Flight Simulation

Year in Review

FY98

Aviation Systems Research, Technology, & Simulation Division 1

Foreword

Aviation Systems Research,

Technology, & Simulation Division

NASA Ames Research Center

Moffett Field, California 94035

11 December 1998

This document is the Fiscal Year

1998 Annual Performance Summary of

the NASA Ames Vertical Motion Simulation (VMS) Complex and the Crew

Vehicle Systems Research Facility

(CVSRF). It is intended to report to our

customers and management on the

more significant events of FY98. What

follows are an Executive Summary with

comments on future plans, the FY98

Simulation Schedule, a projection of

simulations to be performed in FY99,

performance summaries that report on

the simulation investigations conducted

during the year, and a summary of

Technology Upgrade Projects.
4 Aviation Systems Research, Technology, & Simulation Division

Acknowledgment

About the Cover

Front cover: The Advanced Concepts Flight Simulator examined a new flight system with the potential to

improve the safety and efficiency of airport surface operations in low visibility. This cockpit navigation and

guidance system displays taxi routes on both a head-up display (pictured) and an electronic moving map.

Taxi runs made with the system were rapid and error free. (For more information, see page 35.)

Back cover: The Vertical Motion Simulator has a key role in the development of the next-generation fighter,

which will be flown by three branches of the U.S. military. Two proposed versions of the Joint Strike Fighter

were simulated: Boeing’s X-32 (left) and Lockheed Martin’s X-35 (right). (For more information, see pages 16

and 19.)

Special thanks to Matt Blake, Dave Carothers, Girish Chachad, Bill Chung, Ron Gerdes, Scott Gilliland,

Jennifer Goudey, Scott Malsom, Julie Mikula, Bob Shiner, and Barry Sullivan for contributions made to the

production of this document.
Aviation Systems Research, Technology, & Simulation Division 5

Table of Contents

Foreword ............................................................................................................................................ 3

Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................... 6

FY98 Simulation Schedule ................................................................................................................ 9

FY98 VMS Project Summaries ........................................................................................................ 10

FY98 CVSRF Project Summaries .................................................................................................... 11

FY99 VMS Simulation Projects ........................................................................................................ 12

FY99 CVSRF Simulation Projects.................................................................................................... 13

Vertical Motion Simulator Research Facility ............................................................................... 15

Boeing B1, A1, A2......................................................................................................................... 16

Simulation Fidelity Requirements 5 .............................................................................................. 17

Civil Tiltrotor 7 ............................................................................................................................... 18

Lockheed Martin ........................................................................................................................... 19

Space Shuttle Vehicle 1................................................................................................................ 20

Helicopter Maneuver Envelope Enhancement 5 .......................................................................... 21

Slung Load 5 ............................................................................................................................... 22

Simulation Fidelity Requirements 6 .............................................................................................. 23

High Speed Civil Transport Design & Integration ......................................................................... 24

High Speed Civil Transport A7...................................................................................................... 25

High Speed Civil Transport A7B ................................................................................................... 26

Partial Authority Flight Control Augmentation ............................................................................... 27

Space Shuttle Vehicle 2................................................................................................................ 28

Crew-Vehicle Systems Research Facility .................................................................................... 31

Decision Making ........................................................................................................................... 32

Propulsion Controlled Aircraft 3 .................................................................................................... 33

Obstacle Free Zone 1, 2 ............................................................................................................... 34

Taxiway Navigation and Situation Awareness .............................................................................. 35

Air-Ground Integration (Free Flight 3) .......................................................................................... 36

Turbulence for Precipitous Terrain ................................................................................................ 37

Fatigue Countermeasures ............................................................................................................ 38

Propulsion Controlled Aircraft 4 (Ultralite) .................................................................................... 39

Advanced Automation Qualification .............................................................................................. 40

Technology Upgrade Projects ...................................................................................................... 43

Virtual Laboratory ......................................................................................................................... 44

Out-the-Window 2000 Plus........................................................................................................... 45

Host Computer Upgrade............................................................................................................... 46

Real-Time Network Upgrade ........................................................................................................ 47

Bosnia Visual Database ............................................................................................................... 48

Joint FAA/Army/NASA Interoperability Demonstration ................................................................. 49

Flight Management System Upgrade ........................................................................................... 50

Communications System Upgrade ............................................................................................... 51

List of Acronyms ............................................................................................................................ 52

Appendix 1 ...................................................................................................................................... 54
6 Aviation Systems Research, Technology, & Simulation Division

Executive Summary

This Annual Report addresses the major simulation accomplishments of the Aviation

Systems Research, Technology, and Simulation Division of the NASA Ames Research

Center. The Ames Simulation Facilities, contained in two separate buildings at Ames

Research Center and operated by this Division, consist of the Crew Vehicle Systems

Research Facility (CVSRF) and the Vertical Motion Simulation (VMS) Complex. The

CVSRF is comprised of a Boeing 747-400 Simulator, the Advanced Concepts Flight

Simulator (ACFS), and an Air Traffic Control (ATC) simulator. The VMS Complex is

comprised of the Vertical Motion Simulator (VMS), five Interchangeable Cockpits (ICABs),

and two fixed-base simulation labs. A brief description of these facilities follows this report

in Appendix 1.

From a Management perspective, Fiscal Year 1998 was dominated by several important events. First was the achievement of ISO 9001 Certification in May. This certification

was achieved after two years of planning and effort by the entire staff, civil service and

contractor. A second significant event was the organizational transition completed in July

with the forming of the new Aviation Systems Research, Technology, and Simulation

Division (AF). This completes the changes begun when the Wind Tunnels became a

separate Division within Code F. The final activity has been the continuing efforts to

streamline and reduce facility operations costs at NASA.

In addition to these activities, paramount to Division operations has been the continuing commitment to uncompromised excellence in the development and production of

efficient, high-fidelity, safe, real-time piloted flight simulations. The Division has also

continued to aggressively modernize in order to maintain reliability, our competitive edge,

and our responsiveness to Users’ needs. The staff places very high value on customer

relations and has successfully provided highly responsive, cost-effective, value-added

simulation support to all simulation customers.

The purpose of this document is to briefly describe our accomplishments of the past

year. Its outline includes the Executive Summary, Simulation Schedule for FY98, Planned

Projects for FY99, VMS Project Summaries, CVSRF Project Summaries, and Technology

Upgrade Projects. The Project Summaries sections state the goal of each simulation and

present high level results. Researchers and Pilots from NASA and private industry are

identified as well as simulation engineers from the staff. The Technology Upgrade

Projects section reports changes made in order to keep our simulation facilities state-ofthe-art. Finally, a List of Acronyms is included for the reader’s convenience.

Notable accomplishments for FY98 include the following:

All simulation experiments conducted at Ames support significant research that is

responsive to the needs of the Nation with a focus on applied aeronautics research.

Diversity, fidelity, and breadth of simulation distinguish the research projects conducted at

Ames, as can be seen by reviewing the Project Summaries sections of this report.

There were 26 major simulation experiments conducted in the flight simulation laboratories in FY98. These simulations reflect a continued concentration on NASA’s focused

programs such as High Speed Research (HSR), Advanced Subsonic Technology (AST),

NASA’s Space Operations, and FAA/NASA Airspace Operations Systems. Support was

also provided to other Government research, with emphasis on the Army Rotorcraft and

Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) programs. In addition, there were several technology upgrade

projects either completed or with significant progress being accomplished during the year.
Aviation Systems Research, Technology, & Simulation Division 7

A. David Jones

Associate Chief-Simulations

Aviation Systems Research, Technology, & Simulation Division

Technology upgrade projects for the past year include:

Within the CVSRF, upgrades to the ACFS Flight Management System and the

facilitywide Communications System were completed. An evaluation of the application of

the DOD High Level Architecture was also performed in coordination with the Army and

FAA.

The VMS completed the conversion to the new ESIG 4530 with the expansion to five

channels and its routine use in production operations. In addition, incremental upgrades

to the Host Computer systems and the Virtual Laboratory were completed.

Some future plans:

All of the simulation facilities continue to be in high demand. There is a full list of

projects for FY99 that build on past research efforts and bring some new activities as

well. We will continue our tradition of supporting mainstream NASA and national aeronautical development programs, being second to none in state-of-the-art real-time simulation

and enabling technologies. Automated tools for simulation and modeling, improvements

in graphics and displays, and efficient computational environments are other continuing

efforts.

In addition, significant efforts are underway planning the VMS Modernization Project

currently scheduled for FY01. The project will replace obsolete mechanical drives and

control equipment with state-of-the-art systems. When complete, the VMS will set the

standard for low-cost, reliable, high-performance motion.
8 Aviation Systems Research, Technology, & Simulation Division
79' t c O 79' voN 79' ce D 89' naJ 89' beF 89' r a M 89' r pA 89' ya M 89' enuJ 89' yl uJ 89' guA 89' t peS 89' t c O

6 31 02 72301 71 42 18 51 22 92521 91 62 29 61 32 29 61 32 03631 02 72411 81 52 18 51 22 92631 02 72301 71 42 13741 12 82521 91 62

Simulation Experiments BranchAviation Systems Research,Technology, & Simulation DivisionAmes Research Center

FY98 Simulation Schedule

Simulation Facilities

VMS

Shift A

I-Cab Fixed Base

Shift B

B747

ACFS

Shift A

Shift B

ATC

Aviation Systems Research, Technology, & Simulation Division 9 DEC T-NASA CTAS FMS NASA NASA NASA T-NASA PCA 4 CTAS FMS NASA NASA NASA Air-Ground OFZ 2 OFZ 1 PCA 3 DEC Precipitous Terrain Fatigue Count. AAQ NASA FAA FAA NASA NASA FAA NASA NASA

MotionTuning BOEING

 B1 A1

SIMFR 5 CTR 7 LOCKHEED SSV HELMEE SLOAD SIMFR 6 BOEING

 A2

HSCT D&I HSCT A7 PAFCA SSV 2 LASCAS HSCT A7B

NASABoeing

NASA NASA NASA NASA, JSC,

Rockwell

NASAArmy

NASA NASA

Boeing

NASA, Boeing,Honeywell

NASA, Boeing NASA,

Army

NASA, JSC,Rockwell

Army, Hoh NASA

Army

NASA,Boeing

HSCT A7, D&I HELMEE 5 LASCAS

NASA, Boeing NASA, Army Army, Hoh

CTR 7 LOCKHEED BOEING A2 HSCT D&I PAFCA BOEING B2

NASA NASA NASA,

Boeing

NASA, Boeing,Honeywell

NASA, Army NASA,

Boeing

Air-Ground

NASA
10 Aviation Systems Research, Technology, & Simulation Division

VMS Flight Simulation Projects

1. Boeing B1

2. Boeing A1

3. Boeing A2

Sept 1 - 11, May 1 - 4 (FB);

Sept 22 - Oct 17, Oct 20 - 31, May 11 - 29 (VMS)

Aircraft type: X-32 Joint Strike Fighter

Purpose: To support Boeing’s design and development process and to further NASA-sponsored

research of short takeoff/vertical landing controls.

4. Simulation Fidelity Requirements 5 (SimFR 5)

Nov 3 - 20 (VMS)

Aircraft type: NT-33

Purpose: To evaluate the effectiveness of simulator

motion in predicting pilot-induced oscillation.

5. Civil Tiltrotor 7 (CTR 7)

Nov 3 - 20 (FB); Nov 24 - Dec 18 (VMS)

Aircraft type: Civil Tiltrotor

Purpose: To investigate aircraft guidance, terminal

flight procedures, and varying environmental conditions for tiltrotor transports.

6. Lockheed Martin

Jan 5 - 15 (FB); Jan 19 - Feb 6 (VMS)

Aircraft type: X-35 Joint Strike Fighter

Purpose: To evaluate control system designs and

cockpit display concepts as part of NASA-sponsored

short takeoff/vertical landing controls research.

7. Space Shuttle Vehicle 1 (SSV 1)

Feb 9 - Mar 12 (VMS)

Aircraft type: Space Shuttle Orbiter

Purpose: To investigate the Space Shuttle Orbiter

hydraulic systems, landing systems, and directional

control handling qualities and to provide astronaut

training.

8. Helicopter Maneuver Envelope Enhancement 5

(HelMEE 5)

Mar 16 - 26 (VMS)

Aircraft type: UH-60 Black Hawk helicopter

Purpose: To continue research into predicting

helicopter flight envelope limits and communicating

those limits to the pilot.

9. Slung Load 5 (SLOAD 5)

Mar 30 - Apr 9 (VMS)

Aircraft type: CH-47D Chinook helicopter

Purpose: To improve handling qualities criteria for

cargo helicopters in slung load operations and to

refine techniques for measuring those criteria.

10. Simulation Fidelity Requirements 6 (SIMFR 6)

Apr 13 - May 7

Purpose: To gather data for the development and

validation of a pilot model to characterize how a pilot

processes and responds to visual and motion cues.

11. High Speed Civil Transport Design & Integration

(HSCT D&I)

June 1 - 4 (FB); June 8 - 26 (VMS)

Aircraft type: High Speed Civil Transport

Purpose: To investigate design issues related to new

flight deck requirements for a High Speed Civil

Transport aircraft.

12. High Speed Civil Transport A7 (HSCT A7)

13. High Speed Civil Transport A7B (HSCT A7B)

June 29 - Aug 7, Sept 21 - Oct 2 (VMS)

Aircraft type: High Speed Civil Transport

Purpose: To investigate the handling qualities, control

requirements, and guidance concepts for the Guidance and Flight Control Team of the HSR Program.

14. Partial Authority (PAFCA)

July 20 - Aug 7 (FB); Aug 10 - 27 (VMS)

Aircraft Type: UH-60 Black Hawk helicopter

Purpose: To investigate the flying qualities improvement potential of a Partial-Authority Flight Control

System.

15. Space Shuttle Vehicle 2 (SSV 2)

Aug 31 - Sept 18 (VMS)

Aircraft type: Space Shuttle Orbiter

Purpose: To train crews of upcoming missions and

astronaut candidates.

VMS Technology Upgrades

1. Virtual Laboratory (VLAB)

Purpose: To develop, integrate, and operate a

remote-access system that facilitates interactive

participation for off-site VMS customers.

2. Out-the-Window 2000 Plus

Purpose: To greatly enhance the real-time out-thewindow image capabilities of the VMS.

3. Host Computer Upgrade

Purpose: To replace existing host computers with

new systems to meet the simulation needs of the

VMS well into the new century.

4. Real-Time Network Upgrade

FY98 Project Summaries

Continued next page...
Aviation Systems Research, Technology, & Simulation Division 11

FY98 Project Summaries

Purpose: To increase network performance, functionality, and configurability while allowing for future

upgrades to developing network technologies.

5. Bosnia Visual Database

Purpose: To develop a visual database representing

the area around Tuzla, Bosnia for use in U.S. Army

simulators.

CVSRF Flight Simulation Projects

1. Decision Making

Oct 1 - Oct 6 (B747)

Purpose: To examine flight crew communications in

low- and high-risk situations and how these risks

affect pilot decision making.

2. Propulsion Controlled Aircraft 3 (PCA 3)

Oct 16 - Oct 23 (B747)

Purpose: To examine the use of a low-cost fly-bythrottle control system as a backup primary flight

control system for a four-engine transport aircraft in

the event of an emergency or malfunction.

3. Obstacle Free Zone 1 (OFZ 1)

4. Obstacle Free Zone 2 (OFZ 2)

Nov 6 - Nov 20, Jan 28 - Feb 11 (B747)

Purpose: To define safe spacing and dimension

requirements for new and existing large transport

aircraft when conducting aborted takeoffs or balked

landings below established decision heights.

5. Taxiway Navigation and Situation

Awareness (T-NASA)

Jan 5 - Feb 17 (ACFS)

Purpose: To improve airport surface operations in

bad weather and at night through the use of a headup display, electronic moving map of the airport area,

and electronic data-link of taxi routes directly into the

aircraft on-board computer.

6. Air-Ground Integration (Free Flight 3)

Mar 16 - Apr 3 (B747)

Purpose: To evaluate the alert and protected zone

airspace definitions for free flight and pilot interpretation of applying visual flight rules right-of-way procedures in an integrated air-ground free-flight environment.

7. Turbulence for Precipitous Terrain

Apr 7 - Jun 2 (B747)

Purpose: To evaluate the ability of pilots to fly through

various levels of turbulence in an effort to quantify the

effects of winds and turbulence induced by precipitous terrain.

8. Fatigue Countermeasures

Jun 4 - Jul 13 (B747)

Purpose: To investigate the effectiveness of an inflight countermeasure to the fatiguing effects of a

long, overnight flight and to evaluate new techniques

for measuring drowsiness and fatigue.

9. Propulsion Controlled Aircraft 4 (Ultralite)

Aug 10 - Aug 21 (ACFS)

Purpose: To investigate a low-cost fly-by-throttle

control system as a backup to the primary flight

control system.

10. Advanced Automation Qualification (AAQ)

Sep 21 - Sep 25 (B747)

Purpose: To evaluate the effectiveness of a training

curriculum designed to teach flight deck automation

concepts and skills to a level of understanding

beyond what is currently taught.

CVSRF Technology Upgrades

1. Joint FAA/Army/NASA Interoperability

Demonstration

Purpose: To test and evaluate the new High Level

Architecture for future use in large teaming experiments by integrating simulators from the three

organizations in a joint demonstration.

2. Flight Management System (FMS) Upgrade

Purpose: To enhance the existing ACFS programmable FMS to provide a unique world class research

system for advanced airspace operations research.

3. Communications System Upgrade

Purpose: To increase the fidelity of the CVSRF

simulated radio communication system between the

ATC Simulator, the 747-400 Simulator, and the

Advanced Concepts Flight Simulator in order to

enhance realism.

FB - Fixed Base Simulators

VMS - Vertical Motion Simulator

ACFS - Advanced Concepts Flight Simulator

B747 - Boeing 747 Simulator
12 Aviation Systems Research, Technology, & Simulation Division

st c

ej or P

n

oit al u

mi S

S

M

V

9

9

Y

F

T

C

E

J

O

R

P

M

A

R

G

O

R

P

D

E

T

R

O

P

P

US DE

T

R

O

P

P

U

S

D

E

T

R

O

P

P

U

S

D

E

T

R

O

P

P

US DE

T

R

O

P

P

U

S

S

R

E

M

O

T

S

U

C

S

E

VI T

C

E

J

B

O

T

S

E

T

2

B

gni e

oB FSJ ri A

S

U, se

m

A

A

S

A

N, gni e

o

B

y

v

a

N

&senir a

M, ecr o

F

dna, st ne

m

eri uq

er l ort noc, seitil auq

gnil dnah et a

git se

vnI

.tf ar cri af o

e

p

yt tfil t ceri d

ar of st p

ecnoc ecna

di ug

7

R

F

mi S r eht O se

m

A

A

S

A

N

eht gni yfi d

o

m

dna

gnit aul a

v

e

y

b

ytil e

dif noit al u mi s e

v

or p

mI

. ecna

mr ofr e

p

m

et sys gni eucl ausi v

dna noit o

m

2

d

e

ehkcoL FSJ se

m

A

A

S

A

N, d

e

ehkco

L

dna, st ne

m

eri uq

er l ort noc, seitil auq

gnil dnah et a

git se

vnI

.tf ar cri af o

e

p

yt naf tfil ar of st p

ecnoc ecna

di ug

1 A

D

C

d

e

ehkcoL FSJ S

U, se

m

A

A

S

A

N, d

e

ehkco

L

y

v

a

N

&senir a

M, ecr o

Fri A

dna, st ne

m

eri uq

er l ort noc, seitil auq

gnil dnah et a

git se

vnI

.tf ar cri af o

e

p

yt naf tfil ar of st p

ecnoc ecna

di ug

1 el ci he

V

eltt uhS

eca

pS sp

O

eca

pS CSJ,ll e

w

y

eno

H,ll e

wkco

R r et bir Or eht o

dna seitil auq

gnil dnahl ort nocl anoit ceri d

y

dut S

. seussi gni dnal

8

R

F

mi S r eht O se

m

A

A

S

A

N, d

e

ehkco

L

eht gni yfi d

o

m

dna

gnit aul a

v

e

y

b

ytil e

dif noit al u mi s e

v

or p

mI

. ecna

mr ofr e

p

m

et sys gni eucl ausi v

dna noit o

m

kcit S

e

di S

e

vit c A ) y

mr A( D

o D y mr A

ot r ell ort noc kcit se

di s e

vit ca naf o noit acil p

p

a

et a

git se

vnI

dna

ytili g

a

e

v

or p

mi ot seuqi nhce

T.tf ar cri a

gni w

yr ar ot or

. ytili b

ar e

vuena

m

8r ot ortli Tli vi C TSA se

m

A

A

S

A

N, A

A

F

esi on, esi on/ w

ol tf ar cri ar ot ortlit f o noit a

git se

vni eunit no

C

a

er al ani mr et r of seussi noit acifitr ec dna,t ne

m

et a

b

a

. snoit ar e

p

o

3

B

gni e

oB FSJ ri A

S

U, se

m

A

A

S

A

N, gni e

o

B

y

v

a

N

&senir a

M, ecr o

F

dna, st ne

m

eri uq

er l ort noc, seitil auq

gnil dnah et a

git se

vnI

.tf ar cri af o

e

p

yt tfil t ceri d

ar of st p

ecnoc ecna

di ug

3

A

gni e

oB FSJ se

m

A

A

S

A

N, gni e

o

B

, seitil auq

gnil dnah m

et sysl ort noct hgilf d

ecna

v

d

a

et a

git se

vnI

f o

e

p

yt tfil t ceri d

ar of ecna

di ug

dna, st ne

m

eri uq

er l ort noc

.tf ar cri a

noit at or ot uA RO

F

AS se

m

A

A

S

A

N, y

mr A r of st ne

m

eri uq

er gni euc noit o

m

dna

m

et sysl ausi v

et al osI

. sr ot ar e

p

or et p

ocil ehr of sr e

vuena

mnoit at or ot ua

gni mr ofr e

p

8

A

T

C

SH RSH y mr A, A

S

A

N, gni e

o

B

dna, st ne

m

eri uq

er l ort noc, seitil auq

gnil dnah et a

git se

vnI

d

esu e

b

ot tf ar cri af o

e

p

yt d

e

e

ps- hgi h ar of st p

ecnoc ecna

di ug

.tr o

psnart naili vi c r of

2

el ci he

V

eltt uhS

eca

pS sp

O

eca

pS CSJ,ll e

w

y

eno

H,ll e

wkco

R r eti br Or eht o

dna seitil auq

gnil dnahl ort nocl anoit ceri d

y

dut S

. seussi gni dnal

3

d

e

ehkcoL de

ehkcoL se

m

A

A

S

A

N, d

e

ehkco

L

dna, st ne

m

eri uq

er l ort noc, seitil auq

gnil dnah et a

git se

vnI

.tf ar cri af o

e

p

yt naf tfil ar of st p

ecnoc ecna

di ug

2

A

D

C

d

e

ehkcoL Do

D

S

U, se

m

A

A

S

A

N, d

e

ehkco

L

y

v

a

N

&senir a

M, ecr o

Fri A

dna, st ne

m

eri uq

er l ort noc, seitil auq

gnil dnah et a

git se

vnI

r ot art sno

m

e

dt p

ecnoc, e

p

yt naf tfil ar of st p

ecnoc ecna

di ug

.tf ar cri a
Aviation Systems Research, Technology, & Simulation Division 13

st c

ej or P

n

oit al u

mi S

F

R

S

V

C

9

9

Y

F

T

C

E

J

O

R

P

M

A

R

G

O

R

P

D

E

T

R

O

P

P

US DE

T

R

O

P

P

U

S

D

E

T

R

O

P

P

U

S

D

E

T

R

O

P

P

US DE

T

R

O

P

P

U

S

S

R

E

M

O

T

S

U

C

S

E

VI T

C

E

J

B

O

T

S

E

T

knil- at a

D

S

M

F/ S

A

T

C

P

A

T

) S

F

C

A(

sr ot ca

F na

mu H

A

S

A

N

noi si vi D

f o knil- at a

d cit a

m

ot ua

gni zilit u ecna

mr ofr e

pt oli p

et a

git se

vnI

t ne

m

e

g

ana

Mt hgil F

dr a

o

b- no

eht ot ni sehca

or p

p

a

S

A

T

C

.) S

M

F( m

et sy

Sr et up

m

o

C

tf ar cri A

d

ell ort no

Cnoi sl up

or P

etil artl U) A

C

P(

A

C

P

) 0

0

4- 7

4

7(

l anoit at up

m

o

Cse

m

A

A

S

A

N

ne

d

yr D

A

S

A

N,. vi Dsecnei c S

w

al l ort noc eltt or ht- y

b- ylf t soc- w

ol af o

esu eht et aul a

v

E

eht ni m

et sysl ort noct hgilf pukca

b

ycne

gr e

m

e na sa

m

et sys

. er uli af m

et sys cil uar d

yh af ot ne

v

e

ciff ar Tf o

y

al psi Dti pkco

C

)I T

D

C( noit a

mr of nI

T

T

A

A

) 0

0

4- 7

4

7(

sr ot ca

F na

mu H

A

S

A

N

noi si vi D

dna ciff art dna noit ar a

p

esfl es d

ecna

v

d

af o

esu eht eni m

a

x

E

f otr o

p

pus ni y

g

ol o

b

m

ys y

al psi d

m

et sys ecna

di o

v

a noi sill oc

.t hgilf e

erf

kni L- at a

D

S

N

A

F

A

A

F/ A

S

A

N

) 0

0

4- 7

4

7(

sr ot ca

F na

mu H

A

S

A

N

A

A

F, noi si vi D

d

et ai cossa seussi ngi se

d

ecafr et ni dnal ar ud

ecor p

eni m

a

x

E

. snoit aci nu m

m

oc knil- at a

d ci na

ecof o noit at ne

m

el p

mi eht hti w

sl o

o

T

d

et ar g

et nI T

T

A

A

) 0

0

4- 7

4

7(

sr ot ca

F na

mu H

A

S

A

N

noi si vi D

-ri a

d

et ubirt si d

a ni snoit car et ni w

er ct hgilf/ C

T

A

eni m

a

x

E

d

ecna

v

d

a hti w

d

e

p

pi uq

e

er a ht o

b hci h wni , noit ar e

p

o

dnuor g

. sl o

ot noit ul oser/ noit cet e

d noi sill oc

dna noit a

gi v

a

N

y

a

wi x

a

T

ssener a

w

A noit auti S

) A

S

A

N- T(

O

S

A

L

V

L/ P

A

T

) S

F

C

A(

sr ot ca

F na

mu H

A

S

A

N

noi si vi D

no

gnii x

at dna

gni dnal tf ar cri af o

ycnei ciff e

dna

yt ef as esa

er cnI

t u Oll o

R

a

dna

A

S

A

N- T

gnit ar g

et ni hguor ht ecafr ustr o

pri a

eht

. m

et sys ) O

T

O

R( ff Onr uT

&

sdr a

dnat S

er ud

ecor Pt hgil F

A

A

F

) 0

0

4- 7

4

7(

r et ne

Cl acit uanor e

A

A

A

F

) yti C

a

m

ohal k O(

gni v

or p

mi hti w

d

et ai cossa seussi l anoit ar e

p

o

eni m

a

x

E

r o

gni ni at ni a

m

eli h w

ycnei ciff e

dna

yti ca

p

ac a

er al ani mr et

. yt ef asl anoit ar e

p

o

gni v

or p

mi

ser usa

e

mr et nuo

C

eugit a

F

S

O

A

) 0

0

4- 7

4

7(

sr ot ca

F na

mu H

A

S

A

N

noi si vi D

ot er usa

e

mr et nuoct hgilf- ni naf o ssene

vit ceff e

eht et a

git se

vnI

seuqi nhcet dna st hgilf t hgi nr e

v

o, gnol f o st ceff e

gni ugit af eht

. eugit af/ p

e

el s gnir usa

e

mr of

sehca

or p

p

Al ell ar a

P

el pitl u M

A

A

F

) 0

0

4- 7

4

7( r et ne

Cl aci nhce

T

A

A

F

st ne

m

eri uq

er gni ca

ps dna seitili b

a

p

ac gnil dnah ciff art et aul a

v

E

hca

or p

p

al ell ar a

p suo

enatl u mi s el pitl u m

gni nnur r of

. snoit ar e

p

o

t hgil Fl ar ue

Nt ne

gill et nI

sl ort no

C

esa

B. T.I

) S

F

C

A(

l anoit at up

m

o

C

A

S

A

N

noi si vi Dsecnei c S

sa

m

et sysl ort noct hgilf t ne

gill et ni d

esa

bt enl ar uen et aul a

v

E

tf ar cri a

gni pl ehf o

el b

a

p

ac m

et sysl ort noct hgilf e

vit p

a

d

a na

. ser uli af m

et sys r oj a

m

e

vi vr us

seitili bi sno

pse

R

dna sel o

R

T

T

A

A

) 0

0

4- 7

4

7(

sr ot ca

F na

mu H

A

S

A

N

noi si vi D

ne

e

wt e

b seitil bi sno

pser dna sel or f o noit ani mr et e

d

eht er ol p

x

E

.t ne

mnori vnet hgilf e

erf eht ni st oli p

dna sr ot ar e

p

o

dnuor g

eht
14 Aviation Systems Research, Technology, & Simulation Division
Aviation Systems Research, Technology, & Simulation Division 15

Vertical Motion Simulator

Research Facility

The Vertical Motion Simulator

(VMS) complex is a world-class

research and development facility that

offers unparalleled capabilities for

conducting some of the most exciting

and challenging aeronautics and

aerospace studies and experiments.

The six-degree-of-freedom VMS, with

its 60-foot vertical and 40-foot lateral

motion capability, is the world's largest

motion-base simulator. The large

amplitude motion system of the VMS

was designed to aid in research issues

relating to controls, guidance, displays,

automation, and handling qualities of

existing or proposed aircraft. It is an

excellent tool for investigating issues

relevant to nap-of-the-earth flight and

to landing and rollout studies.

 VMS

 PROJECT

 SUMMARIES
16 Aviation Systems Research, Technology, & Simulation Division

Boeing B1, A1, A2

Henry Beaufrere, Kurt Grevstad, Paul McDowell, The Boeing Company;

William Chung, James Franklin, NASA ARC; Leslie Ringo, Chuck Perry, Emily Lewis,

Girish Chachad, Alberto Sanchez-Chew, Ron Gerdes, Logicon Syscon/Syre

The U.S. Navy variant of the JSF is shown performing a

carrier landing.

Summary

During the Fiscal Year 1998, three separate VMS

simulations were conducted to support the design

and development of the Boeing X-32 Joint Strike

Fighter and to advance NASA-sponsored research in

guidance systems, display technology, and short

takeoff/vertical landing controls.

Introduction

NASA Ames Research Center plays a key role in

support of the U.S. Government’s Joint Strike Fighter

(JSF) Program, which will field an affordable, highly

common family of next-generation, multi-role strike

fighters for the Navy (USN), Air Force (USAF),

Marine Corps (USMC), United Kingdom Royal Navy,

and other U.S. allies. The military services have

stated their needs for the JSF as follows:

• USN - first-day-of-war survivable strike fighter

aircraft to replace the A-6 and F-14 and to complement the F/A-18E/F

• USAF - multi-role aircraft (primary-air-to-ground) to

replace the F-16 and A-10 and to complement the F22

• USMC - short takeoff/vertical landing (STOVL)

aircraft to replace the AV-8B and F/A-18A/C/D

• Royal Navy - STOVL aircraft to replace the Sea

Harrier

The Boeing Company is one of two manufacturers

selected to build and fly a pair of JSF concept

demonstrator aircraft. Real-time, piloted flight simulation is an important step in Boeing’s approach to JSF

design and development. The VMS, with its large

motion travel, was used to complement Boeing’s inhouse, ground-based simulator prior to in-flight

simulation and flight testing. The objectives of the

three simulations included control law refinement,

flying qualities evaluation, pilot-induced oscillation

investigation, and advanced control and display

design exploration.

Simulations

Test pilots from Boeing, USN, USAF, USMC, Royal

Navy, Royal Air Force, and NASA participated in the

evaluations. Simulations were conducted for a total of

nine weeks on the motion base. In preparation for the

motion-base experiments, a total of four weeks of

fixed-base simulation was conducted to validate the

simulation system response and to finalize flight

tasks and scenarios. Validation of the response was

critical because Boeing’s entire aircraft simulation

software was directly integrated into the VMS.

Results

The primary objectives of the simulations were

met, and the customer obtained considerable information for design analysis and evaluation. Test pilots

were favorably impressed with the important role that

large motion cueing played in evaluating the JSF’s

flying qualities and mission capabilities. The competition sensitive nature of this project precludes the

inclusion of detailed results in this report.

For SimLab, these simulations were the first to

integrate the complete aircraft model software

provided by the customer into the VMS simulation

system. SimLab also created a visual database of the

U.S. Navy’s Patuxent River Test Center containing

highly realistic aircraft carrier and tanker models for

the JSF Program Office to support all JSF groundbased flight simulation activities. VMS personnel also

developed head-up display graphics and lateral

guidance logic for the simulation and incorporated

specialized hardware for Boeing.

For information regarding the Boeing JSF program, please refer to http://www.boeing.com. For the

U.S. JSF Program Office, see http://www.jast.mil.

Investigative Team

The Boeing Company

NASA Ames Research Center

U.S. Navy

U.S. Air Force

U.S. Marine Corps

U.K. Royal Navy

U.K. Royal Air Force
Aviation Systems Research, Technology, & Simulation Division 17

Simulation Fidelity Requirements 5

Summary

Simulation Fidelity Requirements 5 utilized the

large motion capabilities of the VMS to evaluate the

effectiveness of simulator motion cues in predicting

pilot-induced oscillation.

Introduction

In general, ground-based simulations have not

accurately predicted pilot-induced oscillation (PIO). A

previous study at Edwards Air Force Base documented PIO susceptibility using the NT-33 variable

stability jet. The pitch control systems of the plane’s

flight control computer were arranged in 18 configurations, ranging in their susceptibility to PIO. The

results of the Edwards study were used as a baseline

for comparison in Simulation Fidelity Requirements 5

(SimFR 5).

The objective of SimFR 5 was to determine the

effectiveness of various motion cueing levels in

predicting PIO.

Simulation

A math model of the NT-33, including the 18

control system configurations tested in flight, was

developed by NASA personnel. The offset landings

originally flown at Edwards were chosen for their

tendency to induce PIO and were simulated in

SimFR 5 using an existing visual database of

Edwards.

To study how effectively PIO is predicted with

various levels of simulation motion cues, the 18

configurations were flown in three modes: large

motion, small motion, and fixed-base. Large motion

used the normal VMS range, small motion was

limited to the range of a conventional hexapod

platform, and fixed-base simulation involved no

motion at all. For effective pitch cues, the cab was

oriented to allow 40 feet of longitudinal travel. Six test

pilots from NASA Ames, Boeing, the FAA, and

Logicon Syscon/Syre completed a total of 1720 data

runs.

Results

Initial results indicate that large motion best

matched the in-flight results for handling qualities and

PIO ratings. Only with large motion did significant

PIO occur, probably due to the pilots’ reactions to the

high-fidelity vertical acceleration cues. With large

motion, pilots assigned higher confidence factor

ratings, achieved lower touchdown velocities, and

caused fewer safety pilot trips as compared to the

other motion configurations. Results of the study

were presented to the 1998 Atmospheric Flight

Mechanics Conference of the American Institute of

Aeronautics and Astronautics in the paper “PilotInduced Oscillation Prediction with Three Levels of

Simulation Motion Displacement.”

Investigative Team

NASA Ames Research Center

Logicon Syscon/Syre

The Boeing Company

Federal Aviation Administration

William Chung, Jeffery Schroeder, NASA ARC;

Soren LaForce, Norman Bengford, Logicon Syscon/Syre; Duc Tran, NASA ARC

The NT-33, an in-flight simulator with a programmable

flight control system, provided the baseline data for this

study of simulator motion cues.
18 Aviation Systems Research, Technology, & Simulation Division

Civil Tiltrotor 7

William Decker, NASA ARC;

Steve Belsley, Emily Lewis, Philip Tung, Norman Bengford, Logicon Syscon/Syre

Summary

Continuing a series of tiltrotor simulations at the

VMS, Civil Tiltrotor 7 investigated aircraft guidance,

terminal flight procedures, and varying environmental

conditions for tiltrotor transports. Flight path vector

guidance with a longitudinal control director was

implemented, and the effects of tail winds on approach profiles were evaluated.

Introduction

Civil Tiltrotor 7 (CTR 7) was the latest in a series of

simulations to investigate issues that include CTR

certification, terminal area operations, and vertiport

design. Recent experiments have investigated power

level requirements for one-engine-inoperative

operations and noise abatement procedures for

vertiports located in congested areas. Implementing

noise abatement procedures and maneuvering in

airport terminal airspace require complex instrument

approaches. Previous simulations have highlighted

the need for appropriate guidance for these approaches, during which conversion from airplane

mode to helicopter mode occurs. In CTR 6, lateral

flight path guidance was evaluated.

CTR 7 was designed to examine aircraft guidance,

terminal flight procedures, and environmental conditions. Specific objectives included the implementation

of the flight path vector guidance with a longitudinal

control director, the evaluation of tail wind effects on

approach profiles based on ground speed, and the

evaluation of a new wind model that includes an

earth boundary layer and directional shear effects.

For control design and analysis, CTR 7 documented

aircraft speed, rotor speed, and thrust control response. Members of the FAA’s Vertiport Design

Guide Working Group were invited to the VMS to

observe design and tiltrotor operation issues.

Simulation

The simulation marked the first CTR use of the

TCAB. This new cab was designed for the simulation

of civil transport aircraft and features two side-by-side

seats, a full range of electronic instruments, and a

240° X 60° field of view. Flight procedures for CTR 7

were therefore modified to include the duties of a

second, non-flying pilot. For more effective acceleration and deceleration motion cueing during the critical

nacelle conversion, the TCAB was oriented to allow

40 feet of longitudinal travel. The use of a side-stick

controller for CTR was introduced in this simulation.

Test pilots from the FAA, NASA, and industry participated in the experiment. Experienced in-house pilots

evaluated the side-stick controller and the new wind

shear model.

Results

CTR 7 successfully implemented flight path vector

guidance with a longitudinal control director. Information was documented for aircraft speed, rotor speed,

and thrust control response for control system

analysis and design. With the introduction of the twoseat TCAB to CTR simulations, a second pilot was

integrated into the CTR scenario, and duties were

defined for the non-flying pilot. The new wind model

and the effects of tail winds on approach profiles

were evaluated. Vertiport design and tiltrotor operation issues were demonstrated to members of the

Vertiport Design Guide Working Group.

Investigative Team

NASA Ames Research Center

Logicon Syscon/Syre

Bell Helicopters

The Boeing Company

Sikorsky Aircraft

Federal Aviation Administration

U.S. Army

CTR 7 introduced a second pilot to Civil Tiltrotor

simulations with the TCAB. Pictured is the pilot's station

with CTR displays.
Aviation Systems Research, Technology, & Simulation Division 19

Lockheed Martin

Mark Tibbs, Lockheed Martin; James Franklin, NASA ARC;

Robert Morrison, Leslie Ringo, Joe Ogwell, Luong Nguyen, Ernie Inn, Logicon Syscon/Syre

Summary

Lockheed Martin’s X-35 Joint Strike Fighter model

was simulated to support the design and development of the X-35 and to advance NASA-sponsored

research in guidance systems, display technology,

and short takeoff/vertical landing controls.

Introduction

NASA Ames Research Center plays a key role in

support of the U.S. Government’s Joint Strike Fighter

(JSF) Program, which will field an affordable, highly

common family of next-generation, multi-role strike

fighters for the Navy (USN), Air Force (USAF),

Marine Corps (USMC), United Kingdom Royal Navy,

and other U.S. allies. Each of the military services

has specified unique requirements for its version of

the JSF. For example, the USAF primarily expects an

air-to-ground fighter that will be a significant improvement over the F-16. The USN variant will serve as a

strike fighter to replace the A-6 and F-14. The USMC

version distinguishes itself with its short takeoff/

vertical landing capabilities and will serve as a

replacement for the AV/8B and F/A-18A/C/D. The

JSF is expected to enter service in 2008.

The Department of Defense awarded Lockheed

Martin Corporation one of two JSF contracts. The

contract calls for two concept demonstrator aircraft,

the first of which is scheduled for rollout in 1999. This

simulation, using the large motion base at the VMS,

was conducted by Lockheed Martin to complement

their in-house simulations as part of the design and

development process. The objective of the experiment included control law refinement, flying qualities

evaluation, and advanced control and display design

exploration.

Simulation

Two weeks of fixed-base simulation were followed

by three weeks of motion-base operations. The fixedbase session was designed to validate the simulation

system response and to finalize flight tasks and

scenarios in preparation for the motion-base experiment. The response validation phase was a critical

step since the computer code for the entire aircraft

model was generated by Lockheed Martin and

directly integrated into SimLab’s simulation environment. Pilots and engineers from Lockheed Martin,

the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps, U.K. Royal Air

Force and Royal Navy, and British Aerospace

participated in the evaluations.

Results

The primary objectives for the simulations were

met, and significant amounts of evaluation data were

collected. The large motion cueing of the VMS

system played a critical role in evaluating the flying

qualities and mission capabilities of Lockheed

Martin’s JSF design.

For SimLab, this simulation marked a continued

success in integrating the entire aircraft model

software provided by a customer into SimLab’s realtime system. This mode of operation allowed

Lockheed Martin to test several last minute design

changes, which were expediently integrated by

SimLab engineers. Due to the competition sensitive

nature of the project, detailed results cannot be

included in this report.

For further information regarding the JSF program,

please refer to the Lockheed Martin and JSF Program Office world wide web pages at

http://www.lmco.com and http://www.jast.mil, respectively.

Investigative Team

NASA Ames Research Center

Lockheed Martin

U.S. Marine Corps

U.K. Royal Navy

U.K. Royal Air Force

British Aerospace

 The Joint Strike Fighter is an advanced tactical multirole

aircraft concept developed for the U.S. Air Force, Navy,

Marine Corps, and British Royal Navy. The JSF features

stealthy design, high maneuverability, and affordability.
20 Aviation Systems Research, Technology, & Simulation Division

Space Shuttle Vehicle 1

Howard Law, NASA JSC; Kyle Cason, The Boeing Company; Jim Harder, United Space Alliance;

Estela Hernandez, Christopher Sweeney, Logicon Syscon/Syre

Summary

The Space Shuttle Orbiter landing and rollout

studies are performed at the VMS to fine-tune the

Orbiter’s landing systems. The primary goal of this

simulation was to study the effects of changing the

flow rate of the hydraulic system powered by the

Auxiliary Power Unit.

Introduction

The Space Shuttle Orbiter has been simulated at

SimLab since the late 1970s. The simulation at Ames

has been used to test flight control improvements,

safety features, head-up display developments,

proposed flight rule modifications, and changes to the

basic simulation model, which has evolved over the

years. The simulation is also used to train astronauts

with realistic landing and rollout scenarios before

their flight and includes scenarios with system

failures.

Simulation

Simulation objectives were to:

• Study the effects and pilot procedures of single and

dual Auxiliary Power Unit (APU) failures during

approach and landing. This was studied primarily due

to a recent SSV mission in which a single APU failure

occurred.

• Study the effects of increasing the flow rate of a

single or dual APU hydraulic system from 63 gallons

per minute to 90 gallons per minute per APU. The

proposed increase would be coupled with changes to

the Priority Rate Limiting system.

• Continue evaluation of Virtual Laboratory (VLAB).

VLAB allowed researchers at Johnson Space Center

to monitor and interact with Shuttle simulations in

progress at the VMS and to record data. (For more

on VLAB, see the Technology Upgrades section page

44.)

• Train upcoming mission crews and astronaut

candidates through a crew familiarization matrix.

For this simulation, the gear model was modified

to simulate tire deflection, and the capability to

immediately display APU data at the end of each run

was added. A program was written to automatically

translate the Space Shuttle Vehicle test matrix into

data files for input into the simulation program. The

program eliminated several days of manual entry to a

several hour process and can be adapted for other

simulations.

Results

A total of 1210 runs was completed with 35 pilots.

Preliminary results show that for the 63 gallons per

minute single or dual APU, landings can be successfully achieved if the pilot avoids control surface

saturation by minimizing control inputs. Preliminary

results also show that the increased flow rate to 90

gallons per minute, coupled with changes to the

Priority Rate Limiting logic, would reduce the frequency and duration of rate saturation.

The crew familiarization phase of the simulation

reinforced the importance of the VMS in preparing

upcoming crews for the landing and rollout phase of

the mission and for possible failures during that

phase.

Investigative Team

NASA Johnson Space Center

NASA Ames Research Center

The Boeing Company

United Space Alliance

Twice yearly, the Space Shuttle Orbiter is simulated for

landing and rollout engineering studies.
Aviation Systems Research, Technology, & Simulation Division 21

Helicopter Maneuver Envelope Enhancement 5

Matthew Whalley, Jay Shively, U.S. Army AFDD;

Chuck Perry, Alberto Sanchez-Chew, Logicon Syscon/Syre

Summary

The latest in a series of VMS simulations, this

experiment continued research into predicting

helicopter flight envelope limits and communicating

those limits to the pilot. In this simulation, tactile

cueing of blade stall and mast bending moment were

implemented using polynomial neural networks.

Introduction

Helicopters typically have complicated flight

envelope limits that are difficult to predict during flight

and that are poorly displayed to the pilot. To date,

only indirect and simplified cueing of limits has been

viable. The introduction of fly-by-wire (all-electronic)

control systems has further decreased pilot awareness of control actuator authority limits and has

eliminated flight control force feel. Consequently,

conservative restrictions to the maneuvering envelope are often imposed.

The purpose of the Helicopter Maneuver Envelope

Enhancement (HelMEE) simulation series is to

increase pilot awareness of envelope limits. HelMEE

4 implemented a polynomial neural network (PNN) to

predict transmission torque limits and a control force

feel system to provide tactile cueing of those limits to

the pilot. Force cues were delivered through the

collective and indicated when the transmission torque

output relative to a maximum continuous limit was

reached.

HelMEE 5 continued this investigation of cueing

using PNNs. The goals of the simulation were to

improve the PNN used in HelMEE 4, to implement

collective cueing for blade stall, and to implement

cyclic cueing for mast bending moment.

Simulation

HelMEE 5 simulated the UH-60 Black Hawk with a

standard flight control system. Considerable effort

was devoted to improving the PNN performance.

Additional test parameters, such as high altitudes,

high ambient temperatures, and high aircraft gross

weight were simulated to increase torque and mast

bending moment, requiring the helicopter to operate

near its limits more frequently. The collective and

cyclic cues were exercised both separately and

together.

Collective cueing for both torque and blade stall

was achieved by implementing a softstop and a high

gradient force. The softstop allowed the pilot to pull

through the cue if desired. Because mast bending

moment is more dependent on the velocity of stick

input than on the stick position, cyclic cueing was

introduced as a large increase in the damping force.

In all cases, stick shaking and head-up displays were

used as additional limiting cues.

Results

The results of HelMEE 5 indicate improved pilot

task performance and reduced pilot workload.

Effective cueing reduced or eliminated the need to

visually monitor the torque gauge during a task. A

significant improvement was found in the handling

qualities ratings provided by the test pilots. In all, 872

runs, including 387 data runs, were flown by pilots

from NASA, Logicon Syscon/Syre, FAA, Boeing

Helicopters, Bell Helicopters, Columbia Helicopters,

and three U.S. Army organizations.

Investigative Team

U.S. Army

NASA Ames Research Center

Logicon Syscon/Syre

Boeing Helicopters

Bell Helicopters

Columbia Helicopters

Federal Aviation Administration

Barron Associates

HelMEE 5 simulated the UH-60 Black Hawk with a

standard flight control system.
22 Aviation Systems Research, Technology, & Simulation Division

Slung Load 5

Chris Blanken, U.S. Army AFDD; Robert Heffley, R. Heffley Engineering;

Roger Hoh, Hoh Aeronautics; Robert Morrison, Luong Nguyen, Logicon Syscon/Syre

Summary

The CH-47D Chinook helicopter was simulated to

improve handling qualities criteria for cargo helicopters in slung load operations and to refine techniques

for measuring those criteria.

Introduction

The Slung Load 5 simulation experiment, the fifth

in a series of VMS simulations conducted by the U.S.

Army Aeroflightdynamics Directorate, was performed

to obtain data for specifying handling qualities for

cargo helicopters in slung load operations. This

research is part of the Army’s Improved Cargo

Helicopter program, aimed at upgrading the Boeing

CH-47D Chinook heavy-cargo helicopters to extend

their lives beyond the year 2020. Without the program, the first Chinooks would reach the end of their

service life in 2002. A secondary aim of the simulation was to correct deficiencies in the CH-47Ds that

adversely affected their mission operations during

Desert Storm.

Data from prior Slung Load simulations raised

several questions and issues. While many useful

handling qualities criteria have been defined for

cargo helicopter operations with slung loads, a few

inconsistencies in the data indicate that the understanding of how to apply the proposed standards is

incomplete. Other lingering questions concerned

measurement techniques for handling qualities

characteristics, particularly for frequency response

definition.

The purpose of the Slung Load 5 experiment was

to resolve these questions and issues by reviewing

configurations that are inconsistent with currently

proposed criteria, studying the measurement of

handling qualities features in more depth, and

exploring previously unexamined frequency response

features.

Specifically, the objectives included: studying the

validity of gain margin handling qualities criteria for

slung load tasks (mainly precision hover), providing a

better theoretical basis for bandwidth criteria by

defining the load-off rating trend for precision hover

with the load-on performance time, gathering data on

how ratings are influenced by the large difference in

moments of inertia in the roll and pitch axes, and

continuing the study of frequency response measurement methods using pilot-produced inputs.

Simulation

The CH-47D was simulated with various configurations: with and without a slung load of 16,000

pounds, with single- and dual-point suspended loads,

with loads using various sling lengths and distances

from the hook to the aircraft center of gravity, and

with different control system gains. With the slung

load, the dynamics of the aircraft are affected not

only by the basic aircraft response but also by the

coupled response from the external load. Pilots from

NASA, Boeing, and Logicon/Syre flew a total of 885

data runs.

Results

Slung Load 5 developed important handling

qualities relationships for a large variety of control

systems and sling configurations. For internal loads,

the bandwidth parameter was determined to be a

good control response discriminator but was found to

be insufficient by itself for characterizing the control

response with external loads. Finally, the large

motion provided by the VMS proved essential in

providing the pilot with realistic cues of the motion

caused by the swinging of the external load.

Investigative Team

U.S. Army

NASA Ames Research Center

The Boeing Company

Logicon Syscon/Syre

R. Heffley Engineering

Hoh Aeronautics

Pictured above is a view of the simulator cockpit

configured for the Slung Load simulation.
Aviation Systems Research, Technology, & Simulation Division 23

Simulation Fidelity Requirements 6

Summary

Simulation Fidelity Requirements 6 was a joint

research program with the University of California at

Davis that used the large vertical travel of the Vertical

Motion Simulator to gather data for the development

and validation of a pilot model.

Introduction

Visual and motion cues play a critical part in

piloted simulation and significantly affect a pilot’s

perception of vehicle response, which in turn affects

a pilot’s performance of defined tasks. Exactly how

these cues affect the pilot and to what degree are yet

to be determined in a validated scientific study. Each

cue has numerous characteristics or attributes; for

example, scene content, resolution, and field of view

are just some of the characteristics of the visual cue.

These attributes directly affect pilot perception and

interactively produce significant changes in pilot

response.

The objective of Simulation Fidelity Requirements

6 (SimFR 6) was to develop and validate a pilot

model in a single degree of freedom to characterize

how the pilot processes and responds to major visual

and motion cueing attributes. Development of a

validated pilot model will provide important objective

insight and will advance the development of standards and criteria for cueing fidelity in ground-based

flight simulation.

Simulation

To begin this line of inquiry, SimFR 6 limited the

scope of the study to the vertical motion axis and to

select characteristics. Three cueing attributes were

chosen: visual resolution, field of view, and magnitude of motion. The experiment combined these cues

in 42 configurations. A one-to-one motion cueing

configuration, in which the simulator exactly duplicated aircraft response, was developed as a baseline

case. A precision hover task with a 40-foot bob-up

and bob-down was flown. Particular care was taken

to ensure the synchronous delivery of motion and

visual cues.

Results

 SimFR 6 was successful in the collection of data

regarding the effects of various cueing configurations. A total of 1068 data runs were recorded. The

data will be used to develop and validate a pilot

cueing perception model in the vertical axis. After

validation, the methodology of this investigation will

be expanded to multiple degrees of freedom, contributing to the development of standards and criteria

that will help determine minimum requirements for

cueing in motion-base simulation.

Investigative Team

NASA Ames Research Center

Logicon Syscon/Syre

UC Davis

U.S. Army

Simulation Fidelity Requirements 6 was a joint research

program with the University of California at Davis that

used the large vertical travel of the Vertical Motion

Simulator to gather data for the development and

validation of a pilot model.

William Chung, Logicon Syscon/Syre; Jeffery Schroeder,

Duc Tran, NASA ARC; Ron Hess, UC Davis; Soren LaForce, Logicon Syscon/Syre
24 Aviation Systems Research, Technology, & Simulation Division

High Speed Civil Transport Design & Integration

Thea Feyereisen, Bill Rogers, Honeywell; Gordon Hardy, Logicon Syscon/Syre;

Christopher Sweeney, Joseph Ogwell, Robert Morrison, Phil Tung, Logicon Syscon/Syre;

Duc Tran, NASA ARC

Summary

This study, conducted by the Design and Integration team of the High Speed Research Program,

examined two areas of flight deck management:

Crew Interaction with Automation and Crew/Autoflight

Integration.

Introduction

The High Speed Research (HSR) Program is a

collaborative effort between NASA and the U.S.

aeronautics industry. The goal of this effort is to

develop the high-leverage technologies necessary for

an environmentally acceptable, economically viable

high speed civil transport (HSCT) and to provide

intercontinental service at Mach 2.4 for three hundred

passengers beginning in the year 2005.

In support of this goal, the HSR Program’s Design

and Integration team has developed various concepts for flight deck management. HSR Program

milestones called for final piloted evaluation of the

concepts in a simulator.

Simulation

High Speed Civil Transport Design and Integration

(HSCT D&I) evaluated flight deck design concepts in

terms of pilot performance, workload, and situation

awareness in managing and interacting with several

different automated systems unique to the HSCT.

The systems were divided into two areas of study.

1. Crew Interaction with Automation - High-lift

devices on the HSCT have dynamic schedules rather

than the discrete static schedules typical on subsonic

aircraft; hence, a discrete setting flap lever would be

inadequate, and control of the schedules will likely be

highly automated under normal circumstances. The

pilots need to stay involved in and informed about

high-lift device authority and status in order to detect

anomalies and revert to a less automated level of

control if necessary. The automated flap control is

anticipated to make manual control of thrust more

difficult. Evaluation of pilot performance while interacting with the high-lift device automation and

manual throttles in normal and failure modes were

goals of the Crew Interaction with Automation study.

2. Crew/Autoflight Integration - The HSCT will

have different control laws than normal aircraft,

changing the requirements and interface issues for

aircraft mode control and annunciation. An autoflight

mode structure must be developed that is understandable and consistent with the flight control law

paradigms. The effect of this structure on envelope

protection, mode awareness, and pilot procedures

must be addressed. Pilot performance and awareness while interacting with and monitoring the

autoflight system were the key goals of the Crew/

Autoflight Integration portion of the experiment.

The bare airframe model was updated to the latest

HSCT design release for HSCT D&I. The control laws

were implemented using Matlab Simulink design

tools. Matlab’s autocoding feature was used to

convert the block diagrams into C language routines,

which were integrated with the rest of the FORTRAN

code. Algorithms for a Mode Control Panel and

vertical guidance logic were also added to the model.

Results

For HSCT D&I, 105 data runs of three different

tasks were completed for the two areas of study.

Preliminary results indicate that pilot awareness of

the unique problems of an HSCT aircraft is critical

and that advanced flight deck management concepts

will need further development.

Investigative Team

The Boeing Company

Honeywell

NASA Ames Research Center

NASA Langley Research Center

Logicon Syscon/Syre

A series of simulations and flight tests is designed to

validate guidelines and methods to meet the flying

qualities and certification criteria for an HSCT

development program.
Aviation Systems Research, Technology, & Simulation Division 25

High Speed Civil Transport A7

Jim Ray, Todd Williams, The Boeing Company; Gordon Hardy, Logicon Syscon/Syre;

Christopher Sweeney, Joseph Ogwell, Robert Morrison, Phil Tung, Logicon Syscon/Syre

Summary

The High Speed Research Program conducted a

four-part experiment in the VMS to evaluate the

performance of the flight control system and to verify

and validate the bending mode response of the high

speed civil transport.

Introduction

To support the development of a high speed civil

transport (HSCT), the High Speed Research (HSR)

Program’s Guidance and Flight Controls team is

conducting a series of simulations and flight tests

designed to validate guidelines and methods to meet

flying qualities and certification criteria. (For more on

the HSR Program, see the HSCT D&I Introduction on

page 24.)

Simulation

Part 1, the main thrust of High Speed Civil Transport Ames 7 (HSCT A7), involved gathering handling

quality ratings (HQRs) for the entire flight envelope to

determine if the control system designs have met

targeted HQRs. Forty-one flight cards were used to

gather data on takeoff, approach and landing, cruise,

envelope protection, and failure tasks. Each card had

a target HQR, and a database of pilot opinion and

performance was generated to evaluate the vehicle

and control laws against these targets.

Part 2 of the study attempted to discover appropriate levels of roll control sensitivity criteria (roll acceleration per pound force of lateral stick) in order to

develop a criterion for the flying qualities level 1-2

boundary of an HSCT type aircraft in both subsonic

and supersonic flight regimes. For Part 3, a modified

HSCT configuration was evaluated for improvements

in the approach and landing phase of flight. For Part

4, an initial attempt was made to evaluate the effects

of the bending modes, or the Dynamic Aero Servo

Elastic (DASE) response of the aircraft, on the pilot

and control laws.

Dynamic Aero Servo Elastics (DASE) is the

phenomenon which results from the interaction

between aerodynamic forces, structural (elastic)

forces, and inertial forces. DASE excites the natural

bending modes of the aircraft, causing the aircraft to

vibrate. If left uncontrolled, these vibrations can affect

the comfort and safety of passengers, as well as the

structural integrity of the aircraft. Therefore, it is

critical that the DASE effects be investigated for this

aircraft, which has a unique shape and will operate

over a wide range of speeds.

Simulation Results

Preliminary results for the simulation indicate that

the Guidance and Flight Control design element is

exceeding desired HQR targets for most of the flight

envelope; only a few areas of the envelope need

refinement. A large quantity of data was gathered to

help designers determine the appropriate roll control

sensitivity. The modified HSCT configuration performed well in the approach and landing task, but

might be unnecessary since Level 1 HQRs were

achieved with the baseline configuration. The evaluation of the bending mode effects proved to be a

beneficial first look, which revealed the relevant

issues that warrant further investigation.

Investigative Team

The Boeing Company

Honeywell

NASA Ames Research Center

NASA Langley Research Center

Logicon Syscon/Syre

The goal is to develop the high-leverage technologies

necessary for an environmentally acceptable,

economically viable High Speed Civil Transport.
26 Aviation Systems Research, Technology, & Simulation Division

High Speed Civil Transport A7B

Summary

This experiment was conducted by the High

Speed Research Program to evaluate the modeling

of the Dynamic Aero Servo Elastic effects and the

aircraft response during approach and landing.

Introduction

To support the development of a high speed civil

transport (HSCT), the High Speed Research (HSR)

Program’s Guidance and Flight Controls team is

conducting a series of simulations and flight tests

designed to validate guidelines and methods to meet

flying qualities and certification criteria. (For more on

the HSR Program, see the HSCT D&I Introduction.)

During the earlier High Speed Civil Transport

Ames 7 (HSCT A7) simulation, the Dynamic Aero

Servo Elastic (DASE) model was added to the

nominal HSCT aircraft in the last week of the simulation. (For more on DASE, see HSCT A7 on page 25.)

Many issues were identified for further investigation

in a follow-on experiment. In HSCT A7B, the aircraft’s

twenty bending modes were predicted to make the

piloting task a difficult one without any active structural mode control (SMC). This study evaluated the

accuracy of the DASE modeling; the effectiveness of

the SMC; the ability of the VMS motion system to

accurately reproduce the pilot station accelerations;

and the effects of inceptors, center stick versus

wheel/column, on the tendency of the pilot to biocouple with the aircraft.

Simulation

In HSCT A7B, an alternate method of implementing the DASE model was investigated. In order to run

the entire simulation at 100 Hz (HSCT A7 sub-framed

the DASE model at 400 Hz), only the first seven

bending modes (up to 20 radians per second) were

used.

Two different methods of control law implementation were tested. The continuous model of the control

law contained a cascade of filters, to which the

Matlab autocoder added a cycle of delay for each

filter. A discretized version of the control law tuned for

100 Hz was developed to remove this known programming delay. However, the lateral-directional

portion of this control law implementation was found

to be unstable; therefore, most of the data for the

simulation was taken with the continuous control law

implementation.

Simulation Results

Closed loop (with the control laws) piloted runs

were made with and without SMC and with the center

stick and wheel/column by three pilots. All of the

pilots agreed that the DASE aircraft with SMC off was

a Level 3 vehicle. Two of the pilots had some degree

of bio-coupling with the center stick, while the only

pilot who flew with the wheel/column did not experience such problems. The SMC improved the vehicle

handling qualities ratings to Level 1/Level 2. Further

investigation is needed with the VMS motion system

tuned to provide the highest possible motion fidelity

to simulate the high-frequency effects of the DASE

characteristics.

Investigative Team

The Boeing Company

NASA Ames Research Center

NASA Langley Research Center

Logicon Syscon/Syre

Dennis Henderson, Payam Rowhani, The Boeing Company; Gordon Hardy, Logicon Syscon/Syre;

Christopher Sweeney, Joseph Ogwell, Phil Tung, Logicon Syscon/Syre

In High Speed Civil Transport A7B, an alternate method of

implementing the Dynamic Aero Servo Elastic model was

investigated.
Aviation Systems Research, Technology, & Simulation Division 27

Partial Authority Flight Control Augmentation

Matthew Whalley, U.S. Army AFDD; Jeremy Howitt, U.K. DERA;

Chuck Perry, Emily Lewis, Logicon Syscon/Syre

Out-the-window view as seen through the night vision

goggles.

This simulation studied AFCS saturation maneuvers under

degraded visual conditions, that is, under night operations

with night vision goggles.

Summary

This simulation investigated the flying qualities

improvement potential of a Partial-Authority Flight

Control System. An enhanced attitude command/

attitude hold control system was implemented in a

UH-60 Black Hawk model for pilot evaluation.

Introduction

Full-authority fly-by-wire (FBW) active control

technology (ACT) can provide aircraft with optimum

flying qualities. However, implementing full-authority

ACT in current in-service helicopters is a relatively

high-risk, high-cost option. For this reason, a system

is desired that augments conventional full-authority

mechanical control with a limited-authority automatic

flight control system (AFCS). Partial-Authority Flight

Control Augmentation (PAFCA) is being investigated

to determine its potential to improve flying qualities

by providing a functionality similar to a full-authority

FBW system using only limited-authority actuation

technology.

A previous PAFCA simulation, performed by the

United Kingdom's Defense Evaluation and Research

Agency, suggested that if the augmented response

characteristics are properly designed, series actuator

saturation does not degrade handling qualities, even

if significant periods of saturation take place.

The goals of this investigation were to verify that

matching the frequency response of the open and

closed loop dynamics of the vehicle results in acceptable handling qualities in and around the region of

stability and control augmentation system (SCAS)

saturation. Specifically, the objectives were:

• To implement an attitude command/attitude hold

(ACAH) response type within the constraints of a

PAFCA Black Hawk architecture. Two ACAH controller gainsets were synthesized: a frequency-matched

set and a performance-matched set.

• To investigate the impact of AFCS saturation on

handling qualities in hover and low-speed maneuvers

under degraded visual conditions, that is, under night

operations with night vision goggles, as compared to

a standard Black Hawk configuration with rate

command/attitude hold (RCAH).

• To investigate series actuator authority limits of

10%, 15%, and 50%, as compared to the standard

Black Hawk limit of 10%.

• To obtain design data that can be used for potential

Black Hawk in-service control system upgrades.

Results

Simulation goals were met. Nine pilots flew 1422

evaluation runs, and these highlights were noted :

• An ACAH response type was preferred to the

standard Black Hawk RCAH response type for

degraded visual environment operations.

• Frequency-matching SCAS was preferred over

performance-matching SCAS.

• The 15% level of series actuator authority was

preferred, probably due to decreased pilot workload.

Investigative Team

U.S. Army

U.K. DERA

NASA Ames Research Center

Logicon Syscon/Syre
28 Aviation Systems Research, Technology, & Simulation Division

Space Shuttle Vehicle 2

Howard Law, NASA JSC;

Estela Hernandez, Leslie Ringo, Christopher Sweeney, Logicon Syscon/Syre

Summary

Simulations of the Space Shuttle Orbiter are

generally performed at the VMS to conduct landing

and rollout engineering studies and to provide crew

training. This simulation was devoted entirely to

training crews of upcoming missions and astronaut

candidates. The simulation also continued the

evaluation of Virtual Laboratory as a remote-access

simulation tool.

Introduction

The Space Shuttle Orbiter has been simulated at

the VMS since the late 1970s. The simulation model

has evolved over the years and is updated to reflect

modifications to the Shuttle. With its superior motion

cueing, the VMS provides excellent training opportunities for Shuttle crews.

Virtual Laboratory (VLAB), a virtual reality environment that enables researchers at remote sites to

monitor and interact with experiments at the VMS,

was deployed to Johnson Space Center (JSC) for

this simulation. (For more on VLAB, see the Technology Upgrades section on page 44.)

Simulation

Training procedures consisted of each pilot landing

the Space Shuttle Orbiter with various configurations,

initial conditions, and failure modes, based on cases

defined in the crew-familiarization matrix. Simulation

variables included wind direction and speed, chute

deployment speed, visibility (day or night, clear or

cloudy), and location and type of runway (concrete or

lakebed). U.S. runways that were simulated included

Kennedy Space Center (KSC) 15, KSC 33, Edwards

15, Edwards 22, Edwards 23, Northrop White Sands

lakebed, Palmdale, and Vandenberg. Transatlantic

landing sites were located in Africa (Banjul, Ben

Guerir and Dakar) and Spain (Moron and Zaragoza).

Periodically, engineers introduced failures to the tires,

to a single Auxiliary Power Unit, to the Microwave

Landing System, and to beep trim.

In August 1998, two VMS simulation engineers

observed the training of Shuttle crews aboard the

Shuttle Training Aircraft, an in-flight simulator. This

valuable firsthand experience exposed the engineers

to actual cockpit hardware and to crew training

procedures during landings at Northrop runways at

White Sands, New Mexico. The orientation flights

also helped to identify areas for possible improvements to VMS simulations.

Results

Thirty-five pilots flew over 682 data runs to accomplish the crew familiarization objective. Participating

were crews from several upcoming missions, including STS-88, 92, 93, 95, 96, 97 and 98. Astronaut

candidates also took part in the training. In addition,

former astronauts from the Shuttle Program Office,

including John Young, participated. VLAB proved

successful in allowing researchers at JSC to interact

with the simulations as they occurred. This simulation

reinforced the importance of the VMS in preparing

upcoming crews for the landing and rollout phase of

the mission and for possible failures during that

phase.

Investigative Team

NASA Johnson Space Center

NASA Ames Research Center

The Boeing Company

United Space Alliance

During Shuttle simulations, failure modes are tested, such

as this simulation of a parachute failure.
Aviation Systems Research, Technology, & Simulation Division 29
30 Aviation Systems Research, Technology, & Simulation Division
Aviation Systems Research, Technology, & Simulation Division 31

Crew-Vehicle Systems

Research Facility

The Crew-Vehicle Systems Research Facility, a

unique national research resource, was designed for the

study of human factors in aviation safety. The facility is

used to analyze performance characteristics of flight crews;

formulate principles and design criteria for future aviation environments; evaluate new and contemporary air traffic control procedures; and develop new training and simulation

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 CrewVehicle Systems Research Facility allows scientists to study how errors are made, as well as the effects of

automation, advanced instrumentation, and other factors, such as fatigue, on human performance in aircraft.

The facility includes two flight simulators - a Boeing 747-400 and an Advanced Concepts Flight Simulator as

well as a simulated Air Traffic Control System. Both flight simulators are capable of full-mission simulation.

 CVSRF

 PROJECT

 SUMMARIES
32 Aviation Systems Research, Technology, & Simulation Division

Decision Making

This study examined flight crew communications in both

low- and high-risk situations and how these risks affected

pilot decision making.

Judith Orasanu, NASA ARC; Jeanie Davison, Laura Tyzzer, Eric Villeda, Lori McDonnell, Christina

Van Aken, SJSU; Jerry Jones, Rod Ketchum, Diane Carpenter, NSI Technology Services Corp.

Summary

The 747-400 simulator was used to determine the

factors that influence pilots’ success in monitoring

and detecting problems in flight and to investigate

communication strategies used to call attention to or

correct those problems. The study took into account

factors such as the relative rank of the crew members, the type of problem, and the level of risk.

Introduction

In a 1994 analysis of accidents caused by flight

crews, the National Transportation Safety Board

found that 31 of 37 accidents involved failures of

monitoring and challenging by a crew member who

was not flying at the time. In these cases, the crew

member was unable to get the attention of the pilot

flying or was unable to persuade the other pilot to

take action. The problems arose either from the flying

pilot’s error or from an external source, such as other

traffic, air traffic control, or weather conditions. In

most incidents, it was the first officer who attempted

to persuade the captain to take action. Little research

has been conducted to establish which factors

determine when crew members notice problems and

decide to intervene and which intervention strategies

are successful.

The Aviation Safety Research Branch of NASA’s

Flight Management and Human Factors Division

undertook this study to assess the influences of

certain factors on communication and to investigate

which intervention strategies contribute to success.

Simulation

In each run, a retired 747-400 captain, who was a

confederate, acted as the flying pilot and assumed

the rank of captain for some runs and the rank of first

officer for others. The confederate pilot either committed a scripted error or compounded an existing

problem. Flight scenarios developed for the study

differed in the level of risk that existed and in the

degree to which the flying pilot was responsible for

the problem or error. The verbal response to the

problem or error by the non-flying crew member was

the dependent measure. The time for the pilot to

respond after cues signaling a problem had been

presented was also analyzed.

Results

Results of this simulation were examined in light of

three variables: the relative rank of the crew members, the type of problem, and the level of risk.

Participating in the study were 11 captains and 11

first officers. Each day’s runs consisted of five

different line-oriented flight scenarios. Preliminary

findings suggest that participating captains did not

perceive the events that took place in the study to be

as risky as perceived by the participating first officers

when faced with the same situations.

Contributing factors will be evaluated, and procedural recommendations will be considered by the

Aviation Safety Research Branch.

Investigative Team

NASA Ames Research Center

San Jose State University
Aviation Systems Research, Technology, & Simulation Division 33

Propulsion Controlled Aircraft 3

VERT SPD

TRACK

VERTICAL

SPEED

DN

UP

Flight

Control

Computer

Flight Path 

& Track 

Command

-1000

Pilot

Inputs

Flight Path Angle

Bank Angle/Track

Right Throttle Command

Left Throttle Command

HDG

230

Propulsion Controlled Aircraft 3 examined a low-cost, flyby-throttle control system as a backup system for fourengine aircraft.

Joseph Totah, NASA ARC; John Bull, CAELUM Research Corp.;

Diane Carpenter, Jerry Jones, NSI Technology Services Corp.

Summary

The 747-400 simulator was used to examine a

low-cost, fly-by-throttle control system as a backup

for use in the event of an emergency or a malfunction

of an airplane’s primary flight control system.

Introduction

The failure of primary flight control systems has

resulted in numerous accidents. Most notably, United

Airlines Flight 232, a DC-10, crash landed at Sioux

City, Iowa on July 19, 1989. The flight crew saved

many lives by skillfully steering using only the

throttles. Following the accident, the National Transportation Safety Board informed NASA of the need to

“encourage research and development of backup

flight control systems for newly certified wide-body

airplanes that utilize an alternate source of motive

power separate from that source used for the conventional control system.”

Propulsion Controlled Aircraft 3 (PCA 3) examined

a low-cost, fly-by-throttle control system as a backup

system for four-engine aircraft. The original control

laws for PCA were developed by NASA Dryden Flight

Research Center. Simulations with the Advanced

Concepts Flight Simulator at CVSRF have investigated PCA in a two-engine aircraft, and Dryden has

tested PCA with three engines using the MD-11. An

earlier study in the 747-400 simulator applied PCA to

a four-engine aircraft for the first time. In conjunction

with Dryden, the Computational Sciences Division at

NASA ARC conducted this simulation to determine if

a simpler, less costly system for four-engine aircraft

could be safely used.

Simulation

The PCA control laws essentially allowed subject

pilots to fly the 747-400 Simulator using only the

throttles for pitch and roll commands, without the use

of the airplane’s primary flight control systems. Pitch

and roll commands were input via the vertical speed

command and heading select knob on the airplane’s

Mode Control Panel whenever PCA mode was

selected. Using the throttle commands, thrust inputs

were translated through software into equivalent pitch

and roll inputs, allowing pilots to maintain control of

the malfunctioning aircraft. In the earlier PCA studies,

symmetric and asymmetric engine pressure ratio

commands from the flight computer were used to

direct the 747’s electronic engine controls, which

bypassed the throttle servos. This study, however,

utilized symmetrical pitch commands instead, which

drove the aircraft throttle servos, while the pilots

moved the throttles asymmetrically to control the

aircraft roll angle.

Results

Test subjects came from NASA Dryden, NASA

Langley Research Center, the U.S. Navy, and

commercial airlines. They included Captain Al

Haynes, pilot of the DC-10 that crash landed in Sioux

City. Results indicated that, although PCA Ultralite is

an improvement over manual throttle control alone, it

does not provide landings as consistent or as safe as

the PCA baseline tested previously.

Investigative Team

NASA Ames Research Center

CAELUM Research Corporation
34 Aviation Systems Research, Technology, & Simulation Division

Obstacle Free Zone 1, 2

Traditional missed

approach

Balked landing/

climb out Decision

height

The Obstacle Free Zone will provide operationally safe conditions below the

decision-height altitude.

Frank Hasman, Allan Jones, Dave Lankford, FAA, Oklahoma City; Barry Scott, NASA ARC; Jerry

Robinson, Boeing Commercial Airplane Group; Jerry Jones, Rod Kethcum,

Diane Carpenter, NSI Technology Services Corp.

Summary

Two studies explored large aircarrier aircraft flight

tracks and height loss arrest points as a result of

crew-induced aborted landings after reaching decision height altitude in Category I and II weather

conditions. The flight tracks and height loss arrest

points were analyzed relative to Obstacle Free Zone

space and dimension requirements.

Introduction

The Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA)

Advisory Circular 150/5300-13, Airport Design,

accounts for many elements including runways,

shoulders, blast pads, clearways, runway safety

areas, and adjacent taxiways. This advisory circular

mandates Obstacle Free Zone (OFZ) dimensions for

airplanes with wingspans up to 262 feet. For larger

aircraft, information is needed for calculating the OFZ

to provide safe conditions below the decision height.

The FAA’s Flight Procedure Standards Branch

conducted these simulations to assess various goaround call heights for the development of standards

and operation criteria. The study was conducted in

cooperation with the Boeing Company to additionally

provide information for the design of new large

aircraft.

Simulation

Two separate studies were conducted on the 747-

400 Simulator during the fiscal year. The first test ran

a series of approaches at New York’s John F.

Kennedy International Airport (JFK) and Mexico City.

Flight track and height loss data occurring subsequent to arrival at Category I and Category II decision

heights were collected for missed approach and

aborted (balked) landings. Particular attention was

paid to all possible extreme wind conditions allowable

for the type of approach being tested and to any

possible impact on OFZ required space and on crew

response and techniques. No variations in weight

were conducted for these runs. Six days of data runs

were completed for this study totaling 141 runs,

utilizing line-qualified 747-400 flight crews. Data

collection included digital readouts of aircraft state

and performance data, videotapes and pilot questionnaires.

The second study focused additional attention on

aborted takeoffs, engine-out takeoffs, and other

variables such as airport traffic. Variations in gross

weight were also examined. Test runs were simulated

at JFK, Mexico City and Sao Paulo, Brazil. Eleven

days of data runs were completed, totaling 198 runs.

Overall, 17 days of data runs were completed for this

program, totaling 339 runs.

Results

Test results will support Monte Carlo simulation

studies using the FAA’s Airspace Simulation and

Analysis for TERPS (Terminal Procedures), which

calculates the probabilities of collisions during

aborted landings of new larger aircraft. This work will

in turn assist the New Larger Airplane Working Group

of the International Civil Aviation Organization in

providing guidance in the introduction of new larger

airplane operations to existing airports.

Investigative Team

Federal Aviation Administration, Oklahoma City

NASA Ames Research Center

Boeing Commercial Airplane Group
Aviation Systems Research, Technology, & Simulation Division 35

Taxiway Navigation and Situation Awareness

Summary

This study evaluated the use of a head-up display

and an electronic moving map to provide navigation

and guidance information to airplane flight crews for

airport surface operations. The goal is to improve

airport surface operations in bad weather and at

night. Improving airport surface operations in bad

weather and at night will increase airport capacity

and improve aviation safety. This experiment supported the Low-Visibility Landing and Surface Operations (LVLASO) element of the Terminal Area Productivity (TAP) Program.

Introduction

Current airport surface operations are handled

with verbal instructions over the radio, and the

aircraft flight crew uses paper maps to navigate

around the airport. In bad weather (low visibility) and

at night, this can lead to very slow taxi operations

and potentially dangerous situations. Under these

conditions, many major U.S. airports have taxi

capacity limitations, and several taxi accidents occur

each year. Additionally, many commercial airliners

now have electronic navigation displays and a headup display installed, but they are not utilized in any

significant way for taxi operations.

Simulation

The Taxiway Navigation and Situation Awareness

(T-NASA) experiment introduced the concept of

electronically loading the taxi route into an onboard

system and displaying the route on both the head-up

display (HUD) and the electronic moving map (EMM).

Experiment runs started with crews flying on short

final to one of several runways at Chicago’s O’Hare

airport. Following landing, the crews taxied to the

terminal. The runs included baseline cases with only

conventional verbal route and paper map, cases with

the data-linked route and EMM, and cases with the

data-linked route, EMM, and HUD.

Results

Each crew performed 21 landing and taxi runs,

with 38 airline pilots participating as crew members.

Digital data of taxi performance was collected along

with video and audio recordings of the crews’ activities. An extensive debrief was performed to get crew

comments and opinions on the system. With the

conventional configuration of only a paper map,

numerous crews made navigational errors and had to

slow down or stop to determine where they were at

the airport. With the T-NASA HUD and EMM, the taxi

runs were rapid and error free. The results indicate a

significant overall decrease in taxi time with the TNASA system and the elimination of potentially

dangerous navigational errors. This can improve

airline efficiency and provide the customer with better

service at less cost, as well as improving aviation

safety by decreasing accidents.

Investigative Team

NASA Ames Research Center

San Jose State University

Dave Foyle, NASA ARC; Dr. Robert McCann, SJSU; Don Bryant, Elliott Smith,

Ian MacLure, NSI Technology Services Corp.

This study evaluated the use of a head-up display and an

electronic moving map to provide navigation and guidance

information to the aircraft crew for airport surface

operations in bad weather and at night.
36 Aviation Systems Research, Technology, & Simulation Division

Air-Ground Integration (Free Flight 3)

In this display, the positions of intruder airplanes are

depicted by chevrons as well as their predicted positions in

seven minutes which are shown by the circles, and their

corresponding predictor lines extrapolated from their

current positions.

Sandy Lozito, NASA ARC; Alison McGann, Maggie Mackintosh, Paddy Cashion, Melisa Dunbar, Mike

Montalvo, SJSU; Jerry Jones, Diane Carpenter, Ghislain Saillant, Rod Ketchum, Elliott Smith, NSI

Technology Services Corp.

Summary

This study evaluated proposed airspace boundaries and investigated pilots’ interpretations of Visual

Flight Rules right-of-way procedures in the free-flight

environment.

Introduction

Free flight is a traffic management concept that will

allow pilots to fly routes of their own choosing, rather

than routes dictated by air traffic control or by airline

companies, thereby saving time and fuel. In support

of NASA’s Advanced Air Transportation Technologies

Program, this series of simulations is evaluating

human factors and performance issues, air-to-air

communications, and varying traffic density levels as

they relate to preventing conflicts in an envisioned

free-flight environment.

In support of free flight, an advanced alerting

scheme logic has been implemented to provide safe

airborne separation. The logic, developed by MIT,

designates two zones around an aircraft similar to the

current zones of the Traffic Alerting and Collision

Avoidance System (TCAS). The first and smaller

zone, named the protected zone, keeps a separation

of five miles between aircraft and must not be

violated. The second and larger zone, called the alert

zone, is defined by a complex algorithm based on the

relative positions of two aircraft, the probability of

conflict, and the ability to maneuver out of conflict.

The Human-Automation Integration Research

Branch of the Human Factors Division at NASA ARC

conducted this study to evaluate these definitions

and to assist in defining the roles and responsibilities

of flight crews during the transgression of these

zones.

Simulation

For this simulation series, new symbology was

developed and integrated into the existing navigation

displays. It displays aircraft up to 120 miles away,

which is approximately 100 miles beyond the current

TCAS zones. It also displays each aircraft’s protected

zone, absolute or relative altitude, and call sign.

When the alert zones of two aircraft overlap, an aural

warning is sounded, and temporal predictor lines can

be displayed, indicating the predicted flight paths of

nearby aircraft and the closest points of approach

along those paths. A custom-built control panel

allows the length of the temporal predictor lines to be

adjusted to show flight paths for any amount of time

up to ten minutes.

Also for this study, new communications software

was developed and implemented to link the 747-400

simulator to the Airspace Operations Laboratory at

Ames, which simulated air traffic control and generated pseudo-aircraft for the experiment. Scenarios in

Denver airspace were simulated. Line-qualified 747-

400 flight crews and controllers from the Denver area

participated in this study. Subject pilots monitored air

traffic, negotiated with the crews of intruder aircraft,

and executed avoidance maneuvers.

Results

This study completed 80 runs and measured

variables including conflict detection time, communications timing, amount of communications with other

aircraft, time to initiate maneuvers, procedures used

to avoid conflicts, and closest point of approach

between aircraft. The results will assist in developing

airspace boundaries and procedural recommendations for future air-to-air negotiations in a free-flight

environment.

Investigative Team

NASA Ames Research Center

San Jose State University
Aviation Systems Research, Technology, & Simulation Division 37

Turbulence for Precipitous Terrain

Summary

This study evaluated the ability of pilots to fly

through various levels of turbulence in an effort to

quantify the effects of winds and turbulence induced

by precipitous terrain.

Introduction

The FAA’s Flight Procedures Standards Branch at

the Aeronautical Center in Oklahoma City conducted

a study on the 747-400 Simulator to examine issues

related to precipitous terrain. Under the direction of

the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) and

industry, the FAA has been asked to examine the

precipitous terrain issue with intent upon clearly

defining precipitous terrain and specifying quantitative adjustments based upon that terrain. The FAA

has a contract with the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) to evaluate the terrain

aspects of this issue, including examining levels of

turbulence and altimetry errors induced by precipitous terrain. A draft report released by the FAA and

NCAR on their efforts prior to this study cited two

potential hazards for aircraft operations in the vicinity

of precipitous terrain: terrain-induced altimeter errors

and pilot control problems due to terrain-induced

wind shear and turbulence. Currently, there is very

little, if any, quantifiable information on the effects of

turbulence and flight technical error (FTE) induced as

a result of precipitous terrain. There are numerous

anecdotal stories of control problems associated with

turbulence, and there are some NTSB accident

reports that list loss of control due to turbulence as

one of the causal factors. As a first cut at this effort,

this study attempted to quantify the effects of turbulence.

Results

In support of this effort, the FAA conducted a

series of runs to observe pilot FTE under various

levels of turbulence. Levels of turbulence for this test

ranged between zero, moderate, and heavy. Runs

consisted of a series of approaches

starting approximately 15 miles out,

with crews being instructed to land

under the varying levels of turbulence.

Test runs were flown both manually and

with the autoflight system. To account

for variations in altitude, approaches

were conducted at New York’s John F.

Kennedy International Airport and at

Denver International. This test used inhouse NASA pilots. Overall, eight pilots

participated in this study, totaling 72

runs. The results of this study will help

to establish a baseline for quantifying

the effects of turbulence induced by

precipitous terrain on pilot FTE.

Investigative Team

Federal Aviation Administration, Oklahoma City

NASA Ames Research Center

This study evaluated the ability of pilots to fly through various levels of

turbulence in an effort to quantify the effects of winds and turbulence

induced by precipitous terrain.

Alan Jones, Dave Lankford, FAA, Oklahoma City; Barry Scott, NASA ARC;

Jerry Jones, Diane Carpenter, Rod Ketchum, NSI Technology Services Corp.
38 Aviation Systems Research, Technology, & Simulation Division

Fatigue Countermeasures

Summary

This study investigated the effectiveness of an

in-flight countermeasure to the fatiguing effects of a

long, overnight flight such as those encountered

during transoceanic trips today.

Introduction

A study conducted on the 747-400 Simulator by

the System Safety Research Branch in NASA’s

Human Factors Division investigated the effectiveness of an in-flight countermeasure to the fatiguing

effects of a long, overnight flight and evaluated the

utility of a new technique for the measurement of

drowsiness and fatigue. Long, uneventful flights

characterized by physical inactivity, the requirement

to remain vigilant for low-frequency occurrences, low

light levels, limited social and cognitive interaction,

and minimal environmental manipulations present a

situation in which any underlying sleepiness is likely

to emerge. This sleepiness can then result in compromised vigilance, reduced alertness, and impaired

performance. If the flight occurs during nighttime

hours, the levels of fatigue and sleepiness are

increased and can significantly effect safety.

Countermeasures to fatigue are needed, but the

possibilities are limited by aviation regulations,

various safety concerns, and the cockpit environment

itself. Laboratory studies have demonstrated the

effectiveness of breaks, physical activity, and social

interaction in ameliorating the decline in alertness

and performance. This experiment examined the

effectiveness of regularly scheduled breaks and

physical activity on the ability to maintain vigilance

and to mitigate the fatigue-inducing effects of nighttime flying. This investigation also examined the

utility of using a new technique for detecting the

presence of fatigue. This methodology, Percent

Closed (PERCLOS), requires a careful video recording of the face and eyes. Recent laboratory investigations have shown PERCLOS to provide an extremely

promising metric of drowsiness. Online measurement

in the future has the potential to play a key role in an

alertness management system, providing feedback to

the pilot on his or her physiological state.

Results

Experiment runs began at approximately 2:00 a.m.

to take advantage of the time when flight crews

would feel the effects of fatigue the most. For this

study, subject pilots were instrumented with surface

scalp and face electrodes for the collection of

electroencephalography (EEG) and electromyography (EMG) data in order to ascertain their alertness

levels and detect any micro sleeps. Test subjects

were broken up into two different control groups. One

group was given minimal rest breaks while the other

had more frequent breaks. At regularly scheduled

intervals during the simulation, subject pilots were

asked to perform a 10 minute psychomotor vigilance

task on a portable, battery-operated, hand-held

device. Pilots also continuously wore wrist actigraphs

as an additional objective measure of sleep/wake

state and overall activity. The actigraph was an

activity monitor the size of a watch and was worn by

the pilots throughout the three-day pre-study period,

as well as during the simulation run. Overall, 14

crews took part in the study. Data recorded included

videotapes, digital recordings of aircraft performance

and state information, pilot questionnaires, and

physiological data.

Investigative Team

NASA Ames Research Center

San Jose State University

Dr. David Neri, NASA ARC; Ray Oyung, SJSU;

Jerry Jones, Rod Ketchum, Diane Carpenter, NSI Technology Services Corp.

During this investigation of fatigue

countermeasures, pilots performed a tenminute psychomotor vigilance test at regularly

scheduled intervals.
Aviation Systems Research, Technology, & Simulation Division 39

Propulsion Controlled Aircraft 4 (Ultralite)

The PCA concept is to control a damaged aircraft through the use of throttles only.

Summary

Several airline and military aircraft have crashed

after having systems fail that cause partial or complete loss of control of the conventional control

surfaces (rudder, aileron, elevator, flaps, slats). The

Propulsion Controlled Aircraft system utilizes engine

thrust only to control the aircraft and safely land. This

experiment studied a simplified Propulsion Controlled

Aircraft design (Ultralite) that may be affordable for

retrofit into existing airline fleets.

Introduction

The NASA Propulsion Controlled Aircraft (PCA)

research program has developed engine control

systems that provide excellent control capabilities to

vehicles that have lost conventional controls. This

research has included past experiments on the ACFS

and 747 simulators as well as flight tests on a

McDonnell Douglas MD-11 aircraft. The cost to

retrofit these complete systems into existing airline

fleets would be very

high. This PCA

experiment investigated different

levels of automation

to evaluate the

usefulness of

systems that could

potentially be

retrofitted to

existing aircraft at

significantly lower

cost.

The specific

automation configurations investigated

included automatic

symmetric and

manual asymmetric

engine thrust

control (called PCA

Ultralite), manual

symmetric and

asymmetric engine

thrust control, with the use of either conventional

PCA or PCA flight director mode.

Results

Test pilots from three NASA Centers, the FAA, the

Airline Pilots Association, and several airlines all

evaluated the system. Early results indicate that both

flight director modes significantly improved the crew’s

ability to land safely, and the PCA Ultralite throttle

system also helped significantly. Additional experiments are planned for the 747-400 simulator at

NASA Ames and for flight tests on board the NASA

757 aircraft as part of the Aviation Safety Program.

Investigative Team

NASA Ames Research Center

NASA Dryden Flight Research Center

John S. Bull, Independent Contractor

Foothill DeAnza Community College

John Kaneshige, NASA ARC;

Don Bryant, Diane Carpenter, NSI Technology Services Corp.

 Throttle Commands

 Pilot Inputs

 PCA

Control

 Laws

FEE T ( ) M E TE R

–500

DG ( ) T RK

HDG 220 V /S

Bank

Limit

5 25

Hold V/S

DN

UP
40 Aviation Systems Research, Technology, & Simulation Division

Advanced Automation Qualification

Summary

This study evaluated the effectiveness of a training

curriculum designed to teach flight deck automation

concepts and skills to a level of understanding

beyond that which is taught in current airline training

practice.

Introduction

The Human Automation Integration Research

Branch in NASA’s Human Factors Division conducted

a study on the 747-400 Simulator to evaluate the

effectiveness of a training curriculum designed to

teach flight deck automation concepts and skills to a

level of understanding beyond that taught

by the airlines today.

This study consisted of two parts. In

the first part, multiengine commercial

instrument pilots who are currently

seeking airline jobs participated in a

classroom training program designed to

teach advanced flight deck automation

skills and concepts. This portion of the

study took place outside of the CVSRF

and required no participation or support

from the CVSRF.

The second part of the study evaluated

the effectiveness of the classroom

training. This part of the study was

conducted in the 747-400 simulator. This

part of the study simulated a check ride

given by an FAA Designated Examiner,

who was provided by the researcher. The

aim of the check ride was to evaluate to

what extent the participants of the study

had mastered the concepts and skills

presented in the classroom training.

Results

In support of this study, each participating subject flew two legs in the simulator.

The first leg was a familiarization flight

originating in Los Angeles and landing in San Francisco. The second flight began in San Francisco and

concluded with a landing at Los Angeles. During this

flight, the Designated Examiner conducted the

simulated check ride. Overall, eight pilots participated

in this study. Each leg of the experiment was videotaped and is currently being analyzed. However,

preliminary results indicate that the participating

subjects performed fairly well, indicating the effectiveness of the earlier training curriculum.

Investigative Team

NASA Ames Research Center

Dr. Stephen Casner, NASA ARC;

Jerry Jones, Rod Ketchum, NSI Technology Services Corp.

The flight deck of the 747-400 Simulator used to test flight deck

automation concepts and skills.
Aviation Systems Research, Technology, & Simulation Division 41
42 Aviation Systems Research, Technology, & Simulation Division
Aviation Systems Research, Technology, & Simulation Division 43

State-of-the-Art

Simulation Facilities

Providing advanced flight

simulation capabilities requires

continual modernization. To keep

pace with evolving customer

needs, SimLab strives to optimize

the simulation systems, from

cockpits to computers to technology for real-time networking with

flight simulators and laboratories in

remote locations.

 TECHNOLOGY

 UPGRADE

 PROJECTS
44 Aviation Systems Research, Technology, & Simulation Division

Virtual Laboratory

Introduction

The Virtual Laboratory (VLAB) represents a fresh

approach to conducting simulation experiments. It

allows researchers at remote sites to interactively

participate in live simulation experiments conducted

in research laboratories at the Ames Research

Center.

Using a virtual reality environment, remote users

can monitor various simulation data as if they were

physically present in the VMS complex. In addition,

they can view the pilot’s front-window scene, head-up

and head-down displays, a graphical depiction of the

motion platform, strip charts, and end-of-run data

displays. Also integrated into the package are twoway communication, video conferencing, and ambient sound capabilities that enable the remote user to

direct the experiment. Future versions of VLAB will

feature simulation model control, aircraft controls,

display development, virtual prototyping, and data

browsing.

VLAB embodies Ames Research Center’s mission

to lead the world in Information Technology. It allows

government and industry greater access to NASA

expertise in a hands-on fashion. VLAB is an extension of a national research facility that enables

industry to improve and accelerate its design process, yielding cutting-edge aeronautical products.

Deployment to Johnson Space Center

VLAB’s most important deployment to date occurred this September during the simulation of the

Space Shuttle orbiter at Ames. During the semiannual Shuttle simulations, VLAB is deployed to

NASA Johnson Space Center (JSC) to enable

researchers to remotely monitor and interact with

simulations and to capture data for analysis. This

marked the first time the full VLAB client used a

public network, the NASA Science Internet Network.

Data transmission, including video of the out-thewindow display, achieved rates from Ames to JSC

and back between 50 and 150 milliseconds. For the

first time, JSC researchers did not come to Ames, but

relied solely on VLAB to conduct the necessary

research. Their reliance on VLAB’s many remote

capabilities validated VLAB in theory and in practice.

Supercomputing ’97

VLAB was invited to participate in the 1997

Supercomputing High Performance Networking and

Computing Conference (SC’97) held

November 17-21 in San Jose, California.

Using joystick interfaces, exhibit visitors

were able to navigate in real time through

the three-dimensional virtual laboratory

during an actual flight simulation experiment. Users could view data, the pilot’s

front-window scene, cockpit displays, and

a graphical depiction of the VMS beam in

motion, in addition to communicating with

researchers via two-way video

conferencing.

Future Plans

Future work will include enhancing the

fidelity of the immersive nature of VLAB;

providing additional user input/output

features; increasing VLAB’s applicability

to several simulation experiments;

collaborating with technology experts,

both within and outside of Ames; and

increasing its diversity by applying the

VLAB technology in areas beyond flight

simulation at the VMS. Other plans include exploring

possible partnerships with educational institutions

and with local aeronautics museums.

Development Team

Russell Sansom, Chuck Gregory, Rachel Wang-Yeh,

Daniel Wilkins, Logicon Syscon/Syre

For more information, visit VLAB’s web site:

http://www.simlabs.arc.nasa.gov/vlab.

Using VLAB, researchers in remote locations monitor and

interact with VMS simulations as they occur.
Aviation Systems Research, Technology, & Simulation Division 45

Out-the-Window 2000 Plus

Summary

To greatly enhance the real-time out-the-window

image capabilities of the VMS, an engineering

project, designated Out-the-Window 2000 Plus,

combined two image generators into a single,

powerful unit at a significant savings over purchasing

an equivalent system.

Introduction

Through 1997, the VMS real-time out-the-window

scenery was generated by an Evans and Sutherland

CT5A and by an Evans and Sutherland Image

Generator (ESIG) 3000. The CT5A was limited to

three video channels, low object counts, and

textureless polygons, which no longer met researcher

demands for realism or scene detail in visual cueing.

Due to the low performance of the CT5A, demands

on the ESIG 3000 escalated. Out-the-Window 2000

Plus (OTW2K+) was formed to replace the CT5A with

a system that would provide state-of-the-art imagery

beyond the year 2000.

Requirements for the new system included compatibility with existing legacy software and with an

extensive library of visual databases. Implementation

needed to occur without significant change to the

interface with the rest of the simulation system. Only

commercial off-the-shelf systems would be considered to avoid the high cost, complexity, and maintenance of a custom-built system. Additionally,

OTW2K+ was the first VMS project to follow ISO

9000 procedures.

Project Description

After the establishment of formal project requirements, a surplus three-channel ESIG 4530 became

available from NASA Johnson Space Center (JSC).

Project personnel determined that the surplus unit

and an additional new unit could be acquired and

merged into a single system, fulfilling the project

requirements at a significant savings over the alternatives. The VMS purchased the 4530 from JSC and

contracted with Evans and Sutherland to supply a

new two-channel ESIG 4530. OTW2K+ then integrated the two machines.

The 4500 series software required several modifications. The network interface software was changed

to allow connection to the multi-node network by

ignoring broadcast packets. The video generation

software was modified to enable operation in external

sync mode and with the XKD 8000 out-the-window

monitors. Evans and Sutherland modified some

software, and software was also incorporated from

the ESIG 3000 on site.

Results

The new system underwent an extensive series of

tests and became operational without disruption to

the simulation schedule on April 14, 1998. ISO 9000

standards were met and included the procurement of

sparing and maintenance, as well as training for

personnel involved in visual database development,

system hardware maintenance, and simulation

engineering.

By acquiring and physically merging two low-cost

image generators and customizing the system

software, the VMS efficiently produced a powerful

machine with five video channels. The new system

features high resolution, MIPS texture, and high

object counts. With dual CPUs and dual VME buses,

the new system can be configured for two independent eye points.

Development Team

Doug Greaves, NASA ARC; Timothy Trammell,

Ernest Inn, Cary Wales, Jeffery Dewey, Logicon

Syscon/Syre

Out-the-Window 2000 Plus (OTW2K+) was formed to

replace the CT5A with a system that would provide stateof-the-art imagery beyond the year 2000. The new system

features high resolution, MIPS texture, and high object

counts.
46 Aviation Systems Research, Technology, & Simulation Division

Host Computer Upgrade

Summary

To meet the computing requirements of today’s

most demanding simulations, Host Computer Upgrade ’98 replaced existing host computers with new

systems that exhibit the potential to meet the simulation needs of the VMS well into the new century.

Introduction

Host Computer Upgrade ’98 integrated new,

higher-performance host computers into the VMS

complex. The new systems replaced host computers

that could not meet the anticipated computing

requirements of three specific simulations scheduled

for FY98 and FY99. The requirements of the simulations called for drastic increases of between 1.5 to

2.5 times the performance of the existing systems.

The project had three principal requirements: computing power capable of meeting future simulation

needs, functionality similar to that provided by the

systems being replaced, and the ability to obtain

repairs in the same time frame.

Performance

Considering that the current computers had been

in place less than three years and that they represented a twofold increase in speed over the previous

machines, meeting the specifications was problematic. However, due to the computer industry’s improvements in chip computing frequencies and

feature capabilities, it was possible to purchase

computer systems with the necessary performance

from the manufacturer of the existing machines,

thereby meeting all three requirements.

The new hosts are Digital Equipment Corp.

AlphaServer 1000A 5/500 machines, replacing

AlphaServer 1000 4/233s. Benchmark figures from

the Standard Performance Evaluation Corporation

(SPEC, a standardization body) indicated a 3.3 times

improvement in speed. Using the same

manufacturer’s operating system allowed the same

user functionality features. The repair time requirement was maintained easily across machines with

identical warranties. This solution provided a relatively easy means of satisfying the requirements,

although there were some changes in the laboratory

interfaces that required upgrade to and modification

of certain input/output (I/O) circuit board sets.

The performance increase of the operational

systems easily exceeded the requirements of the

FY98 simulations. Taken together with the CAMAC

interface to the cockpit and labs, the VMS system is

capable of frame times of less than one millisecond

when only I/O is performed with the motion, laboratory, and cockpit subsystems. Adding the typical

aircraft model allows frame times as short as 2

milliseconds. As a practical matter, most simulations

are run at longer frame times, such as 12.5 milliseconds (80 cycles per second), which is more compatible with the 16 2/3 millisecond field time of the

associated graphics generators.

Results

The integration of the new systems was completed

in the motion-base lab and in one of the supporting

laboratories. An additional laboratory upgrade is

anticipated for FY99. The new systems are capable

of speeds 2.5 times faster than the systems they

replaced. By the end of FY98, the new host computer

system had been used successfully in both of the

year’s required simulations.

Development Team

William Cleveland, NASA ARC; Bosco Dias, Estela

Hernandez, Hai Huynh, Martin

Pethtel, Logicon Syscon/Syre

The host simulation computers interface to the laboratory, cockpit, and

motion systems. The new host provides frame times down to two milliseconds,

depending on the complexity of the aircraft model.

Alpha 5/500

Laboratory Motion Cockpit

VME I/F

CAMAC I/O

Data "Highway"
Aviation Systems Research, Technology, & Simulation Division 47

Real-Time Network Upgrade

Summary

An upgrade of the real-time network at VMS

significantly increased network performance, functionality, and configurability while allowing for future

upgrades to developing network technologies.

Introduction

Until recently, switching for the real-time network at

VMS was controlled by two 10Base5 half-duplex

switches. Under this system, network connections to

the three host computers approached saturation. To

remedy the situation, and to make the network more

functional and more configurable, the switches were

replaced by a Xylan OmniSwitch 5.

Features and Performance

• Full-duplex 100 megabits per second (Mbps)

Ethernet (Fast Ethernet) - boosts the speed of host

computer connections by approximately 20 times and

eliminates Ethernet collisions. Response time of the

Evans and Sutherland Image Generators (ESIGs) is

significantly more predictable. Attempts to load the

network revealed no measurable changes to the

response time of the ESIGs or to the input/output

frame timing of the host computer’s software.

• Thirty-six 10/100 auto sensing ports - increase the

number of devices that can be networked. Ports

communicate at 10 Mbps or 100 Mbps, according to

each device’s capability.

• Low, predictable latency - ensures that packets are

passed quickly and consistently.

• Console interface - allows engineers to monitor the

system status, change configuration settings, save

configuration files, and upgrade the firmware.

• Out-of-band packet analysis - makes possible the

analysis of network performance without disruption to

real-time operation.

• Address manipulation - enables the assignment of

permanent addresses and the configuration of

address aging.

• Virtual Local Area Network (VLAN) capability -

allows the 36 ports to be split into two isolated

networks; 34 ports were assigned to the real-time

network and 2 ports to the development network.

• Modular components - enable easy expansion and

upgrades, including firmware.

Results

The real-time network upgrade replaced a dual 10

Mbps half-duplex network with a highly configurable

10/100 Mbps full-duplex network. Transition to the

new network was achieved with no disruption to the

VMS simulation schedule. The increased performance of the host connection allows more Ethernet

input/output to be added to the host computer

software if needed. The new system provides superior monitoring and control capabilities. Lastly, the

modular components allow for expansion of the

Ethernet ports and for upgrade to future network

technologies.

Principal Contributor

Martin Pethtel, Logicon Syscon/Syre

The Real-Time Network switch (far right) and two network

management stations.
48 Aviation Systems Research, Technology, & Simulation Division

Bosnia Visual Database

Summary

SimLab developed its largest visual database to

date in a very limited amount of time for use in U.S.

Army simulators. The highly detailed Bosnia database is used to conduct aviation training exercises

and to practice military planning and decision making.

Introduction

The U.S. Army’s presence in Bosnia requires fullmission rehearsal of aviation mission critical tasks

prior to troop deployment. These simulations are vital

for mission training and for exercises in military

planning and decision making. The Army’s Aviation

Center had relied on a visual database that simulated

terrain from Germany with features specific to

Bosnia, but troops found the database to be significantly different from the actual environment. Predeployment training with an accurate database

became more important in light of the ongoing U.S./

U.N. peacekeeping mission. Thus, the Army’s

Directorate of Training Doctrine and Simulation

(DOTDS) called on SimLab to develop its largest

database ever in the extremely short period of four

months.

Database

The Bosnia database required a high level of detail

to support nap-of-the-earth flight over an area 130 X

130 kilometers with visibility of eight kilometers.

DOTDS provided digital terrain elevation data,

vectorized digital feature analysis data, and maps

and photographs of important features. DOTDS also

provided positional data for the nine required base

camps, airfields, and command posts.

The database was developed in nine sections,

each approximately the size of the average VMS

database. To support the high level of detail required,

gridpost spacing of 300 feet was established. The

terrain was designed to have six levels of detail and a

homogenous topological hierarchy, except in regions

that were flattened to accommodate large-scale

features such as airports and base camps. The

database consisted of 2025 modules, each measuring 9600 feet on a side.

Two three-dimensional forest basis sets and three

urban basis sets were developed, requiring new

models for buildings and trees. Numerous urban sites

also required custom models. A detailed model was

created for the Tuzla airfield, and unique sites were

produced for the Comanche, McGovern, and Alicia

base camps. The McGovern base camp served as a

generic model for camps at additional locations.

Models were created for ammunition dumps, power

plants, and industrial sites. All polygons were assigned infrared codes for use with night vision

goggles during the simulation of nighttime conditions.

Results

VMS staff produced its largest database to date.

The project required a high level of detail yet was

completed in just four months. This project demonstrated the ability of VMS to create large and complex databases for off-site use by VMS customers.

Development Team

Dave Carothers, Gloria Lane, Cary Wales, Logicon

Syscon/Syre

SimLab developed its largest visual database to support

the U.S./U.N. peacekeeping mission in Bosnia.

The Bosnia Visual Database is used to conduct aviation

training exercises and to practice military planning and

decision making.
Aviation Systems Research, Technology, & Simulation Division 49

Joint FAA/Army/NASA Interoperability Demonstration

Summary

The Department of Defense is developing a new

method for interconnecting simulations called High

Level Architecture and has mandated that all Department of Defense simulators use this system. In order

to evaluate the potential of this new system for

assisting NASA in performing aviation research, a

test federation was developed with two primary

customers of the simulation facilities, the U.S. Army

and the Federal Aviation Administration. The team

successfully demonstrated the technology and

identified many strengths and a few potential problems with this new system.

Introduction

In order to perform advanced airspace operations

research, it is becoming increasingly necessary to

interconnect more and more simulators during one

experiment. This can be a difficult and time-consuming effort. Current methods utilized at NASA ARC and

the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Technical

Center in New Jersey are based on ad hoc methods

and standards as needed for each experiment. The

Department of Defense (DOD) has mandated that for

their integrated experiments, all simulators will utilize

a new system of software and conventions called

High Level Architecture (HLA). Personnel from NASA

Ames, the FAA, and the U.S. Army (located at Ames)

determined that the best method to evaluate this

technology was to develop a demonstration experiment utilizing components from each facility.

Results

The Advanced Concepts Flight Simulator (ACFS)

and several desk-top copies of the simulation (called

the Mini-ACFS) at CVSRF were flown in real-time,

networked to the Army’s helicopter simulator and

tactical environment simulation and to the FAA’s

Micro Target Generation Facility (MTGF), Air Traffic

Control Test Federate (ATCTF), and Cockpit Simulation Facility (CSF). All aircraft flew conventional

approaches to San Francisco International Airport.

The aircraft generated by the Army and FAA simulations were visible on the navigation display as well as

on the out-the-window visual system on the ACFS.

Timing and performance data were collected and

reported to the DOD sponsor for HLA activities, the

Simulation Interoperability Standards Organization

(SISO). The system provided a good framework for

networking large numbers of different simulators.

Investigative Team

NASA Ames Research Center

Federal Aviation Administration

U.S. Army

Project Support Team

Matthew Blake, NASA ARC; Craig Pires, Hector

Reyes, NSI Technology Services Corporation

CVSRF, in conjunction

with the FAA and the U.S.

Army, demonstrated a

new system of software

and conventions that

interconnects simulators

during a single

experiment.

Advanced Concepts 

Flight Simulator 

(ACFS)

Existing 

ATC 

Interface

Mini-ACFS 

Desktop 

Simulators

Convert 

to/from 

HLA

RTI

HLA Gateway

Boeing 747 and other 

NASA Ames 

Simulators National 

Wide Area 

Network

Existing Air Traffic 

Control (ATC) System

In Building 

Local 

Ethernet

Network

Local 

Ames 

Wide Area 

Network

NASA Pseudo 

Aircraft System 

(PAS) Federate

Army 

Federates

FAA 

Federates

NASA Components Utilized for JFAN
50 Aviation Systems Research, Technology, & Simulation Division

Flight Management System Upgrade

Summary

In order to perform advanced research in cockpit

systems, the Advanced Concepts Flight Simulator

(ACFS) utilizes a software-programmable Flight

Management System (FMS) rather than aircraft

hardware. A two-year project to significantly improve

the FMS was completed this year. The system is

believed to be unique in the world in terms of the

datalink capabilities and the programmable flexibility

required for advanced airspace operations and

automation research.

Introduction

Modern commercial transport aircraft include an

extremely complex onboard computational system

called a Flight Management System (FMS). The FMS

can be programmed to fly complete routes anywhere

in the world. Due to the extreme complexity of these

systems, most commercial transport aircraft simulators use actual FMS hardware from the aircraft that

cannot be modified for research purposes. However,

the complexity of a modern FMS and its often

cumbersome interface can lead to many humanfactors research issues pertaining to efficient and

safe operations.

To address these problems, the ACFS was fitted

with a software-programmable FMS that was originally developed by Boeing for their engineering flight

simulator. This system proved inadequate, and a joint

Integrated Product Team of personnel from the

simulation facilities and from the primary research

organization was formed to improve the system. The

enhanced FMS was integrated into the ACFS this

year and is being used for the CTAS-FMS Datalink

experiment. This same system is available to the

Ames research community for use in a desktop

environment called the Mini-ACFS.

Results

The majority of the basic functions available in a

state-of-the-art commercial FMS are also available in

this research version. Most of the advanced features

relate to airborne datalink and its interface with

ground-based Air Traffic Management (ATM) systems, specifically the Center TRACON Automation

System (CTAS). The system provides the capability

to transmit a descent clearance from CTAS directly

into the FMS, which then automatically modifies the

flight plan with the clearance route. This capability to

link directly into the FMS and modify the flight plan is

unique in the world. An additional benefit of the

software FMS is the ability to collect data on how the

FMS performs internally and how the crew interacts

with it. Much of this information cannot be collected

from experiments utilizing flight hardware for the FMS

function. In the future, the FMS will continue to be

enhanced as needed to support the specific research

goals of the airspace capacity, safety, and base

research efforts at Ames.

Project Support Team

Matthew Blake, Barry Sullivan, NASA ARC; Ramesh

Panda, Don Bryant, NSI Technology Services

Corporation; Mietek Steglinski, Steglinski Engineering; John Kaneshige, NASA ARC; Arun Jain,

Raytheon

An enhanced, software-programmable Flight Management

System was integrated into the ACFS. This type of system

enables a ground-based Air Traffic Management System to

link directly into the FMS and modify the flight plan.
Aviation Systems Research, Technology, & Simulation Division 51

Communications System Upgrade

 ATC

 ASTi ATC Hub

ATC Stations 1-4 ATC Stations 5-8

Ethernet Mini-hub

VoiceNet

ASTi 

RIU

ASTi 

RIU 

 ACFS

 Host

 ACFS

 Cab/

Headsets

 ACFS

 EOS

 ACFS

 ASTi

 B747

 Cab/ 

Headsets

 B747

 Host

 B747

 EOS

 B747

 ASTi

Summary

Experiments at the CVSRF require simulation of a

complete VHF radio communication system including

dozens of stations, frequencies, and interconnection

requirements. The existing system had limited

capability and was no longer maintainable. A complete, new system supporting the 747-400 simulator,

the ACFS, and the ATC simulator was developed and

installed. This system provides an extremely flexible,

state-of-the-art digital voice communication capability

and can support connections to other facilities

worldwide.

Introduction

The ATC COMM System upgrade uses Advanced

Systems Technology Inc. (ASTi) Digital Audio Systems (DAS) and ASTi digitized voice interface

protocol (VoiceNet) components. The ASTi DAS has

the capacity for 24 different channels, a VoiceNet

networking capability for connecting several ASTi

DAS, and a software circuit design user interface

called the Model Builder. The Model Builder provides

flexibility for installing and modifying radio and sound

applications.

There are three ASTi DAS, one for each simulator,

which are connected via VoiceNet. The ACFS

Cockpit and ACFS Experimenter-Operator Station

(EOS) share an ASTi DAS for intra-communication,

control of the experiment, and communication with

the other simulators. The 747 ASTi DAS has a radio

model for communication with the ATC and ACFS;

the EOS communication was already provided by the

747. The ATC ASTi DAS provides the radio model for

eight ATC Stations in the ATC Lab, which also

communicate with the ACFS and 747. ASTi models

have been implemented, which provide intercommunication between all three simulators, between the

ATC and ACFS, or between the ATC and B747. All

sound levels are controlled locally by each user.

Different station configuration setups can be loaded

in the ATC ASTi DAS through an Ethernet connection

to the ATC Hub computer.

Results

The new Communication System was used

successfully for the T-NASA experiment. The flexible,

programmable ASTi system provides an excellent

Communication System for supporting research

experiments that each have unique communication

requirements. The new system has the flexibility to

be used in experiments involving any combination of

the three simulators and can easily be connected to

simulators at remote locations.

Project Support Team

Matthew Blake, NASA ARC; Hector Reyes, Eric

Jacobs, John Guenther, Glenn Ellis, Vic Loesche,

Craig Pires, NSI Technology Services Corporation

Communication System Upgrade schematic. Each ASTi

Remote Interface Unit services four ATC stations.
52 Aviation Systems Research, Technology, & Simulation Division

List of Acronyms

AAQ .............................................................Advanced Automation Qualification

AATT ............................................................Advanced Air Transportation Technologies

ACAH ...........................................................attitude command/attitude hold

ACFS ...........................................................Advanced Concepts Flight Simulator

ACT ..............................................................active control technology

AFCS ...........................................................automatic flight control system

AFDD ...........................................................Aeroflightdynamics Directorate, U.S. Army

AMCOM .......................................................Aviation and Missile Command, U.S. Army

AOS .............................................................Airspace Operations Systems

ARC .............................................................Ames Research Center

ASTi .............................................................Advanced Systems Technology Inc.

ATC ..............................................................Air Traffic Control

CDA .............................................................Concept Demonstrator Aircraft

CH-47D ........................................................Chinook heavy cargo helicopter

CPU .............................................................central processing unit

CTAS ............................................................Center TRACON Automation System

CTR..............................................................Civil Tiltrotor

CVSRF .........................................................Crew-Vehicle Systems Research Facility

DAS..............................................................Digital Audio Systems

DASE ...........................................................Dynamic Aero Servo Elastic

DEC .............................................................Decision Making

DERA ...........................................................Defense Evaluation and Research Agency, United Kingdom

DOD .............................................................Department of Defense

DOTDS ........................................................Directorate of Training Doctrine and Simulation, U.S. Army

EMM.............................................................electronic moving map

EOS .............................................................Experimenter-Operator Station

ESIG ............................................................Evans and Sutherland Image Generator

FAA ..............................................................Federal Aviation Administration

FBW .............................................................fly-by-wire

FMS .............................................................Flight Management System

FTE ..............................................................flight technical error

FY ................................................................fiscal year

HelMEE ........................................................Helicopter Maneuver Envelope Enhancement

HLA ..............................................................High Level Architecture

HQR .............................................................handling quality rating

HSCT ...........................................................High Speed Civil Transport

HSR .............................................................High Speed Research

HUD .............................................................head-up display

Hz.................................................................Hertz

ICAB.............................................................Interchangeable Cab

ISO ...............................................................International Organization for Standardization

JFK...............................................................John F. Kennedy International Airport

JSC ..............................................................Johnson Space Center

JSF...............................................................Joint Strike Fighter

LARC ...........................................................Langley Research Center

LASCAS .......................................................Limited-Authority Stability and Control Augmentation System

LVLASO .......................................................Low-Visibility Landing and Surface Operations

Mbps ............................................................megabits per second

MIPS ............................................................million instructions per second

MIT ...............................................................Massachusetts Institute of Technology

NASA ...........................................................National Aeronautics and Space Administration

NCAR ...........................................................National Center for Atmospheric Research
Aviation Systems Research, Technology, & Simulation Division 53

NTSB ...........................................................National Transportation Safety Board

OFZ ..............................................................Obstacle Free Zone

OTW2K+ ......................................................Out-the-Window 2000 Plus

PCA..............................................................Propulsion Controlled Aircraft

PIO ...............................................................pilot-induced oscillation

PNN .............................................................polynomial neural network

RCAH ...........................................................rate command/attitude hold

SCAS ...........................................................stability and control augmentation system

SGI ...............................................................Silicon Graphics Incorporated

SimFR ..........................................................Simulation Fidelity Requirements

SimLab .........................................................Simulation Laboratories

SJSU ............................................................San Jose State University

SMC .............................................................structural mode control

SSV ..............................................................Space Shuttle Vehicle

STOVL .........................................................short takeoff/vertical landing

TAP ..............................................................Terminal Area Productivity

TCAB ...........................................................Transport Cab

TCAS ...........................................................Traffic Alerting and Collision Avoidance System

TERPS .........................................................Terminal Procedures

T-NASA ........................................................Taxiway Navigation and Situation Awareness

UN ................................................................United Nations

USAF ...........................................................United States Air Force

USN .............................................................United States Navy

USMC ..........................................................United States Marine Corps

VHF ..............................................................very high frequency

VLAB ............................................................Virtual Laboratory

VME .............................................................VersaModule Eurocard

VMS .............................................................Vertical Motion Simulator
54 Aviation Systems Research, Technology, & Simulation Division

A very brief description of the Aviation Systems Research, Technology, & Simulation

Division facilities follows. More detailed information can be found on the world wide web at:

http://www.simlabs.arc.nasa.gov

Boeing 747-400 Simulator

This simulator represents a cockpit of one of

the most sophisticated airplanes flying today.

The simulator is equipped with programmable

flight displays that can be easily modified to

create displays aimed at enhancing flight crew

situational awareness and thus improving

systems safety. The simulator also has a fully

digital control loading system, a six degree-offreedom motion system, a digital sound and

aural cues system, and a fully integrated

autoflight system that provides aircraft guidance

and control. It is also equipped with a weather

radar system simulation. The visual display

system is a Flight Safety International driven by

a VITAL VIIIi. The host computer driving the

simulator is one of the IBM 6000 series of

computers utilizing IBM’s reduced instruction set

computer (RISC) Technology. An additional IBM

6000 computer is provided solely for the purpose of collecting and storing data in support of

experiment studies.

The 747-400 simulator provides all modes of

airplane operation from cockpit preflight to

parking and shutdown at destination. The

simulator flight crew compartment is a fully

detailed replica of a current airline cockpit. All

instruments, controls, and switches operate as

they do in the aircraft. All functional systems of

the aircraft are simulated in accordance with

aircraft data. To ensure simulator fidelity, the

747-400 simulator is maintained to the highest

possible level of certification for airplane simulators as established by the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA). This ensures credibility of

the results of research programs conducted in

the simulator.

Advanced Concepts Flight Simulator

This unique research tool simulates a generic

commercial transport aircraft employing many

advanced flight systems as well as features

existing in the newest aircraft being built today.

The ACFS generic aircraft was formulated and

sized on the basis of projected user needs

beyond the year 2000. Among its advanced

flight systems, the ACFS includes touch sensitive electronic checklists, advanced graphical

flight displays, aircraft systems schematics, a

flight management system, and a spatialized

aural warning and communications system. In

addition, the ACFS utilizes side stick controllers

for aircraft control in the pitch and roll axes.

ACFS is mounted atop a six degree-of-freedom

motion system.

The ACFS utilizes SGI computers for the host

system as well as graphical flight displays. The

ACFS uses visual generation and presentation

systems that are the same as the 747-400

simulator’s. These scenes depict specific airports and their surroundings as viewed at dusk,

twilight, or night from the cockpit.

Air Traffic Control Simulator

The Air Traffic Control (ATC) environment is a

significant contributor to pilot workload and,

therefore, to the performance of crews in flight.

Full-mission simulation is greatly affected by the

realism with which the ATC environment is

modeled. From the crew’s standpoint, this

environment consists of dynamically changing

verbal or data-link messages, some addressed

to or generated by other aircraft flying in the

immediate vicinity.

The CVSRF ATC simulator is capable of

operating in three modes: stand-alone, without

participation by the rest of the facility; single-cab

mode, with either advanced or conventional cab

participating in the study; and dual-cab mode,

with both cabs participating.

Appendix 1
Aviation Systems Research, Technology, & Simulation Division 55

Vertical Motion Simulator Complex

The VMS is a critical national resource supporting the country’s most sophisticated aerospace R&D programs. The VMS complex offers

three laboratories fully capable of supporting

research. The dynamic and flexible research

environment lends itself readily to simulation

studies involving controls, guidance, displays,

automation, handling qualities, flight deck

systems, accident/incident investigations, and

training. Other areas of research include the

development of new techniques and technologies for simulation and the definition of requirements for training and research simulators.

The VMS’ large amplitude motion system is

capable of 60 feet of vertical travel and 40 feet

of lateral or longitudinal travel. It has six independent degrees of freedom and is capable of

maximum performance in all axes simultaneously. Motion base operational efficiency is

enhanced by the interchangeable cab (ICAB)

system. Each of the five simulation cockpits is

customized, configured, and tested at a fixedbase development station and then either used

in place for a fixed-base simulation or moved on

to the motion platform.

Digital image generators provide full color

daylight scenes and include six channels,

multiple eye points, and a chase plane point of

view. The VMS simulation lab maintains a large

inventory of customizable visual scenes with a

unique in-house capability to design, develop

and modify these databases. Real-time aircraft

status information can be displayed to both pilot

and researcher through a wide variety of analog

instruments, and head-up, head-down or helmet-mounted displays.
For additional information, please contact

A. D. Jones

Associate Chief-Simulations

Aviation Systems Research, Technology, & Simulation Division

(650) 604-5928

E-mail: adjones@mail.arc.nasa.gov