Flight Simulation

Year in Review

FY00

Foreword

Aviation Systems Division

NASA Ames Research Center

Moffett Field, California 94035

10 December 2000

This document is the Fiscal Year

2000 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 the

more significant events of FY00. What

follows are an Executive Summary with

comments on future plans, the FY00

Simulation Schedule, a projection of

simulations to be performed in FY01,

performance summaries that report on

the simulation investigations conducted

during the year, and a summary of

Research and Technology Upgrade

Projects.
iv Aviation Systems Division

Acknowledgment

About the Cover

Front cover: The picture shows the B747-400 Navigation Display with new symbology from the AATT

Integrated Tools Study/Air-Ground Integration Experiment (AGIE). In a conflict alert situation, the new

symbology shows a straight line time predictor for both the B747 and the conflicting aircraft indicating the

predicted time of the conflict. The call sign of the conflicting aircraft is also displayed. In addition, in the lower

right hand corner of the display, the annunciation "ALERT" is shown along with the time to conflict readout

and the call sign of the conflicting aircraft. (For more information, see page 27)

Back cover: The Vertical Motion Simulator plays a key role in the Joint Shipboard Helicopter Integration

Process (JSHIP) program. This program is sponsored by the Office of the Secretary of Defense. It examines

the relationship between the fidelity of a simulation and its ability to predict the wind-over-deck launch and

recovery flight envelope for a ship/helicopter combination. (For more information, see pages 21 and 37)

Special thanks to Tom Alderete, Dave Astill, Dave Carothers, Girish Chachad, William Chung, Paul Chaplin,

Steve Cowart, Ron Gerdes, Joe King, Ranya Ksar, Scott Malsom, Joe Mastroieni, Julie Mikula, Terry Rager,

Jennifer Salem, and Dan Wilkins for contributions made to the production of this document.
Table of Contents

Foreword ............................................................................................................................. iii

Executive Summary ............................................................................................................ 2

FY00 Simulation Schedule............................................................................................................... 5

FY00 Project Summaries.................................................................................................................. 6

FY01 VMS Simulation Projects....................................................................................................... 8

FY01 CVSRF Simulation Projects................................................................................................... 9

Vertical Motion Simulator Research Facility .................................................................. 11

Lockheed Martin CDA 3, PWSC 3 and 4............................................................................... 12

Space Shuttle Vehicle 1999-2.................................................................................................. 13

Boeing B3.................................................................................................................................... 14

Civil Tiltrotor 8 EVAL .........................................................................................................15.........

Space Shuttle Vehicle 2000-1.................................................................................................. 16

AutoCue............................................................................................................................... 17 ........

Magnetic Levitation Vehicle Demonstration........................................................................... 18

Situational Awareness Model Simulation............................................................................... 19

Space Shuttle Vehicle 2000-2.................................................................................................. 20

Joint Shipboard Helicopter Integration Process .................................................................... 21

Rapid Integration Test Environment 2.................................................................................... 22

Civil Tiltrotor 9............................................................................................................................. 23

Crew-Vehicle Systems Research Facility ....................................................................... 25

Taxiway Navigation and Situation Awareness 2.................................................................... 26

Integrated Tools/Air-Ground Integration................................................................................. 27

Flight Management System Departure Procedures 2 .......................................................... 28

Neural Flight Control System................................................................................................... 29

Controller-Pilot Data Link Communication Procedures ....................................................... 30

Center TRACON Automation System Flight Management System 2 ................................ 31

Airborne Information for Lateral Spacing............................................................................... 32

Research & Technology Upgrade Projects..................................................................... 35

Virtual Laboratory....................................................................................................................... 36

Joint Shipboard Helicopter Integration Process Simulation Technologies.......................37

Development Work Station Graphics Upgrade Project ........................................................ 38

Air Traffic Control for the Vertical Motion Simulator.............................................................. 39

VMS Modernization................................................................................................................... 40

Video Distribution System Upgrade........................................................................................ 41

Alpha Host Computer Upgrade 2000..................................................................................... 42

Head-Down Display Graphics Engine Upgrade .................................................................... 43

Advanced Concepts Flight Simulator Host Computer Upgrade ......................................... 44

Enhanced Ground Proximity Warning System...................................................................... 45

Air Traffic Control Pseudo Aircraft System............................................................................. 46

Voice Disguiser System Upgrade............................................................................................ 47

Traffic Collision and Avoidance System Implementation and Upgrade .............................48

Acronyms........................................................................................................................... 50

Appendix: Simulation Facilities ....................................................................................... 54
2 Aviation Systems Division

Executive Summary

The Simulation Laboratory Facilities (SimLab) of the Aviation Systems Division of the

NASA Ames Research Center are pleased to present this Annual Report to summarize

the major achievements accomplished during FY 2000. Specifically reviewed are the

Vertical Motion Simulator (VMS) and the Crew-Vehicle Systems Research Facility

(CVSRF). A brief description of these facilities is included in the Appendix.

The mission, purpose, and focus of the simulation facilities, flight simulation research

and development, remain unchanged. However, there have been substantial internal and

external pressures and developments that have shaped the operational philosophy of the

SimLab. The two major challenges faced this year were substantial cost reductions and a

renewed and enhanced focus on the integration of cutting edge information technologies.

The impacts of these challenges are discussed in the body of this report as they affect

SimLab’s approach in developing and supporting experiments and projects. In addition,

safety remains SimLab’s highest priority, running from designing for safety to the safety of

our guests, staff, and systems.

This report is organized into sections starting with the 1) FY00 simulation schedules

and summaries, and planned FY01 projects for both the VMS and the CVSRF, 2) a brief

review of each of the projects completed in the laboratories, 3) a description of the

current research and technology upgrades being made to the laboratory infrastructure, 4)

a list of facility specific acronyms, and finally 5) the Appendix which provides a more

thorough discussion of the facilities.

A Very Full FY00 Schedule

The simulation experiments conducted in VMS and CVSRF came in a wide variety of

“shapes and sizes.” Many of the experiments were planned for and expected well in

advance. Others, as in past years, arrived somewhat unexpectedly, as a result of an

urgent Center or Headquarters request. These range from key NASA Programs, to DoD

Projects, to the technology research and development programs in Air Traffic Management and aerospace vehicle safety.

Regardless of their origin or urgency, these programs are at the core of the NASA

mission and critical to the nation’s air transportation system, aerospace and defense

needs. There were 18 major simulation experiments conducted in FY 00. Each of these

experiments are reviewed in the project Summary Section of this report. Three projects

completed this year, Joint Shipboard Helicopter Integration Process (JSHIP), Civil

Tiltrotor 9 (CTR-9) and Center TRACON Automation System Flight Management System

2 (CTAS/FMS 2) in particular, demonstrated the overall significance of the Laboratories.

The JSHIP project, a very ambitious undertaking, came to the VMS from the Office of

the Secretary of Defense. An interchangeable cab was completely refitted to meet JSHIP

specifications and a UH-60 Blackhawk math model was integrated with the ship-deck air

wake and ocean-wave effects to address the issue of shipboard helicopter integration

with wind–over-the-deck launch and recovery. CTR-9 required the development of a fully

functional Air Traffic Control (ATC) environment for the first time at the VMS, significantly

upgrading its capabilities. The CTAS/FMS 2 project was run on the Advanced Concepts

Flight Simulator in the CVSRF. This simulation required the rehosting of the main computer and the development and integration of two significant new features, i.e., Traffic

Collision Avoidance System (TCAS), the Crew Activity Tracking System (CATS), and the

enhancement of FMS Vertical Navigation (VNAV) functions.

Looking Ahead

On the strength of the staff and skill base within the Simulation Facilities, the Simulation Complex continues to meet the challenge of present-day needs while at the same

time opening windows into tomorrow’s simulation technologies.

Demand by researchers for time on the simulators continues to be strong, and there is

an ever-increasing demand to support Air Traffic Management, safety, and risk reduction
Aviation Systems Division 3

research topics. Anticipating this demand, the laboratories have embarked on an aggressive course to upgrade, modernize and increase capacity, all the while reducing total

annual operating expenditures. Both of the laboratories have integrated new, more

capable host computers into the simulators. Substantial performance and cost savings

have been realized by replacing last generation graphics computers with today’s highend desktop solutions.

With the interconnected, leading edge technologies of the VMS and the CVSRF,

SimLab offers our customers the opportunity to conduct research in a high fidelity, fullmission environment with ATC integration from either facility. Additionally, through Virtual

Laboratory (VLAB), SimLab continues to develop the ability for remote users to

collaboratively conduct and manage research experiments. These activities and technologies have become the cornerstone for the future of the flight simulation laboratories.

Aggressive use of networking and information technologies has enhanced the facility

capabilities while reducing overall operating costs.

Strategic Planning

The need for large-scale system level simulation capabilities is appearing on the

horizon. The networking of national simulation facilities across the nation will be required

to solve some of the nation’s most pressing airspace operations challenges. The simulation laboratories at Ames Research Center are at the focal point to consolidate and

coordinate these resources. This past year the Simulation Planning Office has begun to

define the process to provide these fully integrated capabilities. Through the use of

proven networking technologies and the VLAB the Flight Simulation Laboratories are

positioning themselves to be key to the development and validation of the future national

Air Transportation System.
4 Aviation Systems Division
Aviation Systems Division 5

Simulation Experiments Branch

Aviation Systems Research,

Technology, & Simulation Division

Ames Research Center

FY00 Simulation Schedule

Simulation Facilities

VMS

Shift A

ICAB Fixed Base

Shift B

CVSRF

ACFS

Shift A

Shift B

ATC

9 '9 t c O 9 '9 voN 9 '9 ce D 0 '0 naJ 0 '0 beF 0 '0 r a M 0 '0 r pA 0 '0 ya M 0 '0 enuJ 0 '0 ly uJ 0 '0 guA 0 '0 t peS 0 '0 t c O

4 11 81 52 18 51 22 92631 02 72301 71 42 13741 12 82631 02 72301 71 42 18 51 22 92521 91 62301 71 42 13741 12 82411 81 52 29 61 32 03

SSV 2 Boeing B3

NASA,

Boeing

NASA NASA, JSC, Rockwell

CTR 8 EVAL

NASA, Army

SSV 1-2000

NASA, JSC,

Rockwell

AUTOCUE

NASA, Army NASA

AUTOCUE

NASA,

Army

SSV

NASA

SAM Sim

Army,

NASA

Lockheed

PWSC 4

NASA NASA, JSC, Rockwell

RITE 2

NASA

CTR 9

NASA, Army

Boeing B3

NASA,

Boeing

MagLev

NASA

Lockheed PWSC

NASA

JSHIP

NASA

AGIE

NASA

FMS Dep 2

NASA

DATALINK

NASA

AILS

NASA

TNASA 2

NASA

NFCS

NASA

CTAS FMS 2

NASA

 OK FAA Data

NASA

SSV2-2000

CTR9 DEV

NASA,

Army

RITE

NASA

TNASA 2

NASA

AGIE

NASA

CTAS FMS 2

NASA

DATALINK

NASA

AILS

NASA

Lockheed CDA 3,

PWSC 3

Motion

Test

B747
6 Aviation Systems Division

FY00 Project Summaries

Continued next page...

VMS Flight Simulation Projects

1. Lockheed Martin CDA 3

2. Lockheed Martin PWSC 3

3. Lockheed Martin PWSC 4

Sept 13–17, 1999 (FB); Sept 20–Oct 15, 1999 (VMS), July

24–Aug 4, 2000 (VMS)

Aircraft type: X-35 Joint Strike Fighter

Purpose: To support Lockheed’s design and development

of the X-35 and to advance NASA-sponsored research.

4. Space Shuttle Vehicle 1999–2

Aug 30–Sept 3, Oct 18–Nov 5, 1999 (VMS)

Aircraft type: Space Shuttle orbiter

Purpose: To provide training in orbiter landing and rollout

for astronauts and astronaut candidates.

5. Boeing B3

Nov 15–19, 1999 (FB); Nov 29–Dec 16, 1999 (VMS)

Aircraft type: X-32 Joint Strike Fighter

Purpose: To support Boeing’s design and development of

the X-32.

6. Civil Tiltrotor 8 EVAL

Jan 10–Feb 18, 2000 (VMS)

Aircraft type: XV-15 tiltrotor

Purpose: To investigate approach profiles for noise

abatement and to evaluate a new stability and control

augmentation system.

7. Space Shuttle Vehicle 2000–1

Feb 21–Mar 23 (VMS)

Aircraft type: Space Shuttle orbiter

Purpose: To determine feasibility of landing on short East

Coast Abort landing runways, and to determine adequate

hydraulic flow protection for single APU landings. To

provide the astronaut corps training in orbiter landing and

rollout.

8. AutoCue

Mar 27–Apr 20, May 8–26 (VMS)

Aircraft type: UH-60 Black Hawk helicopter

Purpose: To investigate the impact of various visual and

motion cues in a training simulator on pilot performance

during an autorotation maneuver.

9. Magnetic Levitation Vehicle Demonstration

Mar 27–31 (VMS)

Vehicle type: Magnetic Levitating Train

Purpose: To investigate a conceptual high speed Magnetic

Levitation vehicle and to identify critical system design

parameters.

10. Situational Awareness Model

June 5–July 6 (VMS)

Aircraft type: UH-60 Black Hawk helicopter

Purpose: To test a computational situational awareness

model used in human factors studies by simulating fullmission flights of the UH-60.

11. Space Shuttle Vehicle 2000-2

Aug 7–31 (VMS)

Aircraft type: Space Shuttle orbiter

Purpose: To evaluate: (i) feasibility of expanding the night

Transatlantic Abort Landing crosswind limit (ii) the maximum

speedbrake setting limit for the new short-runway option,

and (iii) an adaptive speedbrake option. To provide the

astronaut corps training in orbiter landing and rollout.

12. Joint Shipboard Helicopter Integration Process

Sept 18–Oct 6 (FB); Nov 27–Dec 21 (VMS)

Aircraft type: UH-60A helicopter

Purpose: To develop and test the processes and mechanisms that facilitate ship-helicopter interface testing via manin-the-loop simulators.

13. Rapid Integration Test Environment 2

Sept 11-28 (VMS)

Aircraft type: Space Shuttle orbiter

Purpose: To investigate the procedures and infrastructure

developed during phase one by testing various Space

Shuttle orbiter’s nose section geometry designs in piloted

flight simulations.

14. Civil Tiltrotor 9

Oct 2–Nov 17 (VMS)

Aircraft type: CTR 4/95 NASA tiltrotor

Purpose: To investigate handling qualities and flight operations issues related to operating a tiltrotor aircraft at a

vertiport.

VMS Technology Upgrades

1. Virtual Laboratory

Purpose: To enhance the capabilities of a system that

enables remote researchers to collaborate in and manage

live experiments at the VMS.

2. Joint Shipboard Helicopter Integration Process

Simulation Technologies

Purpose: To develop and integrate new technologies into the

SimLab environment to achieve the JSHIP simulation goals.

3. Development Work Station Graphics Upgrade Project

Purpose: To upgrade the graphics capability of the DWS, an
Aviation Systems Division 7

FY00 Project Summaries

FB—Fixed-Base Simulators

VMS—Vertical Motion Simulator

ACFS—Advanced Concepts Flight Simulator

B747—Boeing 747 Simulator

engineering environment for researchers to develop VMScompatible simulation models at their engineering sites.

4. Air Traffic Control for Vertical Motion Simulator

Purpose: To augment VMS simulations by integrating the

Air Traffic Control (ATC) capability for the CTR program.

5. VMS Modernization

Purpose: To increase performance, reliability and maintainability of the VMS by replacing major system elements.

6. Video Distribution System Upgrade

Purpose: To implement a major capacity upgrade of the

Video Distribution System to meet increasing research

requirements and improve maintainability.

7. Alpha Host Computer Upgrade 2000

Purpose: To upgrade the host computers with new systems

that meet the compute requirements of the most demanding VMS simulations.

8. Head-Down Display Graphics Engine Upgrade

Purpose: To provide new, state-of-the-art graphics engines

to support expanded VMS research needs in a costeffective manner.

CVSRF Flight Simulation Projects

1. Taxiway Navigation and Situation Awareness 2

Aug 10,1999–Nov 9 (ACFS)

Purpose: To evaluate the use of a head-up display and an

electronic moving map to improve Low-Visibility Landing

And Surface Operations (LVLASO).

2. Integrated Tools/Air-Ground Integration (AGIE)

Dec 1,1999–Feb 25, 2000 (B747)

Purpose: To conduct an early evaluation of air-ground

integration procedures and concepts in a dynamic environment where the control of aircraft can be centralized or

distributed.

3. Flight Management System Departure Procedures 2

April 10–13 (B747)

Purpose: To construct and perform viable FMS departure

routings in order to support efforts for revising current

RNAV departure standards.

4. Neural Flight Control System

May 22–23 (ACFS)

Purpose: To examine the effectiveness of various neural

flight control system architectures to control damaged

aircraft to a safe landing.

5. Controller-Pilot Data Link Communication Procedures

June 19–July 17 (B747)

Purpose: To examine the impact of data link and voice procedures upon crew error-detection and recovery.

6. Center TRACON Automation System Flight Management

System 2

Aug 3–Aug 30 (ACFS)

Purpose: To evaluate a concept for integrating CTAS with the

Flight Management System for operations in terminal airspace.

7. Airborne Information for Lateral Spacing

Development Jan 5–Sept 30

Purpose: To examine the utility and viability of two systems

designed to increase airport efficiency during Instrument

Meteorological Conditions (IMC). To evaluate flight crew and

ATC interactions during the pairing of aircraft for independent

(AILS) and dependent approaches.

CVSRF Technology Upgrades

1. Advanced Concepts Flight Simulator Host Computer

Upgrade

Purpose: To upgrade the ACFS host computer to meet demanding computational and input/output requirements of

planned and projected ACFS simulation experiments.

2. Enhanced Ground Proximity Warning System

Purpose: To enhance system fidelity by upgrading the B747-

400 flight simulator from an older Ground Proximity Warning

System (GPWS) to the state-of-the-art Enhanced Ground

Proximity Warning System (EGPWS).

3. Air Traffic Control Pseudo Aircraft System

Purpose: To upgrade the ATC simulator in order to meet

emerging Air Traffic Control (ATC) research requirements.

4. Voice Disguiser System Upgrade

Purpose: To increase the voice disguiser system capability and

features to enhance realism in simulation experiments.

5. Traffic Collision and Avoidance System Implementation

and Upgrade

Purpose: To integrate an FAA/MITRE supplied code implementation of the TCAS II Change 7 specification into the ACFS and

to upgrade TCAS in the B747-400 simulator from version 6.04A

to Change 7.
8 Aviation Systems Division

st c je

or P

n iot la

u im

S

S

M

V 10

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 IV

T

C

E

J

B

O

T

S

E

T

9r to

ortli Tli iv

C

s mte sy

S n iot ia

v

A

l ua

Htr oh /S

yti ca

p

a

C

r to

ortli Tli iv

C

A

S

A

N, A

A

F

n io s is -mll fu g in su seus is n iot ar g te in eca

psri a te

a igt se

v In

g int ar e

p

o str o

psnart r to

ortlit li iv c r fo n iot la u ims

. sy

a

wnur l an iot ne

vnocf o lyt ne

dne

p

e

d in

r te

p

o icl e

H

dr a

o

b ip hSt in oJ

) IP

H

SJ( ssecor P n iot ar g te In

f ot ne tmr a

p

e

D

esn fe

e

D

y

v

a

N

ic m

any

D 's IP

H

SJ r fo n iot a idl a

v

dna n iot a icfir e

v

e th tr o

p

puS

.t c je

or Ps mte sy

S n iot la u im

S

dna

g inl e

d

o

M

ec far te In

t a th s mis nahce

m

dna sessecor p

e th t s te

dna

p lo

e

v

e

D

p

o lo- e th- in- na

m ia

v

g int s te

ec far te in r te

p

o icl eh- ip hs te taili c fa

. sr to la u ims

2

& 1 le ic he

V

eltt uhS

eca

p

S

) 2- V

S

S

& 1- V

S (S t h igl F

eca

p

S na

mu H

eca

p

S nosnhoJ A

S

A

N

eca

p

S

d tei n U,r te ne

C

ll e

wkco

R, g in e

o

B, ecn iall A

dna s m

et sys g in dn la s'r tei br O lett uhS

eca

p

S

e th te

a

git se

v In

st ne

mle

e n iot a igt se

v In . s ietil auq

g inl dnahl ort nocl an iot ceri d

y

d tu s, sy

a

wnur tr o

b

ar ter ohs no

gni dn la f o

ytili ib sa fe

e

d lu c in

yr aili xua

d

ecud

er thi w

g int ar e

p

o neh wseitil auq

g inl dnahf o

to

g in in art e id

v

or P. snoiti dnoc r e th a

e

w

d

e

dna

p

x

e

dnar e

w

o

p

.t u lol or dna

g in dnal r tei br or fo spr oct uanort sa

e th

E

3

3- S

D

Ali vi C

y rm A AS

A

N, y rm

A , s ietil auq

g inl dnah in hcr a

eser le ci he

vtf ar cr to

or e th tr o

p

puS

. st p

ecnoc d

ecna

v

d

a

dna, sn iot a icfi ce

ps n ig se

d

01r to

ortli Tli iv

C noit ia

v

A

y rm

A

yti ca

p

a

Cs mte sy

S

A

S

A

N, A

A

F

li iv

Cr fo seus is eca

psri a cit isr tu fu x le

p

m

oc te

a

git se

v In

, y

d tu s n io s is -mll fu si th tr o

p

pus o

T . sn iot ar e

p

or to

ortli T

dnat loi -P to uA

w

en sa hcus st ne

mle

e n iot al u imsl iat nesse

t ne

m

e

g

ana

M icff ar Tri A

dnatf ar cri a

e th r of er tu a fe

S

M

F

. d

e

p

ol e

v

e

d

e

blli wt ne

mnori vne

le ic he

V noit tar o

psnar T

w

er C

) V

T (C

noit a rm fo In

esa

B

y

g

ol onhce

T

m

ar g

or P

A

S

A

N

A

S

A

N

dna n iot ar g te In di p

a

R

e th f o n iot a icl p

p

a

e th et art sno

m

e

D

eca

p

S n iot ar ene

Gt x

en e th to ) E IT (R t ne

mnori vnEt se

T

id

p

ar te taili c fa lli wssecor p

E

TI R

ehT. le ci he

v n iot tar o

psnar T

n iot a rm fo ni d

ecna

v

d

a

g in su y

b sn iot ar eti n ig se

d

ngi se

d

e th f otr a

pl ar g te ni na sa n iot la u mi s dna s ie

g lo

onhc te

. le cyc
Aviation Systems Division 9

st cej or P n iot al u imS FRSVC10YF

TCEJ ORP MARGORP DETROPPUS DETROPPUS DETROPPUS DETROPPUS DETROPPUS SRE MOTSUC SE IV TCEJ BOTSET

&t h igl Fl ar ue Nd te ar g te In

2 & 1l ort no Cn io ls upor P

) SFC (A

& ls ort no Ct ne igll te In

esaB IT – sn iot ar ep O

mar gor P

n io is iv Dl an iot ta up mo C ASAN

l ort noc n io ls upor p dnat h iglf e ivt anr tel a te a lu av E

r o n iot cn ful a ma g inr udtf ar cri al ort noc to s ie g lo onhc te

. mte sysl ort noc yr a imr p sti to er lui fa

l ar te aLr fo n iot a rm fo In enr obri A

) 004- 747( S IL A – n iot ar apeS

aer Al a in rmeT

yti ivt cudor P

s ic n io v A, AAF, ASAN

sr er tu c fa una M

to sesnopser r lel ort noc icff art ri a dna wer ct h iglf ssess A

no desab ser udecor p dna n iot ta ne mle p im S IL A

. s mthir o lg a g intr le a decnavda

mar gor P e is o Ng in eoB

) 004- 747(

/ r to la u imSt h igl F

e is o Nyti nu mmo C

mar gor P ec far et In

yg lo onhceT s ict suoc A, g in eoB

l edo mn iot ic der p ict suoca 's g in eoBf o ytil e idf e th yd tu S

lei h we is ontr opri a e iz mi in m to ser udecor pl a in rm te dna

. yti capac icff art ri a g in saer c in

ytil e id F CTA

) 004- 747( AAF AAF e th st c fef a ytil edif CTA h ic h w to eer ged e th er usae M

. sr to la u ims noi ssi -mll fu in t ne mnori vne g in in art

sdr adn ta St h igl F AAF

) 004- 747( yti Ca mohal k O AAF AAF

g in vor p im thi wd te ia cossa seus is l an iot ar epo eni max E

g in is mor p moct uo thi wycn ie icff e dna yti capacl ani rm te

. yt fe as

r e th ae W+I TDC

) 004- 747(

ri A decnavdA

noit tar opsnar T

e icff Os ie g lo onhceT

& APLA, ACTAN, ASAN, AAF

ACTR, APA

,r e wto dnati pkcoc e th ni , sr to c fa na muh e in max E

r e th ae wsu ior av r fo n iot ar apes der ahs to d te al er

. sn ioti dnoc

dnuor /G -B SDA

) 004- 747 & SFC (A AAF ASAN, AAF ssessa to t ne mnori vne ecapsri a dnal a in rm te te la u imS .r e wot ) CT (A l ort noc ciff art ri a dnati pkcoc e th r fo ls oot

ytil e id F n iot o M

) 004- 747( e lp o /V AAF 032- SFA AAF

, AAF

r te ne Ce lp o -V T OD r ierr ac ri ar fo gni euc- n iot o mf o ssenevit c fef e e in rm te e D

. n iot a icfil auq dna g in in art t oli p

CFF – XAL

) 004- 747( 12t h igl F fe aS 's AAF sr to ar epotf ar cri a ogr a C, AAF to id a noit a mto ua ec far us decnavda na et a lu av E . sn iot ar epo dnuor g aer al a in rm te evor p im

noit ait oge Nnoit ar apeS-fl eS

) SFC (A

ri A decnavdA

noit tar opsnar T

sei g lo onhceT

AAF, ASAN

-fl es gnit cudnoc in seus is n iot ait ogent loi p te aul av E

.t ne mnori vnet hgilf- eerf cit isr tu uf a ni noit ar apes
10 Aviation Systems Division
Aviation Systems Division 11

 VMS

 PROJECT

 SUMMARIES

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.
12 Aviation Systems Division

Lockheed Martin CDA 3, PWSC 3 and 4

The objective of the experiments included evaluation of the

X-35’s flying qualities, control laws, and advanced

controls and displays.

John McCune, Mark Tibbs, Eric Somers, Lockheed Martin; Jack Franklin, Duc Tran, NASA ARC;

Chuck Perry, Luong Nguyen, Norm Bengford, Ron Gerdes, Logicon/LISS

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. This year’s

three experiments addressed conventional, carrier,

and short-takeoff/vertical-landing (STOVL) operations.

Introduction

NASA Ames Research Center plays a key role in

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

(JSF) Program. This program is developing a family

of advanced supersonic strike fighters that will

feature different configurations for multiple branches

of the military and potential allies. The aircraft will

feature highly common and modular construction to

significantly reduce the cost of development, production, and maintenance.

Requirements for the JSF are as follows:

• U.S. Air Force—a multi-role aircraft for conventional

takeoffs and landings

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

controllability at zero airspeed and during transition

between hover and wing-borne flight

• U.S. Navy—a strike fighter with outstanding handling at low speeds and adaptations for catapult

launches and arrested landings

• U.K. Royal Navy—a STOVL aircraft similar to the

U.S. Marine Corps version

The Department of Defense awarded the

Lockheed Martin Corporation one of two JSF contracts, each calling for two concept demonstrator

aircraft. These simulations, using the large motion

base at the VMS, were conducted to complement

Lockheed Martin’s in-house simulations as part of the

design and development process. The JSF is expected to enter service in 2008.

Simulation

Objectives of the experiments included evaluation

of the X-35’s flying qualities, control laws, and

advanced controls and displays. The three simulations of the X-35 included three weeks of fixed-base

simulations in preparation for a total of six weeks of

motion-base operations. The fixed-base sessions

were designed to validate the simulation system

response and to finalize flight tasks and scenarios in

preparation for each of the motion-base experiments.

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 the VMS's simulation environment.

Pilots and engineers from Lockheed Martin, the U.S.

Navy and Marine Corps, British Aerospace, and

NASA 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. Due to the competition sensitive

nature of the project, detailed results cannot be

included in this report.

For SimLab, this simulation marked a continued

success in integrating the entire aircraft model and

cockpit display software provided by a customer

directly into VMS's real-time system. This mode of

operation was not only cost-effective but also allowed

Lockheed Martin to test several last-minute design

changes, which were expediently integrated by

SimLab engineers.

For more information, refer to the web pages for

Lockheed Martin (http://www.lmco.com) and the JSF

Program (http://www.jast.mil).

Investigative Team

Lockheed Martin

NASA Ames Research Center

JSF Program Office

U.S. Marine Corps

U.S. Navy

Logicon Information Systems and Services

British Aerospace
Aviation Systems Division 13

Space Shuttle Vehicle 1999-2

Howard Law, NASA JSC; Ed Digon, Boeing; Alan Hochstein, USA;

Estela Hernandez, Leslie Ringo, Logicon/LISS

Summary

This four-week simulation of the Space Shuttle

orbiter featured crew familiarization for astronauts

and astronaut candidates.

Introduction

The Space Shuttle Orbiter model has been

simulated at the SimLab since the mid 1970s. The

basic model has evolved and matured over the

intervening years to reflect improved model characteristics and updates made to the orbiter fleet. Today,

the VMS continues to simulate and provide astronaut

training with realistic touchdown and rollout of the

orbiter twice each year.

The orbiter presents challenging conditions by

landing at 230 miles per hour, which is nearly two

times the speed at which most aircraft would land.

With no engines operating, the orbiter glides to

touchdown without propulsion power for maneuvering

or going around. This makes realistic training for

astronauts critical. At the VMS, pilots experience

various flight conditions and system failures to

prepare them for this important phase of flight.

Simulation

Astronauts were given a number of flight and

atmospheric conditions during simulation, including

runway location and type, vehicle weight, visibility,

and wind direction and speed. Periodically, astronauts rehearsed recovering from failures to the tires,

drag chute, auxiliary power units, and automatic

derotation system.

The VMS simulates eight landing sites in the U.S.

including the dry lakebeds at Edwards Air Force Base

and White Sands Missile Range. The VMS also

simulates the four Transatlantic Abort Landing (TAL)

sites. A TAL would occur in the event of a major

system failure during launch; if it were too late to

return for landing at Kennedy Space Center and too

early to circle the earth for another opportunity to

land in the U.S., the orbiter would land on the far side

of the Atlantic Ocean. There are two TAL sites in

Spain, one in Morocco, and one in Gambia.

Results

The simulation was completed with 39 pilots and

five mission specialists completing a total of 875 data

runs. 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 of flight.

Investigative Team

NASA Johnson Space Center

The Boeing Company

Lockheed Martin

United Space Alliance

Col. James Halsell, commander of STS-101, prepares for a

training (crew familiarization) session in the VMS. The

VMS provides unique training for astronaut pilots.
14 Aviation Systems Division

Boeing B3

This VMS simulation was conducted to support the design

and development of the Boeing X-32 Joint Strike Fighter.

Larry Moody, Tom Wendell, The Boeing Company; Jack Franklin, NASA ARC;

Leslie Ringo, Estela Hernandez, Ron Gerdes, Logicon/LISS

Summary

This VMS simulation was conducted to support the

design and development of the Boeing X-32 Joint

Strike Fighter. Three variants of the aircraft will be

built: a conventional takeoff and landing (CTOL)

version for the U.S. Air Force, a carrier version (CV)

for the U.S. Navy, and a short-takeoff/vertical-landing

(STOVL) version for the U.S. Marine Corps and

British Royal Navy/Air Force.

Introduction

NASA Ames Research Center plays an important

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 U.S. Navy (USN), Air Force

(USAF), Marine Corps (USMC), U.K. Royal Navy,

and other potential U.S. allies. The aircraft will

feature highly common and modular construction to

significantly reduce the cost of development, production, and maintenance.

The military services have stated their needs for

the JSF as follows:

• U.S. Air Force—a multi-role aircraft for conventional

takeoffs and landings

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

controllability at zero airspeed and during transition

between hover and wing-borne flight

• U.S. Navy—a strike fighter with outstanding handling at low speeds and adaptations for catapult

launches and arrested landings

• U.K. Royal Navy—a STOVL aircraft similar to the

U.S. Marine Corps version

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, which produces

the most realistic motion cueing environment in

ground-based simulators, provides a unique complement to Boeing’s in-house simulations prior to inflight simulation and flight-testing.

Simulation

The simulation objectives included evaluations of

aircraft handling qualities and determining effects of

motion on handling qualities. Participating test pilots

were from Boeing, USMC, Royal Navy, and NASA.

Three weeks of the motion-based experiment were

preceded by one week of fixed-base operations to

validate the simulation system response and to

finalize flight tasks and scenarios. Validation of the

response was critical because Boeing’s updated

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

the VMS’ large motion cueing played in evaluating

the JSF’s handling qualities and mission capabilities.

The competition sensitive nature of this project

precludes the inclusion of detailed results in this

report.

With this simulation, SimLab continued to integrate

the aircraft model software provided by the customer

into the VMS simulation system. This reduced the

simulation development time and costs to the customer. SimLab personnel also implemented graphics

changes and incorporated specialized hardware for

the Boeing experiment.

For more information, refer to the web pages for

Boeing (http://www.boeing.com) and the JSF Program (http://www.jast.mil).

Investigative Team

The Boeing Company

NASA Ames Research Center

JSF Program Office

U.S. Marine Corps

Logicon Information Systems and Services

DERA, U.K.

U. K. Royal Navy
Aviation Systems Division 15

Civil Tiltrotor 8 EVAL

William Decker, Jack Franklin, Adolf Atencio, NASA ARC; Steve Belsley, Emily Lewis, Joseph Ogwell,

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

Summary

The Civil Tiltrotor 8 Evaluation simulation studied

reduced noise approach profiles for the XV-15 tiltrotor

aircraft to relatively small vertiports. The simulation

also evaluated a new Stability and Control Augmentation System.

Introduction

The Civil Tiltrotor 8 Evaluation (CTR 8 EVAL) was

the latest in a series of simulations investigating

issues that include CTR certification, vertiport design,

and terminal area operations including noise abatement procedures.

The simulation’s primary goal was to evaluate the

XV-15 tiltrotor’s handling qualities during approach

profiles designed to minimize noise near vertiports.

Other objectives were to develop a Dynamic Inverse

Stability and Control Augmentation System (SCAS),

and to evaluate the travel and force characteristics of

a programmable sidestick controller for the XV-15.

While airplanes normally approach airports on a 3°

glide slope, tiltrotor aircraft can approach at steeper

angles to avoid obstacles and airspace reserved for

other aircraft. Steep approaches might require

complex noise abatement procedures that increase a

pilot’s workload. The noise abatement profiles flown

by Bell Helicopter during the October 1999 flight-tests

performed at their facility were therefore evaluated

for feasibility and for possible improvements.

Simulation

The CTR-8 EVAL simulation used the aircraft

model structure of the Generic Tiltrotor Simulation

(GTRS), Rev. C, configured for the baseline XV-15

aircraft. Two control systems were integrated: the

standard XV-15 SCAS and the Dynamic Inverse

SCAS developed by J. Franklin. Control features

developed by NASA, such as the Discrete Nacelle

Movement system and the Conversion Protection

system, were tailored for this aircraft. An XV-15

specific Landing Gear model was adapted from a

previous tiltrotor experiment. The left seat sidestick

controller, a new programmable Sterling Dynamics

Inc. (SDI) Active Sidestick, was used almost exclusively with the Dynamic Inverse SCAS.

Noise abatement profiles flown in the October

1999 flight test were successfully replicated in the

simulator. This simulation also evaluated the impact

on handling qualities of three control response types:

rate command, rate command/attitude hold, and

attitude command/attitude hold.

The Dynamic Inverse SCAS was derived from the

NASA modified Neural Network SCAS, which was

used in the previous simulation. The Neural Net

“Inverse Aircraft” was replaced with stability derivative look-up tables. The control system features

retained from the CTR-8 Dev simulation were:

selectable Attitude Command and Rate Command

Attitude Hold in the pitch and roll axes. The SCAS

response was tuned for the center stick and the SDI

sidestick. The SDI active sidestick was also evaluated using two ADS-33 tasks, precision hover and

pirouette, with different force versus displacement

characteristics.

Results

For the XV-15 Noise Abatement Approach Handling Qualities study, the VMS simulation successfully evaluated the October 1999 flight test profiles

developed by Bell Helicopter. It was found that

attitude stabilization improved handling qualities in

adverse weather with Attitude Command used during

the final deceleration to hover. Rate Command

Attitude Hold was preferred during large trim changes

or maneuvers. Guidance was deemed essential to

aid in the control strategy shift as nacelle angle

varied during the approach. Automatic actuation of

flaps were favored for the approach profiles. During

the simulation, full envelope SCAS using Dynamic

Inverse control design was developed. Acceptable

handling qualities were achieved with the active

sidestick while flying with the Dynamic Inverse

SCAS.

Investigative Team

NASA Ames Research Center

Logicon Information Systems and Services

Bell Helicopter Textron

The Boeing Company

Sikorsky Aircraft

Federal Aviation Administration

The XV-15 tiltrotor aircraft conducting noise abatement

profile testing from profiles generated at the VMS.
16 Aviation Systems Division

Space Shuttle Vehicle 2000-1

Howard Law, Alan Poindexter, Ken Ham, Charles Hobaugh, NASA JSC; Ed Digon, Boeing;

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

Summary

Simulations of the Space Shuttle orbiter are

performed at the VMS to fine-tune the Shuttle

orbiter’s landing systems and to provide landing and

rollout training for the astronaut corps. The engineering goals for this simulation were to determine the

feasibility of landing within 7500 feet on East Coast

Abort Landing runways and to determine adequate

hydraulic flow protection for single auxiliary power

unit (APU) landings.

Introduction

The Space Shuttle orbiter has been simulated at

the VMS twice each year since the mid 1970s.

Researchers have examined modifications to the

flight-control system, guidance and navigation

systems, head-up displays, flight rules, and to the

basic simulation model. The simulations also provide

astronaut training with realistic landing and rollout

scenarios.

Simulation

One objective of the Space Shuttle Vehicle (SSV)

2000-1 simulation was to investigate the feasibility of

landing within a 7500 feet East Coast Abort Landings

(ECAL) runway using the carbon brake model and

the flight hardware anti-skid box. Currently, certain

runways in Africa and Spain, and the Kennedy Space

Center (KSC) have been designated for abort

landings in case of failures during launch. A steeper

launch trajectory, planned to support increased

International Space Station (ISS) flights, may allow

abort landings at runways on the East Coast of the

United States. However, these ECAL runways are

shorter (7500 - 8500 feet) than the currently designated Space Shuttle runways (12,000 - 15,000 feet).

The simulation investigated six different landing

techniques to determine the minimum length required

to land safely on abort runways. Two new out-thewindow databases representing ECAL sites were

developed and integrated by SimLab personnel for

this simulation: Otis Air Force Base in Massachusetts

and Myrtle Beach in South Carolina.

The second objective was to determine adequate

hydraulic flow protection for a single auxiliary power

unit (APU) landing. Normally, three APUs power the

control surfaces. In the event of a single or double

APU failure, priority rate-limiting (PRL) software

prevents hydraulic flow over-demand by limiting the

rate at which the various control surfaces move.

Results from the February 1999 study of the orbiter

hydraulic system indicated that the PRL software

does not limit control surface rates enough to remain

within the hydraulic pump flow capacity of a single

APU. Hence for this simulation, tighter limits for the

speedbrake, landing gear hydraulic flow, aileron and

rudder rates were evaluated during single APU.

Another objective of SSV 2000-1 was to train

upcoming mission crews and astronaut candidates

through a series of flights. Various runways, visibility

and wind conditions were simulated along with

periodic system failures throughout the landing and

rollout phase.

Results

A total of 1268 runs were completed with 39 pilots

during five weeks of simulation. Preliminary results

indicate that the current baseline technique and

several of the proposed ECAL landing techniques

require a stopping distance greater than 7500 feet.

However, manually increasing the currently used

auto guidance speedbrake setting by 20% met the

7500 feet test-objective 97% of the time. Further

testing will be conducted to verify this setting. Results

indicate that it is essential to determine a maximum

speedbrake limit. Not having a limit for manual or

automatic flight procedures might result in expending

too much of the orbiter’s energy. The single APU

hydraulic flow protection analysis indicates that cases

of concern are only those when extraordinary maneuvers are executed before main gear touchdown.

There are no over-demands or pressure drops after

nose gear touchdown.

The crew familiarization session 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

The Boeing Company

Lockheed Martin

United Space Alliance

Twice yearly, the Space Shuttle Orbiter is simulated for

engineering studies and astronaut training.
Aviation Systems Division 17

AutoCue

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

Norm Bengford, Robert Morrison, Logicon/LISS

Summary

The AutoCue simulation investigated the tradeoff

between pilot performance of an autorotation maneuver and appropriate visual and motion cues. This

was accomplished by varying the texturing and

resolution content of simulated runways and by

varying the motion cueing environment. The experiment also researched the ability of a pilot to recognize relative rates visually in a non-motion simulation

environment.

Introduction

The helicopter autorotation maneuver is employed

when flight conditions warrant a minimum or no

power descent and landing. This could occur

through loss of engine power or through loss of fully

effective flight controls. The maneuver allows the

pilot to execute a safe, survivable landing depending

on the availability of appropriate terrain. Because

practice autorotations to landing carry high risk, a

need for a helicopter autorotation simulator is growing to address the safety and cost concerns. Therefore, it is necessary to establish minimum cueing

specifications for both visual and motion systems.

The AutoCue simulation was designed to determine

the tradeoff between pilot-vehicle performance and

workload versus visual and motion cues.

Simulation

One objective of the Autocue simulation was for

the pilot to execute an autorotation using standard

autorotation procedures and technique to a desired

position on the runway, with minimum forward ground

speed and minimum rate of descent. From the visual

cues of perceived height and depth perception, the

pilot would try to perform an autorotation to a touchdown with a maximum groundspeed of less than 25

knots and a maximum rate of descent of less than

5ft/sec.

For each run, the pilot had to autorotate the

helicopter from an initial altitude of 1000 ft. and an

initial airspeed of 80 knots to land at a designated

spot on the runway. The autorotation runs were done

for twelve different runway visual cue environments,

ranging from no texture and little scene content to a

high scene density runway. The pilot rated each

autorotation according to the airspeed, rotor RPM

control, rate of descent, and touchdown position by

assigning a Handling Qualities Rating (HQR) and

answering a questionnaire.

The second objective of the simulation,

“PsychoPath” was designed to determine the pilot

visual threshold of closure rate in a no motion

environment. The pilot was positioned 100 ft. in front

of the runway threshold at 100-ft. altitude and an

initial airspeed of 20 knots. Consecutive runs of

differing descent rates to the same runway texture

density were given to the pilots. The pilot determined

which sink rate was larger before moving to the next

pair of runs.

The visual cueing database had the capability to

vary the runway texture density from maximum

possible down to zero texture, resulting in 12 different

selectable data scenes. Both textures derived from

actual photographs of a runway and a random noise

database were used for each runway scene. Other

outside cues from the database, such as buildings,

towers, hangars, trees, etc. were eliminated. The

motion cueing environment included the full VMS

motion system, no motion, and limited motion to

model a hexapod simulator with a 15 inch actuator

stroke.

Results

During the seven weeks of this simulation a total of

nineteen subjects including 11 pilots and 8 non-pilots

participated. 1544 autorotation data runs and 182

psychopath data runs were collected. Preliminary

results show that the effect of the database changes

produced an unexpected trend. Further analysis of

the data is needed to study these effects.

Investigative Team

U.S. Army

NASA Ames Research Center

The UH-60 Blackhawk helicopter model was used to

examine different visual and motion cues during an

autorotation maneuver.
18 Aviation Systems Division

Magnetic Levitation Vehicle Demonstration

Charlotte Thornton, Stanford University;

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

Summary

This fixed-based experiment was to demonstrate a

conceptual high speed mass transport vehicle, i.e.,

Magnetic Levitation (MagLev) train, to improve the

traffic capacity between major cities. The primary

objectives of the entry were to identify basic parameters for a MagLev vehicle such as optimal track

height above terrain, passenger height above the

track, human visual speed tolerance, design of

instrument displays, display parameter groupings and

control hardware.

Introduction

The MagLev Simulation Capability Demonstration

entry was conducted for the Stanford Product Design

Group in partnership with Richardson, Robertson

Partners, Architects. The purpose of the demonstration was to use the capabilities of the SimLab facility

to visually simulate a magnetic levitation train route.

The focus of the program was to obtain basic design

guidelines for magnetically levitated freight and

passenger trains, guideway design, ride quality, and

safety issues.

This MagLev entry was only for a demonstration to

investigate feasibility issues in the early conceptual

design. A set of guidance algorithms based on the

track profile was developed to generate the out-thewindow eyepoint view for the conductor and passengers to follow along a guideway track. Different track

heights were also investigated.

Simulation

Due to the limited scope of this experiment, a

simple MagLev train model was developed by

SimLab engineers to use the specified track profile to

provide the speed control of the train. A stretch of

approximately 35 miles of the track between

Palmdale and Burbank, CA was developed by

SimLab. The challenge was to create the visual

database for this long stretch of track going up and

over mountains, compute where the track was

located, and guide the vehicle along this track.

Since the vehicle had to follow the guideway track

defined in the ESIG visual database, data from the

ESIG had to be processed to produce a list of

coordinates for the vehicle to follow. A processing

program was developed to convert the ESIG visual

database data into a three-dimensional table to

provide coordinates for each track segment. This

data was then converted to the proper format to be

used in the map display software and in the speed

control model.

In order to travel along the track, a filtered speed

command was developed to give the conductor ways

to control the speed of the train while accelerating,

making turns, going up and down, braking, and

coming to a stop.

Results

The researcher learned a great deal regarding a

range of issues to be considered when trying to build

an elevated MagLev train with a maximum speed

approaching 300 miles per hour. The sharpness of

the turns and the steepness of the banks of the turns

are major issues to be considered.

A grand total of 22 visitors from a broad spectrum

of backgrounds were shown the demonstration.

There were academics, engineers, urban planners,

transportation professionals from Ecuador, and

entrepreneurs involved with this particular project.

Four video and six audio tape recordings were made

and retained by the researcher. These recordings

will help the researcher better define requirements for

future simulation entries.

Investigative Team

Stanford University

Universal MagLev

NASA Ames Research Center

Magnetic Levitation train travels at high speed along a

guideway between Palmdale and Burbank.
Aviation Systems Division 19

Situational Awareness Model Simulation

Jay Shively, Mark Burdick, Joe De Maio, U.S. Army/NASA ARC;

Robert Morrison, Logicon/LISS

Summary

SAMSIM tested a computational situational

awareness model used in human factors studies by

simulating full-mission flights of the UH-60 Blackhawk

helicopter.

Introduction

In 1997, human factors researchers developed

and integrated a computational situational awareness

model (SAM) into the Man-machine Integration

Design and Analysis System (MIDAS). MIDAS is an

overall cognitive model that combines graphical

equipment prototyping, a dynamic simulation, and

human performance modeling on a computer workstation. The goals of MIDAS are to reduce design

cycle time, support quantitative predictions of humansystem effectiveness, and improve the design of

crew stations and their associated operating procedures.

Part-task simulations for both military and civil

environments have tested SAM and found high

correlation between its predictions and the measures

subsequently collected from pilots. SAMSIM further

tested SAM in a higher fidelity full-mission simulator,

the Vertical Motion Simulator (VMS) using the UH-60

Blackhawk helicopter model.

Simulation

The principal objectives of the simulation experiment were to:

(1)Evaluate the validity of SAM in a high fidelity

rotorcraft simulation, and

(2)Demonstrate two key features of the model:

context changes and actual versus perceived

situational awareness.

In the simulation experiment, each pilot used a

map to fly a mission along a designated route above

hilly and rolling terrain. Each route started and

ended at a hover pad in a village with several

waypoints in between. At each waypoint was a red

flag to mark its location, and a half-mile beyond it on

the way to the next waypoint was a yellow flag.

The pilot was given the following tasks to perform

during the mission:

• Maintain a prescribed airspeed and radar altitude.

• Use localizer guidance to fly to each waypoint.

• After the last waypoint, fly back to the village using

only the map (guidance was turned off and visibility

was reduced).

• Report all ground vehicles (tanks or vans) by radio,

indicating their map locations.

• Report any equipment failures.

Combinations of four different routes and two

different placements of ground vehicles were used

for the missions. For one placement, the vehicles

were farther from the route than the other. In addition, visibility was varied between high and low, and

stability augmentation system was turned on or off.

For the simulation, SimLab personnel developed

software to simulate equipment failures, calculate the

pilot’s reaction times to the failures; provide localizer

guidance; automatically reduce visibility after the last

waypoint; perform statistical calculations of aircraft

heading, radar altitude, and airspeed; calculate the

ranges from the helicopter to the ground vehicles;

and determine which three vehicles were closest.

SimLab personnel also developed visual models of

the vehicles and flags and placed them along each

route on the visual database according to the maps.

In addition, they developed graphics to display the

maps and cockpit instruments in the lab.

Results

Each of four pilots flew the simulated UH-60

helicopter on full mission flights to perform the tasks

specified by the researchers. After each mission, the

pilot rated the aircraft’s handling qualities and answered a detailed questionnaire. The pilots completed a total of 65 data runs, each lasting for about

15 minutes. The experiment was successful, meeting all principal objectives. Results of the experiment

were pending at the time this report was written.

Investigative Team

U.S. Army

NASA Ames Research Center

Ground vehicles (a tank and a van), placed on hilly terrain

were used as targets to test the situational awareness of

pilots during the flight of a mission.
20 Aviation Systems Division

Space Shuttle Vehicle 2000-2

Howard Law, Alan Poindexter, Ken Ham, Chris Ferguson, Charles Hobaugh, NASA JSC;

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

Summary

Simulations of the Space Shuttle orbiter are

performed at the VMS to fine-tune the Shuttle

orbiter’s landing systems and to provide landing and

rollout training for the astronaut corps. The engineering goals for this simulation were to determine the

feasibility of expanding the night Transatlantic Abort

Landing (TAL) crosswind limit from 12 to 15 knots

with regards to crew safety, handling qualities and

vehicle limits; to evaluate a limit for the maximum

speedbrake setting when using the new short-runway

speedbrake option; and to evaluate an adaptive

speedbrake model.

Introduction

The Space Shuttle orbiter has been simulated at

the VMS twice each year since the mid 1970s.

Researchers have examined modifications to the

flight-control system, guidance and navigation

systems, head-up displays, flight rules, and to the

basic simulation model. The simulations also provide

astronaut training with realistic landing and rollout

scenarios.

Simulation

The primary objective of this entry was to evaluate

the feasibility of expanding the night TAL crosswind

limit from 12 to 15 knots with regards to crew safety,

handling qualities and vehicle performance limits.

Higher crosswind limits will mean better chances of

meeting launch windows for the increasing number of

flights required to support current and future space

station missions. Based on studies in ’95 and ’96 the

daytime crosswind limit was increased to 15 knots.

However, the night landing limit was nominally set at

12 knots to account for reduced depth perception at

night. This experiment specifically studied the higher

crosswind limit impact on handling qualities and

performance margins for the night environment.

The second goal of this entry was to evaluate the

limit for the maximum speedbrake setting when using

the new short-runway speedbrake option. Results

from the March 2000 study to develop landing and

rollout procedures for short runways showed that it

was essential to determine a maximum speedbrake

limit. Not having a limit for manual or automatic flight

procedures might result in expending too much of the

orbiter’s energy. During this session, the researchers

examined the handling qualities and performance

effects of a range of maximum speedbrake limits.

The third engineering goal of this entry was to

perform a preliminary evaluation of an adaptive

speedbrake model, which will allow continuous

changes of the speedbrake angle. The current model

positions the speedbrake at specific angles during

the final approach and landing phases.

Another objective of SSV 2000-2 was to train

upcoming mission crews and astronaut candidates

through a series of flights. Various runways, visibility

conditions, and wind conditions were simulated, and

system failures were periodically introduced during

the training matrix.

Results

During the four weeks of the simulation, thirtythree pilots completed 818 training and engineering

data runs. The crew familiarization session 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.

Preliminary results of the engineering studies

indicate that: (i) the higher night TAL crosswind does

not compromise safety, handling qualities or performance. The researchers will recommend raising the

flight rule limit on night crosswinds from 12 knots to

15 knots; (ii) the maximum speedbrake limit with the

short-runway speedbrake option should be set at 75

percent in order to achieve the best energy results;

and (iii) pilots did not discern a significant difference

between the adaptive speedbrake model and the

baseline model. The adaptive speedbrake improved

performance, measured in terms of normalized

touchdown position and speed, on some runs and on

other runs it hurt performance slightly when compared to the baseline.

Investigative Team

NASA Johnson Space Center

The Boeing Company

Lockheed Martin

United Space Alliance

This simulation conducted studies to determine the

crosswind limit during night landings on Transatlantic

Abort runways.
Aviation Systems Division 21

Joint Shipboard Helicopter Integration Process

Colin Wilkinson, Mike Roscoe, Bob Nicholson, Denver Sheriff, Information Spectrum, Inc.;

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

Summary

The Joint Shipboard Helicopter Integration Process (JSHIP) - Joint Test and Evaluation program is

sponsored by the Office of the Secretary of Defense

(OSD) to develop and test the processes and mechanisms that facilitate ship-helicopter interface testing

via man-in-the-loop simulators. For this purpose,

SimLab has developed a simulation that replicates

at-sea conditions for an LHA class ship and UH-60A

Blackhawk helicopter. The JSHIP program completed

a fixed-base validation session in October 2000;

motion-based simulations are planned for December

2000 and June 2001.

Introduction

The specific purpose of the JSHIP program is to

increase the interoperability of joint shipboard

helicopter operations for helicopter units that are not

specifically designed to go aboard Navy ships.

An important issue of shipboard helicopter integration

is the wind-over-deck (WOD) launch and recovery

flight envelope. For the Navy, WOD flight envelopes

have been established for specific ship and aircraft

combinations using at-sea flight tests. JSHIP is

examining the potential of ground based flight

simulation as a cost-effective and controlled alternative for WOD flight envelope determination.

Simulation

The purpose of this phase was to validate the

models and subsystems integrated at VMS and to

determine the impact of various fidelity configurations

of each subsystem on accurately predicting the LHA /

UH-60A WOD launch and recovery flight envelopes.

The subsystems tested included the GenHel UH-60

math model, control loader forces, landing gear,

visual scenes, aural cueing, dynamic seat, Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) generated airwake, ship

motion model, and the UH-60 cab.

For this simulation, the UH-60 cab was completely

re-built from the ground up. A new rear projection

visual display system was installed to provide wider

field-of-view (FOV) in the cockpit. The flight deck

was constructed to duplicate the right seat of an UH60 helicopter. The control loaders were checked

versus forces from a UH-60 report.

The math model was verified to be representative

of the UH-60. CFD generated airwake gusts were

implemented into the math model at nine different

places on the helicopter, including the outer segments of each rotor blade, the rotor hub, the fuselage, the stabilator, the tail rotor, and the horizontal

tail. The landing gear was checked versus drop test

data. Ship-motion was simulated using a complex

model developed by the Navy.

For body force cueing, a dynamic seat was

obtained from the Apache Longbow program. It was

tuned to provide the vertical accelerations generated

by a UH-60. The ESIG 4530 image generator with a

3D-sea state wave model, consisting of a series of

realistic waves, was used with a highly accurate LHA

ship model. The UH-60 sound environment was

reproduced with three separate aural cueing models.

Results

All required models and subsystems were developed by SimLab personnel in record time: less than a

year. The subsystems were successfully validated in

September/October 2000. Their detailed configurations were documented in preparation for the December 2000 simulation. For this upcoming simulation,

the fidelity level of each subsystem will be varied to

determine a minimum level required to accurately

predict the launch and recovery WOD flight envelope.

In the June 2001 simulation, a fidelity algorithm will

be developed that applies a confidence factor to

predicted WOD envelopes as a function of the fidelity

of the simulation.

Investigative Team

JSHIP Joint Test and Evaluation Office

Information Spectrum, Inc.

NASA Ames Research Center

Logicon Information Systems and Services

The high fidelity visual model of an LHA ship is shown

which was used for landings and launches during the

JSHIP wind-over-deck envelope determination study.
22 Aviation Systems Division

Rapid Integration Test Environment 2

Summary

This is the second phase of an effort to develop a

Rapid Integration Test Environment (RITE) for airvehicle design, that is to develop a process and

infrastructure to facilitate the use of Computational

Fluid Dynamic (CFD), wind tunnel, and/or flight data

in a real-time, piloted flight simulation and apply

return knowledge to the design team to continuously

improve and optimize the vehicle performance. The

objectives are to reduce the design cycle time, and

maximize the performance and the utilization of

resources. The Space Shuttle Orbiter was used to

demonstrate this fast turn-around process which

includes a baseline aerodynamic model generated

from wind tunnel, geometry variations generated from

CFD, and a high fidelity pilot-in-the-loop motionbased flight simulation.

Introduction

During the second phase of the technology

development for RITE, the main focus was to evaluate the quick turn-around capability of the interface,

integration, and performance evaluation process

developed during the first phase of this program in

responding to design variations.

The nose section of the Orbiter was chosen as the

design parameter. Three geometry variations of the

nose section of the Orbiter were developed prior to

the flight simulation, and the fourth was generated

during the experiment. The four configurations were

designed using HYPERVIEW, a Newtonian based

hypersonic aerodynamic analysis tool. The configurations were optimized to give the best hypersonic liftto-drag ratio using new Ultra-High Temperature

Ceramic (UHTC) material. The UHTC material

enables the use of sharp leading edges on vehicles

for hypersonic flight. Grids for the new geometry

were generated using a beta version of ThreeDimensional Cartesian Simulation System for

Complex Geometry (CART3D). The grids were then

used to calculate flow solutions using an inviscid flow

solver module for CART3D, named TIGER.

Simulation

The simulation experiment ran with each of these

aerodynamic data sets including the baseline model.

The main task was to approach and land from

Heading Alignment Cone (HAC) and 10,000 feet

altitude initial conditions on to Kennedy Space

Center (KSC) runway in wind and turbulent weather

conditions. Forward and aft center-of-gravity configurations were also tested.

Vehicle performance and aerodynamic data were

collected and analyzed during these runs to determine the effects that changes in nose geometry have

on vehicle flight performance. Pilot evaluations were

also taken to determine differences in handling

qualities characteristics between the aerodynamic

data sets. VLAB capability was used throughout the

simulation to facilitate exchanging design modifications and simulation results among the team members.

Results

• RITE is a viable and useful concept.

• VLAB enhances the usefulness of RITE.

• Grid-to-flight scenario was proven.

The RITE II simulation experiment demonstrated

the capability of integrating CFD, flight, and windtunnel data into a simulation rapidly and seamlessly.

Three new math models for three different configurations were implemented and evaluated during the

simulation runs. The handling qualities of each

configuration were compared to the baseline space

shuttle configuration and evaluated using CooperHarper ratings. Four pilots evaluated each of the

configurations. The resulting Cooper-Harper ratings

for each of the three configurations were, in general,

very similar to the baseline shuttle configuration.

These results indicated that there was no loss in

handling qualities during approach and landing due

to the changes made to the nose configuration.

These findings were communicated back to the

design group.

Investigative Team

NASA Ames Research Center

Caelum Research

MCAT Inc.

Logicon Information Systems and Services

Flow visualization of different space shuttle orbiter nose

geometires simulated during RITE 2.

Julie Mikula, Donovan Mathias, Dave Kinney, Fanny Zuniga, Mary Livingston, Terry Holst, Neal

Chaderjian, NASA ARC; Jorge Bardina, Caelum Research; Jeff Onufer, MCAT Inc.; Joe Ogwell, Bill

Chung, Ron Gerdes, Dan Wilkins, Russ Sansom, Chris Sweeney, Girish Chachad, Logicon/LISS
Aviation Systems Division 23

Civil Tiltrotor 9

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

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

Summary

Civil Tiltrotor (CTR) 9 was a continuation of the

CTR series of simulations that investigated handling

qualities and flight operational issues, such as noise

abatement and approach/departure procedures

related to operating a tiltrotor aircraft at a vertiport.

The CTR 9 simulation was a large integration effort

involving modifications to the cab flight deck as well

as large scale software development to support the

handling qualities research and flight management

investigations. The simulation planned to investigate

tiltrotor guidance profiles, Take Off/Go Around

(TOGA) performance and profiles, one engine

inoperative (OEI) operations, and two flight control

systems with autopilot functionality for terminal area

flight and noise abatement procedures. Research

into integrating the tiltrotor aircraft into the airspace

with Air Traffic Control (ATC) was also part of this

effort.

Introduction

The CTR series of simulation experiments have

investigated certification and operational issues

affecting terminal operations of a civil tiltrotor transport. In addition to flying qualities of the CTR in and

out of the terminal area, the investigation effort has

begun focusing on operational issues under normal

airspace management procedures. More thought

has been placed on how the tiltrotor will fit into the

existing airspace with vertiport sites located near

existing airports or in congested downtown areas.

Noise abatement, approach and departure profiles

and procedures, and pilots work load and their

interaction with ATC controllers are issues to be

addressed.

Simulation

The cab interior was redesigned to account for

newly designed and fabricated thrust control levers

(TCL) and a new instrument panel to support the ATC

flight management investigation. A second analog

computer was added to provide two full sets of

controllers for a two-man crew.

Two separate flight control systems, or stability

and control augmentation systems (SCAS) were

developed. Bell Helicopter Textron’s SCAS is a

modification of the 1985 JVX SCAS and is a full

authority SCAS. In conjunction with the SCAS

development, Bell developed an autopilot function

based upon previous XV-15 work that was coordinated with the Honeywell Vertical Navigation (VNav)

System and the Mode Control Panel (MCP). The

second SCAS system, which is also a full authority

SCAS, was a dynamic inverse (DI) design developed

by NASA Ames researcher Jack Franklin.

A full suite of avionics including updated Navigation displays, primary flight displays (PFD), and MCP

displays were integrated into the experiment. Two

critical flight management functions were also

developed. These included a VNav system developed by Honeywell and a lateral navigation system

(LNav) developed by Logicon, based on existing

lateral guidance.

In preparation for FAA certification for tiltrotor

aircraft, the Pseudo-Aircraft System (PAS), an ATC

simulation software tool, was integrated into the

simulation. PAS generated pseudo aircraft traffic

based on the air traffic scenarios and sent the aircraft

traffic information to the CTR simulation to be displayed on the Navigation display and ESIG out-thewindow views to simulate other aircraft traffic in the

area. Voice communications with an ATC controller

were also integrated into the simulation.

Results

The CTR 9 simulation ran a checkout simulation in

the RSIS fixed base area for four weeks from September 4th to September 29th and began the VMS

operations starting October 2nd. Consequently, no

results are available from the simulation.

Investigative Team

NASA Ames Research Center

Logicon Information Systems and Services

Bell Helicopter Textron

Honeywell

Federal Aviation Administration

A simulated civil tiltrotor flies over San Francisco towards

a landing at a vertiport near the Bay Bridge.
24 Aviation Systems Division
Aviation Systems Division 25

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

analyzes performance characteristics of flight crews, formulates principles and design criteria for future aviation environments, evaluates new and contemporary air traffic control procedures, and develops 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—an FAA certified Level D 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
26 Aviation Systems Division

Taxiway Navigation and Situation Awareness 2

Summary

This follow-up study evaluated the use of a HeadUp Display (HUD) and an Electronic Moving Map

(EMM) to provide navigation and guidance information to airplane flight crews for airport runway turn-off

and surface taxi operations. The goal of the technology is to improve these airport ground-taxi operations

in low visibility weather conditions to 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) Project.

Introduction

Current airport surface operations are handled

with verbal instructions over the radio, and the

aircraft 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.

Although, many commercial airliners are now

equipped with electronic navigation displays and

Head-Up Display systems, little effort has been

developed to utilize these display systems for

ground-taxi operations.

The Taxiway-Navigation and Situation Awareness

(T-NASA) System assumes that in the future taxi

clearances from terminal controllers will be

datalinked to the cockpit, allowing flight crews to

receive and display both textual and graphical

ground-taxi information, to improve taxi route conformance and traffic flow. The T-NASA-2 experiment

followed the concept of electronically loading the taxi

route into an on-board system and displaying the

route graphically on both the Head-Up Display (HUD)

and Electronic Moving Map (EMM). New technologies introduced for this simulation included the use of

the Roll-Out and Turn-Off (ROTO) HUD, 3-D audio

alerts and warnings, and a two-way ATC-Pilot

datalink communication interface.

Simulation

Eighteen commercial airline crews completed 14

low visibility (RVR 1000’) land-and-taxi scenarios that

included both nominal taxi events (such as hold

shorts and route amendments) and off-nominal

events (such as near traffic incursions, clearance

errors, and display information inconsistencies).

Crews ground-taxi responses and performance were

evaluated under three test configurations, i.e., 1)

Current Procedures: Using standard operations and

equipment which included voice communications,

Dave Foyle, NASA ARC; Becky Hooey, Monterey Technologies, Inc.;

Don Bryant, Rod Ketchum, Anna Dabrowski, ManTech

ground clearances, and Jeppesen charts for navigation; 2) Transition Operations: Provided Air Traffic

Control (ATC) communications by using both voice

and datalink; and 3) Advanced Operations: Designed

to accommodate an expected three-fold increase in

airport traffic, provided ATC communications via

datalink only, and included advanced features such

as airborne taxi clearances.

Results

T-NASA increased taxi speeds by 16% (or 2.2 kts)

over current day scenarios while simultaneously

eliminating major navigational errors, e.g., making a

wrong turn or failing to turn, which occurred in 20%

under the current procedures. Further, the revolutionary changes embedded in the Advanced Operations

package produced large efficiency benefits. Specifically, when taxi clearances were datalinked to pilots

while airborne (outside outer-marker), the time spent

stopped after runway turnoff was eliminated (saving

approximately 10 sec. per trial), and taxi speeds

during this typical bottle-necked phase of taxiing

increased by approximately 78% (or 7.4 kts). Also,

the Advanced Operations package provided substantial improvements in ATC-Pilot communication

efficiency by reducing radio congestion and communication errors. These results suggest not only that TNASA can provide substantial benefits for the efficiency and safety of surface operations, but also that

further gains may be realized by incorporating

revolutionary changes to surface operations such as

the use of datalink and airborne taxi clearances.

Investigative Team

NASA Ames Research Center

Monterey Technologies, Inc.

Electronic Moving Map display during the TAXI

operation.
Aviation Systems Division 27

Integrated Tools/Air-Ground Integration

AGIE Symbology on Navigation Display

Summary

This experiment conducted an early evaluation of

air-ground integration procedures and concepts. It

was a joint research effort involving both the William

J. Hughes FAA Technical Center (FAATC) and NASA

Ames in order to obtain data pertaining to interactions among controllers of the ground system and

flight crew on the flight deck.

The overall goal was to conduct an early examination of procedures and events in a dynamic environment where the control of aircraft can be centralized

or distributed, i.e., conventional ATC procedures or

self-separation, respectively. This study was conducted in conjunction with the Human-Automation

Integration Research Branch (IHI) at NASA Ames

Research Center.

Introduction

In the free flight environment, aircraft will presumably be able to maneuver with more autonomy and

flexibility. However, free flight will require definition of

new zones around each aircraft, similar to the zones

currently provided by the TCAS alert algorithms.

These zones will be defined as the alert and protected zones. Roles and responsibilities associated

with transgressions of these zones need to be

defined and evaluated to determine if there may be

difficulties in coordination between the controllers

and the flight crew in cases where separation authority is provided to the flight crew.

Simulation

This research investigating free flight, a future

flight rule being considered by FAA, included researchers and laboratories located at the FAATC in

Atlantic City, New Jersey, and at the CVSRF at NASA

Ames Research Center. Flight crews from the B747-

400 and pseudo pilots, using the Pseudo Aircraft

System (PAS) at the CVSRF, and pseudo pilots from

FAATC followed designed traffic scenarios and flight

procedures to interact with ATC controllers located at

the FAATC. All air traffic other than the B747-400 and

the PAS intruder aircraft that were local to CVSRF

were generated at the FAATC and sent to the

CVSRF.

Sandy Lozito, NASA ARC; Patricia Cashion, Victoria Dulchinos, Melisa Dunbar, Dave Jara,

Margaret Mackintosh, Alison McGann, SJSU; Jerry Jones, Rod Ketchum, George Mitchell,

Diane Carpenter, Ghislain Saillant, Ian MacLure, Fritz Renema,

 Craig Pires, Joe King, Tom Prehm, Gary Uyehara, ManTech

For this experiment, a new dedicated T1 line was

installed between NASA ARC and the FAATC. The

T1 line was used to send/receive voice information,

using Voice Over IP (VOIP) technology, and aircraft

data. The software used for this study on the B747-

400 flight simulator was an upgrade to the previous

AATT3 experiment software. The majority of this new

software developed was in support of the new

interface to the FAATC.

Results

Crews reported that the alerting logic gave them

adequate time to resolve the conflicts, yet better

altitude filtering of the traffic would be beneficial. In

this study aircraft heading changes, as opposed to

altitude or speed changes, seemed to be the preferred method of traffic conflict resolution.

Investigative Team

NASA Ames Research Center

San Jose State University

William J. Hughes FAA Technical Center
28 Aviation Systems Division

Flight Management System Departure Procedures 2

A map showing the ground track of the aircraft with

respect to the FMS computed track (solid line) part way

through a departure at unrestricted airspeed.

Frank Hasman, David Lankford, FAA, Oklahoma City; Barry Scott, FAA, NASA ARC;

Jerry Jones, Rod Ketchum, George Mitchell, Diane Carpenter, ManTech

Summary

With the implementation of today’s Flight Management Systems (FMS), as well as the navigation

concept of Required Navigation Performance (RNP),

conventional area navigation (RNAV) departure

procedures using the FMS can now extend the

overall navigation capability. The objective of this

study was to evaluate a new departure proposed for

noise abatement addressing concerns that variations

of the aircraft’s speed and weight may lead to

possible waypoint overshoots.

Introduction

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Order

8260.44 provides criteria for constructing instrument

flight rules (IFR) RNAV departure procedures.

Procedures designed to meet the current criteria are

for use by aircraft with only RNAV or Global Positioning System (GPS) RNAV capability. The data derived

from this examination will assist in the development

of departure procedure design standards for FMS/

RNP/RNAV departures based on operational and

system requirements. At certain locations, obstacles

or noise sensitive areas close to the departure track

create a requirement for highly accurate systems and

special operational procedures to enter and maintain

a narrow departure corridor. This project will identify

operational and system requirements that must be

considered in the total development of Terminal

Procedures RNAV Departure Procedure criteria.

Simulation

Using the NASA 747-400 Simulator, a number of

runs of the planned departure were conducted while

capturing aircraft parameters at a two Hertz rate. The

parameters collected include aircraft position relative

to the intended flight track, airspeed, heading, vertical

speed, height above ground, flap position and FMC

LNAV bank command. The departure route was

constructed by the FAA Flight Procedure Standards

Branch in Oklahoma City and was manually entered

into the B747-400’s FMC as latitude/longitude

waypoints. Takeoffs were made from runway 9L at

Atlanta at both light and heavy weights, at both

constant and unrestricted airspeeds and with winds

that were either calm or a ten knot tailwind from 273

degrees.

Results

Eight data runs were completed for this study. All

runs were flown by CVSRF staff pilots. The collected

data was sent to the FAA in Oklahoma City. Data is

being evaluated by the FAA and results of this

investigation will be utilized in future studies.

Investigative Team

Federal Aviation Administration, Oklahoma City

NASA Ames Research Center
Aviation Systems Division 29

Neural Flight Control System

Failed Control Surfaces Display

The Control Page for the NFCS Experimenter’s Operation

Station

John Kaneshige, Don Soloway, NASA ARC; John Bull, Consultant;

Don Bryant, Anna Dabrowski, Ian MacLure, David Brown, Rod Ketchum, ManTech

Summary

A number of high profile aircraft accidents involving full or partial loss of control during flight have

sparked an interest in research to implement alternative methods of controlling damaged aircraft. This

experiment evaluated the use of adaptive flight

controllers based on “Neural Net” technologies as a

possible solution.

Introduction

Current research efforts include development of

flight control systems which can adapt themselves to

compensate for damage to the aircraft control system

using any remaining control authority of the primary

systems plus auxiliary means to maintain control

during flight. The Neural Flight Control Systems

Study incorporated a “Neural Net” based controller in

the Advanced Concepts Flight Simulator (ACFS). The

study was intended as a proof of concept of various

controller algorithms but primarily of Neural Net

based technology.

Neural networks are processing systems which do

not require explicit equations relating input to output.

They are capable of learning the relationship between input to a system and the resulting output by

analysis of examples of desired system behavior. A

neural net can be thought of as an intelligent, and to

some extent a self generated, lookup table. Whether

they are in hardware or software form, a neural net

consists of large numbers of relatively simple processing elements connected in multiple ways.

Simulation

For this study the simulated aircraft was a Boeing

757-class generic transport. The neural net had

knowledge of the desired handling qualities of the

vehicle. When presented with a control system

malfunction it was able to adapt to the degraded

situation. A Neural Net type controller was capable of

responding to the damaged aircraft and adapt pilot

inputs to provide flight control in a manner that is

easily understood by the crew.

Results

NASA pilots flew 39 experimental data runs.

Handling qualities were assessed for the fully functional aircraft and for the damaged aircraft, subjected

to a variety of control failure conditions while

equipped with different controller algorithms. Performance of the various controllers was measured for

each failure condition. Audio/Video recordings were

made of the test runs and data was collected using

the simulator’s built-in data collection system. Preliminary results indicate that Neural Net based

controllers might provide a viable option to control

damaged aircraft to a safe landing.

Investigative Team

NASA Ames Research Center
30 Aviation Systems Division

Controller-Pilot Data Link Communication Procedures

Control Display Unit (CDU) showing

ATC log page with uplink messages.

Sandy Lozito, NASA ARC; Melisa Dunbar, Alison McGann, Margaret Mackintosh, SJSU; Rod Ketchum,

Jerry Jones, George Mitchell, Joe King, Diane Carpenter, Ghislain Saillant, ManTech

Summary

This study examined Controller-Pilot Data Link

Communications (CPDLC) in the domestic enroute

environment. Specifically, the cockpit crews’ ability to

detect and recover from message errors was investigated in three communication environments: voice

only, data link only, and mixed – voice and data link.

Introduction

Flight operations in the National Airspace System

(NAS) depend on the timely and accurate exchange

of information between aircraft and various air traffic

control (ATC) facilities. CPDLC is a new means of

communication between controllers and pilots using

electronic messaging (data link). This new communication function presents the need to establish new

procedures to generate effective communication

between controllers and the flight crew. Previous

research has shown that a mixed media environment

may change the nature of ATC communications. This

study is a follow up to previous research in which

voice transaction times were found to have lengthened in a mixed media environment compared to a

pure voice environment. In addition, planned distractions to the data link task were examined to uncover

procedural vulnerabilities. Potential problems with

procedural steps required for the crew to initiate a

request to the controller were also examined.

Simulation

The objective of the CPDLC study was to examine

the impact of data link and voice procedures upon

the crew. ATC clearances and requests in voice only

and data link only modalities were represented. In

other cases, use of data link and voice messages

were mixed. The crews’ ability to detect and recover

from message errors was evaluated. Also, the impact

of varying time intervals between messages on the

cockpit crew was investigated.

The CVSRF staff added the capability to uplink a

group of ATC messages to the cockpit, via a simulated ATC ground station. For this study a message

group contained up to 3 clearances and/or requests.

Results

Seven airline crews participated in 7 training runs

and 42 experiment data runs. Overall, pilots seemed

to find the mixed voice/data link condition the most

difficult. Pilots did indicate that time-sharing of the

Flight Management System Control Display Unit

(FMS CDU) for both data link communications and

FMS operations was somewhat disruptive and that

the time required to detect, read and respond to a

data link message on the CDU was only moderately

acceptable. However, flight crews reported that

overall data link improved the effectiveness of airground communications and that they would be very

satisfied with data link as a safety enhancement for

the enroute phase of flight.

Investigative Team

NASA Ames Research Center

San Jose State University
Aviation Systems Division 31

Center TRACON Automation System Flight Management System 2

Crew Activity Tracking System

Summary

CTAS/FMS2 was a follow on study to evaluate

new concepts of integrating the Center TRACON

Automation System (CTAS) with the Flight Management System (FMS). This research was part of the

NASA Terminal Area Productivity Project for safely

increasing traffic capacity in the arrival and terminal

airspace.

Introduction

Envisioned to be operational in the 2010 time

frame, improvements in flight management automation both in the cockpit and the Air Traffic Control

(ATC) facilities are expected to provide benefits in

alleviating air traffic problems related to aircraft

arrival to major airports. The goal is to provide safe

and efficient flow of enroute traffic into the TRACON

airspace which in turn can deliver the aircraft to the

approach control handled by the airport tower.

The FMS continues to be the key component

providing enhanced cockpit automation capabilities

while a set of CTAS software tools forms the basis for

TRACON ATC automation.

In addition to using the flight crews as study

subjects in the previous CTAS/FMS study, ATC

controllers were also included as experiment subjects for this vastly enhanced simulation investigation.

Simulation

Two piloted flight simulators, the ACFS at CVSRF

and a B757 at Langley Research Center (LaRC) took

part in this experiment. Live and scripted Pseudo

Aircraft System aircraft and the CTAS controller

stations, located in the Airspace Operations Lab

(AOL) in N262, simulated TRACON traffic and ATC

controller functions remotely through a gateway to

CVSRF. A Voice Over IP communication link was

setup between the CVSRF and the AOL to provide

voice communications.

The ACFS was configured for full mission operations in Center and TRACON airspace for arrivals

into Dallas/Fort Worth. Features carried over from the

previous study were a Boeing 777 type data link

system, FMS route clearance loading, and a Vertical

Situation Display. Enhancements developed for this

experiment included additional FMS Vertical Navigation functions such as wind planning to include

forecast winds, and capabilities to modify the flight

plan via up-linked information, such as clearances,

Everett Palmer, Terry Rager, NASA ARC; Todd Callantine, Thomas Prevot, Stephan Romahn, SJSU;

Don Bryant, George Mitchell, Ramesh Panda, Anna Dabrowski, Dave Brown,

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

cruise speeds, descent speeds, and descent forecast

winds, from ground stations. A standard Traffic

Collision Avoidance System was added for this

experiment. Additionally, a 3D wind model was

integrated providing realistic and consistent wind

profiles to all participants in the simulation.

The Crew Activity Tracking System (CATS), which

receives real-time simulation data to analyze crew

performance, was integrated into the simulation for

the first time. CATS, located remotely from the

simulator and interfaced via the data network,

displays a facsimile of the aircraft’s data including the

primary flight display, the FMS flight plan, and the

lateral and vertical flight profiles. Additionally, CATS

can analyze the actions performed by the flight crew.

For this simulation, CATS was also used as the

primary data collection system.

Results

A total of eight crews from major commercial air

carriers with glass cockpit type rating took part in the

study. Six scenarios were flown by each crew. The

B757 simulator at LaRC and air traffic controllers in

AOL also participated in the study.

Investigative Team

NASA Ames Research Center

NASA Langely Research Center

San Jose State University
32 Aviation Systems Division

Airborne Information for Lateral Spacing

Summary

Airborne Information for Lateral Spacing (AILS) is

an airborne-based concept for independent, instrument approaches to closely-spaced parallel runways

that enables the use of both runways during instrument approach conditions. AILS provides an independent instrument approach capability applicable

to parallel runways with centerline spacing between

4,300 and 2,500 feet, the range of runway spacing

for most domestic airlines’ hub airports. The airlines’

ability to maintain schedules is severely impacted

when one or more airports are forced to curtail

independent parallel approaches because of

inclement weather. The AILS system safely maintains high airport acceptance rates, not possible with

current systems and procedures, during low visibility

conditions.

Introduction

This investigation will examine the utility and

viability of the two systems designed to increase

airport efficiency during IMC. Evaluation of flight

crew and Air Traffic Control (ATC) interactions

during the pairing of aircraft for independent and

dependent approaches using AILS and CSPA,

respectively, will be conducted, as well as the reengagement of interactions when a break off maneuver is required.

Simulation

This simulation will be conducted with scenarios

utilizing the airspace in and around the Seattle

International Airport.

Seattle is undergoing a new runway addition,

which will give the primary runways approximately

2500 ft centerline separation between the two outer

runways, allowing use of the AILS/CSPA technologies if adopted.

The CVSRF’s B747 full mission simulator was

adapted to accept revised primary flight display and

navigation display (see figure) information.

Additional modifications mandated by the study

included increasing the messaging capabilities and

creating new aural cues for use in the B747 cab. The

Seattle runway scene depicted in the B747 simulators’ visual system was modified to represent the

addition of the new runway. Additionally, a custom

Flight Management System (FMS) navigation database software file was designed and loaded into the

FMS, for use with the “new” Seattle approaches.

The CVSRF’s ATC lab was configured to represent

the SEATAC feeder sector, departure sector, tower

Vernol Battiste, Walter Johnson, Terry Rager, NASA ARC; David Brown, Diane Carpenter, Eric

Gardner, Nabil Hanania, Jerry Jones, Rod Ketchum, Dave Lambert, Ian Maclure, George Mitchell,

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

position, and adjacent airspace positions, all utilizing

the Pseudo Aircraft System (PAS). A separate final

approach controller station was created in an isolated

area for controller evaluation.

PAS was heavily modified to incorporate changes

required of the researchers.

Additional video cameras, video splitters, routers

and other hardware, were installed to collect the

requested audio and video data for both the B747

flight deck crew and the isolated ATC controller

station.

Scenarios began with air-traffic routed to the

Seattle airport for runways 17 L/R. The B747 simulator was released into this traffic flow via automated

software programs that also “paired” conflict traffic for

a subsequent “blunder” or breakout maneuver.

Results

Extensive system integration and checkout were

completed. A preliminary system test with a flight

crew and controllers was conducted to identify

experiment functional and operational issues. Experiment will be run next year.

Investigative Team

NASA Ames Research Center

Navigation display of closely spaced parallel approaches.
Aviation Systems Division 33
34 Aviation Systems Division
Aviation Systems Division 35

 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.

RESEARCH & TECHNOLOGY

 UPGRADE PROJECTS
36 Aviation Systems Division

Virtual Laboratory

Summary

The Virtual Laboratory (VLAB) is a suite of realtime, interactive, engineering research tools that

allows remote users to participate in live flight

simulation experiments, conducted at the VMS

Laboratories from their desktops. Significant accomplishments for FY2000 included two major simulation

deployments, and the further development of PCbased client systems to enhance capabilities and

reduce deployment costs.

Capabilities

Using VLAB, remote researchers navigate through

a three dimensional virtual VMS laboratory control

room environment. With the click of a mouse, remote

users select, view, and position the same data

displays available in the actual lab to suit their

personal needs, on their own desktop workstation.

The VLAB system consists of four functional components: (1) the client system presents the virtual lab

and its displays; (2) a network-based video transmission system provides the pilots OTW visuals; (3) a

network-based audio transmission system provides

ambient laboratory sound, pilot communication, and

private voice channels; and (4) A workstation (SGI

O2) furnishes video conferencing and post-run data

analysis capabilities. VLAB’s modular architecture

allows for scalable deployment of remote client

systems.

PC Based Client Systems

The VLAB client system was successfully migrated

to cost-effective desktop and laptop systems from the

original high performance graphics workstation. The

VLAB client is fully supported on Apple Macintosh

desktop and PowerBook class systems. Work

continues to migrate to Windows and Linux based

PCs as well.

Ambient and two-way audio communication tools

were integrated into the desktop/laptop client systems this year. This eliminates the need for an

independent audio transmission system.

Simulation/Applications Deployments:

SSV: The February ’00 SSV simulation featured

the first deployment of a PowerBook VLAB client with

embedded audio transmission. Researchers were

able to monitor and respond to ambient audio, pilot

comments and private communications directly from

the PowerBook client.

RITE: The RITE simulation experiment deployment

marked several VLAB firsts. The client suite was

deployed to two separate laboratories at NASA/Ames

for team participation and monitoring of the simulation. A real-time plotting function was added to the

VLAB tool suite for RITE. The RITE simulation

experiment marked the first use of “multicast” clients

which allows support of unlimited remote clients while

reducing network bandwidth requirements. Also of

note was the first deployment of a PowerBook client

using wireless LAN technology.

Future Plans

Future plans for the VLAB client suite include:

further development of real-time plotting capability,

extended use of multicast transmission, continued

investigation of wireless LAN technologies, enhancements to existing display elements, and multiplatform, multi-OS, PC-based client systems. VLAB

will investigate technologies that allow migration of

the video conferencing, OTW visuals, and post data

reduction tools into the VLAB client interface. The

goal is to integrate all four functional components into

a single hardware system controlled and operated

from within the VLAB interface.

For more information, visit VLAB’s web site:

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

Development Team

Russell Sansom, Chuck Gregory, Rachel Wang-Yeh,

Martin Pethtel, Timothy Trammell, Christopher

Sweeney, Thomas Crawford, Kelly Carter, Daniel

Wilkins, Logicon/LISS; Thomas Alderete, Steven

Cowart, Julie Mikula, John Griffin, NASA ARC

Engineers using VLAB to conduct research with the VMS

lab from remote locations.
Aviation Systems Division 37

Joint Shipboard Helicopter Integration Process Simulation Technologies

Summary

The JSHIP study examined the relationship

between the fidelity of a simulation and its ability to

accurately predict a wind-over-the-deck (WOD)

launch and recovery flight envelope for the LHA and

UH-60A ship/helicopter combination. To assist in this

effort, new technologies were developed and integrated into the SimLab environment to achieve the

simulation goals.

Cab

The JSHIP study required the simulation to

replicate the field-of-view (FOV) of a UH-60A

BlackHawk helicopter which could not be met with

any of the existing interchangeable cabs. To meet

this requirement, one of the existing SimLab rotorcraft cabs (N-Cab) was stripped to the floor and

rebuilt. In order to meet a 220 x 70 degree out the

window FOV from the pilot’s view, a completely new

visual display system was designed in-house. The

system consists of five off-the-shelf, high output

cathode ray tube (CRT) projectors combined with

custom flat mirrors and high gain rear projection

screens. The system is non-collimated and places

the screens at approximately 39.7" from the pilot as a

necessary compromise to fit in the tight VMS envelope. Total cost for implementing the solution was

approximately one fifth of competing designs (spherical mirrored Wide Angle Collimation (WAC) windows

or vacuum formed dome projection systems) while

maintaining a serviceable quality image.

Image Generator

The JSHIP project plan called for three separate

levels of visual fidelity. The first was the existing

ESIG 4530 ocean database and ship model as used

in previous simulations at VMS. The second added

the 3-D Sea State model from Evans and Sutherland

(E&S) and an enhanced LHA model developed

specifically for the JSHIP project. The third level is a

proof of concept visual system using lower cost PCs

and high powered graphics boards to drive the out the

window displays.

The third level entailed integrating a new image

generation (IG) system into the SimLab video system.

The selected system was Carmel Applied Technology

Inc.’s (CATI) X-IG Real-time Software package hosted

by a set of five Quantum 3D Alchemy 8164, Pentium

III based graphics subsystems. This visual fidelity

level also included an enhanced synchronized ocean

wave model, LHA ship model, and animated Landing

Signal Enlisted (LSE) man. At this writing, an evaluation of actual performance remains to be done.

Dynamic Seat

The JSHIP project plan varies the levels of fidelity

for the body force cueing (motion) system to evaluate

the effectiveness of alternative motion cueing devices. In addition to the large motion provided by VMS

and a motion envelope similar to a conventional

hexapod system, a 4-axis limited travel Dynamic Seat

made by Camber Corp./Boeing has been integrated

into the cockpit to allow JSHIP to investigate the

required motion fidelity requirements.

CFD Airwake

One of the challenges of creating the proper flight

envelope for wind over deck launch and recovery is to

correctly simulate the airwake generated by a ship

with a large superstructure on one side of the landing

deck. This airwake is highly complex and varies

drastically depending on the direction of the incoming

wind. It is, however, one of the most critical elements

a pilot must deal with while landing a helicopter on a

ship. An airwake model, based on time-history data

developed using computational fluid dynamics (CFD)

method, has been integrated with the GenHel bladeelement UH-60 model. This is a first-of-its-kind

implementation ever to be used for flight simulation

applications.

Development Team

Colin Wilkinson, Mike Roscoe, Bob Nicholson,

Denver Sheriff, Information Spectrum, Inc.; Chuck

Perry, John Bunnell, Bill Chung, Norm Bengford,

Christopher Sweeney, Steve Belsley, Marty Pethtel,

Bosco Dias, Tim Trammell, Ron Lehmer, Ed Rogers,

Dan Wilkins, Logicon/LISS; Dean Giovanneti, NASA

ARC

The newly rebuilt N-cab undergoing modification to

enhance the field of view with five projectors displaying

the out-the-window view for the pilot.
38 Aviation Systems Division

Development Work Station Graphics Upgrade Project

Summary

The Development Work Station (DWS) was

enhanced by the adding four new graphics systems.

The DWS is a suite of hardware and software

subsystems that enables users to develop VMScompatible aircraft simulation models at their own

engineering sites. These models can then be imported expediently into the VMS complex for conducting man-in-the-loop motion experiments. The

Civil Tilt Rotor (CTR) program is one of the key

customers using the DWS.

System Capabilities

The DWS is a hardware and software environment

for developing VMS-compatible simulation models

and graphics displays. The system enables development of models, which can be imported directly into

piloted simulations at the VMS. Compatibility is

achieved since the DWS uses the same computers,

operating systems, simulation executives, model

support libraries, aircraft model interfaces, and user

interactions as in the VMS operational environment.

The DWS is an extensive enhancement of its predecessor, the Remote Development Environment

(RDE), which was completed by VMS personnel in

early 1999. This latest graphics upgrade adds four

additional pilot and performance displays, which

greatly add to its value as a simulation development

tool.

The DWS consists of three major parts: the control

console, the graphics displays, and the host computer.

The control console combines the capabilities of

piloting the airplane and controlling the simulation.

The Development Work Station gives researchers tools for

developing and evaluating aircraft models in a simulation

environment; these models can then be imported directly

into the VMS system.

The pilot’s controls, designed for the CTR program,

consist of a three-axis hand controller for attitude

control and a thrust control lever for power control.

Push-buttons on the console may be used as pilot

control switches or as simulation configuration

switches. When the DWS is used within the VMS

complex, the facility’s out-the-window image generators can provide the pilot’s front out-the-window view.

The suite of graphics displays include a Primary

Flight Display, a combined Horizontal Situation

Indicator and Navigation display, a Flight Management System display, a Side View of the aircraft, a

Mode Control display, and optionally, an

Experimenter’s general purpose display.

Graphics Display Upgrade

The Graphics Display Upgrade entailed procurement of the system components, developing the

functionality of the various simulation graphics,

integrating and validating them. Four display-generating computers, often referred to as “graphics engines”, were added to the DWS: One Silicon Graphics, Inc. (SGI) Octane running at 300 MHz., and three

SGI 230s. The 230s were selected as a cost-effective

solution for a PC-based machine running under Linux

with OpenGL and a Graphics Accelerator. Upon

delivery, the machines were configured with Linux

and networking communication software to interface

with the AlphaServer host computers. All the simulation programs were converted from GL, a proprietary

graphics language, to OpenGL, the emerging standard. The Graphics Upgrade configuration was

tested and accepted by the CTR customer and has

been in production since July 2000.

 Future Plans

The ability to develop VMS-compatible aircraft

models, like the CTR, will be expanded to include

more of the terminal area flight operations aspects as

opposed to pure handling qualities simulations. One

of the steps towards this goal, to include Air Traffic

Control (ATC) features, is in preliminary development

using the DWS. This entails incorporation of new pilot

to ATC tower communication and the generation of

air traffic (other aircraft) in the out-the-window

displays.

Development Team

Martin Pethtel, Philip Tung, Emily Lewis, Rachel

Wang-Yeh, Hai Huynh, Dave Darling, Dan Wilkins,

Chuck Gregory, Logicon/LISS
Aviation Systems Division 39

Air Traffic Control for the Vertical Motion Simulator

Summary

The main objective of this project is to support one

of the Civil Tiltrotor (CTR) Program’s milestone which

is to demonstrate its operability in an Air Traffic

Control (ATC) environment. This project integrates

the CVSRF’s ATC Simulator with the VMS to conduct

full-mission studies of operating CTR in normal air

traffic around the terminal area, and to assess their

impact on flight procedures and traffic capacity.

Introduction

The CTR researcher has requested development

of air space operations to demonstrate CTR’s

operability under the FAA normal approach and

departure procedures. The first milestone is to

demonstrate limited air space operations with simplified Flight Management System (FMS) and navigation systems in October 2000 during the CTR9

experiment. The second milestone is to demonstrate

full air space operations in CTR10 simulation (Summer 2001).

The ATC capability is currently residing in Crew

Vehicle Systems Research (CVSRF) Facility with the

ability to generate air traffic as well as controlling air

space with air traffic controllers. The objective of this

project is to fully integrate that ATC capability with the

existing VMS CTR program via networking connections between the two SimLab facilities, i.e., VMS

and CVSRF.

Development

A two-phase approach was developed to take into

account the resources and schedule. In Phase I of

the project, an ATC system infrastructure was first

developed within the VMS facility which included

providing a local Pseudo Aircraft System (PAS),

which generates air traffic scenarios, and voice

communication to the laboratories. This included

establishing real time communications between the

host computers and the PAS workstations as well as

voice communications with the controllers and pilots.

High Level Architecture (HLA) was chosen as the

host communications protocol to be compatible with

the CVSRF system configuration. The VMS host

computer would receive air traffic data from PAS and

display the traffic on the out-the-window visual

system, and CTR traffic displays.

In Phase II, connection to CVSRF’s Air Traffic

Control Laboratory will be established to allow

pseudo pilots and air traffic controllers from CVSRF

to directly interact with the CTR experiment in VMS.

All interfaces developed in Phase I will be used as

the gateway between CVSRF and VMS facilities.

Audio communications is provided by the ASTi

audio system. The ASTi audio system in VMS

required a conversion of the hardware to the latest

version to allow the use of Voicenet in all of the

laboratories. Along with communications with the

controllers in CVSRF, a simulation of Automatic

Terminal Information Service (ATIS) will be provided.

Results

Phase I of the project is nearly completed. Local

real-time data communication between the CTR host

computer and PAS has been established as well as

driving the out-the-window aircraft. ASTi audio voice

communications between air traffic controllers and

CTR pilot has also been developed. The Acceptance

Test for Phase 1 has been scheduled. Air traffic

scenarios using PAS are being developed to support

CTR9 experiment. Some of the Phase 2 activities,

such as establishing ASTi audio voice communication

with CVSRF, is underway.

Development Team

Ernie Inn, Marty Pethtel, Rachel Wang-Yeh, Emily

Lewis, Phil Tung, Tom Crawford, Mike Izrailov, Joel

Rosado, Dave Darling, Cary Wales, Logicon/LISS;

Craig Pires, Tom Prehm, Joe King, Mantech; Dave

Astill, John Griffin, NASA ARC

ATC radar display of the San Francisco Bay Area.
40 Aviation Systems Division

VMS Modernization

Summary

The VMS Modernization project will upgrade all

electrical and control components of the VMS with

state of the art components. The upgrade will increase performance and reliability while decreasing

maintenance and support effort.

Background

The VMS is the largest vertical displacement “fixed

to the earth” flight simulator in the world and provides

unparalleled high-fidelity six degree of freedom

motion. The VMS is the country’s premiere flight

motion facility and has been used extensively to

support major aeronautical programs for the nation.

Since 1981 numerous improvements in control,

electrical and mechanical technologies have occurred. These new state of the art technologies have

replaced previously aging components, most of

which are one of a kind and do not have replacements. While the existing components are still

operating they are beyond their design life and the

probability of failure is increasing each year.

Objectives

The objectives of the modernization effort are:

• Improved reliability

• Reduction in maintenance and operating cost

• Improved motion performance, i.e., bandwidth and

smoothness

The VMS Modernization effort will assure continued reliable operation and enhanced benchmark

performance of the nation’s premier motion-based

aeronautical research simulator.

Design Phase

The project is currently in the Design Phase.

Design of major components of this modernization

effort is well under way and will be completed in

spring 2001. The primary systems to be replaced are

all electrical components and controls, lateral rack

and pinion with dual tape drives, hydraulic longitudinal axis with dual tape drives, increasing the number

of vertical motors from eight to twelve, and replacing

the rotational axis with a hexapod system. System

performance, maintainability, reliability, safety, and

cost are key factors being applied in the design

process.

Future Plan

Purchasing and fabrication of new systems is

projected to begin in summer 2001 and installation of

the equipment to begin in spring 2003. All new

systems will be completely checked out and proven

operational ready before closing the VMS for modernization and installation. Thorough checkout and

operation of the new systems prior to shutting down

the VMS will drastically reduce system integration

and validation efforts.

See http://vmsproject.arc.nasa.gov.vms1.html for

more information.

Development Team

Tim Gafney, Jeff Brown, Dean Giovannetti, Gary

French, Khoa Nguyen, Steve Beard, Joel Baldovino,

Paul Brown, Doug Greaves, George Wong, Rodger

Mueller, Doug Smith , Bob Surratt, Charlie Ady,

NASA ARC; Julie Murphy, Bechtel; Bill Manning,

Dave Lawrence, Khalid Aram, Sverdrup; Ted Miller,

Mike Blum, Johnny Chang, E&C Engineering; Bill

Chung, Logicon/LISS

The world’s largest Vertical Motion Simulator in operation

to support major aeronautical research programs.
Aviation Systems Division 41

Video Distribution System Upgrade

Summary

This project implemented a major capacity upgrade of the VMS Video Distribution System, which

provides video signals to cab and laboratory displays

from centrally located image generators and workstations. The upgrade was essential to keep pace with

increasingly demanding research requirements and

to improve maintainability. The Video Distribution

System can now support multiple simultaneous

simulations within the VMS Complex.

Introduction

The VMS facility supports three laboratories for

conducting simulations and development work. Video

for out-the-window and instrument displays, as well

as laboratory monitors for researchers are supported

from image generators and workstations located in

two centrally located computer labs. This “video

everywhere” approach allows for the most efficient

use of limited computer resources and allows for

rapid reconfiguration when simulations are moved

from an integration lab to the VMS beam.

The upgrade was initiated for three main reasons.

The number and complexity of displays required for

each simulation has steadily increased in the past

few years, as well as the number of workstations

used for laboratory and instrument displays. The

central video switching system for the high-resolution

video was obsolete and becoming more difficult to

maintain. Finally, there were insufficient video processing resources to support two operational simulations simultaneously and still allow for simulation

development and testing in the third lab.

Implementation

The first phase of the Video Distribution Upgrade

improved the cable infrastructure between the central

video switch and each of the laboratories. Over

35,000 feet of new coaxial cable was laid in the VMS

facility. Combined with the previously existing infrastructure, the new cabling allows for a minimum of 25

high-resolution RGB displays and ten National

Television Standards Committee (NTSC) broadcast

TV quality displays to be supported in any of the

three laboratories.

The second phase of the Upgrade involved the

integration of a new central video-switching matrix for

the high-resolution video. The new switch more than

doubles the number of video source devices that can

be connected to the central switching matrix and

provides higher bandwidth to the out-the-window

displays in the cabs. Since the central switch is

required to be operational for any simulation activity

to take place, the integration and acceptance testing

of the switch was conducted during the end-of-year

maintenance period in 1999.

The third and final phase involved the integration

of a higher capacity central switch for the NTSC

video. The new NTSC switch reused parts from the

old high-resolution video switch, resulting in significant cost savings to the project. Sufficient spare parts

became available as part of this reconfiguration to

support the NTSC video distribution system for the

next several years.

Features

• Separate high-resolution and NTSC video switching

matrices were implemented providing 125MHz of

bandwidth for high-resolution video signals and

30MHz for NTSC video.

• The high-resolution video switching matrix can

support 64 input devices and 104 output displays.

The current configuration can support three multichannel image generators for out-the-window scenes

and twenty workstation systems for instrument and

laboratory displays. The NTSC video switching matrix

has the capability to support 70 input and 70 output

devices.

• The Video Distribution System also supports a

variety of special video processing tools and effects

generators. These include sixteen video scan rate

converters, three high-resolution mixers, three NTSC

video mixers, three quad splitters, and three special

effects generators.

Development Team

Ronald Lehmer, Gilbert Mink, Tuan Truong, Logicon/

LISS

Centralized video switching and processing resources

provide the VMS with a highly flexible and efficient

environment to support multiple simulations.
42 Aviation Systems Division

Alpha Host Computer Upgrade 2000

Summary

The Alpha Host Upgrade 2000 Project replaced

existing host computers with new systems that will

meet the compute requirements of the most demanding VMS simulations well into the foreseeable future.

The new systems are capable of speeds over three

times faster than the ones they replaced.

Introduction

Alpha Host Computer Upgrade 2000 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 FY2000. The requirements of these

simulations called for drastic increases of between 2

to 3 times the performance of the existing systems.

The project had three principal requirements for the

new host computers: 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

Keeping the computer performance ahead of

accelerating customers’ simulation requirements has

always been a solemn goal at SimLab. Fortunately,

due to the computer industry’s improvements in

computer clock speeds and feature-rich capabilities,

it was possible to purchase computer systems with

the necessary performance from the manufacturer of

the existing machines, thereby meeting all three

principal requirements.

The new hosts are Compaq AlphaServer DS20E

machines, replacing AlphaServer 1000A 5/500s.

Benchmark figures from the Standard Performance

Evaluation Corporation (SPEC, a standardization

body) indicated a 2.4 times improvement in speed.

In-house benchmarks confirmed these results and

achieved 3.2 times performance increase when using

software optimization. Selecting the same

manufacturer’s operating system allowed similar

hardware compatibility with all peripherals. User

compatibility was achieved by upgrading MicroTau,

the in-house real-time executive/debugger software,

to operate on the latest VMS Operating System. The

repair turn-around time requirement was maintained

easily across machines since they had identical

warranties. This solution provided a relatively easy

means of satisfying the requirements.

The performance increase of the operational

Simulation engineers utilize the new VMS Lab host

computer to meet demanding simulation requirements.

systems easily exceeded the requirements of the

FY2000 simulations. The new host systems are

capable of frame times of less than one millisecond

when only I/O is performed to the motion, laboratory,

and cockpit subsystems. Adding the typical aircraft

model allows frame times shorter than 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

on schedule in the motion-base and in the two fixedbase laboratories. The new systems are capable of

speeds 3.2 times faster than the systems they

replaced. By the end of FY2000, the new host

computer systems had been used successfully to run

operational simulations, including the most compute

intensive FY2000 simulations that demanded the

host upgrade.

Development Team

Martin Pethtel, Bosco Dias, Christopher Sweeney,

Luong Nguyen, Duc Tran, Kelly Carter, MyVan

Nguyen, Logicon/LISS
Aviation Systems Division 43

Head-Down Display Graphics Engine Upgrade

Summary

Eight PC-based graphics engines were successfully integrated into the VMS environment to increase

cockpit avionics display resources needed to meet

simulation requirements. This addition nearly doubled

the current head-down display (HDD) capacity at

VMS. Notably, this marks the first migration from

high-end workstations to PC-based graphics engines.

It also represents a transition to an open Operating

System and Open Graphics Libraries to generate

real-time cockpit avionics displays at SimLab.

Introduction

The purpose of this project was to provide additional graphics engines to support expanded research needs in a cost-effective manner. The existing

SGI Power Series (IRIS 4D) systems are no longer

supported by the manufacturer and they use a

proprietary Operating System and Graphics Library.

Newer machines with open-standards architectures

are very attractive since they promise portability of

display code, a greater selection of hardware platforms and software development tools, and reduced

acquisition and operational costs.

The SGI IA-230 was identified as a viable replacement. The SGI-IA 230 features a single 733 MHz

Pentium III processor driving the latest Nvidia Vpro

graphics card. SGI and Nvidia teamed to deliver the

first COTS (commercial-off-the-shelf) full performance OpenGL/Linux PC graphics workstation

solution that would meet SimLab’s HDD requirements. The SGI-IA 230 provides high performance

compute power with full line/pixel anti-aliasing

capability.

Project Description

An evaluation team was formed to determine if the

SGI-IA 230 could meet SimLab’s requirements. The

team quickly converted existing IRIX GL displays

from the Power Series systems to OpenGL format

under Linux OS on the SGI-IA 230 system. The SGIIA 230 system was tested and met or exceeded

established baseline requirements. Most evaluators

could not differentiate between the displays generated by the SGI-IA 230 and those generated by an

SGI Octane class workstation in a side-by-side

comparison. The evaluation team recommended

immediate acquisition and integration of the SGI-IA

230.

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

Real-time cockpit avionics displays at SimLab are now

generated on PC-based graphics engines running an open

Operating System and Open Graphics Libraries.

graphics systems. The project began the first week of

August 2000 with operational readiness slated for

September 1, 2000. The project required hardware

modifications to the Cockpit Graphics Lab, Video

Distribution System, real-time and development

network systems, and the VMS control room. In

parallel, a significant software development effort

was required to generate new OpenGL displays and

convert IRIX GL displays for immediate use in

upcoming simulations.

Results

Integration was completed as scheduled on

September 1. All eight SGI-IA 230 systems were

integrated into production operation in support of

real-time HDD graphics displays at VMS. The

graphics team delivered all required display software

to meet simulation schedules. Additional systems will

be purchased to replace the remaining inventory of

4D class HDD graphics engines.

Development Team

Rachel Wang-Yeh, Charles Gregory, Ronald Lehmer,

T. Martin Pethtel, David Darling, Ernie Inn, Hai

Huynh, Gilbert Mink, Tuan Truong, Kelly Carter,

Russell Sansom, Shelly Larocca, Daniel A. Wilkins,

Logicon/LISS
44 Aviation Systems Division

Advanced Concepts Flight Simulator Host Computer Upgrade

ACFS

Cockpit I/O

VMIC  A/Ds

 D/As

 DIs

DOs

CDUs &

Miscellaneous

RS-232 &

ARINC 429

Panels

ACFS

Sub-Systems

Flight Display

Computer

(11 SGIs)

Visual System

Motorola

Experimenter

Operator

Station (3)

ACFS Cockpit I/O on the New Host Computer

Summary

The ACFS host computer was upgraded to meet

the demanding computational and input/output

requirements of planned and projected ACFS simulation experiments.

A significant improvement in overall performance

and a reduction in computer hardware and software

maintenance costs were achieved by upgrading to a

current technology computer system. The new host

computer, an SGI Origin 2000, is expected to easily

meet research requirements of all projected simulation experiments.

Introduction

The upgrade consisted of replacing the existing

SGI Challenge L computer with an SGI Origin 2000.

Certain I/O equipment was also upgraded for compatibility with the new host computer. The Origin

2000 system was acquired from the Air Traffic

Control (ATC) simulator and upgraded to meet the

ACFS host computational needs.

Performance

Modifications include the addition of another CPU

board with 2 MIPS R10000 195MHZ processors and

128 MB of Main Memory. Also needed were additional components to make the Origin 2000 compatible with the ACFS VMIC VME I/O System. This

required the purchase and integration of a new VMIC

PCI Reflective Memory board, an upgrade to existing

VMIC IIOC software, and the purchase of a FiberOptic PCI to VME bus adapter.

Acceptance of the new ACFS Host computer

consisted of two parts. The first part was baseline

testing of each current configuration to ensure

retention of ACFS features and functionality. The

performance testing phase verified that the new host

meets or exceeds projected capacity requirements.

All current active simulation configurations of the

ACFS were ported to the new host. A few changes

were required due to differences between the VME

and PCI drivers to the VMIC IIOC System. No

discrepancies were found during testing of the

configurations adapted to operate on the new host.

All needed changes were merged into the baseline

configuration.

Results

All acceptance testing was successfully completed

on schedule and the results exceeded expectations.

CPU performance improved by 400%. The new host

is 12 times faster in transferring UDP packets, both

inbound and outbound. Due to the full duplex feature

of the 100 Base-TX connection, the TCP packets are

now transferred up to 18 times faster than they were

using the old host computer.

Development Team

Craig Pires, Anna Dabrowski, Don Bryant, Gary

Uyehara, Eric Gardner, ManTech; Terry Rager, NASA

ARC
Aviation Systems Division 45

Enhanced Ground Proximity Warning System

Summary

The B747-400 flight simulator maintains the highest

possible level of certification as established by the

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to ensure

system fidelity and enhanced credibility to the results

of research programs. This is achieved by constantly

upgrading the simulator to maintain a configuration

match to a specific United Airlines aircraft. An upgrade

from the older Ground Proximity Warning System

(GPWS) to the state of the art Enhanced Ground

Proximity Warning System (EGPWS) was one of the

latest efforts.

Introduction

The EGPWS is a terrain awareness and alerting

system. It incorporates all of the following aural alerting

modes of the basic GPWS: excessive descent rate,

excessive terrain closure rate, altitude loss after

takeoff, unsafe terrain clearance, excessive deviation

below glideslope, advisory callouts and windshear

alerting. In addition to these seven basic functions, the

EGPWS adds the ability to compare the aircraft

position to an internal database and provides additional alerting and display capabilities for enhanced

situational awareness and safety (hence the term

“Enhanced” GPWS).

Development

Several hardware and software alternatives for the

EGPWS upgrade were evaluated. Following extensive

research, it was decided to procure, install and integrate the actual aircraft EGPWS box as opposed to

developing and installing an EGPWS software model.

The major task in this upgrade project was display

integration. Unlike the real aircraft, the simulator uses

proprietary graphics controllers and standard Cathode Ray Tubes (CRTs) to display flight information

such as that found on the Electronic Flight Information System (EFIS) display. Extensive software

development is required to interface the output of the

EGPWS with the CRTs and to replace the simulator

graphics controllers.

The remainder of the upgrade project involves

relatively straightforward hardware modifications. The

EGPWS box occupies the same component rack

space as the existing GPWS with the necessary rewiring effort. A switch to select the EGPWS terrain

display is added to the two cockpit EFIS Control

Panels (Captain & First Officer) and a terrain override

switch is added to the existing Ground Proximity

Warning Panel.

Results

All hardware required for the EGPWS upgrade has

been purchased and received. All required modifications to the B747 hardware drawings have been

completed. Fabrication was started on the EGPWS

Configuration Selection box which will enable

reconfiguration of the EGPWS programming pins.

The remainder of the upgrade will be completed in

the coming year.

Development Team

Joseph King, Ghislain Saillant, Diane Carpenter,

ManTech; CDR Robert DeGennaro, Naval Postgraduate School

Terrain Display

(Shades of Green,

Yellow, and Red)

"CAUTION

TERRAIN"

(Solid Yellow)

"TERRAIN

TERRAIN

PULL UP!"

Warning Area

(Solid Red)

EGPWS presents a graphical plan view of the aircraft relative to the terrain and

advises the flight crew of potential conflicts.
46 Aviation Systems Division

Air Traffic Control Pseudo Aircraft System

Summary

To meet emerging Air Traffic Control (ATC) research requirements and to be Y2K compatible, an

upgrade to the ATC simulator was initiated in the

CVSRF Air Traffic Control Laboratory. Two complementary ATC applications, the Pseudo Aircraft

System (PAS), an application to simulate Center

TRACON airspace traffic, and RouTe Maker, an

application to simulate ground traffic during taxi, were

identified as replacements for the old system. The

DODs High Level Architecture (HLA) Protocol was

implemented as a means of providing interoperability

in a networked environment for both internal and

external connections.

Introduction

With awareness that the ATC simulation, as

hosted on a VAX 6320, was reaching obsolescence,

an investigation of alternatives was conducted. This

investigation addressed the options of replacing the

dated hardware and software.

The ATC software replacement option involved

evaluating a number of possible scenarios including

the rehost of the existing system and replacement in

whole or in part by other software systems. Candidates for replacement of the old system came out of

two separate experiments run for the ACFS and

B747 simulators. For airborne applications, PAS

would provide most of the capabilities currently

available although it does not have the level of

ground traffic simulation capability currently available.

To mitigate this limitation, a separate application

called RouTe Maker (RTM) was selected. RTM

provides highly sophisticated ground traffic simulation

capabilities up to full automation of a scenario with

proximity, time, and conditional triggering of traffic.

System Integration

Eight SGI O2 workstations replaced the older SGI

Personal Iris systems for use as the ATC Controller

stations. The four existing X-stations were retained to

use as Pseudo Pilot stations. An SGI Origin 2000

system was integrated as the ATC Hub/File Server

system.

The ATC/ PAS upgrade was validated during the

execution of two experiments. The ACFS T-NASA 2

experiment exercised the new ATC RTM capabilities

by providing taxing ground traffic and the B747 AATT

Integrated Tools Study/Air-Ground Integration

Experiment (AGIE) provided PAS generated airborne

traffic.

The external ATC/PAS HLA interoperability capability was also validated by the B747 AGIE experiment. The new HLA capability has been demonstrated by ATC/PAS generated air traffic simultaneously being displayed in both CVSRF flight

simulator’s out-the-window visual systems.

Validation of the performance of the newly incorporated Great Circle Route algorithm in PAS was

accomplished by a series of test runs involving a

number of great circle flight segments between points

roughly centered on the Dallas-Fort Worth Area.

Results

The experiments and tests referenced in the

preceding section were successfully completed and

the results analyzed by the researchers and CVSRF

staff. The results indicate the ATC/PAS upgrade is

successful and will meet CVSRF research requirements for the foreseeable future.

Development Team

Rod Ketchum, George Mitchell, Ian MacLure,

ManTech; Elliott Smith, Steve Bayne, Logicon/LISS

RTM display for CVSRF ATC upgrade.
Aviation Systems Division 47

Voice Disguiser System Upgrade

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

Summary

The CVSRF Voice Disguiser Upgrade project

focused on replacing the current voice disguiser

system. The former system provided pitch changes

only and a maximum of three disguised voices. The

voice disguiser system is used for disguising the

operator’s voice to simulate any number of additional

voices to provide realism in an experiment scenario.

A number of systems and techniques were considered for the upgrade. A commercial off the shelf

system that could be integrated into the existing Air

Traffic Control (ATC) Lab and cockpit communications equipment was chosen as the most cost

effective way to meet our requirements.

Introduction

The goal for the upgrade was to

acquire a system that provided up to

eight distinct disguised voices. Options

ranging from a custom designed and

manufactured system to the acquisition of

a modular off the shelf system were

discussed. Investigation of available

technologies suitable for upgrading the

CVSRF’s voice disguising capabilities led

to the selection of BOSS VF-1 24 bit Multiple Effects

Processor.

Performance

The half-rack BOSS VF1 is a compact, ultrapowerful 24-bit multi-effects processor. It provides

signal processing using 24-bit Analog/Digital and

Digital/Analog converters, and uncompromising

sound quality. Currently, 14 disguised voices have

been stored for use. In addition, TRIAD SP-67 output

isolation transformers were installed to provide

proper balanced input from the VF-1 into the existing

CVSRF ATC Lab ASTi communication system.

It is possible to run the voice disguisers via

computer control with the use of Serial to Midi

interface units. The VF-1 presets can be addressed

by MIDI program change messages, allowing for

automated voice disguise changes. These voice

disguise changes would be based on radio frequency

changes for controller stations and possibly on

pseudo pilot aircraft identification changes in the

CVSRF ATC Lab.

The new CVSRF Voice Disguiser system is a fully

modular system, with one VF-1 per ATC lab station,

with an additional unit integrated to each of the B747-

400 communication radios. VF-1 and Midiator units

can easily be added to meet any experiment requirements.

Results

The new voice disguiser system was used for the

first time, with favorable results, in the Data Link

Procedures experiment involving the B747-400 and

the ATC lab. The units were used in a manual mode

where the controllers were responsible for selecting

the desired disguise setting.

The fully automated control software is still under

development. Refinement of the VF-1 presets is

ongoing. The question of the ability to use the

Pseudo Aircraft System (PAS) aircraft identification to

trigger Midi addressing remains to be solved. System

evaluation and refinement is continuing.

Development Team

Rod Ketchum, Joseph King, Jason Hill, Ian MacLure,

George Mitchell, Craig Pires, Thomas F. Prehm, Gary

Uyehara, ManTech
48 Aviation Systems Division

Traffic Collision and Avoidance System Implementation and Upgrade

The Primary Flight Display (PFD) showing a descent

display.

Summary

The Traffic Collision and Avoidance System

(TCAS) project integrated an FAA supplied code

implementation of the TCAS II Change 7 specification to the ACFS, and performed an upgrade of

TCAS in the B747-400 simulator. Additional software

modifications to the existing ACFS cockpit displays

and ASTi aural warning system were necessary since

it was not equipped with any TCAS system prior to

this project. For the B747-400 simulator, the TCAS

system implementation was upgraded from 6.04A to

7.0.

Introduction

TCAS provides the crew with continuous real-time

situational traffic awareness, and Traffic Advisory

(TA) and Resolution Advisory (RA) messages when a

potential collision with another aircraft is being

detected. Situational traffic awareness is depicted on

the Navigation Display (ND). Normally the crew

should respond to an RA by flying the suggested

maneuver manually. Escape maneuvers in TCAS are

limited to the vertical direction.

Development

On the ACFS: Software modifications were made

to the Primary Flight Display (PFD) to incorporate the

RA vertical speed constraints on the vertical speed

indicator. Another TCAS indication is on the PFD’s

Attitude Display Indicator (ADI) which instructs the

crew to pitch up or down in order to avoid or acquire

a certain vertical speed. Software modifications were

made to the Navigational Display (ND) to incorporate

intruder traffic indication with their respective threat

level, altitude and vertical speed profile. Internal logic

of the ND displays OFFSCALE TRAFFIC when a

threat is out of view; normally, pilots must increase

the ND map range to see the threat. Software

modifications were also made to the Secondary

Flight Display to incorporate a TCAS control panel.

The control panel is based on the B747-400 TCAS

control panel.

In addition, a new Experiment Operator Station

(EOS) page, the “TCAS Control Page” which is

similar to the B747-400 EOS page, was completed.

This page allows control of intruder generation up to

10 intruders as selected by the operator from the

host computer. These intruders are programmed to

fly around the ownship so that a specific TCAS TA

and/or RA will appear. A collision may or may not

happen depending on the pilot’s actions. These

intruders are useful to demonstrate the TCAS

features and the TCAS TA/RA capabilities. Development of a limited traffic generator was also completed. This traffic generator provides the functionality

behind the EOS TCAS Control page. The external

ATC or PAS simulator is used for specific intruder

trajectories or scenarios. The project also required

some modification to the interface between the host

computer and the ASTi system to allow simultaneous

sounds to be played at the same time, for example

the Autopilot Disconnect alarm and one TCAS aural

message.

Results

ACFS TCAS functionality was tested during the

CTAS/FMS II experiment. Some interface problems

were identified when playback PAS intruders were

introduced. Otherwise, TCAS performed as expected

when traffic was provided by CVSRF’s ATC/PAS

simulator. Checks of B747-400 upgrades is underway.

Development Team

Ghislain Saillant, Cindy Nguyen, Fritz Renema, Anna

Dabrowski, George Mitchell, Dave Brown
Aviation Systems Division 49
50 Aviation Systems Division

Acronyms

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

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

ADI ........................................................ Attitude Display Indicator

AGIE ..................................................... Air-Ground Integration Experiment

AILS ...................................................... Airborne Information for Lateral Spacing

ALPA ..................................................... Airline Pilots Association

AOL ....................................................... Airspace Operations Lab

APA ....................................................... American Psychological Association

APU....................................................... auxiliary power unit

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

ASTi ...................................................... Advanced Systems Technology Incorporated

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

ATIS ...................................................... Automatic Terminal Information Service

B747...................................................... Boeing 747

CART3D ................................................ Three-Dimensional Cartesian Simulation System for Complex Geometry

CATI ...................................................... Carmel Applied Technology Incorporated

CATS ..................................................... Crew Activity Tracking System

CDA ...................................................... concept demonstrator aircraft

CDTI...................................................... Cockpit Display of Traffic Information

CDU ...................................................... Control Display Unit

CFD....................................................... computational fluid dynamics

COTS .................................................... Commercial-Off-The-Shelf

CPDLC .................................................. Controller-Pilot Data Link Communication Procedures

CRT ....................................................... Cathode Ray Tube

CSPA .................................................... Closely Spaced Parallel Approaches

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

CTOL .................................................... conventional takeoff and landing

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

CTV ....................................................... Crew Transportation Vehicle

CV ......................................................... Carrier Version

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

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

DI .......................................................... Dynamic Inverse

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

DOT ...................................................... Department of Transportation

DWS...................................................... Development Work Station

E&S ....................................................... Evans and Sutherland

ECAL..................................................... East Coast Abort Landings

EFIS ...................................................... Electornic Flight Information System

EGPWS................................................. Enhanced Ground Proximity Warning System

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

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

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

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

FAATC ................................................... Federal Aviation Administration Technical Center

FB ......................................................... fixed-base

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

FOV....................................................... field-of-view

GPS ...................................................... Global Positioning System

GPWS ................................................... Ground Proximity Warning System

GTRS .................................................... Generic Tiltrotor Simulation

Continued next page...
Aviation Systems Division 51

HAC ...................................................... Heading Alignment Cone

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

HQR ...................................................... Handling Quality Rating

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

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

IFR ........................................................ instrument flight rules

IG .......................................................... image generator

IHI ......................................................... Integration Research Branch

IIOC....................................................... Intelligent Input/Output Controller

IMC ....................................................... Instrument Meteorological Conditions

IT ........................................................... information technology

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

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

JSHIP .................................................... Joint Shipboard Helicopter Integration Process

JVX ....................................................... Joint Service Vertical Lift Aircraft

KSC....................................................... Kennedy Space Center

LAN ....................................................... local area network

LaRC ..................................................... Langley Research Center

LHA ....................................................... Amphibious Assault Ship

LISS ...................................................... Logicon Information Systems and Services

LNAN .................................................... lateral navigation

LSE ....................................................... Landing Signal Enlisted

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

Maglev .................................................. Magnetic Levitation

MCP ...................................................... Mode Control Panel

MIDAS................................................... Man-machine Integration Design and Analysis System

MIDI ...................................................... musical instrument digital interface

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

NAS....................................................... National Airspace System

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

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

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

NATCA .................................................. National Air Traffic Controllers Association

ND ......................................................... Navigation Display

NFCS .................................................... Neural Flight Control System

NTSC .................................................... National Television Standards Committee

OEI ........................................................ one engine inoperative

OS ......................................................... operating system

OSD ...................................................... Office of the Secretary of Defense

OTW...................................................... out the window

PAS ....................................................... Pseudo Aircraft System

PC ......................................................... personal computer

PCI ........................................................ Peripheral Component Interconnect

PFD ....................................................... primary flight display

PRL ....................................................... priority rate-limiting

PWSC ................................................... Primary Weapons Systems Concept

R&D ...................................................... research and development

RA ......................................................... Resolution Advisory

RDE ...................................................... Remote Development Environment

RISC ..................................................... Reduced Instruction Set Computer

RITE ...................................................... Rapid Integration Test Environment

Continued next page...
52 Aviation Systems Division

RNAV .................................................... area navigation

ROTO .................................................... roll-out and turn-off

RPM ...................................................... revolutions per minute

RPN ...................................................... Required Navigation Performance

RTCA .................................................... Requirements, Technology, and Concept for Aviation

RTM ...................................................... Route Traffic Manager

RVR ...................................................... runway visual range

SAM ...................................................... Situational Awareness Model

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

SDI ........................................................ Sterling Dynamics Incorporated

SEATAC ................................................ Seattle-Tacoma International Airport

SGI ........................................................ Silicon Graphics, Inc.

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

SPEC .................................................... Standard Performance Evaluation Corporation

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

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

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

TA.......................................................... Traffic Advisory

TAL ........................................................ Transoceanic Abort Landing

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

TCAS .................................................... Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance System

TCL ....................................................... thrust control lever

TCP/IP .................................................. Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol

TOGA .................................................... Take Off/ Go Around

TRACON ............................................... Terminal Radar Approach Control

UDP ...................................................... User Datagram Protocol

UHTC .................................................... Ultra-High Temperature Ceramic

U.K. ....................................................... United Kingdom

USA....................................................... United Space Alliance

USAF .................................................... U.S. Air Force

USMC ................................................... U.S. Marine Corps

USN ...................................................... U.S. Navy

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

VME ...................................................... VersaModule EuroCard

VMS ...................................................... Vertical Motion Simulator

VNav ..................................................... Vertical Navigation

VOIP ..................................................... Voice Over IP

WAC ...................................................... Wide Angle Collimation

WOD ..................................................... wind-over-deck

Y2K ....................................................... Year 2000
Aviation Systems Division 53
54 Aviation Systems Division

A very brief description of the Aviation Systems 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. The visual display system is a

Flight Safety International driven by a VITAL

VIIIi. The host computer driving the simulator is

the IBM 6000 series of computer utilizing IBM’s

reduced instruction set computer (RISC) technology.

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 Laboratory

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 Laboratory 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.

Vertical Motion Simulator Complex

The VMS is a critical national resource supporting the country’s most sophisticated aeroAppendix

Simulation Facilities
Aviation Systems Division 55

space 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 which consists of five different interchangeable cabs. These five customizable cabs

simulate ASTOVL vehicles, helicopters, transports, the Space Shuttle orbiter, and other

designs of the future. Each ICAB is customized,

configured, and tested at a fixed-base 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

Tom Alderete

Chief, Simulation Planning Office

Aviation Simulation Division

(650) 604-3271

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

or

Barry Sullivan

Chief, Aerospace Simulation Operations Branch

Aviation Simulation Division

(650) 604-6756

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