de donner l a r o u t e e t l ’ a n g l e de

descente r e l a t i f s au porte-avion.

4.6 Possibilitds futures

Du f a i t de sa frdquence e t des t e c h n i q u e s mises en oeuvre, on peut dhs maintenant concevoir un m a t e r i e l

ddveloppd t r h s simple, trhs f i a b l e e t de c a r a c t d r i s t i q u e s d e poids, consommation t r 6 s i n t d r e s s a n t e s .

La p r i n c i p a l e amdlioration que l ’ o n peut a t t e n d r e e s t celle due 8. l a t e c h n o l o g i e de l a microdlectronique

hyperfrdquence en ce q u i concerne l e s systhmes de modulation au s o l e t l e transposeur 8. bord.

5. CONCLUSION

Dans les systhmes “ c o o p d r a t i f s ” dont l e SATRAM e t l e SYDAC/ILS s o n t d e s r e p r d s e n t a n t s , on a reconnu c e r t a i n e s

tendances trhs n e t t e s q u i f e r o n t s a n s aucun doute p a r t i e des c a r a c t d r i s t i q u e s des systemes f u t u r s :

1’ - L ’ u t i l i s a t i o n d e s frdquences dlevdes, avec s e s avantages d d c i s i f s en ce q u i concerne les dimensions,

poids, et f a c i l i t e d’ i n s t a l l a t i o n des m a t d r i e l s mais avec sa l i m i t a t i o n v e r s l e haut due 8. l ’ a t t d n u a t i o n
atmosphdrique importante dhs que 1’011ddpasse l e s 1OGHz.
2’ - L’ u t i l i s a t i o n de modulations q u i a c c r o i s s e n t l a p r o t e c t i o n c o n t r e l e s r d f l e x i o n s p a r a s i t e s

3’ - La l i m i t a t i o n de l a couverture aux s t r i c t s besoins

4’ - L‘emploi systdmatique de technologie de l ’ d t a t s o l i d e

5’ - La c o m p a t i b i l i t d avec les systhmes prdcddents q u i . si e l l e e s t r d a l i s d e , d o i t diminuer sensiblement l e

cot?t de 1’i n s t a l l a t i o n . C e t t e s o l u t i o n e s t a l o r s optimale pour un besoin s p d c i f i q u e .
6’ - La s d c u r i t d d’emploi q u i est une consdquence, e n t r e a u t r e s , de l ’ u t i l i s a t i o n d e l a t e c h n o l o g i e de l ’ d t a t
solide.

I1 semble maintenant dvident que, compte tenu d e s larges p o s s i b i l i t d s techniques e x i s t a n t e s , la p a r o l e e s t

Principalement aux u t i l i s a t e u r s q u i auront c h o i s i r parmi l e s c o n f i g u r a t i o n s proposdes c e l l e s q u i s o n t les p l u s
adaptdes 1eurs.besoins.
 22-7

LISTE DES ABREVIATIONS

ADAC Avions h Ddcollage et Attdrrissage Courts

(Anglais : STOL)

ADAV Avions h Ddcollage et Attdrrissage Verticaux

(Anglais : VTOL)

SATRAM Systhme d’Attdrrissage h TRAjectoires Multiples

SYDAC~ILS SYsthme d’ Attkrrissage bande C/compatible ILS

RAD Radio Alignement de Descente (Glide)

RAP Radio Alignement de Piste (Localizer)

TOP Tube d Ondes Progressives (Travelling wave tube)

I
22-a

-
0)

0
.-
0
c
kl
1 .
Faisceau I' site I'

I # - 1%
€/emtion beom

Fais c e a u I' az i mut I'

Azimuth be am
Station
sol 0

Growd

Fig. 1 Faisceaux rayonnds

Beams

Antenna
de s i t e

Elevation

---

Invert Modulateur

M o t o r and
commutation
-
0~
- .
Copacite

I de codoge

Codino
copoci/or Antenna
' ozimut

Azimuth
antenna

Flg.2 Station sol

Ground guidance s t a t i o n
 22-9

Antenne
Antenna EM. discri.

l r Identification -

+J-
Sipnaux B.F sile et arimut
LE elev. and oz. signals

Fr/qc?de site
Et Mesure de site
de mesure Elm lone

gate And Elevation meosuremeni

Fr6qc3 d’az.
Az. tone Et Mesure arimut

And Azimufl, measurement

Fig.3 Recepteur de guidage

Guidance receiver

Station site
Elevotion stotion

a
/aL
Station sol
complete
complete ground Paw zone d ‘atterrissoge ADAC
stotion For o STOL Ionding pad

Fig..4 SATRAM. Configurations d’ implantation

Various uses of SATRAhl
22-10

Equipement de bard
0.b. equipement

R6flecteur de distance et d’orimut

Range und azimufh rellector
I
Antenne de site
\ Elewtion aerial

Electrmics

Excitoteur de distance et
Distance and azimuth ex:citer ,

Fig.5 Equipement au sol

Ground equipment
 22-11

lnm I
:U1

15: 371 - Antenne localizer - Bretim

LS 311 - Antenne glide - Amaterdam

I
-
: ,-

r-

I
22-14

r
I

m A C - Wteriel avec ornerateur m A C - Materiel sol - Vue de face

:I
/1
 24

EVOLUTIONARY EXTENSION OF I L S

J. Benj amin

Royal A i r c r a f t Establishment, UK
Farnborough, Hants
UK
 24-1

EVOLUTIONARY EXTENSION O F I L S

J . Benj amin

1. INTRODUCTION

A fundamental p h i l o s o p h i c a l concept a p p l i c a b l e t o c i v i l a v i a t i o n is t h a t e v o l u t i o n i s p r e f e r a b l e t o c a t a s t r o p h i c
change, s i n c e t h e e s s e n t i a l requirements a r e t h a t t h e o v e r a l l o p e r a t i o n be both economic and s a f e . M i l i t a r y
a v i a t i o n , on t h e o t h e r hand, is o f t e n forced t o r a d i c a l change by s t r a t e g i c n e c e s s i t y and t h e consequences them-
s e l v e s have on occasions been c a t a s t r o p h i c . A s soon a s s e r i o u s thought is given t o t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n of a new
or replacement system t h e p r a c t i c a l d i f f i c u l t i e s of implementation p l u s t h e economic and s a f e t y r i s k s a t t a c h e d
become apparent. I n t e r m i n a l a r e a o p e r a t i o n s and a l l weather landing o r t a k e o f f both economic and s a f e t y
f a c t o r s are d e l i c a t e l y balanced and depend on knowledge of p a s t experience t o enable progress t o be made. The
p r e f e r e n c e f o r e v o l u t i o n , is well i l l u s t r a t e d by t h e h i s t o r y of Instrument Landing Systems and i n p a r t i c u l a r by
t h e ICAO VHF ILS.

This s t a r t e d a s an approach a i d g i v i n g good guidance accuracy t o a i r c r a f t r e q u i r i n g t o l i n e up with t h e runway.

Over t h e y e a r s engineering development and i n t e r n a t i o n a l d i s c u s s i o n has led t o agreed s p e c i f i c a t i o n s , performance
standards, o p e r a t i o n a l procedures and a c o n s i d e r a b l e t e c h n i c a l know-how concerned with maintenance, o p e r a t i o n and
f l i g h t c a l i b r a t i o n . The s t a t e o f development t h a t has been achieved is i l l u s t r a t e d by t h e l a t e s t s p e c i f i c a t i o n s
covering Category I11 o p e r a t i o n s i n v o l v i n g automatic b l i n d landing. A t one time it was d o u b t f u l i f t h e accuracy
of a VHF ILS could be good enough f o r automatic landing, but t h e s e d i f f i c u l t i e s have been overcome l a r g e l y by
b e t t e r engineering. Today it is n o t accuracy t h a t i s lacking but t h e i n t e g r i t y of t h e s i g n a l s received i n t h e
aircraft.

2. S U M M A R Y OF RECENT UNITED K I N G D O M I L S RESEARCH A N D DEVELOPMENT

The philosophy of s o l v i n g bad weather landing by u s e of f u l l y automatic landing systems is considered t h e s a f e s t

method of operation and t h e t a s k h a s been t o apply w e l l e s t a b l i s h e d techniques t o c i v i l passenger c a r r y i n g air-
c r a f t ( 1 ) . The r e s t r a i n t s have been t h e Air R e g i s t r a t i o n Board’s requirement f o r t h e a c c i d e n t r i s k not t o exceed
lo-’ and t h e need t o agree and then use ICAO s t a n d a r d s of ILS performance. Several m i l i t a r y and c i v i l a i r c r a f t
have been c e r t i f i e d f o r automatic f l a r e and automatic landing. Their f l i g h t c o n t r o l systems are based on t h e
p r i n c i p l e of monitored redundancy t o achieve r e l i a b i l i t y and f a i l u r e s u r v i v a l , and t h e e s s e n t i a l i n p u t s c o n s i s t
of high q u a l i t y L o c a l i s e r , Glide P a t h and Radio Altimeter.
’
The performance of VHF ILS has been e x t e n s i v e l y probed and t h e following conclusions, based on i n d i v i d u a l
programme of work i n i n d u s t r y and r e s e a r c h e s t a b l i s h m e n t s a r e important i n r e l a t i o n t o Blind Landing.

2.1 Instrumental Accuracy ( L o c a l i s e r Transmitter and Airborne Receiver)

I t h a s been e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t t h e instrumental accuracy of modern ground equipment is good enough f o r automatic

landing. Three t y p e s of measurement and s t a t i s t i c a l assessment have been c a r r i e d o u t . The f i r s t was a study by
STC(2) of t h e L o c a l i s e r i n t e r n a l s t a b i l i t y , and t h i s showed t h a t t h e Standard Deviation (S.D.) of e r r o r s of t h e
STAN 7 equipment was within t h e o v e r a l l system requirement by a f a c t o r of 3.5. Further assessment was c a r r i e d
out by E l l i o t t s ( 3 ) u s i n g n e a r f i e l d and f a r f i e l d monitoring of STAN 7 and t h i s showed t h a t t h e S.D. of e r r o r s
p r o g r e s s i v e l y d e t e r i o r a t e d away from t h e l o c a l i s e r a e r i a l s but was s t i l l w i t h i n t h e t o l e r a b l e e r r o r a t t h e middle
marker. The r e s u l t s o f t h e s e t e s t s a r e summarised i n Figure 1.

A s i m i l a r i n v e s t i g a t i o n was c a r r i e d o u t t o examine r e c e i v e r s t a b l l i t y ( 4 ) . Variance t e s t s were c a r r i e d o u t on

b a t c h e s of production Marconi 60 s e r i e s r e c e i v e r s and t h e main conclusions a r e summarised below.

V a r i a t i o n o f Zero e r r o r due t o L o c a l i s e r Parameters

L o c a l i s e r parameter Zero Error

S . D . pA
Tone frequency: CAT I1 Spec. f1.5% 0.44
CAT I11 Spec. k l . 0% 0.267
Modulation depth: 18 - 22% 0.234
19 - 21% 0.116
I Tone phase: *22 p s e c I 0.0167 I
R.F. power: 3 dB change 0.098
Combined Category I11 parameters 0.28
 24-2

2.1.1 Variation due t o Temperature

The e f f e c t of temperature on t h e r e c e i v e r and n a v i g a t i o n a l u n i t s t e n d s t o be s e l f compensating i n its e f f e c t

on t h e o v e r a l l z e r o e r r o r . I f i t is assumed t h a t t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n of temperature is gaussian with a mean value
of 2OoC and an S.D. of 3’ then t h e S.D. of c e n t e r i n g e r r o r due t o t h e navigation u n i t is 0.072 p A and t h e
r e c e i v e r 0.073 p A . The combined S.D. is 0.098 p A i n t h e worse case. However t h e suggested range of temperature
w i t h i n which t h e r e c e i v e r may have t o o p e r a t e is z e r o t o 4OoC and f o r t h i s uniform bracket t h e combined S.D.
w i l l be 0.47 p A .

The e f f e c t s of v o l t a g e , humidity and v i b r a t i o n on t h e c e n t e r i n g e r r o r a r e small and can b e neglected.

In a d d i t i o n t o t h e v a r i a n c e t e s t s on t h e 34 samples, t h r e e equipments were given l i f e t e s t s . The long term

z e r o s t a b i l i t y obtained over a period of 1500 hours under l a b o r a t o r y environmental c o n d i t i o n s had a S.D. of
0.5 PA.
’
These r e s u l t s showed t h a t t h e instrumental accuracy of t h e r e c e i v e r s was very good, r e f l e c t i n g t h e r e s u l t s
of many y e a r s of experience and development. In r e l a t i o n t o t h e o v e r a l l system t h e r e c e i v e r e r r o r s could be made
t o c o n t r i b u t e a s m a l l e r e r r o r by r a i s i n g t h e l o c a l i s e r s e n s i t i v i t y a t threshold. This problem has been examined
and it h a s been shown(5) t h a t s i n c e ILS was designed as an approach a i d i t s parameters a r e n o t optimum f o r landing.
I t would be p o s s i b l e t o c o r r e c t t h i s with new l o c a l i s e r systems by r a i s i n g t h e i r t h r e s h o l d s e n s i t i v i t y by a f a c t o r
of two.

In a d d i t i o n t o t h e s t a t i c r e c e i v e r e r r o r s , t h e o p e r a t i o n a l environment must be taken i n t o account. BEA(6)

have shown t h a t t h e “ i n s e r v i c e ” c o n t r i b u t i o n t o r e c e i v e r e r r o r s can be held t o an S . D . of 2 2 . 5 p A by using
s p e c i a l t e s t gear and p r e c i s e maintenance procedures.

2.2 Test-Gear f o r I n - l i n e S e r v i c i n g

I t was c l e a r t h a t t h e performance of t e s t - g e a r used i n s e r v i c i n g would be of v i t a l importance i f an adequate

s t a n d a r d is t o be maintained. Checks were made of t h e “Modulation Depth” and “Zero DDM” s e t t i n g a c c u r a c i e s of
equipment used by a i r l i n e o p e r a t o r s and t h e Royal Air Force f o r s e r v i c i n g a i r b o r n e ILS equipment.

The t e s t s covered a wide range of both American and B r i t i s h equipment, and used a Wayne Kerr P r e c i s i o n
C a l i b r a t o r as t h e measuring standard. The r e s u l t s obtained were:-

M e an Standard Deviation

Receiver Centering E r r o r 0 1.88 pA

Receiver Modulation Depth 20.2% 1.42%
S e n s i t i v i t y Error 87 p A 11.5 pA
measured at DDM
= f0.93 -90 p A 88 pA 16.5 p A
Deviation Balance 1 PA 90% of Equipments
have e r r o r > 8 p A
L
These f i g u r e s are t o o poor t o be t o l e r a b l e f o r C a t e g o r i e s 11 o r I11 o p e r a t i o n s , but can be imDroved by t h e
i n t r o d u c t i o n of t e s t equipment such a s t h e Wayne Kerr C a l i b r a t o r ( 7 ) and t h e Cossor S i g n a l Generator(7). I t
is e v i d e n t t h a t t h e a i r l i n e s concerned have a l r e a d y taken s t e p s t o improve t h e i r t e s t i n g f a c i l i t i e s , and i n
f a c t they were l a r g e l y r e s p o n s i b l e f o r i n i t i a t i n g t h e development of t h e new t e s t - g e a r and maintenance methods.

2.3 Operational Performance ( I n t e g r i t y )

I n t e r f e r e n c e can a f f e c t t h e guidance s i g n a l output of t h e l o c a l i s e r r e c e i v e r i n t h r e e ways. F i r s t l y l a r g e

s i g n a l s comparable t o o r g r e a t e r than t h e received ILS c a r r i e r and within t h e r e c e i v e r pass-band w i l l cause
r . f . “capture” and lead t o l o s s of s e n s i t i v i t y .

Secondly s i g n a l s from 6 t o 26 dB below t h e c a r r i e r and w i t h i n t h e passband of t h e tone f i l t e r s may cause

“capture” of t h e f i l t e r r e c t i f i e r .

This is a p a r t i c u l a r l y s e r i o u s form of i n t e r f e r e n c e s i n c e t h e o u t p u t - d u e t o i t is a s p u r i o u s d.c. term with

a high frequency r i p p l e superimposed. The t h i r d i n t e r f e r i n g e f f e c t i s caused by weak s i g n a l s 26 t o 46 dB below
t h e received ILS carrier which w i l l cause b e a t s when coherent with t h e modulation sideband frequencies.

I n t e r f e r e n c e of t h e second t y p e can be caused by a l l t h e main sources o f i n t e r f e r e n c e , ( r a d i o frequency

transmissions, p r o p e l l e r modulation and r e r a d i a t e d i n t e r f e r e n c e ) . Examples of each class have been recorded
and analysed, and t h e r e s u l t s apply equally t o a l l c u r r e n t d e s i g n s of ILS L o c a l i s e r Receivers(9).

To a s s e s s t h e frequency o f i n t e r f e r e n c e i n o p e r a t i o n a l s e r v i c e t h e BEA Vanguard f l e e t was f i t t e d with r e c o r d e r s

and t h i s programme t o g e t h e r with similar recording i n o t h e r a i r c r a f t provided a good s t a t i s t i c a l sample f o r
a n a l y s i s . The r e s u l t s ( 8 ) have been widely disseminated and showed t h a t t h e frequency of occurrence of a l l classes
 24-3

of i n t e r f e r e n c e when t h e a i r c r a f t is within 20 seconds of landing is considerably g r e a t e r than t h e t o l e r a b l e

a c c i d e n t r i s k , and must be considered i n system a n a l y s i s . These r e s u l t s , g e n e r a l l y accepted i n t e r n a t i o n a l l y ,
have emphasised t h e need f o r methods o f improving ILS i n t e g r i t y . The most frequent cause was due t o a i r c r a f t
t a k i n g o f f i n f r o n t of a landing a i r c r a f t and t h e graph of Figure 2 i l l u s t r a t e s t h a t i n c r e a s i n g runway length
wi.11 i n c r e a s e t h e p r o b a b i l i t y of occurrence when t h e landing a i r c r a f t is a t low h e i g h t . The tendency t o long
runways a l s o reduces t h e t h r e s h o l d i l l u m i n a t i o n by t h e l o c a l i s e r and t h i s l e a d s t o a p r o p o r t i o n a l i n c r e a s e i n
s e r i o u s n e s s o f i n t e r f e r e n c e . A f a c t o r of c o n s i d e r a b l e importance is t h a t most of t h e c a s e s of tone f i l t e r
c a p t u r e have been recorded when t h e a i r c r a f t is c l o s e t o touch down or during r o l l o u t .

2.4 E f f e c t s o f Weather on Performance

A study of t h e e f f e c t of weather on t h e l o c a l i s e r beams has shown t h a t no s i g n i f i c a n t d e v i a t i o n s due t o

r e f r a c t i o n would r e s u l t even under u n r e a l i s t i c a l l y extreme c o n d i t i o n s . I t was a l s o suggested t h a t t h e h o t
exhaust g a s from j e t engines could a f f e c t t h e beams but t h i s a l s o has been shown t o be impossible. In general
so f a r a s weather and kindred e f f e c t s are concerned, t h e VHF ILS is at a s a t i s f a c t o r y frequency fox o p e r a t i o n
of a l o c a l i s e r .

However i n t e r f e r e n c e may occur between i n s t a l l a t i o n s due t o anomalous propagation but t h i s can be avoided by
improving t r a n s m i t t e r frequency s t a b i l i t i e s and applying co-channel staggering. In t h e c a s e of t h e Glide P a t h ( l 0 )
i t was shown t h a t change i n ground r e f l e c t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s due t o v a r i a b l e s t r a t i f i e d wet and dry l a y e r s i n t h e
ground cause d i f f e r i n g beam bend p a t t e r n s at low h e i g h t s and could account f o r some o f t h e d i f f i c u l t i e s i n
obtaining consistent f l i g h t calibrations,

Many of t h e s e problems have been i n v e s t i g a t e d experimentally a t a d i s u s e d a i r f i e l d with towers a l i g n e d along

t h e normal approach path. The a e r i a l probes a r e s i t e d at v a r i o u s h e i g h t s up t o 300 f e e t - corresponding roughly
t o middle marker ranges, - and t h e f a c i l i t y can be used f o r a wide range o f ILS i n v e s t i g a t i o n s .

One of t h e more recent u s e s of t h e range is t o study s i m i l a r problems r e l a t e d t o microwave ILS. I t is evident

from t h e s t u d i e s t h a t weather e f f e c t s w i l l need t o be s e r i o u s l y s t u d i e d with r e s p e c t t o any microwave system.
The e f f e c t s of a t t e n u a t i o n , r e f r a c t i o n and ducting may be q u i t e s e r i o u s i n t h e conhext of a system t h a t must be
capable of world wide a p p l i c a t i o n .

2.5 Reliability

The r e l i a b i l i t y of both a i r b o r n e and ground equipments has been a s s e s s e d from a v a r i e t y of measurements. The
f i g u r e s average a t about 1-2000 hour MTBFs and a r e not good enough t o allow s i n g l e channel o p e r a t i o n but more than
s u f f i c i e n t f o r duplex o r t r i p l e x o p e r a t i o n . However t h e p r a c t i c e of o p e r a t i n g main and standby ground t r a n s -
mitters and r e l y i n g on f a s t change over f o r c o n t i n u i t y is not considered t o be good enough f o r t h e long term.
The aim must be t o i n t r o d u c e t r a n s m i s s i o n redundancy i n t o t h e ground systems. This may not be easy t o achieve
at VHF but should be an e s s e n t i a l requirement f o r any replacement ILS.

2.6 Airborne A e r i a l s

The a i r b o r n e a e r i a l performance h a s been i n v e s t i g a t e d and t h e p o s i t i o n of t h e l o c a l i s e r aerial is considered

t o be fundamentally important f o r b e s t automatic landing performance. The two f a c t o r s t o be considered a r e
t h e e f f e c t s of geometric o f f s e t s under yawing c o n d i t i o n s and phase c e n t r e movements of t h e a e r i a l ( l 1 ) . The
p r e f e r r e d p o s i t i o n i s near o r forward of t h e a i r c r a f t C of G and t h e r e is a growing tendency t o s i t e t h e a e r i a l
in t h e nose. A f u r t h e r a s p e c t of a e r i a l design t o be considered is t h e r e l i a b i l i t y and i n t e g r i t y of a s i n g l e
a e r i a l feeding m u l t i p l e r e c e i v e r s . S p e c i a l feed systems have been designed f o r l o c a l i s e r a e r i a l s f i t t e d t o t h e
B e l f a s t and Trident.

For p r o p e l l e r driven a i r c r a f t modulation by t h e p r o p e l l e r s can be reduced by c a r e i n a e r i a l design and

s i t i n g . In p a r t i c u l a r it has been found t h a t coupling of s k i n c u r r e n t s from t h e a i r c r a f t frame t o . t h e aerial
i n c r e a s e s p r o p e l l e r modulation i n t e r f e r e n c e and t h i s can be reduced by “choking” o f f t h e s e c u r r e n t s and paying
p a r t i c u l a r a t t e n t i o n t o matching.

2.7 Beam C a l i b r a t i o n
F l i g h t c a l i b r a t i o n has become more d i f f i c u l t due t o t h e small t o l e r a n c e on beam bends allowed by t h e Categories
I1 and I11 s p e c i f i c a t i o n s . ( 5 pA’amplitude a t 2 S.D.). The problem is t o reduce instrumental e r r o r s t o a
n e g l i g i b l e f r a c t i o n of t h i s 5 wk. The standard technique i s t o u s e i n - f l i g h t recording and ground t r a c k i n g so
t h a t a i r c r a f t f l i g h t path movements may be s u b t r a c t e d . The technique s u f f e r s from t h e f a c t t h a t it i s l i m i t e d
by weather c o n d i t i o n s and is t o o complex t o c a r r y out f r e q u e n t l y at each runway.

A method of i n f l i g h t r e c o r d i n g and subsequent ground a n a l y s i s h a s been developed which g i v e s a s t a t i s t i c a l

measure of beam n o i s e . I t e n a b l e s t r e n d s i n performance t o be e s t a b l i s h e d and provides an a c c u r a t e method of
comparing ILS performance at each runway. The technique used is t o record t h e raw a u d i o s i g n a l s from t h e ILS
r e c e i v e r s i n s e l e c t e d a i r c r a f t on normal o p e r a t i o n s . The t a p e r e c o r d s a r e then played back through a f i l t e r i n g
system which removes f r e q u e n c i e s below 0.1 Hz and s e l e c t s energy i n t h e band 0.1 - 1.0 Hz. The output of t h i s
band p a s s f i l t e r is then squared and i n t e g r a t e d . This i n t e g r a l over a set period ( u s u a l l y t h e last 60 seconds
before landing) is then compared with known power i n t e g r a l s i n o r d e r t o relate it t o t h e beam bend s p e c i f i c a t i o n s .
24-4

2.8 Monitoring
The performance of monitors has been s t u d i e d and c o n s i d e r a b l e work is s t i l l i n progress. I t has been found
t h a t s a t i s f a c t o r y f a r f i e l d monitoring of t h e Glide Path is very d i f f i c u l t and v i r t u a l l y impossible on a normal
a i r p o r t with some of t h e newer systems. In a d d i t i o n t h e c o r r e l a t i o n between near f i e l d monitor i n d i c a t i o n s
and f a r f i e l d e f f e c t s is n o t always r e l i a b l e .

S i m i l a r l y a s i n g l e probe f a r f i e l d l o c a l i s e r monitor is considered t o be of l i t t l e value s i n c e i t is u s u a l l y

s i t e d i n a complex beam bend f i e l d . A system has been developed(l2) which samples a s e r i e s of a e r i a l s spaced
i n t h e undershoot and with an o v e r a l l spacing of about 1000 f e e t t h e mean value determined gives an a c c u r a t e
measure of t h e course l i n e p o s i t i o n seen by a landing a i r c r a f t . The technique o f f e r s a simple method o f
a c c u r a t e l y a l i g n i n g a beam a t f i r s t i n s t a l l a t i o n and g i v e s a continuous check on .alignment. s e n s i t i v i t y and
l e v e l of beam n o i s e .

To d e t e c t “ i n t e g r i t y ” f a i l u r e s of t h e I L S a method of environmental monitoring i s being s t u d i e d which i n s p e c t s

t h e ambient r a d i o spectrum around t h e ILS t r a n s m i s s i o n s and a l s o examines t h e I S s i g n a l s r e f l e c t e d from t h e
a i r f r a m e of approaching a i r c r a f t . This m o n i t o r ( l 3 ) employs a d i r e c t i v e a e r i a l beamed up t h e approach and e f f e c -
t i v e l y u s e s t h e ILS as a r a d a r so t h a t t h e approach p r o f i l e can be a u t o m a t i c a l l y monitored from t h e o u t e r marker
t o threshold.

This “ r e f l e c t i o n ” monitor i s gated on by an a i r c r a f t r e f l e c t i n g t h e o u t e r marker s i g n a l . Then by i n t e g r a t i n g

t h e c a r r i e r doppler frequency s h i f t t h e a i r c r a f t s range t o t h r e s h o l d can be measured. F u r t h e r checks a r e provided
by t h e r e f l e c t e d middle and i n n e r marker s i g n a l s . P o s i t i o n a l information is read as a function o f r e f l e c t e d DM
and evidence from t h e i n s t a l l a t i o n a t Heathrow s u g g e s t s t h e monitoring accuracy S.D. w i l l l i e w i t h i n t h e guidance
accuracy 3 S.D. limits. A d d i t i o n a l l y t h e monitor a n a l y s e s t h e spectrum a d j a c e n t t o t h e r e f l e c t e d c a r r i e r and
sidebands u s i n g narrow hand f i l t e r s t o d e t e c t s p u r i o u s s i g n a l s which may i n t e r f e r e with t h e guidance s i g n a l s .

A f e a t u r e of t h i s monitor is t h e u s e of independent sideband d e t e c t i o n , and t h e method of o p e r a t i o n is i l l u -

s t r a t e d i n Figure 3.

The ILS information is contained e q u a l l y i n t h e upper and lower sidebands of t h e transmission. By demodulating
each sideband independently t h e r e s u l t i n g guidance s i g n a l s can be compared f o r e q u a l i t y . I n t h e event of i n t e r -
ference which a f f e c t s t h e sidebands asymmetrically a d i f f e r e n c e s i g n a l w i l l r e s u l t and can be used as a warning.
In a d d i t i o n s i n c e t h e t o n e s a r e phase locked and t h e modulations d e p t h s c o n s t a n t i t is p o s s i b l e t o m u l t i p l y t h e
lower sideband and t h e upper sideband s i g n a l s s e p a r a t e l y t o y i e l d c o n s t a n t amplitude 60 Hz s i g n a l s . These can
then be compared and should remain c o n s t a n t i r r e s p e c t i v e of a i r c r a f t movement. The a d d i t i o n of r e f l e c t e d energy
w i l l now be d e t e c t e d a s a n o i s e term of twice t h e t r u e beam bend frequency.

This monitor i s being s t u d i e d with r e s p e c t t o a i r b o r n e r e c e i v e r design t o provide p o s i t i v e warning o f mal-

function. I t s a p p l i c a t i o n t o t h e r e f l e c t i o n monitor is however simpler t o implement and c o n s i d e r a b l e more
work remains before a v i a b l e a i r b o r n e r e c e i v e r has been designed. A l o g i c a l consequence of such a r e c e i v e r
is t h a t a f u l l beam bend c a l i b r a t i o n could be c a r r i e d o u t with no need f o r ground t r a c k i n g o f t h e a i r c r a f t and
i n general o p e r a t i o n each a i r c r a f t h a s t h e a b i l i t y t o check a g a i n s t a l l s o u r c e s of beam n o i s e at a l l s t a g e s
of a landing on any ILS equipped runway.

The progranme of work o u t l i n e d here has been backed by complementary a c t i v i t i e s on t h e t o t a l landing system.
I t r e f l e c t s t h e e x t e n t t o which ILS technology is being s t r e t c h e d t o meet o p e r a t i o n a l demands and it can be seen
t h a t t h e v i t a l problem t o overcome i s t h e l o c a l i s e r s u s c e p t i b i l i t y t o i n t e r f e r e n c e . Since a i r c r a f t are now
coming i n t o s e r v i c e with f l i g h t c o n t r o l systems capable of Category I11 o p e r a t i o n - on a t r u l y Category I11
ILS - t h e most urgent need is t o provide f u l l i n t e g r i t y guidance at major a i r f i e l d s a s soon as p o s s i b l e .

3. F U L L INTEGRITY ILS

The need f o r higher i n t e g r i t , y i n t h e ILS has n o t come as a s u r p r i s e b u t i t has always been d i f f i c u l t - i f not
impossible - t o s e e how t h e necessary improvements might be implemented, p a r t i c u l a r l y i n advance of any i n t e r -
n a t i o n a l agreement.

Four approaches t o t h e problem have been pursued. The f i r s t is based on ground monitoring ( a s d e s c r i b e d
under ( h ) ) and equipment is i n t h e course of i n s t a l l a t i o n at Heathrow which w i l l monitor t h e STC STAN 37 and
38 ILS on Runway 28 L e f t . The q u e s t i o n of whether or n o t t h e monitor should be e x e c u t i v e ( i t might put a
warning t o n e on t h e l o c a l i s e r transmission f o r i n s t a n c e ) w i l l not be resolved u n t i l i t s performance and i n
p a r t i c u l a r i t s f a l s e alarm r a t e h a s been measured.

The second approach is t o apply t h e independent sideband d e t e c t i o n technique t o t h e a i r b o r n e r e c e i v e r . Work

on a i r b o r n e r e c e i v e r systems is i n an e a r l y s t a g e hut it is thought t h a t two p o s s i b i l i t i e s e x i s t . I n t h e s h o r t
term i t is suggested t h a t an add on box be designed which can be fed from an e x i s t i n g r e c e i v e r ’ s Intermediate
Frequency. This e n t a i l s a modification t o e x i s t i n g r e c e i v e r s and t h e racking. The longer term is t o i n c o r p o r a t e
t h e warning f u n c t i o n i n t h e b a s i c design and t h i s would be mated t o microminiature technology, and t h e l a t e s t
receiver specifications.
 24-5

The t h i r d programme i s aimed at r a i s i n g t h e l o c a l i s e r i n t e g r i t y by use of a s p e c i a l l y designed l o c a l i s e r

(termed t h e Downwind L o c a l i s e r DWL)(14) which is s i t e d i n t h e undershoot and over flown by a landing a i r c r a f t .
The a e r i a l c o n s i s t s of a wide a p e r t u r e a r r a y of d i p o l e s (400 f e e t ) s i t e d n e a r t h e runway threshold. I t is f e d
with t h e normal s p l i t beam modulated s i g n a l s with t h e i r phase and amplitude d i s t r i b u t i o n s a d j u s t e d t o g i v e t h e
c o r r e c t guidance c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s i n t h e near and t h e f a r f i e l d . The amplitude and phase d i s t r i b u t i o n s (SI,S2)
a r e given by

SI = ( 1 +Kx)e-kx2 e-j"

s, = (1 - Kx) e-kx2 e + j+ x ,

where K and k are constants, x is t h e d i s t a n c e along t h e a r r a y and 4 i s t h e phase l e a d per u n i t l e n g t h

of a e r i a l .

To s e t t h e guidance c h a r a c t e r i s t i c at t h r e s h o l d t h e amplitude weighting is a d j u s t e d t o match t h e r e q u i r e d DDM

slope. This s l o p e could e a s i l y be made t o be double t h e p r e s e n t ICAO s e n s i t i v i t y - c a l l i n g f o r a value of K of
0.0178. The f a r f i e l d s e n s i t i v i t y is a d j u s t e d independently t o match t h e normal s e n s i t i v i t y i n t h e region o f t h e
o u t e r marker. T h i s i s c o n t r o l l e d by adjustment of t h e phase s l i p s , and f o r f a r f i e l d ICAO c o m p a t i b i l i t y t h e
value of 4 = 0.5' per d i p o l e .

The energy r a d i a t e d from t h e a e r i a l is confined with t h e Rayleigh range t o a wedge l i t t l e wider than t h e
a p e r t u r e width so t h a t t h e p o s s i b i l i t y of r e - r a d i a t i o n from a i r f i e l d b u i l d i n g s e t c . i s g r e a t l y reduced. F u r t h e r -
more a i r c r a f t on t h e approach a r e n o t a f f e c t e d by anything which d i s t u r b s t h e beam on t h e runway s i d e o f t h e
a e r i a l s o t h a t many s e r i o u s forms of i n t e r f e r e n c e - such as t h a t due t o t a k i n g o f f a i r c r a f t - a r e eliminated. '

A system is i n s t a l l e d at Bedford and f u r t h e r models are being developed by S.T. & C. f o r i n s t a l l a t i o n at

o t h e r a i r f i e l d s . There a r e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e and t e c h n i c a l problems concerned with i t s i n t e g r a t i o n with t h e upwind
l o c a l i s e r and t h e a i r c r a f t a e r i a l must be designed and s i t e d t o give a good response during approach, o v e r f l y
and r o l l o u t . This problem of a e r i a l design is a l s o being s t u d i e d by S.T. & C.

The f o u r t h programme aimed a t o v e r a l l i n t e g r i t y is concerned with a study o f a microwave c o r r e l a t i o n p r o t e c t e d

ILS (CPILS) (15). This system has been designed t o e l i m i n a t e t h e worst f e a t u r e s of VHF ILS i n a manner which
g i v e s a high degree of c o m p a t i b i l i t y with t h e a i r b o r n e equipment.

I t can be seen t h a t t h e work t o provide i n t e g r i t y i s d i v e r s e and w i l l have a p p l i c a t i o n s i n d i f f e r e n t time

scales. ?he "warning monitor" r e c e i v e r is i t s e l f a n a t u r a l s t e p i n t h e evolutionary chain and w i l l go a long
Way towards providing t h e confidence check which i s v i t a l t o aircrew. On t h e ground s i d e i t can be seen t h a t
ILS i n t e g r i t y can be improved i n t h e s h o r t term but a t i n c r e a s e d c o s t and complexity. The CPILS programme
o f f e r s t h e opportunity t o a r r e s t t h i s e s c a l a t i o n of c o s t s and s t a r t again with a new technology which b e n e f i t s
from t h e accumulation of knowledge and is i n i t s e l f capable of p r o g r e s s i v e evolution f o r many more years.

4. FUTURE EVOLUTION

, I t can be seen t h a t VHF ILS has taken a v i a t i o n a long way along t h e road t o f u l l y automatic approach and
landing. Considerable s k i l l has been shown i n developing t h e system t o c a t e g o r y I11 s t a n d a r d s o f r e l i a b i l i t y
and accuracy, and t h e r e a r e method of overcoming some o f t h e i n t e g r i t y problems. Indeed VHF ILS is f a r from
f i n i s h e d and t h e g r e a t need today i s f o r i n s t a l l a t i o n s at many more runways. ILS i n i t s p r e s e n t form c a t e r s .
and w i l l continue t o c a t e r , f o r t h e m a j o r i t y of o p e r a t o r s so t h a t any new system must be viewed i n t h i s
context. A c o n s i d e r a t i o n of c o n s i d e r a b l e importance which h a s a l r e a d y been met i n p r a c t i c e is t h a t any change
which might a f f e c t t h e guidance system parameters of t h e a i r b o r n e equipment w i l l need,some measure of r e c e r t i f i c a -
t i o n of an a i r c r a f t ' s automatic landing system. With r e s p e c t t o e x i s t i n g a i r c r a f t and even t h e new t y p e s being
developed, t h e need f o r c o m p a t i b i l i f y is very g r e a t .

I t i s a g a i n s t t h i s background t h a t t h e f u t u r e of ILS must 'be considered. Any new system w i l l be hard pressed
t o prove an adequate performance l e v e l with similar confidence, and one is e n t i t l e d t o question t h e p r a c t i c a l
f e a s i b i l i t y o f a c a t a s t r o p h i c change.

A t t h e AGARDsymposium:(l5) on t h e Cockpit Environment t h e RAE microwave ILS - (CPILS) was described emphasising
t h e theme t h a t t h e cockpit envlronment, p a r t i c u l a r l y i n low weather minima landing, i s considerably a f f e c t e d
by t h e q u a l i t y of t h e r a d i o s i g n a l i n p u t s . In essence t h e s e ground a i d s must provide a guarantee of i n t e g r i t y
of o p e r a t i o n t o t h e p i l o t . The paper described t h e method o f u s i n g hyperbolic phase f i e l d s and c o r r e l a t i o n
d e t e c t i o n t o g e n e r a t e t h e guidance misalignment f u n c t i o n s with i n h e r e n t i n t e g r i t y ' a n d it was shown how by choice
of t h e t r a n s m i t t e r modulations - t h e system may'be designed t o be compati,ble with e x i s t i n g VHF ILS a i r b o r n e
i n s t r u m e n t a t i o n and t h e ICAO Annexe 10 parameters. To enable t h e CPILS l o c a l i s e r and g l i d e path o p e r a t i o n
t o be understood, d e s b r i p t i o n s of t h e b a s i c system a r e appended.

In t h e remainder of t h i s paper we s h a l l show how t h e h y p e r b o l i c c o r r e l a t i o n concept can be a p p l i e d - ( t h i s

w i l l hold f o r incompatible v a r i a n t s ) - t o t h e f u t u r e needs of a v i a t i o n . In p a r t i c u l a r t h r e e areas Of a p p l i c a t i o n
a r e i E l u s t r a t e d and r e f e r e n c e made t o c u r r e n t programmes of e v a l u a t i o n . The f i r s t qnd most important aspect
i s t h e demonstration t h a t t h e problems of VHF ILS which a f f e c t i n t e g r i t y a r e overcome by e x p l o i t i n g t h e time and
v e l o c i t y d i s c r i m i n a t i o n and t h e a b i l i t y t o engineer systems with t r u e redundancy i n t h e i r transmission.
24-6

The second a s p e c t is t o show how t h e hyperbolic c o n f i g u r a t i o n and design of equipment can be used t o produce
a very low c o s t ILS of high accuracy and r e l i a b i l i t y . In p a r t i c u l a r c o n s i d e r a b l e savings i n works s e r v i c e s
result and only one l o c a l i s e r i s needed t o s e r v e both runway d i r e c t i o n s . The t o l e r a n c e with r e s p e c t t o s i t i n g
is such t h a t no a i r f i e l d should be incapable of being served by an ILS.

The f i n a l a s p e c t which is covered is t h e c o n t r i b u t i o n t h a t a microwave .ILS can make t o t e r m i n a l a r e a t r a f f i c

handling. A u s e f u l way of i l l u s t r a t i n g t h i s i s t o consider t h e p o s s i b i l i t y of providing a s t a c k over an a i r -
f i e l d capable of s t o r i n g excess t r a f f i c and feeding m u l t i p l e runways. The system being i n v e s t i g a t e d provides
p o s i t i v e ILS guidance w i t h i n t h e s t a c k at a l l l e v e l s with knowledgeof p o s i t i o n and r e l a t i v e p o s i t i o n fed t o t h e
cockpit.

4.1 I n t e g r i t y of a Microwave C o r r e l a t i o n System

The use of hyperbolic phase f i e l d s f o r navigation is well known and is t h e b a s i s o f many p r e s e n t day medium
and long range n a v i g a t i o n a l systems. As can be seen t h e microwave c o r r e l a t i o n ILS extends t h e p r i n i p l e t o
provide t h r e e dimensional phase f i e l d s from which a r e formed t h e t r a d i t i o n a l azimuth and v e r t i c a l approach
p a t t e r n s . The c o r r e l a t i o n d e t e c t i o n is used t o provide time and v e l o c i t y d i s c r i m i n a t i o n and t h e computation
of c r o s s c o r r e l a t i o n f u n c t i o n s generates t h e misalignment f u n c t i o n ( F i g . 7 ) . In p r a c t i c e t h e process of c o r r e l a -
t i o n d e t e c t i o n c o n s i s t s o f m u l t i p l y i n g t h e time varying s i g n a l s t o be c o r r e l a t e d and i n t e g r a t i n g t h e i r product.
This d e t e c t i o n process i s fundamental t o many p r e s e n t day communication, r a d a r and d a t a e x t r a c t i o n systems and
its a p p l i c a t i o n t o guidance r e p r e s e n t s one of i t s most economical uses. This is because t h e expense i n a
c o r r e l a t i o n system is u s u a l l y i n v e s t e d i n a m u l t i t u d e of time and frequency f i l t e r s . In r a d a r f o r i n s t a n c e one
m a y r e q u i r e a bank of h i g h l y d i s c r i m i n a t i n g v e l o c i t y f i l t e r s a t t h e output of each range c e l l . I f angle is
added t o o b t a i n three-dimensional d a t a then t h e d a t a processing becomes complex and expensive. For guidance,
as i n ILS, t h e a i r c r a f t uniquely provides a l l t h i s complexity s i n c e by moving three-dimensionally i n space i t
a c t s as i t s own range and v e l o c i t y gate. I t is t h i s f e a t u r e which provides t h e b a s i s f o r i n t e g r i t y .

There a r e i n f a c t s e v e r a l i n t e r r e l a t e d mechanisms i n c o r r e l a t i o n guidance systems which c o n t r i b u t e t o t h e

r e j e c t i o n o f r e f l e c t e d and s p u r i o u s l y t r a n s m i t t e d i n t e r f e r e n c e . F i r s t l y t h e use of microwaves e n a b l e s t h e
p o l a r diagrams o f t h e t r a n s m i t t i n g a e r i a l s t o be shaped so t h a t energy is d i r e c t e d p r i n c i p a l l y i n t o t h e guidance
s e c t o r s . The higher t r a n s m i t t i n g f r e q u e n c i e s a l s o i n c r e a s e t h e doppler b e a t f r e q u e n c i e s and t h e i r r a t e o f change
between t h e d i r e c t and r e f l e c t e d s i g n a l s and t h i s f a c t o r coupled with t h e p o s i t i o n i n g o f t h e t r a n s m i t t e r s ,
p a r t i c u l a r l y i n t h e c a s e o f t h e l o c a l i s e r , considerably reduces t h e p o s s i b i l i t y o f long l a s t i n g low frequency
beam bends. The u s e o f wide band modulations, which i s p o s s i b l e a t microwaves, provides time d i s c r i m i n a t i o n
a g a i n s t r e f l e c t i o n s determined by t h e corresponding narrow c o r r e l a t i o n f u n c t i o n s and t h i s m u l t i p l i e s any a d d i t i o n a l
f a c t o r achieved by t h e aerial p o l a r diagrams. In t h e c a s e of “twin” r e f l e c t i o n s t h e r e w i l l be a f u r t h e r improve-
ment due t o c a p t u r e e f f e c t . F i n a l l y i n t e r f e r e n c e from s p u r i o u s t r a n s m i s s i o n s - t h e r e may be jamming i n t h e
m i l i t a r y sphere - w i l l tend t o be r e j e c t e d due t o t h e i r non-correlation except f o r swamping t r a n s m i s s i o n s of
s u f f i c i e n t power t o s a t u r a t e t h e r e c e i v e r . I f i t were ever necessary f u r t h e r p r o t e c t i o n a g a i n s t decoy i n t e r -
f e r e n c e could be obtained by time o r frequency coding.

These v a r i o u s mechanisms act t o g e t h e r a g a i n s t any source o r s o u r c e s o f i n t e r f e r e n c e and t h e o r e t i c a l a n a l y s i s

i n d i c a t e s t h a t i n t h e case of t h e l o c a l i s e r t h e provision o f a high q u a l i t y beam on any l i k e l y a i r f i e l d should
be achievable, r e g a r d l e s s o f s i t i n g c o n d i t i o n s . These conclusions a r e supported by f l i g h t t r i a l s which have
shown t h a t t h e main c o n s i d e r a t i o n s t o be taken i n t o account i n s i t i n g a r e t o o b t a i n an unobstructed view of
t h e guidance s e c t o r s from t h e t r a n s m i t t i n g aerials. I t i s a l s o c l e a r t h a t t h e commonest form of ILS i n t e r f e r e n c e -
t h a t o f r e f l e c t i o n s from o v e r f l y i n g and taking-off - has been eliminated.

In t h e c a s e of t h e Glide Path t h e worst problem - common t o a l l systems - i s t o r e j e c t i n t e r f e r e n c e r e f l e c t e d

from t h e ground and o t h e r o b j e c t s i n f r o n t of t h e a e r i a l s . Reflected s i g n a l s from t h i s source a r e time delayed
by only a few nanoseconds on t h e wanted s i g n a l s and t h e doppler b e a t f r e q u e n c i e s , - even a t microwaves, - w i l l
tend t o be l e s s than 1.0 Hz. These r e f l e c t i o n s must be r e j e c t e d t o a l e v e l o f 33 dB t o be s u r e o f Category I11
ILS q u a l i t y and t h i s is n o t e a s i l y achieved by a e r i a l p o l a r diagram alone. In t h e c o r r e l a t i o n Glide Path t h e
r e j e c t i o n of ground r e f l e c t i o n s i s , a c c o m p l i s h e d both by reducing t h e s i d e l o b e s o f t h e a e r i a l v e r t i c a l p o l a r
diagram and by g e n e r a t i n g very narrow c o r r e l a t i o n f u n c t i o n s t o give u s e f u l time d i s c r i m i n a t i o n . T h i s r e q u i r e s
wide bandwidth t r a n s m i s s i o n s and modulations up t o 200 MHz have been used. The p r o t e c t i o n a g a i n s t i n t e r f e r e n c e
n o t only reduces t h e s i t i n g problem but a l s o t h e many d i f f i c u l t i e s t h a t a r i s e i n p r a c t i c e from f l a n k i n g o b j e c t s
such as b u i l d i n g s o r parked and t a x y i n g a i r c r a f t .

The system performance has been analysed t h e o r e t i c a l l y and a convenient method i s t o compute a range o f
standard curves based on a geometry normalised i n terms of h a l f t h e base l i n e l e n g t h . Reports a r e being pre-
pared and a preliminary study of t h e G l i d e P a t h ( l 6 ) has been issued. The experimental work is u s i n g a V a r s i t y
a i r c r a f t f i t t e d f o r automatic landing and a wide range o f t r i a l s have been c a r r i e d o u t . The following i s a
Summary: -
(a) Two l o c a l i s e r s . (one f i x e d on a 5000 f t base l i n e , t h e o t h e r mobile on a 700 f t base l i n e ) have been
checked when s e t up t o normal ICAO s e n s i t i v i t y a t t h r e s h o l d and with two times t h e s e n s i t i v i t y . To
change t h e s e n s i t i v i t y i t i s only necessary t o a d j u s t t h e r e f e r e n c e p u l s e l e n g t h . The c l e a r a n c e limits
( o n s e t o f F l a g ) have been checked and agreement with t h e t h e o r e t i c a l s e t t i n g s demonstrated.
 24-7

I t should be noted t h a t t h e DDM function i s l i n e a r between +400 pA and t h e a b i l i t y t o use t h i s range

of guidance s i g n a l is only l i m i t e d by t h e r e c e i v e r design. A l t e r n a t i v e l y i t is p o s s i b l e t o l i m i t t h e
maximum DDM t o any value and t h i s h a s t o be t e s t e d when s e t t o g i v e +ZOO p A of l i n e a r guidance.

(b) Ground monitoring h a s shown good s t a b i l i t y w i t h i n Category I11 requirements f o r t h e experimental equipment
and i t is expected t h i s w i l l be improved i n engineered systems.

( c ) F l i g h t t r i a l s have shown an absence of low frequency beam bends. Experiments have been c a r r i e d o u t with
s h o r t (minimum 30 seconds) and v a r i a b l e s p a c i n g s between a i r c r a f t landing and t a k i n g o f f i n f r o n t of a
landing a i r c r a f t . A i r c r a f t have a l s o been t a x i e d on t h e a i r f i e l d and w i t h i n 300 f t o f t h e mobile t r a n s -
m i t t i n g a e r i a l s and no d i s t u r b a n c e s with t h e guidance s i g n a l s received by t h e landing a i r c r a f t have been
seen.

( d ) I n t e r f e r e n c e t e s t s have been c a r r i e d o u t with a v a r i e t y o f r a d a r s . The most s e v e r e t e s t used a C Band

h e i g h t f i n d e r t o t r a c k t h e landing a i r c r a f t . The r a d a r was s i t e d about t h r e e hundred y a r d s from t h e
c o r r e l a t i o n Glide Path t r a n s m i t t e r and no mutual i n t e r f e r e n c e e f f e c t s were seen. The a i r c r a f t a l s o u s e s
a C Band r a d a r a l t i m e t e r f o r landing f l a r e o u t and i t s performance has never been a f f e c t e d by t h e guidance
transmissions.

(e) The Glide Path has been operated on a bad s i t e with simple horn fed parabolas. The ground r i s e s i n f r o n t
o f t h e a e r i a l base l i n e up t o an e l e v a t i o n of 1' and t h e r e a r e l a r g e f l a n k i n g o b j e c t s within t h e s e c t o r
widths. No a t t e m p t has been made t o reduce t h e azimuth coverage (it i s about +40°) and t h e beam q u a l i t y
i s w i t h i n t h e Category I11 s p e c i f i c a t i o n down t o a h e i g h t o f about 25 f t at which p o i n t s i g n a l s from t h e
p r e s e n t system a r e c u t o f f .

( f ) The Glide Path has been s e t and flown with c o n s i s t e n t performance at a n g l e s from 2'-4'. The monitoring
i s i n t e g r a l with t h e aerial r e f l e c t o r s and t h e correspondence between t h e e l e c t r i c a l s e t t i n g measured
by t h e monitor and t h e a c t u a l Glide Path is very good.

T h i s programme of work is a c o n t i n u i n g one i n v o l v i n g ground and a i r b o r n e measurements and i n c l u d e s t r i a l s

with h e l i c o p t e r s and l i g h t a i r c r a f t (SML c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s ) . There i s a l s o c o n s i d e r a b l e a c t i v i t y concerned with
c i r c u i t r y development and i n p a r t i c u l a r it is hoped t h a t C Band t r a n s i s t o r s w i l l soon be incorporated i n a i r b o r n e
u n i t designs. Already overload p r o t e c t e d Tunnel Diode r . f . a m p l i f i e r s have been used s u c c e s s f u l l y t o extend t h e
l o c a l i s e r range and i t is hoped t h a t t h e o b j e c t i v e o f adequate system range with simple omnidirectional a i r c r a f t
l o c a l i s e r aerial w i l l soon be achieved.
I

There i s a g e n e r a l property o f t h e s e m u l t i p l i c a t i v e systems which enables r e l i a b i l i t y t o be achieved through

redundancy, r a t h e r than f a s t changeover of t r a n s m i t t e r s which has important i m p l i c a t i o n s w i t h r e s p e c t t o s e r v i c i n g
and ground monitoring. The p r i n c i p l e used i s b a s i c a l l y t o i n t e g r a t e - ( f o r i n s t a n c e pulsed t r a n s m i s s i o n s may be
i n t e r l a c e d ) - s e v e r a l transmissions, u s i n g d i f f e r e n t p a i r s of f r e q u e n c i e s but r e t a i n i n g t h e same d i f f e r e n c e
frequency. I f t h e r e a r e N t r a n s m i t t e r s p a r a l l e l e d then at t h e r e c e i v e r t h e r e w i l l be N s i g n a l s i n t e g r a t e d each
c o n t r i b u t i n g 1 / N of t h e power and guidance information. C l e a r l y any one channel can i n t r o d u c e N times t h e
t o l e r a b l e system e r r o r b e f o r e it would need t o be switched o u t and t h i s has important repercussions on t h e
ground monitoring.
E
Work so f a r s u g g e s t s t h a t t h e form t h i s redundancy may t a k e in p r a c t i c e w i l l be a hybrid of p a r a l l e l u n i t s
and l o g i c c i r c u i t r y , and t h e p r e s e n t programme i s based on i n t e g r a t i n g f o u r s e p a r a t e transmissions. I t i s a l s o
considered t h a t t h e b a s i c r e l i a b i l i t y of a s i n g l e channel system w i l l be good enough t o allow a t l e a s t M i l i t a r y
Category I11 o p e r a t i o n s . The philosophy adopted is t o u s e a low power T.W.T. (30 w a t t s ) as t h e f i n a l feed t o
t h e a e r i a l s . The t u b e t o be used i s a communication l i n k design which h a s a n MTBF well i n excess o f 10.000 hours
i n o p e r a t i o n a l s e r v i c e . Furthermore by monitoring t h e h e l i x c u r r e n t f a i l u r e can be p r e d i c t e d about 1000 hours
i n advance. This r e l i a b i l i t y is coupled with a guaranteed minimum gain o f 40 dB. so t h a t t h e a c t u a l C Band
c o r r e l a t i o n d r i v e s need only provide a few milliwatts of power. I t i s envisaged t h a t m u l t i p l e redundancy u s i n g
microminiature design w i l l e v e n t u a l l y be q u i t e f e a s i b l e .

The programme of work o u t l i n e d i s well advanced and c o n s i d e r a b l e confidence is f e l t t h a t an i n t e g r i t y l e v e l

c o n s i s t e n t with a l o - ' a c c i d e n t r i s k can be demonstrated. An e s s e n t i a l p a r t of t h e proving i s , however, t o
e s t a b l i s h t h e v a r i a n c e i n performance o f s e v e r a l deployed systems. To do t h i s i t is intended t o deploy between
s i x and n i n e b a s i c i n s t a l l a t i o n s a t a v a r i e t y of runways t o e s t a b l i s h t h e l e v e l o f r e l i a b i l i t y and s t a b i l i t y
of t h e guidance parameters.

4.2 Low cost ILS

There i s a g r e a t need f o r a low o v e r a l l c o s t I L S t h a t can be i n s t a l l e d a t , small a i r p o r t s or used t a c t i c a l l y
f o r m i l i t a r y a i r c r a f t . Often t h i s is s e e n as a requirement f o r a system having only a Category I c a p a b i l i t y .
and t h i s h a s l e d t o d e s i g n s i n which t h e Glide Path and t h e l o c a l i s e r s h a r e a common guidance o r i g i n . In t h i s
c a s e i f t h e system is s i t e d on t h e runway c e n t r e l i n e and in t h e undershot t h e n t h e Glide Path o r i g i n is wrong
and i f s i t e d a t t h e s i d e of t h e runway then t h e l o c a l i s e r c e n t r e l i n e is o f f set.

With CPILS t h e s i n g l e channel system g i v e s performance c o n s i s t e n t with t h e Category ,111 accuracy and beam
n o i s e requirements. I t i s p o s s i b l e t o use a common mast f o r t h e Glide Path and one l o c a l i s e r t r a n s m i t t e r with
t h e o t h e r l o c a l i s e r transmitter s i t e d on t h e o p p o s i t e s i d e of t h e runway. This provides a c o r r e c t l y a l i g n e d
24-8

l o c a l i s e r and Glide P a t h but t h e rate o f change of l o c a l i s e r s e n s i t i v i t y during approach w i l l be high. This

is u n d e s i r a b l e f o r a u t o m a t i c a l l y coupled systems and a p r e f e r a b l e arrangement is t o s i t e t h e l o c a l i s e r about
t h e mid p o i n t of t h e runway. This does n o t r e d u c e t h e m o b i l i t y g r e a t l y and allows t h e l o c a l i s e r t o o p e r a t e
e f f i c i e n t l y i n e i t h e r d i r e c t i o n of approach. The p h y s i c a l removal of t h e l o c a l i s e r from i t s t r a d i t i o n a l i n - l i n e
p o s i t i o n a l s o e n a b l e s t h e small a i r p o r t t o extend its runways t o t h e l i m i t allowed by i’ts boundaries.

I t is n o t y e t p o s s i b l e t o quote c o s t s of production equipment b u t development c o s t s provide an i n d i c a t i o n

of t h e l i k e l y t r e n d . On t h i s b a s i s one would expect t h e ground i n s t a l l a t i o n c o s t s t o be f a i r l y c o n s t a n t f o r
a f i x e d i n s t a l l a t i o n and t o be mainly t h e c o s t s of providing power t o t h e t h r e e sites. The ground equipment
c o s t s w i l l be less than t h a t o f t h e e q u i v a l e n t VHF system and a d i f f e r e n c e i n c o s t f a c t o r of two should be achiev-
a b l e . A t t h e a i r c r a f t t h e a i r b o r n e u n i t s ( l o c a l i s e r and Glide Path) w i l l be o f t h e o r d e r of E1,000 p l u s t h e
c o s t s of i n s t a l l a t i o n . The choice of a e r i a l design is wide and w i l l depend on t h e a i r c r a f t type. The a l t e r n a t i v e s
are horns, s l o t s o r probes and f o r small a i r c r a f t a simple s i n g l e aerial d i p l e x e r and mixers would g i v e good
performance with a c a p t u r e range of between 6-10 miles. This e s t i m a t e is based on p r e s e n t technology b u t t h e
s i t u a t i o n is very f l u i d .

Already C Band t r a n s i s t o r s a r e becoming a v a i l a b l e and t h e r e is a good p o s s i b i l i t y of a dual g a t e FET being

developed f o r d i r e c t a p p l i c a t i o n as a C Band m u l t i p l i e r . The development work i n hand is aimed a t improving t h e
m u l t i p l i e r s e n s i t i v i t y t o allow t h e l o c a l i s e r a e r i a l p o l a r diagram t o be forward and backward looking, s i n c e
t h i s is an e s s e n t i a l long term requirement and is a l s o h i g h l y d e s i r a b l e f o r a l l a i r c r a f t o p e r a t i o n s i n t o small
a i r f i e l d s . Recent t r e n d s i n ILS have introduced r e s t r i c t i o n s of coverage and t h i s tendency can be d e t e c t e d i n
many of t h e new system concepts. I t i s important t h a t a low c o s t microwave system should provide l o c a t i o n and
guidance i n a s g r e a t a s e c t o r as p o s s i b l e .

4.3 Terminal Area Application

I t would be very s h o r t s i g h t e d t o t h i n k of ILS i n i s o l a t i o n from t h e r e s t of t h e t e r m i n a l a r e a . The p r e s e n t

problems due t o overloading begin and end a t t h e runways and improving runway u t i l i s a t i o n must be one of t h e
major o b j e c t i v e s . In c i v i l a v i a t i o n t h e need i s always t o make t h e b e s t use of mandatory equipment and ILS is
f i r m l y i n t h i s category. Of equal importance is t h e f a c t t h a t automatic coupling t o r a d i o beams i s a l s o becoming
a normal a i r l i n e equipment f i t , and i n t h e terminal a r e a guidance can be considered t o be more a p p r o p r i a t e than
navigation. I t is n o t p o s s i b l e t o o u t l i n e t h e s t u d i e s i n depth b u t t h e philosophy c o n c e n t r a t e s on improving
t h e information ( i n i t s broadest sense) supplied t o t h e cockpit. The techniques involved can be i l l u s t r a t e d by
c o n s i d e r i n g a system of s t a c k i n g s i n c e t h i s c o n t a i n s most of t h e i n h e r e n t t e r m i n a l a r e a problems.

There are of c o u r s e arguments f o r and a g a i n s t s t a c k i n g but t h e p r i n c i p l e i s used i n most busy t e r m i n a l areas

t o s t o r e t h e e x c e s s t r a f f i c . A t t h e p r e s e n t time t h e r a c e t r a c k s a r e flown p r o c e d u r a l l y and t h i s l e a d s t o a
wide v a r i a t i o n i n t h e a c t u a l t r a c k s flown. Even more s e r i o u s is t h e f a c t thaf a c c u r a t e p o s i t i o n monitoring is
n o t p o s s i b l e and t h i s c l e a r l y l e a d s t o d e l a y s i n sequencing and u n c e r t a i n t y i n timing. The system considered h e r e
provides continuous guidance coupled with p o s i t i o n monitoring by both t h e a i r c r a f t and ground c o n t r o l and is based
on t h e use of h y p e r b o l i c phase f i e l d s and t h e c o r r e l a t i o n ILS techniques.

The b a s i c element o f t h e system is t o use an upward looking CPILS and it is important t o t h i n k of t h e h y p e r b o l i c

geometry three-dimensionally. The hyperbolic phase l i n e s a r e a c c u r a t e l y defined by t h e base l i n e and t h e ILS
guidance s e c t o r s can be mated t o any s e t of hyperbolae. I f we phase t h e t r a n s m i t t e r s s o t h a t one transmission
is delayed with r e s p e c t t o t h e o t h e r , then t h e course l i n e zero w i l l l i e on a hyperbola which w i l l d e f i n e a t u r n ,
and by choosing t h e phase l i n e passing through a/d = 0.7 (a is t h e phase l i n e o f f - s e t from t h e mid base lane: d
is h,alf t h e base l i n e l e n g t h ) t h e d e f i n e d t u r n w i l l be 90’.
’

We can apply t h e upward looking l o c a l i s e r t o d e f i n e a s t a c k as i s i l l u s t r a t e d i n Figure 4 and s i n c e t h e r e w i l l

be no o v e r f l y i n g a i r c r a f t i n t e r f e r e n c e problem t h i s s t a c k may be s i t e d over t h e a i r f i e l d a s shown, where it could
be used as “mini” s t a c k t o g i v e a f i n e c o n t o l of sequencing. The complete c i r c u i t can be l a i d down by f o u r upward’
looking t r a n s m i t t e r s each o f which w i l l i n t e g r a t e d a t a l i n k and monitoring f u n c t i o n s . (Several monitoring methods
a r e being s t u d i e d . ) The e i g h t s e c t o r s can c a r r y s e p a r a t e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n s and t h e t u r n i n g p o i n t s monitored by
markers. The s e c t o r s mate i n t o each o t h e r by c a p t u r e e f f e c t so t h a t no frequency changing i s necessary. The
f i g u r e shows j o i n i n g p a t t e r n s i n t o t h e s t a c k s and e x i t s v i a curved t r a c k s t o t h e runways. I t should be noted
t h a t with a/d = 0.7 t h e v e r t i c a l course s e c t o r s w i l l be i n c l i n e d i n at 45’ a t t h e t u r n i n g p o i n t s g i v i n g a 1000 f t
l a t e r a l s e p a r a t i o n f o r every 1000 f t of h e i g h t s e p a r a t i o n . The t u r n i n g r a d i u s w i l l be g r e a t e r with h e i g h t and
t h e s i z e o f t h e o v e r a l l s t a c k i n plan w i l l be determined by t h e a i r space r e q u i r e d a t t h e h i g h e s t l e v e l s t o be
used.

The d a t a on each a i r c r a f t ’ s p o s i t i o n would be fed t o ATC and s e l e c t e d information t r a n s m i t t e d f o r automatic

d i s p l a y i n t h e c o c k p i t . A study of c o n s i d e r a b l e importance i s t o determine t h e l e v e l o f s o p h i s t i c a t i o n needed
t o improve t h e sequencing and s t a t i o n keeping by a u s e f u l amount.

F l i g h t t r i a l s u s i n g curved p a t h s i n t h e approach t o t h e runway have s t a r t e d a t Farnborough and t h i s work

w i l l g r a d u a l l y be extended t o guidance i n t h e s t a c k .
 24-9

i
5. CONCLUSION

T h i s paper h a s o u t l i n e d some of t h e work c a r r i e d out i n t h e United Kingdom t o improve performance and determine
t h e l i m i t a t i o n s of ILS. The work is complementary t o o t h e r programmes i n many p a r t s o f t h e world and t h e accumu-
l a t e d knowledge is a f a c t o r of considerable importance t o a v i a t i o n . I t is hoped t h a t t h e merits of evolution
and c o m p a t i b i l i t y have been i l l u s t r a t e d convincingly t o g e t h e r with t h e f a c t t h a t t h i s evolution need n o t s t o p
with t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n of a microwave system.

The Research and Development programmes o u t l i n e d h e r e have been e x t e n s i v e and, it might be thought, c o s t l y .
I
I n f a c t t h e o v e r a l l c o s t h a s been small i n comparison with t h e c o s t of a!modern a i r l i n e r , and s i n c e t h e c a p a b i l i t y
f o r A l l Weather Operations is becominganoperationalnecessityit must be expected t h a t t h e s e a c t i v i t i e s w i l l
I need t o be continued f o r some time t o come.

REFERENCES

24.1 %.John, O.B. Philosophy of All Weather Operations and future developments. Paper .. in t h i s
volume.

24. 2 Localiser Internal Monitor. STC Final Report, 1965.

24.3 Field Monitoring Studies in Relation to ILSGround Transmitters, Vols 1 and'2.

E l l i o t t Automation F i n a l Reports 1966.

24.4 ILS Localiser Receiver Variance Tests. Marconi F i n a l Report, 1965.

24.5 Benjamin, J . The Evolution of I L S - the missing link. Unpublished RAE Report.

24.6 ' Report on Measurements to establish the Long Term Stability of Trident ILS
Equipment for Automatic Landing. BEA Technical Note No. A411.

24.7 Mayhen, H.D. The Performance of ILS Test-Gear. Unpublished RAE Report.

24.8 Benjamin. J. Airborne Measurements of ILS Localiser Performance. Unpublished RAE Report.
e t al.

24.9 Jones, J.M. Effects of Interference on the Performance of ILS Localiser Receivers. Unpublished
RAE Report.

24.10 The Study of the Characteristics of an ILS due to propagation. Marconi F i n a l Reports,
1967.

24.11 Jones, I . L . Movement Phase Centre of ILSAirborne Localiser Aerials on a Varsity Aircraft
Preccott. T. W. Unpublished RAE Report.

24.12 A Study Aimed at Determining the Optimum Parameters of a Far Field Monitor and
its Effectiveness. Marconi, 1968.

24.13 ILS Environmental Monitor Study Vols 1 and 2. Plessey Radar. I n t e r i m Reports, 1967
24.14. Lemmon, A. P. The Wide Aperture ILS Down Wind Localiser. Unpublished RAE Report.
Herd Angela

24.15 Benjamin, J. The Application of Correlation Techniques to Ground Based Aids in the Terminal
Area. 1 6 t h Avionics Panel Symposium, 1968.

24.16 Jones, J.M. A Compatible Correlation Glide Path. Unpublished RAE Report.
24-10

APPENDIX I

CPILS ( T h e o r e t i c a l D e s c r i p t i o n )
The B a s i s of a Compatible-Evolutionary System

The use of hyperbolic phase f i e l d s f o r navigation i s well known and i s t h e b a s i s o f many o f t h e p r e s e n t day
medium and long range n a v i g a t i o n a l systems. For t h e microwave c o r r e l a t i o n ILS t h i s i s extended t o provide t h r e e
dimensional phase f i e l d s from which a r e formed t h e t r a d i t i o n a l azimuth and v e r t i c a l approach p a t t e r n s . The
c o r r e l a t i o n d e t e c t i o n is used t o provide time and v e l o c i t y d i s c r i m i n a t i o n and t h e computation of c r o s s c o r r e l a t i o n
f u n c t i o n s g e n e r a t e s t h e misalignment f u n c t i o n s which may be designed t o be compatible with e x i s t i n g a i r b o r n e
i n s t r u m e n t a t i o n . I n p r a c t i c e t h e process of c o r r e l a t i o n d e t e c t i o n c o n s i s t s of m u l t i p l y i n g t h e time varying s i g n a l s
received and i n t e g r a t i n g t h e i r product. T h i s d e t e c t i o n process is fundamental t o many p r e s e n t day communications,
r a d a r and d a t a e x t r a c t i o n systems and a b r i e f d e s c r i p t i o n of a l o c a l i s e r u s i n g pulsed transmission w i l l i l l u s t r a t e
t h e a p p l i c a t i o n of ILS.

CPILS L O C A L I S E R

In Figure 5 t h e t r a n s m i t t e r s T, , T, s t r a d d l e t h e runway and g e n e r a t e a hyperbolic phase f i e l d . T, is

p u l s e modulated at a microwave frequency f , while T, is p u l s e modulated a t f r e q u e n c i e s f , , f , 590 Hz
and f , f150 Hz. The d i f f e r e n c e frequency ( f , - f , ) is arranged t o be a l o c a l i s e r channel a l l o c a t i o n i n t h e
band (108-112) MHz w h i l s t t h e modulation f r e q u e n c i e s a t 90 and 150 Hz a r e t h e normal ILS tone modulations. The
p u l s e s c a r r y i n g t h e s e modulations a r e advanced and delayed by a time T/2 with r e s p e c t t o t h e r e f e r e n c e p u l s e
while t h e c a r r i e r p u l s e width e q u a l s t h e i r combined widths and has an amplitude with r e s p e c t t o them chosen t o
give t h e r e q u i r e d modulation depths.

The a i r c r a f t c a r r i e s asmall microwaveaerial w i t h b u i l t i n m i x e r u n i t ( F i g . 6 ) whichmay b e s w i t c h e d t o t h e normal ILS

r e c e i v e r w h i c h a c t s a s t h e i n t e g r a t i n g f i l t e r o f t h e c o r r e l a t i o n d e t e c t o r . Lateralmovement o f t h e a i r c r a f t w i l l sample
t h e t h r e e c r o s s c o r r e l a t i o n f u n c t i o n s a n d w i l l f o r m i n t h e r e c e i v e r t h e n o r m a l ILScarrierandmodulation,sidebands. The
guidance s i g n a l d e t e r m i n e d b y d i f f e r e n c e i n d e p t h o f m o d u l a t i o n (DDM) is now ameasure o f t i m e d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n t h e p a t h s
from T, and T, t o t h e a i r c r a f t and is independent of a m p l i t u d e o r p o l a r diagramsofthetransmissions. Figure 7
shows howthese c r o s s c o r r e l a t i o n f u n c t i o n s a r e formedfromthereceivedpulses andcombined t o form t h e g u i d a n c e s i g n a l s .

In t h e VHF ILS t h e guidance c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s a r e generated by s p l i t beams, producing a c o n s t a n t a n g u l a r s e n s i -

t i v i t y . During t h e approach t h e r e f o r e t h e displacement s e n s i t i v i t y , measured i n ,uA/ft and p r o p o r t i o n a l t o t h e
DDM of t h e 90 and 150 Hz modulations, i n c r e a s e s a s t h e a i r c r a f t approaches touchdown. The equations determining
t h i s s e n s i t i v i t y a r e given by

where F s o ( 6 ) . F l s o ( @ arid F,(O) a r e t h e e f f e c t i v e r a d i a t i o n p a t t e r n s , as a f u n c t i o n of angle ( 6 ) . c a r r y i n g t h e

90 and 150 Hz sidebands and t h e c a r r i e r term.

The r e c e i v e r demodulation c i r c u i t s are designed t o d e l i v e r a c o n t r o l c u r r e n t ( I ) p r o p o r t i o n a l t o DDM so t h a t

I 970(m,, -m,,,),uA , (2)

where (m,,-m15,) is t h e d i f f e r e n c e i n depth of modulation of t h e 90 and 150 Hz t o n e s as formed a t t h e output

of t h e second d e t e c t o r and having been normalised by AGC a c t i o n . The sum o f t h e modulation depths is c o n s t a n t
and i s used t o o p e r a t e a FLAG alarm which i n d i c a t e s t o t h e p i l o t t h a t t h e s i g n a l s a r e being received at t h e
r e q u i r e d l e v e l . T h i s balanced s i g n a l s t r u c t u r e o f ILS is very important s i n c e f a u l t s w i l l tend t o cause s e n s i t i v i t y
r a t h e r t h a n z e r o e r r o r s . An unbalanced system i n comparison w i l l have an i n - b u i l t i n t e g r i t y problem s i n c e t h e
r e f e r e n c e must be generated o r computed i n t h e a i r c r a f t . I
I
I
In t h e case of t h e c o r r e l a t i o n ILS t h e corresponding equation determining DDM i s given by 1

where +,,,(O ,d)lso(7) and +c('r) are t h e c r o s s c o r r e l a t i o n f u n c t i o n s as a f u n c t i o n of time d i f f e r e n o e (7.)

forming t h e 90 and 150 Hz sidebands and t h e c a r r i e r term. I t i s now necessary t o match t h e s e C o r r e l a t i o n
f u n c t i o n s i n conjunction with t h e h y p e r b o l i c phase f i e l d t o t h e s e n s i t i v i t y s e t t i n g s a l l o c a t e d by t h e ICAO
S p e c i f i c a t i o n s . The geometry i s set f o r t h e arrangement o f Figure 5 by t h e following e q u a t i o n s

x = a [ l t (y/d)2]"2 (for a << d or y) (4)

and
d = a / s i n ,8 . (5)
 24-11

In t h e case above, u s i n g r e c t a n g u l a r p u l s e s of width T f o r t h e r e f e r e n c e wave, and 2T f o r t h e c a r r i e r

and s e t t i n g t h e modulation depth of t h e 90 and 150 Hz sideband p u l s e s a t 40% t h e DDM at any o f f s e t g i v i n g a
time d i f f e r e n c e (7)is given by
40 40
DDM (%) = -
T
(iTt7) - -
T
(iT-7)

80
= -7 ( t h e sum is of course c o n s t a n t at 40%) . (6)
T
In t h e case of t h e l o c a l i s e r t h e ICAO requirement is t h a t t h e DDM s h a l l be 15.5% a t a l e v e l displacement from
c e n t r e l i n e a t runway t h r e s h o l d of k350 f t . For a given p o s i t i o n of t h e t r a n s m i t t e r s T, .T, , on t h e a i r f i e l d
t h i s 350 f t displacement w i l l produce a time delay -rD and t h e corresponding p u l s e width T r e q u i r e d t o g i v e
t h e 15.5% DDM is from t h e equation above.

8OTD
T = -
15.5
A t y p i c a l approach and landing p a t t e r n matched t o ICAO requirements is shown i n f i g u r e 8. I t should be noted
t h a t t h e guidance is l i n e a r o u t t o a DDM of 40%.

P u l s e s a r e only one o f a l a r g e number of waveforms which can be used t o modulate t h e t r a n s m i t t e r s . The choice
w i l l depend p a r t l y on t h e time d i s c r i m i n a t i o n it is wished t o achieve and p a r t l y on t h e microwave components
a v a i l a b l e t o t h e c i r c u i t designer. I n a l l c a s e s it is t h e power spectrum t r a n s m i t t e d t h a t is important s i n c e
t h i s f o u r i e r transforms i n t o t h e c r o s s - c o r r e l a t i o n functions.

CPILS (Glide Path)

The Glide Path o p e r a t e s on t h e same p r i n c i p l e as t h e CPILS L o c a l i s e r and is designed t o provide high i n t e g r i t y

microwave guidance compatible with e x i s t i n g a i r c r a f t ILS r e c e i v e r s , f l i g h t instrumentation and ICAO Annex 10
guidance parameters.

The t r a n s m i t t e r c o n f i g u r a t i o n is i l l u s t r a t e d i n Figure 9. Two t r a n s m i t t e r s Tx, and T,, a r e mounted i n t h e

same v e r t i c a l plane on a mast such t h a t t h e T,, , T,, is i n c l i n e d at 8' t o t h e v e r t i c a l , where 8 is t h e r e q u i r e d
g l i d e path ,angle. The fundamental f r e q u e n c i e s o f transmission from T,, a r e f , and f , r e s p e c t i v e l y such t h a t
f , - f, is t h e frequency of a g l i d e path channel i n t h e UHF band 329 -335 MHz. The modulated ouput from T,, is

M(t-to) cos Wclt(l t m cos W90t) t M(ttto) c o s uclt(1+m cos Wlsot) ,

and from T,, is
M ( t ) cos WC2t , where wc = hrf, etc ,

*to is t h e time s p l i t a p p l i e d t o t h e modulated t r a n s m i s s i o n s and M ( t ) is t h e c o r r e l a t i o n modulation.

'The s i g n a l s a r e received at t h e a i r c r a f t by a microwave horn a e r i a l and a r e a p p l i e d t o a mixer t h e o u t p u t

of which is fed t o a s t a n d a r d g l i d e path r e c e i v e r o p e r a t i n g on t h e channel c e n t r e d on f , - f , . A t t h e a i r c r a f t
t h e s i g n a l on t h e d i f f e r e n c e frequency a f t e r m u l t i p l i c a t i o n is o f t h e form

Tp(7+to)m cos w9,,t t ' p ( 7 - t o ) m c o s

'?(7 t to) t 'p(7 - to)

where wc = ocl- wc2 and 7 is t h e r e l a t i v e time delay at t h e a i r c r a f t of simultaneous t r a n s m i s s i o n s from

T,, and T,, .
cp(7 t to) and 'p(7- to) are a u t o - c o r r e l a t ion f u n c t i o n s given by

and
(P(7-to) = Lim
T-m
-T1 !-TI2
TI2
M(t t to) M (t t7) dt .

The d i f f e r e n c e i n depth of modulation, DDM, of t h e s i g n a l a t wc is now

so t h a t t h e guidance s i g n a l is no longer a f u n c t i o n of t h e t r a n s m i t t e r r a d i a t i o n p a t t e r n s but only a f u n c t i o n of

t h e path d i f f e r e n c e at t h e a i r c r a f t of t h e t r a n s m i s s i o n s from T,, and T,, . The Locus of any given DDM is there:
f o r e a hyperbola of r e v o l u t i o n about t h e a x i s T,, , T,, and i n p a r t i c u l a r f o r t h e geometry considered t h e s u r f a c e
of z e r o DDM i s a plane i n c l i n e d at 8' t o t h e h o r i z o n t a l and b i s e c t i n g t h e l i n e j o i n i n g T,, , T,, .
24-12 I

The matching o f t h e Glide Path t o t h e ICAO parameters can be determined f o r any power spectrum by an a n a l y s i s
similar t o t h a t used f o r t h e l o c a l i s e r .
For i n s t a n c e i f t h e power spectrum corresponding t o M(t) h a s a gaussian
form then t h e DDM f u n c t i o n i s given by t h e r e l a t i o n

where S is r e l a t e d t o t h e power spectrum bandwidth.

 24-13

I-
LL
W
J
I
OD
N

I-
LL
W
J
- OD
N
'0
x

v, t c? cu -
0 0 0 0 0

3NINlVW3kl 3 W l l NI 33N3U3383lNI do A11118V8O~d

J J
s
K
3
a
w
+
'*,

w
a
LL
24-14

M
C
.r(

c
h

c
 24-15

It
0 9
0
t
4

f I"'
0'
m \
*y
v!
I
+--

'U
0

(Y

a
W
c
c -
U) t-
M
U 2
4.
a J
c LL

'U
0

In
24-16

Fig.8 Typical ICAO compatible c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s f o r t r a n s m i t t e r s

s t r a d d l i n g mid-point of runway

Tx, SIGNAL M(t) cos wc2 t

TX, SIGNAL ~ 6 - t ~ )wCI

COS t (j+m COS wmt)
+ M @ + t d c o s wc, t @+rn c o s wlso t>

PLAN POSITION OF EXPERIMENTAL GLIDE PATH FOR 32.5' BASELINE

B bIn
b
THRESHOLD

G.P Tx

600' c

Fig. 9 Transmitter configuration

 25

L E SYSTEME D’ ATTERRISSAGE AUTOMATIQUE

DE CONCORDE

par

R. Deque

Sud-aviation
3 Rue Concorde
31 - Blagnac, kance
25
 25-1

LE SYSTEME D’ ATTERRISSAGE AUTOMATIQUE

DE CONCORDE

R. Deque

1. INTRODUCTION

Les i n v e s t i s s e m e n t s et les coCits d ’ e x p l o i t a t i o n pour un avion de t r a n s p o r t moderne s o n t t e l s q u ’ i l f a u t

s’ e f f o r c e r d’ amkliorer au maximum la r k g u l a r i t k d’ e x p l o i t a t i o n e t d e l a rendre l e moins p o s s i b l e dkpendante
d e s c o n d i t i o n s atmosphkriques.

De p l u s en r a i s o n de l a complexitk t o u j o u r s c r o i s s a n t e d e s avions et de l e u r s systkmes, complexitk q u i e s t

l a rangon de l ’ a m k l i o r a t i o n des performances, i l est s o u h a i t a b l e d’en automatiser au maximum l a conduite.

L’ automatisation a e s s e n t i e l l e m e n t pour but d e diminuer l a charge d e t r a v a i l d e s kquipages e t p a r l&augmenter

l a s k c u r i t k d e s vols. Ces deux r a i s o n s nous o n t c o n d u i t s & dkvelopper pour CONCORDE un systkme de p i l o t a g e
automatique c a p a b l e d e c o n t r 8 l e r 1’ avion dans t o u t e s les phases d e v o l 1 1’ exception du dkcollage. Parmi c e s
phases de v o l 1’ a t t e r r i s s a g e e s t certainement c e l l e pour l a q u e l l e l e p i l o t a g e automatique d o i t e t r e l e p l u s
soigneusement ktudik, a u s s i bien du p o i n t de vue performance que s k c u r i t k .

Nous a l l o n s . a p r h s a v o i r rappel6 l e s o b j e c t i f s , examiner l e s moyens mis en oeuvre pou a s s u r e r 1’ a t t e r r i s s a g e

automatique e t d e fagon p l u s gknkrale 1’ a t t e r r i s s a g e par mauvaise v i s i b i l i t k . de 1’ avion de Transport Superso-
nique CONCORDE.

2. OBJECTIFS
I.

En accord avec l e s f u t u r s u t i l i s a t e u r s , l e s o b j e c t i f s s u i v a n t s o n t 6t6 f i x k s :

- Dans s a version de base 1’ avion d o i t & r e capable d’ a t t e r r i r automatiquement dans des c o n d i t i o n s de v i s i b i l i t k

i n c l u a n t l a c a t k g o r i e IIIA, c’ e s t - & - d i r e 200 m(700 f t ) d e v i s i b i l i t k h o r i z o n t a l e (RVR)

- Sa d e f i n i t i o n d o i t p e r m e t t r e d e s p o s s i b i l i t k s de dkveloppement pour une u t i l i s a t i o n kventuelle‘ dans d e s

c o n d i t i o n s de v i s i b i l i t k a l l a n t j u s q u ’ & l a c a t k g o r i e IIIB, c ’ e s t - & - d i r e 50 m(150 f t ) d e v i s i b i l i t k
h o r i z o n t a l e (RVR)

7 . L ’ a v i o n d o i t e t r e capable aprks une panne simple en r o u t e d ’ e f f e c t u e r d e s approches automatiques dans d e s

c o n d i t i o n s de v i s i b i l i t k i n c l u a n t l a c a t k g o r i e 11, c’ e s t - & - d i r e 400 m(1200 f t ) de v i s i b i l i t k h o r i z o n t a l e e t
30 m(100 f t ) de hauteur d e dkcision.
- Au c o u r s du dkroulement d e s phases d e v o l automatiques l e p i l o t e d o i t pouvoir d i s p o s e r dans l a mesure du
p o s s i b l e d’ informations suffisamment c l a i r e s e t s o r e s pour a s s u r e r s e s r e s p o n s a b i l i t k s de s u r v e i l l a n c e e t
kventuellement d‘ i n t e r v e n t i o n s a n s r i s q u e de compromettre l a s k c u r i t k de 1’ a t t e r r i s s a g e .

Pour l a c e r t i f i c a t i o n du systbme d’ a t t e r r i s s a g e automatique 1’avion d o i t s a t i s f a i r e aux exigences du rhglement

Franco-Britannique pour a v i o n s supersoniques TSS 14 “Atterrissage par mauvaise v i s i b i l i t k . Les exigences de c e
rkglement s o n t bbaskes sur l a d k f i n i t i o n d’ un r i s q u e moyen par a t t e r r i s s a g e e t qui d o i t etre i n f k r i e u r & et
d’un r i s q u e p a r t i c u l i e r pour un a t t e r r i s s a g e donnk, l o r s q u e l e s c o n d i t i o n s de c e d e r n i e r s o n t connues q u i ne d o i t
p a s e t r e supkrieur 3 speed Cette d e r n i i r e n o t i o n permet en p a r t i c u l i e r de dkterminer l e s l i m i t a t i o n s
o p k r a t i o n n e l l e s d‘ emploi du systbme.

On t r o u v e r a en annexe, 1’i n t e r p r e t a t i o n que nous donnons & c e s e x i g h c e s a i n s i que l e s p r i n c i p e s gknkraux de

dkmonstrations q u i , sous r k s e r v e s d e d i s c u s s i o n s u l t k r i e u r e s avec l e s a u t o r i t k s de c e r t i f i c a t i o n , nous p a r a i s s e n t
pouvoir etre u t i l i s k s .

3. MOYENS MIS EN OEUVRE

3.1 GCnkralitks
Pour rkpondre aux o b j e c t i f s f i x k s , l e s c o n s t r u c t e u r s de 1’ avion BAC e t Sud-Aviation et l e s f o u r n i s s e u r s
d‘ kquipements de c o n t r 8 l e automatique d e v o l E l l i o t t , SFWA, Bendix (phase p r o t o t y p e seulement) r k u n i s dans
un consortium o n t t o u t d’ abord tenu compte de l e u r expkrience dans c e domaine. C e t t e ’experience e s t trhs
importante. e t parmi de nombreuses ktudes e t r k a l i s a t i o n s , on peut c i t e r :
25-2

- La C a r a v e l l e e x p l o i t e e commercialement avec passagers en c a t k g o r i e IIIA d e p u i s 1’h i v e r 68/69.

- Le VC 10 c e r t i f i k pour 1’ a t t e r r i s s a g e automatique en categoric I1 avec un systkme de p i l o t a g e automatique
doublk a u t o s u r v e i l l k .

La d e f i n i t i o n du systbme prksentk Figures 1 e t 2 a k t 6 c h o i s i e en t e n a n t compte de nombreux f a c t e u r s :

- Q u a l i t e s de v o l de 1’ avion basse v i t e s s e

- F a c i l i t e d’ a d a p t a t i o n aux systkmes pkriphkrique, generation k l e c t r i q u e , hydraulique, commandes de vol, etc.. .

- Masse,. f i a b i l i t k , f a c i l i t k de maintenance e t d e t e s t .

L ’ u t i l i s a t i o n i n t e n s i v e de l ’ a u t o - s u r v e i l l a n c e e t d e l a commutation. automatique s u r un 2e systbme en cas d e

panne du premier n e r k s u l t e pas d’un choix d o c t r i n a l e t philosophique, mais nous avons r e t e n u l e s s o l u t i o n s q u i ,
dans l e cadre d e s c o n t r a i n t e s p a r t i c u l i h r e s , nous o n t paru pouvoir rkpondre l e mieux aux problkmes poses.

Nous a l l o n s maintenant examiner brikvement chacun d e s klkments du systbme.

3.2 P i l o t e automatique

Deux p i l o t e s automatique i n c l u a n t l e s c i r c u i t s de c a l c u l pour 1’a t t e r r i s s a g e automatique sont i n s t a l l k s dans

1’avion. Ces deux p i l o t e s automatiques a g i s s e n t s u r l e s gouvernes par 1’i n t e r m k d i a i r e du systhme de commandes
d e vol k l e c t r i q u e normal d k c r i t Figure 2. Chacun d e s deux p i l o t e s automatiques est t o u t au moins pour 1’ a t t e r -
rissage entihrement a u t o - s u r v e i l l k .

I1 r e g o i t d e s signaux de c a p t e u r s a u t o - s u r v e i l l k s c e t t e s u r v e i l l a n c e & a n t amkliorke dans c e r t a i n s c a s par

comparaison e t v o t e automatique (plateforme i n e r t i e ) . Voir Figure 4 un exemple d ‘ a u t o - s u r v e i l l a n c e du
calculateur longitudinal.

Une sdgrkgation t r b s pousske e s t bien entendu a s s u r k e a u s s i bien dans 1’ i n s t a l l a t i o n avion qu’ 1’ i n t k r i e u r

des kquipements e n t r e les p i l o t e s automatiques 1 e t 2 e t e n t r e l e s chafnes de commandes e t de s u r v e i l l a n c e d e
chaque p i l o t e automatique. Voir par ememple Figure 6 comment e s t r k a l i s k e l a skgrkgation 1’i n t k r i e u r d’ un
calculateur.

Les l o i s de p i l o t a g e u t i l i s k e s s o n t suffisamment c l a s s i q u e s pour que nous ne les d e c r i v i o n s pas i c i . Nous

avons cependant tire avantage de l a presence d e s c e n t r a l e s 1 i n e r t i e que nous permettent:

- d’ e f f e c t u e r d e s c a p t u r e s en mode s e l e c t i o n de r o u t e i n e r t i e l l e c e qui klimine 1’ i n f l u e n c e de l a d e r i v e

- d’ a s s u r e r 1’ amortissement de 1’ avion s u r sa t r a j e c t o i r e “ l o c a l i s e u r ” en minimisant 1’i n f l u e n c e d e s b r u i t s
de f a i s c e a u x g r s c e 1 1’u t i l i s a t i o n d’un s i g n a l d’ i n c l i n a i s o n l a t k r a l e de trhs bonne q u a l i t k convenablement
dkphask.
- d’ ameliorer notablement l e guidage dans l e plan v e r t i c a l par 1’u t i l i s a t i o n d’ un s i g n a l d’ a c c k l k r a t i o n
v e r t i c a l e i n s e n s i b l e aux v a r i a t i o n s d’ a s s i e t t e de 1’ avion. En e f f e t l a q u a l i t k de c e s i g n a l permet d‘ k l a b o r e r
a c o u r t terme une information de v i t e s s e v e r t i c a l e qui k v i t e 1’emploi dans c e b u t d’ informations ankmo-
mktriques ou r a d i o k l e c t r i q u e s (par d e r i v a t i o n ) t o u j o u r s entachkes de b r u i t s importants.

3 . 3 D i r e c t e u r d e vol

Le c a l c u l a t e u r du d i r e c t e u r de vol e s t i n t k g r k 1 c e l u i du p i l o t e automatique. C‘ e s t - a - d i r e qu’ i l s s o n t s i t u k s

dans un m b e b o f t i e r et q’ un nombre r e l a t i v e m e n t klevk d’ klkments de c a l c u l s o n t communs. Les avantages d’ une
t e l l e s o l u t i o n s o n t k v i d e n t s s u r l e plan de l a complexitk e t de l a masse de 1’ i n s t a l l a t i o n . Sur l e plan de l a
d i s p o n i b i l i t k d e s equipements en c a s de pannes la p k n a l i s a t i o n e s t t r b s f a i b l e c a r deux c a l c u l a t e u r s PA - D i r e c t e u r
de Vol s o n t i n s t a l l k s s u r 1’avion. La p l u p a r t d e s s o u r c e s d’ information s o n t doublkes e t un c a l c u l de p r o b a b i l i t k
simple t e n a n t compte d e s t a u x de pannes des d i v e r s klkments ( c a l c u l a t e u r s . s o u r c e s d’information, a l i m e n t a t i o n
k l e c t r i q u e ) montre que d e s c a l c u l a t e u r s separks n’ augmenteraient que faiblement les t a u x de d i s p o n i b i l i t k
cumulks des p i l o t e automatique e t d i r e c t e u r de v o l .

Chaque c a l c u l a t e u r est a u t o - s u r v e i l 1 6 dans l a phase a t t e r r i s s a g e e t transmet les o r d r e s de p i l o t a g e a un

instrument horizon d i r e c t e u r de vol hi-m&ne a u t o - s u r v e i l l k . Les l o i s qu’ il klabore sont compatibles avec
c e l l e s du P i l o t e automatique.

Un commutat6ur permet a chaque p i l o t e d e r e c e v o i r s u r son instrument l e s signaux de l ’ u n ou 1‘a u t r e d e s

calcu l a t e u r s .

3.4 Automanette

En r a i s o n d e s c a r a c t k r i s t i q u e s d’ i n s t a b i l i t k de v i t e s s e s u r t r a j e c t o i r e de 1’ avion a basse v i t e s s e , 1’ automanette

c o n s t i t u e une a i d e normale au p i l o t a g e q u ’ i l s o i t manuel ou automatique.

Deux automanettes s u r v e i l l k e s s o n t i n s t a l l k e s s u r 1’avion. En cas de panne de 1’ une, 1’a u t r e continue a

a s s u r e r automatiquement l e c o n t r d l e d e l a v i t e s s e .
 25-3

Un mode maintien de v i t e s s e et un mode p r k s k l e c t i o n de v i t e s s e par a f f i c h a g e sur un’ compteur donnent une

souplesse d ’ u t i l i s a t i o n maximum. Chaque automanette a g i t s u r l e s manettes de gaz e t r e p o i t d e s informations
de v i t e s s e d’ une c e n t r a l e ankmomktrique e t d’ a s s i e t t e d‘ une c e n t r a l e I? i n e r t i e .

3.5 Autostabilisateurs
11s a s s u r e n t une amklioration de l a s t a b i l i t k d e 1’ avion en r o u l i s , l a c e t e t tangage. 11s s o n t doubles
e t a u t o s u r v e i l l k s . Les d k t e c t e u r s sont d e s gyrombtres qui sont a u s s i u t i l i s k s par l e p i l o t e automatique. 11s
sont u t i l i s 6 s en p i l o t a g e manuel e t automatique.

3.6 Trim k l e c t r i q u e d e profondeur

Doublks e t a u t o s u r v e i l l k s i l s a s s u r e n t en p i l o t a g e automatique l a f o n c t i o n “autotrim”, c’ e s t - & - d i r e qu’ i l s

annulent & long terme les e f f o r t s de commande. Fa p i l o t a g e manuel i l s a s s u r e n t a u s s i e les f o n c t i o n s “trim
p i l o t e ” e t “mach trim”.

3.7 Bofte de commande (Voir Figure 7 )

C e t t e b o i t e de commande e s t i n s t a l l k e dans la p a r t i e s u p k r i e u r e de l a planche de bord c e n t r a l e . Elle est

v i s i b l e e t a c c e s s i b l e d e s deux p i l o t e s .

Commune au PA e t au DV e l l e comprend de p l u s les commandes d e 1’automanette e t les s k l e c t e u r s & d i s t a n c e du

cap e t de l a r o u t e VOR s u r l e s instruments p i l o t e e t c o p i l o t e .

Les boutons-poussoirs d’ engagement d e mode s’ i l l u m i n e n t lorsque l e mode est engage. Pour l e s modes A prk
s e l e c t i o n un voyant t r i a n g u l a i r e plack en dessous du bouton d‘engagement s’ i l l u m i n e au c o u r s de l a phase
p r k s k l e c t i o n . quand l a s k l e c t i o n s’ e f f e c t u e automatiquement ce voyant s’ k t e i n t e t l e bouton-poussoir s’ i l l u m i n e .

Les b a s c u l e u r s d’ engagement d e s systhmes s o n t auto-maintenus lorsque l e systhme est engage e t retombent

automatiquement en c a s de panne.

3.8 I n d i c a t e u r d ’ a l a r m e s e t de s i t u a t i o n d atterrissage (Voir F i g u r e 8 )

Cet i n d i c a t e u r e s t i n s t a l l 6 devant chaque p i l o t e . dans l a p a r t i e s u p k r i e u r e de l a planche de bord.

I1 regroupe, en p l u s des alarmes n k c e s s a i r e s en c r o i s i h r e , l e s informations e s s e n t i e l l e s pour 1’a t t e r r i s s a g e

automatique. Sa p r k s e n t a t i o n est s u s c e p t i b l e d’ kvolution en fonction d e s r k s u l t a t s d‘ e s s a i s en vol e t d e s
exigences d e c e r t i f i c a t i o n .

I1 comprend l e s kl6ments s u i v a n t s :

3.8.1 Indicateur d’alarmes AFCS

Cet i n d i c a t e u r indique l e s pannes d e s systhmes s u i v a n t s :
I
- Pilote automatique
- Automanette.

Nota - Les pannes d e s systhmes

- Trim
- Autostabilisation
sont indiqukes p a r l e systbme c e n t r a l d’alarme de l ’ a v i o n .

Toute p e k e de redondance e s t s i g n a l k e par une i n d i c a t i o n ambre. Toute p e r t e d‘un des systbmes e s t s i g n a l k e

par une i n d i c a t i o n rouge doublke par une alarme sonore s p k c i f i q u e .

Un bouton d’effacement permet de supprimer l ’ u n e ‘ q u e l c o n q u e des alarmes ci-dessus.

De p l u s un voyant ambre LD’ s i g n a l e l a panne d’ a l i m e n t a t i o n d e 1’ i n d i c a t e u r e t d e son c a l c u l a t e u r a s s o c i k .

NOTA - La panne d‘un d i r e c t e u r d e vol e n t r a I n e l ’ e f f a c e m e n t d e s b a r r e s d ‘ o r d r e a i n s i que l ’ a p p a r i t i o n du f l a g

s u r 1’horizon correspondant.

3.8.2 Indicateur de,situation d’atterrissage

3.8.2.1 Possibilitks opkrationnelles du systkme

Les p o s s i b i l i t k s o p k r a t i o n n e l l e s du systbme s o n t kvalukes en permanence e t indiqukes au p i l o t e . C e t t e evalua-

t i o n est k t a b l i e p a r t i r de c i r c u i t s logiques q u i t i e n n e n t compte d e I’ & t a t d e fonctionnement et de redondance
du systhme AFCS e t d e s systbmes pkriph6riques: l e r k s u l t a t d e c e t t e kvaluation est indiquke par 1’ a p p a r i t i o n d’une
d e s 3 i n d i c a t i o n s “200” “100” ou “Land” qui correspondent en g r o s A une p o s s i b i l i t k d ’ u t i l i s a t i o n par d e s minima
25-4

de c a t d g o r i e 1, 2 ou 3. C e t t e i n d i c a t i o n permet de c o n n a f t r e seulement l e s p o s s i b i l i t k s o p k r a t i o n n e l l e s du
s y s t h e : l a d k c i s i o n concernant son u t i l i s a t i o n . a p p a r t i e n t au p i l o t e en f o n c t i o n d e s c o n d i t i o n s p a r t i c u l i b r e s
de v i s i b i l i t e e t d e s informations dont il dispose.

Une information supplementaire est f o u r n i e au p i l o t e en ce qui concerne une remise d e s gaz k v e n t u e l l e ,

indiquant si e l l e peut s’ e f f e c t u e r ou non en automatique.

3 . 8 . 2 . 2 Ecart de position de l’avion dans l’espace par rapport h la trajectoire de rCfkrence (Figure 9)
I1 e s t c o n s t i t u e de 4 b a r r e s lumineuses ambre e n t o u r a n t une maquette avion. Lorsque 1’ avion f r a n c h i t un
domaine que l ’ o n peut m a t k r i a l i s e r h un i n s t a n t donne par une f e n b t r e r e c t a n g u l a i r e c e n t r e e s u r l a t r a j e c t o i r e
i d b a l e , l a b a r r e correspondante s’ i l l u m i n e a i n s i que l a maquette avion ( v o i r F i g u r e 9). Lorsque t o u t e s l e s
b a r r e s s o n t h t e i n t e s , c e l a s i g n i f i e que 1’ avion e s t 8 1’i n t e r i e u r du domaine p r e c i t k .

L e s b a r r e s v e r t i c a l e s v i s u a l i s e n t les d c a r t s de t r a j e c t o i r e par r a p p o r t au c e n t r e du f a i s c e a u L o c a l i s e r . Les

b a r r e s h o r i z o n t a l e s v i s u a l i s e n t l e s k c a r t s d e t r a j e c t o i r e par rapport au c e n t r e du f a i s c e a u d e Glide j u s q u ’ 8
100 f t environ. En-dessous e l l e s indiquent d e s k c a r t s par rapport B une v i t e s s e v e r t i c a l e nominale fonction
de 1’ a l t i t u d e .

De t e l l e s i n d i c a t i o n s o n t pour o b j e t d e repondre 8 un s o u h a i t t r b s f o r t e t bien compr6hensible des p i l o t e s

qui d e s i r e n t e t r e informes visuellement B chaque i n s t a n t si l ’ a v i o n e s t dans un domaine su^r d’dvolution.
Malheureusernent l e problkme e s t trhs complexe et a f a i t l ’ o b j e t d ’ e t u d e s non moins complexes.

Le BLEU (Voir rkfkrence TR 68 094) a demontre qu’un t e l systkme n ’ a u r a i t pratiquement aucune c a p a c i t 6 d e

p r e d i c t i o n e t que de p l u s son u t i l i s a t i o n au-dessous d’une c e r t a i n e a l t i t u d e p o u r r a i t a c c r o f t r e l e niveau de
r i s q u e . L’ augmentation d e r i s q u e peut r e s u l t e r de remises d e gaz i n j u s t i f i e e s 8 basse a l t i t u d e provoquees
par des alarmes i n t e m p e s t i v e s du systhme.

Em e f f e t l a determination d e s dimensions de l a f e n e t r e e s t d e l i c a t e s u r t o u t en r a i s o n d e s t o l e r a n c e s d e s
i n s t a l l a t i o n s ILS e t de l a p r e c i s i o n du systhme d’ a t t e r r i s s a g e automatique. Au-dessus d’ une c e r t a i n e h a u t e u r
par rapport au s o l pour l a q u e l l e l a remise d e s gaz est s a n s problkme, hauteur q u i depend de 1’ avion consider6
(en gdnkral 50 h 100 f t ) . i l s u f f i t de s ’ a s s u r e r que l e taux de remises d e gaz e s t suffisamment f a i b l e . Rappelons
qu’ en c a t k g o r i e I1 par exemple, il n e d o i t pas y a v o i r p l u s d’une remise des gaz s u r 20 approches. I1 e s t r e l a -
tivement f a c i l e de s a t i s f a i r e c e t o b j e c t i f , s u r C a r a v e l l e , par exemple, 1’ i n d i c a t e u r fonctionne pour f15 pA en
k c a r t L o c a l i s e r e t f65 pA en d c a r Glide, c e c i sans aucun p r o b l h e .

Par c o n t r e , au-dessous d’une hauteur c r i t i q u e de l ’ o r d r e de 50 f t d e s e t u d e s complementaires e t d e s e s s a i s en

v o l sont n k c e s s a i r e s pou determiner les c o n d i t i o n s e t l e s l i m i t e s d ’ u t i l i s a t i o n d’un t e l systhme. Nous pensons
cependant qu’un systhme de guidage de performances nettement s u p e r i e u r e s h c e l l e s de 1”ILs s e r a i t de n a t u r e 8
f a c i l i t e r beaucoup l a r e s o l u t i o n d e c e problhme.

3.8.3 Voyant de reprise en main (Take over)

I1 a 6 t h prkvu pour chacun d e s p i l o t e s un voyant rouge h e c l a t place pres de l ’ a u v e n t dont l e but e s t d ’ a l e r t e r

s a n s ambiguitk l ’ e q u i p a g e chaque f o i s qu’une r e p r i s e en main de l ’ a v i o n e s t n e c e s s a i r e en c o u r s d’approche. Les
c o n d i t i o n s d’ allumage de c e voyant r k s u l t e n t d e 1’ e t a t des i n d i c a t e u r s d’ alarmes de c e l u i de 1’i n d i c a t e u r de
s i t u a t i o n d’ a t t e r r i s s a g e e t d e 1’ a l t i t u d e de 1’ avion. Ce voyant” h e c l a t e s t a s s o c i 6 8 une alarme sonore.

4. UTILISATION OPERATIONNELLE DU SYSTEME

Les procedures d’ u t i l i s a t i o n indiquees c i - a p r h s s o n t donnees b t i t r e d’ exemple pour montrer l e s p o s s i b i l i t e s

du systkme. Les procedures f i n a l e s r k s u l t e r o n t d e s e s s a i s en v o l e t d e s exigences des a u t o r i t k s de c e r t i f i c a t i o n .
Nous d i s t i n g u e r o n s dans 1’expose ci-aprbs. l e s procedures en fonctionnement normal e t en c a s de panne.

Pour l a c l a r t k de 1’ expos6 nous c o n s i d h e r o n s une approche en c a t e g o r i e 111. La p l u p a r t des procedures

s’ appliquent t o u t au moins en p a r t i e pour des approches en c a t e g o r i e 11.

4.1 Systeme fonctionnant correctement

4.1.1 Tests de bon fonctionnement avant atterrissage (1

Les t e s t s d e s e c u r i t d s e r o n t r e d u i t s au minimum. Nous pensons en e f f e t que t o u s l e s comparateurs k t a n t

doubles, il ne s e r a n k c e s s a i r e de l e s v e r i f i e r qu’ h d e s i n t e r v a l l e s a s s e z longs ( p l u s i e u r s v o l s e t p e u t - b t r e
p l u s i e u r s d i z a i n e s de v o l s ) .

Les tests avant a t t e r r i s s a g e c o n s i s t e r o n t pratiquement 8 v e r i f i e r les commutations s y s t h e 1 s u r systeme 2

e t l e fonctionnement du systbme 2. Pour c e l a il s u f f i t de provoquer l e ddclenchement du systeme 1. Les alarmes
e t quelques systhmes peribhdriques devront b t r e a u s s i v k r i f i d s .

Pour f a c i l i t e r l a maintenance un systkme i n t k g r e de t e s t s automatiques de 1’AFCS e s t i n s t a l l 6 s u r 1’ avion.

 25-5

4.1.2 Capture des faisceaux “Glide” et “Localiseur”

La c a p t u r e du “ L o c a l i s e r ” peut s ’ e f f e c t u e r sous d i v e r s a n g l e s f i x & par l ’ a f f i c h a g e s u r l a b o f t e de commande
d e l a r o u t e a s u i v r e , l e PA k t a n t en mode “Track s e l e c t ” . L‘angle d e c a p t u r e e s t maintenu malgrk l a s e l e c t i o n
du mode “VOR LOC” “Approche” ou “Land” jusqu’ 1 c e que 1’avion parvienne a une d i s t a n c e du f a i s c e a u fonction de
l ’ e r r e u r a n g u l a i r e e n t r e l a route s u i v i e e t l ’ a x e f a i s c e a u . D & s c e moment l ’ a v i o n r e j o i n t automatiquement l e
f aisceau.

La c a p t u r e du “Glide” peut s ’ e f f e c t u e r sous d i v e r s e s pentes, p a r dessus ou dessous l e f a i s c e a u . Le mode

prkc6demment engagk e s t maintenu jusqu’ 1 c e que 1’ avion a r r i v e 1 une c e r t a i n e d i s t a n c e du f a i s c e a u f o n c t i o n de
l a v i t e s s e v e r t i c a l e e t c e c i que1 que s o i t l e mode d’ approche s d l e c t k . DQs qu’ i l p a r v i e n t a l a d i s t a n c e optimum
du f a i s c e a u l a c a p t u r e proprement d i t e s ’ . e f f e c t u e automatiquement.

L’automanette e s t enclenchde en f o n c t i o n “IAS ACQ’ c e qui permet p i l o t e de s k l e c t e r l e s v i t e s s e s d k s i r 6 e s .

4.1.3 Maintten de “Glide” et “LOC”

Les l o i s de guidage s o n t en mode “LAND” o p t i m i s e e s en fonction de 1’a l t i t u d e mesur6e par l e r a d i o - a l t i m h t r e .

Eh mode “Approche” l e s g a i n s s o n t f i x e s e t ne permettent l ’ u t i l i s a t i o n du systeme qu’en c a t e g o r i e I ICAO.

Le p i l o t e s u r v e i l l e son approche, en observant:

- Le d i r e c t e u r de vol. Le PA No 1 k t a n t u t i l i s k , il peut par exemple commuter son instrument s u r l e c a l c u -

l a t e u r 2.

- L’ i n d i c a t e u r de s i t u a t i o n d’ a t t e r r i s s a g e qui l u i indique l a c a p a c i t k a c t u e l l e du systbme e t l e s k c a r t s

e x c e s s i f s Q v e n t u e l s par rapport 1 l a t r a j e c t o i r e optimale.

4.1.4 Extension de glide

Au-dessous d’une c e r t a i n e a l t i t u d e (environ 100 f t ) l ’ a v i o n ne s u i t p l u s l e f a i s c e a u g l i d e mais l a v i t e s s e
v e r t i c a l e moyenne mesurke en c o u r s de descente g l i d e .

4.1.5 Arrondi - dkcrabe

Le ddbutc d’ a r r o n d i (50 6 0 . f t environ) depend de l a v i t e s s e v e r t i c a l e a c t u e l l e de 1’avion. En c o w s
d’ a r r o n d i l a v i t e s s e v e r t i c a l e e s t programmke en f o n c t i o n de 1’ a l t i t u d e au-dessus du sol pour a t t e i n d r e
1’ impact environ 0 . 5 m/sec.

Des e t u d e s s o n t en cours. pour dkterminer s i l’automanette r e s t e r a en fonctionnement jusqu’au s o l . I1 a p p a r a f t

qu’une reduction de pousske pendant 1’ a r r o n d i n’ e s t pas s o u h a i t a b l e s u r c e type d’ avion. Eh c a s de vent t r a v e r -
sier 1’avion vole a i l e s h o r i z o n t a l e s avec un angle de “crabe”. Ce d e r n i e r e s t resorb6 automatiquement
immkdiatement avant 1’ impact.

4 . 1 ~ 6 Guidage sur la piste

Le p i l o t e automatique est dkconnectk B 1’ impact par l e p i l o t e . D & s ce moment d e s o r d r e s de guidage l a t e r a l
s u r la p i s t e s o n t p r k s e n t d s s u r l e d i r e c t e u r d e vol.

4.1.7 Remise des gaz

Dans l e s c o n d i t i o n s de fonctionnement normales du systkme une remise d e s gaz en f i n d’approche peut cependant
& r e n d c e s s a i r e . Par exemple si l e s c o n d i t i o n s de v i s i b i l i t k s o n t devenues i n f k r i e u r e s aux c a p a c i t d s du systkme,
si l a p i s t e est o b s t r u k e e t c . . . .
Dans c e c a s l a remise d e s gaz e s t automatique e t declenchee par l e p i l o t e lorsque c e d e r n i e r pousse v e r s
l ’ a v a n t les manettes de gaz. Le p i l o t e peut s u r v e i l l e r l a remise d e s gaz en observant l e d i r e c t e u r de vol
q u i dlabore d e s o r d r e s compatibles avec ceux du PA.

4.2 Prockdures en cas de pannes du systbme

Nous n e consid6rerons i c i que l e s pannes survenant en c o u r s d’ approche. Les pannes en course d e vol ayant
pour s e u l e consequence de l i m i t e r l e s c o n d i t i o n s d ’ u t i l i s a t i o n du s y s t h e , l i m i t a t i o n s qui s o n t dans c e c a s
p r e s e n t e e s au p i l o t e s u r 1’i n d i c a t e u r d e s i t u a t i o n s d‘ atterrissage.

Nous c o n s i d h e r o n s deux cas s u i v a n t que l a panne s e p r o d u i t l o r s q u e l ’ a v i o n a a t t e i n t , ou n ’ a pas a t t e i n t

l a h a u t e v r de d e c i s i o n . Nous a p p e l l e r o n s h a u t e r de d e c i s i o n l a hauteur 1 l a q u e l l e l a d e c i s i o n e s t p r i s e s o i t
de continuer, s o i t d’ abandonner 1’a t t e r r i s s a g e , compte tenu de 1’& t a t des systkmes e t l a p o s i t i o n de 1’ avion.
En-dessous d e ’ l a h a u t e u r de dkcision 100 f t ) nous admettrons que t o u t e p e r t e de redondance n’interrompra
p a s 1’atterrissage.
25-6

4.2.1 Pannes survenant au-dessus de la hauteur de dkcision

Nous d i s t i n g u e r o n s 3 t y p e s de pannes:
- Perte de redondance du systkme: E l l e est s i g n a l d e au p i l o t e s u r 1’ i n d i c a t e u r d’ alarmes e t de s i t u a t i o n
d’ a t t e r r i s s a g e qui l u i indique l e systkme concern6 e t l a hauteur minimale d’ u t i l i s a t i o n correspondante.
En f o n c t i o n d e s c i r c o n s t a n c e s atmosphdriques connues l e p i l o t peut dkcider de r e m e t t r e les gaz automatiquement
avec l e systkme v a l i d e ou d’ a t t e i n d r e l a h a u t e u r a u t o r i s d e dans c e c a s de panne (vraisemblablement 100 f t )
- Perte total du systkme automatique: Cette p e r t e q u i ne peut r d s u l t e r que d’une double panne et ne s e
produira vraisemblablement que s i l’approche a d t d t e n t d e avec un systbme ddjh en panne. D a m c e cas le
voyant “Take Over” s’allume et l e p i l o t e d o i t reprendre l ’ a v i o n en main, s o i t au d i r e c t e u r de v o l si c e
d e r n i e r e s t u t i l i s a b l e , soit en d e r n i k r e r e s s o u r c e en u t i l i s a n t l e s instruments conventionnels.

- Ecarts excessifs par rapport h la trajectoire: 11s sont indiquds s u r l ’ i n d i c a t e u r de s i t u a t i o n d ’ a t t e r r i s s a g e

par l’allumage d’une b a r r e v e r t i c a l e ou h o r i z o n t a l e . Eh-dessous d’une a l t i t u d e d e 500 f t environ l e voyant
Take Over s’ allume. Dans 1’ ignorance de l a cause de cet kcart l e p i l o t d o i t r e m e t t r e l e s gaz en u t i l i s a n t
l e d i r e c t e u r de v o l non l i k au systkme que p i l o t a i t 1’ avion au moment de 1’ alarme, c e c i pour parer b 1’dventua-
l i t 6 bien que t r k s f a i b l e d’une panne non d d t e c t d e de l ’ u n des composants du systbme.

4.2.2 Pannes survenant en-dessous de la hauteur de dkcision

Le systkme e s t congu, e t l a ddmonstration devra en & r e f a i t e aux a u t o r i t d s d e c e r t i f i c a t i o n , que compte t e n u
du temps de r i s q u e (< 30 s ) i l ne peut s u r v e n i r d e panne dangereuse dans c e t t e phase, c e c i t o u t au moins dans l a
limite d e s r i s q u e s gdndralement acceptks (< IO-’) La p e r t e d’un systkme n ’ a pas de consdquence, e l l e est simple-
ment s i g n a l d e au p i l o t e . e l 1’ a t t e r r i s s a g e s e p o u r s u i t s u r l e s y s t h e s a i n . La p e r t e de deux systkmes e s t
improbable.

Le problbme l e p l u s d e l i c a t e s t c e l u i de l’allumage d e s voyants d ’ d c a r t e x c e s s i f . Les dtudes f a i t e s montrent

que dans l a p l u p a r t d e s c a s , il s’ agira d’ alarmes non j u s t i f i e e s . Pourquoi dans c e cas ne p a s supprimer 1’i n d i c a -
t i o n d ’ d c a r t s e x c e s s i f s au-dessous d’une c e r t a i n e a l t i t u d e ? La question e s t trks controversde e t ne pourra e t r e
r d s o l u e qu’ aprks une expdrimentation en vol trks poussde. Un d e s f a c t e u r s determinants s e r a vraisemblablement
l ’ d v a l u a t i o n du r i s q u e au c o u r s d’une remise d e s gaz ‘a trks basse a l t i t u d e . Un d e s arguments les p l u s f r d q u e n t s
en faveur du maintien d e s i n d i c a t i o n s d ’ d c a r t s e x c e s s i f s jusqu’ &U s o l r d s u l t e d e s p o s s i b i l i t d s d e p e r t u r b a t i o n
d e s faisceaux ILS ( o b s t r u c t i o n . s u r v o l , e t c . . . . ).

5. ETUDES ET ESSAIS

5.1 Etudes
Les dtudes de performance e t de s d c u r i t d ont 6 t h e f f e c t u d e s b l a f o i s par l e s f o u r n i s s e u r s d’dquipements
e t par les avionneurs. Eh p a r t i c u l i e r d e s dtudes s t a t i s t i q u e s de performances en fonctionnement normal et en
c a s d e panne o n t d t d e n t r e p r i s e s conformdment au rhglement TSS 1 4 ( v o i r annexe). E l l e s s o n t e f f e c t u d e s s u r
c a l c u l a t e u r s d i g i t a l e t analogique. Les p e r t u r b a t i o n s e x t k r i e u r e s (vent, turbulence, b r u i t s , f a i s c e a u x ) s o n t
i n t r o d u i t e s sous forme de modkles s t a t i s t i q u e s . Les premiers r d s u l t a t s de c e s d t u d e s n ’ o n t pas f a i t a p p a r a f t r e
de d i f f i c u l t 6 majeure h s a t i s f a i r e aux exigences f i x d e , e l l e s o n t cependant conduit h d e s a d a p t a t i o n s de l o i s
de p i l o t a g e . Les d i v e r s c a s d e panne t i e n n e n t compte d e s c a r a c t d r i s t i q u e s d e s systkmes de s u r v e i l l a n c e ( s e u i l ,
t e m p o r i s a t i o n ) . L’ktude d e s t o l k r a n c e s de composants e t de r e g l a g e a i n s i que de l e u r d e r i v e dans l e temps ont
6th e n t r e p r i s e s . E l l e s ont pour b u t de v e r i f i e r qu’en e x p l o i t a t i o n l e s taux de deconnection intempestive d e s
systt?mes par l e s s u r v e i l l a n c e s s e r o n t a c c e p t a b l e s e t compatibles avec l e s exigences de s 6 c u r i t 6 . I c i encore les
premiers r e s u l t a t s p a r a i s s e n t s a t i s f a i s a n t s . Ces e t u d e s s e r o n t p o u r s u i v i e s jusqu’ ?lia c e r t i f i c a t i o n t o u t en
e t a n t r e c a l e e s ‘a p a r t i r d e s r k s u l t a t s d ’ e s s a i s en vol.

5.2 Essais

Les d i v e r s dquipements const i t u t i f s du systbme o n t dtd rdalise‘s en v e r s i o n prototype en p l u s i e u r s exemplaires.

11s o n t subi t o u s les essais au s o l c l a s s i q u e s . Depuis p l u s d’un an b l ’ e x c e p t i o n du p i l o t e automatique i l s s o n t
couplds en permanence h un simulateur de v o l u t i l i s d pour 1’ ktude des q u a l i t k s de v o l de 1’avion. L’ dtude du
p i l o t e automatique s u r s i m u l a t e u r e s t en c o w s depuis p l u s i e u r s mois. Les a u t o s t a b i l i s a t e u r s . 1’ automanette, l e
trim d l e c t r i q u e e t l e d i r e c t e u r d e v o l s o n t normalement u t i l i s e s en vol s u r l e s 2 avions prototypes. Le premier
v o l a 6 t h e f f e c t u d a u t o s t a b i l i s a t e u r s branchks e t l e premier a t t e r r i s s a g e s’ e s t e f f e c t u d avec 1’ a i d e d e 1’ a u t o -
manette. Le p i l o t e automatique n’a pas d t d essay6 en v o l pour d e s r a i s o n s de programme d’ ensemble bien que l e s
dquipements s o i e n t d i s p o n i b l e s . I1 l e s e r a prochainement.

Les dquipements p r o t o t y p e s o n t t r k s proches des kquipements de s d r i e en p a r t i c u l i e r sur l e s p o i n t s s u i v a n t s :

technologie, r d a l i s a t i o n e t implantation d e s c i r c u i t s , a u t o s u r v e i l l a n c e , commutation automatique, t e s t s i n t d g r k s .

I1 e s t bien sGr t r o p t8t pour t i r e r des conclusions d d f i n i t i v e s d e s e s s a i s e f f e c t & . Cependant 1’ e x c e l l e n t

comportement d e s systkmes e s s a y d s p a r a f t j u s t i f i e r l e s choix technologiques e t de p r i n c i p e e f f e c t u d s . En
p a r t i c u l i e r 1’ a u t o s u r v e i l l a n c e des systkmes a fonctionnd correctement s a n s e n t r a r n e r de ddconnection intempestive.

Les e s s a i s en v o l dans l e domaine explord (subsonique) o n t d’ a u t r e p a r t pratiquement confirm6 l e s hypothkses

akrodynamiques u t i l i s d e s dans l e s ktudes thdoriques.
 25-7

Les essais vont s e p o u r s u i v r e s u r l e s 2 avions p r o t o t y p e s p u i s sur l e s avions de p r k s b r i e e t d e s k r i e pour

a b o u t i r & l a c e r t i f i c a t i o n de l ’ a v i o n . L‘ e x p l o i t a t i o n de 1’ avion en c a t k g o r i e IIIA ne pourra cependant s ’ e f f e c t u e r
qu’ a p r e s une pkriode d’ u t i l i s a t i o n o p k r a t i o n n e l l e du systeme d’ a t t e r r i s s a g e automatique par l e s compagnies
adriennes.

REMERCIEMENTS

1 L’ a u t e u r remercie l e Consortium E l l i o t t - SFENA pour sa c o n t r i b u t i o n h l a r k a l i s a t i o n d e s i l l u s t r a t i o n s

I pr6sentdes dans ce document.
25-8

ANNEXE

Atterrissage Automatique
Limites s u r l a Dispersion du P o i n t D i m p a c t

1. INTRODUCTION

Les b u t s de c e t t e n o t e sont:
- Rappeler les c r i t b r e s q u i s e r o n t considkrks pour c e r t i f i e r l e systkme d’ atterrissage automatique du CONCORDE
dans l e s c o n d i t i o n s de l a c a t d g o r i e IIIA.

- Expliquer en d d t a i l 1’ i n t e r p r d t a t i o n c o u r a n t e d e c e s c r i t b r e s .

- Esquisser les p r i n c i p e s gdnkraux qui s e r o n t employks dans l a ddmonstration.

2. CRITERES DE CERTIFICATION

Ces c r i t b r e s s o n t i d e n t i q u e s ti ceux d b f i n i s dans l e TSS 14:

2.1 Risque moyen: lo-’

Le systkme (comprenant les kquipements de bord e t l e s kquipement au s o l ) ne d o i t pas donner un taux d’ a c c i d e n t
c a t a s t r o p h i q u e s u p k r i e u r h 1. par a t t e r r i s s a g e .

2.2 Risque dans les c o n d i t i o n s p a r t i c u l i k r e s : 3.

La d e c i s i o n de d i v e r s i o n peut Btre prise s i , pendant l e v o l , il devient kvident, que l e r i s q u e d ’ a c c i d e n t

c a t a s t r o p h i q u e dG ?I l ’ u t i l i s a t i o n du systkme excbde 3.10e6,en sachant que l a d i v e r s i o n est un moyen d ’ a c t i o n
p l u s sGr.

3. INTERPRETATION DE C E S CRITERES

3.1 C r i t b r e du r i s q u e moyen: 1. lo-’

I1 e s t l e s e u l c r i t k r e sur l e q u e l e s t basde l a s k c u r i t k d e 1’ a t t e r r i s s a g e t a n t en performances normales

qu’en c a s d e panne.

Les t a b l e a u x s u i v a n t s i s s u s de l a “Technical n o t e No 92” de 1’ ARB s o n t fonction de c e c r i t h e .

Ces t a b l e a u x s o n t uniquement donnks h t i t r e d’exemple e t peuvent e t r e rkadaptks un avion p a r t i c u l i e r .

3.1.1 Principales subdivisions du risque d’accident catastrophique,

avec kquirdpart i tion schdmatique des probabilitks

taux maximum d’ a c c i d e n t s
c a t a s t r o p h i q u e s dG au systbme
1.

0.5. 0.5. io-’

I
e r r e u r s en lateral
I
e r r e u r s en l o n g i t u d i n a l
0.25.10-~ 0.25.

P o s i t i o n ti 1’ impact Vitesse Verticale Position

0.125. 0 . 1 2 5 . lo-’
r e p r i s e en main
0.25.
 25-9

Aucune hypothese n’ est f a i t e s u r les a c c i d e n t s dos aux e r r e u r s d e cap ou d’ a s s i e t t e l a t k r a l e . mais 1‘avionneur

prouvera s t a t i s t i q u e m e n t qu’ e l l e s o n t une i n f l u e n c e n e g l i g e a b l e s u r l e c r i t b r e de r i s q u e moyen.

Les p r o b a b i l i t e s d’accident c a t a s t r o p h i q u e peuvent etre sommdes quand l e s causes e t e f f e t s d e s e r r e u r s s o n t

s t a t i s t i q u e m e n t independants.

Remarques
(10) - Pour l e s performances, l e s e r r e u r s qui p a r t i c i p e n t peuvent s e c l a s s e r dans c i n q t y p e s d ’ e r r e u r s .

- Erreurs s t a t i q u e s (A l a f o i s dues aux dquipements en v o l e t au s o l ) .

- E r r e u r s d e s e n s i b i l i t d (c’est-A-dire gain du systkme).

- E r r e u r s dynamiques t e l l e s que l e b r u i t du f a i s c e a u .

- E r r e u r s dues au vent associt! un niveau de turbulence.

- E r r e u r de trim (chafne de profondeur uniquement) t e l l e s que v i t e s s e d’ approche. poids e t centrage.

(20) - Pour les pannes. l e s d i v e r s e s p r o b a b i l i t d s c o n s i d e r e e s s o n t l e s suivantes:

- K, P, : P, & a n t l a p r o b a b i l i t e de panne non d d t e c t d e du PA No 1 par l a s u r v e i l l a n c e en serie,

K, & a n t l a p r o p o r t i o n de pannes ayant d e s e f f e t s c a t a s t r o p h i q u e s

- K, P,: P, & a n t l a p r o b a b i l i t e de p e r t e d e s deux PA, K, e t a n t l a proportion de pannes ayant d e s

e f f e t s catastrophiques

- P, peut e t r e r e l i d au temps moyen e n t r e pannes du p i l o t e automatique par l a formule:

t = temps d e r i s q u e
T = temps moyen e n t r e pannes.

L ’ a p p l i c a t i o n du TSS 14 donne l e r k s u l t a t s u i v a n t :

K,P,+K,P, < 0.5.10-7 4

3.1.2 Rkpartitidn schkmatique de l’kcart type di? aux erreurs de guidage en latkral

due a l a reprise en main

vent dynamiques
9 pieds 7 . 9 pieds
I
I I 1 I I . 1

3.6 pieds 3.6 pieds 3 pieds 7 . 2 pieds

3.6 pieds 1 . 2 pied

Si l e s causes mais non l e s e f f e t s d e s e r r e u r s sont independants il e s t n e c e s s a i r e de sommer non pas l e s

p r o b a b i l i t d s mais les d i s t r i b u t i o n s des p r o b a b i l i t d s .

Dans c e s c a s , l e s v a r i a n c e s e r o n t additionndes.

- La p a r t i t i o n prdc6dente peut etre c a l c u l d e p a r t i r d e s hypotheses s u i v a n t e s :

- Largeur d e la p i s t e : 150 pieds.

- bcombrement du t r a i n p r i n c i p a l : 30 pieds.
- Epaulements d e l a p i s t e : 25 pieds.

En sachant que 0.25.10-’ Bgale environ 5 f o i s 1’6cart type e t dgale a u s s i 85 pieds (demi l a r g e u r de l a p i s t e
p l u s l’dpaulement moins l e demi encombrement du t r a i n ) on determine pour l ’ d c a r t t y p e u n e v a l e u r de 17.2 p i e d s
( C e t t e valeur s e r a augmentde pour Concorde dont 1’encombrement du t r a i n p r i n c i D a l est i n f d r i e u r 30 p i e d s ) .
25- 10

3.1.3 Rkpartition schkrnatique de l’kcart type dEt aux erreurs de guidage en longitudinal

9= 300 p i e d s

dynamique
113 pieds 185 p i e d s 113 p i e d s 172 p i e d s

Recepteur Radio h t e r r e Recepteur

Radio A terre
10 p i e d s 10 p i e d s 113 p i e d s 10 p i e d s 113 p i e d s 10 p i e d s

Cette rdpartition a 6t6 calculde p a r t i r d e s hypotheses s u i v a n t e s :

(a) Origine du “Glide”: A 1000 p i e d s du s e u i l de p i s t e .

(b) Point moyen d’ impact: 500 p i e d s a p r k s 1’ o r i g i n e du s e n t i e r de descente.

(c) On a a s s o c i d l a p r o b a b i l i t d de 0.125.10-’ aux impacts p l u s c o u r t s que 200 p i e d s avant l a p i s t e .

Aucune hypothese n ’ e s t f a i t e pour une aggravation du r i s q u e dG aux f a i b l e s performances d e l’automanette mais

il en s e r a tenu compte si n d c e s s a i r e .

3.1.4 Schkrna de rkpartition de l‘kcart type de l’erreur en vitesse verticale d’impact

1.6 pied/s

I I 1 I 1

0.3 pied/s 0.05 p i e d / s 0 . 1 pied/s 0.45 p i e d / s

0.5 pied/s 0.2 pied/s

Ce schema a d t d d t a b l i pour une p r o b a b i l i t e de 0.125. lo-’ avec un rapport de 10 e n t r e i n c i d e n t e t a c c i d e n t

pour que 1’ avion a t t e r r i s s e A p l u s de 10 p i e d / s avec une v i t e s s e v e r t i c a l e moyenne d’ impact de 2 p i e d s / s .

3.2 Risque pour un vol p a r t i c u l i e r : 2.

I1 p o u r r a i t . 6 t r e p o s s i b l e d e s a t i s f a i r e l e critere d e r i s q u e moyen a l o r s qu’un grand r i s q u e e s t p r i s pour des
a t t e r r i s s a g e s p a r t i c u l i e r s ( p a r exemple lo-‘) pourvu que l a frdquence de c e s a t t e r r i s s a g e s s o i t suffisamment
faible.

Le b u t de ce c r i t k r e est de limiter les r i s q u e s maxima connus dans c e r t a i n s a t t e r r i s s a g e s p a r t i c u l i e r s A

3.

Eh e f f e t , si pendant un a t t e r r i s s a g e p a r t i c u l i e r un grand r i s q u e devenait connu, il s e r a i t imprudent de l e

prendre a l o r s qu’une v o i e p l u s sGre s e r a i t p o s s i b l e en d i r i g e a n t 1’ avion s u r une a u t r e d e s t i n a t i o n : Le
r i s q u e p r i s en opdrant a i n s i correspond au r i s q u e i n t r o d u i t par la d i v e r s i o n , c’ e s t - 8 - d i r e : 3.

Le r i s q u e peut d t r e connu pour un c e r t a i n nombre de causes t e l l e s que:

- & a t d e s redondances du systeme,

- temps i n c l u a n t : v i s i b i l i t e e t v i t e s s e de vent moyen,

- & a t de l a p i s t e ,

En p r a t i q u e 1’a p p l i c a t i o n de c e c r i t k r e p e r m e t t r a d e determiner l e s l i m i t e s o p d r a t i o n n e l l e s du systhme.

 25- 11

4. PRINCIPES G E N E R A U X DE D E M O N S T R A T I O N

4.1 Risque moyen

4.1.1 Performances
Le premier t r a v a i l s e r a de partager l e s causes d‘ e r r e u r q u i s o n t s t a t i s t i q u e m e n t i n d d p e n d h t e s , en s’ i n s p i r a n t
de l a note technique 92 de 1’ARB. I1 s e r a n e c e s s a i r e de c o n s i d d r e r en p l u s d e s paramktres & l ’ i m p a c t dkjh
mentionpds, d’ a u t r e s parametres c r i t i q u e s , t e l s que: 1’a s s i e t t e l a t e r a l e , l e cap, l a v i t e s s e laterale, v i t t e s s e
etc. .. ... . .
Pour chacune d e c e s c a u s e s d’ e r r e u r , l a l o i de p r o b a b i l i t e de l a v a r i a b l e s e r a k t a b l i e ou bien en f a i s a n t
confiance aux documents d d j h e x i s t a n t s (RTCA paper D0.131 pour l e r e c e p t e u r ILS e t ICAO annexe 10 pour 1’6metteur
ILS) ou bien en accumulant suffisamment de r k s u l t a t s pour d t a b l i r modhle realiste.

Les e f f e t s de chacune de c e s e r r e u r s s u r les paramktres c r i t i q u e s h 1’ impact s e r o n t e n s u i t e dvalues en

u t i l i s a n t un programme d i g i t a l en boucle fermde avec l e p i l o t e automatique e t les f o n c t i o n s de t r a n s f e r t avion.

De par c e s r 6 s u l t a t s l e s &cartst y p e s m1 m2 --- s e r o n t approximes e t l e mT t o t a l s e r a obtenu par a d d i t i o n

des v a r i a n c e s .

Ceci d t a b l i r a une conformite avec l e c r i t h r e lo-’ en termes de performances.

Aprks c e l a , une e t u d e en p a r a l l e l e e f f e c t u e e sur l e s i m u l a t e u r (avec l e s 6quipements s t a d e d e f i n i t i f ) e t en

v o l permette d’ accumuler suffisamment d e donnees s t a t i s t i q u e s dans l e s c o n d i t i o n s r k e l l e s pour montrer l a
c o r r e l a t i o n avec l e s a n a l y s e s d i g i t a l e s sachant que c e r t a i n e s causes d’ e r r e u r s o n t i n c o n t r d l a b l e s en vol
(ex: t u r b u l e n c e ) .

Rem ar que
Le f a c t e u r d e confiance a s s o c i e h chaque &ape de c e programme dependra d e l a r e p r d s e n t a t i v i t e de chaque
l o i de p r o b a b i l i t e approxim6e & partir de donnkes s t a t i s t i q u e s ; un t e s t s e r a u t i l i s e pour v e r i f i e r 1’e x a c t i t u d e
des l o i s approximees.

Exemple: Canal l a t e r a l
- Cause d’ e r r e u r : vent d e t r a v e r s
- E f f e t d t u d i e : d i s p e r s i o n l a t d r a l e du p o i n t d’ impact
- Densite s p e c t r a l e du v e n t :

4L m2

L = dchelle de l a turbulence (pieds)

V = v i t e s s e par r a p p o r t & l ’ a i r ( p i e d s / s )
= & a r t t y p e de l a t u r b u l e n c e ( p i e d s / s )

L’dcart t y p e d e l a t u r b u l e n c e e s t :
(2) 3 . 5 Dieds/s i 0.11 x v e n t moyen.

La l o i de d e n s i t e q u i determine l a p r o b a b i l i t e d’ occurence du vent moyen est une courbe de Pearson du t y p e 111.

Les f o n c t i o n s de t r a n s f e r t du p i l o t e automatique e t d e l ’ a v i o n sont i n t r o d u i t e s dans l e programme d i g i t a l e t

l e s a u t r e s c a u s e s d’ e r r e u r s o n t n u l l e s .

On determine l a d i s p e r s i o n ‘ l a t e r a l e du p o i n t d’ impact pour d e s v e n t s d e p l u s de 30 noeuds. Pour chaque

v a l e u r du vent moyen a s s o c i e au niveau c o r r e c t de l a t u r b u l e n c e ( s u i v a n t l a formule 2), un nombre s u f f i s a n t
d ’ a t t e r r i s s a g e s p e r m e t t r a d ’ a s s o c i e r un k c a r t type en &art lateral B chaque vent moyen. I1 s e r a e n s u i t e
n e c e s s a i r e de combiner l e s l o i s d e d e n s i t e du p o i n t d’ impact e t du vent moyen.

Le r e s u l t a t s e r a 1 : k c a r t t y p e moyen mT dC1 au vent e t h l a t u r b u l e n c e e t devra &re p l u s p e t i t que 9 p i e d s

(Cf. 3.1.2)

4.1.2 Pannes
LeS e f f e t s d e s pannes s e r o n t c a l c u l d s par un programme d i g i t a l e t comme pour l e C o n t r s l e d e s performances
vols e t simulateur seront u t i l i s e s .
25- 12

Dans chaque c a s de panne l a p r o b a b i l i t d d‘ a c c i d e n t s e r a c a l c u l d e en t e n a n t compte d e s performances moyennes.

Eh prenant l e canal l a t d r a l comme exemple, sans panne nous obtenons l a courbe 1 qui e s t l a l o i normale c e n t r k e
due aux performances.

En considdrant une panne e t s e s e f f e t s s u r 1’ d c a r t l a t d r a l , il y a u r a un ddplacement de l a moyenne e t l a

p r o b a b i l i t d d’ a c c i d e n t PA sera obtenue en c a l c u l a n t l e s n o u v e l l e s a i r e s (courbe 2 )

Dans l e c a s oh l e niveau d e l a panne e s t a l d a t o i r , i l e s t n d c e s s a i r e d e c a l c u l e r l a d e n s i t d de p r o b a b i l i t 6

composde e n t r e l a l o i normale due aux performances e t l a f o n c t i o n d e r k p a r t i t i o n de 1’ d c a r t l a t d r a l due b l a
panne.

Finalement, pour comparer l a conformitd d e s c a s de panne avec l e c r i t k r e lo-’, l a p r o b a b i l i t d PA devra

e t r e m u l t i p l i d e par l a p r o b a b i l i t d d’occurence de l a panne elle-meme: P, a i n s i :

f: P,P, < 0.5.10-7 ,

n d t a n t l e nombre de pannes b c o n s i d d r e r .

4.2 Risques dans les c o n d i t i o n s p a r t i c u l i e r e s

I1 a d d j b d t d vu que l ’ a p p l i c a t i o n de c e c r i t h r e s e r v i r a i t b d t a b l i r l e s l i m i t e s o p d r a t i o n n e l l e s du systhme.

Eh prenant encore 1’exemple du c a n a l l a t d r a l e t du vent de t r a v e r s , l a v i t e s s e maximum du vent s e r a ddterminde

comme s u i t : n e = demi l a r g e u r de l a p i s t e avec n = 4.6 pour une p r o b a b i l i t d de 3.10-6, a i n s i = 18.9 pieds,
l e s f o n c t i o n s de t r a n s f e r t avion e t PA & a n t i n t r o d u i t e s dans l e c a l c u l a t e u r d i g i t a l , t o u t e s l e s a u t r e s causes
d’ e r r e u r d t a n t n u l l e s , on c a l c u l e r a l e vent maximum t o l e r a b l e donnant t e l que l a formule s u i v a n t e s o i t
s a t is f a i t e:

u = ~ ( c T 2 - c t z t c<t1M
8 . 92p)i e d s ,

avec

UT = dcart type t o t a l = 17.2 pieds

et = d c a r t type p a r t i e l dG au vent e t b l a turbulence en moyenne: 9 p i e d s (cf.4.1.1)

cttM= d c a r t t y p e p a r t i e l dO au vent maximum e t b l a t u r b u l e n c e considdrde.

 25-13

Fig. 1 Systkme d’atterrissage automatique

- ELECTRC TRIM ACTWTOR

1
2 FEEL SENSOR ASSfMELY
3 RELAIS JACK SENSOR PnCv
4 RELAIS JACK SENSOR ROLL
5 RELAIS JACK SENSW YAW
6 ELECTRIC TRIM COMPUTER(2)
7 ELECTRIC TRIM COMPUTER( I )
8 AUiOTHROTlLE ACIUATOR
9 AUIOTHROTTLE COMPUTERiZl
10 AUIOTHIOTILE COMPUTER (11
1 1 RATE GYRO PITCH ( 2 1
12 RdTE GYRO YAWf21
13 RATE GYQO PITCH(l1

ACCELEROMETER (2)
ATERAL ACCELEROMETER(1)
18 RATE GYRO ROLLiI)
19 AUTOSTA8lLlSER PITCH ROLLdYAW COMPUTERiZ)
20 AUTOSTABLISER PITCH ROLLBYAW COMPUTER (I)
21 LANOING MSPLAY COMWTER ( 2 )
22 AUTOPILOT AND FLIGHT DlRECTOrl LONGlTUOlNAL COMPUTERQJ
23 AUTOPILOT AN0 FLlCKl OlRECTOR LATERAL COMPUiERi2)
24 AUTOPILOT AN0 FLIGHT DIRECTOR LATERAL COMPUIER(lJ
25 AUTOPILOT AN0 FLIGHT DIRECTOA LONGITUDINAL COMPUTERilJ
26 LANDING MS4AY COMPUTER iL)
27 LANONG SITUATION OISPLAY

Fig. 2 Equipements A . F . C . S .
 25-14

Blue Electrical Gwen Electric

S

Electrical

--------

I Feel
S I I Surface
Monitor
Comparatoc
Hydraulic
Pressure
Computer
h

Trim
Actuator
I nvarauiic I
I &war to I
J
Position Feedback
for Autopilot and
valve
and Rams I
Autostabiliser
I
I

V .. FliOhtl Main Hydraulic

Deck

Fig.3 Integration du systeme dans l e s commandes de vol

I-
SURVEILLANCE
MONITOR

1 I
-
P.A. 1
Fig. 4 Schema s i m p l i f i e de l a surveillance - p i l o t e automatique. Axe longitudinal
 25-15

Fig. 5 Boitier de calculateur

Command
Computing

1 Boards

Fig. 6 C a l c u l a t e u r , vue e c l a t k e
25-16

Fig.7 b i t e s de commandes

Fig. 8 Indicateur d’ alarmes e t de situation d’ atterrissage

,
 25-17

AIRCRAFT ABOVE BEAM CENTRE

AVION AU DESSUS DU FAISCHU

AIRCRAFT ON THE LEFT

= I
A I

i
AVtDN A GAUCHE DU FAISCEAU

AIRCRAFT 0ELOW BEAM CENTRE AND ON

THE RIGHT
AVION AU DESSOUS ET A DROtTE DU FAISCEAU
I
I
- I
I

Fig.9 Exemples d' alarmes &art e x c e s s i f

Fig. 10 Flight-deck
 m
m

40 0 0

3 c c
a a

0 0
r H

a a
 P,
SE
%s
rt
1
I-

O
m
 N A T I O N A L D I S T R I B U T I O N C E N T R E S F O R U N C b A S S I F I E D AGARD P U B L I C A T I O N S
U n c l a s s i f i e d AGARD p u b l i c a t i o n s a r e d i s t r i b u t e d t o NATO Member Nations
through t h e u n c l a s s i f i e d National D i s t r i b u t i o n Centres l i s t e d below
/
L(. 2b
BELGIUM -a; ~ ITALY
General J. DELHAYE Aeronautica Militare
Coordinateur AGARD - V. S.L. U f f i c i o del Delegato Nazionale all' AGARD
E t a t Major Forces Adriennes 3, P. l e d e l Turismo
Caserne P r i n c e Baudouin RomdEur
P l a c e Dailly, Bruxelles 3
LUXEMBOURG
CANADA Obtainable through BELGIUM
D i r e c t o r o f S c i e n t i f i c Information S e r v i c e s
NETHERLANDS
Defence Research Board Netherlands Delegation t o A G M
Department o f National Defence - 'A' Building National Aerospace Laboratory, NLR
Ottawa, O n t a r i o
Attn: Mr A. H. GEUDMER
DENMARK P.O. Box 126
Danish Defence Research Board Delft
g s t e r b r o g a d e s Kaserne NORWAY
Copenhagen 0 Norwegian Defense Research Establishment
FRANCE Main L i b r a r y , c/o M
r P.L.EKERN '
0. N.E. R. A. ( D i r e c t i o n ) P.O. Box 25
29, Avenue de l a Division Leclerc N-2007 K j e l l e r
92, c i G t i l l o n - s o u s - b z n e u x PORTUGAL
GERMANY Direccao do Servico de M a t e r i a l
Z e n t r a l s t e l l e fur Luftfahrtdokumentation da Forca Aerea
und Information h a de Escola P o l i t e c n i c a 42
Maria-Theresia S t r . 21 Lisboa
8 Munchen "7 Attn: Brig. General J o s e de Sousa OLIVEIRA
Attn: Dr Ing. H. J.RAUTENBERG TURKEY
GREECE Tbrkish General S t a f f (ARGE)
H e l l e n i c Armed Forces Command Ankara
D Branch, Athens UNITED KINGDOM
ICELAND Ministry of Technology Reports Centre
D i r e c t o r o f Aviation S t a t i o n Square House
c/o Flugrad St. Mary Cray
Reykjavik Orpington. Kent BR5 3RE
UNITED STATES
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
Langley F i e l d , V i r g i n i a 23365
Attn: Report D i s t r i b u t i o n and Storage Unit

***

I f c o p i e s o f the o r i g i n a l p u b l i c a t i o n a r e n o t a v a i l a b l e at t h e s e c e n t r e s , t h e following may be purchased from:

Microfiche or Photocopy Microfiche Microfiche
Clearinghouse f o r F e d e r a l ESRO/ELDO Space Ministry o f Technology
S c i e n t i f i c and Technical Documentation S e r v i c e Reports Centre
Information (CFsTI) European Space S t a t i o n Square House
Springfield Research Organi z a t i o n St. Mary Cray
V i r g i n i a 22151. USA 114, Avenue de Neuilly Orpington, Kent BR5 3RE
92. Neuilly-sur-Seine, France England

The request f o r microfiche o r photocopy o f an AGARD document should i n c l u d e t h e AGARD s e r i a l number, t i t l e ,

author or e d i t o r , and p u b l i c a t i o n date. Requests t o CFSTI should include t h e NASA accession r e p o r t number.

fill b i b l i o g r a p h i c a l r e f e r e n c e s and a b s t r a c t s of t h e newly i s s u e d AGARD p u b l i c a t i o n s a r e given i n t h e following

bi-monthly a b s t r a c t j o u r n a l s with indexes:
S c i e n t i f i c and Technical Aerospace Reports (STAR)
published hy NASA,
United States Government Research and Development
Report Index (USQ)RI), published hy t h e Clearinghouse I
S c i e n t i f i c and Technical Information F a c i l i t y ,
P.O. Box 33. College Park,
Maryland 20740, USA
f o r Federal S c i e n t i f i c and Technical Information,
S p r i n g f i e l d , V i r g i n i a 22151, USA i

Printed by Technical E d i t i n g and Reproduction Ltd

Harford House, 7-9 Charlotte S t , London. WIP IHD.