HUDLS-pres-v-0-1 1

Draft Subpart E Change - overview

• Contains requirements and credits for HUD and auto-land systems

• Introduces new terminology– HUDLS – HUD Landing System

– Lower than Standard Category I

– Other than Standard Category II

• Based on simulator trials• Based on FAA/JAA harmonisation• Allows credit for the combination of ground based

systems on-board systems

oint Aviation Authorities

HUDLS-pres-v-0-1 2

Terminology(11) Head-Up Display (HUD) - An aircraft system which provides head-up guidance

to the pilot during flight. It includes the display element, sensors, computers and power supplies, indications and controls. It may receive inputs from an airborne navigation system or flight guidance system.Note: Flight may include taxi operations, take-off and landing roll

(12) Head-Up Guidance Landing System. (HUDLS) The total airborne system which provides head-up guidance to the pilot during the approach and landing or go-around. It includes all sensors, computers, power supplies indications and controls. A Head-Up Guidance Landing System (HUDLS) is typically used for primary approach guidance to decision heights of 50 ft.

 (13) Hybrid Head Up Display Landing System (Hybrid HUDLS). A system which consists of a primary fail-passive automatic landing system and a secondary independent HUD/HUDLS enabling the pilot to complete a landing manually after failure of the primary system.Note: Typically, the secondary independent HUD/HUDLS is providing guidance which normally takes the form of command information but it may alternatively be situation (or deviation) information.

oint Aviation Authorities

HUDLS-pres-v-0-1 3

The regulatory situation today

• HUD is not recognised in JAR-OPS 1 except as a part of a fail-operational hybrid landing system

• JAR-OPS 1 does not allow manually flown Cat II or Cat III approaches; Cat III also with auto-land

• Cat II and IIIA HUD operations are handled as exemptions – TGL 20 gives guidance

• Cat III is not available to propeller driven aeroplanes since auto-land systems are only available for jet

• Auto-land systems often qualify for similar considerations

• Conclusion: JAR-OPS 1, Subpart E needs updating

oint Aviation Authorities

HUDLS-pres-v-0-1 4

Benefits of the HUD

• Improved quality of the guidance• Improved situational awareness• Smoother transition from instrument to visual ref• Combines instrument and visual guidance

oint Aviation Authorities

HUDLS-pres-v-0-1 5

Contents of the proposal

• Manually flown Cat II and IIIA approaches to current minima

• Lower than standard Cat I operations with DH unchanged (200 ft) and reduced RVR (400 m)

• Other than standard Cat II operations with DH unchanged (100 ft) but without TDZ and CCL lights; RVR down to 350 m

• Equipment/airframe qualifications related to HUD• Increased training requirements• Similar considerations related to auto-land

oint Aviation Authorities

HUDLS-pres-v-0-1 6

Safety considerations

• The reduced RVR values affect only the ability to commence an approach – visual reference requirements remain unchanged

• Simulator trials indicate that the go-arournd rate is not increased by the reduction of RVR

• Simulator trials indicate that the landing foot-print is equal or better with HUD and reduced RVR

• ILS performance specified to support the operations

• The improved guidance compensates for the absence of TDZ and CCL lights for Cat II operations

• Auto-land gives reduced workload and improved delivery.

• The overall safety of operations is considered to be improved

oint Aviation Authorities

HUDLS-pres-v-0-1 7

Relations to FAA and ICAO • Removal of TDZ and CLL for Cat II/HUD are in line with Removal of TDZ and CLL for Cat II/HUD are in line with

FAA current applicationsFAA current applications• RVR vs TDZ/CLL light req are equal but FAA does not RVR vs TDZ/CLL light req are equal but FAA does not

apply RVR < 550 with DH 200 ftapply RVR < 550 with DH 200 ft• The proposed ILS requirements for Cat I and II are the same The proposed ILS requirements for Cat I and II are the same

as those used for Cat II by FAAas those used for Cat II by FAA• The ”Lower than standard Cat I operations” (RVR < 550 m) The ”Lower than standard Cat I operations” (RVR < 550 m)

may require a notification of difference with ICAO – we may require a notification of difference with ICAO – we keep the standard Cat I requirementskeep the standard Cat I requirements

• The ”Other than standard Cat II operations” are not The ”Other than standard Cat II operations” are not considered to warrant a notification of difference from Annex considered to warrant a notification of difference from Annex 6 but possibly from Annex 146 but possibly from Annex 14

• The ICAO AWO Manual and approach classification are The ICAO AWO Manual and approach classification are under review by the OPSPunder review by the OPSP

oint Aviation Authorities

HUDLS-pres-v-0-1 8

Relations with the aerodromes

• There are no additional requirements for certification of the aerodromes for Cat I operations

• The ILS needs to be classified by the three-digit-system in Annex 10 (should always be the case)

• The ILS performance must be validated to a higher standard for RVR < 450 m but no increased certification unless DH is reduced below 200 ft

• For DH < 200 ft the aerodrome will need to be Cat II qualified except for the TDZ and CLL lights

oint Aviation Authorities

HUDLS-pres-v-0-1 9

Lower than Standard Cat I – trial

• Testing performed at CST Berlin May 18 / 19 2004• CRJ 100 / 200 simulator• 6 CLH pilots• 250 runs performed in AI mode at RVR 300 thru

550m• 5 Cat I Full Facility (>720m lighting) airfields –

ARN 26, DUS 05R, HAM 05, LIN36R & TXL 08L• X wind 10 kt, varied in direction• Light Turbulence

oint Aviation Authorities

HUDLS-pres-v-0-1 10

Lower than standard Cat I trials (1)

GA Rate

oint Aviation Authorities

RVR

M

No of Runs

GA’s %

550 8 0 0

500 59 0 0

450 65 0 0

400 65 0 0

350 46 2 4

300 7 5 71

HUDLS-pres-v-0-1 11

Lower than standard Cat I trials (2)oint Aviation Authorities

HUD FF Lighting CRJ 200 Touchdown

-75.0

-50.0

-25.0

0.0

25.0

50.0

75.0

-1000 0 1000 2000 3000

CRJ 200 HUD

HUDLS-pres-v-0-1 12

Lower than standard Cat I trials (3)oint Aviation Authorities

HUD FF CRJ200 by RVR

-75.0

-50.0

-25.0

0.0

25.0

50.0

75.0

-1000 0 1000 2000 3000

550m 500m 450m 400m 350m 300m

HUDLS-pres-v-0-1 13

Typical HUD oint Aviation Authorities

Conformal flight path

symbol

Acceleration caret

Conformal Horizon

Conformal reference

G/S

HUDLS-pres-v-0-1 14

Pilot view at 200 ft HAT and 550 m RVRoint Aviation Authorities

HUDLS-pres-v-0-1 15

Experiment set up

• Divided in two experiments• Experiment 1 (900 m approach lights)

– 43 volunteer commercial airline pilots qualified on B737

• Experiment 2 (420-600 m approach lights) – 28 pilots

• Experience between 50 to 1000 hrs on B737• HUD and B737-NG qualified pilots• Full-motion B737-NG simulator

– 180 degree FOV visual– Collimated to 20 m focal distance– Rockwell-Collins Flight Dynamics HGS-4000 system

oint Aviation Authorities

HUDLS-pres-v-0-1 16

Experiment set-up

– Complete block design

– HUD use – repeated factor

• Two blocks of visibility (between-subjects variable)

– Standard minimum visibility (550 m exp 1, 700m exp 2)

– Lower than standard visibility (400-500 exp 1, 550-600 exp 2)

• Each subject two approaches

oint Aviation Authorities

HUDLS-pres-v-0-1 17

Exeperiment set-up (3)

• Manually flown from 2000 ft

• IMC mode– No landing guidance. HUD guidance removed at 50 ft

height

– Ensured pilots used both runway and HUD symbology in conjunction

• Performance parameters• Absolute centreline deviation at touchdown• Longitudinal distance from threshold at

touchdown• Approach success

oint Aviation Authorities

HUDLS-pres-v-0-1 18

Test resultsoint Aviation Authorities

HUD/Non-HUD tot

-22,50

0,00

22,50

-305 -105 95 295 495 695 895

Longitudinal touchdown point

La

te

ra

l d

ev

ia

tio

n

HUD

Non-HUD

HUDbox

Non-HUDbox

o Using a HUD resulted in significantly smaller lateral touchdown footprint for all RVR conditions

o Smaller T/D footprint in 450 m RVR with HUD than for 550 m RVR without HUDo Likely an effect of flightpath vectoro HUD had no effect on longitudinal touchdown performanceo No difference in approach success rate between HUD and without HUD

HUDLS-pres-v-0-1 19

End of information

oint Aviation Authorities