flight simulation year in review fy00 - nasa › ... · 9. magnetic levitation vehicle...

Flight SimulationYear in Review

FY00

Foreword

Aviation Systems DivisionNASA Ames Research CenterMoffett Field, California 94035

10 December 2000

This document is the Fiscal Year2000 Annual Performance Summary ofthe NASA Ames Vertical Motion Simula-tion (VMS) Complex and the CrewVehicle Systems Research Facility(CVSRF). It is intended to report themore significant events of FY00. Whatfollows are an Executive Summary withcomments on future plans, the FY00Simulation Schedule, a projection ofsimulations to be performed in FY01,performance summaries that report onthe simulation investigations conductedduring the year, and a summary ofResearch and Technology UpgradeProjects.

iv Aviation Systems Division

Acknowledgment

About the Cover

Front cover: The picture shows the B747-400 Navigation Display with new symbology from the AATTIntegrated Tools Study/Air-Ground Integration Experiment (AGIE). In a conflict alert situation, the newsymbology shows a straight line time predictor for both the B747 and the conflicting aircraft indicating thepredicted time of the conflict. The call sign of the conflicting aircraft is also displayed. In addition, in the lowerright hand corner of the display, the annunciation "ALERT" is shown along with the time to conflict readoutand the call sign of the conflicting aircraft. (For more information, see page 27)

Back cover: The Vertical Motion Simulator plays a key role in the Joint Shipboard Helicopter IntegrationProcess (JSHIP) program. This program is sponsored by the Office of the Secretary of Defense. It examinesthe relationship between the fidelity of a simulation and its ability to predict the wind-over-deck launch andrecovery flight envelope for a ship/helicopter combination. (For more information, see pages 21 and 37)

Special thanks to Tom Alderete, Dave Astill, Dave Carothers, Girish Chachad, William Chung, Paul Chaplin,Steve Cowart, Ron Gerdes, Joe King, Ranya Ksar, Scott Malsom, Joe Mastroieni, Julie Mikula, Terry Rager,Jennifer Salem, and Dan Wilkins for contributions made to the production of this document.

Table of Contents

Foreword ....................................................................................................................... ...... iiiExecutive Summary ............................................................................................................ 2FY00 Simulation Schedule...............................................................................................................5FY00 Project Summaries..................................................................................................................6FY01 VMS Simulation Projects.......................................................................................................8FY01 CVSRF Simulation Projects...................................................................................................9Vertical Motion Simulator Research Facility .................................................................. 11

Lockheed Martin CDA 3, PWSC 3 and 4...............................................................................12Space Shuttle Vehicle 1999-2..................................................................................................13Boeing B3....................................................................................................................................14Civil Tiltrotor 8 EVAL ..................................................................................................................15Space Shuttle Vehicle 2000-1..................................................................................................16AutoCue.......................................................................................................................................17Magnetic Levitation Vehicle Demonstration...........................................................................18Situational Awareness Model Simulation...............................................................................19Space Shuttle Vehicle 2000-2..................................................................................................20Joint Shipboard Helicopter Integration Process....................................................................21Rapid Integration Test Environment 2....................................................................................22Civil Tiltrotor 9.............................................................................................................................23

Crew-Vehicle Systems Research Facility ....................................................................... 25Taxiway Navigation and Situation Awareness 2....................................................................26Integrated Tools/Air-Ground Integration.................................................................................27Flight Management System Departure Procedures 2..........................................................28Neural Flight Control System...................................................................................................29Controller-Pilot Data Link Communication Procedures.......................................................30Center TRACON Automation System Flight Management System 2................................31Airborne Information for Lateral Spacing...............................................................................32

Research & Technology Upgrade Projects ..................................................................... 35Virtual Laboratory.......................................................................................................................36Joint Shipboard Helicopter Integration Process Simulation Technologies.......................37Development Work Station Graphics Upgrade Project........................................................38Air Traffic Control for the Vertical Motion Simulator..............................................................39VMS Modernization...................................................................................................................40Video Distribution System Upgrade........................................................................................41Alpha Host Computer Upgrade 2000.....................................................................................42Head-Down Display Graphics Engine Upgrade....................................................................43Advanced Concepts Flight Simulator Host Computer Upgrade.........................................44Enhanced Ground Proximity Warning System......................................................................45Air Traffic Control Pseudo Aircraft System.............................................................................46Voice Disguiser System Upgrade............................................................................................47Traffic Collision and Avoidance System Implementation and Upgrade.............................48

Acronyms....................................................................................................................... .... 50Appendix: Simulation Facilities ....................................................................................... 54

2 Aviation Systems Division

Executive Summary

The Simulation Laboratory Facilities (SimLab) of the Aviation Systems Division of theNASA Ames Research Center are pleased to present this Annual Report to summarizethe major achievements accomplished during FY 2000. Specifically reviewed are theVertical Motion Simulator (VMS) and the Crew-Vehicle Systems Research Facility(CVSRF). A brief description of these facilities is included in the Appendix.

The mission, purpose, and focus of the simulation facilities, flight simulation researchand development, remain unchanged. However, there have been substantial internal andexternal pressures and developments that have shaped the operational philosophy of theSimLab. The two major challenges faced this year were substantial cost reductions and arenewed and enhanced focus on the integration of cutting edge information technologies.The impacts of these challenges are discussed in the body of this report as they affectSimLab’s approach in developing and supporting experiments and projects. In addition,safety remains SimLab’s highest priority, running from designing for safety to the safety ofour guests, staff, and systems.

This report is organized into sections starting with the 1) FY00 simulation schedulesand summaries, and planned FY01 projects for both the VMS and the CVSRF, 2) a briefreview of each of the projects completed in the laboratories, 3) a description of thecurrent research and technology upgrades being made to the laboratory infrastructure, 4)a list of facility specific acronyms, and finally 5) the Appendix which provides a morethorough discussion of the facilities.A Very Full FY00 Schedule

The simulation experiments conducted in VMS and CVSRF came in a wide variety of“shapes and sizes.” Many of the experiments were planned for and expected well inadvance. Others, as in past years, arrived somewhat unexpectedly, as a result of anurgent Center or Headquarters request. These range from key NASA Programs, to DoDProjects, to the technology research and development programs in Air Traffic Manage-ment and aerospace vehicle safety.

Regardless of their origin or urgency, these programs are at the core of the NASAmission and critical to the nation’s air transportation system, aerospace and defenseneeds. There were 18 major simulation experiments conducted in FY 00. Each of theseexperiments are reviewed in the project Summary Section of this report. Three projectscompleted this year, Joint Shipboard Helicopter Integration Process (JSHIP), CivilTiltrotor 9 (CTR-9) and Center TRACON Automation System Flight Management System2 (CTAS/FMS 2) in particular, demonstrated the overall significance of the Laboratories.

The JSHIP project, a very ambitious undertaking, came to the VMS from the Office ofthe Secretary of Defense. An interchangeable cab was completely refitted to meet JSHIPspecifications and a UH-60 Blackhawk math model was integrated with the ship-deck airwake and ocean-wave effects to address the issue of shipboard helicopter integrationwith wind–over-the-deck launch and recovery. CTR-9 required the development of a fullyfunctional Air Traffic Control (ATC) environment for the first time at the VMS, significantlyupgrading its capabilities. The CTAS/FMS 2 project was run on the Advanced ConceptsFlight Simulator in the CVSRF. This simulation required the rehosting of the main com-puter and the development and integration of two significant new features, i.e., TrafficCollision Avoidance System (TCAS), the Crew Activity Tracking System (CATS), and theenhancement of FMS Vertical Navigation (VNAV) functions.Looking Ahead

On the strength of the staff and skill base within the Simulation Facilities, the Simula-tion Complex continues to meet the challenge of present-day needs while at the sametime opening windows into tomorrow’s simulation technologies.

Demand by researchers for time on the simulators continues to be strong, and there isan ever-increasing demand to support Air Traffic Management, safety, and risk reduction

Aviation Systems Division 3

research topics. Anticipating this demand, the laboratories have embarked on an aggres-sive course to upgrade, modernize and increase capacity, all the while reducing totalannual operating expenditures. Both of the laboratories have integrated new, morecapable host computers into the simulators. Substantial performance and cost savingshave been realized by replacing last generation graphics computers with today’s high-end desktop solutions.

With the interconnected, leading edge technologies of the VMS and the CVSRF,SimLab offers our customers the opportunity to conduct research in a high fidelity, full-mission environment with ATC integration from either facility. Additionally, through VirtualLaboratory (VLAB), SimLab continues to develop the ability for remote users tocollaboratively conduct and manage research experiments. These activities and tech-nologies have become the cornerstone for the future of the flight simulation laboratories.Aggressive use of networking and information technologies has enhanced the facilitycapabilities while reducing overall operating costs.Strategic Planning

The need for large-scale system level simulation capabilities is appearing on thehorizon. The networking of national simulation facilities across the nation will be requiredto solve some of the nation’s most pressing airspace operations challenges. The simula-tion laboratories at Ames Research Center are at the focal point to consolidate andcoordinate these resources. This past year the Simulation Planning Office has begun todefine the process to provide these fully integrated capabilities. Through the use ofproven networking technologies and the VLAB the Flight Simulation Laboratories arepositioning themselves to be key to the development and validation of the future nationalAir Transportation System.


Sim

ulat

ion

Exp

erim

ents

Bra

nch

Avi

atio

n S

yste

ms

Res

earc

h,Te

chno

logy

, & S

imul

atio

n D

ivis

ion

Am

es R

esea

rch

Cen

ter

FY

00 S

imul

atio

n S

ched

ule

Sim

ulat

ion

Fac

ilitie

s

VM

SS

hift

A

ICA

B F

ixed

Bas

e

Shi

ft B

CV

SR

F

ACFS

Shi

ft A

Shi

ft B

ATC

99'tc

O99'

vo

N99'

ceD

00'naJ

00'be

F00'

raM

00'r

pA

00'ya

M00'

en

uJ00'

yluJ

00'g

uA

00't

peS

00'tc

O4

1181

521

851

2292

631

0272

301

7142

137

4112

826

3102

723

0171

421

851

2292

521

9162

301

7142

137

4112

824

1181

522

961

3203

SS

V 2

Boe

ing

B3

NA

SA

,B

oein

gN

AS

AN

AS

A, J

SC

,R

ockw

ell

CT

R 8

EV

AL

NA

SA

, Arm

y

SS

V 1

-200

0

NA

SA

, JS

C,

Roc

kwel

l

AU

TO

CU

E

NA

SA

, Arm

yN

AS

AAU

TO

CU

E

NA

SA

,A

rmy

SS

V

NA

SA

SA

M S

im

Arm

y,N

AS

A

Lock

heed

PW

SC

4

NA

SA

NA

SA

, JS

C,

Roc

kwel

l

RIT

E 2

NA

SA

CT

R 9

NA

SA

, Arm

y

Boe

ing

B3

NA

SA

,B

oein

g

Mag

Lev

NA

SA

Lock

heed

PW

SC

NA

SA

JSH

IP

NA

SA

AG

IE

NA

SA

FM

S D

ep 2

NA

SA

DA

TALI

NK

NA

SA

AIL

S

NA

SA

TN

AS

A 2

NA

SA

NF

CS

NA

SA

CTA

S F

MS

2

NA

SA

OK

FA

A D

ata

NA

SA

SS

V2-

2000

CT

R9

DE

V

NA

SA

,A

rmy

RIT

E

NA

SA

TN

AS

A 2

NA

SA

AG

IE

NA

SA

CTA

S F

MS

2

NA

SA

DA

TALI

NK

NA

SA

AIL

S

NA

SA

Lock

heed

CD

A 3

,P

WS

C 3

Mot

ion

Test

B74

7


FY00 Project Summaries

Continued next page...

VMS Flight Simulation Projects1. Lockheed Martin CDA 32. Lockheed Martin PWSC 33. Lockheed Martin PWSC 4Sept 13–17, 1999 (FB); Sept 20–Oct 15, 1999 (VMS), July24–Aug 4, 2000 (VMS)Aircraft type: X-35 Joint Strike FighterPurpose: To support Lockheed’s design and developmentof the X-35 and to advance NASA-sponsored research.

4. Space Shuttle Vehicle 1999–2Aug 30–Sept 3, Oct 18–Nov 5, 1999 (VMS)Aircraft type: Space Shuttle orbiterPurpose: To provide training in orbiter landing and rolloutfor astronauts and astronaut candidates.

5. Boeing B3Nov 15–19, 1999 (FB); Nov 29–Dec 16, 1999 (VMS)Aircraft type: X-32 Joint Strike FighterPurpose: To support Boeing’s design and development ofthe X-32.

6. Civil Tiltrotor 8 EVALJan 10–Feb 18, 2000 (VMS)Aircraft type: XV-15 tiltrotorPurpose: To investigate approach profiles for noiseabatement and to evaluate a new stability and controlaugmentation system.

7. Space Shuttle Vehicle 2000–1Feb 21–Mar 23 (VMS)Aircraft type: Space Shuttle orbiterPurpose: To determine feasibility of landing on short EastCoast Abort landing runways, and to determine adequatehydraulic flow protection for single APU landings. Toprovide the astronaut corps training in orbiter landing androllout.

8. AutoCueMar 27–Apr 20, May 8–26 (VMS)Aircraft type: UH-60 Black Hawk helicopterPurpose: To investigate the impact of various visual andmotion cues in a training simulator on pilot performanceduring an autorotation maneuver.

9. Magnetic Levitation Vehicle DemonstrationMar 27–31 (VMS)Vehicle type: Magnetic Levitating TrainPurpose: To investigate a conceptual high speed MagneticLevitation vehicle and to identify critical system designparameters.

10. Situational Awareness ModelJune 5–July 6 (VMS)Aircraft type: UH-60 Black Hawk helicopterPurpose: To test a computational situational awarenessmodel used in human factors studies by simulating full-mission flights of the UH-60.

11. Space Shuttle Vehicle 2000-2Aug 7–31 (VMS)Aircraft type: Space Shuttle orbiterPurpose: To evaluate: (i) feasibility of expanding the nightTransatlantic Abort Landing crosswind limit (ii) the maximumspeedbrake setting limit for the new short-runway option,and (iii) an adaptive speedbrake option. To provide theastronaut corps training in orbiter landing and rollout.

12. Joint Shipboard Helicopter Integration ProcessSept 18–Oct 6 (FB); Nov 27–Dec 21 (VMS)Aircraft type: UH-60A helicopterPurpose: To develop and test the processes and mecha-nisms that facilitate ship-helicopter interface testing via man-in-the-loop simulators.

13. Rapid Integration Test Environment 2Sept 11-28 (VMS)Aircraft type: Space Shuttle orbiterPurpose: To investigate the procedures and infrastructuredeveloped during phase one by testing various SpaceShuttle orbiter’s nose section geometry designs in pilotedflight simulations.

14. Civil Tiltrotor 9Oct 2–Nov 17 (VMS)Aircraft type: CTR 4/95 NASA tiltrotorPurpose: To investigate handling qualities and flight opera-tions issues related to operating a tiltrotor aircraft at avertiport.

VMS Technology Upgrades1. Virtual LaboratoryPurpose: To enhance the capabilities of a system thatenables remote researchers to collaborate in and managelive experiments at the VMS.

2. Joint Shipboard Helicopter Integration ProcessSimulation TechnologiesPurpose: To develop and integrate new technologies into theSimLab environment to achieve the JSHIP simulation goals.

3. Development Work Station Graphics Upgrade ProjectPurpose: To upgrade the graphics capability of the DWS, an


FY00 Project Summaries

FB—Fixed-Base SimulatorsVMS—Vertical Motion SimulatorACFS—Advanced Concepts Flight SimulatorB747—Boeing 747 Simulator

engineering environment for researchers to develop VMS-compatible simulation models at their engineering sites.

4. Air Traffic Control for Vertical Motion SimulatorPurpose: To augment VMS simulations by integrating theAir Traffic Control (ATC) capability for the CTR program.

5. VMS ModernizationPurpose: To increase performance, reliability and maintain-ability of the VMS by replacing major system elements.

6. Video Distribution System UpgradePurpose: To implement a major capacity upgrade of theVideo Distribution System to meet increasing researchrequirements and improve maintainability.

7. Alpha Host Computer Upgrade 2000Purpose: To upgrade the host computers with new systemsthat meet the compute requirements of the most demand-ing VMS simulations.

8. Head-Down Display Graphics Engine UpgradePurpose: To provide new, state-of-the-art graphics enginesto support expanded VMS research needs in a cost-effective manner.

CVSRF Flight Simulation Projects1. Taxiway Navigation and Situation Awareness 2Aug 10,1999–Nov 9 (ACFS)Purpose: To evaluate the use of a head-up display and anelectronic moving map to improve Low-Visibility LandingAnd Surface Operations (LVLASO).

2. Integrated Tools/Air-Ground Integration (AGIE)Dec 1,1999–Feb 25, 2000 (B747)Purpose: To conduct an early evaluation of air-groundintegration procedures and concepts in a dynamic environ-ment where the control of aircraft can be centralized ordistributed.

3. Flight Management System Departure Procedures 2April 10–13 (B747)Purpose: To construct and perform viable FMS departureroutings in order to support efforts for revising currentRNAV departure standards.

4. Neural Flight Control SystemMay 22–23 (ACFS)Purpose: To examine the effectiveness of various neuralflight control system architectures to control damagedaircraft to a safe landing.

5. Controller-Pilot Data Link Communication ProceduresJune 19–July 17 (B747)Purpose: To examine the impact of data link and voice proce-dures upon crew error-detection and recovery.

6. Center TRACON Automation System Flight ManagementSystem 2Aug 3–Aug 30 (ACFS)Purpose: To evaluate a concept for integrating CTAS with theFlight Management System for operations in terminal airspace.

7. Airborne Information for Lateral SpacingDevelopment Jan 5–Sept 30Purpose: To examine the utility and viability of two systemsdesigned to increase airport efficiency during InstrumentMeteorological Conditions (IMC). To evaluate flight crew andATC interactions during the pairing of aircraft for independent(AILS) and dependent approaches.

CVSRF Technology Upgrades1. Advanced Concepts Flight Simulator Host ComputerUpgradePurpose: To upgrade the ACFS host computer to meet de-manding computational and input/output requirements ofplanned and projected ACFS simulation experiments.

2. Enhanced Ground Proximity Warning SystemPurpose: To enhance system fidelity by upgrading the B747-400 flight simulator from an older Ground Proximity WarningSystem (GPWS) to the state-of-the-art Enhanced GroundProximity Warning System (EGPWS).

3. Air Traffic Control Pseudo Aircraft SystemPurpose: To upgrade the ATC simulator in order to meetemerging Air Traffic Control (ATC) research requirements.

4. Voice Disguiser System UpgradePurpose: To increase the voice disguiser system capability andfeatures to enhance realism in simulation experiments.

5. Traffic Collision and Avoidance System Implementationand UpgradePurpose: To integrate an FAA/MITRE supplied code implemen-tation of the TCAS II Change 7 specification into the ACFS andto upgrade TCAS in the B747-400 simulator from version 6.04Ato Change 7.


stcejorP

noitalumi

SS

MV

10YF

TC

EJO

RP

MA

RG

OR

PD

ETR

OP

PU

SD

ETR

OP

PU

SD

ETR

OP

PU

SD

ETR

OP

PU

SD

ETR

OP

PU

SS

RE

MOT

SU

CS

EVIT

CEJ

BO

TS

ET

9rotortli

TliviC

smetsy

Snoitaiv

Alua

HtrohS/yticapa

Crotortli

TliviC

AS

AN,

AA

Fnoissi

m-llufgnisu

seussinoitargetni

ecapsriaetagitsevnI

gnitarepostropsnart

rotortlitlivicrof

noitalumis

.syawnurlanoitnevnocfo

yltnednepedni

retpocileH

draobpihStnioJ

)PI

HSJ(

ssecorP

noitargetnIfotne

mtrapeD

esnefeD

yvaN

cimany

Ds'

PIH

SJrof

noitadilavdna

noitacifirevehttroppu

S.tcejor

Ps

metsyS

noitalumi

Sdna

gniledoM

ecafretnItaht

smsinahce

mdna

sessecorpehttset

dnapoleve

Dpool-eht-ni-na

maiv

gnitsetecafretni

retpocileh-pihsetatilicaf

.srotalumis

2&

1elcihe

Velttuh

Secap

S)2-

VS

S&

1-V

SS(

thgilF

ecapS

namu

Hecap

SnosnhoJ

AS

AN

ecapS

detinU,retne

Clle

wkcoR,gnieo

B,ecnaillA

dnas

metsysgnidnal

s'retibrO

elttuhS

ecapS

ehtetagitsevnI

stnemele

noitagitsevnI.seitilauqgnildnahlortnoclanoitcerid

yduts,syawnurtroba

retrohsno

gnidnalfoytilibisaef

edulcniyrailixua

decuderhti

wgnitarepo

nehw

seitilauqgnildnahfo

otgniniart

edivorP.snoitidnoc

rehtaew

dednapxedna

rewop

.tuollordna

gnidnalretibro

rofsproctuanortsa

eht

E33-S

DAlivi

Cy

mrA

AS

AN,y

mrA

,seitilauqgnildnah

nihcraeser

elcihevtfarcrotorehttroppu

S.stpecnoc

decnavdadna,snoitacificeps

ngised

01rotortli

TliviC

noitaivA

ymr

Ayticapa

Cs

metsyS

AS

AN,

AA

F

liviC

rofseussi

ecapsriacitsirutuf

xelpmoc

etagitsevnI,yduts

noissim-lluf

sihttroppuso

T.snoitarepo

rotortliT

dnatoliP-otu

Awen

sahcus

stnemele

noitalumislaitnesse

tnemegana

Mciffar

Tri

Adnatfarcria

ehtrof

erutaefS

MF

.depolevedeblli

wtnemnorivne

elciheV

noitatropsnarT

werC

)V

TC(

noitamrofnI

esaB

ygolonhceT

margorP

AS

AN

AS

AN

dnanoitargetnI

dipaR

ehtfonoitacilppa

ehtetartsno

meD

ecapS

noitareneGtxen

ehtot

)E

TIR(tne

mnorivnEtse

Tdipar

etatilicaflliw

ssecorpE

TIR

ehT.elcihev

noitatropsnarT

noitamrofni

decnavdagnisu

ybsnoitareti

ngisedngised

ehtfotraplargetnina

sanoitalu

misdna

seigolonhcet.elcyc


stcejor

Pn

oitalu

miS

FR

SV

C10

YF

TC

EJO

RP

MA

RG

OR

PD

ET

RO

PP

US

DE

TR

OP

PU

SD

ET

RO

PP

US

DE

TR

OP

PU

SD

ET

RO

PP

US

SR

EM

OT

SU

CS

EVI

TC

EJB

OT

SE

T

&thgilFlarue

NdetargetnI

2&

1lortnoC

noisluporP

)S

FC

A(

&slortno

CtnegilletnIesa

BTI

–snoitarep

Omargor

Pnoisivi

Dlanoitatupmo

CA

SA

Nlortnoc

noisluporpdnathgilf

evitanretlaetaulav

Ero

noitcnuflam

agnirudtfarcrialortnoc

otseigolonhcet

.metsyslortnoc

yramirp

stiot

eruliaf

laretaLrof

noitamrofnI

enrobriA

)004-747(SLI

A–

noitarapeS

aerAlani

mreT

ytivitcudorP

scinoivA,

AA

F,A

SA

Nsrerutcafuna

M

otsesnopser

rellortnocciffart

riadna

wercthgilfssess

Ano

desabserudecorp

dnanoitatne

melpmi

SLIA

.smhtirogla

gnitreladecnavda

margorP

esioN

gnieoB

)004-747(/

rotalumi

SthgilF

esioN

ytinum

moC

margorP

ecafretnIygolonhce

Tscitsuoc

A,gnieoB

ledom

noitciderpcitsuoca

s'gnieoBfo

ytiledifeht

ydutS

elihw

esiontropriaezi

minim

otserudecorplani

mretdna

.yticapacciffart

riagnisaercni

ytilediF

CT

A)004-747(

AA

FA

AF

ehtstceffa

ytiledifC

TA

hcihw

oteerged

ehterusae

M.srotalu

misnoissi

m-llufnitne

mnorivnegniniart

sdradnatSthgil

FA

AF

)004-747(yti

Ca

mohalkO

AA

FA

AF

gnivorpmi

htiw

detaicossaseussilanoitarepo

enimax

Egnisi

morpmoctuohti

wycneiciffe

dnayticapaclani

mret.ytefas

rehtaeW

+IT

DC

)004-747(ri

Adecnavd

Anoitatropsnar

Teciff

Oseigolonhce

T

&A

PLA,

AC

TA

N,A

SA

N,A

AF

AC

TR,

AP

A

,rewot

dnatipkcoceht

ni,srotcafna

muheni

maxE

rehtaew

suoiravrof

noitarapesderahs

otdetaler

.snoitidnoc

dnuorG/

B-S

DA

)004-747&

SF

CA(

AA

FA

SA

N,A

AF

ssessaottne

mnorivneecapsria

dnalanimret

etalumi

S.re

wot)

CT

A(lortnocciffart

riadnatipkcoc

ehtrof

sloot

ytilediF

noitoM

)004-747(eplo

V/A

AF

032-S

FA

AA

F,

AA

Fretne

Ceplo

V-T

OD

reirracria

rofgnieuc-noito

mfossenevitceffe

enimrete

D.noitacifilauq

dnagniniarttolip

CF

F–

XAL

)004-747(12thgil

Fefa

Ss'

AA

Fsrotarepotfarcria

ograC,

AA

Fot

dianoita

motuaecafrus

decnavdana

etaulavE

.snoitarepodnuorg

aeralanimret

evorpmi

noitaitogeN

noitarapeS-fle

S)

SF

CA(

riA

decnavdA

noitatropsnarT

seigolonhceT

AA

F,A

SA

N-fles

gnitcudnocni

seussinoitaitogentolip

etaulavE

.tnemnorivnethgilf-eerf

citsirutufa

ninoitarapes


VMS PROJECT

SUMMARIES

Vertical Motion SimulatorResearch Facility

The Vertical Motion Simulator(VMS) Complex is a world-classresearch and development facility thatoffers unparalleled capabilities forconducting some of the most excitingand challenging aeronautics andaerospace studies and experiments.The six-degree-of-freedom VMS, withits 60-foot vertical and 40-foot lateralmotion capability, is the world's largestmotion-base simulator. The largeamplitude motion system of the VMSwas designed to aid in research issuesrelating to controls, guidance, displays,automation, and handling qualities ofexisting or proposed aircraft. It is anexcellent tool for investigating issuesrelevant to nap-of-the-earth flight andto landing and rollout studies.


Lockheed Martin CDA 3, PWSC 3 and 4

The objective of the experiments included evaluation of theX-35’s flying qualities, control laws, and advancedcontrols and displays.

John McCune, Mark Tibbs, Eric Somers, Lockheed Martin; Jack Franklin, Duc Tran, NASA ARC;Chuck Perry, Luong Nguyen, Norm Bengford, Ron Gerdes, Logicon/LISS

SummaryLockheed Martin’s X-35 Joint Strike Fighter model

was simulated to support the design and develop-ment of the X-35 and to advance NASA-sponsoredresearch in guidance systems, display technology,and short takeoff/vertical landing controls. This year’sthree experiments addressed conventional, carrier,and short-takeoff/vertical-landing (STOVL) opera-tions.Introduction

NASA Ames Research Center plays a key role insupport of the U.S. Government’s Joint Strike Fighter(JSF) Program. This program is developing a familyof advanced supersonic strike fighters that willfeature different configurations for multiple branchesof the military and potential allies. The aircraft willfeature highly common and modular construction tosignificantly reduce the cost of development, produc-tion, and maintenance.

Requirements for the JSF are as follows:• U.S. Air Force—a multi-role aircraft for conventional

takeoffs and landings• U.S. Marine Corps—a STOVL aircraft with good

controllability at zero airspeed and during transitionbetween hover and wing-borne flight

• U.S. Navy—a strike fighter with outstanding han-dling at low speeds and adaptations for catapultlaunches and arrested landings

• U.K. Royal Navy—a STOVL aircraft similar to theU.S. Marine Corps versionThe Department of Defense awarded the

Lockheed Martin Corporation one of two JSF con-

tracts, each calling for two concept demonstratoraircraft. These simulations, using the large motionbase at the VMS, were conducted to complementLockheed Martin’s in-house simulations as part of thedesign and development process. The JSF is ex-pected to enter service in 2008.Simulation

Objectives of the experiments included evaluationof the X-35’s flying qualities, control laws, andadvanced controls and displays. The three simula-tions of the X-35 included three weeks of fixed-basesimulations in preparation for a total of six weeks ofmotion-base operations. The fixed-base sessionswere designed to validate the simulation systemresponse and to finalize flight tasks and scenarios inpreparation for each of the motion-base experiments.The response validation phase was a critical stepsince the computer code for the entire aircraft modelwas generated by Lockheed Martin and directlyintegrated into the VMS's simulation environment.Pilots and engineers from Lockheed Martin, the U.S.Navy and Marine Corps, British Aerospace, andNASA participated in the evaluations.Results

The primary objectives for the simulations weremet, and significant amounts of evaluation data werecollected. The large motion cueing of the VMSsystem played a critical role in evaluating the flyingqualities and mission capabilities of LockheedMartin’s JSF design. Due to the competition sensitivenature of the project, detailed results cannot beincluded in this report.

For SimLab, this simulation marked a continuedsuccess in integrating the entire aircraft model andcockpit display software provided by a customerdirectly into VMS's real-time system. This mode ofoperation was not only cost-effective but also allowedLockheed Martin to test several last-minute designchanges, which were expediently integrated bySimLab engineers.

For more information, refer to the web pages forLockheed Martin (http://www.lmco.com) and the JSFProgram (http://www.jast.mil).

Investigative TeamLockheed MartinNASA Ames Research CenterJSF Program OfficeU.S. Marine CorpsU.S. NavyLogicon Information Systems and ServicesBritish Aerospace


Space Shuttle Vehicle 1999-2Howard Law, NASA JSC; Ed Digon, Boeing; Alan Hochstein, USA;

Estela Hernandez, Leslie Ringo, Logicon/LISS

SummaryThis four-week simulation of the Space Shuttle

orbiter featured crew familiarization for astronautsand astronaut candidates.Introduction

The Space Shuttle Orbiter model has beensimulated at the SimLab since the mid 1970s. Thebasic model has evolved and matured over theintervening years to reflect improved model charac-teristics and updates made to the orbiter fleet. Today,the VMS continues to simulate and provide astronauttraining with realistic touchdown and rollout of theorbiter twice each year.

The orbiter presents challenging conditions bylanding at 230 miles per hour, which is nearly twotimes the speed at which most aircraft would land.With no engines operating, the orbiter glides totouchdown without propulsion power for maneuveringor going around. This makes realistic training forastronauts critical. At the VMS, pilots experiencevarious flight conditions and system failures toprepare them for this important phase of flight.Simulation

Astronauts were given a number of flight andatmospheric conditions during simulation, includingrunway location and type, vehicle weight, visibility,and wind direction and speed. Periodically, astro-nauts rehearsed recovering from failures to the tires,drag chute, auxiliary power units, and automaticderotation system.

The VMS simulates eight landing sites in the U.S.including the dry lakebeds at Edwards Air Force Baseand White Sands Missile Range. The VMS alsosimulates the four Transatlantic Abort Landing (TAL)sites. A TAL would occur in the event of a majorsystem failure during launch; if it were too late toreturn for landing at Kennedy Space Center and tooearly to circle the earth for another opportunity toland in the U.S., the orbiter would land on the far sideof the Atlantic Ocean. There are two TAL sites in

Spain, one in Morocco, and one in Gambia.Results

The simulation was completed with 39 pilots andfive mission specialists completing a total of 875 dataruns. The crew familiarization phase of the simulationreinforced the importance of the VMS in preparingupcoming crews for the landing and rollout phase ofthe mission and for possible failures during thatphase of flight.

Investigative TeamNASA Johnson Space CenterThe Boeing CompanyLockheed MartinUnited Space Alliance

Col. James Halsell, commander of STS-101, prepares for atraining (crew familiarization) session in the VMS. TheVMS provides unique training for astronaut pilots.


Boeing B3

This VMS simulation was conducted to support the designand development of the Boeing X-32 Joint Strike Fighter.

Larry Moody, Tom Wendell, The Boeing Company; Jack Franklin, NASA ARC;Leslie Ringo, Estela Hernandez, Ron Gerdes, Logicon/LISS

SummaryThis VMS simulation was conducted to support the

design and development of the Boeing X-32 JointStrike Fighter. Three variants of the aircraft will bebuilt: a conventional takeoff and landing (CTOL)version for the U.S. Air Force, a carrier version (CV)for the U.S. Navy, and a short-takeoff/vertical-landing(STOVL) version for the U.S. Marine Corps andBritish Royal Navy/Air Force.Introduction

NASA Ames Research Center plays an importantrole in support of the U.S. Government’s Joint StrikeFighter (JSF) Program, which will field an affordable,highly common family of next-generation, multi-rolestrike fighters for the U.S. Navy (USN), Air Force(USAF), Marine Corps (USMC), U.K. Royal Navy,and other potential U.S. allies. The aircraft willfeature highly common and modular construction tosignificantly reduce the cost of development, produc-tion, and maintenance.

The military services have stated their needs forthe JSF as follows:• U.S. Air Force—a multi-role aircraft for conventional

takeoffs and landings• U.S. Marine Corps—a STOVL aircraft with good

controllability at zero airspeed and during transitionbetween hover and wing-borne flight

• U.S. Navy—a strike fighter with outstanding han-dling at low speeds and adaptations for catapultlaunches and arrested landings

• U.K. Royal Navy—a STOVL aircraft similar to theU.S. Marine Corps versionThe Boeing Company is one of two manufacturers

selected to build and fly a pair of JSF conceptdemonstrator aircraft. Real-time, piloted flight simula-tion is an important step in Boeing’s approach to JSFdesign and development. The VMS, which producesthe most realistic motion cueing environment inground-based simulators, provides a unique comple-ment to Boeing’s in-house simulations prior to in-flight simulation and flight-testing.Simulation

The simulation objectives included evaluations ofaircraft handling qualities and determining effects ofmotion on handling qualities. Participating test pilotswere from Boeing, USMC, Royal Navy, and NASA.Three weeks of the motion-based experiment werepreceded by one week of fixed-base operations tovalidate the simulation system response and tofinalize flight tasks and scenarios. Validation of the

response was critical because Boeing’s updatedaircraft simulation software was directly integratedinto the VMS.Results

The primary objectives of the simulations weremet, and the customer obtained considerable infor-mation for design analysis and evaluation. Test pilotswere favorably impressed with the important role thatthe VMS’ large motion cueing played in evaluatingthe JSF’s handling qualities and mission capabilities.The competition sensitive nature of this projectprecludes the inclusion of detailed results in thisreport.

With this simulation, SimLab continued to integratethe aircraft model software provided by the customerinto the VMS simulation system. This reduced thesimulation development time and costs to the cus-tomer. SimLab personnel also implemented graphicschanges and incorporated specialized hardware forthe Boeing experiment.

For more information, refer to the web pages forBoeing (http://www.boeing.com) and the JSF Pro-gram (http://www.jast.mil).

Investigative TeamThe Boeing CompanyNASA Ames Research CenterJSF Program OfficeU.S. Marine CorpsLogicon Information Systems and ServicesDERA, U.K.U. K. Royal Navy


Civil Tiltrotor 8 EVALWilliam Decker, Jack Franklin, Adolf Atencio, NASA ARC; Steve Belsley, Emily Lewis, Joseph Ogwell,

Phil Tung, Logicon/LISS; Pete Klein, Helmuth Koelzer, Bell Helicopter Textron

SummaryThe Civil Tiltrotor 8 Evaluation simulation studied

reduced noise approach profiles for the XV-15 tiltrotoraircraft to relatively small vertiports. The simulationalso evaluated a new Stability and Control Augmen-tation System.Introduction

The Civil Tiltrotor 8 Evaluation (CTR 8 EVAL) wasthe latest in a series of simulations investigatingissues that include CTR certification, vertiport design,and terminal area operations including noise abate-ment procedures.

The simulation’s primary goal was to evaluate theXV-15 tiltrotor’s handling qualities during approachprofiles designed to minimize noise near vertiports.Other objectives were to develop a Dynamic InverseStability and Control Augmentation System (SCAS),and to evaluate the travel and force characteristics ofa programmable sidestick controller for the XV-15.

While airplanes normally approach airports on a 3°glide slope, tiltrotor aircraft can approach at steeperangles to avoid obstacles and airspace reserved forother aircraft. Steep approaches might requirecomplex noise abatement procedures that increase apilot’s workload. The noise abatement profiles flownby Bell Helicopter during the October 1999 flight-testsperformed at their facility were therefore evaluatedfor feasibility and for possible improvements.Simulation

The CTR-8 EVAL simulation used the aircraftmodel structure of the Generic Tiltrotor Simulation(GTRS), Rev. C, configured for the baseline XV-15aircraft. Two control systems were integrated: thestandard XV-15 SCAS and the Dynamic InverseSCAS developed by J. Franklin. Control featuresdeveloped by NASA, such as the Discrete NacelleMovement system and the Conversion Protectionsystem, were tailored for this aircraft. An XV-15specific Landing Gear model was adapted from aprevious tiltrotor experiment. The left seat sidestickcontroller, a new programmable Sterling DynamicsInc. (SDI) Active Sidestick, was used almost exclu-sively with the Dynamic Inverse SCAS.

Noise abatement profiles flown in the October1999 flight test were successfully replicated in thesimulator. This simulation also evaluated the impacton handling qualities of three control response types:rate command, rate command/attitude hold, andattitude command/attitude hold.

The Dynamic Inverse SCAS was derived from theNASA modified Neural Network SCAS, which wasused in the previous simulation. The Neural Net

“Inverse Aircraft” was replaced with stability deriva-tive look-up tables. The control system featuresretained from the CTR-8 Dev simulation were:selectable Attitude Command and Rate CommandAttitude Hold in the pitch and roll axes. The SCASresponse was tuned for the center stick and the SDIsidestick. The SDI active sidestick was also evalu-ated using two ADS-33 tasks, precision hover andpirouette, with different force versus displacementcharacteristics.Results

For the XV-15 Noise Abatement Approach Han-dling Qualities study, the VMS simulation success-fully evaluated the October 1999 flight test profilesdeveloped by Bell Helicopter. It was found thatattitude stabilization improved handling qualities inadverse weather with Attitude Command used duringthe final deceleration to hover. Rate CommandAttitude Hold was preferred during large trim changesor maneuvers. Guidance was deemed essential toaid in the control strategy shift as nacelle anglevaried during the approach. Automatic actuation offlaps were favored for the approach profiles. Duringthe simulation, full envelope SCAS using DynamicInverse control design was developed. Acceptablehandling qualities were achieved with the activesidestick while flying with the Dynamic InverseSCAS.

Investigative TeamNASA Ames Research CenterLogicon Information Systems and ServicesBell Helicopter TextronThe Boeing CompanySikorsky AircraftFederal Aviation Administration

The XV-15 tiltrotor aircraft conducting noise abatementprofile testing from profiles generated at the VMS.


Space Shuttle Vehicle 2000-1Howard Law, Alan Poindexter, Ken Ham, Charles Hobaugh, NASA JSC; Ed Digon, Boeing;

Estela Hernandez, Leslie Ringo, Christopher Sweeney, Logicon/LISS

SummarySimulations of the Space Shuttle orbiter are

performed at the VMS to fine-tune the Shuttleorbiter’s landing systems and to provide landing androllout training for the astronaut corps. The engineer-ing goals for this simulation were to determine thefeasibility of landing within 7500 feet on East CoastAbort Landing runways and to determine adequatehydraulic flow protection for single auxiliary powerunit (APU) landings.Introduction

The Space Shuttle orbiter has been simulated atthe VMS twice each year since the mid 1970s.Researchers have examined modifications to theflight-control system, guidance and navigationsystems, head-up displays, flight rules, and to thebasic simulation model. The simulations also provideastronaut training with realistic landing and rolloutscenarios.Simulation

One objective of the Space Shuttle Vehicle (SSV)2000-1 simulation was to investigate the feasibility oflanding within a 7500 feet East Coast Abort Landings(ECAL) runway using the carbon brake model andthe flight hardware anti-skid box. Currently, certainrunways in Africa and Spain, and the Kennedy SpaceCenter (KSC) have been designated for abortlandings in case of failures during launch. A steeperlaunch trajectory, planned to support increasedInternational Space Station (ISS) flights, may allowabort landings at runways on the East Coast of theUnited States. However, these ECAL runways areshorter (7500 - 8500 feet) than the currently desig-nated Space Shuttle runways (12,000 - 15,000 feet).The simulation investigated six different landingtechniques to determine the minimum length requiredto land safely on abort runways. Two new out-the-

window databases representing ECAL sites weredeveloped and integrated by SimLab personnel forthis simulation: Otis Air Force Base in Massachusettsand Myrtle Beach in South Carolina.

The second objective was to determine adequatehydraulic flow protection for a single auxiliary powerunit (APU) landing. Normally, three APUs power thecontrol surfaces. In the event of a single or doubleAPU failure, priority rate-limiting (PRL) softwareprevents hydraulic flow over-demand by limiting therate at which the various control surfaces move.Results from the February 1999 study of the orbiterhydraulic system indicated that the PRL softwaredoes not limit control surface rates enough to remainwithin the hydraulic pump flow capacity of a singleAPU. Hence for this simulation, tighter limits for thespeedbrake, landing gear hydraulic flow, aileron andrudder rates were evaluated during single APU.

Another objective of SSV 2000-1 was to trainupcoming mission crews and astronaut candidatesthrough a series of flights. Various runways, visibilityand wind conditions were simulated along withperiodic system failures throughout the landing androllout phase.Results

A total of 1268 runs were completed with 39 pilotsduring five weeks of simulation. Preliminary resultsindicate that the current baseline technique andseveral of the proposed ECAL landing techniquesrequire a stopping distance greater than 7500 feet.However, manually increasing the currently usedauto guidance speedbrake setting by 20% met the7500 feet test-objective 97% of the time. Furthertesting will be conducted to verify this setting. Resultsindicate that it is essential to determine a maximumspeedbrake limit. Not having a limit for manual orautomatic flight procedures might result in expendingtoo much of the orbiter’s energy. The single APUhydraulic flow protection analysis indicates that casesof concern are only those when extraordinary maneu-vers are executed before main gear touchdown.There are no over-demands or pressure drops afternose gear touchdown.

The crew familiarization session reinforced theimportance of the VMS in preparing upcoming crewsfor the landing and rollout phase of the mission andfor possible failures during that phase.


Twice yearly, the Space Shuttle Orbiter is simulated forengineering studies and astronaut training.


AutoCueJeff Schroeder, Munro Dearing, Adolf Atencio, NASA ARC;

Norm Bengford, Robert Morrison, Logicon/LISS

SummaryThe AutoCue simulation investigated the tradeoff

between pilot performance of an autorotation maneu-ver and appropriate visual and motion cues. Thiswas accomplished by varying the texturing andresolution content of simulated runways and byvarying the motion cueing environment. The experi-ment also researched the ability of a pilot to recog-nize relative rates visually in a non-motion simulationenvironment.Introduction

The helicopter autorotation maneuver is employedwhen flight conditions warrant a minimum or nopower descent and landing. This could occurthrough loss of engine power or through loss of fullyeffective flight controls. The maneuver allows thepilot to execute a safe, survivable landing dependingon the availability of appropriate terrain. Becausepractice autorotations to landing carry high risk, aneed for a helicopter autorotation simulator is grow-ing to address the safety and cost concerns. There-fore, it is necessary to establish minimum cueingspecifications for both visual and motion systems.The AutoCue simulation was designed to determinethe tradeoff between pilot-vehicle performance andworkload versus visual and motion cues.Simulation

One objective of the Autocue simulation was forthe pilot to execute an autorotation using standardautorotation procedures and technique to a desiredposition on the runway, with minimum forward groundspeed and minimum rate of descent. From the visualcues of perceived height and depth perception, thepilot would try to perform an autorotation to a touch-down with a maximum groundspeed of less than 25knots and a maximum rate of descent of less than5ft/sec.

For each run, the pilot had to autorotate thehelicopter from an initial altitude of 1000 ft. and aninitial airspeed of 80 knots to land at a designatedspot on the runway. The autorotation runs were donefor twelve different runway visual cue environments,ranging from no texture and little scene content to ahigh scene density runway. The pilot rated eachautorotation according to the airspeed, rotor RPMcontrol, rate of descent, and touchdown position byassigning a Handling Qualities Rating (HQR) andanswering a questionnaire.

The second objective of the simulation,“PsychoPath” was designed to determine the pilotvisual threshold of closure rate in a no motion

environment. The pilot was positioned 100 ft. in frontof the runway threshold at 100-ft. altitude and aninitial airspeed of 20 knots. Consecutive runs ofdiffering descent rates to the same runway texturedensity were given to the pilots. The pilot determinedwhich sink rate was larger before moving to the nextpair of runs.

The visual cueing database had the capability tovary the runway texture density from maximumpossible down to zero texture, resulting in 12 differentselectable data scenes. Both textures derived fromactual photographs of a runway and a random noisedatabase were used for each runway scene. Otheroutside cues from the database, such as buildings,towers, hangars, trees, etc. were eliminated. Themotion cueing environment included the full VMSmotion system, no motion, and limited motion tomodel a hexapod simulator with a 15 inch actuatorstroke.Results

During the seven weeks of this simulation a total ofnineteen subjects including 11 pilots and 8 non-pilotsparticipated. 1544 autorotation data runs and 182psychopath data runs were collected. Preliminaryresults show that the effect of the database changesproduced an unexpected trend. Further analysis ofthe data is needed to study these effects.

Investigative TeamU.S. ArmyNASA Ames Research Center

The UH-60 Blackhawk helicopter model was used toexamine different visual and motion cues during anautorotation maneuver.


Magnetic Levitation Vehicle DemonstrationCharlotte Thornton, Stanford University;

Julie Mikula, NASA ARC; Joe Ogwell, John Bunnell, Logicon/LISS

SummaryThis fixed-based experiment was to demonstrate a

conceptual high speed mass transport vehicle, i.e.,Magnetic Levitation (MagLev) train, to improve thetraffic capacity between major cities. The primaryobjectives of the entry were to identify basic param-eters for a MagLev vehicle such as optimal trackheight above terrain, passenger height above thetrack, human visual speed tolerance, design ofinstrument displays, display parameter groupings andcontrol hardware.Introduction

The MagLev Simulation Capability Demonstrationentry was conducted for the Stanford Product DesignGroup in partnership with Richardson, RobertsonPartners, Architects. The purpose of the demonstra-tion was to use the capabilities of the SimLab facilityto visually simulate a magnetic levitation train route.The focus of the program was to obtain basic designguidelines for magnetically levitated freight andpassenger trains, guideway design, ride quality, andsafety issues.

This MagLev entry was only for a demonstration toinvestigate feasibility issues in the early conceptualdesign. A set of guidance algorithms based on thetrack profile was developed to generate the out-the-window eyepoint view for the conductor and passen-gers to follow along a guideway track. Different trackheights were also investigated.Simulation

Due to the limited scope of this experiment, asimple MagLev train model was developed bySimLab engineers to use the specified track profile toprovide the speed control of the train. A stretch ofapproximately 35 miles of the track betweenPalmdale and Burbank, CA was developed bySimLab. The challenge was to create the visualdatabase for this long stretch of track going up andover mountains, compute where the track waslocated, and guide the vehicle along this track.

Since the vehicle had to follow the guideway trackdefined in the ESIG visual database, data from theESIG had to be processed to produce a list ofcoordinates for the vehicle to follow. A processingprogram was developed to convert the ESIG visualdatabase data into a three-dimensional table toprovide coordinates for each track segment. Thisdata was then converted to the proper format to be

used in the map display software and in the speedcontrol model.

In order to travel along the track, a filtered speedcommand was developed to give the conductor waysto control the speed of the train while accelerating,making turns, going up and down, braking, andcoming to a stop.Results

The researcher learned a great deal regarding arange of issues to be considered when trying to buildan elevated MagLev train with a maximum speedapproaching 300 miles per hour. The sharpness ofthe turns and the steepness of the banks of the turnsare major issues to be considered.

A grand total of 22 visitors from a broad spectrumof backgrounds were shown the demonstration.There were academics, engineers, urban planners,transportation professionals from Ecuador, andentrepreneurs involved with this particular project.Four video and six audio tape recordings were madeand retained by the researcher. These recordingswill help the researcher better define requirements forfuture simulation entries.

Investigative TeamStanford UniversityUniversal MagLevNASA Ames Research Center

Magnetic Levitation train travels at high speed along aguideway between Palmdale and Burbank.


Situational Awareness Model SimulationJay Shively, Mark Burdick, Joe De Maio, U.S. Army/NASA ARC;

Robert Morrison, Logicon/LISS

SummarySAMSIM tested a computational situational

awareness model used in human factors studies bysimulating full-mission flights of the UH-60 Blackhawkhelicopter.Introduction

In 1997, human factors researchers developedand integrated a computational situational awarenessmodel (SAM) into the Man-machine IntegrationDesign and Analysis System (MIDAS). MIDAS is anoverall cognitive model that combines graphicalequipment prototyping, a dynamic simulation, andhuman performance modeling on a computer work-station. The goals of MIDAS are to reduce designcycle time, support quantitative predictions of human-system effectiveness, and improve the design ofcrew stations and their associated operating proce-dures.

Part-task simulations for both military and civilenvironments have tested SAM and found highcorrelation between its predictions and the measuressubsequently collected from pilots. SAMSIM furthertested SAM in a higher fidelity full-mission simulator,the Vertical Motion Simulator (VMS) using the UH-60Blackhawk helicopter model.Simulation

The principal objectives of the simulation experi-ment were to:(1)Evaluate the validity of SAM in a high fidelity

rotorcraft simulation, and(2)Demonstrate two key features of the model:

context changes and actual versus perceivedsituational awareness.In the simulation experiment, each pilot used a

map to fly a mission along a designated route abovehilly and rolling terrain. Each route started andended at a hover pad in a village with severalwaypoints in between. At each waypoint was a redflag to mark its location, and a half-mile beyond it onthe way to the next waypoint was a yellow flag.

The pilot was given the following tasks to performduring the mission:• Maintain a prescribed airspeed and radar altitude.• Use localizer guidance to fly to each waypoint.• After the last waypoint, fly back to the village using

only the map (guidance was turned off and visibilitywas reduced).

• Report all ground vehicles (tanks or vans) by radio,indicating their map locations.

• Report any equipment failures.Combinations of four different routes and two

different placements of ground vehicles were used

for the missions. For one placement, the vehicleswere farther from the route than the other. In addi-tion, visibility was varied between high and low, andstability augmentation system was turned on or off.

For the simulation, SimLab personnel developedsoftware to simulate equipment failures, calculate thepilot’s reaction times to the failures; provide localizerguidance; automatically reduce visibility after the lastwaypoint; perform statistical calculations of aircraftheading, radar altitude, and airspeed; calculate theranges from the helicopter to the ground vehicles;and determine which three vehicles were closest.SimLab personnel also developed visual models ofthe vehicles and flags and placed them along each

route on the visual database according to the maps.In addition, they developed graphics to display themaps and cockpit instruments in the lab.Results

Each of four pilots flew the simulated UH-60helicopter on full mission flights to perform the tasksspecified by the researchers. After each mission, thepilot rated the aircraft’s handling qualities and an-swered a detailed questionnaire. The pilots com-pleted a total of 65 data runs, each lasting for about15 minutes. The experiment was successful, meet-ing all principal objectives. Results of the experimentwere pending at the time this report was written.

Investigative TeamU.S. ArmyNASA Ames Research Center

Ground vehicles (a tank and a van), placed on hilly terrainwere used as targets to test the situational awareness ofpilots during the flight of a mission.


Space Shuttle Vehicle 2000-2Howard Law, Alan Poindexter, Ken Ham, Chris Ferguson, Charles Hobaugh, NASA JSC;

Ed Digon, Boeing; Estela Hernandez, Jeff Homan, Christopher Sweeney, Logicon/LISS

SummarySimulations of the Space Shuttle orbiter are

performed at the VMS to fine-tune the Shuttleorbiter’s landing systems and to provide landing androllout training for the astronaut corps. The engineer-ing goals for this simulation were to determine thefeasibility of expanding the night Transatlantic AbortLanding (TAL) crosswind limit from 12 to 15 knotswith regards to crew safety, handling qualities andvehicle limits; to evaluate a limit for the maximumspeedbrake setting when using the new short-runwayspeedbrake option; and to evaluate an adaptivespeedbrake model.Introduction

The Space Shuttle orbiter has been simulated atthe VMS twice each year since the mid 1970s.Researchers have examined modifications to theflight-control system, guidance and navigationsystems, head-up displays, flight rules, and to thebasic simulation model. The simulations also provideastronaut training with realistic landing and rolloutscenarios.Simulation

The primary objective of this entry was to evaluatethe feasibility of expanding the night TAL crosswindlimit from 12 to 15 knots with regards to crew safety,handling qualities and vehicle performance limits.Higher crosswind limits will mean better chances ofmeeting launch windows for the increasing number offlights required to support current and future spacestation missions. Based on studies in ’95 and ’96 thedaytime crosswind limit was increased to 15 knots.However, the night landing limit was nominally set at12 knots to account for reduced depth perception atnight. This experiment specifically studied the highercrosswind limit impact on handling qualities and

performance margins for the night environment.The second goal of this entry was to evaluate the

limit for the maximum speedbrake setting when usingthe new short-runway speedbrake option. Resultsfrom the March 2000 study to develop landing androllout procedures for short runways showed that itwas essential to determine a maximum speedbrakelimit. Not having a limit for manual or automatic flightprocedures might result in expending too much of theorbiter’s energy. During this session, the researchersexamined the handling qualities and performanceeffects of a range of maximum speedbrake limits.

The third engineering goal of this entry was toperform a preliminary evaluation of an adaptivespeedbrake model, which will allow continuouschanges of the speedbrake angle. The current modelpositions the speedbrake at specific angles duringthe final approach and landing phases.

Another objective of SSV 2000-2 was to trainupcoming mission crews and astronaut candidatesthrough a series of flights. Various runways, visibilityconditions, and wind conditions were simulated, andsystem failures were periodically introduced duringthe training matrix.Results

During the four weeks of the simulation, thirty-three pilots completed 818 training and engineeringdata runs. The crew familiarization session reinforcedthe importance of the VMS in preparing upcomingcrews for the landing and rollout phase of the missionand for possible failures during that phase.

Preliminary results of the engineering studiesindicate that: (i) the higher night TAL crosswind doesnot compromise safety, handling qualities or perfor-mance. The researchers will recommend raising theflight rule limit on night crosswinds from 12 knots to15 knots; (ii) the maximum speedbrake limit with theshort-runway speedbrake option should be set at 75percent in order to achieve the best energy results;and (iii) pilots did not discern a significant differencebetween the adaptive speedbrake model and thebaseline model. The adaptive speedbrake improvedperformance, measured in terms of normalizedtouchdown position and speed, on some runs and onother runs it hurt performance slightly when com-pared to the baseline.


This simulation conducted studies to determine thecrosswind limit during night landings on TransatlanticAbort runways.


Joint Shipboard Helicopter Integration ProcessColin Wilkinson, Mike Roscoe, Bob Nicholson, Denver Sheriff, Information Spectrum, Inc.;

Chuck Perry, John Bunnell, Bill Chung, Norm Bengford, Christopher Sweeney, Logicon/LISS

SummaryThe Joint Shipboard Helicopter Integration Pro-

cess (JSHIP) - Joint Test and Evaluation program issponsored by the Office of the Secretary of Defense(OSD) to develop and test the processes and mecha-nisms that facilitate ship-helicopter interface testingvia man-in-the-loop simulators. For this purpose,SimLab has developed a simulation that replicatesat-sea conditions for an LHA class ship and UH-60ABlackhawk helicopter. The JSHIP program completeda fixed-base validation session in October 2000;motion-based simulations are planned for December2000 and June 2001.Introduction

The specific purpose of the JSHIP program is toincrease the interoperability of joint shipboardhelicopter operations for helicopter units that are notspecifically designed to go aboard Navy ships.An important issue of shipboard helicopter integrationis the wind-over-deck (WOD) launch and recoveryflight envelope. For the Navy, WOD flight envelopeshave been established for specific ship and aircraftcombinations using at-sea flight tests. JSHIP isexamining the potential of ground based flightsimulation as a cost-effective and controlled alterna-tive for WOD flight envelope determination.Simulation

The purpose of this phase was to validate themodels and subsystems integrated at VMS and todetermine the impact of various fidelity configurationsof each subsystem on accurately predicting the LHA /UH-60A WOD launch and recovery flight envelopes.The subsystems tested included the GenHel UH-60math model, control loader forces, landing gear,visual scenes, aural cueing, dynamic seat, Computa-tional Fluid Dynamics (CFD) generated airwake, shipmotion model, and the UH-60 cab.

For this simulation, the UH-60 cab was completelyre-built from the ground up. A new rear projectionvisual display system was installed to provide widerfield-of-view (FOV) in the cockpit. The flight deckwas constructed to duplicate the right seat of an UH-60 helicopter. The control loaders were checkedversus forces from a UH-60 report.

The math model was verified to be representativeof the UH-60. CFD generated airwake gusts wereimplemented into the math model at nine differentplaces on the helicopter, including the outer seg-ments of each rotor blade, the rotor hub, the fuse-lage, the stabilator, the tail rotor, and the horizontaltail. The landing gear was checked versus drop test

data. Ship-motion was simulated using a complexmodel developed by the Navy.

For body force cueing, a dynamic seat wasobtained from the Apache Longbow program. It wastuned to provide the vertical accelerations generatedby a UH-60. The ESIG 4530 image generator with a3D-sea state wave model, consisting of a series ofrealistic waves, was used with a highly accurate LHAship model. The UH-60 sound environment wasreproduced with three separate aural cueing models.Results

All required models and subsystems were devel-oped by SimLab personnel in record time: less than ayear. The subsystems were successfully validated inSeptember/October 2000. Their detailed configura-tions were documented in preparation for the Decem-ber 2000 simulation. For this upcoming simulation,the fidelity level of each subsystem will be varied todetermine a minimum level required to accuratelypredict the launch and recovery WOD flight envelope.In the June 2001 simulation, a fidelity algorithm willbe developed that applies a confidence factor topredicted WOD envelopes as a function of the fidelityof the simulation.

Investigative TeamJSHIP Joint Test and Evaluation OfficeInformation Spectrum, Inc.NASA Ames Research CenterLogicon Information Systems and Services

The high fidelity visual model of an LHA ship is shownwhich was used for landings and launches during theJSHIP wind-over-deck envelope determination study.


Rapid Integration Test Environment 2

SummaryThis is the second phase of an effort to develop a

Rapid Integration Test Environment (RITE) for air-vehicle design, that is to develop a process andinfrastructure to facilitate the use of ComputationalFluid Dynamic (CFD), wind tunnel, and/or flight datain a real-time, piloted flight simulation and applyreturn knowledge to the design team to continuouslyimprove and optimize the vehicle performance. Theobjectives are to reduce the design cycle time, andmaximize the performance and the utilization ofresources. The Space Shuttle Orbiter was used todemonstrate this fast turn-around process whichincludes a baseline aerodynamic model generatedfrom wind tunnel, geometry variations generated fromCFD, and a high fidelity pilot-in-the-loop motion-based flight simulation.Introduction

During the second phase of the technologydevelopment for RITE, the main focus was to evalu-ate the quick turn-around capability of the interface,integration, and performance evaluation processdeveloped during the first phase of this program inresponding to design variations.

The nose section of the Orbiter was chosen as thedesign parameter. Three geometry variations of thenose section of the Orbiter were developed prior tothe flight simulation, and the fourth was generatedduring the experiment. The four configurations weredesigned using HYPERVIEW, a Newtonian basedhypersonic aerodynamic analysis tool. The configura-tions were optimized to give the best hypersonic lift-to-drag ratio using new Ultra-High TemperatureCeramic (UHTC) material. The UHTC materialenables the use of sharp leading edges on vehiclesfor hypersonic flight. Grids for the new geometrywere generated using a beta version of Three-Dimensional Cartesian Simulation System forComplex Geometry (CART3D). The grids were thenused to calculate flow solutions using an inviscid flowsolver module for CART3D, named TIGER.Simulation

The simulation experiment ran with each of theseaerodynamic data sets including the baseline model.The main task was to approach and land fromHeading Alignment Cone (HAC) and 10,000 feetaltitude initial conditions on to Kennedy SpaceCenter (KSC) runway in wind and turbulent weatherconditions. Forward and aft center-of-gravity configu-rations were also tested.

Vehicle performance and aerodynamic data were

collected and analyzed during these runs to deter-mine the effects that changes in nose geometry haveon vehicle flight performance. Pilot evaluations werealso taken to determine differences in handlingqualities characteristics between the aerodynamicdata sets. VLAB capability was used throughout thesimulation to facilitate exchanging design modifica-tions and simulation results among the team mem-bers.Results• RITE is a viable and useful concept.• VLAB enhances the usefulness of RITE.• Grid-to-flight scenario was proven.

The RITE II simulation experiment demonstratedthe capability of integrating CFD, flight, and wind-tunnel data into a simulation rapidly and seamlessly.Three new math models for three different configura-tions were implemented and evaluated during thesimulation runs. The handling qualities of eachconfiguration were compared to the baseline spaceshuttle configuration and evaluated using Cooper-Harper ratings. Four pilots evaluated each of theconfigurations. The resulting Cooper-Harper ratingsfor each of the three configurations were, in general,very similar to the baseline shuttle configuration.These results indicated that there was no loss inhandling qualities during approach and landing dueto the changes made to the nose configuration.These findings were communicated back to thedesign group.

Investigative TeamNASA Ames Research CenterCaelum ResearchMCAT Inc.Logicon Information Systems and Services

Flow visualization of different space shuttle orbiter nosegeometires simulated during RITE 2.

Julie Mikula, Donovan Mathias, Dave Kinney, Fanny Zuniga, Mary Livingston, Terry Holst, NealChaderjian, NASA ARC; Jorge Bardina, Caelum Research; Jeff Onufer, MCAT Inc.; Joe Ogwell, Bill

Chung, Ron Gerdes, Dan Wilkins, Russ Sansom, Chris Sweeney, Girish Chachad, Logicon/LISS


Civil Tiltrotor 9Bill Decker, Dan Dugan, Jack Franklin, NASA ARC; Helmuth Koelzer, Pete Klein Bell Helicopter

Textron; Dan Bugajski, Honeywell; Gordon Hardy, Ron Gerdes, Logicon/LISS

SummaryCivil Tiltrotor (CTR) 9 was a continuation of the

CTR series of simulations that investigated handlingqualities and flight operational issues, such as noiseabatement and approach/departure proceduresrelated to operating a tiltrotor aircraft at a vertiport.The CTR 9 simulation was a large integration effortinvolving modifications to the cab flight deck as wellas large scale software development to support thehandling qualities research and flight managementinvestigations. The simulation planned to investigatetiltrotor guidance profiles, Take Off/Go Around(TOGA) performance and profiles, one engineinoperative (OEI) operations, and two flight controlsystems with autopilot functionality for terminal areaflight and noise abatement procedures. Researchinto integrating the tiltrotor aircraft into the airspacewith Air Traffic Control (ATC) was also part of thiseffort.Introduction

The CTR series of simulation experiments haveinvestigated certification and operational issuesaffecting terminal operations of a civil tiltrotor trans-port. In addition to flying qualities of the CTR in andout of the terminal area, the investigation effort hasbegun focusing on operational issues under normalairspace management procedures. More thoughthas been placed on how the tiltrotor will fit into theexisting airspace with vertiport sites located nearexisting airports or in congested downtown areas.Noise abatement, approach and departure profilesand procedures, and pilots work load and theirinteraction with ATC controllers are issues to beaddressed.Simulation

The cab interior was redesigned to account fornewly designed and fabricated thrust control levers(TCL) and a new instrument panel to support the ATCflight management investigation. A second analogcomputer was added to provide two full sets ofcontrollers for a two-man crew.

Two separate flight control systems, or stabilityand control augmentation systems (SCAS) weredeveloped. Bell Helicopter Textron’s SCAS is amodification of the 1985 JVX SCAS and is a fullauthority SCAS. In conjunction with the SCASdevelopment, Bell developed an autopilot functionbased upon previous XV-15 work that was coordi-nated with the Honeywell Vertical Navigation (VNav)System and the Mode Control Panel (MCP). Thesecond SCAS system, which is also a full authoritySCAS, was a dynamic inverse (DI) design developed

by NASA Ames researcher Jack Franklin.A full suite of avionics including updated Naviga-

tion displays, primary flight displays (PFD), and MCPdisplays were integrated into the experiment. Twocritical flight management functions were alsodeveloped. These included a VNav system devel-oped by Honeywell and a lateral navigation system(LNav) developed by Logicon, based on existinglateral guidance.

In preparation for FAA certification for tiltrotoraircraft, the Pseudo-Aircraft System (PAS), an ATCsimulation software tool, was integrated into thesimulation. PAS generated pseudo aircraft trafficbased on the air traffic scenarios and sent the aircrafttraffic information to the CTR simulation to be dis-played on the Navigation display and ESIG out-the-window views to simulate other aircraft traffic in thearea. Voice communications with an ATC controllerwere also integrated into the simulation.Results

The CTR 9 simulation ran a checkout simulation inthe RSIS fixed base area for four weeks from Sep-tember 4th to September 29th and began the VMSoperations starting October 2nd. Consequently, noresults are available from the simulation.

Investigative TeamNASA Ames Research CenterLogicon Information Systems and ServicesBell Helicopter TextronHoneywellFederal Aviation Administration

A simulated civil tiltrotor flies over San Francisco towardsa landing at a vertiport near the Bay Bridge.


Crew-Vehicle SystemsResearch Facility

The Crew-Vehicle Systems Research Facility, aunique national research resource, was designed for the

study of human factors in aviation safety. The facilityanalyzes performance characteristics of flight crews, formu-

lates principles and design criteria for future aviation environ-ments, evaluates new and contemporary air traffic control procedures, and develops new training and simula-tion techniques required by the continued technical evolution of flight systems.

Studies have shown that human error plays a part in 60 to 80 percent of all aviation accidents. The Crew-Vehicle Systems Research Facility allows scientists to study how errors are made, as well as the effects ofautomation, advanced instrumentation, and other factors, such as fatigue, on human performance in aircraft.The facility includes two flight simulators—an FAA certified Level D Boeing 747-400 and an Advanced Con-cepts Flight Simulator as well as a simulated Air Traffic Control System. Both flight simulators are capable offull-mission simulation.

CVSRF PROJECT

SUMMARIES


Taxiway Navigation and Situation Awareness 2

SummaryThis follow-up study evaluated the use of a Head-

Up Display (HUD) and an Electronic Moving Map(EMM) to provide navigation and guidance informa-tion to airplane flight crews for airport runway turn-offand surface taxi operations. The goal of the technol-ogy is to improve these airport ground-taxi operationsin low visibility weather conditions to increase airportcapacity and improve aviation safety. This experimentsupported the Low-Visibility Landing and SurfaceOperations (LVLASO) element of the Terminal AreaProductivity (TAP) Project.Introduction

Current airport surface operations are handledwith verbal instructions over the radio, and theaircraft crew uses paper maps to navigate around theairport. In bad weather (low visibility) and at night,this can lead to very slow taxi operations and poten-tially dangerous situations. Under these conditions,many major U.S. airports have taxi capacity limita-tions, and several taxi accidents occur each year.Although, many commercial airliners are nowequipped with electronic navigation displays andHead-Up Display systems, little effort has beendeveloped to utilize these display systems forground-taxi operations.

The Taxiway-Navigation and Situation Awareness(T-NASA) System assumes that in the future taxiclearances from terminal controllers will bedatalinked to the cockpit, allowing flight crews toreceive and display both textual and graphicalground-taxi information, to improve taxi route con-formance and traffic flow. The T-NASA-2 experimentfollowed the concept of electronically loading the taxiroute into an on-board system and displaying theroute graphically on both the Head-Up Display (HUD)and Electronic Moving Map (EMM). New technolo-gies introduced for this simulation included the use ofthe Roll-Out and Turn-Off (ROTO) HUD, 3-D audioalerts and warnings, and a two-way ATC-Pilotdatalink communication interface.Simulation

Eighteen commercial airline crews completed 14low visibility (RVR 1000’) land-and-taxi scenarios thatincluded both nominal taxi events (such as holdshorts and route amendments) and off-nominalevents (such as near traffic incursions, clearanceerrors, and display information inconsistencies).Crews ground-taxi responses and performance wereevaluated under three test configurations, i.e., 1)Current Procedures: Using standard operations andequipment which included voice communications,

Dave Foyle, NASA ARC; Becky Hooey, Monterey Technologies, Inc.;Don Bryant, Rod Ketchum, Anna Dabrowski, ManTech

ground clearances, and Jeppesen charts for naviga-tion; 2) Transition Operations: Provided Air TrafficControl (ATC) communications by using both voiceand datalink; and 3) Advanced Operations: Designedto accommodate an expected three-fold increase inairport traffic, provided ATC communications viadatalink only, and included advanced features suchas airborne taxi clearances.Results

T-NASA increased taxi speeds by 16% (or 2.2 kts)over current day scenarios while simultaneouslyeliminating major navigational errors, e.g., making awrong turn or failing to turn, which occurred in 20%under the current procedures. Further, the revolution-ary changes embedded in the Advanced Operationspackage produced large efficiency benefits. Specifi-cally, when taxi clearances were datalinked to pilotswhile airborne (outside outer-marker), the time spentstopped after runway turnoff was eliminated (savingapproximately 10 sec. per trial), and taxi speedsduring this typical bottle-necked phase of taxiingincreased by approximately 78% (or 7.4 kts). Also,the Advanced Operations package provided substan-tial improvements in ATC-Pilot communicationefficiency by reducing radio congestion and commu-nication errors. These results suggest not only that T-NASA can provide substantial benefits for the effi-ciency and safety of surface operations, but also thatfurther gains may be realized by incorporatingrevolutionary changes to surface operations such asthe use of datalink and airborne taxi clearances.

Investigative TeamNASA Ames Research CenterMonterey Technologies, Inc.

Electronic Moving Map display during the TAXIoperation.


Integrated Tools/Air-Ground Integration

AGIE Symbology on Navigation Display

SummaryThis experiment conducted an early evaluation of

air-ground integration procedures and concepts. Itwas a joint research effort involving both the WilliamJ. Hughes FAA Technical Center (FAATC) and NASAAmes in order to obtain data pertaining to interac-tions among controllers of the ground system andflight crew on the flight deck.

The overall goal was to conduct an early examina-tion of procedures and events in a dynamic environ-ment where the control of aircraft can be centralizedor distributed, i.e., conventional ATC procedures orself-separation, respectively. This study was con-ducted in conjunction with the Human-AutomationIntegration Research Branch (IHI) at NASA AmesResearch Center.Introduction

In the free flight environment, aircraft will presum-ably be able to maneuver with more autonomy andflexibility. However, free flight will require definition ofnew zones around each aircraft, similar to the zonescurrently provided by the TCAS alert algorithms.These zones will be defined as the alert and pro-tected zones. Roles and responsibilities associatedwith transgressions of these zones need to bedefined and evaluated to determine if there may bedifficulties in coordination between the controllersand the flight crew in cases where separation author-ity is provided to the flight crew.Simulation

This research investigating free flight, a futureflight rule being considered by FAA, included re-searchers and laboratories located at the FAATC inAtlantic City, New Jersey, and at the CVSRF at NASAAmes Research Center. Flight crews from the B747-400 and pseudo pilots, using the Pseudo AircraftSystem (PAS) at the CVSRF, and pseudo pilots fromFAATC followed designed traffic scenarios and flightprocedures to interact with ATC controllers located atthe FAATC. All air traffic other than the B747-400 andthe PAS intruder aircraft that were local to CVSRFwere generated at the FAATC and sent to theCVSRF.

Sandy Lozito, NASA ARC; Patricia Cashion, Victoria Dulchinos, Melisa Dunbar, Dave Jara,Margaret Mackintosh, Alison McGann, SJSU; Jerry Jones, Rod Ketchum, George Mitchell,

Diane Carpenter, Ghislain Saillant, Ian MacLure, Fritz Renema, Craig Pires, Joe King, Tom Prehm, Gary Uyehara, ManTech

For this experiment, a new dedicated T1 line wasinstalled between NASA ARC and the FAATC. TheT1 line was used to send/receive voice information,using Voice Over IP (VOIP) technology, and aircraftdata. The software used for this study on the B747-400 flight simulator was an upgrade to the previousAATT3 experiment software. The majority of this newsoftware developed was in support of the newinterface to the FAATC.Results

Crews reported that the alerting logic gave themadequate time to resolve the conflicts, yet betteraltitude filtering of the traffic would be beneficial. Inthis study aircraft heading changes, as opposed toaltitude or speed changes, seemed to be the pre-ferred method of traffic conflict resolution.

Investigative TeamNASA Ames Research CenterSan Jose State UniversityWilliam J. Hughes FAA Technical Center


Flight Management System Departure Procedures 2

A map showing the ground track of the aircraft withrespect to the FMS computed track (solid line) part waythrough a departure at unrestricted airspeed.

Frank Hasman, David Lankford, FAA, Oklahoma City; Barry Scott, FAA, NASA ARC;Jerry Jones, Rod Ketchum, George Mitchell, Diane Carpenter, ManTech

SummaryWith the implementation of today’s Flight Manage-

ment Systems (FMS), as well as the navigationconcept of Required Navigation Performance (RNP),conventional area navigation (RNAV) departureprocedures using the FMS can now extend theoverall navigation capability. The objective of thisstudy was to evaluate a new departure proposed fornoise abatement addressing concerns that variationsof the aircraft’s speed and weight may lead topossible waypoint overshoots.Introduction

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Order8260.44 provides criteria for constructing instrument

flight rules (IFR) RNAV departure procedures.Procedures designed to meet the current criteria arefor use by aircraft with only RNAV or Global Position-ing System (GPS) RNAV capability. The data derived

from this examination will assist in the developmentof departure procedure design standards for FMS/RNP/RNAV departures based on operational andsystem requirements. At certain locations, obstaclesor noise sensitive areas close to the departure trackcreate a requirement for highly accurate systems andspecial operational procedures to enter and maintaina narrow departure corridor. This project will identifyoperational and system requirements that must beconsidered in the total development of TerminalProcedures RNAV Departure Procedure criteria.Simulation

Using the NASA 747-400 Simulator, a number ofruns of the planned departure were conducted whilecapturing aircraft parameters at a two Hertz rate. Theparameters collected include aircraft position relativeto the intended flight track, airspeed, heading, verticalspeed, height above ground, flap position and FMCLNAV bank command. The departure route wasconstructed by the FAA Flight Procedure StandardsBranch in Oklahoma City and was manually enteredinto the B747-400’s FMC as latitude/longitudewaypoints. Takeoffs were made from runway 9L atAtlanta at both light and heavy weights, at bothconstant and unrestricted airspeeds and with windsthat were either calm or a ten knot tailwind from 273degrees.Results

Eight data runs were completed for this study. Allruns were flown by CVSRF staff pilots. The collecteddata was sent to the FAA in Oklahoma City. Data isbeing evaluated by the FAA and results of thisinvestigation will be utilized in future studies.

Investigative TeamFederal Aviation Administration, Oklahoma CityNASA Ames Research Center


Neural Flight Control System

Failed Control Surfaces Display

The Control Page for the NFCS Experimenter’s OperationStation

John Kaneshige, Don Soloway, NASA ARC; John Bull, Consultant;Don Bryant, Anna Dabrowski, Ian MacLure, David Brown, Rod Ketchum, ManTech

SummaryA number of high profile aircraft accidents involv-

ing full or partial loss of control during flight havesparked an interest in research to implement alterna-tive methods of controlling damaged aircraft. Thisexperiment evaluated the use of adaptive flightcontrollers based on “Neural Net” technologies as apossible solution.Introduction

Current research efforts include development offlight control systems which can adapt themselves tocompensate for damage to the aircraft control systemusing any remaining control authority of the primarysystems plus auxiliary means to maintain controlduring flight. The Neural Flight Control SystemsStudy incorporated a “Neural Net” based controller inthe Advanced Concepts Flight Simulator (ACFS). Thestudy was intended as a proof of concept of variouscontroller algorithms but primarily of Neural Netbased technology.

Neural networks are processing systems which donot require explicit equations relating input to output.They are capable of learning the relationship be-tween input to a system and the resulting output byanalysis of examples of desired system behavior. Aneural net can be thought of as an intelligent, and tosome extent a self generated, lookup table. Whetherthey are in hardware or software form, a neural netconsists of large numbers of relatively simple pro-

cessing elements connected in multiple ways.Simulation

For this study the simulated aircraft was a Boeing757-class generic transport. The neural net hadknowledge of the desired handling qualities of thevehicle. When presented with a control systemmalfunction it was able to adapt to the degradedsituation. A Neural Net type controller was capable ofresponding to the damaged aircraft and adapt pilotinputs to provide flight control in a manner that iseasily understood by the crew.Results

NASA pilots flew 39 experimental data runs.Handling qualities were assessed for the fully func-tional aircraft and for the damaged aircraft, subjectedto a variety of control failure conditions whileequipped with different controller algorithms. Perfor-mance of the various controllers was measured foreach failure condition. Audio/Video recordings weremade of the test runs and data was collected usingthe simulator’s built-in data collection system. Pre-liminary results indicate that Neural Net basedcontrollers might provide a viable option to controldamaged aircraft to a safe landing.

Investigative TeamNASA Ames Research Center


Controller-Pilot Data Link Communication Procedures

Control Display Unit (CDU) showingATC log page with uplink messages.

Sandy Lozito, NASA ARC; Melisa Dunbar, Alison McGann, Margaret Mackintosh, SJSU; Rod Ketchum,Jerry Jones, George Mitchell, Joe King, Diane Carpenter, Ghislain Saillant, ManTech

SummaryThis study examined Controller-Pilot Data Link

Communications (CPDLC) in the domestic enrouteenvironment. Specifically, the cockpit crews’ ability todetect and recover from message errors was investi-gated in three communication environments: voiceonly, data link only, and mixed – voice and data link.Introduction

Flight operations in the National Airspace System(NAS) depend on the timely and accurate exchangeof information between aircraft and various air trafficcontrol (ATC) facilities. CPDLC is a new means ofcommunication between controllers and pilots usingelectronic messaging (data link). This new communi-cation function presents the need to establish newprocedures to generate effective communicationbetween controllers and the flight crew. Previousresearch has shown that a mixed media environmentmay change the nature of ATC communications. Thisstudy is a follow up to previous research in whichvoice transaction times were found to have length-ened in a mixed media environment compared to apure voice environment. In addition, planned distrac-tions to the data link task were examined to uncoverprocedural vulnerabilities. Potential problems withprocedural steps required for the crew to initiate arequest to the controller were also examined.Simulation

The objective of the CPDLC study was to examinethe impact of data link and voice procedures uponthe crew. ATC clearances and requests in voice onlyand data link only modalities were represented. Inother cases, use of data link and voice messageswere mixed. The crews’ ability to detect and recoverfrom message errors was evaluated. Also, the impactof varying time intervals between messages on thecockpit crew was investigated.

The CVSRF staff added the capability to uplink agroup of ATC messages to the cockpit, via a simu-lated ATC ground station. For this study a messagegroup contained up to 3 clearances and/or requests.Results

Seven airline crews participated in 7 training runsand 42 experiment data runs. Overall, pilots seemedto find the mixed voice/data link condition the mostdifficult. Pilots did indicate that time-sharing of the

Flight Management System Control Display Unit(FMS CDU) for both data link communications andFMS operations was somewhat disruptive and thatthe time required to detect, read and respond to adata link message on the CDU was only moderatelyacceptable. However, flight crews reported thatoverall data link improved the effectiveness of air-ground communications and that they would be verysatisfied with data link as a safety enhancement forthe enroute phase of flight.

Investigative TeamNASA Ames Research CenterSan Jose State University


Center TRACON Automation System Flight Management System 2

Crew Activity Tracking System

SummaryCTAS/FMS2 was a follow on study to evaluate

new concepts of integrating the Center TRACONAutomation System (CTAS) with the Flight Manage-ment System (FMS). This research was part of theNASA Terminal Area Productivity Project for safelyincreasing traffic capacity in the arrival and terminalairspace.Introduction

Envisioned to be operational in the 2010 timeframe, improvements in flight management automa-tion both in the cockpit and the Air Traffic Control(ATC) facilities are expected to provide benefits inalleviating air traffic problems related to aircraftarrival to major airports. The goal is to provide safeand efficient flow of enroute traffic into the TRACONairspace which in turn can deliver the aircraft to theapproach control handled by the airport tower.

The FMS continues to be the key componentproviding enhanced cockpit automation capabilitieswhile a set of CTAS software tools forms the basis forTRACON ATC automation.

In addition to using the flight crews as studysubjects in the previous CTAS/FMS study, ATCcontrollers were also included as experiment sub-jects for this vastly enhanced simulation investiga-tion.Simulation

Two piloted flight simulators, the ACFS at CVSRFand a B757 at Langley Research Center (LaRC) tookpart in this experiment. Live and scripted PseudoAircraft System aircraft and the CTAS controllerstations, located in the Airspace Operations Lab(AOL) in N262, simulated TRACON traffic and ATCcontroller functions remotely through a gateway toCVSRF. A Voice Over IP communication link wassetup between the CVSRF and the AOL to providevoice communications.

The ACFS was configured for full mission opera-tions in Center and TRACON airspace for arrivalsinto Dallas/Fort Worth. Features carried over from theprevious study were a Boeing 777 type data linksystem, FMS route clearance loading, and a VerticalSituation Display. Enhancements developed for thisexperiment included additional FMS Vertical Naviga-tion functions such as wind planning to includeforecast winds, and capabilities to modify the flightplan via up-linked information, such as clearances,

Everett Palmer, Terry Rager, NASA ARC; Todd Callantine, Thomas Prevot, Stephan Romahn, SJSU;Don Bryant, George Mitchell, Ramesh Panda, Anna Dabrowski, Dave Brown,

Ian Maclure, Tom Prehm, Fritz Renema, Gary Uyehara, ManTech

cruise speeds, descent speeds, and descent forecastwinds, from ground stations. A standard TrafficCollision Avoidance System was added for thisexperiment. Additionally, a 3D wind model wasintegrated providing realistic and consistent windprofiles to all participants in the simulation.

The Crew Activity Tracking System (CATS), whichreceives real-time simulation data to analyze crewperformance, was integrated into the simulation forthe first time. CATS, located remotely from thesimulator and interfaced via the data network,displays a facsimile of the aircraft’s data including theprimary flight display, the FMS flight plan, and thelateral and vertical flight profiles. Additionally, CATScan analyze the actions performed by the flight crew.For this simulation, CATS was also used as theprimary data collection system.Results

A total of eight crews from major commercial aircarriers with glass cockpit type rating took part in thestudy. Six scenarios were flown by each crew. TheB757 simulator at LaRC and air traffic controllers inAOL also participated in the study.

Investigative TeamNASA Ames Research CenterNASA Langely Research CenterSan Jose State University


Airborne Information for Lateral Spacing

SummaryAirborne Information for Lateral Spacing (AILS) is

an airborne-based concept for independent, instru-ment approaches to closely-spaced parallel runwaysthat enables the use of both runways during instru-ment approach conditions. AILS provides an inde-pendent instrument approach capability applicableto parallel runways with centerline spacing between4,300 and 2,500 feet, the range of runway spacingfor most domestic airlines’ hub airports. The airlines’ability to maintain schedules is severely impactedwhen one or more airports are forced to curtailindependent parallel approaches because ofinclement weather. The AILS system safely main-tains high airport acceptance rates, not possible withcurrent systems and procedures, during low visibilityconditions.Introduction

This investigation will examine the utility andviability of the two systems designed to increaseairport efficiency during IMC. Evaluation of flightcrew and Air Traffic Control (ATC) interactionsduring the pairing of aircraft for independent anddependent approaches using AILS and CSPA,respectively, will be conducted, as well as the re-engagement of interactions when a break off maneu-ver is required.Simulation

This simulation will be conducted with scenariosutilizing the airspace in and around the SeattleInternational Airport.

Seattle is undergoing a new runway addition,which will give the primary runways approximately2500 ft centerline separation between the two outerrunways, allowing use of the AILS/CSPA technolo-gies if adopted.

The CVSRF’s B747 full mission simulator wasadapted to accept revised primary flight display andnavigation display (see figure) information.

Additional modifications mandated by the studyincluded increasing the messaging capabilities andcreating new aural cues for use in the B747 cab. TheSeattle runway scene depicted in the B747 simula-tors’ visual system was modified to represent theaddition of the new runway. Additionally, a customFlight Management System (FMS) navigation data-base software file was designed and loaded into theFMS, for use with the “new” Seattle approaches.

The CVSRF’s ATC lab was configured to representthe SEATAC feeder sector, departure sector, tower

Vernol Battiste, Walter Johnson, Terry Rager, NASA ARC; David Brown, Diane Carpenter, EricGardner, Nabil Hanania, Jerry Jones, Rod Ketchum, Dave Lambert, Ian Maclure, George Mitchell,

Craig Pires, Tom Prehm, Fritz Renema, Ghislain Saillant, Gary Uyehara, ManTech

position, and adjacent airspace positions, all utilizingthe Pseudo Aircraft System (PAS). A separate finalapproach controller station was created in an isolatedarea for controller evaluation.

PAS was heavily modified to incorporate changesrequired of the researchers.

Additional video cameras, video splitters, routersand other hardware, were installed to collect therequested audio and video data for both the B747flight deck crew and the isolated ATC controllerstation.

Scenarios began with air-traffic routed to theSeattle airport for runways 17 L/R. The B747 simula-tor was released into this traffic flow via automatedsoftware programs that also “paired” conflict traffic fora subsequent “blunder” or breakout maneuver.Results

Extensive system integration and checkout werecompleted. A preliminary system test with a flightcrew and controllers was conducted to identifyexperiment functional and operational issues. Experi-ment will be run next year.

Investigative TeamNASA Ames Research Center

Navigation display of closely spaced parallel approaches.


State-of-the-ArtSimulation Facilities

Providing advanced flightsimulation capabilities requirescontinual modernization. To keeppace with evolving customerneeds, SimLab strives to optimizethe simulation systems, fromcockpits to computers to technol-ogy for real-time networking withflight simulators and laboratories inremote locations.

RESEARCH & TECHNOLOGY UPGRADE PROJECTS


Virtual Laboratory

SummaryThe Virtual Laboratory (VLAB) is a suite of real-

time, interactive, engineering research tools thatallows remote users to participate in live flightsimulation experiments, conducted at the VMSLaboratories from their desktops. Significant accom-plishments for FY2000 included two major simulationdeployments, and the further development of PC-based client systems to enhance capabilities andreduce deployment costs.Capabilities

Using VLAB, remote researchers navigate througha three dimensional virtual VMS laboratory controlroom environment. With the click of a mouse, remoteusers select, view, and position the same datadisplays available in the actual lab to suit theirpersonal needs, on their own desktop workstation.The VLAB system consists of four functional compo-nents: (1) the client system presents the virtual laband its displays; (2) a network-based video transmis-sion system provides the pilots OTW visuals; (3) anetwork-based audio transmission system providesambient laboratory sound, pilot communication, andprivate voice channels; and (4) A workstation (SGIO2) furnishes video conferencing and post-run dataanalysis capabilities. VLAB’s modular architectureallows for scalable deployment of remote clientsystems.PC Based Client Systems

The VLAB client system was successfully migratedto cost-effective desktop and laptop systems from theoriginal high performance graphics workstation. TheVLAB client is fully supported on Apple Macintoshdesktop and PowerBook class systems. Workcontinues to migrate to Windows and Linux basedPCs as well.

Ambient and two-way audio communication toolswere integrated into the desktop/laptop client sys-tems this year. This eliminates the need for anindependent audio transmission system.Simulation/Applications Deployments:

SSV: The February ’00 SSV simulation featuredthe first deployment of a PowerBook VLAB client withembedded audio transmission. Researchers wereable to monitor and respond to ambient audio, pilotcomments and private communications directly fromthe PowerBook client.

RITE: The RITE simulation experiment deploymentmarked several VLAB firsts. The client suite wasdeployed to two separate laboratories at NASA/Amesfor team participation and monitoring of the simula-tion. A real-time plotting function was added to the

VLAB tool suite for RITE. The RITE simulationexperiment marked the first use of “multicast” clientswhich allows support of unlimited remote clients whilereducing network bandwidth requirements. Also ofnote was the first deployment of a PowerBook clientusing wireless LAN technology.Future Plans

Future plans for the VLAB client suite include:further development of real-time plotting capability,extended use of multicast transmission, continuedinvestigation of wireless LAN technologies, enhance-ments to existing display elements, and multi-platform, multi-OS, PC-based client systems. VLABwill investigate technologies that allow migration ofthe video conferencing, OTW visuals, and post datareduction tools into the VLAB client interface. Thegoal is to integrate all four functional components intoa single hardware system controlled and operatedfrom within the VLAB interface.

For more information, visit VLAB’s web site:http://www.simlabs.arc.nasa.gov/vlab.

Development TeamRussell Sansom, Chuck Gregory, Rachel Wang-Yeh,Martin Pethtel, Timothy Trammell, ChristopherSweeney, Thomas Crawford, Kelly Carter, DanielWilkins, Logicon/LISS; Thomas Alderete, StevenCowart, Julie Mikula, John Griffin, NASA ARC

Engineers using VLAB to conduct research with the VMSlab from remote locations.


Joint Shipboard Helicopter Integration Process Simulation Technologies

SummaryThe JSHIP study examined the relationship

between the fidelity of a simulation and its ability toaccurately predict a wind-over-the-deck (WOD)launch and recovery flight envelope for the LHA andUH-60A ship/helicopter combination. To assist in thiseffort, new technologies were developed and inte-grated into the SimLab environment to achieve thesimulation goals.Cab

The JSHIP study required the simulation toreplicate the field-of-view (FOV) of a UH-60ABlackHawk helicopter which could not be met withany of the existing interchangeable cabs. To meetthis requirement, one of the existing SimLab rotor-craft cabs (N-Cab) was stripped to the floor andrebuilt. In order to meet a 220 x 70 degree out thewindow FOV from the pilot’s view, a completely newvisual display system was designed in-house. The

system consists of five off-the-shelf, high outputcathode ray tube (CRT) projectors combined withcustom flat mirrors and high gain rear projectionscreens. The system is non-collimated and placesthe screens at approximately 39.7" from the pilot as anecessary compromise to fit in the tight VMS enve-lope. Total cost for implementing the solution wasapproximately one fifth of competing designs (spheri-cal mirrored Wide Angle Collimation (WAC) windowsor vacuum formed dome projection systems) whilemaintaining a serviceable quality image.Image Generator

The JSHIP project plan called for three separatelevels of visual fidelity. The first was the existing

ESIG 4530 ocean database and ship model as usedin previous simulations at VMS. The second addedthe 3-D Sea State model from Evans and Sutherland(E&S) and an enhanced LHA model developedspecifically for the JSHIP project. The third level is aproof of concept visual system using lower cost PCsand high powered graphics boards to drive the out thewindow displays.

The third level entailed integrating a new imagegeneration (IG) system into the SimLab video system.The selected system was Carmel Applied TechnologyInc.’s (CATI) X-IG Real-time Software package hostedby a set of five Quantum 3D Alchemy 8164, PentiumIII based graphics subsystems. This visual fidelitylevel also included an enhanced synchronized oceanwave model, LHA ship model, and animated LandingSignal Enlisted (LSE) man. At this writing, an evalua-tion of actual performance remains to be done.Dynamic Seat

The JSHIP project plan varies the levels of fidelityfor the body force cueing (motion) system to evaluatethe effectiveness of alternative motion cueing de-vices. In addition to the large motion provided by VMSand a motion envelope similar to a conventionalhexapod system, a 4-axis limited travel Dynamic Seatmade by Camber Corp./Boeing has been integratedinto the cockpit to allow JSHIP to investigate therequired motion fidelity requirements.CFD Airwake

One of the challenges of creating the proper flightenvelope for wind over deck launch and recovery is tocorrectly simulate the airwake generated by a shipwith a large superstructure on one side of the landingdeck. This airwake is highly complex and variesdrastically depending on the direction of the incomingwind. It is, however, one of the most critical elementsa pilot must deal with while landing a helicopter on aship. An airwake model, based on time-history datadeveloped using computational fluid dynamics (CFD)method, has been integrated with the GenHel blade-element UH-60 model. This is a first-of-its-kindimplementation ever to be used for flight simulationapplications.

Development TeamColin Wilkinson, Mike Roscoe, Bob Nicholson,Denver Sheriff, Information Spectrum, Inc.; ChuckPerry, John Bunnell, Bill Chung, Norm Bengford,Christopher Sweeney, Steve Belsley, Marty Pethtel,Bosco Dias, Tim Trammell, Ron Lehmer, Ed Rogers,Dan Wilkins, Logicon/LISS; Dean Giovanneti, NASAARC

The newly rebuilt N-cab undergoing modification toenhance the field of view with five projectors displayingthe out-the-window view for the pilot.


Development Work Station Graphics Upgrade Project

SummaryThe Development Work Station (DWS) was

enhanced by the adding four new graphics systems.The DWS is a suite of hardware and softwaresubsystems that enables users to develop VMS-compatible aircraft simulation models at their ownengineering sites. These models can then be im-ported expediently into the VMS complex for con-ducting man-in-the-loop motion experiments. TheCivil Tilt Rotor (CTR) program is one of the keycustomers using the DWS.System Capabilities

The DWS is a hardware and software environmentfor developing VMS-compatible simulation modelsand graphics displays. The system enables develop-ment of models, which can be imported directly intopiloted simulations at the VMS. Compatibility isachieved since the DWS uses the same computers,operating systems, simulation executives, modelsupport libraries, aircraft model interfaces, and userinteractions as in the VMS operational environment.The DWS is an extensive enhancement of its prede-cessor, the Remote Development Environment(RDE), which was completed by VMS personnel inearly 1999. This latest graphics upgrade adds fouradditional pilot and performance displays, whichgreatly add to its value as a simulation developmenttool.

The DWS consists of three major parts: the controlconsole, the graphics displays, and the host com-puter.

The control console combines the capabilities ofpiloting the airplane and controlling the simulation.

The Development Work Station gives researchers tools fordeveloping and evaluating aircraft models in a simulationenvironment; these models can then be imported directlyinto the VMS system.

The pilot’s controls, designed for the CTR program,consist of a three-axis hand controller for attitudecontrol and a thrust control lever for power control.Push-buttons on the console may be used as pilotcontrol switches or as simulation configurationswitches. When the DWS is used within the VMScomplex, the facility’s out-the-window image genera-tors can provide the pilot’s front out-the-window view.

The suite of graphics displays include a PrimaryFlight Display, a combined Horizontal SituationIndicator and Navigation display, a Flight Manage-ment System display, a Side View of the aircraft, aMode Control display, and optionally, anExperimenter’s general purpose display.Graphics Display Upgrade

The Graphics Display Upgrade entailed procure-ment of the system components, developing thefunctionality of the various simulation graphics,integrating and validating them. Four display-generat-ing computers, often referred to as “graphics en-gines”, were added to the DWS: One Silicon Graph-ics, Inc. (SGI) Octane running at 300 MHz., and threeSGI 230s. The 230s were selected as a cost-effectivesolution for a PC-based machine running under Linuxwith OpenGL and a Graphics Accelerator. Upondelivery, the machines were configured with Linuxand networking communication software to interfacewith the AlphaServer host computers. All the simula-tion programs were converted from GL, a proprietarygraphics language, to OpenGL, the emerging stan-dard. The Graphics Upgrade configuration wastested and accepted by the CTR customer and hasbeen in production since July 2000. Future Plans

The ability to develop VMS-compatible aircraftmodels, like the CTR, will be expanded to includemore of the terminal area flight operations aspects asopposed to pure handling qualities simulations. Oneof the steps towards this goal, to include Air TrafficControl (ATC) features, is in preliminary developmentusing the DWS. This entails incorporation of new pilotto ATC tower communication and the generation ofair traffic (other aircraft) in the out-the-windowdisplays.

Development TeamMartin Pethtel, Philip Tung, Emily Lewis, RachelWang-Yeh, Hai Huynh, Dave Darling, Dan Wilkins,Chuck Gregory, Logicon/LISS


Air Traffic Control for the Vertical Motion Simulator

SummaryThe main objective of this project is to support one

of the Civil Tiltrotor (CTR) Program’s milestone whichis to demonstrate its operability in an Air TrafficControl (ATC) environment. This project integratesthe CVSRF’s ATC Simulator with the VMS to conductfull-mission studies of operating CTR in normal airtraffic around the terminal area, and to assess theirimpact on flight procedures and traffic capacity.Introduction

The CTR researcher has requested developmentof air space operations to demonstrate CTR’soperability under the FAA normal approach anddeparture procedures. The first milestone is todemonstrate limited air space operations with simpli-fied Flight Management System (FMS) and naviga-tion systems in October 2000 during the CTR9experiment. The second milestone is to demonstratefull air space operations in CTR10 simulation (Sum-mer 2001).

The ATC capability is currently residing in CrewVehicle Systems Research (CVSRF) Facility with theability to generate air traffic as well as controlling airspace with air traffic controllers. The objective of thisproject is to fully integrate that ATC capability with theexisting VMS CTR program via networking connec-tions between the two SimLab facilities, i.e., VMSand CVSRF.Development

A two-phase approach was developed to take intoaccount the resources and schedule. In Phase I ofthe project, an ATC system infrastructure was firstdeveloped within the VMS facility which includedproviding a local Pseudo Aircraft System (PAS),which generates air traffic scenarios, and voicecommunication to the laboratories. This includedestablishing real time communications between thehost computers and the PAS workstations as well asvoice communications with the controllers and pilots.High Level Architecture (HLA) was chosen as thehost communications protocol to be compatible withthe CVSRF system configuration. The VMS hostcomputer would receive air traffic data from PAS anddisplay the traffic on the out-the-window visualsystem, and CTR traffic displays.

In Phase II, connection to CVSRF’s Air TrafficControl Laboratory will be established to allowpseudo pilots and air traffic controllers from CVSRF

to directly interact with the CTR experiment in VMS.All interfaces developed in Phase I will be used asthe gateway between CVSRF and VMS facilities.

Audio communications is provided by the ASTiaudio system. The ASTi audio system in VMSrequired a conversion of the hardware to the latestversion to allow the use of Voicenet in all of thelaboratories. Along with communications with thecontrollers in CVSRF, a simulation of AutomaticTerminal Information Service (ATIS) will be provided.Results

Phase I of the project is nearly completed. Localreal-time data communication between the CTR hostcomputer and PAS has been established as well asdriving the out-the-window aircraft. ASTi audio voicecommunications between air traffic controllers andCTR pilot has also been developed. The AcceptanceTest for Phase 1 has been scheduled. Air trafficscenarios using PAS are being developed to supportCTR9 experiment. Some of the Phase 2 activities,such as establishing ASTi audio voice communicationwith CVSRF, is underway.

Development TeamErnie Inn, Marty Pethtel, Rachel Wang-Yeh, EmilyLewis, Phil Tung, Tom Crawford, Mike Izrailov, JoelRosado, Dave Darling, Cary Wales, Logicon/LISS;Craig Pires, Tom Prehm, Joe King, Mantech; DaveAstill, John Griffin, NASA ARC

ATC radar display of the San Francisco Bay Area.


VMS Modernization

SummaryThe VMS Modernization project will upgrade all

electrical and control components of the VMS withstate of the art components. The upgrade will in-crease performance and reliability while decreasingmaintenance and support effort.Background

The VMS is the largest vertical displacement “fixedto the earth” flight simulator in the world and providesunparalleled high-fidelity six degree of freedommotion. The VMS is the country’s premiere flightmotion facility and has been used extensively tosupport major aeronautical programs for the nation.Since 1981 numerous improvements in control,electrical and mechanical technologies have oc-curred. These new state of the art technologies havereplaced previously aging components, most ofwhich are one of a kind and do not have replace-ments. While the existing components are stilloperating they are beyond their design life and theprobability of failure is increasing each year.Objectives

The objectives of the modernization effort are:• Improved reliability• Reduction in maintenance and operating cost• Improved motion performance, i.e., bandwidth and

smoothnessThe VMS Modernization effort will assure contin-

ued reliable operation and enhanced benchmarkperformance of the nation’s premier motion-basedaeronautical research simulator.Design Phase

The project is currently in the Design Phase.Design of major components of this modernizationeffort is well under way and will be completed inspring 2001. The primary systems to be replaced areall electrical components and controls, lateral rackand pinion with dual tape drives, hydraulic longitudi-nal axis with dual tape drives, increasing the numberof vertical motors from eight to twelve, and replacing

the rotational axis with a hexapod system. Systemperformance, maintainability, reliability, safety, andcost are key factors being applied in the designprocess.Future Plan

Purchasing and fabrication of new systems isprojected to begin in summer 2001 and installation ofthe equipment to begin in spring 2003. All newsystems will be completely checked out and provenoperational ready before closing the VMS for mod-ernization and installation. Thorough checkout andoperation of the new systems prior to shutting downthe VMS will drastically reduce system integrationand validation efforts.

See http://vmsproject.arc.nasa.gov.vms1.html formore information.

Development TeamTim Gafney, Jeff Brown, Dean Giovannetti, GaryFrench, Khoa Nguyen, Steve Beard, Joel Baldovino,Paul Brown, Doug Greaves, George Wong, RodgerMueller, Doug Smith , Bob Surratt, Charlie Ady,NASA ARC; Julie Murphy, Bechtel; Bill Manning,Dave Lawrence, Khalid Aram, Sverdrup; Ted Miller,Mike Blum, Johnny Chang, E&C Engineering; BillChung, Logicon/LISS

The world’s largest Vertical Motion Simulator in operationto support major aeronautical research programs.


Video Distribution System Upgrade

SummaryThis project implemented a major capacity up-

grade of the VMS Video Distribution System, whichprovides video signals to cab and laboratory displaysfrom centrally located image generators and worksta-tions. The upgrade was essential to keep pace withincreasingly demanding research requirements andto improve maintainability. The Video DistributionSystem can now support multiple simultaneoussimulations within the VMS Complex.Introduction

The VMS facility supports three laboratories forconducting simulations and development work. Videofor out-the-window and instrument displays, as wellas laboratory monitors for researchers are supportedfrom image generators and workstations located intwo centrally located computer labs. This “videoeverywhere” approach allows for the most efficientuse of limited computer resources and allows forrapid reconfiguration when simulations are movedfrom an integration lab to the VMS beam.

The upgrade was initiated for three main reasons.The number and complexity of displays required foreach simulation has steadily increased in the pastfew years, as well as the number of workstationsused for laboratory and instrument displays. Thecentral video switching system for the high-resolutionvideo was obsolete and becoming more difficult tomaintain. Finally, there were insufficient video pro-cessing resources to support two operational simula-tions simultaneously and still allow for simulationdevelopment and testing in the third lab.Implementation

The first phase of the Video Distribution Upgradeimproved the cable infrastructure between the centralvideo switch and each of the laboratories. Over35,000 feet of new coaxial cable was laid in the VMSfacility. Combined with the previously existing infra-structure, the new cabling allows for a minimum of 25high-resolution RGB displays and ten NationalTelevision Standards Committee (NTSC) broadcastTV quality displays to be supported in any of thethree laboratories.

The second phase of the Upgrade involved theintegration of a new central video-switching matrix forthe high-resolution video. The new switch more thandoubles the number of video source devices that canbe connected to the central switching matrix andprovides higher bandwidth to the out-the-windowdisplays in the cabs. Since the central switch isrequired to be operational for any simulation activityto take place, the integration and acceptance testing

of the switch was conducted during the end-of-yearmaintenance period in 1999.

The third and final phase involved the integrationof a higher capacity central switch for the NTSCvideo. The new NTSC switch reused parts from theold high-resolution video switch, resulting in signifi-cant cost savings to the project. Sufficient spare partsbecame available as part of this reconfiguration tosupport the NTSC video distribution system for thenext several years.Features• Separate high-resolution and NTSC video switchingmatrices were implemented providing 125MHz ofbandwidth for high-resolution video signals and30MHz for NTSC video.• The high-resolution video switching matrix cansupport 64 input devices and 104 output displays.The current configuration can support three multi-channel image generators for out-the-window scenesand twenty workstation systems for instrument andlaboratory displays. The NTSC video switching matrixhas the capability to support 70 input and 70 outputdevices.• The Video Distribution System also supports avariety of special video processing tools and effectsgenerators. These include sixteen video scan rateconverters, three high-resolution mixers, three NTSCvideo mixers, three quad splitters, and three specialeffects generators.

Development TeamRonald Lehmer, Gilbert Mink, Tuan Truong, Logicon/LISS

Centralized video switching and processing resourcesprovide the VMS with a highly flexible and efficientenvironment to support multiple simulations.


Alpha Host Computer Upgrade 2000

SummaryThe Alpha Host Upgrade 2000 Project replaced

existing host computers with new systems that willmeet the compute requirements of the most demand-ing VMS simulations well into the foreseeable future.The new systems are capable of speeds over threetimes faster than the ones they replaced.Introduction

Alpha Host Computer Upgrade 2000 integratednew, higher-performance host computers into theVMS complex. The new systems replaced hostcomputers that could not meet the anticipatedcomputing requirements of three specific simulationsscheduled for FY2000. The requirements of thesesimulations called for drastic increases of between 2to 3 times the performance of the existing systems.The project had three principal requirements for thenew host computers: computing power capable ofmeeting future simulation needs, functionality similarto that provided by the systems being replaced, andthe ability to obtain repairs in the same time frame.Performance

Keeping the computer performance ahead ofaccelerating customers’ simulation requirements hasalways been a solemn goal at SimLab. Fortunately,due to the computer industry’s improvements incomputer clock speeds and feature-rich capabilities,it was possible to purchase computer systems withthe necessary performance from the manufacturer ofthe existing machines, thereby meeting all threeprincipal requirements.

The new hosts are Compaq AlphaServer DS20Emachines, replacing AlphaServer 1000A 5/500s.Benchmark figures from the Standard PerformanceEvaluation Corporation (SPEC, a standardizationbody) indicated a 2.4 times improvement in speed.In-house benchmarks confirmed these results andachieved 3.2 times performance increase when usingsoftware optimization. Selecting the samemanufacturer’s operating system allowed similarhardware compatibility with all peripherals. Usercompatibility was achieved by upgrading MicroTau,the in-house real-time executive/debugger software,to operate on the latest VMS Operating System. Therepair turn-around time requirement was maintainedeasily across machines since they had identicalwarranties. This solution provided a relatively easymeans of satisfying the requirements.

The performance increase of the operational

Simulation engineers utilize the new VMS Lab hostcomputer to meet demanding simulation requirements.

systems easily exceeded the requirements of theFY2000 simulations. The new host systems arecapable of frame times of less than one millisecondwhen only I/O is performed to the motion, laboratory,and cockpit subsystems. Adding the typical aircraftmodel allows frame times shorter than 2 millisec-onds. As a practical matter, most simulations are runat longer frame times, such as 12.5 milliseconds (80cycles per second), which is more compatible withthe 16 2/3 millisecond field time of the associatedgraphics generators.Results

The integration of the new systems was completedon schedule in the motion-base and in the two fixed-base laboratories. The new systems are capable ofspeeds 3.2 times faster than the systems theyreplaced. By the end of FY2000, the new hostcomputer systems had been used successfully to runoperational simulations, including the most computeintensive FY2000 simulations that demanded thehost upgrade.

Development TeamMartin Pethtel, Bosco Dias, Christopher Sweeney,Luong Nguyen, Duc Tran, Kelly Carter, MyVanNguyen, Logicon/LISS


Head-Down Display Graphics Engine Upgrade

SummaryEight PC-based graphics engines were success-

fully integrated into the VMS environment to increasecockpit avionics display resources needed to meetsimulation requirements. This addition nearly doubledthe current head-down display (HDD) capacity atVMS. Notably, this marks the first migration fromhigh-end workstations to PC-based graphics engines.It also represents a transition to an open OperatingSystem and Open Graphics Libraries to generatereal-time cockpit avionics displays at SimLab.Introduction

The purpose of this project was to provide addi-tional graphics engines to support expanded re-search needs in a cost-effective manner. The existingSGI Power Series (IRIS 4D) systems are no longersupported by the manufacturer and they use aproprietary Operating System and Graphics Library.Newer machines with open-standards architecturesare very attractive since they promise portability ofdisplay code, a greater selection of hardware plat-forms and software development tools, and reducedacquisition and operational costs.

The SGI IA-230 was identified as a viable replace-ment. The SGI-IA 230 features a single 733 MHzPentium III processor driving the latest Nvidia Vprographics card. SGI and Nvidia teamed to deliver thefirst COTS (commercial-off-the-shelf) full perfor-mance OpenGL/Linux PC graphics workstationsolution that would meet SimLab’s HDD require-ments. The SGI-IA 230 provides high performancecompute power with full line/pixel anti-aliasingcapability.Project Description

An evaluation team was formed to determine if theSGI-IA 230 could meet SimLab’s requirements. Theteam quickly converted existing IRIX GL displaysfrom the Power Series systems to OpenGL formatunder Linux OS on the SGI-IA 230 system. The SGI-IA 230 system was tested and met or exceededestablished baseline requirements. Most evaluatorscould not differentiate between the displays gener-ated by the SGI-IA 230 and those generated by anSGI Octane class workstation in a side-by-sidecomparison. The evaluation team recommendedimmediate acquisition and integration of the SGI-IA230.

An implementation project was initiated for imme-diate purchase and integration of eight SGI-IA 230

Real-time cockpit avionics displays at SimLab are nowgenerated on PC-based graphics engines running an openOperating System and Open Graphics Libraries.

graphics systems. The project began the first week ofAugust 2000 with operational readiness slated forSeptember 1, 2000. The project required hardwaremodifications to the Cockpit Graphics Lab, VideoDistribution System, real-time and developmentnetwork systems, and the VMS control room. Inparallel, a significant software development effortwas required to generate new OpenGL displays andconvert IRIX GL displays for immediate use inupcoming simulations.Results

Integration was completed as scheduled onSeptember 1. All eight SGI-IA 230 systems wereintegrated into production operation in support ofreal-time HDD graphics displays at VMS. Thegraphics team delivered all required display softwareto meet simulation schedules. Additional systems willbe purchased to replace the remaining inventory of4D class HDD graphics engines.

Development TeamRachel Wang-Yeh, Charles Gregory, Ronald Lehmer,T. Martin Pethtel, David Darling, Ernie Inn, HaiHuynh, Gilbert Mink, Tuan Truong, Kelly Carter,Russell Sansom, Shelly Larocca, Daniel A. Wilkins,Logicon/LISS


Advanced Concepts Flight Simulator Host Computer Upgrade

ACFSCockpit I/O

VMIC � A/Ds� D/As� DIs� DOs

CDUs &MiscellaneousRS-232 &ARINC 429Panels

ACFSSub-Systems

Flight DisplayComputer(11 SGIs)

Visual SystemMotorola

ExperimenterOperatorStation (3)

ACFS Cockpit I/O on the New Host Computer

SummaryThe ACFS host computer was upgraded to meet

the demanding computational and input/outputrequirements of planned and projected ACFS simula-tion experiments.

A significant improvement in overall performanceand a reduction in computer hardware and softwaremaintenance costs were achieved by upgrading to acurrent technology computer system. The new hostcomputer, an SGI Origin 2000, is expected to easilymeet research requirements of all projected simula-tion experiments.Introduction

The upgrade consisted of replacing the existingSGI Challenge L computer with an SGI Origin 2000.Certain I/O equipment was also upgraded for com-patibility with the new host computer. The Origin2000 system was acquired from the Air TrafficControl (ATC) simulator and upgraded to meet theACFS host computational needs.Performance

Modifications include the addition of another CPUboard with 2 MIPS R10000 195MHZ processors and128 MB of Main Memory. Also needed were addi-tional components to make the Origin 2000 compat-ible with the ACFS VMIC VME I/O System. Thisrequired the purchase and integration of a new VMICPCI Reflective Memory board, an upgrade to existingVMIC IIOC software, and the purchase of a Fiber-Optic PCI to VME bus adapter.

Acceptance of the new ACFS Host computerconsisted of two parts. The first part was baselinetesting of each current configuration to ensureretention of ACFS features and functionality. Theperformance testing phase verified that the new hostmeets or exceeds projected capacity requirements.

All current active simulation configurations of the

ACFS were ported to the new host. A few changeswere required due to differences between the VMEand PCI drivers to the VMIC IIOC System. Nodiscrepancies were found during testing of theconfigurations adapted to operate on the new host.All needed changes were merged into the baselineconfiguration.Results

All acceptance testing was successfully completedon schedule and the results exceeded expectations.CPU performance improved by 400%. The new hostis 12 times faster in transferring UDP packets, bothinbound and outbound. Due to the full duplex featureof the 100 Base-TX connection, the TCP packets arenow transferred up to 18 times faster than they wereusing the old host computer.

Development TeamCraig Pires, Anna Dabrowski, Don Bryant, GaryUyehara, Eric Gardner, ManTech; Terry Rager, NASAARC


Enhanced Ground Proximity Warning System

SummaryThe B747-400 flight simulator maintains the highest

possible level of certification as established by theFederal Aviation Administration (FAA) to ensuresystem fidelity and enhanced credibility to the resultsof research programs. This is achieved by constantlyupgrading the simulator to maintain a configurationmatch to a specific United Airlines aircraft. An upgradefrom the older Ground Proximity Warning System(GPWS) to the state of the art Enhanced GroundProximity Warning System (EGPWS) was one of thelatest efforts.Introduction

The EGPWS is a terrain awareness and alertingsystem. It incorporates all of the following aural alertingmodes of the basic GPWS: excessive descent rate,excessive terrain closure rate, altitude loss aftertakeoff, unsafe terrain clearance, excessive deviationbelow glideslope, advisory callouts and windshearalerting. In addition to these seven basic functions, theEGPWS adds the ability to compare the aircraftposition to an internal database and provides addi-tional alerting and display capabilities for enhancedsituational awareness and safety (hence the term“Enhanced” GPWS).Development

Several hardware and software alternatives for theEGPWS upgrade were evaluated. Following extensiveresearch, it was decided to procure, install and inte-grate the actual aircraft EGPWS box as opposed todeveloping and installing an EGPWS software model.

The major task in this upgrade project was display

integration. Unlike the real aircraft, the simulator usesproprietary graphics controllers and standard Cath-ode Ray Tubes (CRTs) to display flight informationsuch as that found on the Electronic Flight Informa-tion System (EFIS) display. Extensive softwaredevelopment is required to interface the output of theEGPWS with the CRTs and to replace the simulatorgraphics controllers.

The remainder of the upgrade project involvesrelatively straightforward hardware modifications. TheEGPWS box occupies the same component rackspace as the existing GPWS with the necessary re-wiring effort. A switch to select the EGPWS terraindisplay is added to the two cockpit EFIS ControlPanels (Captain & First Officer) and a terrain overrideswitch is added to the existing Ground ProximityWarning Panel.Results

All hardware required for the EGPWS upgrade hasbeen purchased and received. All required modifica-tions to the B747 hardware drawings have beencompleted. Fabrication was started on the EGPWSConfiguration Selection box which will enablereconfiguration of the EGPWS programming pins.The remainder of the upgrade will be completed inthe coming year.

Development TeamJoseph King, Ghislain Saillant, Diane Carpenter,ManTech; CDR Robert DeGennaro, Naval Post-graduate School

Terrain Display(Shades of Green,Yellow, and Red)

"CAUTIONTERRAIN"(Solid Yellow)

"TERRAINTERRAINPULL UP!"Warning Area(Solid Red)

EGPWS presents a graphical plan view of the aircraft relative to the terrain andadvises the flight crew of potential conflicts.


Air Traffic Control Pseudo Aircraft System

SummaryTo meet emerging Air Traffic Control (ATC) re-

search requirements and to be Y2K compatible, anupgrade to the ATC simulator was initiated in theCVSRF Air Traffic Control Laboratory. Two comple-mentary ATC applications, the Pseudo AircraftSystem (PAS), an application to simulate CenterTRACON airspace traffic, and RouTe Maker, anapplication to simulate ground traffic during taxi, wereidentified as replacements for the old system. TheDODs High Level Architecture (HLA) Protocol wasimplemented as a means of providing interoperabilityin a networked environment for both internal andexternal connections.Introduction

With awareness that the ATC simulation, ashosted on a VAX 6320, was reaching obsolescence,an investigation of alternatives was conducted. Thisinvestigation addressed the options of replacing thedated hardware and software.

The ATC software replacement option involvedevaluating a number of possible scenarios includingthe rehost of the existing system and replacement inwhole or in part by other software systems. Candi-dates for replacement of the old system came out oftwo separate experiments run for the ACFS andB747 simulators. For airborne applications, PASwould provide most of the capabilities currentlyavailable although it does not have the level ofground traffic simulation capability currently available.

To mitigate this limitation, a separate applicationcalled RouTe Maker (RTM) was selected. RTMprovides highly sophisticated ground traffic simulationcapabilities up to full automation of a scenario withproximity, time, and conditional triggering of traffic.System Integration

Eight SGI O2 workstations replaced the older SGIPersonal Iris systems for use as the ATC Controllerstations. The four existing X-stations were retained touse as Pseudo Pilot stations. An SGI Origin 2000system was integrated as the ATC Hub/File Serversystem.

The ATC/ PAS upgrade was validated during theexecution of two experiments. The ACFS T-NASA 2

experiment exercised the new ATC RTM capabilitiesby providing taxing ground traffic and the B747 AATTIntegrated Tools Study/Air-Ground IntegrationExperiment (AGIE) provided PAS generated airbornetraffic.

The external ATC/PAS HLA interoperability capa-bility was also validated by the B747 AGIE experi-ment. The new HLA capability has been demon-strated by ATC/PAS generated air traffic simulta-neously being displayed in both CVSRF flightsimulator’s out-the-window visual systems.

Validation of the performance of the newly incorpo-rated Great Circle Route algorithm in PAS wasaccomplished by a series of test runs involving anumber of great circle flight segments between pointsroughly centered on the Dallas-Fort Worth Area.Results

The experiments and tests referenced in thepreceding section were successfully completed andthe results analyzed by the researchers and CVSRFstaff. The results indicate the ATC/PAS upgrade issuccessful and will meet CVSRF research require-ments for the foreseeable future.

Development TeamRod Ketchum, George Mitchell, Ian MacLure,ManTech; Elliott Smith, Steve Bayne, Logicon/LISS

RTM display for CVSRF ATC upgrade.


Voice Disguiser System Upgrade

Roland’s BOSS VF-1 for CVSRF Voice Disguiser Upgrade

SummaryThe CVSRF Voice Disguiser Upgrade project

focused on replacing the current voice disguisersystem. The former system provided pitch changesonly and a maximum of three disguised voices. Thevoice disguiser system is used for disguising theoperator’s voice to simulate any number of additionalvoices to provide realism in an experiment scenario.A number of systems and techniques were consid-ered for the upgrade. A commercial off the shelfsystem that could be integrated into the existing AirTraffic Control (ATC) Lab and cockpit communica-tions equipment was chosen as the most costeffective way to meet our requirements.Introduction

The goal for the upgrade was toacquire a system that provided up toeight distinct disguised voices. Optionsranging from a custom designed andmanufactured system to the acquisition ofa modular off the shelf system werediscussed. Investigation of availabletechnologies suitable for upgrading theCVSRF’s voice disguising capabilities ledto the selection of BOSS VF-1 24 bit Multiple EffectsProcessor.Performance

The half-rack BOSS VF1 is a compact, ultra-powerful 24-bit multi-effects processor. It providessignal processing using 24-bit Analog/Digital andDigital/Analog converters, and uncompromisingsound quality. Currently, 14 disguised voices havebeen stored for use. In addition, TRIAD SP-67 outputisolation transformers were installed to provideproper balanced input from the VF-1 into the existingCVSRF ATC Lab ASTi communication system.

It is possible to run the voice disguisers viacomputer control with the use of Serial to Midiinterface units. The VF-1 presets can be addressedby MIDI program change messages, allowing for

automated voice disguise changes. These voicedisguise changes would be based on radio frequencychanges for controller stations and possibly onpseudo pilot aircraft identification changes in theCVSRF ATC Lab.

The new CVSRF Voice Disguiser system is a fullymodular system, with one VF-1 per ATC lab station,with an additional unit integrated to each of the B747-400 communication radios. VF-1 and Midiator unitscan easily be added to meet any experiment require-ments.Results

The new voice disguiser system was used for thefirst time, with favorable results, in the Data Link

Procedures experiment involving the B747-400 andthe ATC lab. The units were used in a manual modewhere the controllers were responsible for selectingthe desired disguise setting.

The fully automated control software is still underdevelopment. Refinement of the VF-1 presets isongoing. The question of the ability to use thePseudo Aircraft System (PAS) aircraft identification totrigger Midi addressing remains to be solved. Systemevaluation and refinement is continuing.

Development TeamRod Ketchum, Joseph King, Jason Hill, Ian MacLure,George Mitchell, Craig Pires, Thomas F. Prehm, GaryUyehara, ManTech


Traffic Collision and Avoidance System Implementation and Upgrade

The Primary Flight Display (PFD) showing a descentdisplay.

SummaryThe Traffic Collision and Avoidance System

(TCAS) project integrated an FAA supplied codeimplementation of the TCAS II Change 7 specifica-tion to the ACFS, and performed an upgrade ofTCAS in the B747-400 simulator. Additional softwaremodifications to the existing ACFS cockpit displaysand ASTi aural warning system were necessary sinceit was not equipped with any TCAS system prior tothis project. For the B747-400 simulator, the TCASsystem implementation was upgraded from 6.04A to7.0.Introduction

TCAS provides the crew with continuous real-timesituational traffic awareness, and Traffic Advisory(TA) and Resolution Advisory (RA) messages when apotential collision with another aircraft is beingdetected. Situational traffic awareness is depicted onthe Navigation Display (ND). Normally the crewshould respond to an RA by flying the suggestedmaneuver manually. Escape maneuvers in TCAS arelimited to the vertical direction.Development

On the ACFS: Software modifications were madeto the Primary Flight Display (PFD) to incorporate theRA vertical speed constraints on the vertical speedindicator. Another TCAS indication is on the PFD’sAttitude Display Indicator (ADI) which instructs the

crew to pitch up or down in order to avoid or acquirea certain vertical speed. Software modifications weremade to the Navigational Display (ND) to incorporateintruder traffic indication with their respective threatlevel, altitude and vertical speed profile. Internal logicof the ND displays OFFSCALE TRAFFIC when athreat is out of view; normally, pilots must increasethe ND map range to see the threat. Softwaremodifications were also made to the SecondaryFlight Display to incorporate a TCAS control panel.The control panel is based on the B747-400 TCAScontrol panel.

In addition, a new Experiment Operator Station(EOS) page, the “TCAS Control Page” which issimilar to the B747-400 EOS page, was completed.This page allows control of intruder generation up to10 intruders as selected by the operator from thehost computer. These intruders are programmed tofly around the ownship so that a specific TCAS TAand/or RA will appear. A collision may or may nothappen depending on the pilot’s actions. Theseintruders are useful to demonstrate the TCASfeatures and the TCAS TA/RA capabilities. Develop-ment of a limited traffic generator was also com-pleted. This traffic generator provides the functionalitybehind the EOS TCAS Control page. The externalATC or PAS simulator is used for specific intrudertrajectories or scenarios. The project also requiredsome modification to the interface between the hostcomputer and the ASTi system to allow simultaneoussounds to be played at the same time, for examplethe Autopilot Disconnect alarm and one TCAS auralmessage.Results

ACFS TCAS functionality was tested during theCTAS/FMS II experiment. Some interface problemswere identified when playback PAS intruders wereintroduced. Otherwise, TCAS performed as expectedwhen traffic was provided by CVSRF’s ATC/PASsimulator. Checks of B747-400 upgrades is under-way.

Development TeamGhislain Saillant, Cindy Nguyen, Fritz Renema, AnnaDabrowski, George Mitchell, Dave Brown


Acronyms

AATT ..................................................... Advanced Air Transportation TechnologiesACFS .................................................... Advanced Concepts Flight SimulatorADI ........................................................ Attitude Display IndicatorAGIE ..................................................... Air-Ground Integration ExperimentAILS ...................................................... Airborne Information for Lateral SpacingALPA ..................................................... Airline Pilots AssociationAOL ....................................................... Airspace Operations LabAPA ....................................................... American Psychological AssociationAPU....................................................... auxiliary power unitARC ...................................................... Ames Research CenterASTi ...................................................... Advanced Systems Technology IncorporatedATC ....................................................... Air Traffic ControlATIS ...................................................... Automatic Terminal Information ServiceB747...................................................... Boeing 747CART3D ................................................ Three-Dimensional Cartesian Simulation System for Complex GeometryCATI ...................................................... Carmel Applied Technology IncorporatedCATS ..................................................... Crew Activity Tracking SystemCDA ...................................................... concept demonstrator aircraftCDTI ...................................................... Cockpit Display of Traffic InformationCDU ...................................................... Control Display UnitCFD....................................................... computational fluid dynamicsCOTS .................................................... Commercial-Off-The-ShelfCPDLC .................................................. Controller-Pilot Data Link Communication ProceduresCRT ....................................................... Cathode Ray TubeCSPA .................................................... Closely Spaced Parallel ApproachesCTAS ..................................................... Center TRACON Automation SystemCTOL .................................................... conventional takeoff and landingCTR....................................................... Civil TiltrotorCTV ....................................................... Crew Transportation VehicleCV ......................................................... Carrier VersionCVSRF .................................................. Crew-Vehicle Systems Research FacilityDERA .................................................... Defense Evaluation and Research Agency of United KingdomDI .......................................................... Dynamic InverseDOD ...................................................... Department of DefenseDOT ...................................................... Department of TransportationDWS...................................................... Development Work StationE&S ....................................................... Evans and SutherlandECAL..................................................... East Coast Abort LandingsEFIS ...................................................... Electornic Flight Information SystemEGPWS................................................. Enhanced Ground Proximity Warning SystemEMM...................................................... electronic moving mapEOS ...................................................... Experimenter Operator StationESIG ..................................................... Evans and Sutherland Image GeneratorFAA ....................................................... Federal Aviation AdministrationFAATC ................................................... Federal Aviation Administration Technical CenterFB ......................................................... fixed-baseFMS ...................................................... Flight Management SystemFOV....................................................... field-of-viewGPS ...................................................... Global Positioning SystemGPWS ................................................... Ground Proximity Warning SystemGTRS .................................................... Generic Tiltrotor Simulation



HAC ...................................................... Heading Alignment ConeHLA ....................................................... High Level ArchitectureHQR ...................................................... Handling Quality RatingHUD ...................................................... head-up displayICAB...................................................... Interchangeable CabIFR ........................................................ instrument flight rulesIG .......................................................... image generatorIHI ......................................................... Integration Research BranchIIOC....................................................... Intelligent Input/Output ControllerIMC ....................................................... Instrument Meteorological ConditionsIT ........................................................... information technologyJSC ....................................................... Johnson Space CenterJSF........................................................ Joint Strike FighterJSHIP .................................................... Joint Shipboard Helicopter Integration ProcessJVX ....................................................... Joint Service Vertical Lift AircraftKSC....................................................... Kennedy Space CenterLAN ....................................................... local area networkLaRC ..................................................... Langley Research CenterLHA ....................................................... Amphibious Assault ShipLISS ...................................................... Logicon Information Systems and ServicesLNAN .................................................... lateral navigationLSE ....................................................... Landing Signal EnlistedLVLASO ................................................ Low-Visibility Landing and Surface OperationsMaglev .................................................. Magnetic LevitationMCP ...................................................... Mode Control PanelMIDAS................................................... Man-machine Integration Design and Analysis SystemMIDI ...................................................... musical instrument digital interfaceMIPS ..................................................... million instructions per secondNAS....................................................... National Airspace SystemNASA .................................................... National Aeronautics and Space AdministrationNASA ARC ............................................ NASA Ames Research CenterNASA JSC............................................. NASA Johnson Space CenterNATCA .................................................. National Air Traffic Controllers AssociationND ......................................................... Navigation DisplayNFCS .................................................... Neural Flight Control SystemNTSC .................................................... National Television Standards CommitteeOEI ........................................................ one engine inoperativeOS ......................................................... operating systemOSD ...................................................... Office of the Secretary of DefenseOTW...................................................... out the windowPAS ....................................................... Pseudo Aircraft SystemPC ......................................................... personal computerPCI ........................................................ Peripheral Component InterconnectPFD ....................................................... primary flight displayPRL ....................................................... priority rate-limitingPWSC ................................................... Primary Weapons Systems ConceptR&D ...................................................... research and developmentRA ......................................................... Resolution AdvisoryRDE ...................................................... Remote Development EnvironmentRISC ..................................................... Reduced Instruction Set ComputerRITE ...................................................... Rapid Integration Test Environment



RNAV .................................................... area navigationROTO .................................................... roll-out and turn-offRPM ...................................................... revolutions per minuteRPN ...................................................... Required Navigation PerformanceRTCA .................................................... Requirements, Technology, and Concept for AviationRTM ...................................................... Route Traffic ManagerRVR ...................................................... runway visual rangeSAM ...................................................... Situational Awareness ModelSCAS .................................................... stability and control augmentation systemSDI ........................................................ Sterling Dynamics IncorporatedSEATAC ................................................ Seattle-Tacoma International AirportSGI ........................................................ Silicon Graphics, Inc.SJSU ..................................................... San Jose State UniversitySPEC .................................................... Standard Performance Evaluation CorporationSSV ....................................................... Space Shuttle VehicleSTOVL .................................................. short takeoff/vertical landingT-NASA ................................................. Taxiway Navigation and Situation AwarenessTA .......................................................... Traffic AdvisoryTAL ........................................................ Transoceanic Abort LandingTAP ....................................................... Terminal Area ProductivityTCAS .................................................... Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance SystemTCL ....................................................... thrust control leverTCP/IP .................................................. Transmission Control Protocol/Internet ProtocolTOGA .................................................... Take Off/ Go AroundTRACON ............................................... Terminal Radar Approach ControlUDP ...................................................... User Datagram ProtocolUHTC .................................................... Ultra-High Temperature CeramicU.K. ....................................................... United KingdomUSA....................................................... United Space AllianceUSAF .................................................... U.S. Air ForceUSMC ................................................... U.S. Marine CorpsUSN ...................................................... U.S. NavyVLAB ..................................................... Virtual LaboratoryVME ...................................................... VersaModule EuroCardVMS ...................................................... Vertical Motion SimulatorVNav ..................................................... Vertical NavigationVOIP ..................................................... Voice Over IPWAC ...................................................... Wide Angle CollimationWOD ..................................................... wind-over-deckY2K ....................................................... Year 2000


A very brief description of the Aviation Sys-tems Division facilities follows. More detailedinformation can be found on the world wide webat: http://www.simlabs.arc.nasa.gov

Boeing 747-400 Simulator

This simulator represents a cockpit of one ofthe most sophisticated airplanes flying today.The simulator is equipped with programmableflight displays that can be easily modified tocreate displays aimed at enhancing flight crewsituational awareness and thus improvingsystems safety. The simulator also has a fullydigital control loading system, a six degree-of-freedom motion system, a digital sound andaural cues system, and a fully integratedautoflight system that provides aircraft guidanceand control. It is also equipped with a weatherradar system. The visual display system is aFlight Safety International driven by a VITALVIIIi. The host computer driving the simulator isthe IBM 6000 series of computer utilizing IBM’sreduced instruction set computer (RISC) tech-nology.

The 747-400 simulator provides all modes ofairplane operation from cockpit preflight toparking and shutdown at destination. Thesimulator flight crew compartment is a fullydetailed replica of a current airline cockpit. Allinstruments, controls, and switches operate asthey do in the aircraft. All functional systems ofthe aircraft are simulated in accordance withaircraft data. To ensure simulator fidelity, the747-400 simulator is maintained to the highestpossible level of certification for airplane simula-tors as established by the Federal AviationAdministration (FAA). This ensures credibility ofthe results of research programs conducted inthe simulator.

Advanced Concepts Flight Simulator

This unique research tool simulates a genericcommercial transport aircraft employing many

advanced flight systems as well as featuresexisting in the newest aircraft being built today.The ACFS generic aircraft was formulated andsized on the basis of projected user needsbeyond the year 2000. Among its advancedflight systems, the ACFS includes touch sensi-tive electronic checklists, advanced graphicalflight displays, aircraft systems schematics, aflight management system, and a spatializedaural warning and communications system. Inaddition, the ACFS utilizes side stick controllersfor aircraft control in the pitch and roll axes.ACFS is mounted atop a six degree-of-freedommotion system.

The ACFS utilizes SGI computers for the hostsystem as well as graphical flight displays. TheACFS uses visual generation and presentationsystems that are the same as the 747-400simulator’s. These scenes depict specific air-ports and their surroundings as viewed at dusk,twilight, or night from the cockpit.

Air Traffic Control Laboratory

The Air Traffic Control (ATC) environment is asignificant contributor to pilot workload and,therefore, to the performance of crews in flight.Full-mission simulation is greatly affected by therealism with which the ATC environment ismodeled. From the crew’s standpoint, thisenvironment consists of dynamically changingverbal or data-link messages, some addressedto or generated by other aircraft flying in theimmediate vicinity.

The CVSRF ATC Laboratory is capable ofoperating in three modes: stand-alone, withoutparticipation by the rest of the facility; single-cabmode, with either advanced or conventional cabparticipating in the study; and dual-cab mode,with both cabs participating.

Vertical Motion Simulator Complex

The VMS is a critical national resource sup-porting the country’s most sophisticated aero-

AppendixSimulation Facilities


space R&D programs. The VMS complex offersthree laboratories fully capable of supportingresearch. The dynamic and flexible researchenvironment lends itself readily to simulationstudies involving controls, guidance, displays,automation, handling qualities, flight decksystems, accident/incident investigations, andtraining. Other areas of research include thedevelopment of new techniques and technolo-gies for simulation and the definition of require-ments for training and research simulators.

The VMS’ large amplitude motion system iscapable of 60 feet of vertical travel and 40 feetof lateral or longitudinal travel. It has six inde-pendent degrees of freedom and is capable ofmaximum performance in all axes simulta-neously. Motion base operational efficiency isenhanced by the Interchangeable Cab (ICAB)system which consists of five different inter-changeable cabs. These five customizable cabssimulate ASTOVL vehicles, helicopters, trans-ports, the Space Shuttle orbiter, and otherdesigns of the future. Each ICAB is customized,configured, and tested at a fixed-base develop-ment station and then either used in place for afixed-base simulation or moved on to the motionplatform.

Digital image generators provide full colordaylight scenes and include six channels,multiple eye points, and a chase plane point ofview. The VMS simulation lab maintains a largeinventory of customizable visual scenes with aunique in-house capability to design, developand modify these databases. Real-time aircraftstatus information can be displayed to both pilotand researcher through a wide variety of analoginstruments, and head-up, head-down or hel-met-mounted displays.

For additional information, please contact

Tom AldereteChief, Simulation Planning Office

Aviation Simulation Division

(650) 604-3271E-mail: [email protected]

or

Barry SullivanChief, Aerospace Simulation Operations Branch

Aviation Simulation Division

(650) 604-6756E-mail: [email protected]

flight simulation year in review fy00 - nasa › ... · 9. magnetic levitation vehicle...

Documents