July 2000

NASA/CR-2000-210306

Pilot Comments for High Speed Research

Cycle 3 Simulation Study (LaRC.1)

Melvin L. Bailey, Editor

Lockheed Martin Engineering and Sciences Company

Hampton, Virginia
The NASA STI Program Office ... in Profile

Since its founding, NASA has been dedicated to

the advancement of aeronautics and space

science. The NASA Scientific and Technical

Information (STI) Program Office plays a key

part in helping NASA maintain this important

role.

The NASA STI Program Office is operated by

Langley Research Center, the lead center for

NASA’s scientific and technical information. The

NASA STI Program Office provides access to the

NASA STI Database, the largest collection of

aeronautical and space science STI in the world.

The Program Office is also NASA’s institutional

mechanism for disseminating the results of its

research and development activities. These

results are published by NASA in the NASA STI

Report Series, which includes the following

report types:

· TECHNICAL PUBLICATION. Reports of

completed research or a major significant

phase of research that present the results of

NASA programs and include extensive

data or theoretical analysis. Includes

compilations of significant scientific and

technical data and information deemed to

be of continuing reference value. NASA

counterpart of peer-reviewed formal

professional papers, but having less

stringent limitations on manuscript length

and extent of graphic presentations.

· TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM. Scientific

and technical findings that are preliminary

or of specialized interest, e.g., quick release

reports, working papers, and

bibliographies that contain minimal

annotation. Does not contain extensive

analysis.

· CONTRACTOR REPORT. Scientific and

technical findings by NASA-sponsored

contractors and grantees.

· CONFERENCE PUBLICATION. Collected

papers from scientific and technical

conferences, symposia, seminars, or other

meetings sponsored or co-sponsored by

NASA.

· SPECIAL PUBLICATION. Scientific,

technical, or historical information from

NASA programs, projects, and missions,

often concerned with subjects having

substantial public interest.

· TECHNICAL TRANSLATION. Englishlanguage translations of foreign scientific

and technical material pertinent to NASA’s

mission.

Specialized services that complement the STI

Program Office’s diverse offerings include

creating custom thesauri, building customized

databases, organizing and publishing research

results ... even providing videos.

For more information about the NASA STI

Program Office, see the following:

· Access the NASA STI Program Home Page

at http://www.sti.nasa.gov

· E-mail your question via the Internet to

help@sti.nasa.gov

· Fax your question to the NASA STI Help

Desk at (301) 621-0134

· Phone the NASA STI Help Desk at

(301) 621-0390

· Write to:

 NASA STI Help Desk

 NASA Center for AeroSpace Information

 7121 Standard Drive

 Hanover, MD 21076-1320
National Aeronautics and

Space Administration

Langley Research Center Prepared for Langley Research Center

Hampton, Virginia 23681-2199 under Contract NAS1-19000

July 2000

NASA/CR-2000-210306

Pilot Comments for High Speed Research

Cycle 3 Simulation Study (LaRC.1)

Melvin L. Bailey, Editor

Lockheed Martin Engineering and Sciences Company

Hampton, Virginia
Available from:

NASA Center for AeroSpace Information (CASI) National Technical Information Service (NTIS)

7121 Standard Drive 5285 Port Royal Road

Hanover, MD 21076-1320 Springfield, VA 22161-2171

(301) 621-0390 (703) 605-6000
i

 Pilot Commentaries from REFH Cycle 3 LARC.1 Simulation Study.

Table of Contents by Task Number:

Task Number Page Number

 Abstract iv

 1050 Refused Takeoff 1

 1052 Refused T/O - 35 kt 3

 2010 Standard Acoustic T/O 5

 2011 Standard Acoustic T/O 9

 2030 PLR Takeoff 13

 3020 Climb Trans. to Lvl Flt - Xsonic 16

 3022 Climb Trans. to Lvl Flt - Supersonic 18

 3030 Profile Climb 20

 3040 Lvl Flt Trans. to Climb 21

 3050 Profile Descent 23

 3060 Trans. to Supersonic Descent 25

 3062 Trans. to Xsonic Descent 28

 3070 Transonic Accel 30

 3072 Supersonic Accel 32

 3074 Transonic Decel 34

 3076 Subsonic Decel 36

 3080 Heading Change - Xsonic climb 39

 3082 Heading Change - Initial climb 42

 3084 Heading Change - Final Cruise 46

 3086 Hdg Change - Xsonic Descent 48

 3088 Heading Change - TCA Descent 50

 4020 Nominal Approach and Landing 52
ii

 4050 Nominal Approach and Landing with Ground Effects 61

 4069 IAG (TIFS) Approach 62

 4085 Go Around at 30' AGL TS OFF 69

 4085 Go Around at 30' AGL TS ON 72

 4086 Go Around at 50' AGL 76

 4093 Crosswind Ldg - 25 kt (Procedure A) 80

 4093 Crosswind Ldg - 25 kt (Procedure B) 86

 4095 Crosswind Ldg - 35 kt 91

 4110 App. & Ldg - Jammed Stab. 95

 4140 VFR Circling Approach. 97

 4220 Decelerating Approach 101

 4225 Decelerating Approach/Manual Throttles 104

 5010 Stall at Idle Power 107

 5020 Stall at Max Power 110

 5040 Turning Stall - Idle Power 113

 5050 Turning Stall - T. F. L. F. 115

 5060 Diving Pullout 117

 5070 Emergency Descent 120

 6050 Inadvertent Speed Increase 123

 6060 Two-axis Upset Recovery 126

 7030 VMCG demonstration 129

 7035 Takeoff - one engine out 130

 7036 Takeoff - one engine out - 35 kt x-wind 133

 7040 Dynamic VMCA 137

 7050 Dynamic VMCL-2 140

 7060 Engine Unstart 142
iii

 7070 Stall - one engine out 145

 7080 Turning stall - one engine out 147

 7095 Manual Throttle Landing 150

 7100 Unaugmented Landing 156

 7211 Flaperon Hardover during takeoff 160

 7212 Elevator Hardover (TE down) during takeoff 162

 7252 Elevator Hardover (TE down) during landing 165

 7253 Rudder Hardover during landing 169

 7254 Rudder Hardover during landing rollout 172

 7261 Elevator Hardover (TE up) during 2-axis upset 174

 7262 Flaperon Hardover during 2-axis upset 176

 7286 Go-around with Autoflap failure 178

 7291 Loss of 75% Roll Control landing w/X-wind 182

 7292 Flaperon Hardover during landing w/X-wind 185

 Takeoff Rollout Pilot Questionnaire 189

 Takeoff Rotation Pilot Questionnaire 195

 Stall/Turning Pilot Questionnaire 207

 Climb/Cruise/Descent Pilot Questionnaire 216

 Approach and Landing Questionnaire 239

 Go-around Questionnaire 281
iv

Abstract

This is a compilation of pilot comments from the Boeing High Speed Research Aircraft,

Cycle 3, simulation study conducted from January to March 1997 at NASA Langley

Research Center, known as LaRC.1. This simulation study was conducted using the Visual

Motion Simulator. The comments are from direct tape transcriptions and have been edited

for spelling only. These comments were made on tape following the completion of each

flight card, immediately after the pilot was satisfied with his practice and data recording

runs. Six pilots were used in the evaluation and they are identified as pilots A through F.
Task 1050 Refused Takeoff

Pilot A

Task 1050 Refused Takeoff 13 Jan 97; Runs 17-19

Cooper Harper rating, I guess you're just rating the directional on this one, right, that would

be a 2, I'd say, pretty good. The only thing that might be better would be thrust asymmetry

compensation would give you anticipation of a directional problem. But it was not a

problem, at such a high airspeed, I think there's plenty of rudder control. We're using

about,maybe, 20, 30 percent of the rudder, and using some brake there to help keep it

straight.

Pilot B

Task 1050 Refused Takeoff 06 Jan 97; Runs 22-24

Just some general notes on this...you might want to consider for future runs, alternating the

engine, putting the engine [failure] at random on either side, and interspersing these with

other takeoff runs so the pilot doesn't always know they are going to occur. I think that

might effect what the data looks like. In any case we did the card as per the instructions and

was able to maintain runway centerline deviation within 10 ft each time and got within 5 ft

on the last one. So, lateral directional CHR -it's controllable, adequate, and satisfactory,

improvements not required, minimum pilot compensation for desired performance HQR3.

That's just a necessity to fight for control a little bit to keep it centered. I'm working a little

bit to keep it within 10 ft. That concludes my comments.

Pilot C

Task 1050 Refused Takeoff 15 Jan 97; Runs 45-47

For the tracking, satisfactory without improvement, sure, and that's as good as it's going to

get, very little special technique on that, so, I'd say a 2 for the lateral-directional, it was good.

I might of got one overshoot after the failure went to the right, and then I came back to the

left, I might of overshot the heading just a little bit and came back, but it's certainly not a

problem, and getting off centerline and getting back to it, was very controllable prior to the

engine failure too, so overall, really nice.

Pilot D

Task 1050 Refused Takeoff 21 Jan 97; Runs 52-54

Number four engine cut at a 170 knots. We made one practice and three data runs, and

obviously going down a learning curve, which I think is a little bit unfair. I was adequate

15.9 ft on my first data run, I think it's probably more typical, I'm going to kind of rate it

based on that one. The task is not too bad, a couple problems, have a hard time getting my

feet up on the rudders, correction, up on the brakes, off the rudders. Also, had a hard time

getting all four throttles back at the same time, because of the very wide spacing on the

throttle. I'm going to give it a pilot rating of a 5, because I think under realistic conditions

you'll probably be busting that 10 ft pretty regular.
2

Pilot E

Task 1050 Refused Takeoff 07 Jan 97; Runs 43-45

There is only one rating, that is lateral directional. Center line tracking. The abort is right at

V1. The only comment I'll make is that obviously I know from the get-go this is going to be

an abort so I am keyed and ready to do it, and if I wasn't, my lateral performance and

anything else probably wouldn't be as good because I am all spun up here ready to maintain

tight center line tracking and do an abort. So a suggestion might be if you ever needed more

data on these is to maybe have a failure somewhere sprinkled along into the other tasks,

which would be a little bit non-controlled or non-scientific and that there would be briefed

for one card and maybe do another one, but it certainly is a big difference between being all

keyed up for an abort and being anticipating a takeoff. Anyway, with that in mind I will rate

this thing controllable? Yes, adequate, yes, satisfactory, yes, Cooper Harper of 3. I did

maintain well within the desired criteria, but I did take a lot of very... it's a high gain task,

you've really got to work hard on the rudders and the differential braking to keep your

tracking on the centerline. Obviously, not so hard you can't do it well, but it is a lot of work

load. It would be a 3. I didn't have any tendency to overcontrol to any degree and I had good

ability to compensate for the lost... for the failed engine, so certainly we're well within our

controlled airspeed regime as far as there is no problems with the VMCG or the like and

basically it is a pretty tight criteria for something like that and if you are able to maintain it

within that, but it looks like it's a pretty easy task for the aircraft.

Pilot F

Task 1050 Refused Takeoff 23 Jan 97

Not performed by this pilot.
3

Task 1052 Refused Takeoff - 35 kt x-wind

Pilot A

Task 1052 Refused Takeoff - 35 kt x-wind 13 Jan 97; Runs 20-22

The abort with the crosswinds, I'd give it a 2 on the directional Cooper Harper, it's easily

controllable, because you're so far above VMC, it probably contributes to it. Might be a

better simulation if you randomized the engine failures left and right, because after a while

you kind of learn to anticipate...directionally. It didn't seem to be a big problem with the

crosswind. I didn't notice...did not notice any particular problems with the lateral directional

as far as wings coming up, and that sort of thing, that was how much of a crosswind, 35

knots, that's not bad, okay.

Pilot B

Task 1052 Refused Takeoff - 35 kt x-wind 06 Jan 97; Runs 26-28

35 KTS cross/wind task 1052 accomplished as per the card. Basically kept it within the

desired performance the entire way. Again , I think I am anticipating the abort so the

performance is reflecting that. Not really a problem to get desired performance. Its

controllable, adequate, satisfactory, although I am working a little bit, improvements not

required mildly unpleasant deficiencies, minimum pilot compensation required HQR3. And

that's just the requirements to work a little bit with the brakes to maintain the centerline. That

concludes the comments.

Pilot C

Task 1052 Refused Takeoff - 35 kt x-wind 15 Jan 97; Runs 48-50

lat-dir for the 35 kt crosswind and that's still very easy, definitely more work load than the

other one, and a very good 3 would do that one, I think, and no new comments other than,

with this much crosswind, notice the length of the airplane, because when there's a angle off

a little bit, and I bring it back, just the change of the heading seems to displace me off a little

bit, with this much crosswind you're beginning to see the heading indicator to the right of

the centerline, and of course that puts you a little bit to the right of the centerline, so, the

image is a little bit different, but it's still, certainly no problem.

Pilot D

Task 1052 Refused Takeoff - 35 kt x-wind 21 Jan 97; Runs 56-58

So, this is about the tenth run that I've done in a row that's essentially the same task, and it's

really getting to be like the trained monkey, so, I think it's pretty unfair from an operational

standpoint, as Lou points out, if we're trying to figure out whether we can do RTO's for

certification, that's a whole other thing. I'm looking at it from an operational standpoint. My

performance on these were all well within desired, and I was getting better and better, and

I'm at 2.8 ft on the last one. So, I'm still going to give it a pilot rating of 5, which is really

tough to give, and I'm not sure what the heck I'm doing there, but to me that's extrapolating

this situation to real life. I think if I hadn't seen one of these things, even though I practiced

in the simulator, if I hadn't seen one for 6 months, which is possible, I think I would have a

tough time keeping it within 10 ft.
4

Pilot E

Task 1052 Refused Takeoff - 35 kt Crosswind 07 Jan 97; Runs 46-48

The comments for the attempt remain about the same, basically my performance improved

on every single run so there is some learning curve as far as how to play the rudders. The

only really thing I noticed about the cross wind was that it tended to lift the upwind wing, so

I had to get into the lateral loop of the aileron of the lateral control loop to keep the wings

level, the... with the engine failure I may have had to put a little bit more... if you look at the

strip charts, you might see a little bit more initial or differential braking to keep it from... the

nose swinging into the wind, but basically after that one initial kind of higher amount of

differential braking the task was just as easy as no wind so the cross wind really wasn't a

factor as far as performance, work load was a little bit higher, but I think my learning curve

is also improving so my performance is getting better, but basically, certainly all desired.

Cooper Harper for this task, for the lateral directional for the refused takeoff with a 35 knot

cross wind; it was controllable, adequate performance was attained with satisfactory

improvement? Yes, for 3, it certainly is a little bit of a work load, but you have the ability,

without extensive compensation, to make the desired criteria.

Pilot F

Task 1052 Refused Takeoff - 35 kt Crosswind

Not performed by this pilot.
5

Task 2010 Standard acoustic takeoff

Pilot A

Task 2010 Standard acoustic takeoff

Not rated.

Pilot B

Task 2010 Standard acoustic takeoff 06 Jan 97; Runs 9-11

[The] card was accomplished pretty much as per the instructions on it. I got one comment I

made, was that the way the metrics are read out--you are penalized right after liftoff where

the command guidance is up at 14% and the velocity vector course is somewhat near the

horizon ramping up, and during that period of time while you're zeroing the error out you

are penalized both in terms of max and min error and in terms of percentage, because 2

miles happened so quickly that any error there is percentage wise is magnified. So I'm not

going to really penalize it for that in terms of desired inadequate performance. Lets look at

performance standards: pitch attitude---I think controlling flight path or pitch attitude within

a half degree is relatively easy. So I was able to get desired there. Deviation from climb

speed is N/A. Bank angle control I was able to keep it within desire pretty well. Same thing

with runway heading deviation . Load factor is not really something I'm tracking. That's

kind of N/A also. I'll list it because I kinda got a feel between the practice runs and the data

runs for what 1.2-1.3 g's looked like. For climb out flight path angle that was also relatively

easily controlled plus or minus a half degree. So that was desired. Longitudinal CHR --

controllable, adequate, and I think its satisfactory. See this is where I can really stand to give

a 1/2 rating. Minimum pilot compensation required. I'm going to say minimum for desired

performance cause you can't say it's not a factor and force it under -an HQR3 for

longitudinal , for lateral directional its controllable , adequate, it is satisfactory. This time it is

a solid 3. Minimum pilot compensation . You're just fighting the turbulence and bank angle

control. Okay, for the EPR cutback evaluation segment. Maintain climb airspeed....no I'm

not doing that ......desired flight path....I am doing that. And runway heading with minimum

rolling...no PIO's occurred. Deviation from climb airspeed is N/A. Bank angle control was

able to keep it within desired. Runway heading deviation within desired. Load factor

...predominately within desired.....we had some spikes there, but again I'm not really

controlling that so I'm not going to penalize it for it. Climb out flight path angle plus or

minus 1/2 degree .. again fairly easy. Again though, I can't say that compensation was not a

factor. You're working but you're not really working all that hard, its fairly clearly level 1.

Okay, for longitudinal--it controllable, adequate, satisfactory, improvement not required,

minimum pilot compensation, HQR3 . Lateral directional.....and that on the high side of 3..

in other words closer to a 2. Again, not being able to give 1/2 ratings, I'll put it at a 3, but its

fairly pleasant. Lateral directional...controllable, adequate, satisfactory, improvement not

required. This time its a solid 3 again. Mildly unpleasant, deficiencies minimum pilot

compensation required for desired performance. Again that was due primarily to the

turbulence. And lets see...that concludes my comments.

Pilot C

Task 2010 Standard acoustic takeoff 15 Jan 97; Runs 32-34

Not rated.
6

Pilot D

Task 2010 Standard acoustic takeoff 21 Jan 97; Runs 18-20

Okay, pilot comments on task 2010. The initial rotation rate seems fairly high, in fact I

would just lower VR so you could rotate at a slower rate, and then it's pretty tough to tell

where 10 degrees is, and I'm concerned about tailstrike, so I tend to stop there, and have to

wait until you get the flight path to know you're off the ground, and then after we get off the

ground I'm tending to over G the airplane getting up to my 14 percent climb gradient, and I

think that's a little bit artificial here on the simulator, because we don't have the G cue, that

would be a lot easier to do in real life. I've given you my comments already, we're going to

go into the pilot ratings now, and let's look at the initial rotation and climb. We had adequate

performance, we were not quite always making the desired initial pitch attitude and we were

usually over G'ing on... after, because I tended to pause to 10 degrees to avoid a tailstrike

and then slightly over aggressive on the rotation backup up to the 14 percent climb gradient.

So, we're just making adequate performance on these two parameters, pitch and G, they give

it a 5, it's taken quite a bit of compensation in that little area there. Laterally, it's 3, minor

tendency to PIO. cutback, we're getting, really we could call it desired performance. It's a

fairly easy task, you just pitch down very, very slowly and let go at 2 1/2 degrees.

Apparently on the first one, the actual gamma did overshoot a little bit, it must of been due to

a gust, and I'm going to give it longitudinally a pilot rating of 4, and laterally 3.

Pilot E

Task 2010 Standard acoustic takeoff 07 Jan 97; Runs 35-36

There looks like there are two different segments to rate. The overall task, this particular task

is allowed almost... step-by-step numbers you have to hit, that don't really fully relate to

flying the aircraft as opposed to trying to hit targets on the HUD to capture certain things. I

didn't notice any PIO, I felt I had to be a little bit more aggressive on the rotation to reach

the desired criteria established with task that I would normally would have liked to been, I

would preferred a smoother rotation, but that's just my own technique, and does not

considered the fact that this aircraft may have a requirement to necessitate that. I thought that

pretty much that I met the desired criteria on all parts of both segments, I didn't notice any

potential problems, it was all very straight forward but it was a little too much by the

numbers for me to really come up with a good handling qualities feeling for it. But

everything worked out fine. Okay for the evaluation segment take off roll rotation as you

climb out the acoustic profile, for longitudinal Cooper Harper, basically if I can find the

Cooper Harper sheet. For longitudinal up to the cut back. Is it controllable? Yes it was. Is

adequate performance attainable? Yes it was. Is it satisfactory without improvement? I'd say

no, giving it a level two. Cooper Harper of 4, minor but annoying deficiencies, desired

performance requires moderate pilot compensation. In order to make the score card's

desired parameters, I felt like I had to work too hard to get those numbers, harder than what

the control law really required. I think it is a better airplane than what this rating is showing,

but in order to meet the criteria I ended up having to work harder at it. The lateral direction

Cooper Harper; controllable? Yes, adequate? yes, satisfactory? Yes, I would rate that Cooper

Harper of 3, basically minimum pilot compensation, it looks like we have light turbulence

and that required me staying in the loop laterally to keep it tracking in the lateral guidance.

For the EPR cutback in the continued climb out, longitudinally controllable? Yes, adequate?

Yes, satisfactory, Yes, I'll rate that a Cooper Harper of 3, basically the pushover at the

cutback was no real problem. I don't really... I guess I really can't see in the HUDs, because
7

the HUDs so big, I can't really see the G-Tape up there, in fact I just now noticed it, so

perhaps if I looked at that I could of kept it more at plus or minus .2, so I think that should

not be a factor. I just... the HUD is kind of big and my seating height to line up the balls the

G line is not in my view, so I didn't even realize it was up there. For the lateral direction

Cooper Harper, controllable? yes, adequate? yes, satisfactory? yes. I will rate that a Cooper

Harper of 3 also. again the light turbulence required minimum compensation to maintain the

velocity vector on the guidance dot.

Pilot F

Task 2010 Standard acoustic takeoff 22 Jan 97; Runs 111-113

Let's see basic comments, first of all, the rotation rate, let's see, judging the initial rotation

rate in order to lift off at 10 degrees, plus or minus .5 is kind of difficult, it's just really a

guesstimation and there's nothing really for me to control... close loop on. So basically, it's

just kind of a... I think this is about right, and then the second comment that I have is for

capturing the flight path after you have rotated the airplane, and are on the initial climb out

capturing the flight path, 14 degree climb gradient, at least from my perception is, is that I'm

stopping the command flight path vector exactly on the line or very close to it, but we're

getting overshoots. On the last data run, which we shortened, I tried reducing the rate at

which I approached that, 14 percent climb gradient line, which is about 8 degrees, and we

still got the overshoot. It looked to me, like the overshoot occurred after I had stopped the

command vector on the line, some decrement of time after that, and at that point and time

the... my perception is, is that the actual and the command flight path vectors were not split

in my display, but after I had stopped at some decrement of time later, the actual flight path

vector ghosted up, went above the line, and then came back down. So anyway, that's

something to look at in the data tapes to see what's going on there. Basically, for the... on

the last run we did, we did get off at 9.6 degrees of pitch at liftoff, which is desired. I think

the other two previous runs, we miss that by one or two tenths, and so, yeah, generally we're

more in the adequate range, than the desired range for pitch at liftoff, and then also for all

the captures of the 14 percent climb gradient, which is at 8 degrees, we overshot, and I think

they were all in the... overshooting the pitch, in other words, taking the flight path vector too

high, and that was adequate, and I think we had one that was actually outside the adequate

range there too. So, coming into the matrix or into the Cooper Harper rating scale, it's

obviously controllable. We're getting adequate performance with a tolerable work load, is it

satisfactory without improvement? And for this task, I'd have to answer no, although again,

I'm not so sure what compensation I could use really to make the rotation, the pitch at...

liftoff any better, except for just experience, I could get a rate down, I'm sure I could learn it

better. But, and then the other factor of capturing the 14 percent climb gradient with a flight

path vector, I'm not sure what I could do about that. I would probably have to ratchet and set

the flight path vector maybe a degree below, and so, hopefully it would balloon up and try to

catch it, but, I'm not really sure what kind of compensation I could use that would be

reasonable for that. So anyway, it's not satisfactory without improvement, we did not get

desired performance, so we're probably in the five (5) range. Adequate performance

requires considerable pilot compensation. The problem that I have with this is, is to get

adequate performance it really doesn't require considerable pilot compensation. Like I said,

I'm not really sure how I could work harder, or what kind of compensation I could work that

I would consistently get desired performance with. So, this is kind of a quandary between

and a 4 and a 5, and most people don't really like to give 4 1/2's, although some people think

that's an acceptable rating. Anyway, we're not doing half ratings here, so, since we only got

adequate performance, I'm going to go with a 5. Although, I would make the comment that

I'm not so sure that, that's really indicative of... for the pitch at liftoff, I'm not really sure that,
8

that's indicative of a control problem. My intuition is, is that the capture of 8 degrees climb

path with the gamma, and the 14 percent climb gradient, I think that... my intuition says that

that might be a flight control problem, or some issue of flight control. One other thing that I

didn't mention is the G, with the display that we have here, it's not real apparent what the G

is, and if I was doing this, let me rephrase that. The G is up in the corner of the HUD, and

it's there, and I can read it, but it's not real noticeable to me what the G is. On the last data

run that we did, we did stay within the desired performance of .2, and the way that we did

that was, on the initial climbout, I had a high... an acceptable rotation rate, because we got

desired performance for 10 degrees at liftoff, and then after we had lifted off, I reduced the

rotation rate, and slowly captured, an attempt to slowly capture the 14 percent climb

gradient. The point here being, is that it appears, and again you can go back and look at the

traces, but that we were getting the 1.3 G strike after we were off the ground during that

capture task, and I'm not so... I didn't perceive that I commanded an increase in rotation rate

after we lifted off. Again, I... that might be something to look at the traces and see what the

pilot commanded input was versus what the aircraft response was and see if there is

something going on with the flight controls there. So, we'll give it a 5 for both lateral and

longitudinal, although, actually all the problems we saw were longitudinal. Again, I don't

really like splitting Cooper Harper tasks, but I guess I would go with a... maybe this

appropriate to do that. Why don't we give it a 5 in pitch, and then if I just try to separate the

lateral axis out, I guess I would answer yes, to satisfactory without improvement, and again

the display issue, the magenta not being real bright, and there being some overwriting of

information in the HUD, the same comments as the last run, I'd give it a 3 for lateral, just

because, sometimes the cueing is a little bit hard to see. It's more a display issue than really

a control issue. Okay, in segment two, I didn't really see any problem with segment two, the

cutback maneuver, it seems like you can push over fairly gently for passenger comfort. You

wouldn't want to push over too hard, as far as a G goes, that's one thing that we can't really

simulate, you don't get the feedback as far as, you know for passenger comfort, the pilot's

using the seat of his pants more than he's going to use a G meter. With the pushover, there

are some procedures out there, like in Orange county where the pushover is pretty abrupt, I

think it was a reasonable pushover that we were using. I though the airplane was very

controllable for putting the cutback phase, so I'd come in, it's controllable, adequate

performance is obtainable with a tolerable work load, and for the cutback, although, in the

display I would of liked to have been able to read airspeed a little bit better. I think the

airspeed stayed pretty in close into the range that we wanted it to. I guess I would go, say

yes, it's satisfactory without improvement, again the display issue, I'd like to be able to read

the airspeed a little bit better than I can in this display, and to be honest with you, I don't

think that this would be an acceptable flight display because of the... even if format was

okay, because of the fuzziness of parts of the display, but disregarding that, kind of... I think

there are some display issues as far as being able to follow the guidance and overwriting

and everything else. I'm going to say it's satisfactory, and I'm going to go into the block, and

I'm going to say it's a 3 and a 3 for the cutback phase, and again, I think it's more of a

display issue than it is a controllability issue for this phase.
9

Task 2011 Standard acoustic takeoff

Pilot A

Task 2011 Standard acoustic takeoff 13 Jan 97; Runs 9-11

On the rotation, it's...it would help if you had some kind of aural callout that was synced to

the the, I guess you'd call...you'd call it rotation, right, okay, so, there seemed to be a

tendency in the pitch axis to wander around this pitch guidance brackets and targets,

probably creating more of a PIO in the pitch, than as if you had no...if you have no

guidance whatsoever, and made a smooth rotation, it would probably be much smoother, but

with that guidance up there it seemed like you're ... I find myself trying to follow it and so

on, and dithering around some pitch rate, which seems a little unnatural, other than that, the

task seemed to relatively easy, as far as longitudinal Cooper Harper rating, you ought to rate

the time up through lift off, is that it, or... I'd have to give it a 2 for longitudinal and a 2 for

lateral directional, the flight director guidance seemed to keep everything right in, right

where is should be, and for the ... after that, 2 and 2, longitudinal and lateral directional.

Pilot B

Task 2011 Standard acoustic takeoff 06 Jan 97; Runs 13-16

Divided into 3 phases. The initial phase, takeoff roll rotation, initial climbout. Performance

standards, centerline deviation ..within 10 ft, and I'll say we met the desired criteria. Pitch

rate control..it was tough to get desired. I was inadequate quite a bite of the time so I'll say

desired was not achievable for me....adequate was. Velocity vector control airborne well

within desired. Lateral control well within desired. Deviation from climb speed within

desired...I think. Bank Angle control within desired and heading deviation within desired.

So in terms of longitudinal CHR it's, adequate...a controllable and adequate, however ,

deficiencies warrant improvement . Desired performance requires moderate pilot

compensation HQR4. Lateral directional, its controllable, adequate, and satisfactory,

improvement not required. Mildly unpleasant deficiencies, minimum pilot compensation

required HQR3. I said 3 phases, there's actually only 2 phases. The second phase to...lets

see..EPR cutback from the initiation of the cutback to 8 DME. Velocity vector control well

within the desired at plus or minus 1 degree. Lateral same thing. Well within desired. Climb

airspeed was within desired as was bank angle control and runway heading deviation ...so

all within desired. Longitudinal CHR..it's controllable, adequate, satisfactory, no

improvement required, mildly unpleasant deficiencies minimum pilot compensation HQR3.

same thing as before..that's on the good side of 3. Lateral directional is controllable,

adequate, satisfactory, improvement not required. This is a solid 3 due to the turbulence.

Minimum pilot compensation required for the desired performance. Mildly unpleasant

deficiencies HQR3 . On some note there's some control system anomalies that when

encountered in this thing.. in terms of vibrations of the stick and things like that , I don't that

affected my rating. I think I allowed for that and it didn't affect my accuracy substantially.

Also of note...is that the turbulence is affecting the lateral directional axis considerably more

than it is the longitudinal axis. So there's an apparent harmony issue. Also of some note.,

periodically I'm noting with pitch inputs that I'm inadvertently entering minor roll inputs, so

I'm having to compensate for that. Most of the workload is associated with a lateral

directional axis..I believe.. And that concludes my comments.

Pilot C
10

Task 2011 Standard acoustic takeoff 15 Jan 97; Runs 37-39

Takeoff lat-dir, get that out of the way, that's a 2, that's fine, no complaints for that.

Longitudinally, in segment one, satisfactory without improvement, yeah, I'd say so,

improvement not required, give that a 3, that's a...that's a fairly good thing, it takes a fair

amount of concentration, there's lots of things going on, and it takes a good solid work load

to do it, but you can keep it in there, and it looks good, so a 3, a 2 for lat-dir, 3 for

longitudinal, second segment, definitely satisfactory without improvement, I'm going to give

that both longitudinal and lateral-directional, 2's, pilot compensation is hardly a factor,

there's some wandering around that goes in there with turbulence, but there's nothing you

can do about that, and what I'm rating now, is my ability to keep the commanded flight path

marker within the bounds, and just two quick comments, I think from a experiment design, it

would be better to see this one first because this tells me how fast I have to rotate, instead of

having to guess it without the guidance, I think it would've...we would've saved a practice run

or two, and the other thing is what I mentioned before, this is the first time in the whole test

that I've noticed the large breakout in the inceptor, and I know that's not suppose to be the

perfect inceptor, but it certainly isn't, and it's...it probably plays a little bit of part in ability

to...in performance. The breakout per gradient seems to be larger than I'd prefer. That out to

do it.

Pilot D

Task 2011 Standard acoustic takeoff 21 Jan 97; Runs 10-13

Having just a few problems with the display, you know as I go down the learning curve

those will tend to go away. A couple of problems are switching from head down to head up,

trying to catch VR, the digital VR on the head up is very hard to see, and the other problem

I'm having is switching from tracking with the pitch reference then as... soon as we get off

the ground than we have to switch to tracking with the flight path. It's a little bit of learning

problem there, and other than that it seemed to work out pretty good. It is a difficult task on

the initial climbout, the commanded flight path is moving pretty fast, so, unless you want to

really jerk the airplane around, it's pretty hard to get... I never did get it into the desired

range. I think we got adequate on the last 3, we're throwing out the first run, which I had

inadequate control on those two parts of the task, initial rotation, and the initial climbout,

longitudinal. We'll chalk that up to experience. Okay, pilot rating. Do we have a pilot rating

scale? Okay, pilot ratings for task 2011. The first segment, the initial rotation in the climb,

I'm going to give it a 5, it's because my performance, well, two reasons, one the performance

is in the level 2 level, and I think there are some things we could do to tweak the displays to

help there, and/or tailor the trajectory. There's quite a bit of... for me... it's taken quite a

considerable amount of pilot compensation to try and track that... the two tracking tasks

during the rotation and the initial climb. Okay pilot rating for the cutback phase is 4, we

were getting desired performance there, but it's still desired performance requires fairly

moderate pilot compensation. A little bouncing ball is not real easy to follow. That's correct,

my pilot ratings are being degraded to level 2, because of the longitudinal task. The lateral

task seems to be relatively easy. Okay, we have the pilot ratings for the longitudinal task.

For the initial rotation and climb was 5, cutback was 4. For the lateral directional for both

segments, initial rotation, climb, and the cutback, it's relatively easy. It's not perfect though, I

have a little bit of a tendency to PIO in roll, we're going to give it a pilot rating of 3 for both

of those segments.

Pilot E
11

Task 2011 Standard acoustic takeoff 07 Jan 97

I prefer this procedure to 2010 and I think it gave better results, for a very subjective opinion

there. There are no real comments on this. The tailscrape guidance I think it's very very

important and I like seeing that rotation guidance if you want to try and hit these numbers

and that certainly makes it easier to hit the numbers and also I would like to fact that the

guidance circle remained in view. On 2010 we did a cutback and it drops down

precipitously, down out of field of view, so you don't really no where it is. This one stays in

view all of the time. The first two data runs I had to work a little bit hard to adequately track

the pitch rotation guidance, on the third run I thought it worked out very well, and I just tried

to anticipate when it started, I think in the first two or maybe it was a slight delay in starting

my rotation, and got behind and had to kind of bracket it to get the center point of the

rotation bracket This time I tried to anticipate and that stayed right with me I thought went

very well. "This time" being the third run. Okay for the Cooper Harper's. For the takeoff

roll rotation, initial climbout segment, longitudinal, controllable? Yes, adequate? Yes,

satisfactory? Yes, I would rate it Cooper Harper of 3, basically, this is kind of a solid 3, but

the comment needs to made that it is kind of a minimum pilot compensation, it's not

moderate, but it's more than minimal, in order to track that guidance, rotation guidance, you

have to do a fairly high level of work load, more so than minimal, but I think the overall, I

am going to look beyond that and rate it a 3 because it is a level 1 task. Lateral Directional

same thing, controllable? Yes, adequate? Yes, satisfactory? Yes, for the initial part I think I

am going to rate that a Cooper Harper of 2. (Changed to a 3 during comments on task

2030). I don't recall really putting in any compensation on the initial lateral directional. For

the second segment the cutback PLR Longitudinal controllable? Yes, adequate? Yes,

satisfactory? Yes, Cooper Harper of 3. No real comments. Just following guidance does

take compensation, but it's not bad, it's not a whole lot of... you know, you close the loop on

the guidance circle and it's just not that difficult, this control law. Lateral directional

controllable? Yes, adequate? Yes, satisfactory? Yes, and 3 this time. Again in a the little bit of

turbulence you have up there, that takes more compensation than you find on the initial

segment so it is a little bit higher work load for a 3.

Pilot F

Task 2011 Standard acoustic takeoff 22 Jan 97; Runs 107-108

Basically, I didn't see anything, any real problem with the task, the bigger problem, I think

the thing that's impacting this task most of all, is the display, it's harder for me to see the

little round flight path vector, based flight director display, and I think that impacts my

performance some. Actually, I think we pretty much got desired, pretty much everything

except for on the initial takeoff, the pitch control, and we're generally running between 70

and 80 percent on that, though 90 is desired, and then I guess, actually everything else we

were in desired this time, weren't we, so everything else is desired, unfortunately that one

adequate, I think is going to drop us down, I'm not so sure how much I would equate that to

the flight path based vector cue, guidance cue not being real easily visible, and also the other

thing that I noticed is, even when I tried to keep it constant rotation rate from what I had with

the brackets, when the brackets go away, and I look down, it seems like I'm off the flight

path vector guidance cue when the flight path finally comes up, and my point there is, I'm

not really sure what I would do, I tried on the second data run being more aggressive and

actually ended up doing worse. I'm not really sure what I could do to fix the problem here.

There might be some learning curve to this, but I don't know that, I don't readily see a way

that I could compensate for that particular factor. Anyway, so I guess I kind of somewhat

think that perhaps this rating is not really indicative of what you could actually get with
12

maybe a different display scheme, and that would be interesting. Anyway, we got pretty

good performance throughout, unfortunately, if I, we got the adequate performance so we

come in and say it's controllable, adequate performance with a tolerable pilot work load, is it

satisfactory without improvement? The answer would be no, because we can't get adequate,

or desired performance at all, and so that would mean that the best that I could give it is a 5,

and I guess actually I would give it a 5, again I don't really like splitting the axis, but 5

longitudinal, and lateral I could answer yes to that, and I would probably come up and say...

it's kind of a high work load task, I would kind of be in the range, or be inclined to give it a

2 1/2 and again mainly because of the display and sometimes it takes a little bit of

anticipating and guessing to make the small roll commands. I'm going to give you a 3, just

because, because of the display I would generally go 2 1/2. Note that the 5 on the pitch is

because of the longitudinal control, I didn't really see any, other than just not being able to

perform the... get desired performance. I didn't really see any... I don't really have any

comments concerning flying qualities, predictability, controllability, or anything that really

effects that rating. I'm just not so sure how I can get from here to there. Anyway, I probably,

I'm guessing, if we had gotten desired performance there, I'd probably would of given it a 3

in both, anyway. Yeah, okay, I'm sorry, are we doing four ratings here or three? Okay, so,

that was the takeoff phase we just rated. The initial climb out, actually for all four phases I

would think the same comment about pitch. When things settle down a little bit, and you can

kind of lean forward and you're not really making a... I'm sorry, the same thing for roll, I'd

probably give it a three on all four tasks. The only task that it's a little bit easier on, is the

final climb out task. Okay, so there is only three segments, two segments. Okay, well the

second segment I would go with a three and a three, and the reason is, I'll go through the

cards just to get the comments. In both axis it's controllable, adequate performance is

obtainable with a tolerable pilot work load, it's satisfactory without improvement, and the

reason I'd give it a three over a two is just because, mostly because of the display. I think if

the guidance cue was brighter, I might be inclined to give it a two. Anyway, that's it I guess.
13

Task 2030 Acoustic (Prog Lapse Rate) takeoff

Pilot A

Task 2030 Acoustic (Prog Lapse Rate) takeoff 13 Jan 97; Runs 13-15

Lateral directional Cooper Harper for the initial phases, 2, and longitudinal, 2, and 2 and 2,

for the climbout after the thrust cutback, and actually there were two cutbacks, which

one...where do you segregate, okay, so after 2.60 DME, I'd call it, 2 and 2 Cooper Harper.

It's quite...as far...of the 3, noise abatement procedures, I'd say this is probably the simplest

and easiest, and most logical, fuel efficient, if it works, it's probably a good procedure.

Pilot B

Task 2030 Acoustic (Prog Lapse Rate) takeoff 06 Jan 97; Runs 18-20

On the rotation phase, everything in desired except for longitudinal control..it's just that I

think the task is a little bit artificial on terms of trying to keep the brackets centered. Such

that I wasn't able to get desired. I was able to get adequate routine...routinely, but not desired

longitudinally. Lateral directional...I had no problems with , in all the parameters other than

longitudinal control. In terms of rotation rate... rotation pitch rate control well within

desired. So longitudinally HQR, it controllable, adequate, not satisfactory, deficiencies

requires improvements, minor but annoying deficiencies, desired performance requires

moderate pilot compensation...Hang on a second....I don't think I got desired in any of

those ....either of those runs...lets call it a 5..Adequate perform....well see this is the trouble

with this HQR scale. It did not require considerable pilot compensation for adequate

performance. On the other hand, I wasn't able to get desired...I'm going to make a judgment

call since I can't give 1/2 ratings and give it an HQR4. Yes..just on the rotation part of it. For

lateral directional it's controllable, adequate, satisfactory, improvement not required, mildly

unpleasant deficiencies, minimum pilot compensation, HQR3. For the second phase, I was

able to get desired performance fairly easy in all of them . Again I am reticent to say that

pilot compensation was not a factor. But that's pretty dag- gone close... particularly

longitudinally...and it may be too that I am getting more practice today. Lets go for

longitudinally first, controllable, adequate, satisfactory, improvement not required, negligible

deficiencies, pilot compensation not a factor for desired performance HQR2. Lateral

directional controllable, adequate, satisfactory, improvement not required, mildly unpleasant

deficiencies, minimum pilot compensation HQR3 and that was due to the turbulence. No

stick anomalies this time. So that was good. That ends my comments.

Pilot C

Task 2030 Acoustic (Prog Lapse Rate) takeoff 15 Jan 97; Runs 41-43

Segment one, very similar comments to the last one, except that it's a little bit easier, just

because you're not going to such a high pitch attitude, and have as many changes in it. So,

it's certainly satisfactory without improvement, and lateral-directional is still 2, and 3, or

excuse me, longitudinal, I'm going to give it 3, but if you keep the comments with the

Cooper Harper, just let me say that that's a better 3, than the other 3 was. It's significantly

easier, however, both of them fit within the 3, one on the lower boundary, and the other one

on the upper if you want to think of it that way. As far as the tracking up and away, it's, boy,

I don't know how it's going to get any better than that, 2 for both longitudinal and lateraldirectional for segment two, and all the other comments stayed pretty much the same.
14

Pilot D

Task 2030 Acoustic (Prog Lapse Rate) takeoff 21 Jan 97; Runs 46-49

Compared to the other two takeoff tasks, this is a very easy task. It's essentially like a real

airplane used to rotate and go, there's not the continual regulation required. I'm still having a

hard time with the initial pitch rate and initial target pitch attitude, but I'm ending up very

close to being on the desired climb gradient at the end of the rotation and everything, if

anything, I tend to be a little bit on the high side, so it looks to me like maybe with some

more tuning on the parameters of the takeoff and the criteria here, I think we'd be okay, but

in the context of what we did, I was getting adequates on the rotation and the initial pitch

attitudes, so we'll have to give it a 5 for the longitudinal, initial rotation and climb. Lateral

would be a 3, because of the PIO problems, no change from the previous takeoffs. The

cutback is a non task, so it's essentially a pilot rating of 2 longitudinally, and 3 laterally.

Pilot E

Task 2030 Acoustic (Prog Lapse Rate) takeoff 07 Jan 97; Runs 40-42

This is the simplest from piloting point of view of the 3 takeoff tasks so far. Basically just

following the pitch rate guidance and in the actual guidance circle, and nothing really to

comment, no real problems on this one at all and I think the performance indicates a relative

ease of this task compared to the other two. For longitudinal Cooper Harper rating for the

take off roll rotation this requirement segment, it is controllable, adequate performance is

attainable, satisfactory without improvement? Yes, rate a Cooper Harper of 3, the biggest

problem is just trying to follow the rotation guidance after that it is a real easy task to follow

the guidance circle throughout the program lapse rate. For lateral directional for the initial

takeoff roll rotation climbout, is it controllable? Yes, adequate? Yes, satisfactory? Yes,

Cooper Harper of 2, I don't have a whole lot of recollection of once we get airborne. I will

comment that on the takeoff roll, you have to be careful with the rudders, that you can

overcontrol those. But I guess I need to make a change here that, I know you guys are not

going to like, I am going to change that rating back to a 3 because I made another mistake, I

thought for some reason the task was from rotation on and it does include takeoff roll, so

also we need to change the lateral rating for the initial segment on task 2011 to a 3. That was

a 2 and now I need to put that back to a 3, and the reason being is that the takeoff roll once

you get above 100 knots the rudders become very sensitive and it takes some very, very fine

subtle inputs to keep you on the centerline. Since the takeoff roll is part of that task, those

will be both be 3's. So 3 and a 3 for longitudinal/lateral. For the.... interesting to note a

comment here, I felt that I met the desired criteria for plus or minus half a bracket 90% of

the time. Typically I would be slightly behind the rotation cue as it started, I would then

catch up slightly over shoot and then be on it for the vast majority of the time. The score

card here did not seem to indicate that this as well, but I felt that I met well within the desired

criteria for the... as far as I could tell for the performance standards as specified on the card

referencing the rotation bracket. For the EPR cutback PLR segment, longitudinally, it was

controllable, adequate performance was obtainable. Satisfactory without improvement? Yes,

and I would have to rate it a 3. Pilot compensation is required because the guidance is

changing and so therefore you have to readjust to your flightpath angle, so that makes it a 3,

but it is very, very nice. Lateral directional, similarly controllable? Yes, adequate? Yes,

satisfactory, yes, a 3 also. Then again you are having to put in compensation to account for

the disturbances from the light turbulence.
15

Pilot F

Task 2030 Acoustic (Prog Lapse Rate) takeoff 23 Jan 97; Runs 6-7

Let's see, really... again, we're not, we're pretty much getting desired performance on

everything except for the rotation tracking on pitch, and we got about 87, 88 percent on one

run, and about 80 percent on the other run, 79 percent, somewhere in there. So, that would

really drop us into the adequate performance range rather than desired. Although, we were

very close to desired on the first data run we did with that parameter. All the other

parameters were desired, and again, I'm not so sure that I, there's any compensation other

than just really practicing the task over and over again, so that, you become very familiar

with the rate that that bar moves at, to improve the initial part. So again, I'm not so sure that

the ratings going to be totally indicative of the performance or of the, I guess of the flight

control laws. Anyway, going into the task, it's definitely controllable, adequate performance

with a tolerable pilot work load. Is it satisfactory without improvement? I'd almost be

tempted to answer yes on this question, but we did only get adequate performance, which

would really forces us to answer no, and really put us, the highest rating we could give

would be a five (5). Again, I have a hard time, we'll give it a five in pitch, and we'll give a two

(2) laterally. I don't like splitting up the Cooper Harpers like that, but it's really just that one

parameter that's kicking us out of the adequate box, and that is a pitch parameter. I don't

really... you know, the pitch is no different than on any of the other tasks that we've seen.

You're not really doing high enough rates at predictability becomes a problem, but being

able to do the fine tracking task of a bar, I guess there is some function of the flight control

in there, in that, if the airplane was a little bit crisper, you might be able to track that rotation

bar a little bit better. It's not... but the other side of the coin is, is the tracking in that bar is a

pretty fine tracking task, so, I guess for just performing a takeoff, there aren't many

problems, for doing this task, I guess I do think that if the pitch axis was just a little bit

crisper, that you might be able to do a little bit better job at tracking that pitch bar on

rotation, but again, that's a pretty tight task. I guess, the bottom line is, I'm not seeing

anything that's really, really objectionable in any manner, and I'm not even saying that I

would say it's moderately objectionable for takeoff. The tracking task that we're doing

though, you would benefit, I guess, if you had a little bit crisper responding airplane. I'm

sorry, the up and away step with cutbacks, I think everything is fine there. It's definitely

controllable, adequate with a tolerable pilot work load, and I believe it's satisfactory for this

task without improvement, again, my preference would be to have a little bit crisper

responding airplane, but I would go in for this task, we did get desired performance, I would

probably tend to go with the 2 1/2 range, if we were giving half ratings, because again, the

display is not as clear as it could be, and that I think is effecting my performance a little bit,

but or requiring me a little bit more compensation, but we'll go with a 2, a 2 and a 2.
16

Task 3020 Climb Trans. to Level Flight - Xsonic

Pilot A

Task 3020 Climb Trans. to Level Flight - Xsonic 14 Jan 97; Runs 32-34

Not rated.

Pilot B

Task 3020 Climb Trans. to Level Flight - Xsonic 08 Jan 97; Runs 77-79

Block 4 - Climb, Cruise, Descent I maintained airspeed within a couple knots, within a knot

on the last, as I got better at it. With a rapid change in climb rate, not a problem, evaluate

coupling, between airspeed and flightpath, it's there, I mean it has to be there, but it's

certainly do-able. No problems in handling qualities, nothing significant, a little bit of work

load and longitudinal nothing to speak of in lateral directional, pretty much ignoring that.

The transition was smooth and continuous, maintained a desired performance and all the

parameters listed. Longitudinal; it's controllable, adequate, and satisfactory, a little bit of

compensation to watch the pitch attitude, HQR3 for that minimal pilot compensation. For

lateral directional, controllable, adequate, and satisfactory, and really I am kind of ignoring it,

compensation is not really a factor, HQR2. That concludes my comments.

Pilot C

Task 3020 Climb Transition to Level Flight - Transonic 16 Jan 97; Runs 127-129

Adequate performance certainly, and satisfactory without improvement, no, turn the corner,

to get desired performance it needed, moderate pilot compensation, the majority that I

suspect was the throttle, it's just very hard to make a smooth small throttle correction on this,

and so I tended to overshoot a couple of 3 times took a little work, if I wouldn't have, I

wouldn't of been able to keep the desired, that's for certain. 4, for the level (CHR 4 Level 2).

I didn't...the lateral task is such a, you know, kind of almost auxiliary task that I didn't see

any problem with it, so yeah, I'd bring that up, and say satisfactory without improvement,

that's probably a 2, a couple of degrees was the desired, okay yeah, then 2. Okay, 4 and a 2.

Pilot D

Task 3020 Climb Transition to Level Flight - Transonic

Not performed by this pilot.

Pilot E

Task 3020 Climb Trans. to Level Flight - Transonic 10 Jan 97; Runs 56-57

Block 4 - Climb, Cruise, Descent No real problems here, no pitch/roll coupling, no PIO

tendencies, pretty easy to make the capture, well within the desired criteria. Longitudinal and

Cooper Harper rating, controllable? Yes, adequate? Yes, satisfactory without improvement?

Yes, a Cooper Harper of 3. Lateral directional, the performance standards, basically maintain

heading, there sure were no deviations that I saw, and bank angles, no problems there.

Controllable? Yes, adequate? Yes, satisfactory? Yes, Cooper Harper of 3 also.
17

Pilot F

Task 3020 Climb Transition to Level Flight - Transonic

Not performed by this pilot.
18

Task 3022 Climb Trans. to Level Flight - Supersonic

Pilot A

Task 3022 Climb Trans. to Level Flight - Supersonic 14 Jan 97; Runs 71-73

This is level off in supersonic flight 51,000 ft. The Cooper Harper for the pitch longitudinal

controls, I would say is a 2, and probably a 3 for the lateral directional controls, and the rate

of climb is very slow, maybe 500 ft per minute at the end, maybe even 300 ft per minute, and

the final throttle position is only about a quarter of knob off full throttle, at 450 knots, and

so it's a very minor, minor correction, and the display seemed to reasonably adequate for

that type of an operation.

Pilot B

Task 3022 Climb Trans. to Level Flight - Supersonic 08 Jan 97; Runs 81-82

The ability to maintain airspeed during change in climb rate, there is not much of change in

climb rate, you're high enough that you're climb rate is very, very low, it's on the order of

200 ft per minute or less, I think, I guess I didn't look at it during the climb, but it is fairly

low. Very little coupling between airspeed and flightpath, you can do one and then the other,

you can do them serially, you really don't have to worry about it, so I've become a serial

flyer. Evaluated the handling qualities during the power of configuration change, there

wasn't really much change there, so it was kind of benign, the transition was definitely

smooth and continuous and I was able to maintain within the performance standards, we

modified one of them, deviation and airspeed instead of Mach and we said plus or minus 5

knots, which isn't entirely do-able. I'm going to do both longitudinal and lateral directional at

the same time here, because in both cases I pretty much was ignoring them. It's controllable,

adequate, satisfactory, compensation not a factor, HQR is 2 for both longitudinal and lateral

directional. That concludes my comments.

Pilot C

Task 3022 Climb Transition to Level Flight - Supersonic 16 Jan 97; Run 131

Satisfactory without improvement, in both longitudinal and lateral directional, lat-dir is a

non-event, it's almost just hardly climbing at all, and not changing heading, just maintaining

straight ahead with the track, the thing that is not a difficult thing to do, to say the least, so 2

and 2, for both, not much we can do there. The only thing I'm giving 2 and 2, but with those

throttles, it likely could, you know, there was a little compensation due to the throttle, but I

had to move them so little bit, that overall, it was not a factor.

Pilot D

Task 3022 Climb Transition to Level Flight - Supersonic

Not performed by this pilot.

Pilot E

Task 3022 Climb Trans. to Level Flight - Supersonic 10 Jan 97; Runs 58-59
19

Another pretty non-eventful task, no flight handling qualities close to an error at all,

nothing... no PIO, no coupling to 2-axis, the wrong pitch. Real nice job, makes and captures

all criteria. Longitudinal, controllable? Yes, adequate? Yes, satisfactory without

improvement? Yes a 3. There is compensation required to effect the level off, however,

laterally there's no problem at all, and nothing that did nothing, so, it will reflect a higher

Cooper Harper, controllable? Yes, adequate? Yes, satisfactory? Yes, for 2.

Pilot F

Task 3022 Climb Transition to Level Flight - Supersonic

Not performed by this pilot.
20

Task 3030 Profile Climb

Pilot A

Task 3030 Profile Climb

Not performed by this pilot. Only pilot to perform this task was Pilot B.

Pilot B

Task 3030 Climb Trans. to Level Flight - Xsonic 10 Jan 97; Runs 16

Handling qualities in the climb were pleasant, no problems in following the desired airspeed

and altitude ... attitude profile, and I think you probably could of done it either way, either

with the head down guidance, or with the head up guidance, although obviously, the head up

guidance makes it a little bit simpler. I was able to keep well within desired performance the

whole time, without turbulence we're noticing coriolis centrifugal forces in the curved earth

modeled, things like that, so, the handling qualities are pretty much transparent here. Both

longitudinal and lateral directional are controllable, adequate, satisfactory, no improvement

required with negligible deficiencies. Pilot compensation not a factor, HQR2. Caveat is that

there...the apparent sensitivity in roll, and roll rate, the sensitivity increases as you get faster

in Mach and higher in altitude, so, it's a little bit easier to control angle of back down low

then it is up high, at the end of the profile that...those are minor differences still well within

level 1 criteria. That concludes my comments.

Pilot C

Task 3030 Climb Transition to Level Flight - Transonic

Not performed by this pilot.

Pilot D

Task 3030 Climb Transition to Level Flight - Transonic

Not performed by this pilot.

Pilot E

Task 3030 Climb Trans. to Level Flight - Transonic 10 Jan 97

Not rated.

Pilot F

Task 3030 Climb Transition to Level Flight - Transonic

Not performed by this pilot.
21

Task 3040 Level Flight Trans. to Climb

Pilot A

Task 3040 Level Flight Trans. to Climb 14 Jan 97; Runs 75-77

The transition from 250 knot climb, 10,000 ft to 2000 ft per minute...or level flight,

transition to climb, 2000 ft a minute, and the...it seemed like a very simple straight forward

task, if you...especially when you know the gamma that is required, and the thrust lever

position and fine tune with the accel, decel cue, and minor adjustment to the gamma. It was

very simple task, I'll give it a 2...and lateral directional and longitudinal.

Pilot B

Task 3040 Level Flight Trans. to Climb 08 Jan 97; Runs 84-86

The card was accomplished as per the card ability to initiate climb during normal operations

certainly able to do that. No undesirable airspeed coupling, no problems at all really, it was a

pretty easy task to do. The pilot compensation largely not a factor, able to keep within the

desired parameters throughout. Longitudinal and lateral directional are both the same;

controllable, adequate, satisfactory improvement not required, mildly unpleasant def... , I'm

sorry, pilot compensation not a factor, good negligible deficiencies HQR2, 2 for both. That

concludes my comments.

Pilot C

Task 3040 Level Flight Transition to Climb 16 Jan 97; Run 134

It was the lateral-directional, all I had to do was just kind of get it in a cross check, there's

hardly any variable off, the bank angle for just a couple of degrees of bank, you know I have

to actually look at the index up there, and it's a long ways from the flight path marker, but

it's still, it was not a difficult problem, and probably if I'd just come inside, it would have

been even easier. Okay, sure, satisfactory without improvement, definitely, lateral-directional,

I'll give that a 2, and again, with the throttle, it's just making the work load, taking some

compensation to keep the desired, so I'm going turn the corner one before, and make that a

4, and again, it's the throttle that's doing it, it's not any response to the airplane, otherwise. 4

and a 2. Yes.

Pilot D

Task 3040 Level Flight Transition to Climb

Not performed by this pilot.

Pilot E

Task 3040 Level Flight Trans. to Climb 08 Jan 97; Runs 60-61

No real problem here, a little bit of throttle friction that makes the throttle adjustments a little

bit imprecise. I set a power setting, I figured out 82 percent after the first run, and set it on

second run, it didn't seem to be enough to power, so it took a little bit longer to stabilize the

two thousand as more of a slower, smoother, interceptor of two thousand ft per minute rate
22

of climb. Maintaining airspeed plus minus five knots, okay, actually I have even greater, plus

minus 10 knots in airspeed, I was able to maintain a plus minus five without any problem.

That's certainly well within desired, and target rate of climb I thought was definitely plus or

minus 200. The second time I wasn't paying much attention to my heading, it drifted off.

The first time it was pretty much right on, and so I, kind of just a lack of attention on my

part, I think desired task in both lateral and longitudinal. So for longitudinal rating,

controllable? Yes, adequate? Yes, satisfactory? Yes, for a 3. A little bit of effort mainly for

work load, a little bit of hunting around for the proper attitude. For lateral, controllable? Yes,

adequate? Yes, satisfactory? I'll say no, and rate it a 4, basically, again, this thing should just

hold a heading pretty much, there's no lateral task involved here, and it did drift off, so, it

should be easier to hold wings level, so it's going to come in with a 4, and be level 2.

Pilot F

Task 3040 Level Flight Transition to Climb

Not performed by this pilot.
23

Task 3050 Profile Descent

Pilot A

Task 3050 Profile Descent 14 Jan 97; Run 79

Cooper Harper, lateral-directional a 4, because of the lack of a track hold function, would

certainly help here, let bank angle get out. I think one of things that seems to be effecting the

bank a little bit is the lack of a distinctive detent on this side stick. It seems awfully easy to

get out of the detent and start introducing rolls...roll inputs, these because they're heavier

forces on the pitch and the lack of the detent on the roll, so, summarizing Cooper Harper,

longitudinal a 2, and on lateral directional, a 4, and the display for following the redline was

more helpful the more you get used to using it, however, I'm still not sure if you had a flyoff

between it and a standard airspeed indicator, whether there would be much difference, but

that would be something to look at on the future, a future test. The strategy that I used, by

given no procedures to follow on the descent, was to establish a...about a 3 degree, 2 or 3

degree descent, with partial thrust to hold the redline, and then gradually reduce the thrust

further for the constant airspeed segment at 475 knots, and then as you get established on

the decreasing indicator that keys...keys airspeed schedule, decreasing to 350, select idle

thrust at that point, and that seemed to give a reasonable descent.

Pilot B

Task 3050 Profile Descent 08 Jan 97; Runs 88

Handling qualities; the airplane was fine in the descent, I didn't notice any overt gust

sensitivity that was objectionable in any rate. I believe I was able to keep within desired

performance criteria. Working a little bit longitudinally and not a whole lot at all lateral

directionally, so I'm going to split the ratings just a little bit. Longitudinal; controllable,

adequate, satisfactory improvement not required, minimal pilot compensation, HQR3.

Lateral directional controllable, adequate, satisfactory improvement not required, with pilot

compensation not a factor, HQR2. So the HQR's are 3 and 2. That concludes my

comments.

Pilot C

Task 3050 Profile Descent 16 Jan 97

Not rated.

Pilot D

Task 3050 Profile Descent

Not performed by this pilot.

Pilot E

Task 3050 Profile Descent 10 Jan 97; Runs 63-64

Fairly high work load task, very long task also, the bank angle control is difficult to maintain

wings level without concentrating on it, either the breakout and the sidearm controller needs
24

to be adjusted just a little bit higher, but I think it's more of a control law adjustments needs

to be made to have some way to hold a bank angle more easily. This is mainly a problem up

above in the supersonic speed regime where the bank angle, especially zero degrees phi was

very sensitive. Bruce thinks he saw about a 5 degree delta at one point, I don't recall ever

seeing it that high, but I wasn't always paying attention to it, as I was working very hard on

flying the VMO curve, so that would affect the lateral rating, and so it goes on to previous

comments about the ability of this thing to hold wings level very easily, it's a high Mach and

high altitude. The airspeed worked out the most part very well. I did play with the throttles a

little bit, and one little burble on the MMO curve, we... you're slowing down in the Mach

number to around the 37,000 ft regime, whatever. I went ahead and pulled the throttles

completely back to idle, or pretty close to it, and a decel rate a little more quickly than I was

able to push the nose over without exciting the inlet unstart rings, but otherwise, it worked

out pretty well, following within 10 knots of the airspeed. For the most part within plus

minus... , yeah, the most part stayed pretty much within the 5 knots of the desired, so, I think

for the aggregate profile, I would say it was desired. For the longitudinal rating,

controllable? Yes, adequate? Yes, satisfactory without improvement? No, a 4, and that's for

work load, it's just very difficult to... with the cues we have here, and the task to tightly

follow the VMO, MMO curve, although it is do-able it's a work load issue, for lateral

directional, I'm taking my colleagues input, controllable? Yes, adequate? Yes, satisfactory?

No, a Cooper Harper of 5, basically inability of the system to maintain wings level.

Pilot F

Task 3050 Profile Descent

Not performed by this pilot.
25

Task 3060 Level Flight Trans. to Descent - Supersonic

Pilot A

Task 3060 Level Flight Trans. to Descent - Supersonic 14 Jan 97; Runs 81-84

Are we getting...were we getting desired or adequate performance or any of the above. I

think the last two runs we had, desired performance of 2 of 3 captures, and inadequate on

the rest . Okay, so we had inadequate...we had level 4 handling qualities, level 3. Let me go

through this. Is it controllable, yes, is adequate performance obtainable with a tolerable pilot

work load, no, so, I guess I'd have to give it a...adequate...I'll give it a 7, I guess, for pitch,

and...well, what do you want to call that...a...a level 2 or level 3 performance...adequate to a

tolerable pilot...well, I guess the key is, is adequate performance obtainable with tolerable

pilot workload, it's marginal, it could be a 6 or a 7. I'll give it a 6 for pitch, and mainly

because of the fact that what seemed to be limiting the performance was the displays that

were available to determine whether or not you were getting, what your vertical speed was,

and had to use the head down display, primarily, can't, and the...there's a lot of deficiencies

in the HUD display that seemed to distract from this type of a maneuver, being able to

determine exactly where your flight path vector is precisely, there's a certain vagueness in

exactly where your pitch is, and you have to do some extreme fine tuning. The vertical speed

scale on the HUD is rather gross, the tolerances involved are like one linewidth on the up

display, whereas the head down vertical speed display for 1000, 2000, 4000, is much more

readily apparent whether you're inside or outside the tolerance, so, you can fine tune a little

better, using head down instrumentation. For lateral directional, I guess I'd have to give it a

3, Cooper Harper, what were you going to say. I was going to ask you if giving a digital box

of speed digits would be helpful? If...I think it would be helpful if rolling digits existed for

vertical speed on top and bottom of the vertical speed tape display on the HUD, I think that's

what we do on the triple 7, is repeat the vertical speed in digits, and that is helpful, I think in

this kind...especially in this kind of a task.

Pilot B

Task 3060 Level Flight Trans. to Descent - Supersonic 08 Jan 97; Runs 90

The problems in this card with envelope protection I think predominantly where if you've

got to, you get a little bit fast, a hundredth of a Mach fast, it tries to raise the nose on you,

and that's going to effect your decent rate, and cause you to pull back power and try to push

the nose over and if you do it out of phase the Mach comes up again and you start into a

cycle in that and so, desired performance is real tough in decent rate, in general, deviation in

Mach is tough because you don't have a rate. The longitudinal flightpath acceleration doesn't

give you valid indication because as you descend, you want to increase indicated airspeed in

order to hold the same Mach, so to maintain constant Mach you're carrot is above the wing

line. So you really don't have any good indication there either. Heading and bank was okay,

not much of a problem there, a little bit of a fight in the angle of bank, but not much

attention required. So, the longitudinal Cooper Harper with the caveat that I was able to get

desired some of the time and only adequate some of the time, it's controllable, adequate,

probably deficiencies were an improvement with that envelope protection, adequate

performance, let's go, desired performance requires moderate pilot compensation, HQR4. In

the lateral directional it's desired, it's controllable, adequate, satisfactory, and minimal pilot

compensation, HQR3. So the numbers are 4 and 3. That concludes my comments.

Pilot C
26

Task 3060 Level Flight Transition to Descent - Supersonic 16 Jan 97; Run 137

The lat-dir is easy enough to control, I just remembered to keep it in my cross check, it just

kind of wanders off very, very, little. So, for the lat-dir, certainly satisfactory without

improvement, and well, I guess I should have used more compensation than I did, so I'll

make it a 3 in lat-dir, it's kind of a toss up, I mean it's very...no, I won't even...it's too un ...

lat-dir, that's just normal flying, that was me being lazy, so, 2 for the lat-dir, for the

longitudinals, the actual control of the pitch attitude, I would say is satisfactory without

improvement, but after all, the task was to maintain a reach, and maintain a rate of descent,

and that was down in adequate, worse than adequate, okay, well, then that would certainly do

it, well, if I didn't get adequate at all, I'm going to have to come down here, and turn the

corner, adequate performance obtainable, tolerable pilot work load, and I think it was from

an overshoot, primarily, wasn't it, that did that, yeah, and I certainly wasn't a problem

in...with worried about control, so, 7 is what it would be, and just two factors, as I said, the

attitude itself was easy enough to control, the problem is the mechanical characteristics of

the throttle, with these kind of very minor adjustments, the breakout was noticed...problem

was noticeable on the inceptor, but the...I'd say the major thing that was...the most noticeable

thing certainly was the characteristics of the throttle and it's friction. 7 for longitudinal.

Pilot D

Task 3060 Level Flight Transition to Descent - Supersonic 22 Jan 97; Run 75

We just did some pushovers from cruise and we go to a 1000 ft, 2000 ft, 4000 ft per minute,

which with the instrumentation here is pretty tough. Primarily I was using the head down

vertical speed indicator, which is not an instantaneous vertical speed indicator, which I

presume we'll have one in the airplane. So, it made it a pretty tough task, really the technique

I was using was to try and set gamma then cross-check vertical speed, and of course this

Mach number, the flight path angle changed for the small sink rates is very, very small and

hard to resolve. So, I was pretty consistently busting the desired sink rates on the initial

capture. You could milk it in with a couple of trys. So, my performance is really adequate,

let's give it longitudinal, let's give it a 5 for all reasons named. Laterally, we've still got this

roll PIO, let's give it a 4.

Pilot E

Task 3060 Level Flight Trans. to Descent - Supersonic 10 Jan 97; Runs 65-67

Starting out at, what is this Mach 2.4, and 64,000 ft, it's a very interesting task, a little bit

difficult, and that takes very, very, very, subtle changes on the sidearm controller to affect the

descent rates that we are looking for. Airspeed modulation and control airspeed was fairly

straight forward, that does not tend to bleed or show any speed instability, maintain the

airspeed tolerances well within the desired, most times within plus minus two knots, I'm

allowed five knots. The vertical speed, using the HUD symbology, I though was pretty

good, using the round dial down here with heads down, which I didn't even look at, I tend to

be... I tend to be a little bit high on each of the descent rates. Based on the instrumentation

that I have on display, I have... it's a little bit difficult to meet the desired criteria, though I

felt from a handling qualities point of view, it did a fairly good job. Considering all that, in a

kind of a gross overall rating. For longitudinal, controllable? Yes, adequate? Yes, satisfactory

without improvement? No, I'm going to rate it a Cooper Harper of 4, I think, it takes just a

little bit of, actually a fairly decent work load with very, very, tiny motions of the stick. Very,
27

very subtle, and you probably would need a little bit to do this task, you probably need a

little bit more expanded scale on the HUD, and you'd be level 1 with it. The lateral,

maintained the heading and angle of bank, it still though, requires effort it shouldn't, so,

controllable? Yes, adequate? Yes, satisfactory? No, also a 4, main thing is the effort required

to maintain wings level, so, this is not a lateral task. That shouldn't be a effort.

Pilot F

Task 3060 Level Flight Transition to Descent - Supersonic 24 Jan 97; Runs 40-42

Let's see, basically, a couple of up front comments, the gamma control works real well,

although, you still have to pay attention to it in the manual throttles when you're adjusting

throttles. Also, I realize that this speed and altitude, you know, a small change in airspeed is

going to make a change in the vertical speed also, so, but, anyway, overall, I thought the task

was fairly reasonable, I bobbled the 2000 ft per minute one a couple times, and got outside

of what I decided performance was, I think... I'm not really sure I have a reason, or... except

for just my cross-check kind of faulted there a little bit, both times I was kind of fixating an

airspeed, and when I went back and cross-checked the vertical speed, it had gotten out of

limits. And I think maybe part of that was, even under practice I didn't get the... I wanted to

say pitch... picture, but actually the place to set gamma, I didn't really decipher that, I don't

think until the final run. Anyway, I'm going in to rate the task, it's definitely controllable,

adequate performance is obtainable with tolerable pilot work load, is it satisfactory without

improvement? Yes, and actually I think the gamma control works real well here. Again for

my taste, I would like the, I guess, in my mind and the manual throttle with the gamma

control system, the throttle should control airspeed and if I don't touch the stick, as long as

it's within the airplanes capability, I would expect gamma to remain unchanged, and that's

not really my perception, I do think that we get a little bobbly in gamma as we adjust the

throttles, anyway, going into the level 1 block. Again, the bobbles at 2000 ft per minute

down, I would... I would characterize it as just a slow cross- check, and not really getting a

good initial picture, at least that's my perception, I didn't see anything particularly difficult

about the 2000 except I just wasn't setting the gamma in the right place, and the other thing

is that I was hunting with the throttles, and the throttles being a little bit hard to move, does

detract from the task a little bit, but not that much, and I guess I would... I guess I'd really

have to say it's good, I guess I'd give it a 2, because compared to a conventional airplane

where your flying on pitch, it actually is pretty... that the gamma law even with the manual

throttles, seems to work pretty well.
28

Task 3062 Level Flight Trans. to Descent - Transonic

Pilot A

Task 3062 Level Flight Trans. to Descent - Transonic 14 Jan 97; Runs 87-89

This task is a little difficult because of the stiff throttles, but once you determine what

gamma is required for a vertical speed, and you usually have to use a head down vertical

speed indicator to fine tune these maneuvers, and there's very little thrust change, if any ,

between 1000 and 2000 ft per minute, but it seems as though the longitudinal control is

adequate to adjust the vertical speed, maybe a little learning curve on my part in terms of fine

tuning the vertical speed to match the gamma, but the...I give the longitudinal a 3 and lateral

directional a 3 on this maneuver, Cooper Harper.

Pilot B

Task 3062 Level Flight Trans. to Descent - Transonic 09 Jan 97; Runs 3-5

Let's see, the task was a transition to a transonic descent at 1000, 2000, and 4000 feet per

minute. In summary the only work load issue really was the throttle friction, the

combination, the display, and the flying qualities were relatively pleasant, no major

problems. I'm probably going to stick the throttle friction task onto the longitudinal axis

because that's where it effected the work load. So, longitudinal, controllable, adequate,

satisfactory improvement not required, mildly, unpleasant deficiencies, HQR3. Lateral

directional, controllable, adequate, satisfactory, pilot compensation largely not a factor for

desired performance HQR2. Those HQRs were 3 and 2. That concludes my comments.

Pilot C

Task 3062 Level Flight Transition to Descent - Transonic 17 Jan 97; Runs 39-41

The lateral-directional will be an easy one, but I assume you want them both, yeah okay, lat.-

dir. in general is okay, I seem to have a constantly want to put in a left bank, and as a result,

I was always over on the edge between desired and adequate with a turn to the left, and it's

completely unintentional, and I have no idea why, but did bring some compensation into

that. I'd say it's satisfactory without improvement, and I'd give it a 3, but it did take minimal,

but some definite compensation for this odd, left hand turn. Okay, the pitch, the control is all

fine, you know, I put the flight path marker where I wanted, we had two things though that

kind of contaminate the task, one the indication of Mach acceleration and so on was, well

with the karat, was inop, and so, that's a real big help, that takes all the work out of that kind

of stuff, when you've got that operating, so that was kind of a contaminant, and also the

friction in the throttle remains a problem when you're trying to do speed control, along with

flight path, and just as an aside, the distance on the HUD of the information from the flight

path marker over to the vertical velocity is quite a ways, it's things like this, it's kind of nice

when you can catch those in your peripheral, and here you have to look at one or the other

and back, and thus, builds in a little more work, in any case, toward the end there, I was

getting desired, and I think I probably could keep desired pretty much from now on, I think

we were looking at some learning curve, and one of them was the fact that the 4000 ft

marker, the arrow was not sensitive enough for the task, and I should be using the round

dial for the 4000, and when I did that, I brought her right up to desired, so I don't feel too

bad about the desired part, however, will all those problems in there, I'm going to say it

requires improvement, and we'd give it a 4 for longitudinal, 3 for lat-dir, 4 for longitudinal.
29

Pilot D

Task 3062 Level Flight Transition to Descent - Transonic 22 Jan 97; Run 94

Mach .95 descents at 1000, 2000, and 4000 ft per minute straight ahead. Much easier to do

pitch wise than at the high Mach case, because here we get enough resolution on gamma

that I can really just sit gamma with -1, -2, and -4, and with a couple cross-checks on the H

dots, you can home it right in. We're getting a big bias on the chevron symbol for

Mach/knot as we descent, and that increases the work load significantly, but we're still in my

4 and 4 category.

Pilot E

Task 3062 Level Flight Trans. to Descent - Transonic 10 Jan 97; Run 68

The big difference here is the turbulence is much more perceptible, and right about the

desired boundary on VSI, and that it's offset by the fact that you have a larger flight path

change to affect your speeds, so it's not quite so sensitive or subtle, just in when I'm here, in

the interest of moving on, and I think pretty much I met the desired criteria all the way

around. A little bit more effort of controlling airspeed, a little more throttle movements

required, and... but, using the round VSI steam gage, I was able to close more, I think tightly

on the desired VSI. The... a little bit more effort in lateral axis to maintain heading, and just

barely stayed within desired boundary on heading, so for longitudinal Cooper Harper,

controllable? Yes, adequate? Yes, satisfactory? No, 4 for work load. Lateral, controllable?

Yes, adequate? Yes, satisfactory? No, a 4 also for work load and maintaining wings level.

Pilot F

Task 3062 Level Flight Transition to Descent - Transonic 24 Jan 97; Runs 43-44

Basically, because the Mach numbers, only two tenths, I mean hundreds up in the HUD,

and it's to thousands in the heads down display, and because of the... it's easier for me to

read the vertical speed heads down, than it is on the heads up display, and the acceleration

karat, is not working for the Mach number, I flew a good portion of the maneuver heads

down. The reason is, is with the thousands of Mach number heads down, it was easier for

me to see rates on the Mach number, and then I was also using the vertical needle heads

down, and so, it was easier just to stay heads down for most of that maneuver. Really there's

little difference in doing the other task, except for the Mach number, your airspeed is

changing with altitude as you descend, it's going into the Cooper Harper rating, it's

definitely controllable, adequate performance is obtainable with tolerable pilot work load, it's

satisfactory without improvement. Because of the display issues here, there's less cues to

help you out, I think that I'd probably, if we were doing half ratings, at least be inclined to go

2 1/2, I'm going to say it's a 3, just because there's not as much to help you out, we're flying

heads down, the display is not as big, it's easier to see small changes in gamma, and small

bank angle changes up in the HUD. You don't have the acceleration karat to help you out,

and it's not that much more difficult, I'd really be inclined to kind of go 2 1/2, but... but since

we're not doing half ratings, I'll go a 3 and a 3.
30

Task 3070 Transonic Accel

Pilot A

Task 3070 Transonic Accel 14 Jan 97; Runs 91-93

This is accelerating from 250 knots to 350 knots in a 1000 ft per minute climb, and it

appears as though with practice this can be done, and with the reasonable pilot effort,

achieved desired performance, give a 3 for longitudinal axis, and a 3 for the Cooper Harper

on the lateral axis. The...it appears to be some, perhaps some effect in...the adverse effect on

the pilot ability to control vertical speed when moving the thrust around, because

of...occasionally, actual gamma appears in and then it comes in and out from hiding, and

perhaps when the actual gamma is not the same as commanded, there are very fine tuning

that you need for this task is hampered to some extend, by pilot not knowing quite exactly

what the real gamma is, and so you've got to kind of work a closed loop between vertical

speed and changing commanded gamma ever so slightly to fine tune that. The captures on

the airspeeds were reasonable when the airspeed accel-decel cue is helping you out, and that

worked out quite well, once again, the friction is this particular simulator in the throttles,

certainly doesn't help in terms of distractions and at the point of throttle movements.

Pilot B

Task 3070 Transonic Accel 09 Jan 97; Runs 6-8

Relatively difficult task because of the sensitivity in climb rate to gamma changes. Very,

very little change required, you just have to touch the control column to get a 200 ft change,

200 ft per minute change in vertical speed and with the excursions due to turbulence being 1

to 200 ft per minute, it's pretty tough to stay within desired. It can be done, but you are

working hard to do it, and even lateral directional you're working a little bit because of the

attention you have to pay to the longitudinal. Also, exacerbating this a little bit, is the fact

that as you change speed, your flight path angle requirements for constant vertical speed

change, so you have to constantly make inputs in flight path angle and the sensitivity is

enough that every few seconds you've got to make an input or you'll get outside the balance

of vertical speed. I was able to keep within the adequate bound, within desired bound, a great

deal of the time, within the adequate bound most of the time, we might of had a few ticks

right at the adequate bound or maybe slightly outside, but for the most part, and I think by

the way, that was...that was influenced by turbulence as well, but for the most part, I was

able to keep it within, and I think all the other parameters I was able to keep it in pretty well.

In fact, it did a little bit better than desired in airspeed and heading and bank, I was probably

right at desired or less. Okay, for longitudinal, it's controllable and adequate, and I think the

task is a level 2 type of task. With desired performance requiring moderate pilot

compensation, HQR4. Lateral directional is controllable, adequate, satisfactory, minimal

pilot compensation, HQR3. So the HQRs are 4 and 3. That concludes my comments.

Pilot C

Task 3070 Transonic Accel 17 Jan 97; Runs 43-45 Okay, controllable, yeah, adequate...let's

do the lat-dir first, adequate performance is okay on that, but again right on the edge. Same

comments I had before, satisfactory without improvement, well I'll say so, but there's still

that little tendency to get off, because there's so much else going on, so, the fact it's holding

heading is purely the airplane doing it more than I am, but it doesn't take, you know, a huge

amount for it to keep within desired, but there's definitely some compensation, had to correct
31

back, some of those bank angles, incidentally, were 3 degrees or more, because I was

correcting back, you know, in other words, they were intentionally over, it wasn't because of

any problem with the control. So anyways, 3 for lat-dir on that, and controllable adequate

performance with tolerable pilot work load, and I'm going to have to say no on that, on both

counts, I couldn't get adequate performance, and I was still working harder than I would

accept most likely for something like this. Would require improvement, no problem with

controls, so, it would be a 7 for longitudinal, and the sensitivity at the 1000 ft marker on the

HUD is possibly a little too sensitive, and I tended to chase that quite a bit, everytime that I

reverted to interior VVI to watch what was going on, my performance improved, I was able

to keep it more accurate, so, that's that, and the other thing is the, especially on the real large

ones, boy, the...I'm afraid the throttle friction is overriding an awful lot of the flight control

system here, it's almost dominating the task, it's a major contaminant on this particular task,

and that ought to do it.

Pilot D

Task 3070 Transonic Accel 22 Jan 97; Run 79

Okay, we only got apparently adequate on the performance longitudinally because of the H

dot control, which is pretty tough, again because it's similar. Task 3070, I'm sorry. The H

dot control task is pretty tough because we got... we don't have an instantaneous vertical

speed, and the resolution on the gamma is pretty small for this small number, or for this

performance constraint, 300 ft per minute. Airspeed was fairly easy to control. I'm going to

give it a pilot rating longitudinally, 5, and laterally, 4.

Pilot E

Task 3070 Transonic Accel 10 Jan 97; Run 70

And this task is long tedious one, but basically doesn't show any handling qualities

problems, I don't think. For most of the time I felt I met the desired performance criteria on

the deceleration back to 250 I got distracted by trying to null out about a 1 1/2 degree or so

on a 2 degree heading change, and in correcting that with this kind of nuisance, lateral mode,

we've talked about as far as trying to hold wings level, I didn't pay attention to the airspeed,

and what got slow with... and then corrected back to 250. Most of the time I felt I met the

target rate of climb, the airspeed carat is certainly a big help here in controlling the airspeed,

and I think controlling the vertical rate using the analogue instrument, worked out pretty

close with an occasional deviation of say 3 or 400 ft per minute, Bruce says he saw a 500 ft,

I didn't see anything that large, but I think probably 95 percent of the time is going to be

plus minus 200 ft, most of the time it was pretty close to right on, so with that in mind, for

the longitudinal rating, controllable? Yes, adequate? Yes, satisfactory without improvement...

I thought the airspeed as far as the captures was very good, I felt within 2 knots, I'm going

to say no, and give it a Cooper Harper of 4 for work load. For the lateral task, controllable?

Yes, adequate? Yes, satisfactory without improvement? No, we really do need to get this

thing easier to hold wings level, and I'll rate it a 4 also, because it met the desired criteria, but

the work load was high.

Pilot F

Task 3070 Transonic Accel

Not performed by this pilot.
32

Task 3072 Supersonic Accel

Pilot A

Task 3072 Supersonic Accel 14 Jan 97; Runs 95

In order to maintain within 50 ft on this task, you've got to sort of ignore that vertical tape

kind of display, and scan between the flight path vector, and head down altimeter and vertical

speed to fine tune the display, once again the accel-decel cue seems to work fine, as far as

capturing altitude, and were we within desired performance on that? The most we spent

about 90 percent of the time I would say within the desired and we would always be the plus

or minus a 100 for adequate. I'd give it a 3 on longitudinal, and a 2 on lateral directional.

Pilot B

Task 3072 Supersonic Accel 09 Jan 97; Runs 9-11

Relatively easy task, those numbers are fairly loose for this task, since gamma isn't changing

during the task, very few longitudinal inputs required and lateral directional is holding out

pretty well too. So longitudinal, actually longitudinal and lateral directional both pretty much

the same. Controllable, adequate, satisfactory improvement, not required, pilot compensation,

largely not a factor for desired performance, HQR2. That concludes my comments.

Pilot C

Task 3072 Supersonic Accel 17 Jan 97; Run 47

Lat-dir, same comments, same rating, 3, nothing different on that one that I noticed as far as

any of the lat-dir stuff. The ... longitudinally, was adequate performance, tolerable pilot work

load, not satisfactory without improvement, and I seem to very consistently end up with only

adequate performance usually when I'm changing from accelerating, when I'm making that

initial power change, for instance, particularly when I get up to the 275, that a piece of cake,

and then when I reduce the power, I tended to bump up into the 60, 70 ft over high mark,

then bring it back on down, and it's very sensitive right there, and this 50 feet is pretty close

tolerance, and I did get adequate, and I would say that it is fairly easy to get adequate, and as

a result it would be a 5 in longitudinal, so, 3 lat-dir, 5 longitudinal.

Pilot D

Task 3072 Supersonic Accel 22 Jan 97; Run 83

We tried to accelerate this 475, but gave up and used 460. We were using the altitude tape

for the altitude hold maneuver this time, plus or minus 50 ft, and the lubber line is almost

invisible on the tape, which makes you really concentrate on where it is. I think a good

heavy lubber line... then you kind of catch it with your peripheral vision a little bit. Also...

and then of course adding to that problem is the fact that the tape is fairly far from the

central scan point of the display. Still got a PIO laterally a little bit, so, let's give it a 4 and a

4.

Pilot E

Task 3072 Supersonic Accel 10 Jan 97; Runs 71-72
33

Pretty tight tolerances all the way around, but not too difficult to accomplish. The gamma

dot V does not hold altitude perfectly during the accel or decel requiring pilot to get into

loop ever so slightly to maintain the plus or minus 50 ft. The airspeed interception at 475 is

very easy to do, because of the slow nature of the approach of a decel with faster approach

in the... maybe the lag in the airspeed carat I went actually into 448, but also was distracted

this time, there's some conversations going on in the cockpit, and I should have paid more

attention to the task at hand. I think at any rate I could of easily captured the 450, and I've

been trying harder, I'm not going to penalize the aircraft for that, so, for the longitudinal

Cooper Harper, controllable? Yes, adequate? Yes, satisfactory without improvement? Yes,

Cooper Harper of 3, minimal compensation is required to maintain the altitude tolerance.

For the... and I'm assuming that the airspeed was fine, although you really can't rely on that

airspeed carat for the decel as well as you can for the accel. Again, it did not seem to give

the... the exactly clear cut trend, it could be the faster approach to the target airspeed on the

decel, as opposed to the excel. For the lateral directional, controllable? Yes, adequate? Yes,

satisfactory? No, 4. Same thing, it just doesn't seem to want to maintain even though you

don't even get in the lateral axis, just the turbulence alone requires you to stay in the axis,

and more certainly than you should be. Actually let me change that, it's minimal

compensation required, make that a 3, so I would make that level one, but it does require

compensation to maintain the heading within the tolerances.

Pilot F

Task 3072 Supersonic Accel

Not performed by this pilot.
34

Task 3074 Transonic Decel

Pilot A

Task 3074 Transonic Decel 15 Jan 97; Runs 3-5

Say the longitudinal Cooper Harper two and two for lateral directional. The accel decel

queues were quite useful in stabilizing on speed. The throttle friction for this task is quite

high so it is a little more difficult. The flight path vector symbol on the horizon is not the

occlusion protocol. The symbology there makes the symbols blend together so it would be

a little easier if they didn't do that. It seemed to be a reasonably straight forward maneuver.

No Mach number effects were noted at all. Everything seemed to be linear. No special trim

changes or drag changes were noted. (What were the Cooper Harpers there?) Two, two.

Pilot B

Task 3074 Transonic Decel 09 Jan 97; Runs 12-14

The card was accomplished as per the instructions, I was able to keep it within desired

performance parameters without too much work load, a little bit of work load. Accomplish

the card as per the desired parameters, a little bit of work load in having to scan Mach

number because it's located up higher on the left hand side of the display and I've got to

move my head down to see it, but other than that fairly benign, not a real problem.

Longitudinal, controllable, adequate, satisfactory, minimal pilot compensation, HQR3.

Lateral directional, controllable, adequate and sat., pilot compensation, largely not a factor,

HQR2. So, it's a 3 and a 2. That concludes my comments.

Pilot C

Task 3074 Transonic Decel 17 Jan 97; Run 49

Lat-dir same rating, same comment. Longitudinally, this is a much easier task, adequate

performance, tolerable pilot work load, yeah, I'd certainly say so. Satisfactory without

improvement, no, desired performance, and it took moderate pilot compensation. Not to beat

it to death, but it's the driving force on how hard you have to work, and that's the throttle

friction, and this time I was looking for the breakout in the inceptor as being a factor, and

yeah, it's noticeable, so, those two together, I think those require most of the compensation

that I had to do. 4 for longitudinal and 3 for lateral-directional.

Pilot D

Task 3074 Transonic Decel 22 Jan 97; Run 87

Another one of the up and away tasks accel, correction, decel .99 Mach .90 back up to .99

straight level. Digital H is a little hard to use, but... and we had a roll PIO tendency, that's the

only things I can really comment on. It's really a pretty easy task. Longitudinal, 4, lateral, 4.

Pilot E

Task 3074 Transonic Decel 10 Jan 97; Run 73
35

Again no real problem, you had to stay in the loop longitudinally to keep the altitude within

tolerances, but I think I stayed plus or minus about 15 ft. The airspeed capturing the Mach,

it's no real rate indication of the Mach, or where you're always in that Mach level between

point say .90, and .89. We slipped on a .89 once just due to ambient turbulence, I don't

think that really was a reflection on capturing that Mach number, and similarly we did the

same thing with .98 to .99, but I think I met the desired criteria as far as I can judge. So, for

the longitudinal rating, controllable? Yes, adequate? Yes, satisfactory without improvement?

Yes, a 3, minimal compensation required, lateral directional, controllable? Yes, adequate? Yes,

satisfactory? Yes, a 3 also, did require staying in a loop to maintain the heading at 360.

Pilot F

Task 3074 Transonic Decel

Not performed by this pilot.
36

Task 3076 Subsonic Decel

Pilot A

Task 3076 Subsonic Decel 15 Jan 97; Runs -9

Cooper Harper in longitudinal, a two and in lateral directional a three. Lateral directional

rated a little lower because there doesn't seem to be any detent in this roll axis when you roll

it to zero ... it is very easy to get a roll input there even though you are not intentionally

getting out of the detent. The accel-decels are quite straight forward, with the exception of

the nominal throttle friction. You need to adjust the accel decel queue to capture the

airspeed. Initially there is very little interference or cross talk between the thrust change.

(You called that a two which is minimum pilot workload . Do you think you are doing

minimum workload? You were working pretty hard at least on the throttles.) I think you

would have to say, for a four, improvement is required. Actually It would be helpful to have

an altitude hold feature. I guess I will have to say that, pilot compensation not a factor. The

only thing that would be better is if you had an altitude hold function or a track function that

would allow you to take your hand off of the stick. In that case it would be a one. I am

assuming that in the aircraft you would have throttle friction that would be normal.

Autothrottle would improve things considerably. Most of these, once you get five miles

from the airport chances are that 95% of the time the pilot is going to have the autopilot

engaged. The reason I gave it a two is that pilot compensation not a factor. What I'm saying

is that the system is working as designed and it's reasonably expected on any airplane that

you have to adjust the thrust for speed. On the throttles that is mostly friction. On a nice

smooth throttle it would be much easier. What I envision for pilot compensation is that the

thing is screwed up. You have to devise tricks to work around the design. In this case, the

thing appears to be working as designed. (If you are happy with a two, I don't want to make

you change it.) Yea.

Pilot B

Task 3076 Subsonic Decel 09 Jan 97; Runs 15-17

Done as per the card within desired performance. I commented on a little bit of pitch

coupling with power addition this time, but even the gamma appears to change a little bit, I'm

not sure why that is, that shouldn't happen, but I'm seeing a very slight change in gamma on

the order of a quarter of a degree or less with power addition in that when I'm adding power,

even long term, when I am accelerating, I'm having to keep the velocity vector just slightly

below the horizon in order to stay level, and when I am reducing power just slightly above

the horizon in order to stay level. I expected a short term effect due to heave and thrust

inclination effects, but I'm also seeing a long term effect which I don't understand entirely.

In any case, the task is do-able, it's fairly easy, a little bit compensation in terms of keeping

the flight path vector near the horizon, so that altitude is staying tight. I'm probably holding

altitude tighter than I need to. I'm trying to hold within about 20 ft and the requirement is

within a 100 ft. So, HQRs, longitudinal, controllable, adequate, satisfactory, minimal pilot

compensation, HQR3. Lateral directional I'm really kind of ignoring. So it's controllable,

adequate, satisfactory, not a factor for desired performance, HQR2. So, a 3 and a 2.

Pilot C

Task 3076 Subsonic Decel 17 Jan 97; Runs 51-52
37

Lat-dir same comment, same rating, and pitch was adequate, satisfactory without

improvement, no, and actually it's quite easy to get adequate, getting that desired is a bear,

and actually, it's pretty much for the same reasons that I mentioned before with the throttle

friction in particular. Okay, so 5 for longitudinal, and 3 for lat-dir. Okay, well, I have both of

them to rate there, so let's start with a lat-dir, is it controllable, certainly, adequate

performance, tolerable pilot work load, I think all the lateral directional things were adequate,

and they were all tolerable pilot work load, satisfactory without improvement, no, and I think

I was probably getting desired, there was a lot of work, but you'd expect to, there's a certain

... in need amount of work when you get so many variables going at once there, and I'd say

... I noticed going to the right, the 15 degrees was much, much easier than the 30, once I got

to the 30, I think I was holding, having to hold it, I know the airspeed problem went away, it

just took full power, so I didn't have to manipulate that, so that kind of simplified the being

able to concentrate on the lateral-directional. I think I can keep the bank angle within desired

as I recall, but there was at least moderate pilot work load, so yeah, that just verifies it, 4 on

the lat-dir, and the longitudinal, however, adequate performance with tolerable pilot work

load, and most of the time it was adequate, but almost every time when I would make the

reversals and initiate the major changes I was getting out, and I think it got out of adequate,

even so, I would turn right here, deficiencies require improvement, I guess, and a 7 I wasn't

worried about controllability, but I don't think I was getting adequate performance, that was

a lot of work, that real fine pitch tuning that you have to do, and I've got to put part of that to

the display too. I had to really lock onto the HUD to make sure I had the majority of things

okay, and that didn't allow me very much time to come inside to look at the vertical velocity,

so I had to use the HUD one, and in general, I like that VVI, and I think that maybe it's

pretty far away, and maybe a little sensitive about the 1000 mark or so, but that's a really

high work load problem, and I got out of the adequate, so, 7 for longitudinal, and 4 for latdir

Pilot D

Task 3076 Subsonic Decel 22 Jan 97; Run 90

Okay, Pilot D on 3076, which is a subsonic decel accel, straight ahead, again as on the

previous run, it's easier to control the H of the subsonic Mach number. Small changes in

flight path give small changes in H dot. One thing I haven't really commented on the display

and on these accels decels previously, which has been true previously, and been commented

on here is that the lag that's inherit in the chevron symbol, really does increase the work load

longitudinally. A little lead on that symbol with throttle would significantly decrease the

work load, but overall the task is not much different in work load level than the previous task

we've been doing. Pilot rating 4, longitudinally, and 4, laterally, and primarily the 4 on the

lateral is due to the roll PIO tendency.

Pilot E

Task 3076 Subsonic Decel 10 Jan 97; Run 75

The turbulence down at 15,000 ft is much more apparent, and it's... it ends up manifesting

itself as a plus or minus one or so knot oscillation. The G is plus or minus about 0.5 to 0,

.05 to .08 G's, it's almost about tenth of a G, and you don't always get a good correlation

between the acceleration carat, and what the airspeed does. In other words, one time on my

decel I had the carat showing a very slow decel, and in fact, actually accelerated due to a...

must be the turbulence effects, so therefore, it's kind of hazy as to what it to having zero

overshoots when you make these airspeed intercepts, I think that, unless it's to assume, you
38

won't have a knot overshoot with the turbulence, especially looking at the performance of the

acceleration carat, and what actually happens to the airspeed. So, I felt... feel like I have met

the desired criteria for the overshoot of target airspeed, and met the desired criteria in

altitude deviation also, so for longitudinal rating, controllable? Yes, adequate? Yes,

satisfactory without improvement? And interestingly enough, there's really not a rating for

airspeed control, as far as longitudinal or lateral, you need to have a throttle rating or

something, because longitudinal is really throwing... holding your altitude, so, it's kind of

difficult to judge those two on handling qualities while trying to do something with airspeed

if you are level, but at any rate, with that in mind, I think I certainly met the desired criteria,

and it may require a rethinking of how this is rated, for all of these decels, but controllable?

Yes, adequate? Yes, satisfactory without improvement? Yes, for a 3, for lateral directional

similar, a little bit effort to maintain the proper heading, just minimal compensation required,

controllable? Yes, adequate? Yes, satisfactory? Yes, for a 3 also, and again we probably need

to think about using this overshoot of target airspeed to affect our longitudinal rating.

Pilot F

Task 3076 Subsonic Decel

Not performed by this pilot.
39

Task 3080 Heading Change - Transonic Climb

Pilot A

Task 3080 Heading Change - Transonic Climb 15 Jan 97; Runs 12-14

In this particular maneuver it seems very difficult to keep your hand on the stick and

separate out the pitch from the roll inputs. You virtually have to take your hand off of the

stick and fly fingertip corrections in the axis that you are interested in. There is something

perhaps not quite fine tuned enough in terms of the detent versus force gradient on the stick.

I would rate this one, longitudinally a four and laterally a four. I think there are some

improvements to be made. When you do a rapid roll to a 30 degree bank, trying to hold a

constant vertical speed, there is a tendency to ... if you're grabbing the stick ... there is a

normal tendency to put in some pitch inputs. Usually a climb. If you are adjusting the pitch,

there is a tendency to put in some roll inputs into it. You have to very very consciously

separate out those two axis due to the detents and the forces. (Repeat the ratings please.) A

pair of fours.

Pilot B

Task 3080 Heading Change - Transonic Climb 09 Jan 97; Runs 20-22

Working a little bit on this one, but it's easier because all of the parameters are put up on the

HUD on this last, and we put up the VSI on the right hand side, so I didn't have to scan

down, and I think that pushed it back into level 1 again, I'm working, but I think it's a

tolerable work load and I don't think I'm suffering substantially from the work load in terms

of performance and we're able to keep it predominantly within the desired bounds, also the

desired bounds are a little bit looser than in previous cards on this one. So, longitudinal, it's

controllable, adequate, sat., minimal pilot compensation, HQR3. Lateral directional, same

thing, controllable, adequate, sat., minimal pilot compensation, HQR3. So, those were 3 and

3. That concludes my comments.

Pilot C

Task 3080 Heading Change - Transonic Climb 17 Jan 97; Runs 54-56

Not rated.

Pilot D

Task 3080 Heading Change - Transonic Climb 22 Jan 97; Run 77

This is the turning climb changing heading plus or minus 30 degrees at two different bank

angles while maintaining a constant climb and airspeed. The basic aircraft is really pretty

easy to fly. I think that the scan pattern of the display for the task is to find, is really pretty

bad. The... have to carry a bias on the karat to maintain the constant Mach, and the task

definition is pretty tight also, but we were still able to get it within the desired performance

parameters, but I was working pretty hard. Longitudinally, let's make it a 4, and laterally, let's

make it a 4.

Pilot E
40

Task 3080 Heading Change - Transonic Climb 29 Jan 97; Runs 2-4

This is just kind of real nuisance task, it's a very high work load. It's made higher by the fact

that the lateral axis is deficient and that it's difficult to command and hold a certain angle of

bank, including zero angle of bank, it's a constant effort to hold the bank angle. The very,

very, very, slight changes in gamma of course with that speed change or VSI, so, it's a very

tight, and hard task to a 1000 ft VSI, and you're constantly making throttle corrections to

maintain the very tight Mach tolerances, so, all and all, a fairly high work load task.

Obviously it would be nicer in a realistic climb, you go in and set the throttle, and kind of

allow a certain variation about that in a conventional airplane, certainly, your not controlling

the throttles this tightly, as you are in this implementation, for one thing, constant throttle

movements mean more fuel consumption. Any rate, it's fairly high work load, the... I believe

I met all of the desired criteria, but at a work load price. Bank angle was most of the time,

was within plus or minus two, occasionally it was slightly above that, but I think the

preponderance of time is plus or minus two. Rate of climb was mostly plus or minus 300.

On one of the runs, I kind of got distracted and got to a little above 500, but that was very

brief, most time you can hold it fairly close, and the Mach I held I think all the time, within

plus or minus 01 or at least 99 percent of the time, and the heading, made it within plus or

minus two, so basically, all desired, but high work load. So, for longitudinal Cooper Harper,

certainly work load is going to affect that, I need the Cooper Harper chart. For the

longitudinal rating, is it controllable? Yes it is, is adequate performance obtainable? Yes it is,

is it satisfactory? No. For the overall longitudinal time including speed control in that, which

is probably a little bit of misnomer, but we're going to include that, it's certainly a

deficiencies require improvement, it's a level 2 task, Cooper Harper of 4, and basically it's

work load. For the lateral, controllable? Yes, adequate? Yes, satisfactory? No. Again, it

should... this... this sophisticated airplane should have a much better lateral axis control, and

having to constantly work to hold a certain commanded bank angle is unacceptable in my

opinion. For the amount of money we're going to charge the customers, so, it's satisfactory

without improvement? No, deficiencies do require improvement, I'll rate it a 4, I maintain the

desired performance, but at a work load penalty.

Pilot F

Task 3080 Heading Change - Transonic Climb 24 Jan 97; Runs 46-48

I guess, we did three data runs, two of them were adequate for airspeed and vertical speed,

the last one, hard to say, but it was probably, I think maybe desired. Difference in technique,

well, two differences, first of all, the first two data runs we went to the left, the second one

initially, and the second one... or the third one we went to the right initially, I don't think that

really had too much effect on it. The big difference between the first two data runs, and the

third data runs, was the fact that I used a little bit more aggressive roll rates, and actually I

think that worked out a little bit better. With the display I'm using a heads down display for

Mach, so that I can get some trend information on the Mach number as noted before. This

time I was tending to use the heads up vertical tape for VSI just to try to keep the crosscheck more simple, and it's not as easy to use as the heads down vertical speed, but it

allowed me to have a quicker cross-check. Basically, trying to tightly control vertical speed,

I'm assuming that we're getting some bumps from turbulence in the vertical speed, I was

better off just to set the pitch, or the gamma, and kind of let the vertical speed bounce about

it's condition, and not really try to control it too tightly. Bank angle oscillated a little bit,

maybe plus or minus one degree hands off, but that was fine, so pretty much once you got it

set, you could take your hand off the stick, and then concentrate on the airspeed control

problem. Except for the roll ins and the roll outs, I noticed on that, that there was distinct
41

change in vertical speed associated with those maneuvers, and I had to really pay attention to

that, I think that, that may be a combination of just the control law, and also it may be a

function of the ergometrics on the stick, but I'm not sure, you'd have to look at the tape and

see whether if there was some pitch inputs induced by the pilot there, or what. Certainly, as

you roll out, in and out of bank angle though, the vertical speed is going to change, and you

are going to have to make some adjustments. The point here is, is that the adjustments in

pitch for vertical speed required a lot of effort trying to roll in and roll out. On the practice

run I saw a little bit of roll ratcheting, trying to stop the roll, I think that was pilot induced,

again, it's... the predictability, at least for my taste, is not great in roll, trying to capture an

exact bank angle or an exact heading, it kind of drifts around. Also, I think you're getting a

little bit of some lateral dispersions, slight lateral dispersions in the flight path vector as you

roll the airplane, and that makes rolling on, in precise heading a little bit more difficult also.

Let's see, I guess that was... that's pretty much it. Oh, the other thing I was going to say is,

on the third run, one of the things that I did do is, when we were... I forget, rather rolling in

or rolling out, I think rolling in to a 30 degree point, I stagnated around 20 or 25 degrees,

because as I was rolling, I didn't keep up with the vertical speed, I saw the vertical speed

make a big change, and it was easier for met to stop the roll rate, and play with the vertical

speed, and then continue the roll, and I think that maybe a function, again on the flight

control law, but also of the stick, because for the small fine tracking inputs, I have to be very

careful that I don't... that I concentrate on getting the right input that I want and not

inadvertently put a input into another axis. To rate it, we'll come in, it's controllable, adequate

performance with a tolerable pilot work load, satisfactory without improvement, well, for this

task and the way that we have it set up as far as the metrics go, we got probably one desired

and two adequate runs. The adequate runs were close to desired though, but because of that,

I'm going to answer no, and I'm going to come across and... you know, I think part of this

is, is this isn't something, a maneuver that I practice everyday, the display's not optimized for

this, and I'm not really, you know, I'm getting fairly used to your display after being here

for, you know, the last three days, but I... you know, I think you can get desired

performance probably with a moderate pilot compensation. Again, you know, in my mind,

there's a big jump between a 4 and a 5, I think I'm going to go with a 4 and a 4. You know, I

think had we taken a couple more practice runs, we might of gotten a little bit more desired

performance, at the same time, you know, there's a little bit of gamenship to this, the

compensation isn't all that difficult, but this is a tight task, and we'll go with a 4 and 4, I

guess.
42

Task 3082 Heading Change - Initial Climb

Pilot A

Task 3082 Heading Change - Initial Climb 15 Jan 97; Runs 16-18

This is turns in supersonic cruise. The Cooper Harper ... let's just go through the decision

tree here. It's controllable and adequate performance attainable with a tolerable pilot

workload. I'd say, yes. Satisfactory without improvement? Lateral directional I'd say no and

I think I would be inclined in terms of roll to give this one a five because it had moderate

compensation in terms of trying to stop this roll. When you start an aggressive roll, you

actually have to stop the roll rather than just anticipate. You not only have to anticipate the

roll and bring it back to the detent but you actually have to go the other way to stop it. If you

just put in a roll input in and let it go, the roll just keeps rolling ... moving. You have to keep

your hand off of the stick to avoid getting out of the detents and making inputs in pitch, to

get roll and vice-versa. As far as longitudinal, I think I would give it a four. Well actually

there is very little effort there, I'll change that to a three. Pitch was a little better than the roll

mode. A little more of a detent there and minor compensation required for satisfactory

performance. So a three on longitudinal and ... what did I call it on lateral directional? A

five. On rapid roll-ins you have to stop the roll by opposite stick. I think on one of the first

runs there was a tendency toward PIO. I would like to expand on that. If you were rapidly

rolling out of the turn, if you get quite aggressive ... people have different gains ... but I was

not in a full blown PIO but I could detect a slight tendency to PIO in roll, trying to stop the

roll quickly. I think it had to do to some extent with the motion of the cab along with the

rapid roll inputs when you physically move left and right. . Pilot B

Task 3082 Heading Change - Initial Climb 09 Jan 97; Runs 23-25

Kind of a borderline level 1 task, I was able to keep desired performance, but I'm working to

do it. Although, I don't think to the extent that you could call it moderate compensation, it's

just...you're working a little bit. Then you get real aggressive with it in roll, tends to

overshoot right to the desired boundary, but again you can keep it within, without the work

load getting to the point where I think it's level 2. So, both longitudinal and lateral

directional, it's controllable, adequate, satisfactory, mildly unpleasant deficiencies, minimal

pilot compensation, HQR3. That is a 3 and a 3. That concludes my comments.

Pilot C

Task 3082 Heading Change - Initial Climb 17 Jan 97; Runs 58-60

Okay, lateral-directional, adequate performance, tolerable pilot work load, I'd say yes,

satisfactory without improvement, no, and the lateral-directional, I had a hard time, well, as it

turns out, on one I was getting mostly desired with a ton of work, but the adequate was

fairly easy, and the other two I was happy to be getting adequate on, so, it is adequate, but

with the constraint, you know, the sizes that we had, you know, limits we had, it just took

considerable pilot compensation, I wouldn't say that it's extensive at that point, but it's

considerable, and just as an interesting observation, my bank angle seemed to wander, and I

was fighting it and working at it more with the 15 degrees, than I was with the 30 degrees. I

don't know why, anyway, 5 on the lat-dir, and for the pitch, because the...a couple of

reasons, one, I'm not trying to chase a very sensitive vertical velocity as much, because I've

got a real good flight path marker along the horizon, I've got a good indication and

everything, it was much easier to keep the airspeed and altitude when I wanted to, due to lack
43

of ability to...with the thrust...the only control speed with that, sometimes I had to let the

altitude go, so that kind of loosened up the task a little bit there, and I would say with the

longitudinal then, it was satisfactory without improvement, and I thought most of them were

desired, did you. Yeah, it's kind of hard with...we kind of let a lot of things go on purpose,

so it makes it kind of tough to tell desired or adequate, and so, could either do a 4 or a 5 on

that, and I'll give it the benefit of the doubt and say 4, if somebody wanted to question that,

I'd be hard pressed to justify it, but it's either a 4 or a 5, it's easy to get adequate, difficult to

get desired.

Pilot D

Task 3082 Heading Change - Initial Climb 22 Jan 97; Run 81

It was the level turns at Mach 2.3. It's really a fairly easy task. My big complaint, I think

was digital H is hard to keep in your scan. You really have to force yourself to look at it. As

I indicated the tough part of the task is the digital H is hard to keep in your scan, you just

tend to not watch it, and all of a sudden you notice it's drifting just a little bit, and you do

need to take it into your scan. The resolution on gamma equals zero. It's not good enough to

hold you level for long at this speed. The only other comment I had was it was thrust limited

at bank angle of 30, so we had to sacrifice altitude. So, let's give it a pilot rating of 4,

longitudinally, and 4, laterally.

Pilot E

Task 3082 Heading Change - Initial Climb 29 Jan 97; Runs 6-8

This is another kind of a exasperating task. A couple things that are not good, there's the

speed stability is poor, and the speed performance is unpredictable. I noticed on the last one,

I got just a tiny bit slow, and at full power had to give up quite a bit of altitude to get back

onto speed, where as at times, you could with power, increase speed rate rapidly at level

altitude, not with the nose down gamma, so, at a nose down gamma of about a degree, full

power, and it just wouldn't accelerate at all, so, I don't understand why in that case, this was

wings level, I was just trying to get back on condition after the first 20 degree turn to the

left. So, that didn't make a whole lot of sense, I had to give up about 800 ft of altitude to

increase it about .01 Mach, it just didn't seem to want to increase at all. Other times you

could be right there, wings level, or in a climb, and it would be increasing speed quite

rapidly, so, there's really a very poor predictability between the speed response of the aircraft

and what the pilot's trying to command. The bank angle hold, again, is a problem, it takes a

lot of effort to hold the exact bank, and it's... it wants to kind of oscillate, especially when

you capture, fairly aggressively, you get about a plus or minus one degree oscillation, sort of

a quasi PIO. So, with that in mind, for the... Let's see, for longitudinal Cooper Harper which

looks like, it would be altitude, the altitude is really not applicable because you have to dive it

to keep your speed, so the speed becomes the overriding consideration, and that was

probably level two performance, so we're look at longitudinal first on the Cooper Harper, I'll

get the scale here. Okay, for the longitudinal task, is it controllable? Yes it is, is adequate

performance obtainable? Yes it is, is it satisfactory without improvement? No it's not, I'm

going to rate it a 4, I think it is kind of borderlined desired adequate on a speed

performance, and this lack of predictability in response of the aircraft to power and nose

attitude, as far as speed control, would get you there. For the lateral Cooper Harper rating,

controllable? Yes, adequate? Yes, satisfactory? No, same things I've been kink of mentioning

earlier, basically, a lack of sharpness about commanding a bank angle, including wings level,

and especially if you make a very aggressive capture, you do tend to get into a little mild
44

plus or minus one degree PIO, and that's unacceptable. I want to say unacceptable, it

shouldn't mean it's unacceptable as far as Cooper Harper. I think it's more of an

unacceptable as far as I think, we could do a lot better. A 4 and a 4.

Pilot F

Task 3082 Heading Change - Initial Climb 24 Jan 97; Runs 50

Basically, it's easier to set 30 degrees of bank, because of the envelope protection, than it is

with 15. Setting 15, you have to set a little bit more cautious. Still, rolling out to capture the

heading for me is a little bit unpredictable, and I have to fairly cautious, and try to be

smooth, and roll it out. On the 15 degree, we under shot probably, I'm guessing a half of

degree on heading, and we were right at north, in fact I had to bank back in the other

direction to kind of kill our drift past north on the rollout from the 30 degrees portion of the

maneuver, and again, I think we're getting some lateral excursions in the flight path vector, as

well as trying to stop the roll out. And also again, I tend rather to make the smooth roll out

to kind of make little step roll outs, and again I would equate that to the same predictability

issue that we've mentioned in the past. Anyway, pretty much once you've established a task,

you can go hands off. During the practice we didn't have to really descend to hold airspeed,

going to the right, coming back to the left, until just, just, slightly at the very end, this way

about half way back to right we had to just put gamma over just a little bit to get an amount

of airspeed back, and then pull it back, but really overall it's pretty easy maneuver to do, the

only tasks, the only part of the tasks that requires a little bit of effort and compensation, or

actually the... setting the bank angle at 15 degrees, and the roll out to capture headings. It's

definitely controllable, adequate performance with a tolerable pilot work load, it's

satisfactory without improvement, and I guess I'd really have to give it a two (2), I mean

compared to conventionally flight controlled airplane, it really makes this task pretty easy,

and when you consider the Mach number that we're flying at, and how much deviation there

would be in altitude for just a, even a tenth of a degree of pitch change, it really does this

task pretty well. We just had a discussion about the predictability of the bank.. .of capturing

the bank angle and the heading, and, you know, the tolerance is for heading, or plus minus

two degree... or, minus two degrees plus zero, and we're rolling out within a half of degree

of heading, and the bank angle is plus or minus two degrees and the target bank angle of 15

is the only one that is somewhat difficult to capture. It also says; a smooth roll in and

smooth roll out, and there is a slight tendency, at least for me, to kind of do the roll out, or

the roll in to 15 degrees in steps, and the roll out for both in steps, although I'm a little bit

more smoother with the 15 degrees than I am with 30 degrees. If I read the descriptor

blocks for a two (2), pilot compensation is not a factor for desired performance, for a three,

it's minimal pilot compensation, I really... I guess, I really wanted to give it a two, because

the... it's somewhat... with a conventional airplane at these speeds, even a fighter type

airplane, we're getting excellent performance, but the point is well taken, that the roll axis

could be a little bit better, and this is really, you know, one of the points that this airplane is

designed to operate at, and I guess, given all of that, I think... I think there's a good case for

saying that it's probably not really a two. The difference between a two and a one is, you

know, a one is excellent with highly desirable, which almost never exists, and then a two is

good, negligible deficiencies, and I guess, this does warrant some consideration, if you have

negligible deficiency, sometimes I guess, I have a hard time seeing how pilot compensation

is not a factor in desired performance. I guess, and the reason I'm going through this litany

of discussion here, I guess, I'm trying in my own mind, trying to decide rather if it should be

a two or a three, I guess I can make a real strong case, that a 2 1/2 would be the appropriate

rating here, we're not doing half ratings, so, you know, and I also think it's a little bit of a

misnomer, anytime you have pilot in a loop task, there is some pilot compensation, I think
45

that if I opened up my tolerances and just shot for the plus or minus two degrees on the

heading, that would reduce the... kind of a stuffiness that I used on the roll out, I guess,

I'm... I guess, I'm going to go ahead and stick with a two and a two. Okay.
46

Task 3084 Heading Change - Final Cruise

Pilot A

Task 3084 Heading Change - Final Cruise 15 Jan 97; Runs 20-21

This was lightweight. Somewhat similar to the heavy weight except there is not quite as

much tendency to PIO in rolling out aggressively on the headings or zero bank. Perhaps not

quite as much tendency to overshoot the target bank angle but many of the same comments

apply. I would give it a four for lateral directional and pitch-wise a three, longitudinal-wise.

Pilot B

Task 3084 Heading Change - Final Cruise 09 Jan 97; Runs 26-28

Very much like before, do-able, work loads a factor, but not to the point where it's inordinate

or degrades from the performance a whole lot, and I was able to keep within desired

performance, I felt. So, both longitudinal and lateral directional, controllable, adequate,

satisfactory, minimal pilot compensation, HQR3. Say, 3 and a 3. That concludes my

comments.

Pilot C

Task 3084 Heading Change - Final Cruise 17 Jan 97; Run 62

Lateral-directional, adequate...barely, boy, I just kept it in the adequate, satisfactory without

improvement, no, and 5 again on the lat-dir, adequate was considerable pilot work load, and

the difficulty, probably the primary work load thing is the bank angle and 15 degree bank.

Longitudinally, adequate performance, yes, satisfactory without improvement, yes, and again,

we're off...we're a little loose on the altitude, I did go out of it, but you know, trying to keep

that speed, I can only do one or the other, and keep them in desired, and I did keep the speed

in desired, so, I kind of let the altitude slip out, but it wasn't due to handling qualities, it was

due to other constraints, so 4 again for longitudinal.

Pilot D

Task 3084 Heading Change - Final Cruise 22 Jan 97; Run 85

This is the 20 degree heading change, this again is at Mach 2.3, not again, but this is now at

Mach 2.4, but a lighter weight and it's just very, very similar to task 3082. The only really

thing we saw different was, I did get into a little bit of a roll PIO, trying to stop one of the

rolls one time there, but it wasn't high amplitude, and I've noticed this roll PIO tendency all

the time, and that's why I have been, you know, lowering the ratings on the lateral axis to 4,

as I'll give it for this task, longitudinal, let's make it a 4 also.

Pilot E

Task 3084 Heading Change - Final Cruise 29 Jan 97; Run 9

Very similar to card 50, however, this one was easier to do, and this is going to end up being

probably pretty darn close to level one, when all is said and done. The speed predictability,

speed stability seemed much better, and the ability to maintain speed, I didn't have to dump
47

any altitude at all on the 15 degree phase, and the... on the other one, the 15 degree phase

almost was as bad in some cases as the 30 degree angle of bank, I guess just because it took

you longer to get over there, and it had a longer time for the airplane to start slowing down,

also this response of throttle seemed better to correct the speed deviation, so, all and all it's a

easier task, lateral directionally, about the same, but longitudinally, as far as speed control,

which we are, I guess, grouping as speed control, which probably really should be a separate

Cooper Harper, it's not really necessarily, although you do use longitudinal control to

position the nose if you need be, but any rate, we'll group that on the longitudinal rating. So,

for the longitudinal task, it was controllable, satis... adequate performance was obtainable

with a tolerable work load, satisfactory without improvement? I will say yes, I'll rate that a

Cooper Harper of 3, it does take some compensation, slight nose movement to maintain the

speed, and the speed stayed, I think within about plus or minus .005. For lateral directional,

controllable? Yes, adequate? Yes, satisfactory without improvement? No, a 4. Again, the

same lateral characteristics we've seen on these other high altitude tasks.

Pilot F

Task 3084 Heading Change - Final Cruise 24 Jan 97 R 51

Not performed by this pilot.
48

Task 3086 Hdg Change - Xsonic Descent

Pilot A

Task 3086 Hdg Change - Xsonic Descent 15 Jan 97; Runs 3-24

At lower altitudes the control response is much more crisp and a lot less overshoot. Very

little coasting of the bank angle and very crisp stick and very responsive inputs in terms of

roll. Little change or no problem at all with control. Cooper Harper for pitch, give it a two.

The roll seems to be perhaps, the only unusual thing that I can notice is that the snappy roll

in/roll out, initial motions of the airplane. It is a little uncomfortable. As a professional you

can employ rolling in and out for passenger and pilot comfort. So the compensation you

use would probably be greater than you would want to use in normal airline service.

Controls were very responsive and I think I gave it a three in lateral directional on that one.

It was so responsive that at this speed it is a lot less likely that you would get into a PIO

because of the timing involved. It is not in the area of a delay that set up a PIO. It is a lot

less likely.

Pilot B

Task 3086 Hdg Change - Xsonic Descent 09 Jan 97; Runs 29-31

Very much like before, except this time the work load was relatively low, good solid level

one, I don't think it was borderline at all, I believe I was able to keep the performance within

the desired boundaries and the compensation just consisted of scanning primarily, that the

control system was fairly transparent. Let's see, the exception to that was that when you got

a little bit fast, at 351, the envelope protection tends to put some nose up trim in, and it's a

little bit disconcerting to be fighting that all of the time, so once again I preferred that

protection be an excess of what you would normally fly the airplane at, by more than 1 knot,

since I think 1 knot is a fairly tight tolerance. So, HQRs, both lateral and directional and

longitudinal are the same. In this case, it's controllable, adequate, satisfactory, minimal pilot

compensation, HQR3. So, the HQRs are 3 and 3. That concludes my comments.

Pilot C

Task 3086 Heading Change - Transonic Descent 17 Jan 97; Runs 64-65

Let me see, lat-dir, what do we got on that. Did get adequate performance, satisfactory

without improvement, I didn't see any bank angle that got in there or overshoots and heading

or anything, so, I'm going to say that satisfactory without improvement, and certainly a 3 on

that would make sense, so lat-dir is 3. Longitudinal, adequate performance, yes, satisfactory

without improvement, I'm going to say, well, one thing that we verified that time was that the

throttle was in fact, likely a player in some of these longitudinal things, because when we

switched to single throttle operation, it was ever so much easier to make fine adjustment, and

so I'm going to say, yes, and 3 for longitudinal on that, and it's down where...the other thing

that really helps is flight path marker, just drag it along the horizon, your altitude should

stay pretty good, and of course it does, I guess that was 3 and 3.

Pilot D

Task 3086 Heading Change - Transonic Descent 22 Jan 97; Run 89
49

Subsonic 60 degree heading change with 30 degrees bank, plus or minus. Noticeably easier

to control altitude at the lower Mach number. The resolution of the flight path simply gets a

lot better for making small climb rates. Still have that roll PIO tendency, let's give it the pilot

ratings of 4 and 4.

Pilot E

Task 3086 Hdg Change - Transonic Descent 29 Jan 97; Run 11

It was a fairly easy task, maintain airspeed plus or minus two knots for most of the time, and

with a fairly moderate work load, probably if I'd been a little bit higher work load, plus or

minus one. The display easy acceleration carat all work now fine for the airspeed control,

and for the... as opposed to Mach control at higher altitudes where the carat wasn't really

working properly. So, this combination of carat and tape make that a fairly nice task with the

displays we have. The altitude control also is easy, it's plus or minus 20 ft most of the time,

and probably could have been tighter, had I worked harder at that. So overall, a solid level

one task. Laterally still on a aggressive phi capture, you do get a PIO, plus or minus one or

two degrees, at about two hertz, and that's not real good, and probably I need a little bit more

of an aileron interconnect to damp out a little bit of sideslip with roll rate. Okay, and actually

roll acceleration is what really kicks the sideslip, the faster you initiate an input, the more

active the sideslip problem becomes. Okay, for the longitudinal task, controllable? Yes,

adequate? Yes, satisfactory? Yes, I met all the desired criteria quite nicely I thought, and so it

does meet level 1, and we'll rate it a Cooper Harper 3, and basically does take compensation,

a lot of... a lot of small rudder, or throttle inputs, and the gamma dot V holds altitude pretty

well, though not perfectly, and so therefore did take some small longitudinal inputs also.

Lateral rating, controllable? Yes, adequate? Yes, satisfactory? No, level 2 a Cooper Harper of

4, and the minor but annoying deficiencies are mainly the PIO on an aggressive phi capture

and the... kind of... some type of aileron rudder interconnect is necessary to damp out the

beta.

Pilot F

Task 3086 Heading Change - Transonic Descent

Not performed by this pilot.
50

Task 3088 Hdg Change - TCA Descent

Pilot A

Task 3088 Hdg Change - TCA Descent 15 Jan 97; Runs 26-27

The overshoots in roll are very aggressively 4 to 5 degrees out to 30. That's about what you

would expect. No surprises there. Lateral directional, a three and once again I'm using a

technique that you keep your hand off the stick and just use your finger tips on the side of

the stick for roll changes to avoid getting any pitch interchange in there. It is easy to hold

vertical speed and airspeed, so I'll give that a three on longitudinal. So a three and three.

Pilot B

Task 3088 Hdg Change - TCA Descent 09 Jan 97; Runs 32-33

Once again, since we're back to controlling VSI with this flight path based system, the work

load goes up commensurate, and it's more like a level 2 task now. I think in terms of being

satisfactory or not for the mission, I think the task is fairly tight, having to control VSI to

that extent, while having to control the rest of it to that extent. So, I'm able to maintain

adequate performance, but desired is fairly tough. Also, adding to this is a fact that the

turbulence effects kind of blow you out of the desired range, fairly quickly as well. If you

happen to be correcting out of phase with the turbulence, and it hits while you are not

looking at the VSI, you're outside the desired ban immediate...immediately and approaching

the edge of the adequate ban immediately, so it makes the task a little bit more difficult.

Lateral directional was not much more of a problem than it has been, the longitudinal does

attract from a little bit though, so, that gets degraded as a result, but not, I think into level 2.

So, longitudinal, it's controllable, adequate, and I think warrants improvement, and desired

performance requires moderate pilot compensation. This is another one where I might like

to give it a 4.5 if I was able to give it half ratings, because it's desired is probably more than

moderate, although adequate is probably less than considerable here, but I'll give it a 4,

because it's leaning towards that side for longitudinal. For lateral directional, it's controllable,

adequate, and satisfactory, minimal pilot compensation, HQR3. So the HQRs are 4 and 3.

That concludes my comments.

Pilot C

Task 3088 Heading Change - TCA Descent 17 Jan 97; Runs 67-68

The lat-dir, certainly adequate, satisfactory without improvement, yes, and I was really

minimal pilot compensation, so, 3 on lat-dir on that, and pitch, once I remembered that this is

gamma, you know, it will hold a gamma, so I shouldn't be making a lot of inputs trying to

fine tune, because the airplane will do it for me. Certainly found it quite easy, and we had

adequate performance, satisfactory without improvement, yes, and another 3, and that

borders on 2, when I let the airplane do it. There was enough disturbances in there, either...I

don't know...turbulence or whatever, that when I would see a change in the VVI, I would

make an input that I would with a standard airplane, and that of course was not appropriate

for this flight control system, it could do that quite nicely on it's own, thank you, if you

could keep your hands off it, and so what was misleading before, I was chasing it around,

because I was trying to put in controls that I would with any other airplane, with the gamma,

well I know it's not gamma hold, but it's, you know, gamma dot command, the airplane could

do it very nicely on it's own once I let it do it's own thing, then the workload, obviously, went
51

quite a ways away, and I was just a matter of asking it to do the right things. So, 3 and 3,

longitudinal and lat-dir

Pilot D

Task 3088 Heading Change - TCA Descent 22 Jan 97; Run 92

It was a plus or minus 60 degree heading change, subsonic and 250 knots with a constant

sink rate of a 1000 ft per minute. Again as similar task, we didn't have a... we don't have an

IVSI, so, really controlling gamma, cross-checking the IVSI. Better resolution on gamma at

this speed makes it a little bit easier. The heading is a little harder to read when you're...

when the flight path is a depressed 1000 ft per minute. A couple degrees we had there. Still

have my roll PIO tendency, but you know not a bit change in the work load. Longitudinal, 4,

lateral, 4.

Pilot E

Task 3088 Hdg Change - TCA Descent 29 Jan 97; Run 13

Card 53, task 3088, heading change in Class B descent. Completing block 4. This task was

not difficult in speed control, it was not too difficult in intercepting the heading, the same

lateral problems do occur on a fairly rapid heading capture, where you do get some potential

for PIO, the hardest thing was the VSI control, and I think part of the problem is the

turbulence is about on the level of a desired criteria, so, it does take an effort. On the roll-ins

and roll-outs, what you first mentioned they were interested in on these, as far as VSI

control, there was no tendency to balloon or to dive, the VSI control, I think, or VSI

maintaining was actually very steady on all the roll-ins and roll-outs, so, no problem there

with any kind of coupling, or any type of trim problems. The hardest part though, was just

maintaining a commanded gamma... maintaining a proper gamma for the proper VSI, there

was no display guidance to follow, and so the gamma command seemed to be a little bit less

stable than I would have liked. I was trying to hold an actual gamma, seemed to be a little bit

harder, it could be because I was chasing it with turbulence, I didn't do it long enough to

really figure that out. As far as the rating, longitudinally, I met the desired criteria across the

board, kind of borderline on VSI, but I think overall I met it. Controllable? Yes, adequate?

Yes, satisfactory without improvement? No, I'll rate it a 4, and mainly that's for performance

based on the plus or minus 300 ft per minute vertical speed requirement, which is probably

also a function, as I mentioned, of turbulence, but since that's there, that's what performance

comes out to be. Lateral direction, controllable? Yes, adequate? Yes, satisfactory? No, also a

4, and mainly because of the slight PIO, roll PIO, and aggressive capture, and the inability

for this thing to easily hold a commanded phi.

Pilot F

Task 3088 Heading Change - TCA Descent

Not performed by this pilot.
52

Task 4020 Nominal Approach & Landing

Pilot A

Task 4020 Nominal Approach & Landing 15 Jan 97; Runs 58-60

I guess we got into the desired area, and I think I'd have to give a 2, lateral directional

seemed to be pretty reasonable, I think I'd give it a 3. The... one of the things we noticed is

on the... I noticed was on the flare, in order to get arrest of sink rate at 5 ft or so, you'd add

about 40 to 30 ft, you'd need to, or 50 ft, you'd need to add 1 or 2 knobs of thrust, I'm not

sure how many RPM that is, but you actually need that thrust when you flare. Some of the

previous simulations, that wasn't required, you'd simply close the thrust to idle, and so after

adding thrust and getting the touchdown, then close the throttles, if you don't add thrust,

then you seem to get a hard landing out of it. That's making a nominal flare from on the

glideslope, trying to touch the, touchdown in the desired touchdown zone, and it seems to be

required to keep the sink rate down. At approximately... in order to get the sink rate within

reason, I have to start flaring, shortly after 50 ft, and I try to get up to about 2 degrees of

gamma by somewhere in the area of 30 ft, and up to about one degree of gamma by about

10 ft, and then very slowly raise it from there, and if the thrust is set right, the sink rate is

about right, and get a touchdown, close the throttles, and lower the nose. I'm sorry, I'm

merging everything into one inadvertently. The ILS approach, let's rate them both a 2, well,

gee, I really didn't have any trouble with the lateral in this particular approach for some

reason, I don't know if it's because of my gains are turned up more, I don't know, but let's

give them both a 2 in the ILS part, and on the landing part, I think it does take a little special

effort for longitudinal. It seems unnatural to add thrust in the flare. Most airplanes you

wouldn't have to do that, so I'm suspecting the... that the simulation isn't quite right, but I

suppose that's a... definitely a possibility. So, for that reason, I guess I would give it a 3 in

longitudinal in the flare, and probably a 2 in lateral.

Pilot B

Task 4020 Nominal Approach & Landing 07 Jan 97; Runs 5-7

The card was accomplished as per the instructions and I'll go ahead and rate it. The

performance tolerances are as per the card. In general, I was able to get desired performance

throughout the approach in all the parameters and in the landing phase I was able to get it in

the parameters with the exception of X-distance and landing H-Dot. There's an interplay

there and I was right on the edge of desired performance. I think with a few more

approaches I'll be there with this configuration. I feel like I'm fighting H-Dot a little bit more

than I'm use to. And as such, there's a little bit of a tendency to float here. Didn't notice any

tendency to bounce, no geometry strikes, no tendency to PIO or bobble in pitch or roll. And,

lets see, everything else was pretty much nominal. In the approach phase it's controllable,

adequate, satisfactory, improvement not required. This is longitudinal, by the way. And this

is another case where I hate to give 2's. I'd like to give a 2.5 here but can't. I'll give it a 2,

longitudinally pilot compensation not a factor with a carryout, that pilot compensation is a

factor its just not much of one. Lateral directional it controllable, adequate, satisfactory,

improvement not required. I'm going to say HQR3--- minimum compensation required,

again it would be nice to have an angle of bank latch somewhere around zero and a true

angle of bank hold mode. I feel like its a very soft hold mode and in the absence of

turbulence it holds angle of bank but as soon as you get any disturbance its happy to go to a

new angle of bank so you have to constantly provide inputs. On the landing phase,

longitudinal HQR, its controllable, and adequate, however, I think deficiencies warrant
53

improvement. I'm going to say desire performance requires moderate pilot compensation

HQR4. Lateral directional, its controllable, adequate, and satisfactory with mildly unpleasant

deficiencies HQR3. And that's just in fighting angle of bank a little bit and the turbulence.

That concludes my comments.

Pilot B

Task 4020 Nominal Approach & Landing (ASE ON) 13 Mar 97; Runs 21-24

Accomplished as per the card, we did three data runs, actually we did four data runs, the

third one the rudder bombed out just prior to the flare. The fourth one, the motion system

bombed out just after touchdown. I was able to pretty much get desired performance in the

approach, predominately adequate performance on the landing. On the final landing the sink

rate was inadequate. I feel like I'm really working hard to retain control of the aircraft. In

fact on one of the runs, I smoothed out my inputs enough that the results were pretty good

but I was really fighting for control. I feel like there is a definite relationship between the

aggressiveness with which you put inputs in and how close you are coming to a handling

qualities cliff. A pretty classic cliff type stuff where when I get really tight with the control

and the gains really go up, my gains really go up, just prior to touchdown, I feel like I'm

impinging on PIO. Again in the flare phase, just prior to touchdown is where it's really

noticeable. Is it controllable? Barely. This is for the longitudinal CHR's now for the task at

hand. Barely controllable. Adequate performance attainable with a tolerable pilot workload?

No. I feel like the workload is really, really high. I am going to call it an HQR of 8,

considerable pilot compensation is required for control. Although I am able to get adequate

performance in general, on the one hand I was not on H dot on the final one and I wasn't

even tempted to do what I had to do just to get control of H dot just prior to touchdown. I

would have had to put a large input in and I felt like that was beyond what I would do. So

again HQR of 8 longitudinally. Lateral directional, it's not quite as bad in terms of control.

Workload is a little bit lower. It is controllable, adequate performance is attainable. It is not

satisfactory, however. I'd say adequate performance requires extensive pilot compensation.

Call it considerable so for a HQR of 5 for lateral directional. The workload requirement is

predominantly longitudinal. Now ride quality is another story. Ride Quality is effected by

both the longitudinal and lateral directional modes and I would not find this certifiable with

a production program. That concludes my comments.

The last ratings were in the landing phase. In the approach segment, longitudinal, it is

controllable, adequate, not satisfactory. Assuming we are giving half ratings here, I'm going

to give it a 4.5. Desired performance requires something more than moderate. Adequate

performance... desired is certainly achievable. I got it on every run so it is kind of hard to

call it a straight 5. But on the other hand I think it is more than moderate to get desired

performance. I going to call it a 4.5. That also applies to lateral directional. Same answer. So

we are not complying with the TM on HQR's. This is an artificial constraint. This is the

NASA modified CHR and I'll give it 5's for both longitudinal and lateral directional.

Pilot C

Task 4020 Nominal Approach & Landing 13 Jan 97; Runs 90-92

Okay, adequate performance with a tolerable pilot work load, I'd say yes. Did we have

anything that went outside of that, if I'd of known the majority of them were at least in

adequate, I didn't remember, did...we might of had one thing that was...in general I would

say I could get adequate performance. Is it satisfactory without improvement, definitely not,
54

and deficiencies require improvement, and adequate was the best that I could get, and very

objectionable with tolerable deficiencies or moderately...let me see, I'd say extensive pilot

compensation, I'm going to give that a...for the landing, no, that sections what I was thinking

of here, the...would be a 6, and the ILS part, again, I lost...usually it was glideslope, and that

would be the end, but when I did lose it, at least stayed within adequate, so I recall with one

exception, so, I'll call that a 5, that was considerable pilot compensation, now let me just go

back and talk, is...are there more, okay, well, since I gave you the touchdown first, I'll give

you that second. There is a awful lot of stuff going on when you get in close, below 150-

250 feet, it feels like attitude changes, the glideslope drops out from under me, in other

words, I'm ballooning, and I end up having to make a large change exactly what I don't want

to have to do in a large airplane in close, and I feel as though, if I'm going to push over to

put it where I want to, when I rotate it back, I'm probably going to hit the wheels just due to

the rotation, and very reticent to do that, and as a result I'll go ahead...I tended to go ahead

and accept the longer landing in order to keep from driving the gear up through the wings,

or you know, in other words, exceeding the H dot limit, so, almost every time I expected to

be long because the way I would get set up, I'd just, if I really, really, went for it, I was going

to smack it down pretty good, so, I just accepted getting adequate performance as opposed

to desired in order to keep something respectable on the touchdown rate. Left and right,

actually I don't think it's that hard to align as it would sound from the work that I was doing

sometimes, but I was so concentrating on the pitch, that I would just kind of drop out as

long as it looked reasonable, I was accepting in roll, because I was concentrating on the

pitch, because that's the one I was most concerned about, so, did I...I don't think I...did I give

you a lat-dir for the touchdown, I would probably give that a 5, because when I really spent

my considerable pilot compensation, I could keep it even in desired, but I'll accept that most

of the time it was adequate, so a five because of the considerable pilot compensation, left and

right, and the reason it wasn't even better than that, I suspect it was because I was working

on the pitch so hard, that's my point. Okay, as far as the pitch goes, again, a lot of things

going on, if I did what I really wanted to to, I think that I would be maneuvering this large an

airplane, much too much close to the ground, and would have inadvertent H dot, or the

wheels would be really low, even though maybe the...where I was or the CG wouldn't be too

bad, so, I just couldn't try to be as precise as possible, the whole thing seemed to set me up

long, everytime I would do something, and if I ducked under, in order to accomplish account

for that, then the glideslope would go all to pieces, and I'd be way out of limits there, so, it

was kind of a tradeoff, do I start out of limits on the glideslope with the idea of then, when I

get down close, and doing a decent flare, keeping it in desired, or do I follow the glideslope

and except a long run...longer landing. Now, there maybe some technique of what to do in

close, that I haven't broken the code on yet, but just from my initial trying to take an airplane

and go land it, you know, without trying to fox the system, those were the things that I

noticed. Kind of got, getting out of the order of the way we did it. Back on the glideslope,

intercepting the localizer is fine, piece of cake, intercepting the glideslope is not difficult,

assuming you're watching it all, I mean the control of the airplane is there, a couple of times

I drifted off, I guess, and let it get down on half a...half a dot before I really did some

serious pushing, but in general, capturing both the localizer, and the glideslope, was not a

big deal. When I got down low, keeping the glideslope is easy, but of course it should be

with the HUD and the glide...and a flight path marker, so, the lat-dir would probably be

a...see I'm, I think the localizer, I don't think I ever got out of desired, did I. I don't think so,

yeah. I'm going to move that up to a 4, for the lat-dir glideslope, the lat-dir glideslope,

doesn't make sense, lat-dir, lat. dir. ILS, yeah, in other words the localizer...flying. When we

get to the pitch, now, to the glideslope, that's the thing that I haven't figured out if there is a

way yet, because again, the gamma...the flight control system just was doing so well all the

way down, and then we get in close, it starts apparently redeploying things, it wasn't keeping

up with it, and suddenly now, I'm going to have to make some big motions, and
55

unfortunately the big motion that I have to make in close, is to put the nose down, that's very

unnatural, when I get in that close, I don't want to have to be pushing like crazy to keep the

nose down, and...but if I...the time that I did pushover, why then I ended up getting off the

glideslope, and getting maybe even inadequate, so, it's...I'm back to the tradeoff, I could

either fly the glideslope, or I could do the landing task, but I couldn't tie the two together, I

guess, is probably the comment I'm trying to make, and again, my biggest concern is there's

so much going on close to the ground, I just don't like that many attitudes, and some that I

am not commanding is what bothers me, you get in close, and all of sudden you see...it

looks...you know, the attitude changing, you're expecting your H dot to really increase like

crazy, and it wasn't anything I did, and I just...when I got in close, I suddenly started to lose

the nice, I know what's going on feeling that I like to have when I'm in close to the ground

like that, are there any other specific subjects you want? It just gets...it gets uncomfortable in

close to the ground with the airplane doing that many things without my inputs, and I can

just feel my anxiety level rise as I'm trying to cross-check all these things to find out, okay,

which one am I going to accept, and which one am I going to correct.

Pilot D

Task 4020 Nominal Approach & Landing 23 Jan 97; Runs 48-51

Okay, the... well, let's first talk about the glideslope, no problem keeping the glideslope and

the localizer deviations, you know just a needle width off, you can get very high precision

with this display, with the depressed pitch line, and the very large loc, and glideslope

displays, but it is kind of a poor scan pattern, you've got to look all over the darn display to

find these things, but with the straight end, and reasonably light turbulence, and no

crosswinds, it's very do-able, but there is increase work load there, I have a tendency for a

roll PIO, as I have all the way through with this system, and the flap compensation is not

quite perfect, it tends to sink a little bit at first, and then tends to balloon you towards the end

of it, so I'm going to give it a pilot rating based on these minor things of 4 and 4 for the

glideslope portion, segment, or whatever you want to call it. Okay, landing, I had a heck of a

time, I'm still having a hard time, the geometry is different than it was from ARC, I think

they are saying that the ground effect is different, but I think also the geometry is different

here. At Ames the visual intercept point was beyond 1500 ft, here it's at 1300 ft, and so if I

follow that religiously, which I'm trying to do, then it requires almost a two segment flare to

get up to the landing box, and so it's just a little bit unnatural, I'm not quite sure what to do,

but that's what I've been doing, and making adequate, actually I got couple of them right in

the desired, but I think statistically I'm going to be having a few of my x-dispersions out of

the desired box, so, I'm going to give it a pilot rating for longitudinal of 5, because of the

difficulties noted, and still a 4 for the roll PIO tendency.

Pilot D

Task 4020 Nominal Approach & Landing (ASE on) 24 Jan 97

Light turbulence and the ride is still acceptable. It's definitely not paying passenger type of

ride, but it's not enough to impact the flying qualities of the airplane, and the flying qualities

of the airplane aren't degraded significantly, you just have to watch out on the frequency

content of your inputs, as long as you keep it below the structural modes, it doesn't seem to

be a problem, so, it would be kind of interesting to see on some of the failure cases, or the

crosswind landings, etc. where... how it might work out, but for this task, which is fairly

benign, it's not too bad. One other problem is the fact that the display is biased off, and it

makes it a little bit confusing when you see it at... particularly approaching the short final,
56

need to work on that somehow. Pilot ratings, I'm going to up, I had given 4 - 4's for the

approach on this previously, I'm going to make it 5 - 5 now, just because you really do have

to compensate a little more to keep from banging the structural modes, it's not effecting the

performance though, as long as we do do that. Landings longitudinally, have to be smooth,

let's make it a 5, and laterally not much of a task on laterally for this, for 8020, let's make it a

4.

Pilot E

Task 4020 Nominal Approach & Landing 08 Jan 97; Runs 40-42

Block 1 - Familiarization Okay, 4020, Card 17 for the evaluation segment with the glide

slope and localizer intercept, it's very, nice characteristics, very minimal pilot compensation

required. The gamma dot V control law works very well for just maintaining the altitude on

a localizer capture. In the turbulence the lateral directional axis, you do tend get disturbed

from a track, so you have to constantly stay in a loop to correct back to a localizer, but it's

not too bad, certainly suggestions might be a track hold, submode, or you would hold a

certain track if you were within a quarter, or half degree or so of wings level. I think there is

things that we can do to improve lateral directional as far as localizer tracking, but nothing

really significant, very nice, overall. For the longitudinal rating, controllable? Yes, adequate?

Yes, satisfactory? Yes, and I'll rate a Cooper Harper of 3 and mainly because the light

turbulence does tend to disturb it slightly from the equilibrium altitude hold mode. There is

no altitude hold submode, which will be nice also, and also when you make the speed

change, the flightpath wants to sag, so you're having to put in back stick commands to keep

it on altitude so it does require more compensation than really should be necessary with the

state of the art in control law design. Lateral directional; controllable? Yes, adequate? Yes,

satisfactory? Yes, a 3 also, and similar comments were made earlier about, we could make

things a little bit nicer with some, using some state of the art techniques such as track hold

that type of control law modifications. Okay, for the precision landing, the biggest problem

that I am having today is that it is very difficult to judge the flare maneuver. I'm trying to

close the loop on the actual gamma because there is a delta between the commanded and

actual. It's very significant, and with the dynamic ground effects model right now and

without as much of a ground effect cushion as we've seen in the previous REFH Cycles...

What happens is, you get in there and you flare too aggressively, you will tend to float a

little bit and go long, however if you don't flare quite enough you just go on through the

ground effect and touchdown, and that's what I was... was happening to me today. I was

getting a flare in, but not quite soon enough, I was trying not to go long and basically it

didn't quite, probably I needed another second or so, or maybe I need to start my flare a little

bit earlier than 50 ft, with the technique that I was using. I basically was slowly pulling the

power off from 50 ft on down so that I still had power on at touchdown, but still I

consistently landed a little short and a little firm. I think I met adequate performance overall

for the longitudinal portion, basically the my H dots were between 4 and 6 and my

touchdown distances were just under a 1000 ft I believe... yeah 718, 823 and 944 with H

dots of 6.2, 4.6 and 6.0, so I'm very consistent, try consistently bad, but at least very

consistent. I think that's just a reflection of the lack of ground effect cushion that we are

seeing. The longitudinal rating controllable? Yes, adequate? Yes, satisfactory? No. I have to

rate it a 5, because the adequate performance was all that I was able to obtain. Lateral

directional however I didn't meet the desired criteria all the way across as far as Y position

and heading error and that type of stuff. So for lateral directional, controllable? Yes,

adequate? Yes, satisfactory? Yes, a Cooper Harper of 3, and basically you still having to put

some compensation in there with the light turbulence to keep it on track.
57

Pilot E

Task 4020 Nominal Approach & Landing (ASE On) 29 Jan 97; Runs 20-21

The work load as far as this compared to a nominal landing, is about the same, the ride

quality is horrible compared to the two, but the work load is about the same, however, you

are obviously, right on the hairy edge I think with more turbulence or any type of crosswind

or lateral offset where you can really excite this thing, you might have a more colorful ride,

and what you don't want to having going, is a lot of ASE motions there in the flare, which

would then mask what the performance of the aircraft was doing, you might misjudge a

flare. As you get high gain in the flare, in approaching the flare, what happens is the very

quick input you make, even though a very, very, small amplitude will excite the ASE motions

of the aircraft, and can get it moving around a little bit. The... overall we did two for data,

they were pretty close to desired, but just slightly in the adequate range, the first one makes

desired H dot just a tiny bit long, so that's kind of borderlined desired, and the second was

just slightly firm, and a little bit long, it was a floating approach that I had to actually dump a

nose a little bit to get it to land, and the floating approach comes about from the dynamic

ground effects where I've probably flattened out a little bit too much too soon. I don't know

if the ASE effects cause that, I think this performance is probably fairly close to my nominal

40/20 landing performance. So, with that in mind, for the approach phase of it, I've got a

approach and a landing phase. The approach phase, longitudinal, I met all the desired

criteria, I'm quite sure... yes, it's right on glideslope and localizer, so, it's controllable? Yes,

adequate performance? Yes, satisfactory? Yes, I would rate it a Cooper Harper of 3, for the

lateral directional, up and away, controllable? Yes, adequate? Yes, satisfactory without

improvement? Yes, also a 3. Interestingly, I did a flat rudder turn from the approach to the

localizer from the 30 degree offset to the... correcting to the localizer, and had a fairly good

rudder input, about 8 degrees of beta, and there was not feeling of that, no NY was felt in the

cockpit, so, we might have a slight motion model following problem. For the landing,

longitudinal, we talked about that just didn't quite make the desired, but close, that's going to

affect the rating there, obviously, put it in the level 2 area, controllable? Yes, adequate? Yes,

satisfactory? No. It has to be a Cooper Harper of 5, mainly for performance, however, it... I

would say it's not... rating wise, it's not a whole lot different than a nominal airplane without

the ASE effects. Lateral directional, controllable? Yes, adequate? Yes, satisfactory without

improvement? The lateral performance, basically, my wide dispersions were almost nonexistent, they were a .2 and a 1.5, and the heading deviations were well less than a 1 also, so,

the lateral performance in the landing worked out pretty well, let me just check the criteria,

heading well within the desired there. Okay, it appears that I met the desired criteria quite

readily with the lateral, so I'll say yes, it is satisfactory without improvement, and rate it a 3

also for workload.

Pilot F

Task 4020 Nominal Approach & Landing 21 Jan 97; Run 86

Okay basically, we did quite a few practice runs on this, which is indicative that this is a

learned task, one thing that's really notable, and although it's obvious when you talk about it,

it took me a little bit to really get ingrained, even though I've done it with this control law

before, but if you over rotate, you actually end up having to bunt for the stick to get the

flight path back down during the flare. The airplane is easy to fly. The first part of the task,

the ILS approach down to 200 ft, it's pretty easy, controllable, hasn't required a lot

compensation and gamma flight control law works real well for that. Pretty much give it 7

(2), it's almost hands off. For the landing task, distinctly different than I remember the Ames
58

model being, in that there's not the tendency to float as much, although, because of that, and

because it seems like the... going through the boundary layer, or going through the ground

effect, does vary a lot on how much descent rate you have when you hit it. It's still not real

predictable, but you can learn the task, I guess, and basically all I'm doing is I'm getting

autothrottles off at 50 ft, as I bring my flight path up, I'm letting that bleed the airspeed, so

I'm pretty much leaving the throttle set, and I'm just trying to start the nose up at 50 ft, at a

rate so that it's fairly controllable, and so that I have just a slight negative gamma of

touchdown, and so, I'm not really flaring like I would, I guess my mind set is different than

it is for a traditional airplane, and it's different than what I use for Ames, I'm basically just

trying to play the round out, so that I time the gamma with the touchdown. You can do it

fairly easily with the radar altimeter readout here, and the voice callouts, I think there are

some pros and cons about using this technique, and I'm not so sure that if I flew the airplane

on a day in and day out basis, that I'd necessarily really want to use this technique.

Although, with the gamma dot control system, unless there are allowances made for a

landing flare, if it stays in that mode, I'm... I think you're always going to see an aspect of

this technique, during the landing. I guess on the actual data run, we got desired

performance, which is kind of a flute, because on all the practice runs we were not doing

quite that well. I'm going... for the Cooper Harper for first portion, I really don't think

there's a big difference between the lateral and correctional, so, I'm going to rate it, and we'll

use the same rating for lateral and directional, so, this is from 1500 ft down, to 200 ft. It's

definitely controllable, adequate performance with a tolerable pilot work load, it's

satisfactory without improvement, and I guess I'd probably say that... again, I would

probably kind of drift towards a... I'll give it a 2, I guess. I think there's negligible

deficiency, it works pretty good. There is a little bit of... you see the commanded and the

actual flight path vector split with the flat movement, it's pretty stable and pretty steady

throughout that. For the actual landing task, it is controllable, you do get adequate

performance with a tolerable pilot work load. Is it satisfactory without improvement, and this

is kind of hard question to answer for me because, it's not a real familiar control law for me

to be using and so I expect that there is some learning curve on this, and I'm going to be

interesting... it's going to be interesting to see how I do on subsequent runs, but right now I

guess I would drift towards the 4, and say it's not satisfactory without improvement, let me

think about this for a second. For the spot landing task with the minimal descent rates, and I

guess by the reason I'm kind of hedging on this, is I guess I kind of feel like it's more of a

minimal pilot compensation, because it took me so many runs to really learn the technique. I

think I'm going to go with a 4, although, I suspect that once I kind of get... internalize how

the control law works, and kind of get the technique down, I am expecting my performance

to improve, but we'll see. So, let's go with a 4, and although, it's kind of against my nature to

split axis on the Cooper Harper, I will say that it takes, even though it went here, I have to

look down the runway and make sure that the flight path is pointed where I want it, and

that's right underneath the waterline to get the runway alignment, and make sure my heading

is aligned, so I guess, I'm going to go with a 4 for pitch, and a 3 for lateral directional. One

additional comment that I noted is on the practice run just previous to this everything

seemed to work out pretty well, on this particular run, I got a little antsy at the end, and

increased the pitch rate up to a little bit higher than I wanted it to, and the airplane actually

started to level out, and I had to bunt forward, and put the flight path vector below the

horizon slightly again, and the later portion would flare to make the touchdown in the

touchdown box, and it might be interesting... it might be good to look at the data tapes just

on the control inputs on that, yeah I think, using gamma dot in the landing case, or this kind

of control law in the landing case has some interesting ramifications, because it doesn't fly

like a conventional airplane there, and pilots are very used to being able to just release back

pressure, if they over rotate in the flare, and it seems like that may not be an option with this

control law.
59

Pilot F

Task 4020 Nominal Approach and Landing w/ASE 24 Jan 97; Run 85

This is condition 4020, and basically we just did one run, this is the first time that I looked

at this with ASE on, basically, I saw a lot more lateral motion with roll inputs, than I did

before. I really... I think that motion is worse with the roll inputs, than it is with the pitch

inputs, it's easier for me to control pitch, at least for the localizer tracking portion than it is

roll, just because we get bounced around so much with the roll. The landing phase, the

landing phase is still real similar if you're lined up. If I... we were fortunate enough that we

were... pretty much got our lineup early, and it was okay, if we had been trying to make

lineup adjustments down low, I think we would have gotten distinctly different results, I

think it would have made the pitch task much more difficult. Basically, compensation that

I'm using is reducing my gain, doing everything slowly, trying to get set up, and do

everything with a very smooth, slow, intercept for any parameter that I'm trying to control.

Basically, we were fortunate that we didn't get real far off on anything that time, if you got

very far off a nominal kind of approach, or flight path that you were doing, I think it would

be very difficult to correct in any timely manner, particularly in roll. Your correction would

have to be right the first time, it would be hard to make a couple corrections I think, in a

timely manner. The droop on the display, down close it didn't seem to effect performance

too much, but it was discrepant on final with the horizon drooping below the horizon

outside, and that is a little bit disconcerting. I'd go in and say, at least from what we saw for

this task, it is controllable, is it adequate performance obtainable with tolerable pilot work

load? That was no turbulence, correct, light turbulence. Just the way the roll is and the

bouncing around and everything, I'm going to answer yes to adequate performance

obtainable with a tolerable pilot work load, but overall, I don't think bouncing around that

much probably would be real good for a long term day in, or day out kind of approach,

especially if it required any roll control, you know, another task in the cockpit, and maybe

some radar vectors or something in a busy terminal area, I'm not so sure that, that would

work out real well. Is it satisfactory without improvement? And I think I'll answer no to that,

we did... we got desired performance in everything, except for we were about 90 ft long of

the desired box. I think... I think I'd probably get the same general kinds of performance

that I did before with maybe desired sometime, but I think I'd probably get more adequate

than desired, particularly if I got off any on the approach portion or the later part of the

approach. I'm going to come in here, we did not get desired performance, that really kind of

zeros in on the five or six range. Moderately objectionable, adequate performance requires

considerable pilot compensation, very objectionable, but tolerable deficiencies, adequate

performance requires extensive pilot compensation, again, disregarding the fact that just

generally maneuvering the airplane around with the lurchiness that we have laterally, or

directionally, I guess, from lateral control, that accompanies lateral control, I should say,

ignoring that, I think that that's very objectionable, and probably not real suitable, ignoring

that for this task, and just looking at the compensation of work load, I guess, I would

probably, if we were giving half ratings, be in the 5 1/2 range to 6, but I guess for this

specific task, I'm going to go... I guess I would go with a 5 1/2, I'm not sure that I quite say

that it's extensive, but I'm leaning more towards that, than considerable pilot compensation,

so, let's give it a... I would really like splitting the axis, but let's... I'm going to split them

here, even though I think there is some lead through into the pitch range, and I don't think

that pitch is quite as bad, I'm going to give it a 6 laterally, and a 5 longitudinally. That's for

the flare and touchdown? Yeah. For the approach, let's see, you know, even though I'm

trying to ignore the fact that I think it's problem with pitching around is probably unsuitable

in the terminal area to begin with, it influences me enough, that I guess I'm going to... it's
60

hard enough to track with that lurchiness, I'm going to go with a 4 and a 4 on the approach,

actually I'll tell you what, I'll go with a 4 laterally directionally, and a 3 in longitudinal on the

approach.(Special Task not crossreferenced.)
61

Task 4050 Nominal Approach and Landing with Ground Effects

Rated by pilot E only.

Pilot E

Task 4050 Nominal Approach and Landing with Ground Effects 18 Feb 97

We looked at task 4050, the nominal approach and landing with dynamic ground effects as

modeled on the cycle 3 implementation both on and off. And when they are off we go back

to more or less the Cycle2B implementation like we flew at Ames dot two. (AMES.2) Very

obvious and apparent difference. There is a lot of ground cushion when the ground effects

model is turned off. I did eight approaches all of which were long with dynamic ground

effects off but with very nice H dots and they were also very predictable. As I started trying

to go below glide slope and get into the box, I got a couple down around 1760 - 1740, and I

think my last one would have been very nice, I had what I thought was an excellent flare, and

looking very good and at the last minute the actual gamma jumped above the commanded

gamma. I had the commanded gamma about a half a degree below the horizon in my flare

and there is a slight lag in the response and all of sudden the actual gamma jumped above

the horizon ever so slightly. We probably leveled off at about a foot or two and I had to

tweak the nose down just a bit and it came down and landed but at 2200 feet. The dynamic

ground effects model on, you have no cushion whatsoever. The best thing you can hope for

is what I did on my last landing after we came back to the dynamic ground effects model

where you get your flare just perfect and it pretty much is going to land. So there is not

nearly the tendency to float although you can over control your flare to save your landing

and get into a floating situation but if you do the flare just perfectly you'll get a nice spot

and a nice H dot, but it certainly is not as predictable. If you look at the dispersions, there is

probably a 50% or better maybe more like a 100% dispersion on X position with dynamic

ground effects on and with them off before I started actually trying to force myself below

the glideslope, the dispersion was on the order of about 300 ft out of about 2000 ft. So you

are looking at about a 14% delta as opposed to going from 775 to 1751 with Dynamic

Ground Effects on. My H dot similarly except for one where I was really floating and just

gave up on it were all within about probably a standard deviation of .15 H dot, with a high of

3.3 and a low of 2.9 for the large majority of those. So very very consistent H dots, very

consistent placement although be it long. But with the Dynamic Ground Effects off we

noticed that the actual velocity vector would tend to jump above the commanded velocity

vector. In other words, I would command a certain attitude and the ground effects model that

was in Cycle2B would actual cause the floating tendency to actually raise the actual gamma

to a positive value, so you would actual balloon a little bit. I have never seen that with an in

ground effects model on. You typically get a dispersion where you are commanding less of

a gamma and in fact the actual shows a more negative gamma. And that was very apparent in

that, that contributed to the floating tendencies. We may not have hit the trigger to get the

dispersion between actual and commanded but in most cases when I had what I thought was

a pretty good attitude all of a sudden I would get a positive gamma actual velocity vector

indicating that we were ballooning a little bit. So huge differences, much more of a cushion

with the ground effects off. You could make a late flare and get away with it. You could

arrest your sink rate. If you tried to make late flare with the ground effects model on you

would have firm landing. The higher the H dot and the more aggressive the flare, the less

likely it is to work with a Dynamic Ground Effects Model and you would be getting a short,

hard touchdown. However you can make a late flare with the Ground Effects off and

salvage your touchdown and not get a hard touchdown. So a lot of differences between the

two.
62

Task 4069 IAG (TIFS) Approach

Pilot A

Task 4069 IAG (TIFS) Approach 15 Jan 97; Runs 77, 79-81

I encountered about half of the... anytime during the approach if you maintain your hand on

the stick and try to make quick corrections, lateral corrections in the flare, or during the

aggressive portion of the alignment, you get into a PIO, so, I have to give the lateral

directional a 10, and the pitch, I would give a 3, there doesn't seem to be any particular

problem in the pitch area. Are you rating the two segments, or... Okay, for the first segment,

I'd give them both a 2, and for the alignment segment, realignment segment, lateral

directional a 10, and the longitudinal a 3, and that would be from both left and right of the

alignments. This is run 81, and it's condition, what is it, 4069, and what was the other one,

from the left and... it's all one, okay... it appears as though the PIO is caused by maybe

some body movement, hand movement due to the cab reactions to the previous movements

and so forth.

Pilot B

Task 4069 IAG (TIFS) Offset Approach and Landing (ASE ON) 13 Mar 97; Runs 27-29

Okay on this one, the approach and landing are considerably different. The approach is

similar to what I saw before. Longitudinal, controllable, adequate... I would say adequate

performance requires considerable pilot compensation, HQR of 5. Same thing lateral

directional. 5 and 5. The only modification here, the technique, is to back off a little bit on

the aggressiveness, I'm finding that a lot of times, I'm keeping my hand off of the control

and making bang-bang type inputs which is kind of classic in a sensitive situation like this.

To avoid getting high frequency with the system, we are getting real high gain. The landing

phase is considerably different. The lateral directional modifications of my technique,

dominate the effects of what I'm seeing. When I put in what I thought were reasonable

inputs considering the amount of offset in the short amount of time to try to get it in that

box, in the desired box, I was into rate limiting immediately, both times. Rate limiting is as

we've talked about before, is insidious, in that you don't feel its onset. It is not something

you can feel happening and back off on and prevent. Once it has actually occurred, it's too

late. Particularly if you are low to the ground, the only thing you can do to successfully get

out of it is to let go of the control and when your angle of bank is increasing and ground

impact is imminent, you can't let go. So you have to stay in the loop and as long as you stay

in the loop you are going to get it, so that's a lose control and crash type situation. That

happened twice when I made what I considered ordinate inputs to get into the box. On the

third approach and the fourth approach, I modified the technique considerably for landing. I

put in very gentile inputs to not try to get into the desired box but to try to stay in the

adequate box and on the third approach, I was successful in staying in the adequate box, on

the fourth approach I was not. But again I'm modifying the task in order to compensate for

deficiencies in the airplane a lot. I going to say, considering the first two, given that it was

the worse of the cases... Well let me you two of them. With the former technique, in the

lateral directional axis it is an HQR of 10. Control's going to be lost in some portion during

the ground operation. Longitudinal did not seem to be as bad a problem, I don't sense any

rate limiting there. It is controllable. Adequate performance, I'm going to say, is not

attainable. Considerable pilot compensation required for control, HQR of 8. Now after I

modified the technique, where I wasn't really trying for desired performance any longer in

longitudinal position, the longitudinal is... assuming that's fair, Dave? Those ratings that I
63

just gave you were for the task as written and that would be my single rating. So that what is

going to follow is kind of a foot note. When I modified the task, reduced the gains, and said,

I'm not trying for the desired box anymore, I'm trying for the adequate box... Now I'm

feeling from a lateral directional standpoint, intense pilot compensation is required to regain

control, HQR of 9. And again, Longitudinal, HQR of 8, so the point here is that even when I

modified the technique to reduce the aggressiveness quite a bit, I'm still fighting pretty hard

to regain control of the airplane, to maintain control of the airplane to keep from getting into

rate limiting. And that concludes my comments.

Pilot B

Task 4069 IAG (TIFS) Approach 07 Jan 97; Runs 24-27

Accomplished as per the instructions on the card. Let's see, glide slope and low glides are

intercept from lateral offset. Okay, no problem accurately maneuvering in the initial phase

...maintaining the approach profile and speed. And.. pretty much attaining trim flight on the

offset half a mile prior to the end of the runway. In the final phase, similar to what I've seen

before except the workload is higher. I don't think that I was able to get desired performance

in sink rate or longitudinal position. The tendency to float, there is that and that's due to the

problem in sink rate control. There is no tendency to PIO or bobble in pitch and roll. And

no tendency to bounce, no geometry strikes noted. The lateral directional is a bit of a

problem this time, that's strictly because of the task which I feel is a bit artificial . Okay, so

in the initial glide slope and localizer intercept point. Longitudinal HQR it's controllable,

adequate, satisfactory, improvement not required.....minimal pilot compensation HQR3.

Lateral directional, same thing, controllable, adequate sat, minimal pilot compensation

HQR3. In the landing phase, longitudinal it's controllable, adequate, deficiencies were an

improvement, adequate performance requires considerable pilot compensation HQR5.

Lateral directional, controllable, adequate, I think deficiencies warrant improvement for this

task. Desired performance requires moderate pilot compensation HQR4. That concludes

my comments.

Pilot C

Task 4069 IAG (TIFS) Approach 14 Jan 97; Runs 49-51

Okay, for the lateral-directional, once I learn how aggressive to be and all, I didn't really have

a lot of problems as far as the bank angle control went, and by being aggressive you begin

to feel some of the NY come in, the little side to side forces, they weren't real disconcerting I

don't think that effected performance and didn't have...and I didn't intentionally do any

compensating for it. The power seemed to be there to get the attitudes that I wanted, so, in

general the lateral-directional was considered pretty good. The biggest reasons why

occasionally I dropped into the adequate ranges were concern with the pitch and kind of

dropping the lateral-directional out of my concern once I saw that there was concrete under

the wheels, I was more concerned with trying to get that pitch taken care of. I tried some,

with rather rapid harsh turns so that I could be wings level earlier and I did some others that

were a little smoother which meant for left and bank angle a little lower to the ground than

I'd like to have, so, I saw kind of a range in there, but in general, as far as the lat-dir,

adequate performance tolerable, yes, satisfactory without improvement, it's going to make

the lat-dir look worse than it really felt to me, when I...keep the fact that there were several in

there that I had adequate performance, and I would say that considerable pilot compensation

would be reasonable, so, I'll give it a 5 on the lat-dir for the...oh darn it, you wanted two

segments on this again, didn't you? Okay, very quickly the first segment will be the same as
64

it's always been, we'll leave that up at 2 and 2, there's very little work to be done. My

comments, original comments had to do with the corrections, so that was segment 2, so, for

segment 1 we'll leave it at 2's for both on the segment 2, lat-dir 5, and I'm probably being a

little bit harsh on it, I suspect from the, certainly from the bank angle, that was always

desired, but I did have some dispersion left and right there that dropped into adequate, you

could make a case either way, but I'll leave it at 5, not a big thing. The pitch, there is no way

if I had 500 runs that I'd feel comfortable putting this down into the desired block. There is

just a certain amount of sense of survivability that keeps me from getting to the ground until

I've got things pretty well under control, and that just seemed to automatically put me long.

A couple of times I was just a little slow retarding the power, but even on the times when I

did do it, I still landed long, it wasn't adequate, so adequate performance obtainable, well I

didn't see it this time and maybe with practice I could, but in any case the work load would

have been intolerable, does require improvement, and to do that task, which is a pretty, pretty

heavy duty aggressive task for an airplane of this size, and so it would be a 7 for pitch. I

think that will do it, right? So, 2, 2 for segment one and 5, 7 for segment two.

Pilot D

Task 4069 IAG (TIFS) Approach 24 Jan 97; Runs 32-36

Okay, this is the offset landing with the ASE in, that's a much higher frequency task than the

normal landing we just did, and it's making it almost a marginal level 3, due to the induced

banging, due to the frequency content of the controller during the offset correction. I

thought we would have a problem with the droop of the display, but it really doesn't seem to

be a big factor. It's going to be a little tough to rate this one, because I've got one landing

that's out of the adequate box, but approach is the same as before, 5 and 5. Landing, I'm

going to give it a 7, because of the... being out the touchdown dispersion box, I... you know,

as far as the impact of the stability modes go, I would make it just a 6, and I'm going to give

it a 6 laterally, that the adequate compensation requires extensive pilot compensation during

that offset maneuver to keep the structural modes within reason.

Pilot E

Task 4069 IAG (TIFS) Approach 08 Jan 97; Runs 93-96

Okay, for this one... the obvious high work load task is the offset correction. Up and away

on a glide slope and localizer tracking is not a problem. Same comments about the

turbulence effecting the track and the flight path germane, it's little bit of turbulence caused a

little bit of nuisance, extra work load for the pilot. The correction is very high work load and

it really puts you in an unstabilized situation to set up for the flare. The... I was having a

hard time judging my flare properly and I was not real consistent, sometimes landing a little

long and sometimes a little firm. I did have one landing that was pretty good, it was right

almost in the mid-point with a really good H dot, but I was wide to the right, so it's hard to

put it all together. The glideslope localizer intercept down to 200 ft, longitudinal Cooper

Harper, controllable? Yes, adequate? Yes, satisfactory without improvement? Yes, a Cooper

Harper of 3. Lateral directional, controllable? Yes, adequate? Yes, satisfactory without

improvement? Yes, because it is down below 250 ft before it starts the corrections, so it's

also a 3. Okay, 3 and 3 then. For the precision landing from the lateral offset, overall I met

adequate performance for the longitudinal portion of that for the touchdown think rate, X

position. Is it controllable? Yes it is, adequate performance attainable? Yes it is. Is it

satisfactory without improvement? No. I met the adequate performance criteria, so that will

be a 5. For lateral directional, controllable? Yes, adequate? Yes, satisfactory without
65

improvement? No. Kind of borderline adequate desired, I'll rate it a 4 and a little bit on this

one brings out the fact that the lateral axis a little bit slow to respond and a little bit

imprecise in when you want to point roll attitude of the aircraft exactly where you want it.

Pilot E

Task 4069 IAG (TIFS) Offset Approach and Landing (ASE On) 18 Feb 97 ; Runs 38-40

This was the Offset Approach and Landing from 700 ft with Dynamic ASE. We did a

couple of task 4069 approaches before that with no ASE just to kind of warm up on the

offset approach technique. With the Dynamic ASE it obviously behooves the pilot to be

very smooth and make slow inputs. You can get the amplitude that you want but you just

can't make abrupt inputs. You've got to smoothly and rather slowly input the inceptor and

that is with the aileron or lateral input rather than a pitch input. However I still try to be

smooth and non aggressive or non abrupt for the longitudinal also which means once I got

into the flare I pretty much accepted, if the attitude looked okay rather than make any high

gain very quick input at the last change. I would prefer to be smooth and just let it do what it

did. So the H dot's tend to be in the adequate range. I tend to be a little bit on the long side

and I think that also came from my reluctance to be aggressive with the control inceptor

coming out of that turn, and rather to accept what I had. The line up which I would have

thought to be a very difficult problem based on the fact that you are reluctant to get into that

lateral axis, worked out very well. In fact I met the desired criteria on all of the approaches

from within 10 ft, so I'm hitting the desired box laterally every time. As far as the general

comments; obviously the ride quality is very poor. I think having learned to be very smooth

with the roll into the offset correction, we didn't get any really untoward ASE motions.

Interestingly enough, the first approach, I was a little more high gain in the final flare and we

saw a lot of ASE type responses after that I tended to be gentile and kind of take what I had

attitude and we didn't get those ASE inputs in the flare but of course the flare performance

and the landing performance kind of suffered a little bit. Basically it is pretty much solid

level two or solid adequate performance longitudinally. Laterally which kind of surprises

me, I met the desired criteria, however the constraints to the work load, I think, would make

that level two also. So for the approach, up and away, you just got to make small inputs and

we've learned how to fly that now. From a handling qualities point of view it's not a real

problem, it's going to be desired for both lateral and longitudinal. So for the longitudinal

rating for the approach segment, I believe this is down to 200 ft is that right? 250 ft down to

the correction. Controllable? Yes. Adequate performance? Yes. Satisfactory without

improvement? Let me make another caveat here. I'm going to rate this strictly on handling

qualities and not at all consider ride quality or responses that kind of effect the way I do

things. I'm just trying to rate this thing on how it can actually perform, taking into

consideration the caveats of how you fly it. So I will say that, satisfactory without

improvement? Yes, Cooper Harper of 3 as far as... No I'm going to take that back and I'm

going to go with a 4, because the glideslope deviation effects were not as tight a control as I

would like. So I met the desired criteria but I think it was not a good solid desired. So that's

a Cooper Harper of 4 for the longitudinal approach rating. For the lateral rating, similarly

the workload to maintain localizer was a little bit high because the turbulence would create

lateral dispersions, which meant you were slightly chasing the localizer. Very slight

deviations but enough to increase the workload. So it was controllable, it was adequate

performance was attainable. It was not satisfactory without improvement it will be desired

performance but level two with a Cooper Harper of 4. For the landing rating, the

longitudinal rating it is clearly... the performance indicates adequate performance and... I'm

trying to decide whether it will be a 5 or a 6. It was clearly controllable. Adequate

performance was attainable, is it satisfactory without improvement? No, it is not. I'm
66

probably rate it a Cooper Harper of 6 due to the workload and kind of the fact that I feel so

constrained to not make the corrections I want to make for fear of triggering a bad response.

For the lateral rating, I met the desired criteria but also It's one of those kind of things where

I'm flying with one hand tied behind my back, it seems like. I really have to be careful what I

do. So it was controllable, adequate performance was attainable, satisfactory without

improvement? No. I am going to rate it Cooper Harper of 4. I met the desired criteria but I

didn't feel that I could aggressively hone in a good dispersion. I kind of tend to be... I went

to the left one time, the rest of the time to the right and they were an average of about 6 feet

or so 6 and half feet. So it is not the real good solid desired. Yes, when I say something bad,

what you don't want to have happen is in the flare have some big... typically when you make

an aggressive lateral input you get this... the nose would directionally shift quite rapidly.

You get a pretty appreciable nose movement left or right and I guess... of course the center

of gravity may still be lined up but I Guess you hate to think about your nose making such

a sharp movement when you are right there getting ready to touch down. So I think I tended

to try and not be too aggressive in the flare. The first approach, I was a little bit more

aggressive and it really did have some sharp response inputs because of it. I feel that I can

make very aggressive lateral inputs with the rigid aircraft and if my lineup is slightly off I

don't have any problem about making a little quick correction. I'm more reluctant with the

ASE because of fear of getting a pretty good lateral shake. Obviously you're trying to be

smooth in the flare and you don't want to getting some real abrupt nose input that might

couple with the roll and you might get a nacelle or something. I think I tend to try to be very

very smooth and kind of accept things rather than try to correct them.

Pilot F

Task 4069 IAG (TIFS) Offset Approach & Landing (ASE) 24 Jan 97; Runs 94-95

The first two practice runs that I did, I noted that, well, the first one I wasn't aggressive

enough, I took too much heading off on the initial correction to the runway, and I didn't turn

back to runway heading soon enough and overshot the centerline, and I really was hesitant

to do too much close to the ground with that, anyway we, and in the second one we, I was a

little bit more aggressive with the roll, we did get banged around a little bit more with that,

that predictability suffers from that. I was more aggressive in my heading off hack that I

took, but then as I got down close to the runway, again, I had overcorrected to the centerline,

and I had a hard time getting it back, I also noted on that practice run, that we got a big

deflect... or a big split between the commanded and actual flight path vector with the

commanded being down more than the actual, which increased our tendency to float at that

time. I think I'm getting very inconsistent performance from the gamma control, right down

in the flare near the runway. You can do this task, as long as you do it on profile. If you get

off profile, and have to correct back with any significant deviation at all, it's very hard to get

everything back under control, and again with the bouncing around and everything, it's very

uncomfortable, and if I was in a real airplane, this would be very disconcerting, I'd be very

concerned about being this close to the ground and lurching around like this. For the task, is

it controllable? I'm going to answer yes, although I really don't... for this task, for what we're

doing, we were able to maintain control and everything else, I still don't know that... I think

that this would be suitable in the terminal area. Adequate performance obtainable with a

tolerable pilot work load? We did get adequate performance, and again, disregarding the, I

guess, the apprehension that I would have operating the airplane like this, a real airplane

closer to the ground, if I ignore that, I could answer yes to this. There's also a matter of, let

me look at the descriptors between a 6 and a 7, a 6 is adequate performance requires

extensive pilot compensation, and I definitely think that's true, a 7 is adequate performance

not obtainable with maximum tolerable pilot compensation, controllability not a question.
67

Again, if I took my apprehension and factored it in here, we would easily be in the level 3

block, in fact I might even consider readjusting the controllability question. If I'm going to

ignore the apprehension right now, and also that apprehension might change if I was more

familiar with the flight control system in the airplane, but still I don't think it's suitable. I

could possibly... anyway, I guess I'm going to give it a 6... a 6 and a 6. I'm real tempted to

go to the 7 route, but... here let me think about this for a second. I guess I'm going to go

with a 6 and a 6 for the actual offset landing task, although, again, I have a real feeling that

maybe that's a little bit inflated, I'm trying to balance off the fact that, you know, just looking

at this... we'll go with a 6 and a 6. For the glideslope tracking task, we'll go with a 3 in pitch,

and a 4 in lateral directional.

Okay, this is a additional comment on [4069], after further consideration, I guess it was just

kind of grating on my mind about rating it a 6 and a 6, and I think I'm going to go ahead

and answer... I'll split the axis up, and answer, is it adequate performance obtainable with a

tolerable work load? And say no, and I think I'm going to go in and give it a 7 in the lateral

directional axis, and then answer yes to that for pitch, and come up and give it a 5 for pitch.

One thing that I noted, and we've done the takeoff since we've done this, done the offset

landing task, one thing I noted is that, during the takeoff, I just played with the pitch once we

were airborne... the roll, once we were airborne, and the performance you get really doesn't

seem to be too bad as in the performance out the window, it's just hard for the pilot to really

be able to do it comfortably, because he's getting banged around, and I guess that really

shakes my confidence in my ability to ensure that I make the airplane go where I want it to

go, so, anyway, so, we changed the ratings to a 5 in pitch, or in longitudinal axis, and a 7 in

roll and directional. On the takeoff, and I think this is a simulator limitation, we did a very

slow rotation rate, and did the takeoff. On the runway, the lateral tracking, getting bounced

around, left and right, did complicate the lateral tracking task a little bit, once again, I think

it... my perception right now, if we... you know, I think if we had time to look at this in more

detailed we could maybe confirm or deny this, but my perception is, is you can probably get

the performance from the display, and what you're seeing outside. It's just very

disconcerting, it shakes a pilots confidence, because you're getting bounced around so

much, but I think the frequency and the magnitude of the hits we're taking laterally, and

really having not a whole lot effect on flight path. Now, for again, you know, this is based

on tracking the centerline, and then the little bit that I did rolling up and away, you know, for

the landing task, when you're talking about just a few feet, even though I think the frequency

and magnitude is not really moving the airplane that much, it still may be moving at a few

feet, which would be enough to degrade the task performance, but anyway, you know, I

think that's something that we need to look into. Again, I'm still not convinced that this

would... even if you're not changing performance that much, I'm not so sure that the

lurching would be suitable, anyway, but it would be interesting to see how much the

performance is really effected by the lurchiness, and how much of it just effects the pilots

perception.

Second rating of task.

After the go-arounds we came back and did a couple landing tasks, offset landing tasks. On

the first one I tried to use a little bit of rudder to bring the nose around, and in retrospect I

think that would of probably been okay, and I don't think I would hesitate to do it again, I

guess I thought there was a need for some lateral input at the same time, and that may have

been that I had a little bank in already, or when I saw the drift, I was trying to kill it with

lateral input, and I think that's the point, you know, doing the steady heading sideslip, I

could put in rudder and not touch the stick, and no, we wouldn't of been doing, you know,

actually can you reset us, so we can actually do a steady heading sideslip, because that's not
68

what I did, I just made a rudder input. Let me come back and comment on this in a minute.

Okay, continuing on, we went back into another run, because I got so mesmerized by how

well the airplane held, zero bank, as I put in the sideslip, I didn't do a steady heading

sideslip, which didn't answer any of the questions that I had the first time, anyway, the point

is, on the first run, I tried to soothe the nose over a little bit to help myself out with runway

alignment, and when I did, in order to kill the drift, I went to put the wing down a little bit,

and precise bank control for the steady heading sideslip, or for the landing task in particular,

I ended up inducing some oscillation. I don't know that I actually coupled up with the

airplane, but I definitely could not control the bank precisely, you know, within a degree or

two of what I wanted to. Doing the steady heading sideslips out here, again, getting a

predictable bank angle, and being able to hold that was difficult for me, and I don't think,

even using the ailerons, I don't know that I really got a decent steady heading sideslip on the

maneuver that we did the second time trying to come down there. But I did illustrate to

myself, or I saw what I wanted to see, and that was that fine bank angle control with this

mode on, is more difficult, I think, at least that's my perception right now. And I'd think it

would be interesting to look at that in more detail, maybe later on, as you look at the AFC

model a little bit more. And again, you know, I'm not going to go back and change any of

the ratings that I did for lateral offset, I wanted to go back and look at this, because the goaround seemed okay, and this task seemed rather difficult, there is definitely in my mind a

learning curve or a comfort level that changes, and you learn that you're getting bounced

around, I guess I'm more tolerant to being bounced around after flying this for about a hour

than I was before, and I think that would change the way I would end up rating tasks in that,

although I still think that in the actual airplane, I would be a little bit apprehensive bouncing

around and seeing some of the perturbations close to the ground, anyway, that's about it.

This is just a general comment, you know, I went back and looked at the suggested pilot

techniques for the control law, and they do put in a bias at 40 ft, nose down bias, so that the

pilot can release some back pressure to make corrections if he over rotates in the flare, but I

think we saw some pretty good discrepancies between commanded and actual flight path,

with and without the ghosted flight path, actual flight path marker coming up, and my point

is, is there were a few times where I really felt like I need the bunt forward on the control

stick to readjust my flight path in the flare, so, I really think that, that whole area needs to be

looked at, in a little bit more detail.
69

Task 4085 Go-Around, 30 ft (TS OFF)

Pilot A

Task 4085 Go-Around, 30 ft (TS OFF) 16 Jan 97; Runs 80-83

Okay, the go-arounds were made up from an approach. It's basically CAT III approach, at

30 ft, the... at 50 ft, the init go-around is initiated with slight thrust increase, and then a goaround at 30 ft with a pitch up to a gamma of 12 degrees, and the PIO tendencies in roll did

not appear on this particular approach, and the ratings, Cooper Harper lat... lateral

directional, I guess we're meeting desired requirements, I give it a 3, and for the pitch, I

guess we're going to call this desired performance, or adequate? Okay, well, what is a

desired altitude loss? 20 ft, and... okay, so, I'll give it a 4 for the longitudinal.

Pilot B

Task 4085 Go-Around, 30 ft (Tailscrape Off) 07 Jan 97; Runs 84-87

In summary we have four data runs, we have one tailstrike on the third run, the problem is a

technique sensitive one, it's tied in with the aggressiveness that is used in the go-around. If

you get real aggressive, particularly about the time the velocity vector goes through the

horizon, or slightly thereafter. It's really easy to get a tailstrike, if you keep the pitch rate at a

moderate level, and can semi-gently pull the nose up, desired performance is achievable. I

think you are going to have a problem in terms of the training issue, in terms of the

certification issue here with getting this through. I think the tailstrike indicator would have

been helpful here. I am not sure if it would have prevented the tailstrike in the third run, but

it certainly would have been useful in terms of feedback. Okay, I'll give this a CHR,

longitudinally and lateral directionally with the caveat, I was able to get desired performance,

but I am working pretty hard to do it. Longitudinal; it's controllable, adequate, I think the

deficiencies were an improvement, and I think it safe to say that desired compensation

requires, hang on, I think it's more like adequate performance requires considerable pilot

compensation, HQR5. Lateral directional is not much of a problem here, it's desirable

adequate, satisfactory, minimal pilot compensation required, HQR3. That concludes my

comments.

Pilot C

Task 4085 Go-Around, 30 ft (Tailscrape Indicator Off) 14 Jan 97; Runs 113-115

Okay, certainly got...for lateral-directional certainly got adequate performance, tolerable pilot

work load, satisfactory without improvement for the lat-dir, yeah, didn't see any problem

there in improvement, not required, probably give that a 3. I did see a little more action in

roll that I needed this time because I was trying to line up a little more, the 50 ft mark, I just

was breaking out and never had time to put in a correction for line up, this time I did, and I

saw a little more roll action, but it was not a problem, I don't think, nothing that upset me,

and minimal pilot compensation, desired performance a 3 on the lat-dir, and the pitch,

satisfactory without improvement, yeah, this is probably one of those things that automation

could help quite a bit in consistency, if nothing else, but for what I had, flying it like I was,

satisfactory without improvement, I'd say a yes, improvement not required and that would be

another 3. So, I'd give that 3 and 3, just in the side, one of the things, and it's a sinism, I

know, is that the TOGA button is in a awkward position, so, to go from autothrottle

disengage and then still have to reach around, and you are close to the ground and you had
70

been planning on landing all this time, supposedly, it kind of aggravated the situation and I

tried not to rate the position of the TOGA button, but if I were, I wouldn't give it very high

marks, but as far as the go-around and ability to keep from exceeding my pitch attitude and

so on, there was...I didn't see any problem with that...felt fine, okay. A lot of times when you

hit the TOGA button, why that will put the throttles in for you, if it doesn't raise the nose, it

certainly doesn't hurt anything to do that, and likely something to do with the throttles would

have helped that considerably, because at the same time, I'm trying to push the throttles

forward, I've just pushed one button, now I've reached for another one, and then to bring the

nose up, so, a little more automation on that probably. I suspect in those winds, that

probably...or those conditions, likely the airplane is going to be on autopilot anyway, so, it's

just a matter of a good autopilot go-around, but handflying it like that, it certainly was doable as I saw, and while I may of...this is a little contrived a task, because we're starting out

with the idea of going around, and that is a long ways from planning to land and at 30 ft,

seeing a fuel truck or something to miss, so, but for the task that I had, you know, that's

what we've got, so, that's what we'll rate, it's okay.

Pilot D

Task 4085 Go-Around, 30 ft (Tailscrape Indicator Off) 24 Jan 97; Runs 21-22

Ditto on the comments on the go around at 50 feet. It's just pretty much an open loop

maneuver. The additional comment here though is that the performance seems to be just

way too sensitive to the flare profile. If I overflare a little bit we make it and a little late on

flare, we don't make it. I think from an operational stand point it is just not acceptable. We

give it, longitudinal, a seven and no additional problems lateral, give it a four.

Pilot E

Task 4085A Go-Around, 30 ft (Tailscrape indicator off) 09 Jan 97; Runs 99-102

Okay, this is very similar to the 4085 with tailscrape indicator. The last run I did, run No. 98

on the previous card really set me up to be very cognizant of tailscrape. These three runs, I

think 100 and 102 were a little more representative. You'll notice that probably you'll see a

reduction in pitch rate as the waterline moves up towards the target gamma reference marker

of 12 degrees, and this is kind of my way of insuring I don't scrape the tail until I have some

ground clearance. The comments are pretty much the same and the ratings are going to be

the same between these two tasks, the fact that I am aware of the tailscrape problem is

definitely effecting my performance as far as once I have broken my initial sink rate, I do

tend to slow down on my pitch rate as I approach a waterline of about 12 degrees beta to

ensure proper ground clearance. So, for longitudinal, again I met the adequate parameter for

altitude loss of between 20 and 30 feet and probably I think I could do that very

consistently. So, there is a learning curve over the previous test card without the tailscrape

angle, so in fact, based on the learning curve, my longitudinal ratings are probably going to

improve. Anyway, for longitudinal Cooper Harper, it was controllable, adequate

performance was obtainable, satisfactory without improvement, I would rate this a 5 and I

think the difference between this rating and the previous rating is a lot of learning curve and

so I think I'm actually finding this task a little bit better. For lateral, is it controllable? Yes,

adequate? Yes, satisfactory? Yes, Cooper Harper of 3, again it's not really much of a lateral

effort on this task. I do think that this is a very good test card and I think that this would

warrant some further investigation because I think we do have a real potential to get a

geometry strike on this maneuver.
71

Pilot F

Task 4085 Go-Around, 30 ft (Tailscrape Indicator Off) 22 Jan 97; Runs 96-100

Okay, basically for this maneuver we were getting back in and retrospect that I probably

should have ran a few more practice runs before we started taking data just to kind of get

back into the scheme of things. One thing that I noted on the first few runs, is the same

thing that I commented on before, is during the transition around the 200 ft level, you tend

to almost actually, my perception is, is that left to it's own devices, it will start getting a little

bit low on glideslope, and you put in a correction to correct back to glideslope. This is just a

real slight tendency for the airplane to settle low, and then about the time that you're trying

to reestablish the 3 degree glide path to get this big balloon, which you only see initially in

the glidepath, and the airplane going high in glidepath, and at that point when you push over

after a decrement of time, you get a split command and actual flight path vector cue, and then

it's obvious that the airplanes ballooning. So, after a couple runs I started anticipating that,

and flying that a little bit more tightly. I missed... after having done this with the tailstrike

indicator, I really missed not having that kind of as just a guide so that I knew I was okay,

and I think I was having the tendency not to really rotate at the rate that I really normally

would in that situation. The other thing is, is on the first few of those runs, because of the

balloon and then we were correcting back, we came in a fair amount steeper, I think, than

what we would have if would have been in a nominal 3 degree glide path. I think initially

getting back in and being told that my flare rate was not what it normally would have been, if

I was trying to land the airplane there until it was a little bit slow. Had we landed it, I think

we would of had hard landing. So anyway, towards the end we did get desired performance

on the first few runs, I think we kind of covered what we saw. I'll go ahead and rate the task,

is it controllable? Yes, adequate performance obtainable with tolerable work load, yes, is it

satisfactory without improvement? I guess I'm going to say yes, because there was really

nothing to me to indicate that we really had to be concerned about hitting the tail here, in that

you could use a pretty aggressive rate, and so I guess, I'd give it a 3. Although, again, having

started with that indicator up there, I kind of felt, it kind of gave me a warm fuzzy feeling

that I could rotate at a pretty good rate, and not worry about hitting anything. The other

thing to note, two separate from this, and I'll do that for lateral and longitudinal both, the...

just to show that my normal flare rate probably wasn't appropriate, using the flare rate and

then transitioning to the go-around, we touchdown fairly firm, and got the over G indication

a couple times, and again I think that was part of just getting back in and kind of getting

used to the flare again, I don't think I... I think I was coming in steep and not really doing a

sufficient flare like I would if I was really trying to land, so, I think that might of skewed the

data a little bit on the first couple of runs. One more comment on the Cooper Harper, I

guess, you know, I'm kind of disregarding the fact that... I'm going to stick with a 3, I'm not

going to change the rating, but I guess I think it's important to note that at least in my mind,

because geometry strikes are a factor here, I would be a lot more comfortable doing the task

with the indicator, I think the indicator could be optimized more than it is, but I would still

be more comfortable doing it with the indicator, and that probably, I don't know if it's really

reflected in the rating that I gave it or not, but it does have an impact on the task.
72

Task 4085 Go-Around, 30 ft (TS ON)

Pilot A

Task 4085 Go-Around, 30 ft (TS ON) 16 Jan 97; Runs 86-89

Okay, the tailscrape indicator, I don't believe I ever saw. You may... I think I saw it out of the

peripheral view, but my attention was diverted to the flight gamma indicator, and during the

approach, concentrating on holding the glideslope when the flare started, disengaged the

autothrottle, and start pitching the airplane up, typically the gamma gets to about two degrees

at 30 ft, and the thrust is coming up a couple knob widths to provide some flare. If this is all

performed per normal... normal requirements, then a go-around is an issue, even at 30 ft,

and I think typically we lose about 20 ft, and plus or minus, and then the next area of

attention is to get the gamma positive, so the gear can come up, and at that point, I'm not

really looking at the tailscrape indicator, so by the time I need to look at a tailscrape

indicator, it's too late. So, I never really saw it, or used it at all, and I don't think it appeared

in some of our runs for some reason, and on occasion, we did touch down, because of

fixation on various things, and improper timing on getting thrust up and starting the flare,

and so at 30 ft, when we started a go-around, we had a large vertical speed that resulted in a

touchdown. Cooper Harper wise, lateral directional, I'll give it a 3, and longitudinally, what

are we going to call this? Adequate or desired performance? I think nominally, when there's

a proper profile, it appears as though we're getting desired, off and on, and half and half

approximately, what do you think, are you saying, are you recording the data there. Yeah, the

three of the four data runs, you had desired performance, one of the runs we had a gear

touchdown, and that one you said you were distracted on, because you were talking about

the flight com position. Yeah, so I think that I can give it a 3, there's nothing really... we're

looking at the longitudinal control... the characteristics in the longitudinal axis, and so, I

don't think there's anything really in that axis that would create a problem in a go-around, as

far as, as far as I... that is concerned, except that the... in a go-around, it is critical that you

do have some thrust, and you can start the flare, so that at the proper time, so that the rate of

descent is not excessive. If that is excessive, than you're going to touchdown, so, given the

fact that you add thrust, you start flaring, and then you go around at 30 ft, then there's no

problem performing this within desired standards. We were getting on occasion where... on

the occasions where we didn't get the thrust up quite quick enough, and a lot of elevator was

required, we were maxing out the elevator travel, but when the thrust was applied, early...

early on for the flare, and the nose brought up normally, we're getting half to two thirds

elevator travel, roughly.

Pilot B

Task 4085B Go-Around, 30 ft (Tailscrape Indicator On) 07 Jan 97; Runs 84-87

Okay, just as a caveat, if you had ask me to rate the longitudinal CHR during the approach

phase with plus or minus a half a dot, I would have given you a real degraded rating ,

because this was a...basically a raw data approach down to well below cat 1 minimums. You

didn't ask me that so I won't give it to you, but, just so that you'll know there's a lot of

workload down low this with respect to both longitudinal and lateral direction in terms of

maintaining flight path and localizer without the use of a flight director. For the go- around

itself, the basis was to evaluate the ability to go-around from low altitude without contacting

runway and a minimum of airspeed loss. I think that was doable, with some attention to the

technique. There is no ....naw there is a....there's a limited tendency for PIO that I saw in

some of the practices, I didn't see it in the data runs. There was a geometry strike in the 3rd
73

of 4 runs. That was when I was real aggressive with the elevator getting a pitch attitude up.

When I relaxed that a bit I didn't have a problem with it. Longitudinal, it's controllable, for

the most part, it's adequate, in that I can get adequate performance, say HQR6

longitudinally....requires extensive compensation. Lateral directional it's controllable, it's

adequate, and I'm working pretty hard in lateral axis, I'm going to say it's desired

performance requires moderate pilot compensation, give it an HQR4. It's just that I'm

working so hard in longitudinal that the lateral directional degrades a bit until it gets

some...until I get some bank angle, than I have to go back and correct for that. There were a

couple of times when I found myself recorrecting . So, I'm working lateral directionally as

well. That concludes my comments.

Pilot C

Task 4085 Go-Around, 30 ft (Tailscrape Indicator On) 14 Jan 97; Runs 117-119

Okay, first off, lat-dir was it's usual non-problem, so, leave that at 3 that I had before, no

change on that and in the pitch. You only got to hit the tail once, you don't have to...two out

of three times is not really that good, the fact that the tailstrike marker was there or not

obviously didn't make any difference to me because I managed to hit it, and on the other

times, I was more focused in not touching the tires down than I was in pitch attitude and was

focused so on the flight path marker, to tell you the truth, the tailstrike marker and waterline

combination wasn't in my cross check at that point. It certainly should have been on that

one, and I should accept the touchdown before I'd accept a tailstrike, but I didn't, so, I have

to go with what I saw, and as a result I would have to, I don't know how I can do anything

but adequate performance obtainable with a tolerable work load because I did hit it and, so, it

would take considerable pilot compensation and 8 is required for control, because that's

certainly exceeding a limitation of the airplane. It's interesting all of the times that it did

successfully go, I had desired performance and everything, but the fact that I did get one

strike is of importance. Some other variables now, whether it's in there or whatever, could

very well be the last correction I was making, in other words, if I was making a correction

down and had just started the flare and so on, I could have a pretty good H dot before I

rotated, and that could make the difference, so the last correction I had to make could have

been in there, but for whatever reason, I can't just disregard the fact that I did have a tailstrike

and so, that's why I gave it an 8. Another little side point without the tailstrike thing, I must

have been pretty close to the attitude to get a tailstrike, but didn't...if you don't get it, you

don't realize it, it's a cliff that you don't see, in any case, going around from 30 ft with this

airplane, is a good trick, not touch the wheels and not touch the tail and whether...no matter

what your indications are apparently, and so, yeah, I got your Cooper Harpers there, 3, latdir, and 8 in longitudinal, and that's because of the tailstrike I got.

Pilot D

Task 4085 Go-Around, 30 ft (Tailscrape Indicator On) 24 Jan 97; Runs 25-28

Okay we had the tailstrike indicator to help this time. I think it definitely is an aid. At least

on one there, I actually had to push forward to avoid striking the tail and it did keep us from

striking the tail. We made it, but the performance of the ... the bar really does help, but if

you have a late flare, you know, you just can't change the physics of the airplane and you are

still going to get a tail strike. I think a reliable go around from 30 feet is just not possible. It

looks like it is just way too sensitive to what part of the flare you are in, your sink rate is at

the time of the go around initialization. Another comment, I don't like changing the reference

from the flight path, up to the waterline and then back to the flight path. Same problem, I
74

was having during the takeoff. Maybe I didn't really characterize that well enough on the

takeoff but I think that is a problem where flight path, waterline, back to flight path, for your

guidance reference (is used). At any case the pilot ratings are seven and four.

Pilot E

Task 4085 Go-Around, 30 ft (Tailscrape indicator on) 09 Jan 97; Runs 93-98

This task I think is very illuminating to me in any rate, we had... well, the first run, run No.

93 we had a tailstrike which probably should have been a practice run and that is my

mistake, and I wanted to go right into the data to keep moving, but basically using my same

aggressive techniques from my 50 ft go-around and just drove the tail right into the ground,

so I can throw 93 out. 94 we had a main gear touchdown, 95 was a pretty good run, with a

22 1/2 ft altitude loss. That was just a nice... I started to flare... a nice controlled go- around

power application and nose pitch up. No. 96 we had main gear touchdown also and don't

recall much about that. 97 we did a little bit of the late go-around call and got a tailstrike,

what was interesting is that until that run 97, I wasn't paying as much attention to the

waterline and the tailscrape warning bar. Run 98 which I think is a very good run to look at,

I did pay a lot of attention to that and if you all want to look at the data on that one more

closely, you'll see that I started the go-around and saw a pretty rapid pitch rate increase of

the waterline up towards the tailscrape bar and actually had to stop my rotation rate until we

got some altitude then continue. So you'll see on the strip chart or on the data stream, you'll

see an actual, probably a forward application of elevator to stop my pitch up rate. What this

tells me is that this task is very susceptible to a tailscrape with the current geometry of the

aircraft and certainly it's something that would probably warrant closer scrutiny. As far as

the Cooper Harper ratings, the longitudinal Cooper Harper where I'm looking at is

overshoot of target flightpath which is not a problem, altitude loss would pretty much

always exceeded 20 ft and no PIO and the one... both geometry strikes were really not the

fault of the aircraft pilot/system. one was just an incorrect technique and the other was

incorrect pilot not flying technique. It was probably incorrect pilot technique also, but at any

rate this task does show a real danger, a real kind of a cliff here where you could get a

tailstrike pretty easily I think. Another thing I want to point out is that, interesting when this

is done properly, the same aggregate altitude loss occurs from 50 ft to the ground with this

technique as with the max rate technique on the 50 ft go-around minimal altitude loss. In

other words you would start the flare and then you would do a general or fairly controlled

go-around of 30 ft and you could probably, if done right, you could probably lose around

the same amounts of altitudes if you start with a very aggressive go-around at 50 ft, so that

may be interesting to look at in the future. At any rate, the longitudinal Cooper Harper looks

like adequate performance was obtained, so it was controllable, adequate performance was

obtainable with a tolerable pilot work load, is it satisfactory without improvement? No, the

criteria is no more than 30 ft altitude loss and you start at 30 ft and the runways 30 ft below,

there's no way you could ever get inadequate on this. However, I'm going to rate this a 6

because I think, I think the task is real borderline where you could get into some trouble

with tailstrike or obviously main gear touchdown which would indicate and exceedence of

the 30 ft limit... So, you're really borderline adequate, inadequate for several of my runs. For

lateral directional, controllable? Yes, adequate? Yes, satisfactory without improvement? Yes, a

3 and no real problems laterally.

Pilot F

Task 4085 Go-Around, 30 ft (Tailscrape Indicator On) 22 Jan 97; Runs 70-72
75

Okay, first comment about the approach phase, on this approach, and I don't know if it is

just because it's instrument and I notice it more... or, but it seems distinctly getting it from

the other runs on the glide path with the flap extension and the ballooning. What is

happening, is about around 300 ft I guess somewhere, I see the glideslope, I started to go

above glideslope, at that point the command in the actual flight path markers have not

spread, I only have the commanded shown, and I have to start pushing the commanded

below the three degree line and then at some point after that, I get the split in the command

and the actual, and then I correct back to glide path. A couple comments about this, I

guess... in thinking about this a little bit more, you know why, certainly if I can't get the

performance that I'm demanding, I should have some gamma control system. I think it's

probably appropriate that I have some indication that I'm not getting that performance, but

for normal maneuvers, like just a automatic flap extension on the airplane, I guess I kind of

think that I should not see any difference between commanded and actual and not see this

ballooning, and I realize that, that would require a fair amount more refinement on the flight

control system, but I guess one could take the point of view that if I set 3 degree gamma, in

the airplane, and I don't command anything else, I'm not causing the airplane to exceed it,

and then environmental conditions aren't causing the airplane, not to be able to meet that

gamma, in steady state flight, as the airplane uses its flight controls systems, and secondary

flight control systems, to maneuver the airplane, I probably really shouldn't be getting

something away from that command, and I guess I'm looking at this philosophically from

using a command, a gamma control based system, and a gamma control based HUD

display. Anyway, I'm not saying that it has to be that way, I'm just saying that I think we

need to look at that and make sure that we're philosophically consistent, with how we're

doing this. The other thing is the tailstrike indicator and I realize that we're trying to be

consistent with the takeoff, I agree that on a takeoff the airplane... the pilot rotates the pitch

attitude of the airplane, and that's what he does, and that's what it should show, and I would

be opposed to having a gamma that sits on the horizon, that is not meaningful, well, if it's set

on the horizon, I guess it would be okay, I guess what I'm saying is, I think there's a lot of

value in rotating the airplane to a pitch attitude to the takeoff, and I'm not so sure that I

would want to go to a gamma based rotation on takeoff. I'm not so sure though that it

wouldn't be appropriate to have two kinds of tailstrike indicators here, one for the gamma,

and one for the waterline, or something like that, you do have a pretty big split, the pilot, for

the approach phase, and the landing phase is using the gamma, simple, with this gamma

based flight control, probably to control the airplane. I expected you probably are going to

have a gamma based flight director on here, and unless... I guess... having said all of that, in

ten words or less, here's the issue, my task during the go-around is to rotate the gamma

symbol to twelve degrees, but my limit, is that I have to respect the tailstrike indicator, is

based on the waterline, which is not what my task is, and I'm wondering if maybe we should

have tailstrike limitation being also respected to the flight path vector. To rate it, it's

controllable, it's adequate with tolerable pilot work load, it's satisfactory without

improvement, although I do think there is some display issues that need to be discussed, so

I'm going to kind of take the display out, and just rate the flying qualities, I guess of the

task, if you will. Anyway, well, I guess we realized the display is not necessarily the final

form, but I guess the display does impact the task, I'm going to go in and give it a 3, I guess.

I'm going to give a 3 because of the display, and this is also a high gain task, where I'm

trying to set a gamma, I have to respect a pitch attitude limitation, and we're all very close to

the ground, trying to get everything to come together. Anyway, and I'll do that for lateral and

pitch together. So, it will be a 3 and a 3.
76

Task 4086 Go-Around, 50 ft (ASE OFF, TS ON)

Pilot A

Task 4086 Go-Around, 50 ft (ASE OFF, TS ON) 16 Jan 97; Runs 74-76

The go-around seemed to fairly consistent and straight forward. Very consistent

performance, with a maximum... the elevator required is close to the maximum, I think this

probably comes in initial pull, to check the rate of descent. Cooper Harper wise, the lateral

directional task, or the rating, I would give a 3, and the longitudinal Cooper Harper would, I

think, be a... Let's take a look at the Cooper Harper definitions. It looks like... I believe I'd

give a 3 for Cooper Harper. There's some breakout of the actual versus commanded gamma,

especially when zeroing in on the target climb angle, there's about a one to two degree split

at that point, and it appears to be due to the acceleration with full thrust. On the go-arounds

we've been using maximum thrust, and manually set, and so the airplane has continued to

accelerate all through the go-around maneuver, and is actually accelerating at 12 degrees of

gamma.

Pilot B

Task 4086 Go-Around, 50 ft (ASE OFF, TS ON) 07 Jan 97; Runs 79-82 and 10 Jan 97;

Runs 14-15

Okay, for this task I was consistently getting altitude losses in excess of 30 ft, in fact there's

a band of about 2 ft between 34 and about 36 ft or so that I was getting on each of the runs.

Despite immediate go-arounds at 50 ft, immediate TOGA press, relatively quick gear

retraction. It's not a handling quality issue, its a performance issue. I was pegging the

elevator as well at 30 degrees on the indicator. So, I think just in terms of the technique I

was using, I was not..the airplane was not capable of achieving the performance it was

specified for adequate. In terms of other parameters, over shooting the target flight path all

that was desired, bank angle control was desired, no PIO's, no geometry strikes, although we

got reasonably close on the tail about 4 ft. as I soften the pin out. But the only problem was

the inability longitudinally to achieve the altitude loss required. So lets rate the lateral

directional first, it was controllable, adequate, and satisfactory, this is another where I would

like to give a half rating but I can't, and I'm going to give it the benefit of a doubt and give it

a 2, pilot compensation largely not a factor in lateral directional. Longitudinal was the issue,

it was controllable, however, I could not achieve adequate performance. Controllability was

not in question. So, I'm limited in terms of the HQ that I can give on it. So HQR7, adequate

performance not attainable with maximum pilot...tolerable pilot compensation controllability

not in question. Again, I don't think that the imposition of maximum altitude loss is an

appropriate metric for an HQR. I think you are looking at aircraft performance not a

handling qualities criteria. That's the caveat I would give to it. I did not feel that there is any

handling quality issues here. I did not appear to be in rate limiting. I did not have a problem

setting the pitch attitude, it just that I could not get the altitude loss within in the tolerable

specified range. That concludes my comments.

Pilot B repeated this manuever on 10 January 1997, after the card was modified to ignore

the altitude loss metric:

This is a repeat of the one we did the other day, ignoring the altitude loss metric, which in

this case was probably better than, certainly better than the worst that we saw the other day,

in any case, we're ignoring that, desired performance obtained other than that, with relatively
77

minor work load, both longitudinally and lateral directionally, so, I think we're back in the

level 1 territory again. It's controllable, adequate, satisfactory, minimal pilot compensation,

HQR3, and that's the case for both longitudinal and lateral directional, so, in summary, 3 and

3.

Pilot C

Task 4086 Go-Around, 50 ft 14 Jan 97; Runs 108-110

Got adequate performance, tolerable pilot work load, satisfactory without improvement,

yeah, I would say yes, improvement not required, minimal pilot compensation required for

desired performance. It's a fairly high anxiety level because of suddenly seeing the runway,

and having to go around like that, is kind of a tough position to be in, but if you talk about

the compensation it takes as far as handling qualities and so on go, then it really wasn't that

much compensation. It's just there is a fair amount of learning curve, if I were doing this

again, I think my practice ones, I'd like at least one of them without the weather in there, so, I

could just see what the performance and what it takes to keep from touching down would

have been a little bit easier than seeing it for the first time with the cloud there, and of course

after you see it once, and you know how quickly you have to move the nose up to keep it

from touching and so on, a lot of the problem goes away then. As far as the segment one, it

looks like our left drift was very, very slight out of trim in the rudder, and if it's that

sensitive, then there should be a big indication of rudder trim, because that made quite a

difference between those runs, so, that's a little side comment, but in general, the ILS was the

same as it always has been and will be as long as we don't change anything, 2 and 2 for the

segment...or the go-around part, I guess that's still segment two, whatever you want to call it,

than I would give probably the lat-dir a 2, I did not have any problem holding a bank angle

at all, and the pitch just did require some compensation, so, it's a 3. So, longitudinal 3, and

lat-dir 2, if you put it in the order you've written it there, I guess.

Pilot D

Task 4086 Go-Around, 50 ft 24 Jan 97; Runs 15-17

That's really a pretty easy task. It's like ... just a pull and go, with the exception of trying to

find the go around button. I was using the technique of disconnecting the autothrottles as I

was advancing the throttles to 100 per cent, then groping for the go around button.

Sometimes that would cause a little bit of a pause in my pitch rate but still we had a good

positive rate of climb going by that time. Other than that it was just a pretty straight forward

task, very easy. Very easy except the inceptors were kind of a bear. So longitudinal, because

of the throttles, I'll give it a four and lateral, I'll give it a four because of a tendency to PIO

and the loose roll characteristics.

Pilot E

Task 4086 Go-Around, 50 ft 09 Jan 97; Runs 89-92

Okay, for this one the main thing we're seeing is that I was unable to meet even the adequate

minimal altitude loss. The last two of the four runs I did, runs 91 and 92, I basically, as soon

as I heard the go-around call, I as rapidly as possible went to full aft stick, only limited by

the actual damping and velocity gradient characteristics of the MacFaden. I was as

aggressive as I could possibly be, and I got pretty... what I thought was pretty good

response from the flightpath of the aircraft, nevertheless, we lost an average of around, the
78

best we did was 35 feet, but the average was around 40 feet or so with altitude loss. Let's

see, as far as the performance standards, it's pretty easy to meet the target flightpath, I think

within the seven seconds especially there is no problem. It's very easy to close on that.

Altitude loss, we did not meet the adequate requirements of less than 30 feet. Bank angle

control was similarly not bad, mostly was around 2 or so. Pilot induced oscillations, none

noted and no geometry strikes. For the longitudinal Cooper Harper, it was controllable,

adequate performance was obtainable, satisfactory without improvement, actually I take that

back, let's see, for longitudinal, I guess that would include the altitude loss. So... we do that,

controllable? Yes, adequate performance is not obtainable, adequate performance is not

obtainable with maximum tolerable pilot compensation, controllability not in question.

That's a Cooper Harper 7 descriptor and I think that adequately sums it up, the... it looks

like the best you can do... at least the best I can do is around 35 feet so that makes it a

Cooper Harper 7. For lateral directional all the criteria were desired as far as, really all

you're looking at is a max spec... max bank angle and PIO. So, for lateral directional,

controllable? Yes, adequate performances obtainable? Yes, satisfactory without

improvement? Yes, Cooper Harper of 3. You get up to... when you're making that huge

longitudinal input with the way the MacFaden is set up, the harmony is very good, we do

have to be careful that you don't end up getting a slight bank angle, so there is certain

amount of compensation required for that, so a 7 and a 3 for the Cooper Harpers.

Pilot E flew this task again, ignoring the altitude loss metric, and awarded it a 3 longitudinal.

His comments regarding the new task definition are found above in Task 4085.

Pilot E

Task 4086 Go-Around, 50 ft 29 Jan 97; Runs 16-18

Pilot E flew this task previously, in which a minimum altitude loss metric was included, and

awarded it a 3 longitudinal. His comments regarding the original task definition are found

above.

The task was changed from how I flew it the first time, so we redid it, basically, the

minimum altitude loss requirement was deleted for the rating. We just didn't want to touch

down, I was going down to between 5 and 10 ft, basically with the 50 ft call for the goaround, and maybe a moderately aggressive pull, I was trying to fly that seven seconds that

Dave Rainey suggested to the... suggested 12 degree gamma of climbout reference mark.

Basically, I met the desired criteria, which was don't touch down, and don't have a tailstrike,

and capture the 12 degree gamma fly out path without... with less than 2 degree overshoot,

which I've did, and having bank angle control of less than plus or minus 5 degrees, and it

was probably plus or minus 1 degree. So, therefore desired criteria were met both

longitudinally and laterally. For the longitudinal rating, controllable? Yes, adequate? Yes,

satisfactory without improvement? Yes, for a Cooper Harper of 3 due to work load, and the

work load, is basically you have to really kind of be careful when you start your initial pull,

and kind of play that pull to not meet the tail strike bar with the waterline marker. For the

lateral directional, no real problems on that, controllable? Yes, adequate? Yes, satisfactory?

Yes, for a 3. Didn't notice any PIO problems or any difficulties. If you're having to hold,

having to work in a lateral axis because of the light turbulence, but there is no coupling with

the rapid pitch rate onset, or with power onset, power came in symmetrically, and no... any

beta effects, or corresponding lateral upsets.

Pilot F
79

Task 4086 Go-Around, 50 ft 22 Jan 97; Runs 66-67

Let's see, basically, I don't think this task is real difficult. One thing that I did notice is, just

the way the go-around buttons and the throttles are, it's kind of awkward giving the throttles

up to getting the TOGA button pushed, but anyway, just to rate the task, it's controllable,

adequate performance with a tolerable work load, is yes, is it satisfactory without

improvement? I'd say yes, and then going into the parameters her, except for the throttles in

that, I think it's a pretty reasonable maneuver, I'd probably give it a 2 in pitch and a 2 in roll.

That's basically it. One thing to note to, is I think I probably jumped the gun on both the

data runs instead of the go-around just slightly, try to go around right at 50 ft, again with the

display, it's taking a fair amount of effort for me to really read the digits just because there

not as crisp and clear as they might be.

Pilot F

Task 4086 Go-Around at 50' AGL (ASE On) 24 Jan 97; Run 93

Surprisingly, you know, I think that I'm kind of getting used to the bouncing around with

the ASE model, you know, I may be missing something, but the go-around just didn't really

seem that difficult, although, it's mainly a pitch task. But it's still disconcerting, though,

bouncing and lurching around that you get on final. But as far as actually being able to

control the airplane and make it do what you want to do, for that particular task, it really

wasn't too bad, but again, you know, we're not really doing too much lateral maneuvering.

We are going to go back and look at the offset landing tasks, hopefully just to kind of look

at the delta between those two, but is it controllable? Yes, is it adequate performance

obtainable with a tolerable pilot work load? The answer for the go-around task is yes, is it

satisfactory without improvement? And I'm not going to consider ride quality issues. For

that particular task, it wouldn't have been the most comforting thing in the world, and if you

turned up the turbulence level, it might become very uncomfortable very quickly, but really, I

don't know that the AFC really affected task performance that much, or required much

additional work load or pilot compensation to do the task, so, I'm going to answer yes, that

it's satisfactory without improvement there, not that, you know, again, flying around and this

lurch bobbling, banging mode is not really comfortable, but it didn't really effect the... didn't

seem, my perception was, it didn't really effect the flight performance parameters that much.

So I'm going to go in, and I'm going to give it a 3 in pitch, and 3 laterally and directionally,

and again, you know, that's not to say that I'd want to fly around, or that I think it would be

suitable to fly around like that all the time, but for this particular task, just looking at it

without any upsets, turbulence wind sheer, you know, any of that other stuff, it really wasn't

all that much different from the normal go-around was. (Special Task not crossreferenced.)
80

Task 4093 Crosswind Landing - 25 kt (Procedure A)

Pilot A

Task 4093 Crosswind Landing - 25 kt (Procedure A) 16 Jan 97; Runs 11-13 (forward slip

technique), 16-20 (decrab technique)

This is run number 20, and crosswinds using a decrab, but once again, each run seems to

encounter, I seem to encounter a tendency to PIO, especially it seems to be onset triggered

by the decrab maneuver, and it's extremely difficult to stop the PIO. Part of the... I attempted

on several runs to just release the aileron, and to stop the PIO and make minor corrections,

however, that doesn't work very good, because you're really into very precise flare and pitch,

and so it's difficult to separate out the two, so, even if the PIO is successfully avoided, than

the hard landings are often the result, because of the attention required for the PIO. As far

as the Cooper Harper ratings for down to 200 ft; pitch I can give a 2, and lateral directional a

3, and below 200 ft, lateral directional, I guess, is it controllable, and I'd say no, it's a 10, and

during... as far as lateral. As far as longitudinal is concerned; adequate performance is

obtainable with pilot tolerable work load? no, and I'd give it a 8, I guess, but it's... well, let me

back off on that. I'll give it a 7. We've compared the two types of crosswind techniques, and

the last minute rudder kick is probably the more difficult and the more likely to be inducing

lateral PIO's for that reason, I would prefer the wing down technique that, and I'd prefer to

start at somewhere around a 100 ft. The... better than 200 ft... the... usually in the kicking

out the rudder, or the... crab, decrab, using the last minute decrab, it seemed as though better

results are obtained if just a very small portion of the crab angle is kicked out, say to leave

about 4 to 5 degrees of crab remaining at touchdown, that seems to works best, if you try to

eliminate all of the crab, touchdown perfectly aligned with centerline, that produces so much

excess drag, it takes almost maximum thrust to arrest you're rate of descent at the very last

minute, and the engine response times are critical, and at the same time, we were making a

very large thrust change, and trying to precisely flare, it's kind of a demanding... demanding

task. Normally my technique is to use a wing low technique starting at perhaps about, for

subsonic airplanes, starting at perhaps 100 ft, or so, and that seems to work out quite nicely.

Pilot B

Task 4093 Crosswind Landing - 25 kt (Procedure A) 07 Jan 97; Runs 64-67

The approach segment, the workload was relatively high. Just coordinating the gust and with

the scan particularly when the crosswind was from the right with the velocity vector well on

the left hand aft of the display and having to scan across the entire width of the display to

see a glide slope. So I'll call that moderately higher than normal. I felt like I was able to get

desired performance however, throughout on the approaches. The landing phase, in the

landing phase the workload was intense in terms of retaining control. And on the practice

runs I often didn't, on the data runs I was able to on all 4 runs, but there's a learning curve

associated with it. But I felt like the workload was extremely high. There is a PIO tendency

and I think that's due to rate limiting on the lateral control system. Its an association with

large rudder inputs down low. I was deliberately reducing my rudder inputs trying to make

them as smooth as I could to reduce the requirements for lateral inputs to compensate for

the increase CL- Beta in this configuration. And, I was able to do so successfully and keep

with an adequate balance. There is no way I was going to get desired performance and do

that, however, in terms of touchdown position. Had I sacrificed longitudinal and lateral

control to get and adequate touchdown or to get a desired touchdown, I feel like I would

have lost probably lateral control in terms of large inputs, so, it would not have fit with the
81

technique that I was using. And as such, accept adequate performance on all of those.

CHR's for the approach, on longitudinal, it's controllable, adequate, and let's call it

satisfactory and give it an HQR3, minimum pilot compensation . However, the caveat that

the workload was higher than it was without the approach and without the crosswind rudder.

Lateral directional, controllable, adequate, and satisfactory, again, HQR3, with the caveat that

the workload is a little bit higher. Okay, longitudinal in the landing phase , it's controllable,

it's adequate, I was able to get adequate performance and I think adequate performance

requires extensive pilot compensation let's call it HQR6. Had I rated this in the practice run

It would have been an 8, because I felt like considerable pilot compensation was required for

control and at times I lost it. However on the data runs there were a learning curve so I'll

upgrade it to a 6. Lateral directional...hey let me back up on that, Dave, because I think what

I just gave you was a lateral directional, I was kinda thinking ahead. Let me think about

longitudinal for a second. I'm going to change that...longitudinal it's controllable, adequate,

satisfactory with moderately objectionable deficiencies, and considerable pilot compensation

for longitudinal, give it an HQR5. For lateral directional I'm going to repeat what I just

said...it's controllable, adequate, and satisfactory and not satisfactory rather with intense

compensation required for adequate performance, give it an HQR6 for lateral directional.

And again, had I rated that in the practice runs I would have given it an 8 for lateral

directional. Whenever, I had a problem, it was in association with lateral control following a

directional input, so I'll say it was CLB, CL beta fit requirement to the lateral control system

and whenever I felt a PIO...or pending PIO it felt like a rate limiting situation that I've

experienced before. And that concludes my comments nicely.

Pilot C

Task 4093 Crosswind Landing - 25 kt (Procedure A) 14 Jan 97; Runs 65-66, 68-69

Okay, I might preference this by saying this isn't my correction of choice in most any

airplane, but on the airplanes you have to, that's all you got, what the hey. Anyway, adequate

performance with a tolerable pilot work load, in most of the cases I was getting adequate

performance, and when I didn't I don't think I was very far out, and also this was very little

practice time considering the importance of the timing of the inputs and so on, so, I am

going to say that it is adequate performance with a tolerable pilot work load. Satisfactory

without improvement, no, I don't think so, they require improvement, and the adequate

performance I was getting, the thing is...the work load isn't hard, but the ability to put in the

right amount and so on is, which makes it kind of a difficult thing to rate right here, it was

certainly never better than adequate performance, and again no better course, and for the

longitudinal...due to the difficulty of the lat-dir, the longitudinal kind of got away and so that

was...I'm going to give that 5 because I don't think I ever did any better than adequate on it,

and it would be considerable pilot compensation in any case, so, 5 for the longitudinal in the

second segment and I think I'm going to go with 6 on the lat-dir in the second segment due

to the caution that I gave before. It's something that...that's a tough one to learn in a short

period of time. For me, I would give it extensive pilot compensation, so a 6 for the lat-dir.

As far as the segment one, there isn't any difference, if you look at the data, and you see me

off, it's because I either wasn't paying enough attention to it or quite often I was purposely

putting the...going a little low on the glideslope in order to get the touchdown performance

longitudinally as best that I could, and there's no changes, I couldn't see any difference

between actually keeping it right on the glideslope and on the localizer from the last one, so,

that again is the usual 2 and 2. Okay yeah, this is an interesting, which one do I prefer

between the two procedures, well, if we took the handling qualities cliff out of there I would

have preferred the wing low, but with that in there, that's completely negates using that as far

as I'm concerned, so, to go to 35 knots, I would do it with the Procedure B, I think it was
82

just kicking it straight, and as I said it was the PIO that could come in there with the bank

angle and I never saw any tendency to PIO with the rudder that I could see, they all looked

pretty benign, it had enough authority, this is kind of tricky because you're sitting so far

ahead that if you put your...while your still in the crab, if you put yourself over the center of

the runway, centerline of the runway, and then you kick it straight you actually translate

what amounts to down wind, and you are now almost out of the box, because of how the

airplane rotates, if you see what I mean. So, I noticed that more on the second two when the

crosswind was from the right and I did from the left, but I don't know, there might have just

been a coincidence, but I did notice a couple of times I had to purposely put myself on the

upwind edge of the runway before I kicked it out because if I just...and by myself I guess it

may not be myself, but that's the way it looked, and that was a little disconcerting and then

when I...then if you do that...and then when you push, you see, that brings you back to the

centerline where you want to be, so, that's all learned stuff, there's nothing you can put in

flight controls that I know of that would take that out of there, so, that's pretty much what I

saw that time. So, when we get ready to do the big one, it will be the rudder only.

Pilot D

Task 4093 Crosswind Landing - 25 kt (Procedure A) 23 Jan 97; Runs 66-68

Okay, very difficult task, it took me a lot of practice to be able to get it into the adequate box,

got a couple wing tips to start out with, because of rolling out coupling. I personally don't

recommend this task, it's not my normal task, and that maybe part of it, but the reason it's

not my normal task, is that I never have felt that the very dynamic character of a decrab at

low altitude is a good thing to be doing, some airplanes you have to though, as in our DC8.

Okay, I think... let's just go ahead and give us a pilot ratings for the glideslope, essentially

no different than before. The display makes it very easy to compensate for the crosswind, in

fact, you hardly even notice it's there, so it would be a 4 and a 4 again, just due to the same

reasons as previous. Landing, both the longitudinal and lateral, I'm going to give them sixes

(6), I was working very hard at both axis to get into adequate performance, and I think there

is a very high probability of missing that adequate box if we, you know, made a series of ten

runs.

Pilot E

Task 4093 Crosswind Landing - 25 kt (Procedure A) 08 Jan 97; Runs 100-104

Okay, the evaluation segment for the up and away glideslope and localizer intercept at 200

ft, that's basically... most of these approaches are hands off until around 500 ft. The...

editorial comment, I'm not sure we really need to have the tapering crosswind as far as

learning anything from that, I don't think we gain much, it just seems from the videos I

didn't even touch the side stick until most of the time until around 500 ft. So, I don't think

it's much to be gained from having a crosswind taper from 35 to 25 for future assessments

we want to save some time. There is no problem with glideslope or localizer in the steady

crosswind, you need one to taper almost hands off it almost tracks the localizer pretty well,

usually around 600 ft, so you've got to put in one tiny little correction just to ease it over and

take out some of the crab, but otherwise it's very simple well behaved, and the glideslope is

very easy to fly. So the longitudinal Cooper Harper for the glideslope and localizer

intercept, controllable? Yes, adequate? Yes, satisfactory without improvement? I'm going to

say no, rate it a Cooper Harper of 4. When you get below 500 ft and this evaluation goes

down to 200 ft for this evaluation segment, the combination of the winds and the moderate

turbulence in the autoflap transition makes glideslope control more difficult. I was really
83

working to hold the glideslope within plus or minus about a third of a dot, down to around

300 ft and the work levels, let's give it a Cooper Harper of 4. The lateral directional also

required a higher work level, it was controllable, adequate performance was obtainable,

satisfactory without improvement? I'm going to say no and rate it a 4 also, just a higher

work load with the crosswind to maintain the localizer and especially as you get down below

500 ft, it requires more effort and the moderate turbulence is tending to upset it from it's

wings level position requiring more frequent pilot inputs. So 4 and a 4. For precision

landing segment, from 200 ft down touchdown, this technique using the decrab at 50 ft, a

lot's happening at one time, you've go to do a lot of lateral directional work and a lot of

longitudinal work in order to try and set up a flare attitude which we know is harder with

these new dynamic ground effect models and at same time trying to align the fuselage. So,

it's just an awful lot going on at one time. One technique I used, was I would add a little bit

of power or at least not retract any power, in fact, sometimes left the auto throttle on, onto

almost touchdown in order to keep the power up. I had intended for the ones we rated here,

I tended to have slightly long landings with fairly good H dots, but to the practice ones, even

with that technique, I sometimes landed a little short and firm. Certainly there is a learning

curve on this one, the practice approaches I flew I had H dots at around 9 or 10 and on the

evaluation ones I had a 1.85, .1 and 2.8, so there was a huge learning curve as far as starting

the flare attitude. The... there is one more thing to note and my point I was going to make...

I had one geometry strike and that was just probably more a reflection of just inattention

rather than anything else. However, it does show you that certainly is one of the pitfalls of

this configuration, so I think it is interesting even though I'm blaming myself more than on

the aircraft. It appears that my performance was mostly for X position, I was mostly in the

adequate range, laterally I'm going to kind of say it's more towards the desirable range. So

for the longitudinal rating, controllable? Yes, adequate? Yes, satisfactory? No, it will have to

be a Cooper Harper of 5 for adequate performance. For lateral directional, controllable? Yes,

adequate? Yes, satisfactory without improvement? No, I'll rate it a 4 for this task, and

basically the task is just so high gain, that the work load is so high that it's difficult to rate it

higher than a 4.

Pilot F

Task 4093 Crosswind Landing - 25 kt (Procedure A) 22 Jan 97; Runs 44-48

Okay, a couple things, for some reason I thought it was harder to do the crosswind from the

left than it was the crosswind from the right, and it was harder for me for some reason to see

the alignment task, or to get everything aligned, just right, I did three runs with it from the

left, two runs with it from the right, I got better performance with the crosswind from the

right than I did the left, in general, of all, I'm not so sure that there is something specifically

in the control system or if it is just a pilot preference. The only thing that I can think about

is, and I looked at this on the last part of the run, is it's easier for me with the ergometrics of

this stick, to hold right bank in... and adjust for the right bank, or make right bank

adjustments in the flare with blended pitch inputs than it is left bank, pushing my hand out,

out board, and that might be something if the stick was placed differently in the cockpit and

optimized a little bit more, that I might not have had that same feeling. Again, I'm still getting

used to the airplane and I'm not so sure that, I guess what I'm trying to get at is, it's hard to

really pick it out for sure, but I think that was one of the primary factors in the comfort level.

The last run that we did, though, I paid particular attention to that and I did mess up the flare

a little bit, as far as touchdown sink rate and longitudinal position are concerned, but I was

really trying to look for what was making me uncomfortable and I don't think it was really a

factor of the stick causing the performance as much as I was just trying in my own mind to

figure out rather... if there was just a preference issue, or what was causing me not to see the
84

alignment earlier on the previous two runs. Anyway, if you train up parameters between

runs, I guess from the left we had all the desired performance at one time or another, just not

on all of the same runs. On the right side, I think we were closer to desired performance,

and I guess I want to emphasize that the stick and holding left bank in the flare is just a

feeling of slight perception, it's not a... not something that is real definitive or real strong, it's

a very slight, slight preference to holding right bank versus left bank in the round out and

flare. I liked aligning the airplane early at 200 ft. I think this works out well, I'm going to be

interested to see the other point where we align the airplane with runway low or down.

Getting back to predictability and crispness before, crispness before, that we talked about

before, it's very controllable to make a slow alignment maneuver starting at 200 ft. Again,

my biggest... I guess complaint if you will, is if I get off of the basic profile that I'm doing, I

try to align it with the runway, or get off the profile because I started the round out flare just

a little bit late, it's very hard to come up with a consistent appropriate correction to get back

on profile, I have to work very hard to do that. Let's see, the other comment that I was going

to make, is that on all these runs, because we busted the 50... or 5 degrees of bank below 50

ft parameter, I've been very sensitive to bank deviation below 50 ft, and... not knowing the

geometry that well, I guess I would be more inclined on any airplane when I make the

alignment maneuver then to make any bank adjustments as high up as I can, to try to have

the bank more stabilized when I enter the actual flare close to the ground, and so that caused

a fair amount of attention on my part on subsequent runs, after the practice runs that we did.

For the rating, we're rating both the localizer, okay, for tracking the localizer, you know, this

is just tracking raw data, it would be nice to have a flight director, it's not required. One thing

is if I were in instrument conditions, and I had to establish the offset... heading offset, for

the course, I could do it, but with the flight path vector, it's not a... I guess what I'm getting at

is it's not as obvious as with an HSI of what crosswind correction you have. You can see it

in the HUD, all of the information is there, it just requires a little bit, at least for me, a little

bit more of cognitive process. For the approach, laterally and longitudinally, though, I don't

think the rating would be significantly different for this task, than what we've rated it before,

it's obviously controllable, adequate performance with a tolerable work load, and it's

satisfactory without improvement, you could do this... I just... it would be nicer to have an

HSI or more of a... like at least have a reference marker for where the course is on the

heading scale, so that I can see the difference in heading and course, without having to

remember that the course is roughly 360, but since we started out established on the course,

that really wasn't a big deal, I mean it was pretty easy to hold it, hold course for this

maneuver, particularly visual, which you have the runway out there in addition to the

localizer helping you out. So, for this task, I guess I would... I'd probably go 2 1/2, again I

don't really like to split up the axis, but we're not going to do half ratings, I'll guess I'll give

both 2's, although, I'll just note that in another maneuver, like if I was doing this IFR, I might

be inclined to give the lateral directional axis a 3, simply because, not because of the flying

qualities, but because of the display. For the landing task, it's definitely controllable,

adequate performance is obtainable with tolerable pilot work load, is it satisfactory without

improvement? I think again... again I think I'd probably answer no to this question. I think

you can land in a crosswind safely on the runway every time. Landing in the 500 ft box,

with the alignment maneuver, and the fact that if you make small errors, it's hard to get back

onto the nominal approach and because of the gamenship that I kind of talked about, or at

least my perception of gamenship in the flare, I guess I would answer no to satisfactory

without improvement, which puts us into the second block, and kind of a dilemma here.

Four is desired performance requires moderate pilot compensation, I guess if you want to

be real technical about it on any given task, I don't think we really got desired performance.

Five is adequate performance requires considerable pilot compensation, and I guess I really

don't want to give it a five, because I don't really think that it's considerable pilot

compensation just to get adequate performance. I would really be inclined to fall back to the
85

four here if I put the runs together to look at all the different aspects, but I'm not really sure

that's appropriate. This is a tough one. I guess I'm going to give it a five (5), laterally and

longitudinally... hold on a minute... okay, here's what I guess what I'm going to do, the pitch

task here, again I really don't like breaking these up by axis, but the pitch axis here is really

no worse than it is in any of the other maneuvers, although it is harder because it takes more

of your attention for the lateral command, it also... I do think that with this particular stick,

the way it's installed in the cockpit, I'm not saying that this is true of all side sticks, but just

the ergometric or ergonomics of this particular stick. I think that holding the bank while

you're making the pitch inputs does make it more difficult, and I guess I'm going to go with

a 4 for pitch, and if I break up the axis, I guess I can at any one time get desired

performance for that axis. I guess I'm going to go with a 4 and a 4.
86

Task 4093 Crosswind Landing - 25 kt (Procedure B)

Pilot A

Task 4093 Crosswind Landing - 25 kt (Procedure B) 16 Jan 97; Runs 11-13 (forward slip

technique), 16-20 (decrab technique)

One of the things that seems to give trouble in this approach is a tendency towards PIO. It

begins about the time you start trying to decrab, when the gains are starting to go up in roll,

and it can... it's quite... it takes quite a conscious effort to try to keep from PIO, getting into

a PIO in roll. The other complication is the very significant increase in thrust is required

when you start to establish a wing low condition, as you get all of the... as you get

approaching all of the crosswind compensation in, and a lot of rudder, it takes almost three

quarters thrust to arrest the descent and get an adequate sink rate. All my landings were

either adequate, or excessive rate of sink, most of the ones that were aborted, were due to the

PIO getting... going divergent, as in the flare, so, are we rating these prior to 200 ft, and then

after, or...? Okay, I'd say for the segment down to 200 ft, lateral directional is probably a 3,

and a 2 for longitudinal, and for below the... below 200 ft. lateral directional, let's go through

the chart here. Is it controllable? no, I'll give it a 10, and... let's see, I'll take that back, it may

or may not be controllable, adequate performance obtainable with tolerable pilot workload,

no, deficiency requires improvement, I'll give it a 9, lateral directional, and in longitudinal,

does that include the thrust aspect of it? Okay, it's fairly intense... activity is required. Let's

see, is adequate performance obtainable with tolerable pilot workload? I'd say it was fairly

high work load, just to get adequate numbers, and let's see, is adequate performance

obtainable with tolerable pilot... tolerable work load? Well, it's on the verge of a 6 or a 7...

adequate... I'd... I'll give it a 6.

Pilot B

Task 4093 Crosswind Landing - 25 kt (Procedure B) 07 Jan 97; Runs 69-72

The approach phase on this technique is the same pretty much because I'm not initiating the

technique, the change in technique until about 200 ft. The landing phase however is

fundamentally different, although the work load is still pretty high, I didn't feel like control

was an issue. Although it was reported that I was rate limiting, I wasn't feeling any rate

limiting up here. So, I feel like this is in terms of preference, this is definitely the technique

for me. I was able to get adequate performance routinely and on occasion, desired

performance. So, its much improved over the previous one. For the approach longitudinal

controllable, adequate, and satisfactory, minimal pilot compensation HQR3. Lateral

directional, controllable, adequate, satisfactory , and minimal pilot compensation HQR3. for

the landing phase longitudinal CHR, controllable, adequate, and this is another one where I

would like to give it a 4.5 if I could, I'm going to say 4 on this, desired performance requires

moderate pilot compensation HQR4. For lateral directional, it's controllable, adequate, and

deficiencies warrant improvement, adequate performance requires considerable pilot

compensation HQR5. I feel like the lateral directional task is still a little bit tougher than the

longitudinal task. That concludes my comments.

Pilot C

Task 4093 Crosswind Landing - 25 kt (Procedure B) 14 Jan 97; Runs 59-62
87

Well, this was an interesting time. The segment one, however, is the same, it's no more

difficult or no easier with the crosswind than without it as far as holding it, it's very easy to

do, both longitudinal and lateral-directionally, segment 1, 2 and 2. Now, here's the

interesting part, when we get down to the...let's talk about the pitch first. So, this is pitch,

segment two. For some reason, I have no idea why, but it was much easier for me to put it in

the desired box with the crosswind than without. Each time I was coming up with desired in

the box and I can't for the life of me figure out what I'm doing differently here than that I

was doing before, but something sure happened because it was dropping into the desired

box each time, rates of descent, when it was...we're talking about longitudinal characteristics

here, as long as they were...the airplane was in it's normal state, was quite...certainly was

controllable and was quite pleasant. So, satisfactory without improvement, longitudinally

requires improvement, I still have some...trying to keep these in is working pretty hard, even

to get the desired, so I come over there and I did get the desired and so and so, this is

strange why I would give it a higher rating for crosswind than without, but I'm not here to

analyze, so, a 4 in the longitudinal segment two. Now, here this one is the tough one when

we start talking about the lateral-direction. First off, the rudder, the yaw control, no matter

what technique I was using...a fairly rapid crosswind correction or just easing one in, the

yaw control was fine. The problem came in, in the roll control and most of the difficulty was

in the practice ones, but none the less, I saw the problem at least once in the data runs, and

that is once I get close to the ground and start really having to fine tune the bank angle, and

increasing my inputs somewhat, but nothing that's outlandish, and this isn't a "oh boy", I've

got to go wild with this thing to control it, but as soon as I started picking up the motions as

say a gust would hit me, something would happen, and there would be a very sizable PIO,

and that's the classic...the closer to the ground I got, the more apt I was to see it, and the one

that I saw on the data runs which are the only ones that I'm going to be counting here other

than I already have the knowledge of what happens if I go further, it had not gotten to the

point where I hit anything yet, but it was a PIO, and at a minimum it was undamped and I

only got a couple cycles of it, and very well could of been heading for the moon, I don't

know...soon after...what I saw, I felt it was at least self-sustaining, in another words the

oscillations were at least staying the same size. In order to stay away from that, on a couple

of them I intentionally backed out of the loop, which is compensation, and unfortunately

we're talking about hitting things and so on and that's exceeding the limitations, so now

we're talking about controllability, well I saw that with proper compensation I can keep it

controlled, so, adequate performance obtainable with a tolerable pilot work load? no.

Deficiency requires improvement, and yes, controllability was in question and I did have to

compensate for it, so, I'm going to give that an 8 for the...specifically for the roll control, but

for our purposes here, it's lat-dir, and for the reasons that I said. Very strange results from

this that the longitudinal suddenly is improved with a crosswind and yet they...Cooper

Harper...excuse me, the lat-dir went all to pieces on me, and my concern is we're right on the

edge of that cliff at any time just a little more gain and you're over the edge on it, so that's

what my concern is.

Pilot D

Task 4093 Crosswind Landing - 25 kt (Procedure B) 23 Jan 97; Run 70-72

Much, much easier task I think, you eliminate that dynamic maneuver in the flare,

particularly with an airplane that's so sensitive to geometry strikes, and actually I'm going

down a learning curve on the landings, we had two out of three of those were in desirable in

all parameters, but still the yaw task, definitely increases the work load over the normal

landings, so I'm going to, for the glideslope, let's rate it as before, 4, 4. For landing, let's

make it 5, 5, we did get some adequate performance, and I think the work load is up there
88

and the probability of staying in that desired box a 100 percent, or nearly 100 percent of the

time is pretty nil.

Pilot E

Task 4093 Crosswind Landing - 25 kt (Procedure B) 08 Jan 97; Runs 106-109

Okay, my preferred technique is a forward slip, it gives you more time to get established, I

actually, at a couple 3 of these landings I really liked even though they didn't... the last one I

thought was a very good landing and approach, it just probably... I overcontrolled the flare

by I would say, on the order of maybe a tenth to a quarter degree which is almost

imperceptible to figure out. I leveled it out just about 9 ft or it would have been an excellent

approach, it felt real good, I had much better control of my lateral deviation. I had one kind

of outliar which I'm going to kind of toss out, it's just a function of trying something that

didn't work, but most of the lateral deviations were on the average of around 3 or 4 ft if you

average the 3 good ones, and the heading corrections were all very nominal except for the

one kind of outliar. The... what this does show you though is that with the dynamic ground

effects that we aren't as predictable in the flare as we could be. I had two approaches that

were roughly around a thousand feet and the two were roughly around 2300 feet and one of

the thousand ones had a firm H dot and one of them had a very good H dot, similarly one of

the longer ones had a good H dot and one of them a firm H dot. It's just... I'm finding out

there just not as predictable in the flare and certainly when you have extra considerations

like the crosswind turbulence, it makes it worse. Any rate, up and away, no real problems,

still a little bit of effort on controlling the glideslope due to the turbulence and winds. So for

the longitudinal up and away we'll consider it controllable, adequate performance was

obtainable, satisfactory without improvement? No, we'll rate it a 4. Laterally similar rating,

controllable? Yes, adequate? Yes, satisfactory? No, also a 4, and this is just due to the effects

of the winds and turbulence on the work load. For the longitudinal task, it's probably sort of

semi-borderline desired adequate for both longitudinal and lateral using this newer

technique, of using this different technique to commence your forward slip. I'll go ahead

and do longitudinal rating first, this is controllable? Yes, adequate performance is

obtainable? Yes, satisfactory? No, it's borderline desired adequate, I'm going to go ahead and

rate it a 5 for basically adequate performance. For the lateral directional, controllable? Yes,

adequate? Yes, satisfactory without improvement? No, but I am going to rate it 4, give it

desirable, I'm going to throw out the one outliar which I'm not really sure what happened

there, it could just be my kind of illness right here is making me not concentrate as far as I

should, so that would be a 5 for longitudinal in the precision landing and 4 for lateral. It

actually, I'll tell you what, the work load is certainly going to make it a 4, it certainly does

require moderate compensation. That would be a 4 regardless. The ratings for both the 50 ft

decrab and the 200 ft forward sideslip are identical, however, I think that just kind of fell out,

they are both hard tasks, but considerably my preference is for the more controlled forward

sideslip task.

Pilot F

Task 4093 Crosswind Landing - 25 kt (Procedure B) 22 Jan 97; Runs 52-56

Okay, basically a couple things, I think this is a harder task than doing it at 200 ft, and I

think the reason why is because I can't rapidly put in the rudder at the rate that I would

really like to and I don't expect that, I really would necessarily always be able to that in an

airplane that's this big. I think a couple factors too, seeing alignment, or heading alignment, I

can use the flight path vector and the waterline, but when I'm doing this very dynamic
89

maneuver at 50 ft, I can't, first of all the waterline, I can't keep in my cross check as much,

and the second thing is, is if I use the rate of rudder to get me aligned with the runway, from

50 ft and with the sink rate that is going to get me in the touchdown box, it requires a very

rapid, rudder input, and it's very intolerant to errors. If I don't do it just right, it's hard for me

to correct. The other thing is, I did a... just a open loop dynamic look at Dutch roll, and

when I put in the rudder, I do this on final, when I put in the rudder, the nose yaws over to

the left and then after some period of time, the airplane starts to roll and then those slices

back to the right, and it damps out in about one cycle, and I think when you are, when you

put in a rapid rudder rate down at 50 ft, I think you're seeing this Dutch roll come in a

couple times, I really had my eyes watered by the bank perturbations that I was not

expecting with the rudder input, and what would happen is, I'd start to nose over at a

comfortable rate, and I would see that I was not going to get my heading aligned by the time

that I was on the runway, and therefore I'd increase the rate that I was bringing the nose

across and then some decrement of time later, the airplane would start with a roll response

that was hard for me to predict and hard for me to counteract, and close to the ground, that's

not very comforting. If I had to decrab the airplane at 50 ft, what I would do is, I would

extend my aim point and take longer to decrab the airplane so that I could bring the nose

across at a lesser rate, and I would probably accept some crab angle at touchdown. Anyway,

let's see, what else about this, on both the cards, I think the target bank angle, at least on the

computer generated score card that comes up is zero, and I also... I guess what we're saying

is that the range is plus or minus 5 degrees, and I don't have a problem with that, but just as

a point of clarification, especially decrabbing at 200 ft, you're not going to have zero bank

angle, and even decrabbing at 50 ft, you're going to have to start the wing down, or even if

you align the heading, the airplane is going to be drifting, and you'd have to line up off

centerline so that you can drift back to centerline, and which is not really an acceptable

technique, I guess my point is, I'm just saying, is that you are going to have some bank at

touchdown. The 5 degree at bank thing, I guess what I'm getting at is that I think we need to

be very realistic about the bank angles that we would expect to see in service with an

airplane and the geometry for that airplane. If we have very tight geometry, the handling

qualities need to be much improved to insure that we don't get a strike, and I'm not sure what

angle we get strikes at, is it like 10 degrees or 11 degrees or, okay, so anyway, I think that is

something that deserves some consideration. As far as rating the task goes, let's see, for the

approach, did you want me to rate that again? Okay, it's basically the same as we rated

before with the same comments, which was a two and a two, I believe. For the landing, it's

controllable, is adequate performance obtainable with a tolerable pilot work load? Okay, the

reason I'm pausing here, is that I'm looking at the descriptor for a 7, it says adequate

performance not obtainable with maximum tolerable pilot compensation, controllability not

in question. I believe we did get adequate performance, is that true, on some of those runs?

I'm going to answer yes to this, simply because if I would of backed off, backed off the

gains and just tried to hit the, the two techniques that I did not do that I could have, if I had

backed off the gain and just tried to hit the adequate box, and sacrifice trying to hit the

desired box, I think that, that would of given me more time to do the alignment maneuver,

and I might of been able to do that. The second thing is, is I could of performed a slight

duck under and then extended the aim point down the runway and I would have been given

more time for the alignment maneuver. I guess I'm having a real hard time answering this

question here, because both of the those techniques that I just described, to me would fall

into maximum tolerable pilot compensation, it's not something that I would want somebody

to do operationally, certainly, although, at the same time I will say that operationally most of

the pilots will aim at the 1000 ft marker, and really their box would start past that point. Let

me think about this for a second. Okay, I am going to answer yes to that, I don't think it's

satisfactory without improvement, and I think you're at the level... I guess for me you're kind

of right at that breakpoint between level 2 and level 3, I guess I'm going to answer yes, so,
90

kind of give it the benefit of the doubt, and go in and I'm going to say that it is very

objectionable, but tolerable deficiency, adequate performance requires extensive pilot

compensation, I'm going to say that for pitch, again I really don't like breaking up these task,

and the pitch task is really not that hard. I'll tell you what I'm going to do, since we are

breaking it up, I'm going to give it a 5, I'm going to say for pitch, it's adequate performance

requires considerable pilot compensation, and I'm going to give it a 7 for lateral. I just... I

don't think the airplane is crisp enough, or predictable, enough to be performing this

maneuver at 50 ft and be able to consistently get good adequate performance without... I

guess what I'm saying is that I thing that you can consistently get adequate performance, but

I don't know that I'd say that you're going to do it with a tolerable pilot work load. Let me...

I'm going to turn the tape off again, and think about this one more time. I guess I'm going to

change it, I guess I'm going to... hold on... I guess I'm going to change that, and I think the

main contributor that was influencing my judgment there was the fact that if I bring the nose

across at the rate that I want to, it causes roll perturbations that I'm not willing to live with,

and I definitely think that if I don't back off from my gain, I'm bringing the nose across,

you're definitely level 3, and I guess in my mind there is a question as to whether of backing

off in the gain, of bringing the nose across, as much as I'm doing, if that's an acceptable type

of compensation that is in the maximum tolerable... not maximum from a work load

standpoint, but maximum from... I'm trying to do the task and I'm having to sacrifice my...

in other words, I have to stop trying to do desired performance, I have to stop trying to track

or do the task to the target, I have to back off in the gain and just try to do it within the

adequate box, and I guess that's why I'm having such a hard time with this break between

level 2 and level 3. Thinking back though, it is a compensation that I can use, it is a

compensation that, I mean, after a couple runs it was clear to me that I didn't want to bring

the nose across at that rate, and I think I was influenced by the two practice runs that we did

right after two where I looked at rating the nose across, so, I'm going to kind of back pedal

here, and I'm going to say 5 for pitch, and 6 for lateral directional, and I'm going to put...

just my comment is, is that I really think that for this maneuver, and maybe this has worked

for some guys, and maybe I'm missing something here, but I really think this is at the

bottom of level 2.
91

Task 4095 Crosswind Landing - 35 kt

Pilot A

Task 4095 Crosswind Landing - 35 kt 16 Jan 97; Runs 23-24 (right xw), 27-28 (left xw)

Okay, the... once again, there's a tendency to PIO in lateral mode. The only way you can

make reasonably decent landings, is not to put any, especially during the flare, not to put any

roll inputs in, and strictly put in, set up the bank angle prior to flare or where you want it,

and simply apply a flare input, of pitch input, and increase the thrust as you're taking out the

crab, it really requires careful timing in adding thrust, usually you have to spool up the

throttles, and get a high thrust setting prior to bringing in rudder, because if you wait until

your rudders in, and apply thrust, then the sink rate gets excessive. So, as far as Cooper

Harper ratings are concerned, pitch; put down to 200 ft, it would be a 2, 3 for lateral

directional, down to 200, and as far as below 200; is it controllable? say improvement

mandatory, it's a level 3, plus... your deficiencies are kind of 10. And as far as the pitch axis

is concerned, we haven't seen adequate sink rates, and that's primarily due to the timing of an

application of thrust, and relationship to applying rudder, and kicking out the drifts at the

last minute, if thrust is applied just slightly ahead the rudder input, then the two compensate,

and the descent rate is reasonable, but the throttles are inadequate in getting thrust in during

the flare then the, but... they're excessive. One factor that was observed during this task is

that it takes very intense, and special attention to not making any roll inputs, and that tends

to detract from the pitch task. Well, maybe I didn't say what it was, it is, longitudinal for the

final segment would be, well, let's see, very... is it adequate performance obtainable with

tolerable pilot work load? probably no, major deficiency... adequate performance not

obtainable with maximum controllability, a 7. The Cooper Harper ratings, it's a little bit hard

to separate them out when you've got one that's a 10, it's hard... difficult to rate the other one

very high, I think that's a factor here.

Pilot B

Task 4095 Crosswind Landing - 35 kt 07 Jan 97; Runs 74-77

The approach phase was similar to what I had seen before. The workload is relatively high

in the high crosswinds, but, not enough , I think it bumps over into a level 2. So we'll rate it

on level 1 in both. Longitudinal is controllable, adequate, satisfactory, improvement not

required, minimum pilot compensation HQR3. And lateral directional the same, controllable,

adequate, sat, minimum pilot compensation, HQR3. For the landing, we're back up to real,

real, high work load, intense workload, primarily lateral directional, longitudinal is level 2

buts it not...the workload is not as intense as a lateral directional. That primarily consist of

monitoring sink rate and longitudinal position but I'm primarily I'm sacrificing a lot of that

in favor of getting the lateral directional under control at touchdown. So longitudinal it's

controllable, adequate, deficiencies warrant improvement and adequate performance requires

considerable pilot compensation . This is another one I would give it a 4.5 if I was allowed

to but I'll push it over into the 5's since I can't give a half rating, so HQR5 longitudinal.

Lateral directional is controllable, adequate, and it's real close here, I'm going to call it

adequate because I was able to get adequate most of the time there were times when I wasn't,

but, I'll make a judgment call and push it up one and say deficiencies requires an

improvement, adequate performance requires extensive pilot compensation HQR6 in

longitudinal.....and the ....lateral directional, rather, I'm sorry. The longitudinal remains at

what I just gave it. And the primary problem was controlling the bank angle, the drift across
92

the runway, and the touchdown wide position all at the same time, just a very very difficult

task. That concludes my comments.

Pilot C

Task 4095 Crosswind Landing - 35 kt 14 Jan 97; Runs 100-103

Okay, do the quick one first, the segment one stays the same, 2 and 2, no difference there.

The only thing I noticed this time I hadn't seen before is whether I had a left crosswind or a

right crosswind, I seemed to have a little bit of left drift in when I was not making any

inputs, and I don't recall seeing that before, to correct for it was not a big deal, but that might

have had something to do with some other problems later in the flare. So anyway, segment

one, 2 and 2, same thing. Okay, for segment two, let me give it a rating here first, adequate

performance, tolerable pilot work load, I'm going to have to give that no, for double reasons,

(a) with the exception of the last run, I didn't get to adequate performance particularly in the

heading, and that's important because we're talking about stresses on the gear and stuff, so,

you know, certainly didn't reach that, and even on the time that I did get it, there was an

awful lot of...well I don't know if you could...if you can consistently do it, it's judgment, if

you can only do it once in a while, it's luck, but in any case, it's going to make me turn the

corner here at this question, and deficiencies would require improvement. A case could be

made that we're going to overstress the gear in thus controllability is in question, that I'm

going to soften that a little bit, and adequate performance not obtainable, with maximum

pilot compensation, so, I'm going to give it a 7, keeping in mind that I am using the crab

method, it takes a lot more training to do, and with my level right now, that was more

compensation than I could really handle, so it's a 7. Just a remark, with the winds out of the

left, it appeared an easier task than winds out of the right, and I don't know of any particular

reason why that would be, whether it's tied in with that slight drift that we have in general, I

don't know. I did notice that after touchdown, I had a very difficult time keeping it on the

runway with a right crosswind and yet with a left crosswind, it was not nearly as difficult,

who knows why, I sure don't. Due to the concern with the lineup and touchdown...or left,

right, touchdown points and so on, why some of them got a little bit long, but that's because

I was getting overloaded with the left, right, problem and the up, down, problem, kind of

took second fiddle to that, so, as a result, several of them were quite long. Most of them, I

think...everything was adequate with the exception of the heading error, at least with the lefthand crosswinds, and once I got adequate on that, maybe I could train myself a little, a little

more with practice, but I have to just rate what I see with this experience level, and...so the

lat-dir I would give in segment two is a 7 and the pitch...probably...I'm debating between the

5 or the 6, because they're almost all adequate and I was working a fair amount on trying to

decide the difference between considerable and extensive, probably have to give that...I'll

give it a 5, I'm probably being nice to it, I'll give it a 5 for adequate with considerable pilot

compensation. The over riding problem was the lat-dir and so, it...that affected the

performance more than just the longitudinal characteristics did. Okay, the segment one, 2, 2,

and segment two was 7 for lat-dir and 5 for longitudinal.

Pilot D

Task 4095 Crosswind Landing - 35 kt 24 Jan 97; Run 8-10

Pretty high workload task, all three axis, pitch, roll and yaw. It really doesn't ... have to time

share on these things almost in all ... just running out of time. Also I feel pretty marginal on

the wing tip strike, with the steady state bank angle that it takes to hold this slip, I feel a little

uncomfortable with that. Pilot ratings, for the approach, no different than before. I was
93

having to put in just a little bit of side slip so we could get the runway around on to the

display from out behind the post. The landing, it's not ... I'm giving it a six and a six on pilot

ratings. It's really not that bad. If I had my druthers I'd give it a 5 and a half. I don't think it's

that much worse than the normal one. Normally I was giving 5's and 4's but It's a pretty

high workload. Make it a six and six. (Okay and for the approach, the same as before?)

Four and four.

Pilot E

Task 4095 Crosswind Landing - 35 kt 09 Jan 97; Runs 85-88

Okay, up and away for evaluation segment glideslope and localizer intercept, it's a fairly

high work load just to keep the thing on localizer and glideslope, the... I've discussed this

before about the things we can do to make this easier for the pilot, but as it stands right now

the turbulence in the gradually tapering wind does cause both heading upsets of small

nature which then tends to give you localizer deviations and the turbulence also causes

glideslopes deviations that left to it's own devices would probably gradually diverge, so it

does take input on that. For the actual precision landing, it's quite apparent that I do a better

job with a right crosswind than with a left crosswind for what reasons I don't know, but it's a

big difference in the performance from those two sides. I had three runs, four runs rather,

three of which were mostly all desired. My X position always was desired on every

approach. H dot was borderline desired/adequate, it was for all four landings. The lineup

was very, very good with a right crosswind, in one approach inadequate with the left

crosswind, but three of the four approaches... two were solid desired, and one was

borderlined desired adequate and one was inadequate. That one I'm going to consider an

outliar run 86, I'm going to rate based on runs 85, 87, and 88. For up and away glideslope

and localizer intercept, the longitudinal Cooper Harper rating, it was controllable, adequate

performance was obtained, satisfactory without improvement? No, minor but annoying

deficiencies, basically the glideslope deviations... you did require moderate pilot

compensation for a four (4). Lateral directional, same comments basically, except just the

localizer tracking, controllable? Yes, adequate performance obtainable? Yes, satisfactory

without improvement? No, also a Cooper Harper of 4. For the precision landing, for the... if

I throw away that one outliar, the longitudinal performance is very good X position, it's

almost right in the middle of the box each time, and H dots kind of marginal borderline

desired adequate. I guess... considering the submission of all four runs, but really rating on

the three, I would have to say my longitudinal performance was probably going to come into

the high adequate range, borderline 4, 5. At any rate, it is controllable, adequate performance

is obtainable, satisfactory without improvement? No, and I'm going to rate it a Cooper

Harper of 5, and it's borderline 4, 5. I think there is certainly a learning curve here, I think if

I did a few more of these they would all consistently get desired performance, but I think the

work load is high enough where it would be kind of difficult to... certainly it would be

difficult to make it level 1 and it would kink of always be borderline, I think desired

adequate. For the lateral, similar comments, again there is some strange thing with me about

making much better landings with the right crosswind. It is controllable, adequate

performance is obtainable, satisfactory without improvement? No, I'm going to rate this one

a 4, throwing out that one outliar, I would find it interesting if any other pilots experience a

similar dichotomy of performance between the two crosswinds.

Pilot F

Task 4095 Crosswind Landing - 35 kt 22 Jan 97; Runs 61-64
94

First of all, two comments, one, I think that further investigation on these two items, I have

two items, would be worth while, and the first is, is there's a perception to me that as we get

out to larger sideslip angles, that the roll sensitivity and being able to pull the precise bank

angle or set a precise bank angle maybe is more accurate, it becomes a little bit more

difficult, the second issue is, with the higher crosswinds, I feel like I miss, my perception is,

is that I'm missing some of the tactile feedback that I would get when using cross controls

on a conventional airplane, and both of these things, well the tactile feedback, I think, let's

just suffice it to say that I think both of these things deserve maybe some further

consideration or a look at them. As far as the task goes, tracking the glide path is the same,

and the localizer is the same, so I'm not going really comment, it's the same as before, and I

think we said it was a 2 and 2 before. We'll just stay with that. As far as the landing task

goes, again I feel like I'm really pushing the bank angle requirement below 50 ft, I'm

wondering to hold a stabilized bank with 35 knot crosswind, I'd be interested in seeing what

the exact bank angle requirement is for... to be able to align the heading on the runway, or

the airplanes heading on the runway, and be able to execute this maneuver. I think the

tendency is, is most pilots in a crosswind tend to put in a little bit more rudder, and hold a

little bit more bank than they really need to, and I think that's probably because in most

airplanes, I think it's easier to release a little bit of rudder than it is to put more rudder in if

you find that you have an insufficient amount of rudder, and if the requirement to land the

airplane at a 35 knot crosswind is say 3 1/2 degrees of bank and you're only giving the pilot

a degree and a half to play with, I think that's kind of tight, or it might be kind of tight.

Anyway, let's go on and rate it, it's definitely controllable, adequate performance obtainable,

with a tolerable pilot work load, I think the answer is yes, is it satisfactory without

improvement? and again I really have a hard time separating the pitch axis and the lateral

axis. We did get desired performance or virtually desired performance on one of the runs,

there... for me it was harder though to do the crosswind from the left than it is from the

right, again it might be a function of the way the stick is in the cockpit. Again, I don't like

really splitting up the ratings, but I guess I'd probably still go with a 3 on pitch, and a 4 on

roll, on lateral directional. Again, the pitch I don't think is really anymore difficult than the

normal landing except for... you can pay less attention to it, because you have to resolve the

alignment problem, and again I do think that part of the part I already mentioned, being

more difficult with crossroads from the left, I think maybe a function of the ergometrics and

the way the stick is in the cockpit. Okay, that's it. This is just a note, we went back and

reviewed the Cooper Harper ratings for the 25 knot crosswind, and we had given it a 4 and a

4, and we gave this one a 3 and a 4, I'm not going to go back and change the ratings,

probably... the point is, is that the 35 knot crosswind is more difficult than a 25 knot

crosswind. There is a definite learning curve, and we did the 35 knot crosswind after we did

the decrab at 50 ft, and the decrab at 50 ft, definitely is more difficult than the 35 knot

crosswind, with a decrab at 200 ft, but the point here is, this is an explanation of why there is

a discrepancy in the ratings, and really the discrepancy occurred just because we saw the

worst flying qualities case, in my opinion at least with a decrab at 50 ft, and between it, and

also because of the learning curve. That's it, thanks.
95

Task 4110 Landing with Jammed Stabilizer

Pilot A

Task 4110 Landing with Jammed Stabilizer 17 Jan 97; Runs 80-81

The approaches seemed to be perfectly normal, I think you can well make an approach, and

you'd never know that you had a stabilizer jammed, it seemed perfectly benign, and so, we're

getting adequate, I guess elevator wise, we're getting adequate, and even desired, high

adequate, low desired type performance, longitudinally, I guess I don't recall those, I never

did get the landing distance down, the sink rates were okay. Yeah, so, we're close to the...

very close to the desire performance, adequate, so, I guess we'll give it a 4 on longitudinal, it

is a 3 on the lateral directional.

Pilot B

Task 4110 Landing with Jammed Stabilizer 10 Jan 97; Runs 8-10

The only difference I noted, and I'm not positive this a result of the jammed control, but I

did notice in the flare that there tend to be a very small tendency to oscillate a little bit. A

little bit of rate limiting, I believe that also happened on the last run, to a lesser extent, than

on the second run, it was particularly noticeable. On borderline adequate desired, sometimes

get in desired, and sometimes get in adequate performance on the longitudinal task. The

lateral directional task we're getting desired pretty consistently, so the HQR is longitudinal;

it's controllable, adequate, deficiencies warrant improvement, and I'm going to say desired

performance requires moderate pilot compensation, HQR4. Very similar to what I've seen

before, the rate limiting was not pronounced, it didn't lead to full blown divergent PIO, but

there were times when I felt like I had to back off a little bit to...to get the performance. I'm

not willing to push it down into the lower category in level 2, though, so, let's call a HQR4,

lateral directional; it's controllable, adequate, satisfactory, minimal pilot compensation,

HQR3. So, in summary the CHR's are 4 and 3. That concludes my comments. That is for

the...you want to do both phases, I'm sorry, what I just gave you was the precision landing

phase, 4 and 3, okay. Glideslope and localizer intercept, these are fairly easy, and of the two

the longitudinal is probably a little bit more difficult than lateral directional, but it's real

close, longitudinal; controllable, adequate, satisfactory, minimal pilot compensation, HQR3.

Lateral directional; controllable, adequate, sat., and pilot compensation largely not a factor,

HQR2. So, for the glideslope and localizer intercept phase, the HQR's are at 3 and 2, and

that concludes my comments.

Pilot C

Task 4110 Landing with Jammed Stabilizer 16 Jan 97; Runs 113-115

The first segment, the glideslope intercept and tracking, actually they're both going to be the

same rating, I suspect. Adequate performance certainly satisfactory without improvement,

certainly this is...I'm going to...no, I take that back, lat-dir I'm going to bring to a 3 this time,

and the pitch to a 2, and I don't know why, but I had to make a lot of lat-dir heading changes

and so on, to stay on it, that I don't remember doing before, and that's what used to make it a

2, it's just not as tight a control, and...you know, I have no idea, it doesn't have anything to

do with your configuration, you're...that you're varying, I'm sure, but just something that I

noticed, it took more pilot compensation to maintain the localizer on all runs today, more

than it did on runs before. The longitudinal down to, what is it, probably 400 ft, that we're
96

doing this, maintaining...down to 200, okay, because that's about where the glideslope starts

being very hard to follow. The pitch is...if you didn't tell me there was a failure, I wouldn't of

known there was a failure, that's...oh yeah, let's make them both 3, lat-dir 3, and pitch 3.

Both of them just very minor compensations necessary to intercept and continue to track the

glideslope, and I was getting solid desired performance. Okay, now for the flare in the

landing, we'll talk separately on this. The lat-dir was fine, once I was in close, I didn't have to

try to track any localizer and all, as far as just maintaining bank angle, I didn't see any

problem with that. Satisfactory without improvement, yes, and a 2 on the lat-dir for the

segment two, the landing part, and in the pitch, again, boy I could hardly tell any difference,

tell that it had failed, to tell you the truth, it was really quite pleasant. The pitch is just a lot

trickier thing for me to handle apparently, and so I'd give that a 3 in this case. So,

longitudinal 3, lat. dir. 2, for the landing. Did we get all that?

Pilot D

Task 4110 Landing with Jammed Stabilizer

Not performed by this pilot.

Pilot E

Task 4110 Landing with Jammed Stabilizer 10 Feb 97; Runs 38-39

Not a bad approach at all. I tried hard on the second approach which is why I got adequate

performance on the glide slope. I was putting in some very significant pitch doublets, some

rapid high amplitude, high frequency.. doing anything I could to see if there was a PIO.

There was none. It flew very well longitudinally. A little bit sluggish in pitch rate which is

one of the reasons I couldn't get it to do much. You couldn't really overcontrol it because it

just very smoothly followed your inputs at a little bit slower rate. So there wasn't really a lag

or a time delay but a slower pitch rate which just made it more stable as far as trying to

excite any kind of modes. Laterally, no problems there either. The touchdowns were kind of

like my nominal landings where if you don't play the dynamic ground effects just right, you

just don't get a very good landing. I had a nice H dot on the second one but it was a little bit

long and the first one I thought was a decent landing but just a little bit firm and just a teeny

bit long. So for the longitudinal rating, for the approach. Was it controllable? Yes it was.

Adequate performance? Yes. Satisfactory? Yes, a 3. For the lateral rating, controllable? Yes.

Adequate? Yes. Satisfactory? Yes, a 3 also. Basically very good numbers and performance

on the approach laterally and longitudinally. For the landing, longitudinally, controllable?

Yes. Adequate? Yes. Satisfactory? No, it did mostly get adequate numbers. The Cooper

Harper of 5. Adequate performance does require considerable compensation and basically

that is the effect of dynamic ground effects. I felt very good with both flares and both

touchdowns. It is just kind of rolling the dice to see whether you get a nice landing or not.

But since you don't seem to have the control to get desired that probably is a good rating.

For the lateral directional I met desired criteria on all of them. Controllable? Yes. Adequate?

Yes. Satisfactory? Yes, a 3.

Pilot F

Task 4110 Landing with Jammed Stabilizer

Not performed by this pilot.
97

Task 4140 VFR Circling Approach

Pilot A

Task 4140 VFR Circling Approach 16 Jan 97; Runs 91-93

Okay, the circling approach segment, Cooper Harper wise, give it a 3 for the lateral

directional, and a 2 for the longitudinal, for the... where is this... where's that end... where's

the circling end, and the... okay, beyond 200 ft down in the flare on landing into a 35 knot

headwind, the Cooper Harper longitudinal has a split out on the, I mean the actual and the

commanded gamma split out, somewhere in the last half of the flare, and we have seemed to

get consistently a tendency to land long, and even though the thrust is brought back and the

normal techniques are used, and so, I'm going to give it a 4, in longitudinal, and actually the

landing had no particular problems with lateral directional, and that, and I'll give it a 3, for

lateral directional, and I can't think of any other comments.

Pilot B

Task 4140 VFR Circling Approach 08 Jan 97; Runs 4-8

Okay card 30, let's see, rapidly maneuver in alternate runways in VFR techniques, yeah, that

wasn't really a problem. Deviation for final approach air speed, I don't think is an issue here,

or is appropriate because we have the auto throttle on and it is a little bit sloppy, minimum

altitudes worked out okay, max bank angle is fine. No problems in anything relating to

control in any of the circling approach phase and the precision landing phase, some of the

same problems I'm seeing before, you are working hard to get a combination of sink rate

and touchdown position in the box, and sometimes able to get desired and sometimes not,

but you are working hard in any case. Okay, so for the circling approach phase longitude

HQR; it's controllable, adequate, and satisfactory, call it minimal pilot compensation, HQR3,

certainly level 1. Lateral directional, same thing, controllable, adequate, satisfactory, minimal

pilot compensation, HQR3, again level 1. Longitudinal was primarily driven by the task, just

the frequency of scan requirements to hold altitude in the turbulence, and lateral directional

was some of the bank angle hold comments I've made in the past about just working to keep

angle of bank under control. That is under control within a fairly tight tolerance. On the

precision landing phase, longitudinal HQR; it's controllable, adequate, I think deficiencies

warrant improvement and this is another one that's somewhere between a 4 and a 5, I'm

going to give it a 4 and give it a benefit of the doubt, desired performance requires moderate

pilot compensation, HQR4. Lateral directional, not really a problem in the landing with the

lack of crosswind on final, it's controllable, adequate, and satisfactory, minimal pilot

compensation, HQR3, basically the same bank angle comments I've made in the other

phase. That concludes my comments.

Pilot C

Task 4140 VFR Circling Approach 14 Jan 97; Runs 121-122

Okay, for the circling approach, having that gamma dot system, it really makes circling

approaches pretty nice, at least in holding altitude and so on. Okay, so to get to the circling

approach, the rollins, rollouts, maintaining headings and all that, very easy, so for the circling

approach, the lat-dir was satisfactory without improvement, as far as I'm concerned, and I

don't know, that's as easy as it is going to get. I'd probably give that a 2 for the pitch in the

circling, is it satisfactory without improvement, the circling part, again, I think I'd give that a
98

2, I don't know how to make that any much better. A good case could be made for, are those

ones or not, but I'm going to be consistent and say things at that level are two, so both the

longitudinal and lat-dir in the circling approach were 2's. I used 20 degrees of bank, it was

all that was necessary, it seemed to be fine, the only thing that I could possibly add, would

be next time try it with larger bank angles, but with the system set up the way it was, they

certainly weren't needed, so, I'll stick with the 2's on that. For the...landing, where does the

landing start, I mean where do you want to start. Oh well, in that case then, let me back up

and just make some comments on the longitudinal, it's the usual problem of visibility with

the ground sim and circling is not always easy, right about the time that you want to see

something why it blanks out, so that little anomaly, of course is in there, not a big deal. I

always ended up high on glideslope, which is not unusual, people tend to want to stay away

from the ground until they've got everything under control, and to get down to the glideslope

it was a HUD problem more than it was a controllability problem, because the VASI would

end up right underneath some writing on the HUD, and so I'd have to kind of jiggle around

a little bit to catch it, but it was not difficult to capture the glideslope, and ... nor was lineup

much of a problem, the first time I had just a little bit of an overshoot and the next time I

managed to roll out with hardly any, so, that was not a...not a problem. Okay now, from

landing 200 ft on down, very, very interesting. Now of course, I do have 35 knots of

headwind, which is certainly going to solve my floating problems that I saw on the regular

runway without 35 knots of headwind, and as a result, it was much easier to put it in the box,

that extra time and so on, that the headwind gave me, was enough to get things settled out,

and I had a much better feel for when I thought the gear was going to touch, felt much more

comfortable with this than the other one. The other thing that could very well be a factor, and

before I finish this whole test, I want to go back and do some standard straight-ins to the

other runway again, because there was one big difference this time, on this landing, there

was no glideslope to watch go plummeting down or rocketing up, and to see if that

peripheral cue was effecting what I was perceiving as far as heave and those kind of things,

because to tell you the truth in this one, I did not see...I did not have the same feeling of the

nose suddenly dropping and going high on glideslope, that I had when I was in the...on the

other runway with the normal landings, so, I think that will be worth investigating. Now, to

rate what I saw, let me go back here, adequate performance, yes, I was getting desired

performance on that, satisfactory without improvement, I'd say kind of a qualified yes,

that...I'll say yes on that, and 3 for the flare and touchdown would probably be fine, minimal

pilot compensation and the biggest thing is I didn't have that feeling of things going on that

I wasn't working with. Was there turbulence on that? There was turbulence, there wasn't

very much turbulence on it, I don't think, if there was, it went right through me. I didn't have

that feeling of the airplane doing something that I wasn't commanding, that I had on the

previous landing test. So, lateral-directional, I didn't really have any complaints, I had plenty

of authority, it felt good, the forces and thing, all those things were fine, and the lat- dir, I'll

stick with 3 on that, so, 3 is for both things on the landing, and 2's on both things for the

circling approach.

Pilot D

Task 4140 VFR Circling Approach

Not performed by this pilot.

Pilot E

Task 4140 VFR Circling Approach 09 Jan 97; Runs 104-105
99

Basically, the maneuverability of the aircraft at a low altitude structure circling approach

down below a 1000 feet is not bad at all. One thing you notice when you make the bank

angle, bank turns, 20 degrees angle bank turns, you get a lot of side forces in the cockpit

and I guess that's due to the fact that we are so far above, or so far in front of the center of

gravity and we're in a relatively high angle of attack relating to other transport category type

aircraft, so it is kind of a little bit annoying thing there. The procedure worked out fine, it

was an excellent procedure the more I think about it. Basically, for the evaluation segment of

the circling approach at 1500 ft on final on runway 36, I believe it was to 200 ft on the

landing runway 26, I met desired criteria in all the longitudinal and lateral directional

categories or performance standards, and that was not a terribly difficult task. The

turbulence makes altitude control plus or minus about 10 feet about the norm which is

pretty tight considering a large aircraft like this. So, for the longitudinal rating, controllable?

Yes, adequate? Yes, satisfactory without improvement, yes, Cooper Harper of 3 and mainly

compensation is required due to the fact that there is dynamic maneuvering involved and yet

turbulence upsetting you from your commanded track. Lateral directional, similarly,

controllable? Yes, adequate? Yes, satisfactory without improvement? Yes, for 3 also. For the

precision landing 200 ft on down to touchdown, a couple interesting things, landing with a

35 knot headwind Vs 0 headwind which we've landed on in all the previous tasks, gives you

a much shallower glideslope and because you're ground speed is so much slower and

therefore it makes it actually a little bit easier to perform the flare task. In all, I did two data

runs and one practice run and all of which were desired in all categories. The last one was a

tiny bit long and that's a little bit because you come in so shallow that you have to kind of

guess just when to pull the power off to put it down in the box, but I think I met desired

criteria for all of that. Certainly the headwind does help. For longitudinal, controllable? Yes,

adequate? Yes, satisfactory without improvement? I'm going to say no, and say a 4, I met the

desired criteria, but not really solemnly desired, still is a little bit of effort in the flare from

the comments I've mentioned on previous landing tasks. For lateral directional, I met desired

in all those runs, no problem with lineup whatsoever, controllable? Yes, adequate? Yes,

satisfactory without improvement? Yes, for a 3. Task I think was a nice task, showed no

potential problems.

Pilot F

Task 4140 VFR Circling Approach 22 Jan 97; Runs 102-104

Okay, basically I don't think the... I'll comment about the HUD display, I really have to get

myself out of the design height, eye height, in order to fly a portion or a fairly... a couple

portions of the circling approach, I guess, in order to see the display, because of where it is

in the pilots field of view. The ILS approach portion, it's really no different than anything

else we've flown, and we'll give it a 2 and a 2. The circling approach is actually pretty easy to

fly with flight path vector up, and of course we're flying it kind of mechanically rather than

appear visual maneuver, but the airplane is well controllable, and except for the display

phenomena that I mentioned, you can basically do it real well. Is it controllable? Yes, is it

adequate performance obtainable with a tolerable work load? Yes, is it satisfactory without

improvement? I guess I have a hard time with this question because, certainly it is

satisfactory without improvement as far as flying qualities go, and the control laws go, I

don't like your... I don't like the way the field of view, and having to lean forward and come

out of the design eye height, and that would actually I think, be unacceptable. I guess I'm

going to kind of, I guess not put too much emphasis on that as far as your rating go, I guess

if... when I really considered the display and how much I have to come out of the design eye

to fly the display and to fly the circle and approach, I could very easily see making it like a 6

or something. I guess... I'm going to disregard the display on the circling portion of the
100

approach as far as rating this goes, and I'm going... I'll tell you what, I'm going to give you

two Cooper Harper ratings, I think the circling approach, disregarding the display is

probably, I would be between, two and a half, if we were giving half ratings, I would

probably say the rating there would be a 2, and then if I include the display, I would

probably say that it is between a 5 and a 6 because I consider, if I have to get myself out of

design eye height, actually I would almost, almost put it into level 3 because of the display. I

should not being put in a position where I have to get out of design eye height to fly the

circle, in order to keep the airspeed parameters, and the altitude parameters in my field of

view, so I guess if I was rating it with a display, I would probably, I don't know, I would

probably say it was a 7 with the display, just simply because I... I don't know, yeah, why

don't we... we'll rate it a 2, but why don't you in the comments just put that, forget a Cooper

Harper for the display, we'll rate it a 2, not considering the display, and I think the display

would be unacceptable. Anyway, going on to the landing, we get desired performance on

everything, except for H dot, we flew the approach several times. You could actually

maneuver fairly well to get on centerline, I don't think it's anymore difficult than the normal

landing is, except for the fact that the learned flare response that I had does not work here,

and my perception is, is that the flight path vector, if I have it below the horizon, which I

should have a gamma, which should be independent of ground speed or winds, I did not get

the same response. It would be interesting... I would be interested to look at landings with

a... setting the gamma, say one diameter below the horizon, and seeing what kind of vertical

velocity that you would get versus wind and no wind. Anyway, in order to get the other, all

the other parameters in the desired range, everytime we had H dot in only adequate. So,

going into rate it, it's controllable, adequate performance with tolerable pilot work load, is it

satisfactory without improvement? And I would say no, I would come in, and we didn't get

desired performance, so, it's not a 4. Adequate performance requires considerable pilot

compensation. I don't think that I would really go that far to say that the compensation is

considerable to get adequate performance. So, there is a big jump between a 4 and a 5 there,

but I guess... I guess I'd probably give it a 5, because of the unpredictability of the flare,

because it... again I'm not saying that this is true, but pilots perception, at least on my part, is

that the commanded flight path vector, and I'm not getting a split so that I have to assume

that that's actual flight path vector, put in the same place does not give me the same descent

rate or the same gamma as it does no wind, that's kind of confusing to me. I think that's

something that needs to be further investigated. I guess I'm going to leave it a 5 and a 5 for

the touchdown, I don't really like to break up the Cooper Harper tasks, and it all impacts on,

you know, making tradeoffs, and you know if I made other tradeoffs, I didn't try doing this,

but if I made other tradeoffs in lateral control, I might have been able to get H dot within

desired, but some other parameter would pop out. I guess I would have a tendency to rate

the pitch axis in this case better than the... I mean worse than the lateral axis, but we'll just

go with a 5 and a 5. Okay, change 415 I guess, no, I guess I'll rate... again I don't really like

splitting the Cooper Harpers by axis, because there is overlap, and it is a tradeoff, but the

pitch problem was significantly more difficult than the lineup problem was, even

considering that it was a circling approach, we had to work on the lineup, and I will say for

the crosswinds and all the approaches, I think it's harder to see lineup in the simulator than it

is in the actual airplane, even with the aid in the flight path vector and the waterline, but I'm

going to go ahead and change it, make the pitch rating a 5, and the lateral directional axis a 4

for this task.
101

Task 4220 Decelerating Approach

Pilot A

Task 4220 Decelerating Approach 15 Jan 97; Runs 66-68

Okay, it appears as though using a slight amount of anticipation for the flap extension, if

you're paying attention to the altitude, you can compensate for the little ballooning you get

in the flap extension, the autothrottles seem to slow you down nicely, coming across the

threshold, there once again, you've got to add thrust in the flare, a couple knob widths, a

good hand full of thrust to, as you pull the nose up. The Cooper Harper ratings, I'd give it

for the... down to 200 ft, I'd give it a... well, a 3 in longitudinal, and a 2 in lateral directional.

In the flare, seemed to be able to achieve desired performance, and there is some slight

compensation required, however, I'm not sure that it's anymore than any other airplane, or

you have to figure out the technique that's applicable to this specific airplane. I guess, I'd

give it a 3 in longitudinal, and a 2 in lateral directional for the flare.

Pilot B

Task 4220 Decelerating Approach 07 Jan 97; Runs 13-15

What I'm seeing on this, in the approach phase, prior to 200 ft it's fairly consistent. Pretty

classic level 1. No problem with rapidly maneuvering and final approach. No problems in

getting trim flight in holding less than half without an error. Pretty much solid level one.

The flare in landing is a different story however, I'm still having problem with sink rate. I

kinda settled in to somewhere between 4 and 5 feet per second..something around 1500 ft

...and I'm trying to drive it .. I'm trying to not drive it high, I should say, into the flare, I'm

deliberately coming either on glide slope or a little bit low into the flare and correcting from

there. What I'm seeing is fairly consistently spurts between the commanded and the actual

gamma and an inability to quickly control sink rate just prior to touchdown. It seems that if

the sink rate gets a little bit high and I try to correct for it, there isn't time to correct for it or

I'll drive the main landing gear down and touch down prior to correcting for it. So, whereas,

I felt like in the previous evaluations and other configurations in reference H I was able to

control the sink rate just prior to touchdown, I'm not doing that successfully here. I am able

to get adequate performance consistently but consistently unable to get desired performance

longitudinally. Lateral directional not being a problem. Okay, Cooper/Hoppers for the

approach phase. Longitudinal, controllable, adequate, satisfactory, no improvement

required....and lets give it a 2. This is another case where I would like to give it a 2.5 but I'll

give it a 2. Pilot compensation not a factor. For lateral directional, same thing, controllable,

adequate, satisfactory, improvement not required, pilot compensation largely not a factor

HQR2. Didn't have a problem with angle of bank control that I saw before. I think you're

not flying enough ...there's not enough time to really make it a problem. Again, the landing

phase, longitudinally it's controllable, adequate, however, deficiencies warrant improvement,

adequate performance requires considerable pilot compensation HQR5. Lateral directional,

not much of a problem there, its controllable, adequate, satisfactory, improvement not

required, mildly unpleasant deficiencies, minimum pilot compensation HQR3. And I think

the degradation here is just due to the gains and the task and workload requirements gets

higher in the landing, so there's more lateral inputs required. That concludes my comments.

Pilot C

Task 4220 Decelerating Approach 13 Jan 97; Runs 100-103
102

Okay, I feel ever so much better about this, just overall, it was...everything was happening

much slower, and much more naturally, I didn't have the feeling that something was going

on that I didn't have control over this time. For the ILS part, much easier, satisfactory

without improvement, I'd say yes on that one, improvement not required, and a 3. All the

way down, just on one of them, did I get to the adequate just barely, because...but that was

completely my laziness, not anything due to the handling qualities, and most of them were

right there, with very...with just the minimal pilot compensation, that was fine. So, in

longitudinal, ILS 3, and the lateral-directional 3, that was no problem at all, on either one on

that. Okay, then down in the segment two, into the flare, once I learned the technique, which

stomp, stomp, stomp, I needed to do, is it satisfactory without improvement, well, that's a

tough question, that's very close to without improvement, and the thing that would keep me

away from it, is it takes quite a...it took me quite a bit to learn how to do it, it wasn't the first

time out of the box, I think I'm probably being very nice to it, by giving it, saying yes, it's

satisfactory without improvement, but it definitely would not be higher than a 3. It was at

least minimal pilot compensation, but I was consistently getting the desired and the

deficiencies there were not so bad, it feels much more natural, and just feels more like I'm

used to a airplane feeling close to the ground, and did not have to make those last minute

quick corrections that were upsetting me so much with the...with the previous configuration.

Okay...oh, and 3, 3 on both of them...of those...it's not a very good 3, a very solid 3, but a

very...yes, yes, and I'm probably being nice to it on the...in the segment two, but it was so

much better than the other one, you know, seeing them back to back like that, maybe made

them look a little bit better, but that was much, much, improved over the first one.

Pilot D

Task 4220 Decelerating Approach

Not performed by this pilot.

Pilot E

Task 4220 Decelerating Approach 08 Jan 97; Runs 48-51

Okay, the thing you notice most with that approach is that without the feed forward

compensation at 3 or 400 feet you do get some glide path deviations when the autoflaps are

coming in as they are finishing their transition, and so the longitudinal task to hold glide

slopes are a little bit more difficult. Also, when you get to the flare position since you are

under powered relative to the nominal case, I found it a little bit harder to judge the proper

place to make the power reduction in the flare, and so I think my touchdown performance

suffered a little bit, I think this is something that could be taken care of with training and

practice, but certainly that effect is there. Okay, for the glide slope intercept portion at 200 ft,

longitudinal, controllable? Yes, adequate? Yes, satisfactory? No. I'll make it a level 2, give it a

4 and that's mainly for the... something that can be fixed the feed forward compensation

during the autoflap transition, but that made the work load a little bit higher to maintain

glideslope. The lateral directional, controllable? Yes, adequate? Yes, satisfactory without

improvement? Yes, a 3 for that. The... for the precision landing, we are having some

problems with my Y position. The first two were my fault where I thought we were a single

throttle and was only pulling one throttle back and was getting a thrust asymmetry in the

flare. When I started using both throttles I didn't do much better, so I did... interesting with

the thrust asymmetry I erred to the left and when I realized I needed to pull both throttles

back to the last four data runs, I erred to the right consistently, and we're going to look at the
103

more detailed data for that. At any rate the longitudinal performance was clearly adequate,

both... if I had a good... I had one that was pretty much desired, run No. 49 and the two

kind of most consistent runs were a little long and little firm so... but the overall

performance would be adequate for that. So for the longitudinal, is it controllable? Yes,

adequate performance? Yes, satisfactory without improvement? No. It would be a Cooper

Harper of 5 due to the performance of the criteria. For lateral, we have some questions here,

because it appears from the cockpit that we were not as far out of the lateral box, the desired

box, as it showed on the score card, so this is a little bit of a tough rating to give. I'll go

ahead for the present time and believe the score card and if we find as an error than I'll

change this rating afterwards, but based on performance alone, controllable? Yes, adequate?

Yes, satisfactory? No, be a Cooper Harper of 5 based on performance and that is

consistently, slightly outside the desired lateral box. Of the 4 I did it was 11, 15, 7, and 14 ft,

so 3 of the 4 were outside the box.

Pilot F

Task 4220 Decelerating Approach 21 Jan 97; Runs 95-96

Okay, basically, a couple of factors, and again, you know, some of these are somewhat

display issues, and I don't really want to taint your evaluation on the control laws by display

issues, but they are integrated here, and anyway, I'll just comment about the task, as we're

seeing in the sim. Two things, first of all on the first of the data runs, I ended up, I hadn't

done this on any of the practice runs, I hadn't done this on any of the runs before, but when

I stuck... first of all, as we approached the runway, and I saw this on subsequent runs too,

without any command, I get a split between the commanded and the actual flight path, at

least that's my perception, and this is just before I start the nose up, so this is probably like

around a 100 ft. On that first data run we did, I started the nose up, and there was... before I

started the nose up, there was already a disparity between actual and commanded, and then

as I pulled the nose up, that disparity got larger so, in the heat of the battle, I decided that I

was going to pull the actual up to the horizon, and as I was doing that I realized how wrong

that was, so I pushed the commanded back down to the horizon, and we ended up... (landing

hard.)
104

Task 4225 Decelerating Approach/Manual Throttles

Pilot A

Task 4225 Decelerating Approach/Manual Throttles 15 Jan 97; Runs 70-72

Landings with a decel, manual throttles that's a constant thrust setting during the

reconfiguration and the ILS. I would give lateral directional during the... down to 200 ft is a

2, longitudinal would be a 2, and a during the flare, since we're not getting... you don't seem

to be getting desired performance all across the board, I guess I'd have to rate it, just

somewhere between a 3 and a 4. Because of the special techniques required, I think I'd give

it a 4, because of the large amount of thrust required in the flare to get the sink rates down,

which seems a little unusual and compensating factor. So, I'll give it a 4 longitudinally, and a

2 Cooper Harper in the landing phase, the flare phase. It looks as though, one of the things

of note, for these approaches are that, if you have a very low thrust setting, as you begin the

flare, you just about have to have a moderate amount of thrust on the airplane during the

flare in order to get the gamma control law to respond properly. If you leave the thrust at

idle, and do everything with the flare, it seems to... the bottom seems to drop out, and also

the other factor is that the... you don't get the gamma that you command, and so I'm not sure

why that is, maybe you should look at the control surfaces and see what they're doing,

during one of those runs.

Pilot B

Task 4225 Decelerating Approach/Manual Throttles 07 Jan 97; Runs 20-22

We spent some time tuning the parameters, just a note here, it's important to note that when

you push over, or when you start the run, I should say, right up through the pushover, not to

adjust the throttles to maintain airspeed, to accept the acceleration as you push the throttles

over. And make sure you start with the gear down except the accel. And then at 1400 ft, I

wouldn't be in too much of a hurry to set 10%, we use 10% Vs 9%, and that seems to get us

a fairly good speed on final and touchdown. Glideslope phases is pretty much what I've

seen before, and so you're not adjusting the throttle, it's very much like an autothrottle

approach--good solid level 1. No problems with the ability to maneuver and attaining trim

flight with whether it be constraints of the technique. The landing is getting easier because I

am accommodating to it, I think. There is no tendency to bobble or PIO in pitch and roll.

There is a tendency to float due to sink rate control problems. There is no tendency to

bounce or geometry strikes. Okay, in the approach phase, longitudinal HQR is controllable,

adequate, satisfactory, improvement not required, negligible deficiencies HQR2. Lateral

directional controllable, adequate, satisfactory , no improvement required, negligible

deficiencies HQR2. In the landing phase, longitudinal HQR is controllable, adequate,

however, I think deficiencies warrant improvement. There's a lot of work to get the sink rate

under control. And I am going to give it an HQR4, this time....for moderate compensation

for desired performance longitudinally. Lateral directional, it's controllable, adequate, and it

is satisfactory, mildly unpleasant deficiencies, minimum pilot compensation and a higher

workload HQR3. That concludes my comments.

Pilot C

Task 4225 Decelerating Approach/Manual Throttles 14 Jan 97; Runs 40-42
105

You want both longitudinal and lateral-directional, I assume, well, the lateral-directional is

easy, is it satisfactory without improvement? I'd say yes, I'd give it a 3 on the lat-dir, this is a

pretty well canned, you start out on the localizer and just kind of drive it in, so it would have

to be pretty bad to not be satisfactory without improvement for that part of it. On

longitudinally, is it satisfactory without improvement, I'd say no, it really requires

improvement on this, I seem to have quite a spread, I was a little long, a little short, then one

right in the middle, so I'd have to say adequate is the best performance I got, I think the one

that was in the middle was...just happen to be...having to luck out on that one, so, I'm going

to call it adequate performance for those, and as far as how much I had to work, I would say

considerable pilot compensation would be the best description for it, so 5 for that. It does

require improvement, you know the possibility of it working is there, but it needs to be

refined maybe with the amount of throttle or a...either nominal throttle position be changed

or maybe some learned amount of change in the flare or something. I never had a good

solid feel, that I knew when it was going to touchdown, so, it wasn't a fine control on fore

and aft touchdown point, that's for sure. And the only other thing that I noticed on this was

the amount of time that it spent...the actual one stood...was away from the commanded flight

path marker. I spent quite a bit of time, thus that of course, increased the compensation a

little bit, you were switching really between ones that you were controlling from the

commanded one to the actual one and so that bumped up the compensation a little bit also.

Other than that, it feels quite normal as far as when I got down in close, all the motions I felt

were ones that I was putting in. I had a little, little more feeling of being in control than I

have on some of the earlier ones. That's it, you didn't need anything on the glideslope. The

lat-dir on the glideslope would be...I would give that probably a 2, it really wasn't much

going on there, and until I intentionally did a small duck under, just because the touchdown

point is at the end of the interception of the ILS glideslope, if you don't duck under a little

bit, you're throwing away a few hundred feet right there, so, I intentionally dropped down to

like a half a, half a dot on the glideslope to have a better chance of getting it in the desired

box, and so we kept reading a lot of adequates, or even occasionally I noticed the couple in

there that got inadequate, but until I intentionally made this duck under, the glideslope

control was actually quite easy, so I'm kind of stuck here on giving that a rating, and because

it was intentional, it wasn't too bad, everything up and away, of course, it was canned and

hardly a problem, probably give that a 2 even on the longitudinal until I intentionally ducked

under and that's why I'm disregarding the fact that some of these came up adequate or okay,

I think there was an inadequate in there some place, but for the main part of the glideslope, a

2 would do. It's really not doing anything, you know, you put it there, wait. On that one

there was a little more just because of the splits, but in general that was not a big factor.

Pilot D

Task 4225 Decelerating Approach/Manual Throttles

Not performed by this pilot.

Pilot E

Task 4225 Decelerating Approach/Manual Throttles 08 Jan 97; Runs 54-56

Okay, there are several things on this, when we were trying to play around with the power a

little bit to see which is the proper power setting, the first two data runs were at 9 percent

and were clearly underpowered at the threshold landing short and firm and at very high

attitudes trying to make it into the box. We adjusted the power from 9 percent, at 1400 ft to

10 percent, and the last landing we had enough power, and I thought I made a very good
106

save to make a nice touchdown, but ended up leveling out and not touching down, which

would have been, I think a very nice landing, but then it leveled out about a foot, actually

showed 4 ft on the radar altimeter and just continually decelerated and plunked down.

Interestingly, when you get that situation when you kind of level off, if you drop the nose at

all, you're gonna get a firm touchdown and if you hold it, you're gonna get a firm

touchdown, so if you level off you're kind of in a mess. At any rate, the other thing that is

interesting about the approach is that coming in on the deceleration all the way, it really does

make the flare task problematic because on a swept wing jet aircraft decelerating approach is

a very difficult approach to judge properly as far as in the touchdown zone. You don't have

much power to play with as far as... if you have it overpowered in a normal approach, you

can of course put power off a little bit sooner. When you already bet way back on the power

and we're not suppose to be adding power for noise and we're kind of in a little bit of a mess

there. So, it does have some problems associated with this approach. For the up and away

glideslope intercept at 200 ft, longitudinal we met desired and all those criteria, we still have

a little problem with the glideslope error around 3 or 400 ft because of the feed forward

compensations lacking, and that's going to effect the rating. For longitudinal, it was

controllable, adequate performance was obtainable, satisfactory without improvement, I'm

going to say no, rate it a 4. That's do to work load on the glideslope. Lateral directional,

controllable? Yes, adequate? Yes, satisfactory without improvement? Yes, a 3. Very similarly

to the auto throttle approach. For precision landing the performance ended up being clearly

adequate all the way, again when you didn't recognize it, we're using two different power

settings, 9 percent for the first two and 10 percent on the stabilized power, it's 1400 ft for the

third one. Included in the performance was a... the longitudinal was in the adequate range

and lateral directional was probably desired except for that one... it had one kind of

deviation on lateral placement, but the others were very, very good. So, for longitudinal,

controllable? Yes, adequate? Yes, satisfactory without improvement? No, because I met the

adequate performance rather than desired, it will come in as a Cooper Harper 5. For lateral

directional, controllable? Yes, adequate? Yes, satisfactory without improvement, I'm going to

say yes throughout that one, lateral anomaly and the other two which were very good. Use

those as my rating runs and I'll give it a 3. Again the major concern with this approach is

that you are coming in way back on the power as you approach the threshold and your

margin for error is reduced and it's kind of depending on what your situation is at the

threshold, it's gonna really drastically effect you're position in the touchdown, the pilot

doesn't have a whole lot of control over that.

Pilot F

Task 4225 Decelerating Approach/Manual Throttles 21 Jan 97

Not rated.
107

Task 5010 Stall at Idle Power

Pilot A

Task 5010 Stall at Idle Power 13 Jan 97; Runs 67-69

I'll give it a ... in pitch a 2, Cooper Harper and lateral directional a 2, and it's quite ... quite

controllable and docile, and the forces for overriding the stick were ... didn't seem to be quite

as great on that particular task, as the power on was. It looked like a matter of holding about

10 degree pitch attitude as you would decelerate at about 1 knot per second, and push over

about 8/10 to 9/10 of a G, down to about 8 degrees pitch attitude below the horizon, and that

gets you at 13 degrees of angle of attack. It would be nice if the speed would transfer to the

bore sight ... airspeed, so you could see what the speed was at those high angles of attack,

and I kind of prefer a, instead of a vertical tape, a round dial pointer for angle of attack, but

some kind of marking also on the angle of attack indicator indicating the limits would be

helpful. A color coded normal operating range, cautionary, and ... or maximum angle of

attack limit indication on the scale would be ... would be helpful.

Pilot B

Task 5010 Stall at Idle Power 06 Jan 97; Runs 45-47

Performed as per the card. This time, max bank angle was within limits. I believe I want to

look at this last one, yeah , I was within limits and I didn't notice any pronounced PIO

tendencies. I think it has to do with the amount of pitch change and how aggressive you are

with the recovery input. So, everything was fairly easy and performance was within limits .

Its controllable longitudinally....it s controllable adequate satisfactory, and improvement not

required. Level 1, mildly unpleasant deficiencies HQR3. Minimal pilot compensation

required. Lateral directional was a little tougher than longitudinal but not enough to bump it

into level 2, I think. Its controllable, adequate, satisfactory , and improvement not required,

mildly unpleasant deficiencies, minimum pilot compensation HQR3. That concludes my

comments.

Pilot C

Task 5010 Stall at Idle Power 15 Jan 97; Runs 97-99

A little more work and pitch, tend to overshoot a little bit, that's not what we're measuring,

however, and to recover, it took a little push force this, and the last time I could just kind of

come off the backpressure, and drop...the nose dropped, at a nice rate by itself, but anyway,

for lat-dir, satisfactory without improvement, yeah, and I'd say a 3, minimal compensation to

keep the wings within desired, and for pitch, same kind of thing, it's...I'd still call it a 3, that's

I think, a good description of it.

Pilot D

Task 5010 Stall at Idle Power 22 Jan 97; Runs 12-13

It's really no problem, straight ahead stall, and the only real problem I saw was just a

tendency to bobble in pitch and roll a little bit, and as you approach the stall, the stall

protection comes in and it keeps taking an increasing force, which is good, but it does

increase the workload to get it up to stall. As far as the actual stall recovery goes, there's no
108

problem, we have plenty of pitch authority. There is a tendency to sit there and oscillate in

roll and pitch just a little bit, but no problem, very good. Pilot rating longitudinal 4, lateral 3.

Pilot E

Task 5010 Stall at Idle Power 07 Jan 97; Runs 98-100

There's nothing really common that this one, no PIO tendencies Pitch or Roll. I made

basically the first one... I fairly aggressively pushed the side arm controller to slightly

forward of neutral point, I got a rate limit on the elevator ,about 30 degrees momentarily and

recovered very nicely. The next two I did very aggressively to the forward stop and held it

there and tried to get a max Q and it did not seem to be that much greater than pushing

slightly forward of neutral. That Q that I got was minus 2.74, the last one which made a very

aggressive push forward to the forward stop, no that was the second one. No problems

through recovery, and we had no PIO noted or tendencies of not wanting to recover. I felt

like I had, even though I saturated in the elevator, I felt like the control authority was

efficient. The evaluation segment longitudinal 2 Cooper Harper controllable? Yes, adequate?

Yes, satisfactory, yes, a 3. Basically I almost think though that if I just released the stick, the

stick protection features would give me almost the same recovery, maybe not quite as

quickly as by actually staying in the loop. The lateral directional, controllable? Yes,

adequate? Yes, satisfactory, yes, a 3 also. It takes a certain, you just got to be aware the fact

though to maintain wings level, but its not a real PIO problem.

Pilot F

Task 5010 Stall at Idle Power 23 Jan 97; Runs 16-17

I guess I would note that the transition at 15 degrees with the envelope protection on the

stall entries, probably not a big deal. On the stall recovery, I do notice it, and that there is a

tendency for me to stagnate at 15 degrees. I have to pick up a push to go through that, it's

not a big deal, but it's just something to note. I would assume that 15 degrees is probably an

angle of attack where the airplanes just trying to fly, if it's not, I would probably try to bump

that transition so that it is at a point where the airplane is acceptable to fly, and have to be

great flying there, but my point is, I could see a tendency, especially if it was an inadvertent

stall, get into envelope protection, not at stall. These are really only, well, anyway, I could see

a tendency for the pilot to stagnate at that point, because it's... the nose is dropping, and

giving him the normal feedback, that a normal airplane, and a stall does, with kind of a g rate

kind of thing, and then he has to go to the push to get through that 15 degrees. Like I said, I

don't think that's a big deal, I think the requirement was no tendency to PIO for desired or

adequate, is that correct. Okay, I don't think that I would call what I did a PIO, although two

things, first of all, in putting the inputs in, I think it's a ergometric issue, but I am having the

tendency to split the pitch inputs to put in a roll input. The other thing is, is basically, when I

pushed over, if I tried to tightly control the bank angle, I have a tendency to maybe

overcontrol slightly, and I could see getting in, I think if we looked at the strips, we'd see a

couple oscillations are going left and right on bank angle, and you know, the line between

just an overcontrol and a PIO, is very thin. It was something that I could control, and so, I

guess I won't characterize it as a PIO, although, I would say that it's mildly unpleasant

deficiency, certainly. I'd almost say it was a annoying deficiency, in fact, let me turn the tape

off, and let's do one more data run, if you don't mind.

We did another data run in between the comments here, and what I wanted to do was look at

the tendency for a lateral PIO, and I think that when I come into the Cooper Harper, I'd say
109

it's controllable, adequate performance is obtainable with a tolerable pilot work load, is it

satisfactory without improvement? And that's really what I was trying to answer. Was there

any tendency to PIO or not, I still think this is a hard question, I'm going to answer yes, and

the reason I am is, I think that there could be a tendency to couple up if you tried to use real

tight control, because I think what you're going to do is end up overcontrolling in the

ailerons. As long as I'm very patient with the airplane, you know that's kind of been an

underlying theme, that I have to be patient with the airplane, and that the control is not

always real crisp. As long as I'm patient with airplane, and consistent with how I fly the

airplane throughout the rest of the envelope, I don't really think there's a tendency to PIO. I

think there is a tendency to overcontrol though. I guess... I guess I still think, in my mind

this is a hard question to answer, I think it's a hard question between a 3 and a 4, and I think

it's definitely mildly unpleasant deficiency, it's almost to the point where it's annoying, and

minimal pilot compensation is required for performance, and that's what was really the tie

breaker for me, is I do think it's minimal compensation required to get desired performance,

although, it's on the borderline between what I would consider minimal and moderate, not

because of the work load issue, but because at least in my mind, when I look at

compensation, I look at how likely I am, how easy it is for me to accept that compensation,

and certainly if I was looking at other tasks in the cockpit at the same time, one of the things

that I would drop out is, being patient about the roll. I think I'd stay well within adequate, but

I could see pushing on the side of the desired because of that, so anyway. I'm sorry, for

longitudinal and lateral, I'm not going to split them this time, well, we can split them there,

but I'm going to say it's a 3 for both, and you know the pitch really isn't bad at all, like I said

there is that tendency to try to stagnate when your transition for releasing back pressure to

pushing, but you know, the pitch really is pretty good, and I'd almost be tempted to go with

a 2, but we'll just leave it 3 and 3.
110

Task 5020 Stall at Max Takeoff Power

Pilot A

Task 5020 Stall at Max Takeoff Power 13 Jan 97; Runs 64-66

Recovery from Limit Flight Envelope; Cooper Harper ratings, longitudinal, is it

controllable? yes, is adequate performance obtainable with tolerable pilot work load, yes,

satisfactory without improvement, I think it probably is, improvement not required, level one,

and we'll ..., looks like a Cooper Harper rating of ... the only unpleasant deficiencies I might

note is the one you're holding the force on that, I'm trying to hold a constant decel rate, the

force you're holding is fairly high, and I noticed in the stick there was a few discontinuities,

where you seem to be going through a...one region to another, or something. Yeah, you've

got up to a certain ... certain speed down to a certain speed when there is slight glitch in the

stick, but other than that, it was pretty good, I ... it's either a 3 or a 2, I would ... I'd think I'd

give it a 3 in longi ... and pitch, and for lateral directional, the only thing that seems to be a

minor annoyance is the ... when you're holding that very large force in pitch, and you're

trying ... you're holding very small forces in roll, then any minor angle that you're pulling on

... on the stick, if your off slightly on the angle that you're pulling, you'll get some roll in

there, with the high forces in pitch, and the very light forces in roll, the small angle changes

in the... it seemed like there's difficulty to control it to plus or minus one, although, so, I'll

give it a 3 in lateral directional also.

Pilot B

Task 5020 Stall at Max Takeoff Power 06 Jan 97; Runs 41-43

...Lets see, summary performance standards max bank angle desired was relatively easily

obtainable. However, there is some pilot induced oscillations in the lateral axis. I noticed a

very pronounced tendency for small amplitude roll oscillations on the order of plus or

minus..oh , a degree to 2 degrees....in conjunction with large longitudinal inputs and it was

strictly in conjunctions with those large inputs but I was definitely driving it and I was out

of phase with it. So you can't say there were no PIO tendencies there, there was in the lateral

directional axis, although, it was not divergent. And it was small amplitude. There is no task

for the longitudinal axis. I'm going to assume that that refers to desired longitudinal control.

I can put the nose where I need to in terms of the decel rate....and I'll give it a tolerance

something along the line of what we saw before, plus or minus a degree and it was easily

doable to that extent. As for longitudinal, its controllable , adequate, satisfactory,

improvements not required , mildly unpleasant deficiencies, minimum pilot compensation

HQR3. Lateral directional, I'm not going to penalizes it in terms of control because I don't

feel like the amplitude of the PIO is large enough to penalize it to that extent. But I can't say

that I could get desired performance there either 'cause I did get some PIO. Nondivergent

PIO. So its controllable , its adequate, however, not satisfactory without improvement,

deficiencies warrant an improvement and we'll say that since I couldn't get desired

performance, that moderately objectionable deficiencies adequate performance requires

considerable pilot compensation HQR 5. This is another one where if I could give it , I

would give it a 4.5. Because I can't say that I was using considerable compensation to get

adequate, but on the other hand, I couldn't get desired. So, that concludes my comments for

card 11.

Pilot C
111

Task 5020 Stall at Max Takeoff Power 15 Jan 97; Runs 94-96

Okay, for what I did, which was just keep it wings level, and my task was to keep it as near

wings level as possible, it was satisfactory without improvement, and in pitch it took a...it

took some compensation to keep at it, because it's...you have to...it's real goosey, and just a

little bit of input goes a long way, so, the best I could do would be a 3 on that, and I kept it

within desired in roll, and again, just keeping it on wings level, even the lat. dir., I'd leave it at

3. I never got it very far off, and tried to come back and catch it, but that's a different task,

but to just keep it on wings level, just a minimal compensation will do it.

Pilot D

Task 5020 Stall at Max Takeoff Power 22 Jan 97; Run 23

Very similar to the OEI's that we just did, we don't have the additional task of controlling

beta as much. I'm just going to give it a ditto, although it did feel like the force buildup was a

little higher to get it up to 21 degrees in this case, which I think is good. Not sure quite why,

maybe it's my imagination. Pilot rating must give it the same. The longitudinal and the

lateral, both 4/3.

Pilot E

Task 5020 Stall at Max Takeoff Power 07 Jan 97; Runs 94-97

We did 4 runs on this at progressively increasing aggressiveness for the recovery. The first

one I very, very gently recovered probably somewhat in the order of maybe a degree to 2

degrees per second cue to recovery. The second one was a little bit more higher Q, as far as

pitch rate is concerned, and the third one is a little bit higher still, although the Q dot for that

third one was less than the Q dot for the second one, but I think I maintain the command to

get a higher Q, a higher pitch rate, than on the second one. On the fourth run I was very

aggressive with a acceleration of Q dot of minus 5.52. The first two I noticed a roll PIO

going through about 17 degrees alpha, it was about 2 hertz and plus or minus a degree or

so, and I just felt like I was at 180 at a phase with the vehicle. I did not notice the roll PIO

with the faster of pitch rates, and I was totally absent. At the last one I went the highest pitch

rate... was just very, very aggressive. Any rate it is possible to recover using all those

techniques but very gentile through very aggressive. Cooper Harper longitudinal for the

steady fight wings level. This goes through the entire evaluation, so longitudinal, was it

controllable? Yes, adequate? Yes, satisfactory without improvement? Yes, using all the

techniques basically mildly to aggressive. I would rate that a 3, minimal pilot compensation

is required. There is no pitch up tendencies in the stall. In fact you have to hold a lot of back

stick to keep it up there. I guess you have all the Boeing stick protection features on, is that

correct? (Correct) So you've got to fight the actual soft stops and all that, so I think if you let

go of it, it's going to tend to want to recover more aggressively than the first two or three

ways that I recovered it. For lateral, controllable? Yes, adequate? Yes, satisfactory? No, I'm

going to rate the lateral a 4 based on the PIO I experienced on the first two runs. So there

appears to be some kind of a propensity to get into a lateral PIO if you make a very general

recovery, and such would put the compensation up there. I think that may be something

worthy of note. Knowing that now I would tend to recover more aggressively than I initially

started just to avoid that PIO, but obviously you need to do more than 4 runs coming up

with that. We'll see a 3 and a 4.

Pilot F
112

Task 5020 Stall at Max Takeoff Power 23 Jan 97; Runs 22-24

Basically, exactly the same comments as the previous stall, I don't really see much of a

difference, we just had a discussion about the Q dot parameter, we were seeing a 2.05

squared, degrees per second squared, I guess, for the acceleration with pitch rate, and I

guess, you know sitting here doing the stall, and we know what we're doing, especially

considering the fact that, you know, repeatedly, at least my comment has been that I'd like

the airplane to be just a little bit crisper. I'd rather for ride quality, I'd rather back off on my

inputs, but still have the airplane respond crisply when I need to, I guess it would be okay

for me, if the nose came down a little bit faster. I think one of the reasons why we're seeing

a lowered Q dot, than what you were saying Lou, was that in the Milspec is... you know,

basically I'm just releasing back pressure here on the stall, and I'm trying to control the bank

angle very precisely, and that's taken a fair amount of my attention, and I think in part the

reason why maybe, you know... I could bump forward on the stick, I think I could release

more back pressure, and in fact after we get done rating this, let's just go take a look at... If I

just release it. But I'm wondering if people aren't just very ginger about releasing the back

pressure, simply because of the bank angle control, and it's taking a lot of their work load,

and a lot of their attention. Anyway, to rate this, it's controllable, adequate performance is

obtainable with a tolerable pilot work load, and again, I'm in the same quandary between the

3 and the 4, for all the same reasons. I really saw nothing unique about this particular stall.

I'm going to go ahead again, and say that I think, you know, it's minimal pilot compensation,

because I have to reduce the gain, and I'm going to, I guess, go along with what I've done in

the past and be consistent, and give it a 3 and a 3. One thing that I will note, though, is you

know, if consistently pilots are tending to not drop, you know, pilots being creatures of, I

don't know, kind of like Pavlov's dog, they want to get the performance. You know, if this Q

dot's not a parameter, my tendency is going to be control to what is the most difficult, and

make those tradeoffs. Yeah, I don't think that, at least from what I've seen in this limited

look, that there's a doubt in my mind that the airplanes recovering, but we'll take a look at it

again, I'm wondering if people are just very gingerly about releasing the back stick, because

of the recovery, because of the roll stop. Anyway, we'll take a look at that.
113

Task 5040 Turning Stall at Idle Power

Pilot A

Task 5040 Turning Stall at Idle Power 13 Jan 97; Runs 70-72

Once again the forces to override the low speed envelope protection are high in pitch and

they still retain very light aileron forces, so the bank angle control is somewhat touchy at the

very low speeds. It would be helpful to have ... would be helpful to have a ... like I said,

color coding on the angle of attack indicator, and also a stick shaker, to give some feeling

for when ... when you are getting up to 21 degrees, watching the bank angle and the pitch

attitude, and the angle of attack indicator are quite spread out on the display, so we seemed

to get surprised by the angle of attack as it increases, but other than that, the recover is very

docile, and roll wings level lower the nose, and it's very straight forward in that respect, and I

would give it a 3 on lateral directional, and a 2 on pitch control.

Pilot B

Task 5040 Turning Stall at Idle Power 06 Jan 97; Runs 48-50

Card was not performed as per the instructions, except that recovered both lateral

directionally and longitudinal at the same time... didn't really, I can't really say directionally,

I didn't really put any rudder inputs but I did roll the wing level and lower the nose at the

same time, in the past that caused problems, this time it did not. I was able to maintain

performance standards within the desired range in both axis. Working a little bit in lateral

directional, not quite so much longitudinally, although I was working a bit to maintain the

pitch attitude I wanted to to get the deceleration rate so, I'm not quite, not quite ready to say

that lateral directional is.....results in a higher workload than the longitudinal system. So, lets

go with the longitudinal HQR, it's controllable, adequate, satisfactory, with mildly unpleasant

deficiencies, minimum pilot compensation HQR3. Lateral directional, controllable, adequate,

satisfactory, with again, mildly unpleasant deficiencies, minimum pilot compensation,

HQR3. The longitudinal task, the workload that resulted in the 3 was associated with

maintaining pitch attitude in the entry to the stall and the lateral directional degradation to

HQR3 was as a result of workload requirements and the recovery from the stall. That

concludes my comments.

Pilot C

Task 5040 Turning Stall at Idle Power 15 Jan 97; Runs 101-103

Both the pitch and the roll were satisfactory without improvement, so we're up in there, and

again, minimal pilot compensation, it's fairly easy to get desired, there wasn't wasn't any

question, it was behaving quite nicely in the recovery, I had no anxiety over whether it was

going to recover or not, it all looked fine, and it was quite controllable, so a 3 for both the

longitudinal and the lat-dir

Pilot D

Task 5040 Turning Stall at Idle Power 22 Jan 97; Runs 15-16

It's pretty much ditto, 5010. We do have the additional task of the roll which really doesn't

add to it. I did notice that the... this is the first time and really all the work I've done here so
114

far that I've had to use the lateral axis, and it seems like it might be just a little bit jerky on

the lateral control inputs, but for this task I'm going to give it the same ratings, longitudinal

4, lateral 3.

Pilot E

Task 5040 Turning Stall at Idle Power 07 Jan 97; Runs 101-103

No problems on this one. If I make an aggressive, what I was doing was recovering in pitch

first and I was pushing over with the side stick and keeping the roll attitude constant. Once I

got the flight path marker below the horizon, I'm sorry when I got the waterline reference of

longitudinal axis, body angle below the horizon, I would go ahead and recover. If I did

recover laterally... if I did a very aggressive wings level recovery, I could get a little tiny bit

of roll PIO, but if I was just a little bit less than aggressive, it worked out very nicely. So I

say overall no problems with the recovery at all. In the rolling into the 30 degrees angle of

bank, I noticed that I had to put in a rudder to keep the side slip centered, so the control law

is sufficient in that regard. I shouldn't have to be working the rudders to maintain zero side

slip on a simple angle of bank capture. For the task though, for the evaluation segment,

longitudinal Cooper Harper; for the longitudinal task, controllable? Yes, adequate? Yes,

satisfactory without improvement? Yes, Cooper Harper of 3. Basically you have to...

actually just release the stick, it probably would recover on it's own, but I am putting in

compensation therefore a 3, but it does not require much effort at all on the part of the pilots,

so it's kind of a borderline 2, 3. For the lateral directional Cooper Harper, controllable? Yes,

adequate? Yes, satisfactory, yes, I'll rate it a 3 also. There are places in the envelope we could

get a slight roll PIO, and it is a little bit difficult to hold 30 degrees angle of bank. It does

not, you can't really command that angle of bank and have it hold it so I think that the

control law is sufficient there also, and have to put in the rudder to maintain the zero side

slip when you command that 30 degrees angle of bank either left or right. So upon further

reflection, I am going to change my ratings say it's not satisfactory without improvement. In

fact it needs to be improved in the lateral axis. I'm going to rate it a 4, and that desired

criteria, that we need to have an aileron/rudder interconnect feature that will zero out the beta

when you roll into the angle of bank, and also the control law needs to more easily hold an

angle of bank that's commanded.

Pilot F

Task 5040 Turning Stall at Idle Power

Not performed by this pilot.
115

Task 5050 Turning Stall at Thrust for Level Flight

Pilot A

Task 5050 Turning Stall at Thrust for Level Flight 13 Jan 97; Runs 73-75

The pitch attitude required is about 12 degrees, kind of a constant pitch attitude while it

decelerates, good control, same problem, or same notation anomaly as before, heavy elevator

forces and light, aileron forces, and it takes a little special effort to avoid a bit of a PIO,

trying to hold 30 degrees of bank angle, the little lack of control system harmony, by design

I guess, and however, there wasn't any trouble holding the tolerances during the stall entry

and the recovery, it's quite straight forward on the recovery, roll wings level, lower the nose,

and no problem at all, I'll have to give it a 2 for the pitch, and a 3 for the lateral directional.

Pilot B

Task 5050 Turning Stall at Thrust for Level Flight 06 Jan 97; Runs 52-54

In summary, the performance standards were met. A very small tendency, very, very light

tendency for pilot induce oscillations in the lateral directional axis. I'm not going to penalize

it for it. I don't think I really got any full-blown PIO but there's a very mild tendency

towards that. Yeah, that's really the whole thing, I saw it anytime there were large inputs that

time. Again, very mild but its there. Longitudinal its just a matter of chasing that carrot, its

the workload that primarily the problem..obviously in the entry since there's no task in the

recovery. And again the criteria I'm using for desired is plus or minus a degree, for

adequate, plus or minus 2 degrees, longitudinally and that was easily doable in the desired

range. So longitudinal CHR, it's controllable, adequate, and satisfactory, mildly unpleasant

deficiencies HQR3. Lateral directional, controllable , adequate, satisfactory, mildly

unpleasant deficiencies and minimum compensations HQR3 as well, with the comments as

noted. And that concludes my comments.

Pilot C

Task 5050 Turning Stall at Thrust for Level Flight 15 Jan 97; Runs 104-106

I couldn't see any difference between the two and required work order performance, so a 3

and 3 for longitudinal and lateral-directional.

Pilot D

Task 5050 Turning Stall at Thrust for Level Flight 22 Jan 97; Runs 18-19

Pretty much ditto, the previous two. I did notice that the force buildup is really a pretty good

warning that you're getting close to stall. It actually might... we might make it a little bit

higher for... to give just a little bit more warning, and of course, does increase the work load

for doing the task here, but I think operationally a little bit more buildup might be desirable.

I'm going to give it the same pilot ratings, longitudinal 4, lateral 3.

Pilot E

Task 5050 Turning Stall at Thrust for Level Flight 07 Jan 97; Runs 104-106
116

General comments, it seemed like it was just slightly harder to hold the angle of bank and

get the deceleration with the level flight thrust and idle power, it's just a little bit higher work

load, as opposed to task #5040. The task was straight forward, I noticed every once in a

while a slight roll PIO on the recovery, especially if I aggressively rolled to capture wings

level. The more aggressive you are, the more likelihood of creating a very slight roll PIO

and it's pretty easy to recover from just by getting on the loop just briefly. No problems in

the recovery, it's almost... it's hard to hold it up there if you just relax you're back stick

you're going to recover pretty quickly. So actually you have to work to keep it in the stall,

with all of the protection we have. As far as longitudinal Cooper Harper, I think I met all of

the desired criteria for the longitudinal and lateral directional. And basically no PIO, so

controllable? Yes, adequate? Yes, satisfactory, yes, I'm going to rate that a 3. Basically I

think if I did nothing it would recover also. So the recovery would probably be a 2, but since

the start segment is 30 degree bank turn, you would actually have to work to keep it into the

deceleration mode, there is compensation required, so that gives it a 3. Lateral directional,

controllable? Yes, adequate? Yes, satisfactory, yes, I'm going to say a 3 also, even though I

think at times you could get a very slight roll PIO, but it was very, very slight and not always

pleasant.

Pilot F

Task 5050 Turning Stall at Thrust for Level Flight 23 Jan 97; Run 18

Really no big deal, actually the entry is almost easier at 30 degrees. There is, again, I have to

pay attention to the pitch inputs, because I have a tendency to couple up in roll, but it's not

too bad. Again, capturing and holding a bank angle, if I'm trying to do a real tight tracking

of bank angle task, I have to be patient with it, I have to catch the deviations early, and make

small gradual inputs, so that the predictability remains good. If I start making more abrupter,

tighter control inputs, I have to actually reverse the stick to get the roll rate to stop, or the roll

rate just kind of trails off, or coast to a stop, and it's hard to predict where it's going to stop.

When I reverse the stick to stop the roll rate, it can be... you're not getting roll rate

ratcheting, but it can kind of be ratchety, kind of bouncy, kind of control. Anyway, this

comment is exactly the same as we saw before. When I went to... because of this, when I

went to capture the bank angle, I used a fairly moderate roll rate back to wings level, but

when I was within 8 or 5 degrees of wings level, I slowed the roll rate down significantly, so

that I could coast in and capture zero degrees of bank fairly precisely. Even on the pushover

there was a tendency to have to really pay attention to the bank angle control. Still the

tendency of going through 15 degrees, you have to transition from the back pressure,

releasing back pressure to a slight push, but it's not a real big deal. I'd go in for the Cooper

Harper, it's controllable, adequate performance is obtainable with a pilot work load, is it

satisfactory without improvement? The same exact comment from the last stall as far as, I'm

going to say that it's mildly unpleasant, and minimal pilot compensation, although... and I

think it's more of a function of over controlling, than it is really coupling, but I guess I could

see if somebody really tried to tightly control this, that they could maybe induce a slight

PIO. Anyway, so I'm going to say yes, and I'm going to go, and I'm going to rate it for all

the same reasons as I did on the last stall, a 3 and a 3.
117

Task 5060 Diving Pull-out

Pilot A

Task 5060 Diving Pull-out 14 Jan 97; Runs 26-29

Cooper Harper rating for the pitch, I would give it a 2, and you rating the lateral directional

on this? I'll give it a 3. The unstart circles are pretty effective in keeping the airplane free of

an unstart during the pushover, there seems to be a slight non-linearity in terms of the

response of the airplane to a constant pull-up force when you first start to pull out. There's a

rapid onset of G's, and it kind of overshoots and drops off, and finally stabilizes out. If you

pull a constant force, maybe the combination of the thrust coming up and the control system

reacting to your commands. There's barely... fairly docile, it took a...it almost didn't get

down to 7 1/2 degrees of nose down before we got to 2.5 Mach, and the pull out was quite

easy, no particular problem there. The ability to hold G's was reasonably good, a little more

expanded G meter might be helpful.

Pilot B

Task 5060 Diving Pull-out 08 Jan 97; Runs 73-75

The card was accomplished as per the instructions, maneuver is possible without exceptional

pilot strength or skill, you are pushing forward to keep the nose down, because the over

Mach protection is trying to fight you, without exceeding VMDE, that's an old criteria.

Okay, no control reverses or PIO, that's true. Maximum bank angle and load fact we are

able to keep within desired. Fighting a little bit to keep the engines from unstarting in

longitudinal and to maintain bank angle within a reasonable value, that being 5 degrees on

the recovery. Both Cooper Harpers are the same, it's controllable, adequate, satisfactory, and

minimal pilot compensation in both cases, HQR3, both longitudinally and lateral

directionally. That concludes my comments.

Pilot C

Task 5060 Diving Pull-out 15 Jan 97; Runs 115-117

For the...well, let's do pitch first, satisfactory without improvement, well, the problem is

keeping from the unstart on the push, on the pull, without any motion seat of the pants, it's a

lot harder to try to hold a G, it was very right on the border of desired and adequate, so I'm

going say it's not satisfactory without improvement, that's a tough one. Deficiencies require

improvement, and it's one of those that...it's easy...it's fairly easy in pitch to get adequate,

and it's difficult to get desired, and so that makes it tough to rate, I would have to give it a

very poor 4, however, we're right on the border of desired and adequate, and it was a lot of

work, and it was at least moderate, and maybe just a smidgen more to get that desired

performance. So, 4 for pitch. Roll, satisfactory without improvement, it didn't take a lot of

work, because it's just a straight up and back, I did see a little bit of coupling and the nose

over, and a little bit coming up at no more than a degree or two, maybe something,

and...most of my concentration was on pitch, and lat-dir kind of took care of itself. So, I'm

going to say it's satisfactory without improvement, a 3 for lat-dir, 4 for pitch.

Pilot D

Task 5060 Diving Pull-out 22 Jan 97; Run 34
118

This is the diving pull-out initiated from a minus 7 1/2 degrees, and Mach 2.5, and trying to

recover at 1.5 G's. A little bit of a task longitudinally, initially you have to kind of pull the

thing up to 1 1/2 G's, and then as the envelope protection takes over, you kind have to push

to keep it from pulling up more, and particularly when you're trying to level out the aircraft

at gamma equals zero, and by this time we're going a little over a Mach 2 1/2. The alpha

goes down to 1.9 and we get... the unstart envelope gets very small, it's almost impossible to

keep from having unstarts. Laterally, I got up to 6 degrees on the pushover, which I think

was just inadvertent, that was really, if I paid more attention, that wouldn't have been a factor.

I'm not going downgrade on the account of that, but there still is that PIO and roll that's

been existing here all along. Pilot rating, let's still give it the 4 and 4. Pilot D on 5060, we

made two runs for data there. The first one we didn't do correctly, we didn't retard the

throttles to idle, so we got into a little bit of a problem, that ended that problem, where we

were have to pull up at 1 1/2 G's and then push over as the envelope protection tried to take

it, and also we were getting the unstarts, because the unstart envelope had gone to zero, at the

level flight condition. With the throttles at idle, the task was a little bit easier, you still have

the lag in G as you do the pull-up, but it was a constant, not a constant, but a monotonic at

least, well excuse me, what's the word, it was always a pull to hold 1 1/2 G's up to level

flight, and at level flight we had a reasonable unstart envelope this time, but still it's, because

of the lag in the G, and the tendency to PIO in roll, let's still give it longitudinal and lateral

ratings of 4 and 4.

Pilot E

Task 5060 Diving Pull-out 10 Jan 97; Runs 50-53

This is fairly a simple task, not much involved, a little bit of coupling in the lateral axis on

the pull, which I've seen before, you get a little plus or minus one or two degree phi, slight

roll PIO on the recovery, and it's just kind of a nuisance rather than anything significant, but

it's something that should be corrected. No problems on the recovery, there's a slight

tendency to get a lag in your... if you close on G in the recovery, in other words you use a G

tape and pull-up to try at 1.5, you have to anticipate that because there is a delay between an

input from the sidearm controller and the G response, probably a TPA2 effect, but at any

rate you can over... if you don't anticipate that, you can get a slight G exceedence. I stayed

within plus minus .2 G's the whole time, but hit about 1.67 on one time when I tried to close

right on 1.5. Once you get the attitude or the pitch rate about where you want it, it's pretty

easy to maintain plus minus .05 G's once you can stay within that first overshoot. Okay, for

the performance standards for the diving pullout bank angle, I met the desired and

maximum load factor, met the desired, so, for longitudinal Cooper Harper rating,

controllable? Yes, adequate? Yes, satisfactory? Yes, Cooper Harper of 3, for work load, and

for lateral Cooper Harper rating, controllable? Yes, adequate? Yes, satisfactory? No, I'm

going to say a 4 for this little nuisance roll PIO about 0 degrees speed. I'm going to call that

a minor, but annoying deficiency, and that would bring it in as a Cooper Harper 4.

Pilot F

Task 5060 Diving Pull-out 21 Jan 97; Run 42

Basically, the airplane is well controllable here. I'm getting a little bit more use to the side

stick controller in the way it is in this simulator, and really... less... I can notice a noticeable

difference, I don't have to pay as much attention to keeping the wings level as I did at the

beginning of the period here, it's becoming easier for me not to couple pitch inputs with roll
119

inputs on the stick. Predictability is an issue here for two factors, one is the fact that in and

out of envelope protection, does cause a predictability, because as far as the force gradient

goes, well I don't want to say a force gradient, the airplanes pitching up when you go into

the envelope protection, and then you have to adjust your back pressure or sometimes even

apply a little bit of forward pressure in order to control the airplane when you're in the

envelope protection, but then when you move below 2.5, that envelope protection is ramped

out, and it seems to be fairly rapidly, and you have to transition to control the airplane, and

when you're trying to do this fine G tracking task, that hurts predictability. The other

predictability problem is the fact that the airplane is not real crisp, it kind of coasts to a stop,

when you release pressure on the stick. What I noticed was, on my maneuver is, when I

initially started to pull, I was pretty aggressive as far as getting into the maneuver goes.

Envelope protection was there, we went to about 1.63 G's, or 62 G's, or maybe a little bit

more than that. Anyway, as we got into the 1.6 range, I think I actually bunted on the stick,

you can look at the data to see for sure, to stop the G from increasing, and again, I think that

was a function of we were just going in and out of the envelope protection and plus the

airplane coasting to a stop, and then I'm not sure exactly where that transition occurred, but

anyway I kind of got it under control, and I over compensated, we shot back down to the 1.3

something G range, and again, by this time, I think the envelope protection was gone for

sure, but then I had to increase the stick force, and we were within a couple degrees of the

horizon before I really got stabilized to around 1.5 G's. So anyway, I do think there is a

predictability problem there. As far as the task goes, it is controllable, you did get adequate

performance obtainable with tolerable pilot work load, in fact I think we've got desired. Is it

satisfactory without improvement, there's a couple issues that enter into this question. First

of all, as far as envelope production and G tracking tasks and everything else, it hurts the G

tracking task, I guess if I was looking at just purely a G tracking task with no operational

suitability in mind for this, this would be a very hard question for me to answer because as

far as tracking G, if I forget about envelope protection lines there, what's going to be

happening, or why the pilot would be doing this maneuver, I could very easily answer that

question no, because it's, I guess the reason I would is not so much because you can't get

the desired performance, well let me back pedal on this, I guess. I guess I'd have to answer it

yes, because you're getting desired performance, and the pilot compensation and work load

required to get the desired performance, probably doesn't lend itself to answering no, but if I

was just looking at this purely as a G tracking task, I would say that it's got a very

objectionable characteristic in it that I don't really... for just a pure G tracking task, really

wouldn't want to have to live with on a day in and day out basis, and that's why, I guess, I

was kind of hedging on this question. Anyway, I'm going to answer it yes, we did get

desired performance, and it's not with... I don't think it requires, oh boy, you know I'm

having a hard time with this question. I guess in my mind, I'm going to have to decide rather

if I think it's minimal compensation, or moderate compensation, and this is the real question

between the yes and a no to differentiate between level 1 and level 2. I guess ultimately, I'm

going to say I don't think it's all that bad, and I'm going to answer it yes, and say minimal

compensation required for desired performance, and I'm going to give it a 3 in both axis.

Just to... I guess... just an additional comment about this is, this is one of those times in the

Cooper Harper where I really have to make a decision between the two blocks, yeah, I guess

minimal performance is the right way to go, we'll go with a 3, although, I guess I would just

note that the predictability problem in and out of envelope protection was a issue for me in

making that final... answering that final question yes or no, about is it satisfactory without

improvement.
120

Task 5070 Emergency Descent

Pilot A

Task 5070 Emergency Descent 14 Jan 97; Runs 23-24

With and without added drag, without the added 60 counts of drag, we're unable to get down

without exceeding the time above cabin altitude of 25,000. With the added drag we can get

down in the allotted time, the display of airspeed and altitude limits is perhaps helpful, but a

good airspeed indicator with a redline on it that changes with altitude, would also be quite

helpful, and knowing ahead of time the way the airspeed changes, that could be worked

probably as easily as a graph. I think perhaps that would be one thing to evaluate. As far as

lateral directional Cooper Harper rating, we're in the adequate...adequate, but not desired

range, is that true. Really, there's no lateral Cooper Harper performance. So, what is it

longitudinal, or what is it. Just a general Cooper Harper for the whole thing. Perform the

maneuver smoothly with no tendency to oscillate or hunt. Okay, so...yeah, the...are we in

level, are we adequate there, level 2. We don't have a good performance standard, and if you

want to you can skip the Cooper Harper rating. Longitudinally, it's reasonably easy to adjust

the flight path vector and adjust airspeed accordingly, it would be much easier without the

45 degree bank, since...in override, and having to hold a very, very heavy force, in order to

hold some unusual roll attitude, while you're descending, and if... it would be highly

desirable not to have to use a 45 degree bank, and spend the whole time in roll, with

overriding the roll protection, but the heavy force that it requires, especially going in left

turns, and the display of redline versus altitude, was somewhat helpful, although, I'd like to

see the...like to see just the basic normal airspeed indicator, see what problems that creates, I

think with the knowledge of where the knees are, and just a basic airspeed indicator, you

could easily maintain the redline on the descents. Longitudinal Cooper Harper, I guess we

had some overspeeds, so, I guess we would have, I'd give it a 4, I guess.

Pilot B

Task 5070 Emergency Descent 08 Jan 97; Runs 67-71

Task was evaluate handling qualities during rapid maximum speed descent from cruise.

Perform maneuver smoothly with no tendency to oscillate or hunt for pitch attitude or speed

through the maneuver. Well, there is a tendency oscillate or hunt, but it's not...it's just a

matter of control. If you're not overshooting, you're probably not trying hard enough, to

some extent. My task was basically self-generated in terms of the tolerance, because the

tolerance is here; normal acceleration and air speed above VMO, 25 knots is pretty loose

from what I saw. So, I'm trying to keep it within about a circles width on that indicator

which is probably something on the order of 5 knots, 5 to 6 knots within the, or close to the

red line that is, and keep the angle of bank something between 40 and 45 degrees

throughout the maneuver as far as the lateral directional stuff. And that was do-able, I was

working a little bit to do it, but not a whole lot, so I'm gonna give it Level 1 HQR's. Both

longitudinal and lateral directional is controllable, adequate, satisfactory, mildly unpleasant

deficiencies, minimal pilot compensation, HQR3's on both. That concludes my comments.

Pilot C

Task 5070 Emergency Descent 15 Jan 97; Run 121
121

This is a real challenge, and the best I could do on most things was get adequate, and a

couple of things sneaked out. This is something that's going to have to be practiced a lot in

this procedure, if somebody can get it to work, and this is what you want to do, it's going to

take a lot of training to get that. The...as it was, I went out of adequate by...no, I didn't go out

adequate on that did I, adequate was what I had on speed, but it was close, and very, very,

tough to maintain. The display, actually, after I've worked with it just a little bit, it did help,

the predictor there makes all the difference in the world, and initially it's a very open loop

thing, I would pull the things, pull the throttles back, open the speed brakes, and go to the

40-45 degrees, and then after I got my speed settled, then I would just put the left tip on the

horizon, and then wait and see what I got, and then vary the predictor with my left hand, just

by how hard I pulled and pushed, and as I said, that was...it didn't take very long, and I

understood the relationship there, and it was worth while, however the ability to maintain the

speed, is not there, and unless this is practiced an awful lot, it's going to take a lot of pilot

compensation just to keep from exceeding the limitation of the airplane, in Mach or EAS.

So, is adequate performance obtainable with a tolerable pilot work load, I'm going to say no,

it really requires improvement, there's something considerably more going to have to be

done, especially since we didn't get the major goal of getting down in time, so, I'm going to

give that...I'd say 9, that was intense pilot compensation to retain control to keep it from

going past a speed limit in particular, and even G, you could get up there real quick, so, I'll

give it a 9.

Pilot D

Task 5070 Emergency Descent

Not performed by this pilot.

Pilot E

Task 5070 Emergency Descent 10 Jan 97; Runs 45-48

A lot of things on this one that kind of didn't work just like we expected, as we increase the

drag, the times went up progressively from a 195 seconds with delta CD of 0 to about 205

with .02 to 228 at .04, so, something very odd is going on. Also, we noticed a real cliff about

46 to 47 degrees phi, the thing would depart, therefore the last run I held it about 38 to 40

degrees angle of bank to stay away from that. When you're really trying to tightly control

the energy to maintain it within the VMO balance, it is very easy to, since the lateral control

law does not do a good job holding bank, because of all the protection you've got to hold

right stick in, and depending on how much you hold you can easily exceed the 45 degree

threshold and depart, so, I tended to give myself a little bit of pad. Some suggestions, if

you're going to have to hold, if you can't just send a bank angle and take your hands off of

it, you've got to hold that sidearm controller in to the right to maintain the right bank, then

there should be some kind of envelope protection to keep you from exceeding the cliff

where you depart, so, we're actually hurting the pilot here, you've got to hold the stick in to

maintain the angle of bank, but at the same time you can easily overexceed the departure

point to depart, so, that's something that's got to be worked out. The other thing to figure out

is why the drag increases caused a worse performance. Are there any Cooper Harpers on

this Bruce? Okay, Bruce informs me I met the adequate criteria for both performance

standards. Okay, so for longitudinal rating, is it controllable? Yes, is it adequate performance

obtainable? Yes it is, however, I'm going to rate it a 6, and I think adequate performance

requiring extensive pilot compensation is very appropriate here, in order to fly that VMO

curve, it is really a very high work load task, with very, very, subtle changes in the pitch input
122

causing dramatic changes on the VMO curve following. Laterally, I also don't like it because

of the comments I mentioned where you have a cliff at about 46, 47 degrees phi, and you

have no way to prevent the pilot from exceeding that cliff, you've got to either put a bank

angle eliminator in there at 45, or take out the protection that wants to hold you less than 35

degrees phi, I believe it is, so, you don't have to continually hold in right stick, and can easily

overexceed the bank. So, for lateral, controllable? Yes, adequate? I'm going to say yes, based

on the changing of a technique to fly about 35-40 degrees phi, I'll rate this a 6 also for the

numerous comments I've made about setting the envelope protection properly, so, a 6 and a

6. One final comment on the emergency descent, I think this a real good candidate for the

automated procedure, it's very difficult to fly the VMO profile very, very, tightly, and I think

an automated procedure could do it better than a pilot in this case, being able to pick up the

accelerations much more quickly than a pilot could.

Pilot F

Task 5070 Emergency Descent 21 Jan 97; Run 39

All right, you know, one thing that is useful if you know, you're using the bank angle to give

you an elevator G to increase the drag to do the descent, the one thing that's useful in that is,

I can pretty much control the acceleration, D acceleration with the bank angle, with the

gamma control, if I set a pitch attitude that will hold about 40... about the airspeed that I

want, or the decel or accel rate, depending on where I am on the VN diagram, or actually

airspeed versus altitude diagram here, I can increase or decrease the acceleration just by

rolling in bank, and the flight path, the gamma, will stay fixed. So, that's a good

characteristic for doing this task. If you were going to use something like this operationally,

again, I think there's a lot of issues as far as the display goes, that would have to be refined,

or looked at in detail. Actually, for just having seen this, I though the display works kind of

neat. Anyway, just doing the Cooper Harper tasks, it's definitely controllable, you get

adequate performance with a tolerable work load. Is it satisfactory without improvement? As

far as the task definition of being able to hold those parameters and fly that, I think the

answer is yes, although, there are other issues as far as performance goes, that have to be

addressed. Basically, my scheme was to hold in the neighborhood of 40 degrees of bank to

give myself a little bit of leeway within the desired zone, and 40 to 45, I could get stable at

45 every now and then. It would take me a while to kind get stabilized out there. Like I said,

one of the techniques that I used was to use the bank since gamma would stay fixed. If I got

a gamma that was close to holding the rate that I wanted, I would just use the bank to control

the small accel or decels. Obviously, there'd be other techniques, the reason I did that is that

it was easier to get, I think this goes back to predictability issue, is easier to get small

increments in G very precisely and very controllable, by the letting the airplane hold gamma

in using the bank than it was to try to pump the stick forward and back. And again, I think

it's the predictability thing, although, you're making such small inputs once you get

stabilized here, that predictability is really not a factor. Anyway, I think it's satisfactory

without improvement, and pilot compensation not a factor for desired performance, or

minimal pilot compensation required for desired performance, I think the choice here is

between a 2 and a 3, and I would say for this task, it's probably good with negligible

deficiencies, so, I'd go with a 2, both in the lateral and longitudinal axis.
123

Task 6050 Inadvertent Speed Increase, high speed

Pilot A

Task 6050 Inadvertent Speed Increase, high speed 14 Jan 97; Runs 9-11

Pushover inadvertent speed increase, and pull out at Mach 2.4, appears to be quite docile, I'd

give it a 2 in longitudinal and lateral Cooper Harper wise, and the circle seemed to be quite

useful, when you push over, you can simply close up those circles to bring them into the

wing tips on the flight path vector symbol, and that gives you about seven tenths of a G on

the pushover, and the pull-up is quite benign and straight forward, no excessive forces,

seems to be quite pleasant forces, no particular problems, no unstarts, and it looks real good.

The breakout on these maneuvers, breakout of the actual flight path vector from the

commanded flight path vector is...occurs at seven tenths of a G pushover or so, when you

hold it for extensive period of time, and that is perhaps somewhat helpful in preventing

unstarts, because it's the actual flight path vector that causes the unstarts.

Pilot B

Task 6050 Inadvertent Speed Increase, high speed 08 Jan 97; Runs 31-33

I didn't see what the maximum amounts were, I don't know if you saw that, but I'm sure it

was well under 2.6 and max load factor was well under 1.57 and well above 1.53. Max bank

angles not a problem, good solid level 1 performance, not really a problem to do this stuff,

you've got to be real careful with the pitch though, at the forces are fairly low to get that

unstart, so the envelope protection symbols up there are really, really helpful in this

maneuver. Okay, longitudinal; it's controllable, adequate, satisfactory, minimal pilot

compensation, HQR3, and that consists of just watching out for the unstart. Lateral

directional, controllable, adequate, satisfactory, with pilot compensation largely not a factor,

you can pretty much ignore the lat-dir axis, HQR2. That concludes my comments.

Pilot C

Task 6050 Inadvertent Speed Increase, high speed 13 Jan 97; Runs 38-40

Satisfactory without improvement, the...it's a minimal problem, I mean there's hardly

anything on that, it was pretty straight forward, in fact given such a small perturbation

change in pitch attitude, the timing just not get to 1 1/2 was a bigger concern than the

tendency to overshoot, or not pull hard enough, I wanted to get the 1 1/2, and by the time I

got there I was...it was ready to come back off it with a larger perturbation, it would have

been able to sample it a little bit better, but with what I had here, good negligible deficiencies,

I didn't think pilot compensation was a factor, I'd say a Cooper Harper of two, and laterally

the same thing, my gosh, there might have been a slight tendency to go right, but it was very

natural to keep the wings level, it wasn't a big problem, and I don't know, it's possible with a

sidestick, the fact that when you pull back, you tend to rotate your hand in, might have been

where the rolling came in, so I can't say whether it's a aerody...or a gyroscopic thing as you

pull G or whether it was due to the feel system and the fact that it's a side stick, and when

you rotate back you tend to pull in a little bit, I don't know, could be either one, I have no

way of telling right now, but in any case there was just a very slight tendency to roll right as

I pulled up, but again that's another 2, I can't see any reason to change them.

Pilot D
124

Task 6050 Inadvertent Speed Increase, high speed 22 Jan 97; Run 29

This was a .7 G pushover for 5 seconds pulling up at 1.5 G's back to level flight. Little bit

of a task longitudinally, there's a lag in the G response, I guess due to the heave response of

the airplane, that causes you to have to compensate a little bit, and we have our PIO tendency

in roll still. So, I'm going to give it a 4 and a 4.

Pilot E

Task 6050 Inadvertent Speed Increase, high speed 10 Jan 97; Runs 23-25

It's a fairly simple straight forward task, pushover to seven tenths g. Because your using the

G tape, it's fairly straight forward, the recovery at 1 1/2 G's is also very easy to accomplish,

mostly though by the time I was gaining 1 1/2, we just about recovered, we did on the last

time, wait and count the five seconds after I've established the .7 G's, and that worked out

better to give you more time to recover, and I suggest we make that a practice for the

remainder of the evaluations, as far as evaluation segment, inadvertent speed increase,

longitudinal Cooper Harper, I met all of the desired criteria, is it controllable? Yes, adequate

performance? Yes, satisfactory without improvement? Yes, Cooper Harper of 3, minimal

pilot compensation is required. For lateral directional, on the last we noticed a slight

coupling with the roll axis, and just a very slight plus or minus half a degree angle of bank

kind of oscillation. Didn't notice that on the others, but I was a little more aggressive on the

last one, but nevertheless lateral is not much of a player there, however, that little oscillation

is to indicate that you do need to be consonant of getting... coupling into the lateral axis,

with that in mind, it's controllable, adequate? Yes, satisfactory without improvement? Yes, a 3

also.

Pilot F

Task 6050 Inadvertent Speed Increase, high speed 21 Jan 97; Runs 26-28

I guess my comment that I'll start out with is the airplane is not real crisp and I don't know

that I necessarily would expect it to be crisp, but it may be desirable for ride control and for

then overcontrolling at altitude, to make sure the airplane is controllable, I guess the bottom

line is, my preference would be to have a little bit crisper control of the airplane. This is

okay, and it works out, it leaves me to be a little bit more patient and little bit slower with my

inputs, where, that's what I would try to do, you know, if I was flying in revenue service

anyway, and from that perspective it probably makes it easier for the pilot to do that in some

regards. I think my preference would be to have a little bit crisper control of the airplane,

and have maybe the stick dynamics tuned a little bit better to help me, or make it easier for

me not to overcontrol, I guess. I don't think there's any tendency to overcontrol with the

flight control law here, there is a tendency, and I think it's a ergometric issue, when I go to

push or pull on the stick, it took me a little bit of time to get used to how to a purely pitch

input in without ergometrically coupling into roll with the stick. I think we got desired on all

of the parameters for this task, and I'm not really going to... this is mostly a pitch task, I'll go

through here for the Cooper Harper for the entire task, and I think the ratings will be

roughly the same. The tendency to... for me to couple and roll a little bit effects both the

pitch and the roll task, but I think it's roughly a tradeoff, besides I think... as far as I'm

concerned they'll be the same rating for this task, in longitudinal and lateral directional. It's

obviously controllable, and you get adequate performance with a tolerable pilot work load.

Is it satisfactory without improvement, like I said, from my particular taste, I'd like it to be a
125

little bit crisper, and when I say crisper, I mean not coast to a stop, in other words, when I

accept the G, when I reduce force on the stick, I'd like to see a immediate response in...

when I'm trying to control in this case, G, and I don't. When I release force, I have to

anticipate it and release it before I really get to the point, 1.5 G, and then it will kind of coast

to 1.5 G, so, once I release the force, the G continues to increase for a period of time, and to

stop on the last one, I was a little bit more aggressive and to really stop the flight path on the

horizon, I actually ended up having to bump forward a little bit, where generally I would just

expect to probably release pressure on the stick. Anyway, it is satisfactory without

improvement, so, that will put us into level 1. In this one... I would... if we were giving half

ratings I would tend to go towards the 2 1/2 range just because, and again I think that's...

you're going to see some pilot preference in this one as far as the crispness of control, but I

would probably, given the latitude to do halves, I'd probably go 2 1/2, just because I'd like it

to be crisper, and the crispness relates to predictability, and I think you suffer just a little bit

in predictability here. I guess if I have to choose between a 2 or a 3, I guess I'd probably go

with a 3. Again, it's a hard choice, given half ratings, I'd go 2 1/2. I have a hard time saying

that it's mildly unpleasant deficiencies. Let me think about this for a second, but I do think

that there is minimal pilot compensation required for desired performance because of the

predictability, yeah, I'll go with a 3.
126

Task 6060 Simulated 2-axis Gust Upset, high speed

Pilot A

Task 6060 Simulated 2-axis Gust Upset, high speed 14 Jan 97; Runs 13-15

I'd have to give it a 2 in lateral directional, and actually let me give it a 3 in lateral directional,

and a 2 in longitudinal. It would be helpful if we had track hold for the lateral bank angle

control, around zero. We...the maneuver is easily performed. It's quite easy to pitch over and

prevent a unstart with the display, and is very good for situation awareness as far as the

inlets are concerned, and maneuvering capability. The ability to maintain G level at the

recovery point is quite easy once you do one or two of these, and the pushover is quite easy

to do without an unstart, so it's a fairly docile and straight forward maneuver.

Pilot B

Task 6060 Simulated 2-axis Gust Upset, high speed 08 Jan 97; Runs 58-60

The maneuver is possible, no exceptional strength or skill required, didn't exceed MD and

met all the desired parameters. I'm working a little bit on that, but not enough that degrades

performance any significant amount. Longitudinal CHR controllable, adequate, sat, no

improvement required, minimal pilot compensation, HQR3. Lateral directional; it's

controllable, adequate, sat, improvement not required, and again minimum pilot

compensation, HQR3. And the compensation was just due to the task, I didn't feel like I was

fighting the control laws at all, just the task. That concludes my comments.

Pilot C

Task 6060 Simulated 2-axis Gust Upset, high speed 13 Jan 97; Runs 44-46

Okay, again, it's satisfactory without improvement, certainly no big problem, fairly easy to

get the desired performance, and I'd have to say minimal pilot compensation required this

time, after really hawk, is it would be pretty easy to overshoot, you just kind of have to

concentrate. The compensation is to really concentrate on not pulling in a whole bunch

because of the delay between your putting the input in, and having it get to the Mach, or to

the G rather, so, I'm going to say that's certainly not a problem, but then I would give it a 3

in that case. Some mildly unpleasant deficiencies takes a little extra compensation than

might in some. I did notice a difference on the recovery, whether I was rolling right or left, it

was probably easier, I tended...I suspected do it a little bit faster when my recovery roll was

to the right, than it was to the left, and it's just because my hand is easier, you know, the

forces I can put on the stick are a little bit easier to do going inboard than outboard with the

sidestick, I suspect is the reason for that, but in any case, no big problem, the gradients and

so on with the sidestick feel fine to me. They seem to be well matched, their harmony is

good, when I'm sitting still I feel the breakout because I'm looking for it, but when I'm flying

I really don't think much about it, and it doesn't seem to be a problem, so, apparently that's

certainly usable, and if I looked at it a few more times, I could probably make a little finer

comments, but my first cut at it was...felt pretty good. HQR3, thanks.

Pilot D

Task 6060 Simulated 2-axis Gust Upset, high speed 22 Jan 97; Run 31
127

This was the 2-axis upset we fly the aircraft into a minus 6 degree gamma, phi of 15

degrees, and then recover at 1 1/2 G's, and really it's a pretty easy task, we do have the lag in

the G response to commanded gamma, so it takes a little bit of compensation there, we still

have our slight tendency to roll PIO because of the slightly, I believe, partially due a loose

roll mode. Give it a pilot ratings of longitudinal 4, and lateral 4, again.

Pilot E

Task 6060 Simulated 2-axis Gust Upset, high speed 10 Jan 97; Runs 27-28

Kind of a little bit of a complicated task, but fairly simple rating procedure. Setting up the 2-

axis upset requires a little bit of time, obviously, if you are very smooth so you don't get any

unstarts from a pushover to a minus six degrees gamma. The recovery from 15 degrees

angle of bank to straight and level is not really a problem, however, there is a slight tendency

for very, very, slight roll PIO in capturing the zero degrees of the wings level, and we

noticed this in the checkout last fall, also on the recovery, when you put in a 1 1/2 G

recovery, there... most times you had a very, very, slight roll PIO about wings level, and this

is another little nuisance mode that probably needs to be corrected. Other than that,

maintaining 1 1/2 G's is fairly straight forward, and recovery is very straight forward, and

with no real problems noted. For longitudinal Cooper Harper, controllable? Yes, adequate?

Yes, satisfactory without improvement? Yes, Cooper Harper of 3, there's a certain amount of

compensation required to maintain that one and half G pull, that gives it a 3 Cooper Harper.

For the lateral directional, controllable? Yes, adequate? Yes, satisfactory? Yes, and I also rate

that a 3 with the aircraft characteristics portion of the descriptor fair, some mildly unpleasant

deficiencies, being quite appropriate and the unpleasant deficiency is the oscillation about

wings level in the lateral control law, so a 3 and a 3.

Pilot F

Task 6060 Simulated 2-axis Gust Upset, high speed 21 Jan 97; Run 31

For this particular task the... I guess the predictability things that I talked about on the last

card that we did, really show up here fairly strongly. I found myself in... and again I think

part of this is issue with ergometrics of the stick and part of this is a predictability problem,

I found myself making very slow deliberate inputs to the stick, and then when I am either

trying set the G or set a bank angle, I start making the input slowly, get the rate going, and

then I start backing off on the rate to coast to a stop, or to get to a stop early on, and the

reason that I start, I guess the... I guess really what I'm talking about is the fine acquisition

when I get to the end game of acquiring the bank angle or acquiring the G, I start

compensating by slowing the rate that I approach that down earlier than I normally would

because of the predictability problem. I don't want to say problem, because the predictability

not as good as I'd like it to be, and the airplane is not as crisp as I would like it to be. To

stop from coupling with the stick, I have a tendency to try grip the stick actually a little bit

different. Like once I get the bank angle, I will kind of rotate my wrist a little bit, so that I

can kind of freeze the bank angle, and make sure that I don't put any inputs into the bank

angle. Things that do help refine this task real well, are the fact that when I pull the throttles

back, or once I set a pitch attitude or a bank angle, if I don't touch the stick, it will hold that,

and so on the setup, when I pushover, and I get the 60 degree... 6 degree nose down, or

flight path down, and when I get the 15 degrees of bank, I basically release the stick and it

will just stay there until we count for the 3 seconds and then do the recovery, and I don't

want to really say release it, I guard the stick, but then I grab hold of the stick again, and

start putting pressure on it. Okay, for the Cooper Harper rating, I think the... I didn't see a
128

big difference in either one of the axis as far as controllability or as far as anything that

would effect a Cooper Harper task. The bank angle is the same way that I talked about the

flight path being. It kind of... or the G... it kind of coast to a stop, and anyway, in the task

it's obviously controllable. I believe that we got desired performance the entire time, so, it's

adequate performance, it's certainly obtainable with a tolerable pilot work load. Is it

satisfactory without improvement, I'm going to say yes to this, the reason I'm hedging here a

little bit is, again particularly in this task when you're blending two axis together, I'd really

prefer a little bit crisper response, and when I say crisper, I don't mean necessarily in

magnitude, I would just like to be able to not have to anticipate and lead setting the G or

stopping the bank angle somewhere as much. I'd like to pay less attention to having to get

the fine acquisition, and just to clarify the way I look at these tasks is, it's an acquisition in

fine tracking, and there's really two phases to the acquisition, there's an initial input to get

myself close, like if I'm going to set 1 1/2 G's, I make an input to get somewhere in the

ballpark of 1 1/2 G's, and then I refine that as I get there, and it's refining it, or that transition

from gross acquisition to fine acquisition that the predictability problem or predictability

issue is apparent to me, and I would just like to be able to not have to spend as much time

transitioning from gross to fine acquisition. So anyway, I'm going to go into the level 1, and

again, here I'd think I would go with a 3 because of the predictability, I don't think I'd be

tempted to even go with a 2 1/2 if we were doing half ratings. Just another point of

clarification and answering, is it satisfactory without improvement, one of the things that I

helped to make that decision is looking at the descriptors for a 3. Minimal pilot

compensation required for desired performance, and desired performance requires moderate

pilot compensation. I definitely don't think we're in the moderate range, but I do think that

minimal pilot compensation is required for the desired performance... for both axis.
129

Task 7030 VMCG demonstration

Pilot A

Task 7030 VMCG demonstration 13 Jan 97; Runs 60 & 61

Not rated.

Pilot B

Task 7030 VMCG demonstration 06 Jan 97

Not rated.

Pilot C

Task 7030 VMCG demonstration 15 Jan 97

Not rated.

Pilot D

Task 7030 VMCG demonstration 24 Jan 97

Not rated.

Pilot E

Task 7030 VMCG demonstration 07 Jan 97 R 10

Not rated.

Pilot F

Task 7030 VMCG demonstration

Not performed by this pilot.
130

Task 7035 One Engine Out Takeoff

Pilot A

Task 7035 One Engine Out Takeoff 13 Jan 97 R; Runs 24-26

I felt that the amount of rudder was rather small and easily controlled, however, the deviation

to the right of...from centerline after rotation, seemed to be as ... hard to get desired

performance, I'm not sure what you'd have to do to get that, because you can't bank unless

you over... provide additional rudder more ... maybe I just wasn't applying enough rudder, I

though I would stand fairly close to centerline. There maybe some effect, due to the fact the

cockpit might be over the centerline, and the CG is off to one side to some degree. We're

going to call this desired Cooper Harper wise, I've been trying to give it a 2, I don't think it

has any serious deficiencies. Are we breaking this out into two segments on this one, okay,

so, longitudinally...are we...or is that...adequate...we'll have to call it a 4 for...or level 2...for

pitch, because of the pitch rate, okay, I'll give it a 4, because of the difficulty of holding the

pitch rate, I don't know whether it's the, there seems to be a pilot PIO or a difficulty in

holding that rate for some reason, and a slight difficulty in holding the centerline. Is that

adequate performance, or desired, so I'll give it a 4 on lateral directional.

Pilot B

Task 7035 One Engine Out Takeoff 06 Jan 97; Runs 32-34

Card was accomplished as per the instructions. Performance pretty much desired everything

except for 2 areas. One was the pitch control..pitch rate control I should say on rotation. I

was able to meet adequate pretty much all of the time, but not desired. The lateral deviation

on the runway...which runway centerline deviation I was able to meet adequate but not

desired, also. So, lets give it HQR's it felt like a pretty solid level 2 configuration. In general,

relatively high workload but certainly manageable. And given the nature of the emergency,

about as expected. For longitudinal, it's controllable, and adequate, however, I don't think it's

fair to call this level 1. So, it's not satisfactory without improvement deficiencies require

improvement. And, lets say adequate performance requires considerate pilot compensation

HQR5. Lateral directional , again, the weak link error was on center-line deviation after

initiation of rotation but prior to liftoff was the primary phase . HQR, it's controllable and

adequate performance is obtainable with tolerable workload, however, not without a

considerable amount. So, I'm going to call it level 2 again deficiencies require improvement.

Adequate performance requires considerable pilot compensation HQR5. That concludes my

comments.

Pilot C

Task 7035 One Engine Out Takeoff 15 Jan 97; Runs 52-54

For the longitudinal, is it satisfactory without improvement, yeah, no question on that,

that's...once you learn how to...the rates to rotate and so on, that comes along very nicely, so,

nothing needs improvement on that, a 3 on that minimal pilot compensation required for

desired performance. lateral-directional, depends on how much stress you want to put on the

ability to keep the centerline, that's usually pretty important, and 2 out of 3 times I only got

adequate, and considering I'm not using any surprise factor in here, no delay or anything, I'd

be hard pressed to keep that in 10 ft. on a surprised one, I'm sure, and even when I knew it

was coming, 2 out of 3 times, I only got adequate, so, I think I'll have to, you know, given the
131

constraints we had here, which we're using for the limits, I'm going to have to say it's not

satisfactory without improvement, and it would be a 5, the...getting adequate was no more

than considerable pilot compensation considering it's a tough task, even no matter how good

it is, I'm looking at how much did the handling qualities, and so on, so I'd give it a 5, lateraldirectional for that, and no special comments, the only thing that...the amount of rudder that

you need on the runway vs. what you need climbing out, there's a little, you know, that's

sizable, and that increases the work load a fair amount at a very critical time, right after lift

off, but it would be a good trick if you can find a way around that one.

Pilot D

Task 7035 One Engine Out Takeoff 21 Jan 97; Runs 60-62

We failed the engine just above V1, we failed at 171 knots. The takeoff procedure is like

2011, but we don't do a cutback. The task is really not too bad, but again I've been practicing

these engine outs now for all afternoon, so, it's tending to be just a little bit rote. I think

really the only problem I had was a little bit of a tendency to drift right on the takeoff roll

after the engine failure, but it was on the order of 10 or 15 ft and more than adequate from a

safety standpoint. Also, I was in and out of the adequate desired on the takeoff rotation as I

have been all day, so, pilot rating longitudinal has got to be a 5, lateral directional because of

the drift has got to be a 5, although the work load in both these tasks, particularly lateral

directional, really isn't too high.

Pilot E

Task 7035 One Engine Out Takeoff 07 Jan 97; Runs 49-51

Just for the record I did three of them for data, the second one was the only one I didn't

completely right, the other two I tended to for some reason get at engine failure I tended to

want to rotate, a little brain dump there, but any rate... even those still came out pretty good

data so overall I think I met the desired criteria on everything. So for the combined rating or

for the longitudinal Cooper Harper on the takeoff roll, rotation, climbout controllable? Yes,

adequate? Yes, satisfactory, yes, I would rate it a 3. Longitudinally not too much more

difficult than a normal takeoff. The climb out after gear up is a little bit... obviously a lower

gradient, but I didn't see a whole lot difference in work load. For the lateral directional,

controllable? Yes, adequate? Yes, satisfactory, .... no, I'm going to make that a 4, the reason

being, is there is a lot more work load for lateral directional especially if you combine that

one rating, you're on the rudders all the time and also it is harder to track the heading of the

lateral guidance circle. The overall task is harder so it's kind of borderline, level 1, level 2. I

am going to rate it a 4 just for work load, but it's still meeting the desired criteria for the

most part.

Pilot F

Task 7035 One Engine Out Takeoff 23 Jan 97; Runs 9-10

With the engine loss on the runway, it's pretty controllable, you see the deviation with the

combination of the waterline out there tracking the centerline, and also the DME symbol just

underneath it, really gives you a good cue to put on the centerline to help you track straight

down the runway. In lower vis, you might not be able to see the centerline as well, and

tracking might be more difficult, because you're looking closer in, to look at the centerline.

That's just a side comment, anyway, with the engine failure, it doesn't take a whole lot of
132

rudder to correct back to centerline, the airplane corrects back to centerline very nicely. At

the rotation, we got 89.5 percent in the desired range, almost 90 percent. I do think that the

rotation tracking is somewhat hit or miss, but I do think that it's a learned task, I still think

that if the airplane was a little bit crisper, you might be able to track a little bit better, but

actually for, I'd be more concerned about being very smooth on the rotation, and really

tracking something that precisely, so anyway, I think you could do the task better with a

crisper flight control system, I don't know that you really need it to do the takeoff task in

itself, and I think the compensation, only compensation that I really can use for the rotation

rate is to just kind of see it a few time, and learn the rate at which the brackets go up.

Anyway, airborne, you input the rudder on the runway, during the rotation the requirement

for rudder is reduced slightly, or... I'm sorry, let me back up. Once your airborne as you're

accelerating the requirement for rudders reduced, which you would expect, during the

rotation, at least my perception is, is as the nose wheel comes up, there's really not much

need for increased rudder, and that might be a function, because the airspeeds accelerating.

Most airplanes, at least from my experience, is if you lose the engine on the runway as you

rotate, when the nose wheel comes up off the ground, generally I need to kick in a little bit

extra rudder, and I didn't really, at least my perception was, and you can go back and look at

the tapes, I didn't really see quite as much a need for that, or that wasn't quite as obvious to

me in this airplane, or in this simulator. Anyway, once you're airborne, and get the rudder

squared away, after you stabilize it 212 knots or there abouts, the rudder requirements are

pretty minimal, and pretty easy to hold, or keep the airplane coordinated while climbing out,

the flight director is pretty easy to follow. There didn't appear to me to be a whole lot of

rolling tendency with the engine. It's pretty much just a rudder requirement, and that's good

and bad, in that it simplifies the controls, the rudder requirements aren't that great. I don't

know that your recognition is going to be quite as quick either, anyway, it's a very

controllable maneuver, and I thought it all worked out well. By no means am I suggesting

you need to have a roll off with a engine failure, it's just a comment, it is pretty, pretty

controllable, pretty... it's not as exciting as it is, I guess, in some airplanes, which is good.

It's definitely controllable, adequate performance is obtainable with a tolerable pilot

workload. Is it satisfactory without improvement? And... boy, I would really like to answer

yes to that, because this is for this task, the airplane is pretty well mannered. I'm almost

tempted to... here's what I'm going to do, I'm going to say that, again, I don't really like

splitting up the axis, but I'm going to go ahead and say it's a 2, well... I'm going to say it's a

2 for lateral. It really is quite good for the lateral task, it's really not bad at all. For the pitch,

we only got adequate performance, which really would constrain me to a 5, although, we

were so close to desired on that one run, I don't know, again, the big problem that I have is,

you know, if you read the descriptor for 4, it says minor, but annoying deficiencies, 5 is

moderately objectionable deficiencies, and if you read the demand on the pilot section, it's

desired performance requires moderate pilot compensation for 4, and adequate performance

requires considerable pilot compensation for 5, and to me there always has been a big jump

between a 4 and a 5, because of the way the wording is there, and I really wouldn't say that

there is considerable pilot performance required for a... to get adequate performance, and I

wouldn't of on any of the other runs either, I guess. I'm going to go ahead and give it a 4, I

guess. You know, in retrospect, thinking back to the other runs, I really have a hard time

with adequate performance requires considerable pilot compensation, because to get

adequate performance, it does not require considerable compensation. Anyway, se la vi,

whatever we've rated it, we've rated it, but... so, let's see, that would be a 4, a 2, and a 2 and a

2.
133

Task 7036 One Engine Out Takeoff - 35 kt x-wind

Pilot A

Task 7036 One Engine Out Takeoff - 35 kt x-wind 13 Jan 97; Runs 56-59

Is it controllable? yes, adequate performance obtainable with tolerable pilot work load, yes,

satisfactory without improvement, I guess I would have to say that... what was it that was

lacking, it was the lateral deviations, and I have to give it a... I would say a lateral directional

of 5, Cooper Harper, for the first phase of takeoff, and for the longitudinal I'll give it a 4, and

after, what is it ... after ... where's the dividing line, this is just one rating, okay, but if you...

if you, put your inputs in correctly so that you're right down the centerline and you require

no corrections, you did it right the first time. It works pretty good, but if you get off a bit,

you try to correct back, you can't really bank, if you put in a lot of rudder, than that gets you

to correct back in, at any rate, that increases the drag, increases the time that you spend in

this never, never, land, and this transition area, and it aggravates the problem, so, it's...if

you're able to get the rudder in just right, it's not a particularly bad problem considering the

circumstances with the crosswind and the engine out, it's not all that bad. Seen 737

simulators that were a lot worse than this, it was the simulator, not the airplane. Okay, I

guess that's it.

Pilot B

Task 7036 One Engine Out Takeoff - 35 kt x-wind 06 Jan 97; Runs 36-38

Card was accomplished as per the instructions. In summary desired performance for

runway centerline deviation was achievable but relatively difficult and it require me.. kinda

getting the feeling for the maneuver , I'm sure with further exposure to this that I would

continue to get better at it . You can characterize it as doable but with a lot of workload.

Desirable performance in terms of rotation pitch rate control was not achievable. I was

pretty much consistently off every time. I was able to get adequate. In every other respect

the desired performance was obtainable and relatively straight-forward. I won't call it easy

because the work load was high, but at least it was doable. Okay, longitudinal CHR, was

controllable and adequate, not satisfactory that improvement. Deficiencies require

improvement. And this is adequate performance requires considerable pilot compensation

HQR5. Lateral directional, it's controllable, adequate, not satisfactory, deficiencies require

improvement level 2 performance. Minor but annoying deficiencies desired performance

requires moderate pilot compensation HQR4. And as a caveat, if I can give it 1/2 ratings,

this one will probably be a 4.5....for lateral. Just because desired performance requires more

than moderate pilot compensation requires intense pilot compensation . That concludes my

comments.

Pilot C

Task 7036 One Engine Out Takeoff - 35 kt x-wind 15 Jan 97; Runs 86-88

What a treat, okay, and I assume it's one rating for longitudinal, one for lat-dir, the whole

thing, okay. The obvious part is the initial, just getting it all squared away, is most of the

task, for the pitch is adequate performance obtainable with a tolerable pilot work load, and I

would say the pitch by itself is, is it satisfactory without improvement, no, and it comes over

here, and I couldn't more than consistently get adequate, I did get desired a few times, but I

wouldn't...I couldn't...I wouldn't want to bet that this next run, that I would be able to get it,
134

that's for sure, so, I'm going to leave it in the adequate for pitch, and I'd say considerable

pilot compensation, so a 5 for the longitudinal, and of course the big thing is the lat-dir and

a couple of things come in here, I'd better start further down. Is it controllable, well, yes, is it

adequate performance obtainable, no way, and it definitely, I think would require

improvement, and the concern is, I'm exceeding a...the capabilities here limited the airplane

by either tailstrike, or wing strike, or something, structural strike of some kind, and on 3

passes I hit it once, and I'm as spring loaded for an engine out as more than most people

would be on a day to day kind of a thing, and even with my thinking about it, and so on, I'm

amazed at how little bank angle it takes to strike something, and to maintain bank angle it

took almost complete concentration on the bank angle, and let the pitch go away, and that's

why occasionally the pitch was really pretty bad is because I was so concerned about the

bank angle, and the odd part is, and the part that's really kind of detrimental, is without the

crosswind, it's a pitch problem, and with a crosswind the primary concern is with bank

angle, and so, not only do you lose an engine, you say oh my god, you real quick got to say,

have I got a crosswind or not to determine which one to concentrate on, obviously, not a

doable thing. So, I'm going to have to drop that down into where it is a problem for control

and that would put us in the considerable or intense, and I'd say considerable pilot

compensation for control 8, for the lat-dir with 35 knots of wind.

Pilot D

Task 7036 One Engine Out Takeoff - 35 kt x-wind 22 Jan 97; Runs 7-10

This again is a tough one, it looks like, you know, if you sit here and train, you can do the

trained dog act and get the thing off, but I'm concerned that, you know, on a wet night, with

no practice for six months, it's going to pretty tough. I think there is some operational

procedures that could really help alleviate the conditions here, with a 35 knot crosswind,

you're almost for sure going to have some headwind, so we can stand a higher rotation

speed, so we can get a cleaner break with the ground, I think that's the problem here, we've

got this extended period of time on the ground with the nose high, which is a very

vulnerable situation, because the tendency to want to roll both on the ground and shortly

after takeoff. Very easy to get a wing tip. I think I'm going to give it based on... well, based

not only in fact that I did clip the wing twice, I'm going to give it... and almost got the tail,

well, I'm going to give it a pilot rating of 7 longitudinally and 7 lateral.

Pilot E

Task 7036 One Engine Out Takeoff - 35 kt Crosswind 07 Jan 97; Runs 52-53, 55-56

And we have been discussing here a lot, Lou and I, about it's kind of real borderline

desired/adequate for both longitude and lateral... and so it's really difficult to rate this one.

The work load is definitely higher, a couple things happened. With the high cross wind the

lateral tracking becomes a higher work load which takes away from your ability to close on

the pitch rate guidance and so there is some performance degradation on pitch rate guidance,

the actual pitch capture of 10 degrees appeared to always be desired so you end up meeting

that, but it's just kind of you're on both sides of the pitch rate guidance bars on the way up

there. You also tend to drift upwind... I did drift upwind about 12-15 ft for the four runs I

did, so I was just barely out of the desire for lateral runway centerline performance on the

ground. Part of the problem with that is, is once you rotate you really don't have any cues to

see as you get attitude on the aircraft you really can't see the runways centerline and so if

you hold what you've got than you're going to end up drifting into the failed engine. So

that's kind of a hard task for me, I'm pretty much holding what I've got and I'm obviously
135

drifting a little bit, but once that nose starts coming up towards high pitch angles, you really

don't have anything... Am I missing something Lou that I could be cueing onto? (No) So it's

really hard to complete that one. So it's hard to meet that criteria based on the fact that the

pilot is not given very much to help him know that he is deviating. So that is a tough one

right there. As far as the aircraft performing... performance in this crosswind certainly I

think with the learning curve I do a lot better and I think the aircraft control law is such that

you could do a good job, so but still we are pretty much borderline desired adequate, so for

the overall longitudinal shooter Cooper Harper rating, it is controllable, high performance is

obtainable, is it satisfactory without improvement? No, it is borderline 4/5 based on the

performance requirements we had, I think that I am going to rate longitudinal as a 4 and give

it the benefit of the doubt. The lateral directional, controllable? Yes, adequate? Yes,

satisfactory? No. That's also borderline based on our performance criteria borderline 4/5, I'll

rate that a 5. To try to indicate the borderline nature of this task, and I'll give it a 5 mainly for

runway centerline deviation control on the ground, and we have already commented is to

why that's difficult.

Pilot F

Task 7036 One Engine Out Takeoff - 35 kt Crosswind 23 Jan 97; Runs 12-14

We did, I think, three runs for data, for the engine failure with a crosswind takeoff, and a

couple comments, first of all, with the crosswind on the runway, the yaw cue is offset, and

so, it becomes confusing when you lose the engine, there really is no cueing to help you,

except for visually outside. Especially in the low vis environment, I think this would be a...

you're taking some useful information away from the pilot. The second thing is, is after

rotation, the yaw cue is way up high in the display, and you're flying a flight director that's

down low in the display, it would be very helpful to have the yaw cueing down in the

display. I guess, I think that we need to go back and look in detail at the idea of using yaw

versus lateral acceleration, I understand the problem that we've seen in the past, I guess the

concern that I have on the runway, is that you are going down the runway with this... with

the crosswind, with cue displaced the entire time, and first of all, I think there's going to be a

little bit of a negative training between conventional airplanes and this airplane, because the

guys going have grown up his entire life looking at lateral acceleration, either in a cue or

mechanical ball, and then the second thing is, is that's really a useless indicator on the

runway, and that's really a useless indicator as far as the engine failure goes until I'm in

flight, and when I'm in flight, if I chose to hold wings level, there is going to be some

sideslip on the airplane, so the balls going to be displaced. The other comment that I have, is

as you rotate, and become airborne, there is a change in the rudder control laws, which takes

I think about 10 seconds, what I was told, and to me that was very disconcerting, and

depending on how rapidly I try to capture the command cue, I could easily... if I went after it

with just bank alone, exceed the bank limits, if I went after it by releasing the rudder pedals,

and trying to get... keep up with this ramping motion, it was very easy for me to get some

lateral motion, I won't really characterize it as a PIO, because it was something that I could

arrest quickly, but it was unpredictable, it was at least, somewhat of a perception of being

uncommanded, as you let the rudder out, you'd get a roll input that you had to arrest with the

ailerons, and so I really thought that was disconcerting, and I didn't really like that phase of

the takeoff. Actually, to me that was the most uncomfortable phase of the engine loss, was

right after I had already lost the engine on the runway, I'd rotated, now I'm airborne, and I

have to go through this transition, once I got everything squared away, the airplane, very

little rudder requirement, and climbout when you're at 212, and the airplane flies just fine

after you get through that initial transition and rudder pedal command. The engine failing on

the runway is easy to handle, during the rotation though, there is a distinct increase need for
136

rudder, and right at that point, I think the pilot, I basically had to try to do that visually out

the window, the cue did not help me at all for that, because when I lost the engine, the cue

was displaced, when I stuffed in the rudder, I was tracking straight down the runway, the cue

still displaced, because there's yaw, or beta on the airplane, and so, then as I rotate the

requirement for rudder, I really have no cueing at all, even if I look at that cue, I don't really

know how to interpret it during that phase, because I'm going to go from a rotation phase...

a phase where am I'm tracking straight down the runway, and have beta to a phase where I'm

going to drift, and the betas going to go to zero, and I don't have a good feel for that, how

that transition should look to me on the ball, particularly in low vis, I think that would be a

problem. Anyway, are we just rating the... Okay, we got desired on all the parameters at one

time or another, I mean adequate on all the parameters at one time or another, but we didn't

get adequate, oh yeah we did, we got adequate at all at one time. The two big, we got desired

on everything except for pitch control, which on some of the runs we did not get even

adequate, and we got adequate on the bank angle, and again, that was I think attributed to the

blip after airborne during the transition and rudder control law. So, we definitely got

adequate performance here, and in both axis this time. I'd come in, and I'd say it's

controllable, I'd say adequate performance is obtainable with a tolerable pilot work load,

although the... that blip is... when the rudder control law changes, that is very disturbing to

me, so I'm going to answer yes to this, but I'm not real thrilled about that, I guess. Is it

satisfactory without improvement? I'd say no, I'd come in, and moderately objectionable

deficiency, very objectionable deficiency, but tolerable deficiencies, I guess I would, I'm

looking at the 5 or 6 range. I'd probably, again if we were using half ratings, I would

probably go 5 1/2 here, because I think it's more than considerable. I don't know if I'd quite

go with extensive or not, because it's VFR, if was IFR, I think you might actually be down in

level 3, to tell you the truth, and even though that I would rate this in a level 2, I would say

that the transition is unacceptable, in my mind, and I also think the display, the yaw display

needs to be thought about and discussed in detail, I'm not really sure I have a firm feeling on

if that's okay or not. Let's see, I guess I'm going to go with the 5, but I'll make the comment

that, I guess a strong comment that I really don't like that transition, and I'd almost be willing

to not rate it as saying that it's not adequate with a tolerable pilot work load, except for we

did get adequate performance, and the work load wasn't that high, it was just very

uncomfortable. Yeah, you know the lateral problem on the runway, and the display problem

as far as trying to make sure that you're still tracking straight in pitch, I think degrades the

pitch performance some, yeah, I could maybe say that it was a 4 in pitch, but I'm just going

to go with a 5 and a 5. Okay, thank you.
137

Task 7040 Dynamic VMCA

Pilot A

Task 7040 Dynamic VMCA 14 Jan 97

Not rated.

Pilot B

Task 7040 Dynamic VMCA 08 Jan 97; Runs 62-66

Not rated.

Pilot C

Task 7040 Dynamic VMCA 13 Jan 97; Runs 53

Okay, the...of course the lat-dir is the giant problem here if...with the nose up at 35 degrees

and I lose, you end up losing quite a bit of airspeed, so, you're below the VMCA, and that's

shown by even full rudder not being enough to bring the nose back, but lowering it down

went by the time you get to 120, you can bring it in. There didn't appear to be enough

rudder to stop the initial dynamic overshoot, even after 120, no matter how quickly I put the

rudder full in. However, once it did finally slow down and settle, then I could hold, there was

enough rudder to hold the beta at zero, but it very, very, seems to be very sensitive to any

airspeed, and I would put in what I'd think was right, and make a slight change, and

suddenly realize I'm...I've either got too much rudder, or occasionally even, I had to almost

switch the rudder to get it back where I wanted it as quickly as I did, so boy, that's really a

tough thing. We tried at below 120, and that was completely unsatisfactory, that I had

no...you know, that's too slow in my book, there are too many things changing, couldn't

keep up with it, didn't have enough control authority to do what I wanted to do, anyway. So,

120 did appear to be the right one, the key to not letting the heading change, if that's the

main criteria, is that you have to put the wing down very quickly. If you wait until the nose

goes over, it will almost yaw your 10 degrees by the time you come back, and so you're

going to overshoot that for sure, so, as soon as you pick up that it's a engine loss, you have

to drop the wing to fight the heading, and putting in all of the rudder possible is the only

thing, and once you get it back, then I ended up holding about half the rudder, so that was,

That was fine. The big thing that I noticed though, was the difficulty in ever getting the

sideslip to zero and keeping it there, almost any other change I may disturb that, by quite a

bit. I have a little problem with the necessity to hold a heading being as critical as it is, but if

that's the task, that's what I was trying to do, and I managed to keep it in, and I guess that

was desired, was it, did you...it was...it did keep a desired, but it took a lot of concentration

on that specific parameter to do it, and usually loss of engine concerned about airspeed and

getting the sideslip back to zero, so I don't run out of roll authority more than I am of how

many degrees I turn, but I managed to get the desired when I did concentrate on that. I think

the...the plan of having it once you get the sideslip zero, have it lock in is a great one, that

could likely be tighter because that was a major variable on this, I had to work that many

times, if there's some way to automate that, once you get it to zero, it will stay there, that

would be a definite improvement, and anything else to talk about. Those are the things that

come to mind, anyway.

Pilot D
138

Task 7040 Dynamic VMCA

Not performed by this pilot.

Pilot E

Task 7040 Dynamic VMCA 10 Jan 97; Runs 32-35

We looked at 125, 120, and 115. 115 we cannot maintain heading, we're drifting off to the

right at a fairly rapid pace, and never could get the sideslip under control with full left

aileron and full left lateral command, and full left rudder. At 120 same thing happened, part

of the problem is as soon as the trigger, as soon as the engine fails, you start decelerating

pretty rapidly, one thing you might try to do is be a lot more aggressive on pushing over, but

the problem is, if you push over too aggressively, you then accelerate through your airspeed,

and you can't... the airspeed, speed stability is such that you can't be too aggressive with

your pitch commands or you don't maintain your air speed, so, if you're too aggressive,

when you pitch the nose up, which I did my first couple of practice runs, I end up

accelerating quite rapidly through the airspeed, which then negates the maneuver, so, it's a

real balancing act to try to maintain that airspeed. In all cases you do bleed off about 10

knots once you lose the engine before you can get it down to recover, unless you do it real

aggressively where you then rapidly accelerate through it. With that in mind though, it

appears the somewhere between 120 and 125, would be the VMCA, now that's for the

dynamic maneuver, if steady stayed, we found we were able to get down to as low as about

110, if we just gradually decelerated when we had the sideslip under control. One of the

things that is very interesting to me, is the fact that with full rudder commanded and full left

aileron, you cannot... you cannot trim out the sideslip error, it is quite large, it's almost a full

deflection on the little sideslip trapezoid, and it just wont seem to come back, you have to

almost accelerate to some number of knots above the target speed to get it to come back, or

wait quite a long time, so there's some interesting things going on, it looks like though, 120,

125 is a first cut, rough order magnitude... is the VMCA dynamic.

Pilot F

Task 7040 Dynamic VMCA 21 Jan 97; Run 36

I guess the biggest comment that I have is it... I'd have to do an awful lot of these to break

out, whether, there is some coupling motion or there's just me coupling up with the stick.

When I go to push though, I tend to induce some roll, and also as the airspeed goes, I think

we're picking up some motion too, because you've got full rudder in, you're pushing the

nose over, and then when... as the airspeed starts to increase again, you have to start backing

out a little bit of rudder, and then put the rudder back in as you get back to 120. Anyway, I

think part of it, or the dynamics of the airplane, I think part of it, a large part of it is excited

by the fact that when I push forward, and I can't just really concentrate on making it appear,

push input that I'm inducing some roll and put into it. The other thing is recognition of what

rudder to put in. You know, knowing that the engine fails, I could of just stuffed in the

appropriate rudder, but if I waited until I saw on the beta cue, what engine failed, and what

the rudder requirement was, it was almost tool late at VMC. So, I guess my point is, I think

that... I guess I don't think that the cueing in the HUD is real good for pilot recognition that

the engine has failed and what he needs to do to solve the lateral directional problem. Part of

that might be in the beta cue, because as with the old ball, when you picked up a rate you

immediately had input that you had a rate one direction, and the pilot really was responding
139

to a rate or an acceleration not to beta, and once he got everything under control, then he was

using the ball to solve the beta problem, but you know, in order to have zero beta it really

would require the ball in the bottom of the race, and a little bit of bank. What I'm stumbling

around trying to say here is, is that I don't think that beta recognition is real good, because I

think it takes a while for you to build up some beta, so you don't get immediate feedback

where your used to with the ball, where you had an acceleration rate in the direction, and I

think that's going to cause a delay in the pilot taking the appropriate action, and definitely

would be a training issue, and I think this is something that we need to be real careful and

look at in a lot of detail, and I think having a lateral acceleration cue versus a beta cue, would

probably improve performance on this task. I guess that's all the comments I have. One

additional comment was, and we had made this earlier, is because of the beta cueing also,

once I put the rudder in, I stuffed some rudder in, and then I'm looking at the cue, and the

cue swings out, or swings to where I want it, and then it swings passed, and then it comes

back. So basically, in trying to center the... in what I'll call centering the ball, I have to accept

one overshoot to do that, and again, I don't think that's a real big deal, but it's worth noting.
140

Task 7050 Dynamic VMCL-2

Pilot A

Task 7050 Dynamic VMCL-2 16 Jan 97; Runs 96-99

Run Number 99 appears as though the VMCL of 130 is adequate prior to the automatic flap

extension at 400 ft, that's just enough rudder to counter the thrust required for a three degree

descent, and with the gear down, and when the flaps reconfigure, the added drag requires

more thrust, which causes you to lose directional control at that point, so the added... so

another task probably needs to be done to determine the minimum speed for which you can

control the airplane with landing flaps in approach configuration.

Pilot B

Task 7050 Dynamic VMCL-2 08 Jan 97; Runs not available

Okay, there won't be any CHR's on this, we'll put N/A on those on the card. The technique

was basically to wait until the engine failure was called out which was about a second to a

second and a half it looked like after the engine failure actually occurred. So we had some

yaw rate established at that point. I put in something approaching 5 degrees angle of bank

and lots of rudder, in occasion full rudder to try to correct for it. I wasn't targeting zero

bank, I was targeting less than 5, so I allowed some bank to build up, didn't try to zero that

out, and the idea was to try to minimize the yaw rate and get the airplane back on heading

towards the runway. It worked, at a 130 knots, it appeared to me as though 130 knots was

the minimum speed that I could have made this successful in that I was right at the

boundary at full rudder and 5 degrees angle bank I was just able to arrest the heading as the

airspeed stabilized at 130, so I don't think any slower than that would have been successful.

The technique is doable within tolerable work load, so I think it was a successful card. That

concludes my comments.

Pilot C

Task 7050 Dynamic VMCL-2

Not performed by this pilot.

Pilot D

Task 7050 Dynamic VMCL-2

Not performed by this pilot.

Pilot E

Task 7050 Dynamic VMCL-2 09 Jan 97

Not rated.

Pilot F

Task 7050 Dynamic VMCL-2
141

Not performed by this pilot.
142

Task 7060 Engine Unstart

Pilot A

Task 7060 Engine Unstart 14 Jan 97; Runs 5-7

Block 3 - Operation after Upsets This is run number 7, and the unstarts from cruise, Mach

2.4, number 3 unstart, ripple unstart. It's controllable, you get adequate performance, and it's

probably satisfactory without improvement, I would give it a...probably a 2 or a 3. Frankly,

it's probably a 2. Yeah, lateral and directional, and longitudinal. Yeah, obviously, the tach

would be helpful here to, in the event having a dinner, or distracted looking at a chart, and

could be quite some time before you. Get back to the airplane, so the tach would be helpful.

The...obviously, if the autopilots engaged, and you have tach installed, it could be a nonevent. That's fairly benign maneuver. There's about 20 lbs. of rudder required, maybe 20 or

30 lbs. of rudder to zero sideslip, and it's fairly easy to hold the flight path vector in the

unstart circle, inside the unstart circles that are shown here, I think it looks fairly benign,

very little pitch input as a result of the unstarts.

Pilot B

Task 7060 Engine Unstart 08 Jan 97; Runs 25-27

We did four of [these] for data, three of them I put inputs in and got desired performance,

and the fourth one I didn't do anything and still got desired performance, although we got

some cycling unstarts on No. 1, which you probably wouldn't want, but when I eliminated

the induced unstarts by putting the rudder input in, and the rudder input was the primary

input required, I was able to keep it within desired performance and not have any additional

unstarts. Let's see, the maneuver was performed according to the instructions in the

evaluation basis worked okay. Not much of a tendency to oscillate...no tendency to oscillate.

Maybe no pronounced tendency to oscillate, there might have been a little bit of an

oscillation in bank angle and/or side slip but nothing pronounced. No problem within the

desired parameters, in terms of bank angle control and pitch attitude. Okay, longitudinal;

controllable, adequate, satisfactory, improvement not required, mildly unpleasant

deficiencies, minimal pilot compensations, HQR3. Lateral directional, same thing,

controllable, adequate, satisfactory, minimal pilot compensation, HQR3. I think that the

primary reason for the any ... anything, talking about compensation at all, is just the fact that

the task does demand some inputs and to monitor the angle of bank and pitch attitude. That

concludes my comments.

Pilot C

Task 7060 Engine Unstart 13 Jan 97; Runs 34-36

Is it satisfactory without improvement? I’d say, yes. Improvement not required and due to

the size of it, I had just a little mild deficiency there, I would have to say probably, minimal

pilot compensation required for desired performance. A three. The size and inertia of the

airplane is evident and I was trying to make a trade-off. It is likely that as I get more

familiar with the way the airplane feels, I could probably even improve the performance but

we are already at desired so I don’t see any question on that. I would give a three for that.

The rudder forces all seem quite reasonable with nothing inordinately large about them,

that’s for sure and with the exception of the tendency to overshoot, probably because of the

inertia and size of this thing, it was quite easy to keep it within the red ring. After I checked
143

the red ring, I looked at the side slip and kind of fine tuned things with that. I did notice at

one time in there, again during ... if I might try it, I did at one time start to push in the wrong

direction but it picked it up quite quickly. It is quite an intuitive display and a good

technique. (How much time before you’re applying rudder on this?) I’m doing it before it

gets to the edge. That’s a little miss lead on this because if there is a surprise factor on this

you’re probably going to get further out than that. (Are you saying a second or so?) Yea,

but I let it get to the red ring and then I recovered. I let it get that far. Of course the big

thing is that slug tells you right away that something is not right, so it isn’t like you are

flying along and suddenly it moves off to the side. When you get that airframe “punck”

like that, you say, “whoa, what was that”. It does tend to focus you quicker than say a

more benign (situation). A three and a three. 

Pilot D

Task 7060 Engine Unstart 22 Jan 97; Run 26

We're at Mach 2.4 and we have a engine #3, engine fails, 4 follows, and we did one run

where I didn't hardly... make any inputs and things kind of took care of themselves. Second

one, I tried a little bit of rudder to try and keep the unstart... keep centered in the unstart

envelopes a little better, and that was reasonable. Then of course, I had to use a little bit of

bank angle to keep the heading in. Longitudinally there's really no task at all. The flight

control system is holding the flight path well enough. So, I'm going to give it a 2, because

it's really a non-task, and 4... correction, lateral I'm going to give it a 4 just because there is

that little bit of a tendency to PIO in roll, once you do get in the loop, but really pretty good.

Pilot E

Task 7060 Engine Unstart 10 Jan 97; Runs 17-21

This is a fairly easy card for pilot, you have to carry left rudder as soon as you get the #3

engine fail, and with the inlet unstart circles up there, it's pretty easy to judge just how

aggressive you need to be with your rudder to keep from getting an unstart on the opposite

side. The task is to kind of be modified as we're flying this... trying to maintain 385 knots,

or recover to 385, and let the Mach bleed off. In order to do that you've got to push the nose

over, but it just, just takes almost a very, very, slight forward stick and very slow pushover to

keep from exceeding the 1/10 G for the desired criteria. With the G tape, that's certainly doable, and I think if we played with this one or two more times we'd easily have no problems.

I think it can basically... this task we know desired criteria, I'm going to rate it that way. No

problem with the controllability, left with some devices the flight path gamma dot V

maintains the flight path on the horizon, and there is no G pulse when you have the ripple

unstart on the right side. Therefore for the Cooper Harper ratings, for the evaluation

segment inlet unstart, longitudinal Cooper Harper, task is controllable, adequate

performance is obtainable, is it satisfactory without improvement? I'm going to say no, and

rate it a 4. The... it's just... you've got to be extremely careful when you push over to

maintain your airspeed, that the G is very, very sensitive, and it's almost an imperceptible

amount of force on the side arm controller to get that nose coming down, so, it does take a

great deal of careful compensation not to exceed a 2/10 G limit. The lateral Cooper Harper

rating, basically, the heading never deviated more than about a degree and a half on any of

the ones I did, and that's well within desired, and the bank angle didn't deviate at all. I did try

to correct back to that one and a half degree heading and put in a little bit of bank, but then

that was controlled, and I used about 2 or 3 degrees, so for the lateral rating, is it

controllable? Yes, adequate? Yes, satisfactory without improvement? Yes. I'd rate it a Cooper
144

Harper of 3, even the rudder application with the symbology showing the inlet unstart

circles, that's fairly routine. Bruce asked me to give another Cooper Harper rating, not

considering the recovery to airspeed, which necessitates the very, very, gradual very just

imperceptible pushover to avoid the G exceedence, with that in mind, the longitudinal rating

would be for the actual unstart and subsequent engine failure and retarding of the throttle to

idle, there's basically no requirement for the pilot to be in a longitudinal loop. So, is it

controllable? Yes, is adequate performance obtainable? Yes, is it satisfactory without

improvement? Yes, and I would rate this a difficult between a 1 and a 2, because there's not

anything really the pilot needs to do. I would rate it a Cooper Harper of 1. Just to make sure

we... on the lat. dir. for that task, that subtask that Bruce just described, controllable? Yes,

adequate? Yes, satisfactory? Yes, a 3, it does take a compensation with the rudders to assure

you don't get a unstart on the other side.

Pilot F

Task 7060 Engine Unstart 21 Jan 97; Runs 22-24

Okay, I'll just repeat the same comment that I did before, I think it's more recognizable that

you have an excursion in yaw or lateral excursion for the flight path vector than it is off of

the lateral acceleration cue that is in the roll pointer. To do the Cooper Harper, the task is

controllable, it's adequate performance with a tolerable pilot workload. Is it satisfactory

without improvement, I would say yes for the task that we're doing. I do think that pilot

recognition is something that is going to have to be looked at specifically for this task.

Again, just because the cueing with confusion factor up at cruise in this condition where you

expect longer delay times, I think there might be a need to look at, I'm not making a

statement that you have to do this, but I think there may be a need that you... to investigate

maybe some additional cueing or something for a task like this. Anyway, for this particular

task, though, I do think we got desired performance. It's satisfactory without improvement

as far as handling qualities go, and then I'll go into the first block, excellent, highly desirable,

pilot compensation not a factor, good negligible deficiency, pilot compensation not a factor

for desired performance, and fair, some mildly unpleasant deficiency, minimum pilot

compensation required for desired performance and disregarding the pilot recognition

cueing just doing this task as we're expecting it, we know what we're going to get. I would

say it's a two (2), if we're not going to do any half ratings, and again, I'm kind of factoring

the pilot recognition issue out of it, there are certainly plenty of cues to maintain control and

easily fly the airplane. My concern will be more a cruise... that's up at cruise and not really

right on top of the airplane or paying attention or something, I think the recognition time

might be a little bit longer. I'm sorry, yeah, I have a... I guess a hard time splitting axis, but

yeah, I would say it's a two (2) in both axis, actually, you cannot touch the stick and just use

the rudder with the control laws and it holds bank, and we've deviated probably, I think the

most of them those three ones, was about a degree or degree and a half of heading. You

cannot get in the loop and roll, and it's easy to correct back to heading once you've had the

dispersion, but like I said, you could basically just stay hands off the stick I think, and it will

hold pitch and, well hold to flight path, and not roll off, just a little bit of rudder correction is

all it really takes.
145

Task 7070 Engine-out Stall

Pilot A

Task 7070 Engine-out Stall 13 Jan 97; Runs 76-78

Straight ahead, and Cooper Harper, I'll have to give it a 2, lateral directional, and a 2,

longitudinal. Looks quite good, no particular problems in either axis.

Pilot B

Task 7070 Engine-out Stall 06 Jan 97; Runs 55-57

The card was performed as per the instruction, performance was obtainable. I've changed

my techniques a little bit on the push and on the recovery. Instead of wrapping my hand

entirely around the stick as I recover, I'm just putting force on the aft end of the stick. Just

by opening my hand up a little bit and I'm finding that helps me avoid inadvertent inputs an

that substantially aided the PIO problem this time, although there's a tendency still, I

certainly didn't get into it, in any sense, other than that, the desired perimeters were

attainable, again the longitudinally is the task of interest in the entry in the lateral directional

primarily in the recovery with the large pitch change. Longitudinal HQR with the tolerances

as previously mentioned in the previous task, it's controllable, adequate , satisfactory,

minimal pilot compensation required for desired performance, and mildly unpleasant

deficiencies HQR3. Lateral directional, same thing, controllable, adequate, satisfactory , no

improvement required, fair characteristics, minimal pilot compensation HQR3. That

concludes my comments.

Pilot C

Task 7070 Engine-out Stall 15 Jan 97; Runs 107-109

These all look very familiar, about the same amount of work load, same amount of

performance, if you wouldn't of told me the engine was out, I probably wouldn't of even

known it, other than just the touch of rudder that I needed to keep the sideslip zero, but no

real increase in work load at all, 3 and 3.

Pilot D

Task 7070 Engine-out Stall 22 Jan 97; Run 22

It's just ditto, ditto of all the others here, task is slightly easier because of the... not having to

roll it. Again, it's trimmed as we started out, so it really isn't a very difficult task, just a little

bit of attention to beta, but I'm going to give it the same pilot rating, 4 and 3 because of the

tendencies... well, because of the force buildup causing a little bit of additional

compensation, which is good, and a little bit of the PIO tendencies, both longitudinal and

lateral.

Pilot E

Task 7070 Engine-out Stall 07 Jan 97; Runs 107-109R 15
146

This one with 75% power in the 3 good engines. It's a little bit squirrelier in your... the

speed instability is a little bit greater here, it's a little bit squirrelier in maintaining your

constant 1 degree, 1 knot per second deceleration rate, and you can tend to overcontrol that a

little bit if you want, if you are not careful and also it's a little bit squirrelier maintaining

wings level, so the whole thing is just a little bit less controlled, you got a little bit more on a

knife edge. Never the less, you met the desired criteria on all of the recoveries. So for the

longitudinal Cooper Harper, for the evaluation segment, it was controllable, adequate

performance was obtainable, satisfactory without improvement? Yes, a 3. For the lateral

direction, controllable? Yes, adequate? Yes, satisfactory? Yes, for a 3 also, the... it's a level

one, but it just seems to be just a little bit on the edge here and not quite as stable or rock

steady as one with idle power, so the engine out does seem to add a little bit of sensitivity,

extra sensitivity, to the control inputs to the task.

Pilot F

Task 7070 Engine-out Stall 23 Jan 97; Runs 20-21

And again, I don't see any real big difference in the stall than the other ones that we've done.

You get some small beta excursions, as you start out there is no requirement for rudder at

all. As you increase the pitch, there's a slight, very, very slight requirement for right rudder, I

almost think because when you put in the rudder on this stall, you tend to rock the wings a

little bit. I think it would be easier to do the task, just to accept a little bit of the slight offset

in beta, and not touch the rudders. The roll is still objectionable to me, I can definitely

overcontrol and get overshoots in roll, I'm still hesitant to call it a PIO, but I could see if I

was really, really trying to be real high gain on this, I could see, maybe exciting a PIO, I

think that... you know, if I'm very patient, whenever I start getting overshoots, and start

overcontrolling them, I can stop them right away. They're definitely not divergent. I can stop

it right away by just backing off on my gain a little bit. I guess it still bothers me a little bit,

though, that I think there is a tendency there, and I guess for consistency sake, I'm going to

probably end up at the same place I was before, simply because I think it's minimal pilot

compensation vs. moderate, but I really am having a hard time answering, is it satisfactory

without improvement? The more and more I do this, the more and more I'm kind of tending

to say, you know, I really think maybe the 4 is a better rating than the 3, but let me go

through this. It's controllable, adequate performance with a tolerable pilot workload,

satisfactory without improvement, and again let me just read the descriptors for 3, it's

minimal pilot compensation required for desired performance, fair, some mildly unpleasant

deficiencies, and for 4, minor, but annoying deficiencies, desired performance requires

moderate pilot compensation, and I have a hard time going with moderate. I'm still going to

give it a 3 and a 3, but I think, I guess what I'm really trying to say is, is I think that the roll

axis could use a little bit more work.
147

Task 7080 Engine-out Turning Stall

Pilot A

Task 7080 Engine-out Turning Stall 13 Jan 97; Runs 78-81

I would have to rate the lateral directional, because of unexplained anomalies, well, I guess I

was getting into the desired range, but I might rate it a...I'll rate it a 3, pitch at 2, and the

reason being, that there seems to be some strange, I don't know if it's the simulation is not

correct, or there's strange phenomenons in this airplane, but as you roll into a bank, and start

decelerating it requires right rudder as you decelerate, and then that in turn requires...causes

a steeper bank angle, and causes you to have to oppose it with aileron, lat-roll control, and

then you get into a contest between rudder trying to reduce zero sideslip, and aileron

control...roll control trying to hold 30 degrees of bank, and it tends to degrade into a slight

PIO. The sideslip angles are not very large, about 1 or 2 degrees, I guess 2.9 was the most

recorded, so they're not large angles, probably not even worth correcting for, but if you try

to attempt to correct for them, then you get into a small PIO in roll, the recovery is pretty

straight forward, but once again as you roll wings level, I think the turn coordination and

engine out compensation, sideslip, and such, cause a need for some left rudder on the

recovery, and so there's something going on with the turn coordination and the control law

in these ... in these tests that seem a little strange, it seems to interfere with control slightly,

it's not a major problem, but just doesn't seem right.

Pilot B

Task 7080 Engine-out Turning Stall 06 Jan 97; Runs 58-60

Accomplished the card pretty much as written. Desired performance was attainable in both

axis with the criteria for longitudinal as previously mentioned. I am working fairly hard, this

time, in the entry both longitudinal and lateral directionally, recovery is fairly benign in both

axis, but I'm working to keep 30 degree angle of bank and keep the airspeed bleed rate on

target. It's not quite to the point where I'm ready to call it a level 2, but, I'm still working

hard, so this was a border-line level 1, I think. Longitudinal, it's controllable, adequate and

satisfactory, improvement not required, mildly unpleasant deficiencies, minimum pilot

compensation required for desired performance HQR3...Yeah, for longitudinal, I think that's

valid. For lateral directional I'm going to change my mind, it's controllable, adequate,

however I think , deficiencies warrant improvement......and say that minor but annoying

deficiencies, desired performance requires moderate pilot compensation HQR4. I'm just

really fighting the angle of bank in the entry, so give that an HQR4. That concludes my

comments.

Pilot C

Task 7080 Engine-out Turning Stall 15 Jan 97; Runs 110-112

Finally saw something different, in the turning engine-out, it took the extra work just to keep

the sideslip zero in the beginning bank angle, and it seemed to be pretty sensitive to how

rapidly I rolled out, if I rolled out quickly, I'd get pretty good split in the sideslip, in other

words, sideslip would build up pretty large, and then in trying to get it stopped, I started into

a PIO that was...it was converging at least, and then finally get it stopped, when I really went

for it in a hurry, It got adequate performance, if I just kind of let it, you know, just eased off

on it, I could get desired, with the PIO in there and everything, I'm very difficult to call it
148

desired no matter what. So pitch, however, I didn't notice any difference, so, the pitch was a

3, but the lat-dir I'm going to give a 5. It...while...if I used a special technique, I probably

could get desired, it's very sensitive to technique, and in any case, if I see a PIO, I can't really

call it desired, and my way of doing thinking of things.

Pilot D

Task 7080 Engine-out Turning Stall 22 Jan 97; Runs 20-21

The IC has the airplane all trimmed up with the rudder already in it and everything, so the

task really isn't much more difficult. I did concentrate on the... keeping the sideslip zero as

far as the performance, in other words, at least one there was actually better on the beta, than

on the symmetric thrust ones. I don't think there's enough difference here to warrant any

different pilot ratings. Still be 4 longitudinal and 3 lateral. I did notice I got just a little PIO

in roll, because Lou was trying to get me to get back to zero, hard zero, which I don't think is

really necessary for this kind of a task, but it did show up that I did get a little bit of PIO in

roll. I'm not sure I mentioned on here earlier, that maybe a little more force build up as we

approach the stall would be beneficial as a warning. What we have is nice, but I think just a

little more might help.

Pilot E

Task 7080 Engine-out Turning Stall 07 Jan 97; Runs 110-112

The evaluation segment was from the start from a 30 degree angle a bank turned up to a

wings level recovery and in that part we noticed it was hard to hold 30 degree angle a bank. I

was having to put a lot of rudder compensation in there, but it's not a steady rudder, it

seemed to vary, so I was having to actively work the rudders, of course that would translate

in having to actively work the angle of bank. And also it was a little bit difficult to hold the 1

degree per second deceleration. A couple times I would get little spikes where it would seem

to drift off on my own, I would seem to get a big jump in the deceleration rate, so you are

kind of having to chase that the whole time, so a fair part of the task up to the stall is a little

bit high work load. In the recovery I used several different techniques, first one just relax

back pressure and made a nice smoothly recovery and slowly let it roll back to wings level,

then I aggressively pushed forward, and aggressively rolled wings level once I got the

waterline above the horizon. Got a PIO, almost instantaneously and it stayed through 5.7

degrees alpha, which is the lowest alpha I got. The third one I didn't do quite as aggressive

as a capture, I tried to smoothly capture wings level once I got the waterline below the

horizon and it seemed to work out pretty good until I got to down around 6 or 7 degrees

alpha then it started to develop a roll PIO, so the roll PIO is actually towards the lower

alpha. For the evaluation, I met the desired criteria on everything. Longitudinal; is it

controllable? Yes, adequate? Yes, satisfactory, longitudinal I'd say... yes and rate it a 3.

Lateral, controllable? Yes, adequate? Yes, satisfactory? No, rated a 4. It gained a 4 for two

things, one the flight roll PIO tendency on the recovery at lower alphas and the other reason

is that it's just so darn hard to hold 30 degrees angle at bank and that's part of the evaluation

task, is..., including holding that 30 degrees angle at bank that the work load is very, very

high, so let's make it a 4 for that.

Pilot F

Task 7080 Engine-out Turning Stall 23 Jan 97; Run 19
149

Turning stall, 75 percent power on all the engines, except for number 4, which has failed.

Basically, not a big difference between the other turning stall that we did, requires a little bit

of rudder as you enter the stall, a requirement for increase rudder, or at least that was my

perception is, as we approach the actual stall. During the recovery, then when you unloaded

the airplane, you had to reverse your rudder. I released... I believe what I did, was release the

rudder during the recovery. I was kind of surprised, I almost felt like I needed a requirement

to use some opposite rudder, I never did, but I almost felt the requirement that I needed to

use opposite rudder during part of the recovery maneuver. Nothing that seemed, you know,

a real big deal, and you're not going to keep the ball perfectly centered during the engine-out

stall and recovery anyway, but anyway, it seemed very controllable, basically, all the same

comments that I had before with the exception of when I rolled out and pushed the airplane,

the movement of the ball was kind of, I don't want to say disconcerting, but again as you

start the roll rate, you're going to pick up some beta, I guess that's okay, again I guess I just,

I think we still need to kind of make sure, there maybe a need to have NZ, or NY and N beta

both displayed somehow, and some kind of display format. Anyway, I still think that that

needs to be considered a little bit further. For this task, it's definitely controllable, you get

adequate performance with a tolerable pilot work load. Is it satisfactory without

improvement, you know, for all the same reasons, I'd still think that holding precise bank

angle requires a little bit of reduction in gain, to do it very well, and... but I'd basically

answer yes to that, and I'd go in, and I'd say it's mildly unpleasant deficiency, mainly the

ability to hold bank angle, and minimal pilot compensation is required. I think if affects both

axis a little bit. So, I'm going to give it a 3 and a 3.
150

Task 7095 Manual Thrust Landing

Pilot A

Task 7095 Manual Thrust Landing 15 Jan 97; Runs 62-64

There's definitely a added work load with the manual thrust, however, it appears as though

the ability... there's... even with a lot of friction and sticktion in this throttle you can still pull

the... within adequate tolerances on airspeed, the... there is more work loads, since... we

ought to spread your attention out on airspeed. It would be helpful, if once you get on the

glideslope with manual throttles you didn't have to go through a configuration change, with

so close to the flare, it tends to destabilize the approach, that's all right for an autothrottle

operation, but for manual throttles, it's a little poor. Cooper Harper rating; so, it's getting

adequate on the touchdowns, let's take the... I think we were generally desirable in the

approach, so, I'm going to give it a 3 in longitudinal, and a 2 in lateral, and the flare, I

would... from 200 ft on down, you say, from that point on down, the Cooper Harper rating

would probably be 4 on the pitch, because of the work load on the... having to use manual

throttles and overcome a recent configuration change, and in the flare up, add thrust, so,

there's a lot of things going on all at the same time, and it's kind of dynamic, it would be

better if you didn't have that configuration change to upset you at the very last minute.

Laterally, I had no real problem, I'd give it a 2, I guess, in the flare.

Pilot B

Task 7095 Manual Thrust Landing 07 Jan 97; Runs 9-11

In the approach phase, no serious problems, so the workload is a little bit higher, obviously

in manual throttle, a little bit more attention required, particularly where airspeed changes

occurring in the approach. However, nothing, unsatisfactory. Longitudinal HQR, its

controllable, adequate, satisfactory, improvement not required, minimum pilot compensation

HQR3. Lateral directional, same thing, controllable, adequate, satisfactory, improvement not

required, mildly unpleasant deficiencies, minimum pilot compensation HQR3. The primary

task longitudinally was monitoring airspeed and primary task lateral directional was just

bank angle control. Required a lot of inputs. And I've talked about why in the previous

evaluations. Okay, now in the landing segment, bit of a problem with sink rate control. I'm

having more of a problem with sink rate control than I did before, its fairly consistent. I'm

finding less of a cushion. I think its a ground effect problem. I'm finding as I get down low

that when I raise the nose that there is more of a split between the commanded and actual

gamma that requires me either to rotate further which tends to make me float and there is a

tendency to do that, or not rotate enough. In which case, just prior to touchdown, you see a

need for cushion and sink rate and of course as you raise the nose it lowers the landing

gear. So, you're not really...there's really nothing you can do at that point other than except a

relatively high sink rate. I'm able to get within the adequate territory pretty consistently but

its consistently high if I try to control my X-distance at all. My X-distance by the way, is

routinely in the adequate area, not in the desired area so there's a fairly consistent trend here

and relatively high work load. Longitudinal HQR, its controllable and adequate, I think

improvement is warranted. I'm going to say that this is another where I would like to have a

4.5 because the pilot compensation longitudinally is probably less than considerable. But on

the other hand, I'm not able to get desired performance consistently. But I'm going to give it

an HQR5 longitudinally. Lateral directional is not too bad, I can pretty much ignore that. Its

controllable, adequate, satisfactory, improvement not required, minimal pilot compensation

HQR3. That concludes my comments.
151

Pilot C

Task 7095 Manual Thrust Landing 13 Jan 97; Runs 95-97

Okay, for the ILS parts, the localizer intercept, and the glideslope intercept, I have the same

comments, pretty much as the ones with the autothrottle, really, is not real difficult, but on

this one due to the throttle movement, and I'm not sure whether it's engine response, or

display response, but when I make some large motions with the throttle, it looks like an

awful long time for the excel karat to move, and as a result, the temptation is to make another

change before you see what your last one did, and then get you going a little bit, and while

by itself, you wouldn't think that's a big deal, that takes some concentration away from the

rest of the things, like putting it on the glideslope, and I would find myself in a little high or

a little lower than what I expected when I came back to that. The lateral-directional on the

ILS, I didn't notice any particular problems with that at all. It...it seems the whole airplane as

throughout all of these, seems to have the...a little more sensitive in roll than in pitch. The

pitch just seems to take for, you know, considerably more sluggish type motions than the

roll, however, certainly nothing that caused any problem. Okay, now, as far as the Cooper

Harper for lat-dir on the glideslope, comes up to satisfactory without improvement, well, just

due to enough times getting into adequate, I really can't say that it would be satisfactory

without improvement, although it's not...was not horrible. Did I get off the glideslope, or the

localizer enough, or was that always desired. You were in the desired range, that's what I

thought, okay. Deficiencies require improvement, yeah, I'd go over to that, and I would say 4

would be the Cooper Harper for that. It was desired performance, took moderate pilot

compensation, and I concentrated on it, a little more maybe than I did before, and thus was

able to keep it within the desired. It was almost, it was almost the 4 on the previous run, this

time although I think it did move up into 4 for the lat-dir on the localizer. In pitch, so, this

will be kind of a combination of glidepath control and speed. This one is, this one was really

significantly more difficult than the last time. Satisfactory without improvement, no, requires

improvement, never could do better than adequate, and I had just...have this feeling that I'm

not sure how much more practice I got, I would ever be able to improve it significantly over

that, it just seemed like working and the things that were going on toward the end, it actually,

this is something that I didn't mention before, until about 400 ft tracking the glideslope, is

not particularly difficult, in fact, when I was getting off, I was purposely getting off, I wanted

to be start, with a little below the glideslope, when I got in close, so that I could...that would

help negate some of my problems I was having in the flare, and landing long, and so that

was fairly accurate, but as soon as I'd get into the, oh, 400 and under range, then things

would start to happen, I wasn't controlling, and if I wasn't looking at just the right thing

when it happened, why I would get off and sure enough, every time, I got off on airspeed,

and I got off on deflection, and...so, I'm going to give that a 6 for the pitch, and I believe

that's what I gave it the last time, wasn't it, for the second segment, but I'm talking about the

last part of the first segment here, and my...just getting ahead of myself here a little bit.

Never got out of adequate, so, I'd still stick with that, no, no, that was extensive

compensation just to keep that adequate, that could of gone inadequate real easy, I'm going

to leave that a 6. Now, when we get into the second segment now, all it is is a magnification

of the problems that I saw, the lat-dir, again, would stay, and I kept that within desired, and I

was working probably moderately, so, I'll stick that with a 4, we maybe learning a

little...seeing a little bit of learning curve on this, but the fact that I did keep each of 3 in the

desired, and I was working moderately hard, would give that a 4 also, and in the pitch, so, I

think we were adequate every time, sometimes almost desired, but not quite, but boy, that

was still a lot of work while I was trying to do things that I had to tell myself I had to do, not

that I did naturally, and so I'm debating between the considerable and the extensive part now,
152

and that's a tough question, not going to give it a half, but I would give it one, I'd say to get

that adequate, I was probably working at the extensive level, I guess I'll have to leave that at

6, there's some question in exactly, it's on the high side of a 6, but it's a 6, and that's for the

pitch in that lasts from 200 ft on down to touchdown, and the work that I was doing there

was strong enough in pitch, that it was affecting the lat-dir some, I think if I had a better

pitch airplane then I'd be able to concentrate a little more on the lat-dir probably could

improve that, but that's not the case now, but I wouldn't be surprised. My biggest concern is

the pitch, I'm trying to think if there's anything else that's got in there. As far as all the

controller and so on, I didn't have any complaint. On one of the runs it seemed as though I

had more breakout than other times, I don't know what that was about. It wasn't enough to

effect performance, I don't think, but it was something that I definitely noticed on one of the

runs, that was the only run I noticed it on, so, I'll look at it again, when we do some more,

and make that it's not just how I happened to observe it that one time, and it might be, but in

general, I didn't have any complaints with the controller as far as gradients and harmony,

and all that stuff. I did change my technique a little bit in the flare that helped along, before I

was going from the regular descent to flared attitude a little bit quicker in doing it, almost

open loop, but I wanted to do it quick enough so I didn't just smash into the ground, and as

I get a little more comfortable getting in close, than I slow that rotation down just a little bit,

and that helps the...how long the landing is, okay.

Pilot D

Task 7095 Manual Thrust Landing 23 Jan 97; Runs 54-56, 58-60

Okay, on... as far as the glideslope goes, the addition of the throttle control task makes it a

little harder, particularly there is a lag in the acceleration chevron, if we could get rid of that

with some throttle lead, that would sure reduce the work load there. With the lag in, it

definitely increases the work load. The delta V tape is a little hard to see. Maybe just a little

bit insensitive for the performance criteria we're using, I think it would of helped me either if

the display was more crisp, or if the scaling on the delta V tape made small errors more

apparent. Pretty much ditto, as far as the glideslope and the loc and the roll PIO etc. from

4020 are, so, I'm going to give it a pilot rating of 5, longitudinally, and still 4, laterally. Okay,

on to the landings with the manual throttle, ditto on the comments for the chevron and the

delta V, it's just a little harder to see those, when you're, especially when you're concentrating

on other things. It definitely increases the work load, I did change my technique half way

through there, and because we got one we landed very short, and I had noted that earlier, that

a two segment flare was required, I moved my visual glideslope intercept point down to

1500 ft plus vs. the 1300 ft it was originally, and this has helped, so, I'm going to disregard

the one where I landed very short, and assume that we had adequate performance, and

another comment on all these landings so far, both 4020, and 7095, is that it requires a very

high pitch rate, if you want to start your flare at 50 ft to get the H dot, to be able to get the

desired H dot, and I guess that's because of the different ground effects that we had on the

previous vehicles. Pilot ratings, landing, longitudinal, 5, lateral, 4.

Pilot E

Task 7095 Manual Thrust Landing 08 Jan 97; Runs 43-45

Obviously the manual thrust increases the work load substantially. First run, run No. 43, I'm

missing the glide slope capture, because I was just finishing up the deceleration from 190 to

159. That has a glide slope than when I'm pushing those over to aggressively capture the

glide slope, very quickly accelerated on me, that was more or less my fault rather than the
153

aircraft's fault. The runs 44 and 45 were more representative and basically those indicated

very high work loads to maintain the air speed. I felt I met the desired criteria. Score cards

show the deviation of 6.6 and 6.7 knots. That happened for a brief instant, but I would say

90 percent of the time or more I was within 1 or 2 knots, so I am going to consider that I

met the desired criteria for airspeed control on the approach, at least for the glide slope

intercept segment downs 200 ft. On the... actually about the... for 300, 200 ft, for the

transition point when the flaps come in, when you really have to put a lot of power on and

on all the landings you can't really anticipate that, and I got a very rapid 5 to 6 knots

deceleration before I could catch it with power application, and that must be at some point

when the drag really increases precipitously during the autoflap transition. This is another

reason why I think the autoflap transition is not a good idea that close in on the approach.

You are down around 200 ft or so, but having to make a very, very substantial power

addition, or it should go very quickly to a slow condition, which in this aircraft the backside

characteristics already as a problem could lead to a firm touchdown and the like, so I think

this manual thrust landings certainly indicated another problem with the autoflap transition

that late in the game. Same comments applies as far as a flare and touchdown, basically

from 50 ft on down, it's the same as the nominal thrust landing, approach and landing, and

that is, it is very difficult to judge the proper flare. The first couple I over fledged just a little

bit, and went just a little bit long, had good H dots, but just a little bit long, and the last one, I

was correcting for the airspeed deviation off the last of the autoflaps coming in and had to

make a really quick save at the end and got a very nice H dot, but landed short, so overall

performance was adequate. So it's still a little bit of a guessing game, I still haven't quite

figured out the technique to make consistent landings. Okay for the Cooper Harper ratings

for longitudinal for the glide slope intercept, is it controllable? Yes it is, is adequate

performance attainable? Yes, is satisfactory improvement? I'm going to say no and rate it a

Cooper Harper of 4 mainly for work load, the manual throttle task is very high work load

and certainly I think desired performance requires moderate pilot compensation, is a good

description there. For lateral directional, for the glide slope intercept portion, controllable?

Yes, adequate? Yes, satisfactory without improvement? Yes, I'm going to rate it a 3. It's

probably a little more than minimal compensation, but not as much as moderate so it's kind

of a borderline 3, 4, but more of a 3, more than a level 1. For the precision landing phase,

longitudinal basically met adequate performance, although I had good H dots, I couldn't

quite get it in the box so that's going to obviously keep it out of being anything higher than

a 4 or anything, make it higher than a 4. So controllable? Yes, adequate performance is

attainable? Yes it is, satisfactory without improvement? No, it will have to come in as a 5

based on criteria and performance and I made a lot of comments already on the difficulty of

landing task. Lateral directional, controllable? Yes, adequate? Yes, satisfactory without

improvement? Yes, a 3, again comments of lateral axis could be improved with some

different sub modes we could put in there, but it's doing the job, and again I want to

reemphasize that I think the manual thrust landing certainly does bring out another problem

with the autoflap transition being so late in the approach.

Pilot F

Task 7095 Manual Thrust Landing 21 Jan 97; Runs 89-91

Okay, basically, controlling the airspeed, there's a couple factors that I think are unrelated to

the evaluation which at least influenced me, and that is one, the airspeed display is pretty

fuzzy on here, and I end up relying mostly on the tape, and then when I do cross-check the

airspeed, it takes a... I guess a significant amount of attention where I have to look at it for a

bit before I really can decipher what it's really reading. So, that is one factor, and I think

that's degrading the airspeed control and performance on final, because I'm spending an
154

awful lot of time controlling airspeed, and out of the work load of controlling airspeed, a lot

of my time is spent trying to decipher that digit, and that's slowing my cross-check down a

fair amount. So, other than that, I don't think that it's really that hard to track. I guess if... to

rate the task, I'll go on, it's controllable, is adequate performance obtainable with a tolerable

pilot workload? I'm going to say yes to that. Is it satisfactory without improvement? and I

would say no, although, and I'm trying to, I guess decide, I don't want this to taint your data,

but the reason I would say no is, if I could read that digit better, I'm not so sure that I would

have the same response. So, I'm not so sure how much of this is a display issue. Certainly, it

is a higher work load effort to control the airspeed with the manual throttles. There is some

time delay in getting the thrust response, and the sticky throttle also makes it difficult to set

precise power settings, I end up overshooting and going... throttle too fast forward, and

getting an acceleration then too far aft, and it's not because I'm setting the throttle where I

want to set it, it's... I'm setting the throttle where it gets set, because by the time I put enough

force to get through the friction and breakout to move the throttle, it scoots past the setting

that I want. One of the techniques that I used, was to pull the other throttle back, that did two

things for me, it said a base throttle setting of about 20 percent, so I had a good idea of

where that was, and the other thing that it did, is it gave me something to rest my hand on,

and twist my hand around for setting power. The other issue is the flap reconfiguration on

final, and with the flap reconfiguration, I think where... if I could read the display better, and

with the throttle stick not... the throttles being smoother and less friction, I think that you

can handle it, but that's still going to be a very, I wont say a very, but a higher work load task

close to the ground, you know generally, they want stabilized approaches by 500 ft, it's kind

of what the ops guys look for, even in the decelerating approach, and you're not even going

to have that with the manual throttle sticking. Although, I think it would be a do-able task,

and I think you'd get better ratings if the throttles and the displays were better, even for that

portion. You can control the airspeed through there, and actually you can do it, I think... I

think you could do it if a reasonable work load, if the display and throttle were fixed,

because there's no pitch transient, it's just basically an increase. The drag increase and the

acceleration, what I would like to do, if I was going to do this operationally, is I would hit

that point with the cushion of airspeed maybe, and that's another thing too, I mean generally,

I don't really shoot to be on speed when I configured just before glideslope intercept like

with a gear, until usually a little bit farther down the glideslope than we're doing here, now

that's just my personal technique, but you know, you're going through two dynamic

proportions to push over, and the gear extension, and then the flap reconfiguration, and try

to hold this tolerance of air speed. So anyway, I would go in at the level 2, and I guess, it

says the desired performance requires moderate pilot compensation, and 5 is adequate

performance requires considerable pilot compensation, I'd go with a 5, mainly for the

description that I just gave. Going back to the approach task, I think if I average everything

together, I probably got mostly desired performance, and when I say everything together, I

mean all of the 3 runs. There were a couple times there, where on the last two data runs, the

first one I have the gamma, just... maybe a quarter degree below the horizon, but it didn't

seem like we were sinking. The next time I put it like a half a degree below the horizon, it

seemed liked we hit fairly firm. Touchdown dispersion, again, for all the points that we

talked about the first time is difficult, not being able to be real stable, and having to work the

airspeed issue through the flap reconfiguration, and not being stable setting up for the

approach, I think makes it more difficult than, obviously than with the autothrottles. I guess

I feel like I can probably get better performance than what I did, but none the less, that was 3

data runs, and I don't think actually... well, we got adequate I guess on a couple, and the non

adequate actually on one. I'd go in, it's definitely controllable, adequate performance is

obtainable with a tolerable pilot work load. Is it satisfactory without improvement, and I

guess I'm going to have to say no, because we didn't get desired performance, and also that

would eliminate a 4 on that. So, I guess I'd have to go with a 5 for this task. Let me read... 5
155

is adequate with considerable, and 6 is adequate with extensive, I'm going to go with a 5,

because if I back off on trying to get desired performance a little bit more, I think you could

reasonably get adequate performance most of the time, and again I'm going to say that I

think I would get different results, I don't know if they'd be significantly different or not, but

if the display was a little bit clearer and the throttles moved a little bit more smoothly with

less force, I think that would effect being set up on the glide path, or being more stable on

the approach, and I think that would improve the performance, performance in that phase.

So, we'll go with a 5 for lateral and directional as well as longitudinal, and we'll also, I'll give

it the same rating for longitudinal and lateral and directional for the approach portion. The

other thing that I would say is, is although, you know these are pretty... I think this is a well

defined task, and I think this is the kind of task that you want to be doing to really look at

the flight control design, but even though we're getting into the level 2 flying qualities here, I

do think that improvement is warranted, particularly in the areas that I've mentioned that, in

overall these are pretty tight performance tasks, and there's a lot airplanes today out there

that I think might, you might have to work pretty hard to get them in the desired box also, so

anyway, that's it.
156

Task 7100 Unaugmented Landing

Pilot A

Task 7100 Unaugmented Landing 17 Jan 97; Runs 89-91

On the approach and landing, manual throttles, no augmentation. Is it controllable? Yes,

adequate performance obtainable, with tolerable pilot work load, actually it certainly is a high

work load, there's no... I guess it would be... not a tolerable work load, and deficiencies

require improvement, yes, and adequate performance not obtainable with tolerable pilot...

maximum, tolerable pilot... adequate performance not obtainable, with maximum tolerable

pilot, actually we did obtain adequate performance, so, I guess you could say it's a level 2,

and requires extensive pilot compensation, I'd guess I'd give it a, actually the compensation

wasn't all that tremendous, it was work, but I certainly didn't have any PIO's to worry about,

except pitch requires considerable pilot compensation, it's between a 4, a 5, and a 6, and

since we obtained desirable conditions on several, it's between adequate and desired, I think

I'll give it a 5, longitudinal. That was for the... actually I think I would... for the landing it

would be a 5, and... well, I'll give it a 5 for both, both of them, and lateral directional, actually

wasn't all that bad. We met laterally, we met all of our requirements, for desired, for the most

part? I think we could give it a 3, lateral directional, yes.

Pilot B

Task 7100 Unaugmented Landing 10 Jan 97; Runs 11-13

This ones a hand full, throughout, I was able to get desired performance on the approach

fairly consistently, occasionally slipping into adequate, but I'm really working hard for it.

This is another one where a half of rating is probably going to help, and this is true both

longitudinally, and laterally directionally. There is a tendency for PIO in both axis, fairly

pronounced tendency, which I'm damping myself, basically providing the SAS function on

my own, just by reducing the inputs, and it tends to make the inputs jerky, and you accept

small term deviations that you might not otherwise, but the large deviations seem to smooth

out. So, let's see, there is a ability to accurately maneuver in the final approach path, to

maintain the profile and speed, and I was able to get trimmed flight, I think I kept the

deviations fairly low, again, borderline desired, adequate performance, so, longitudinal

CHR's; controllable, adequate, deficiencies warrant improvement, I'm going to say adequate

performance requires considerable pilot compensation, HQR5, and same thing lateral

directional; controllable and adequate deficiencies warrant improvement, adequate

performance requires considerable pilot compensation, HQR5. For the precision landing,

very much the same, the work load seemed uniform throughout the approach, it was high,

uniformly high, I should say, throughout the approach. There was a tendency to PIO, and

bobble in pitch and roll for that matter, also some directional wandering tendencies, the

directional axis seemed to be happy wherever I put the nose, and I did have to use rudders

there on the last one to control that. No geometry strikes, no tendency to float or bounce,

although, on the second approach, I did sacrifice runway distance to get the sink rate under

control, just because you can't afford to get tight...tightly in the loop, in the longitudinal axis

particularly. Okay, so, longitudinal HQR; it's controllable, and adequate, I was able to get

adequate performance, controllability is in question here, however, if you go through the

matrix, the way it's written, adequate performance is obtainable, so that puts you up in the

level 2, now the work load is tolerable, I think, for adequate performance, it's high, but it's

tolerable, and I'd say adequate performance requires extensive pilot compensation

longitudinally, so, I'm going to give it a HQR6 there. Lateral directional; it's controllable,
157

adequate, satisfactory, and I think in this case, adequate performance requires considerable

pilot compensation, HQR5, so, the last two were 6 and a 5, and what did I give on the first

two? 5 and 5. That concludes my comments.

Pilot C

Task 7100 Unaugmented Landing 16 Jan 97; Runs 117-118

Okay, the localizer and glideslope, and so on, that part of the task, the longitudinal control

was fairly high work load, the biggest thing I noticed was airspeed control was a lot harder,

and I'll have to say that part of it is the inability to make small changes on this particular

throttle, you kind of overdo each time and each direction, you have to kind of bracket it, so

it's kind of tough, and the...but in general, things were staying pretty well behaved, I didn't

feel like I was on the verge of losing control or anything, just it was wallowing, and certainly

a terrible ride, I'd hate to have been in the back seat. Okay, adequate performance with a

tolerable pilot workload, and this is where the basicness on a standard airplane with

everything working, and so on, and at this point I'd think I'd call that, no, it would...if it were

an all up airplane, it would require improvement, adequate performance, I could get, but that

was way more than tolerable pilot work load, so a 7 on that, and actually it was much more

controllable than I had expected when we started it, and I think that would be pretty much

the case with both lateral directional, and longitudinal. By really working my buns off, I

actually got quite a few desired performances in there, but with the work load, is what does

it, so the second half of the question about adequate performance and tolerable pilot work

load, I'm afraid drags it down into 7, for each of those, and oops, wait a second, I just

slipped a cog here, I was thinking more of the landing, no...no, that's...let me back up here,

we're just talking about the glideslope, so most of the comments I made were very

similar...for the glideslope part, it would be the speed control that was the most difficult, and

I might be able to, with the glideslope, give it, go up here and say that adequate performance

was obtainable, and not satisfactory without improvement, and I could give it 6, adequate

performance, in other words, what made me work so hard was trying to get it up into the

desired adequate, though would get with, say considerable pilot compensation for the

glideslope and localizer, so I'm going to give 5's to both axis for the ILS part, and then when

we get down here to the landings, however, adequate performance obtainable with tolerable

pilot work load, and here is where I'm going to turn the corner due to the work load, not due

to the performance that I actually got, and those would both be 7's. You know, if we were

doing it as a system with everything done, I was pretty impressed at how well it would do,

but the work load was way higher than you would accept on a standard airplane, and that's

what brought it down into the 7, and the adequate performance, you know, if I would...I

could have backed off some on my compensation, but as soon as I would have, I know it

would have been right in the adequate at best, but it's tough, and it's the factor of it is the

friction on the throttles, you can't make small corrections, and I know that's due to the test,

but that's all I can see, so that's what I've go to rate, okay.

Pilot D

Task 7100 Unaugmented Landing

Not performed by this pilot.

Pilot E

Task 7100 Unaugmented Landing 10 Feb 97; Runs 40-41
158

No autothrottles, no augmentation in any axis. One of the things I noticed was the lack of an

aileron rudder interconnect kind of makes it a little bit sloppy. That certainly is not the most

serious of the problems but it does add a little bit to the sloppiness. I just wanted to mention

that before I forgot it. Up and away I did a number of doublets. Both pitch and roll

doublets, I didn't do any rudder doublets. It just basically tends to give more input than what

the pilot wants, so I end up becoming the damper in the system and provide the pitch and

roll damping. It tends to overshoot in both pitch and roll, so you have to be very smooth on

the inputs and you need to not over control it because you could get into a PIO and both

axis. I pretty much left my feet flat on the floor and didn't get into the yaw axis at all and the

one time I thought I might have to but it came back out to balanced flight and I just didn't

want to have the workload of flying 3 axis. So you shouldn't see too much rudder activity at

all. Pitch, when you make an input it does tend to take off and it was almost like it was

negatively stable which is the problem. It does have negative static stability, so when you

make a pitch input it does tend to just keep going, so then the pilot has to become the

stability augmentation system. It is not too bad up and away but when you get down to

higher gain tasks of approaching the flare, I definitely felt the workload increase

dramatically in pitch. I was making very very small inputs, high frequency, low amplitude

inputs in pitch. And pretty much once I was in the flare, I thought I had two good landings

as far as the H dot was considered. I thought I had actual gamma close to the horizon but as

Dave pointed out there may be some filtering which could be a delay in which case it may

not have actually been my actual gamma so in which case I was a little bit confused by that.

But non-the-less pretty good performance laterally as far as the Y dispersion and very good

performance, both of them were in the box on X but both of them were firm. So I was in the

box and firm on both of them. I think the landing performance longitudinally is probably

going to be low adequate. Laterally probably desired. So for the approach rating, throw out

the fact that on the first run that I was doing some doublets trying to see if I could get into

an irrecoverable PIO and I basically overshot the localizer and had to correct back. So we'll

look at that and I think it was probably fairly close to desired, borderline desired/adequate

longitudinally. So for the longitudinal approach rating, controllable? Yes. Adequate? Yes.

Satisfactory? No. I am going to rate it a 5. It could be a 4 or a 5, it's really borderline. The

workload was pretty high though and that's why I'm going to give it a 5. For lateral as far as

the localizer control, controllable? Yes. Adequate? Yes. Satisfactory? No, a 4. I met the

performance there but with a high workload. For the landing phase, longitudinal, it was

controllable, adequate performance was attainable. Is it satisfactory without improvement?

No. I am going to rate it a 6 and basically it's just difficult to... If you put a slight input in it

will tend to overshoot. The aircraft will give you more than you want and when you are

trying to set up for the flare, you have to be real careful that you don't balloon and that was

what I was tending to be afraid of. I was afraid that if I made a big input in the flare that I

might balloon and I didn't want to do that. So I probably talked myself into not putting

enough attitude on it. So that would be a 6. For the lateral, I did meet desired criteria but

with workload. Controllable? Yes. Adequate? Yes. Satisfactory? No, a 4. Certainly this

configuration is controllable and flyable but it does require a high workload and I would not

want to... well it would probably be fun to look at this with a crosswind, high turbulence and

an offset and it might be an interesting task.

Pilot F

Task 7100 Unaugmented Landing with ASE On 24 Jan 97; Run 90

Realizing there is a lot of ifs and unknowns about this kind of configuration of landing, and

also what the probability of having to do a unaugmented landing would be, anyway, it's kind
159

of interesting, the nose kind of wanders around in pitch roll and directionally. I should say

in pitch and directional, roll actually, being able to maintain wings level, and make small

corrections, probably is the easier of the 3 axis to control, but you are getting excursions in

yaw, and some pretty major excursion in pitch at times. Visual... we did it in visual

conditions in the simulator, and as we got down close, just focus in the attention on the

runway, and trying to get the lineup and do the touchdown, and not paying as much

attention to the localizer and glideslope, it's the technique that I used. One thing that, that I

noticed close to the ground is, I seem to pick up some pretty good descent rates and at least

my perception was that the back side characteristics were very noticeable in that, a couple

times I pulled back on the controller to try to bring the flight path vector up, and I really

didn't get the response I wanted to until I added some power in there. Basically, we kind of

crashed in the box, I guess, we landed with 12.6 ft per second down, which is pretty hard,

and we had a max bank angle below 50 ft of 5.3 degrees, which was only adequate. I would

have been very apprehensive in the later portion of the approach, we've got some oscillations,

I don't know that I'd really call them PIO's, because I'm not... I'm sure I excited them, but it

seemed like the airplane was really doing it on it's own, not a really a factor with me

coupling it up, but there were a couple good excursions of gamma in the nose down

direction, and again, thinking of gamma, kind of as attitude, because you know, we're flying

gamma, where normally we'd be flying attitude, it becomes a real issue in my mind of not

only touching down hard, but I was kind of wondering if we might touchdown on the nose

wheel. Although, I think in retrospect, we probably had a fair margin with the waterline up

above the horizon, but anyway a little galloping pitch action that we got with a couple

oscillations down close to the ground, would not be comforting in a real airplane at all,

anyway, that's about it. (Special Task not crossreferenced.)
160

Task 7211 Flaperon Hardover during takeoff

Pilot A

Task 7211 Flaperon Hardover during takeoff 17 Jan 97; Runs 4-6

The effect of the flaperon hardover, which occurs right at... for just after rotation is just a

slight perturbation of roll, and it's probably less than 5 degrees of bank, and lateral direction

Cooper Harper, since we're in desired performance, I'd give it a 3, and pitch control a 2.

There's very little, it's hardly... the hardover is almost not noticeable, it's almost

indistinguishable between... as from just normal turbulence through windsheer.

Pilot B

Task 7211 Flaperon Hardover during takeoff 09 Jan 97; Runs 40-42

Block 5 - Failures Summary very similar to what I've seen before, it's a relatively difficult

task, but it's certainly do-able. The difficulty is there because of the metrics that the type

parameters, probably the most critical one is in rotation and it's the pitch rate, deviation from

pitch rate. Which having said that, is not in here is it. Apparently we have different metrics

on the score card than we have on the actual card. Looking at the actual metrics that are in

the card, I think the only one that's critical here is bank angle control and that's due

undoubtedly to the flap around hard over. The system is apparently able to keep out...take

out the residual moment that you get a transient there where you're getting some bank angle

deviations that exceed on occasion 5 degrees. I believe in all cases they were less than 10, I

didn't get anything outside the adequate bound. The rest of it looks do-able. We are, by the

way, getting some motion spikes here just sitting here. Okay, in longitudinal, HQR; it's

controllable, adequate, I think deficiencies probably were an improvement, this is level 2, I'm

going to give it a HQR of 4, desired performance requires moderate pilot compensation, and

lateral directional, same thing, well maybe not the same thing, controllable, adequate, I think

deficiencies warrant improvement. This is another one where I would love to give it a 4.5,

I'm going to give it a 4, desired performance requires moderate pilot compensation, HQR's a

4 piece in longitudinal and lateral directional. That concludes my comments.

Pilot C

Task 7211 Flaperon Hardover during takeoff 16 Jan 97; Runs 32-34

Well, let's do the pitch first. Is adequate performance obtainable, tolerable pilot work load?

In general, yes, yeah, yeah, it's a yes on that. Is it satisfactory without improvement? No, and

getting even adequate performance due to the lat-dir problem, and not being able to

concentrate very much on the pitch, I'm going to give that a 6. I've got the adequate

performance, usually, but it was taking, all the...everything that I had available after the lat.

dir. problem was taken care of, was used...had to be used on the pitch phase. So, 6 for

longitudinal on that, and when we go to lat-dir; is it controllable? yes, adequate performance,

tolerable pilot work load, and I'm going to say no on that, due to the sensi...or the

importance of keeping the wings level to such a fine tolerance. Boy, somewhere through

there if you're not really working the lat-dir, you're going to touch a wing tip, which is

exceeding the limitation, and so I would say that that is considerable pilot compensation

required to keep from touch the wing tip, for another words for control, 8 for the lat-dir, so,

6 and 8.
161

Pilot D

Task 7211 Flaperon Hardover during Takeoff

Not performed by this pilot.

Pilot E

Task 7211 Flaperon Hardover during takeoff 31 Jan 97; Runs 8-9

The only evidence of a hardover is a little bit a sensitivity in roll at the hardover. You tend to

get just a little bit of wing walking. Just a rocks back and forth a couple of degrees. You get

this feeling of a very sensitive lateral axis. Also there is a feeling, in the motion base, there is

a feeling of kinda a loss of lift. Almost like when you're stalled. There is just that uneasy

seat of the pants feeling that you don't have the lift you want. I think you've obviously lost

some lift with that hardover and the motion base does a good job of at least conveying that

kind of uneasiness in the pit of you're stomack. So I think that's kind of interesting. At any

rate maintains desired criteria both laterally and longitudinally was not a problem although it

certainly does take pilot in the loop effort. So for longitudinal rating controllable yes,

adequate performance was attainable yes, satisfactory without improvement I would say yes,

Cooper Harper of 3 minimum pilot compensation being the main characteristic there. No

real tendency for coupling in the pitch axis. I didn't see any PIO or lack of pitch

insensitivity or oversensitivity. So it wouldn't seem to be a problem. Laterally controllable

yes, adequate yes, satisfactory no. Cooper Harper of 4 mainly for that little bit of roll at the

failure where you do get that roll ratcheting at the failure. That does take a little bit of

compensation there and so still desired but probably level 2 on that.

Pilot F

Task 7211 Flaperon Hardover during takeoff

Not performed by this pilot.
162

Task 7212 Elevator Hardover (TE down) during takeoff

Pilot A

Task 7212 Elevator Hardover (TE down) during takeoff 17 Jan 97; Runs 8-10

Cooper Harper for lateral directional, I'll give it a 2, and for pitch, let's go through the tree

here, it's controllable, is adequate performance obtainable with tolerable pilot work load? I'd

say it cannot obtain adequate performance, so, we have level 3, deficiencies require

improvement, and not obtainable controllability not a factor, give it a 7. During these tests,

there is a large split in the commanded versus actual gamma, and I guess that's one cue that

something is wrong with the control system, and it might be one of your first clues that

something is wrong, and I was able to blend the commanded versus actual, and to obtain

whatever flight path was possible, you kind of, actually it amounts to giving you sort of a

status of how well the fly by wire is performing, and that gives you, I think gives you a little

bit of a feedback, on relative to what you're doing, and how well the airplane can do what

you ask it to do.

Pilot B

Task 7212 Elevator Hardover (TE down) during takeoff 09 Jan 97; Runs 45-47

Summary that control is an issue here, there...you're right on the edge, saturating elevator,

and there are times when pitch rate doesn't want to go positive on you, so, control is an

issue, there is an PIO tendency when that happens because you're saturating the control, and

then finally as airspeed is changing it does take an effect and you have to come back down

again. I got into a bit of a phugoid or a low frequency oscillation with this so, this is a

problem. Adequate performance as defined by the card, is not achievable in longitudinally

despite maximum effort in terms of tracking the commanded...tracking the desired, I should

say flight path angle. From the safety standpoint, I'm not overly concerned about that, I

think we've got the metrics a little bit too tight for this. However, there is a design issue

associated with the difference between the commanded and the actual gamma on the display.

There is such a wide split, that if the pilot focuses on the commanded gamma, instead of the

actual gamma, which you often would do in this phase, since you don't expect much of a

split, you can lose the fact that there is a split real quickly because it gets out of your field of

view, and in one case, on one of the practice runs, I had a descent where I thought from the

flightpath angle I should be climbing pretty quickly. So, there is a safety issue there.

Whenever you get a split like that, I think you're going to have to talk about what to do with

the display, what might be appropriate is to ignore the commanded gamma at that point, and

just go with actual gamma. We've certainly got to talk about that. Okay, longitudinal HQR;

it's controllable, there are times when control is an issue, however, I'm not ready to call it

considerable pilot compensation is required for control. This is another one where I would

like to give it half a rating if I could. I'm going to get longitudinal HQR of 7, adequate

performance not obtainable with maximum tolerable pilot compensation controllability not

in question. For lateral directional, it's controllable, it's adequate, and I'd say it's satisfactory,

minimal pilot compensation, HQR3. Obviously, the problem here is longitudinal. So, it's a 7

and a 3. That concludes my comments.

Pilot C

Task 7212 Elevator Hardover (TE down) during takeoff 16 Jan 97; Runs 36-38
163

For the lat-dir, adequate performance, tolerable, yes, satisfactory without improvement, no,

deficiencies require improvement. The performance was in the desired to adequate range,

and it's difficult to hold it real accurate, because I spent so much time against the backstop

pulling like crazy, that I'm getting inadvertent little inputs in there. I should be able to get

adequate performance consistently though, and it still was requiring considerable pilot

workloads, I'm going to give that a 5, and it's due to inceptor being against the stop, pulling

hard and not being able to make the fine adjustments in roll. Okay, now for pitch, adequate

performance tolerable, no, requires improvement, and I was not able to get adequate

performance no matter how hard I worked, so certainly that was it, but I don't think

controllability was in question, I did have to use a technique of as soon as it was in, and I

saw what was happening, was to come against the stop, but it was very natural, the display

was telling me what to do, without much question, and so I did keep pulling it right on back.

The ... one other thing, is once you start the nose down, get much of a rate going, it's almost

impossible to stop it within a reasonable period, and you end up quite a ways down. The

fact that this comes in at a 100 ft, however, you know that you're well above that, by the time

you start having any difficulty like that, and that's why I didn't think I was going to, you

know, actually lose control of it, certainly not very nice in...call that considerable, and retain

control, no, you're probably being very nice to it, but I think probably, well, I'll say 7, for the

task that we were given, which is the climb out. I wouldn't want to be close to the ground

when it happened, but that's not the task, so, for this task, where it happens at a 100 ft, I'll

give it a 7.

Pilot D

Task 7212 Elevator Hardover (TE down) during takeoff 09 Jan 97; Run 66

During the actual takeoff procedure itself, I'm having essentially identical performance and

problems that I had during the takeoff cards, so, I'm not going to let that influence the pilot

ratings here, after the failure at a 100 ft, again, we've got this problem with the display, really

need to work on this thing, so, that when the split between the actual and the commanded

exceeds something, it reversed to some other kind of control system or something, if I didn't

revert to theta control, I could drive myself into a divergent PIO. I'm going to give it a pilot

rating of longitudinally 8, and laterally 4.

Pilot E

Task 7212 Elevator Hardover (TE down) during takeoff 31 Jan 97; Runs 11-12

Not a very difficult task. We had somewhat similar problems initially on getting the pitch

attitude on rotation which seemed a lot harder a lot more difficult to meet desired on this

card than on 7211 for some reason. I was very very in the last two or the two data ones, very

high gain and tried to stick very very closely to the rotation guidance. In fact I was slightly

even above the rotation guidance on the last one and still did not meet the desired pitch

attitude so I think that card may have a problem with that metric there. As far as the elevator

hard over failure no lateral response whatsoever so no lateral impact. Longitudinally I

couldn't really tell anything either. It still seemed like I had good pitch response, good

control, no PIO, no difficulties to report. I figure it was a solid level one performance. For

longitudinal rating, controllable yes, adequate yes, satisfactory without improvement yes,

Cooper Harper of 3 no intolerable tendencies, no PIO, no problems. For the lateral rating,

controllable yes, adequate yes, satisfactory yes. For a 3 also, didn't notice any of the little

roll ratcheting that I noticed on 7211.
164

Pilot F

Task 7212 Elevator Hardover (TE down) during takeoff 23 Jan 97; Run 92

Again, you know, as far as the task, I guess the way I'm going to set this is, is we're

expecting it, we know it's going to happen the minute we get the master caution light. We

call for the flaps when you set the flaps. Again, controllability, it's very uncomfortable

putting in a big pitch command, and getting a big split, and not being able to arrest the flight

path vector. This would be very scary to be in a airplane. I guess, lateral control suffers a

little bit, just because we're paying so much attention to pitch. I guess, after cutback we were

able to just barely get back up to the horizon, but I released a little bit on backpressure on

the stick during the cutback trying to follow the cue with the actual flight path vector, and I

should've never done that. That got the actual flight path vector way, way low, below the

horizon, it took forever to get it back up, I just... I'm very uncomfortable with the control

margins that the pilot has during this task. Again, as the ground rules that we're expecting

this to happen, we know it's going to happen, we know what the performance is going to be

like, and we can call for flaps immediately, I'm going to say it is controllable, is adequate

performance obtainable with a tolerable pilot work load? Again, under the guidelines I guess

or the ground rules that I'm kind of considering for this test, I'm going to answer yes to that.

Is it satisfactory without improvement? And the answer is no. This is... in my opinion is,

slightly better than the approach case, and I would probably tend to give it a 5 1/2, if we

were giving half ratings. To get adequate performance, I guess, it's not extensive, but it is

definitely considerable, I really think it's somewhere in between those two, in my mind at

least, I'll go ahead and... just because it is better than the other task, I'll give it a 5, but I will

caveat that by saying that if you take into account, you know, that this could be in the

weather, that there has to be some type of crew recognition time, a time for the crew to

respond, I don't think it's acceptable, and on both this and the previous task, if I was doing

this in the real airplane, and I was really surprised late one night when this happened, it

would scare the shit out me if I lived through it, so, maybe I shouldn't of said that, but, it

would... I don't think either one of these would be a good thing, so, all right. Yeah 5 lateral.
165

Task 7252 Elevator Hardover (TE down) during landing

Pilot A

Task 7252 Elevator Hardover (TE down) during landing 17 Jan 97; Runs 13-16

Nose down, full nose down elevator on approach, reconfiguring to toga, or go-around flap

setting, at about 300 or 250 ft. Results are to some degree erratic, however, if you don't

require any large pitch inputs for whatever reason, the landing can be adequate and close to

the box with a reasonable sink rate, however, if any, for any reason, a large pitch input is

required, and stops on the stabilizer are encountered for any extended period of time, then

the results are not so good. High sink rates are possible, so the results are pretty much a

question of how lucky you are on this... on the circumstances, however, consistency wise,

under these circumstances, we're looking at a Cooper Harper of, on longitudinal, well, let's

just go look at the tree here, it's controllable, well, that's questionable, I suppose that under

average conditions for this test, it probably is, is adequate performance obtainable with

tolerable pilot work load, were we getting... I guess, were we getting adequate performance?

Probably on average, yes, however, is it satisfactory without improvement? Well, no, I guess

that would vary between a 6 and 7. Major deficiencies, I like to... controllability, not in

question, that might be an 8. I guess I'll give it a 7 in longitudinal, and lateral directional, I'll

give it a 3.

Pilot B

Task 7252 Elevator Hardover (TE down) during landing 09 Jan 97; Runs 52-54

We changed the procedures a little bit because we were crashing the motion system

routinely, that being we need to disconnect the auto throttle, I guess you can set that in the

IC file or do it manually. We chose to do it manually in the interest of time in conjunction

with the elevator or with the flap reposition that is. Once we did that, and I had enough

practice in there, the task was do-able. Requires a lot of skill I think to do it, you're really

working to keep control. Yeah, this is kind of an interesting one longitudinally, because you

can get to adequate performance, but it's not fair to say controllability is not in question.

There is a pronounced PIO tendency here, and I think that you're...I'm going to lean in that

direction because you're really fighting to keep control. With a caveat that there is a learning

curve, and I was getting better at it, and with time I could probably get it down to where

control is not an issue, but I don't think that happened in the time that we did it. So,

longitudinal; it's controllable, adequate performance is not attainable, with a tolerable work

load, considerable pilot compensation is required for control, HQR8. Lateral directional

doesn't seem to be a big problem, it's controllable, adequate, and satisfactory, minimal pilot

compensation for desired performance, HQR3. I didn't see a problem with that. So, it's an 8

and a 3. That concludes my comments

Pilot C

Task 7252 Elevator Hardover (TE down) during landing 16 Jan 97; Run 42

This makes for a very easy run, it was not controllable, I think I crashed it 3 or 4 times out

of 4, everytime anyway, and it's very easy to get things...mixing things up, but it appeared

that once I made a nose down input of any flavor at all, then full aft, I couldn't, and I didn't

know what to do with the throttle, because the command flight path marker was off the top,

and so, of course I have no delta velocity right there, but I don't think that would of made a
166

nickels worth of difference, I think I was going to crash it no matter what, and so obviously,

10 for longitudinal, it probably could have been a 10 for lat-dir, but I don't know that, the

longitudinal so overwhelmed that it was a 10 in longitudinal. I'm sure I was out of bank

angle limits, and once I was full aft like that, I wasn't able to pick up a wing, so I'll give it a

10 for both, but it's a mood point, you know, you've got a 10 in one, and that's a 10.

Pilot D

Task 7252 Elevator Hardover (TE down) during landing 24 Jan 97; Runs 63-64

Okay, we made a couple of data runs there, we got them both in, but my evaluation is, is it

was just pure, blind, luck, because there is a terrible tendency to PIO in gamma brought on

by the display, you don't know which... you don't know what to fly a gamma command, you

can't fly it, and the actual gammas got so much lag in it, that you can't fly it, you just kind of

have to do it hands off, and hope that you're going to get somewhere near the runway, and I

think it was just blind luck that was doing it. Lateral, hardly any task at all, longitudinally I'm

going to give it a 8, lateral I'm going to give it a 5.

Pilot E

Task 7252 Elevator Hardover (TE down) during landing 31 Jan 97; Runs 11-12, 16-17, 21,

23

I think there is a problem here on the implementation of this task. If you initially get the

failure and you reset the flaps and add a little bit of power, I did for about 3 runs in a row,

got a huge actual gamma of pitch down almost of crashing out there at a mile short. If you

do nothing, don't touch the pitch or don't really touch the power, it pretty much comes into

almost a, my last landing was all desired, and obviously it is a huge handling qualities cliff

out there. So something is not right and we need to do a lot more looking at this. I think if

you don't mind we will hold off on my rating until we look at this some more.

Task 7252 Elevator Hardover (TE down) during landing 10 Feb 97; Runs 5-8

We are still seeing the same problem with the speed decay intermittently about every other

time we operate the speed drops off about 10 knots slow or something. Once it stabilizes

around 150 or 151 when you have to correct for that slow speed condition you tend to get

illogically a nose down response on the flight path marker, on the actual gamma. It goes

quite nose down with the attitude and the response goes quite far up so you get a big delta

between theta and gamma or a huge angle of attack. Then you kind of get out of phase. It

takes some very smooth flying to get this thing back under control. One of the metrics here;

deviation from approach airspeed says plus or minus 5 for desired and 10 for adequate, the

thing really tends to want to go fast and it tends to fly better fast so I think that metric if you

all ever redesign this task, needs to be changed, because that puts you in adequate all the

time. Everything else seems fairly nominal as far as your performance standards. Okay at

any rate, as far as the rating, laterally it's no problem. At least for the straight in, we weren't

given a lateral task. So lateral is kind of unknown. Longitudinally, there is a real problem

here. There is an intermittent big pitch down that could result in the loss of the aircraft. If

you are very smooth and don't add any power and don't take any power off it appears to fly

better but sometimes even doing that you tend to get the little pitch over. I think we need to

investigate this without the speed decelerating or correlate whether or not this pitch over or

gamma over not necessarily a pitch, because it's your gamma that dips about maybe 5 or 6

degrees. It's pretty abrupt or violent there for a transport aircraft. I shouldn't say violent but
167

pretty significant, pretty large delta. I think we need to figure out what's causing this speed

and figure out whether or not initiating this thing at 10 knots slow, whether or not that

causes this problem. So I think this task needs a whole lot more investigation. However,

longitudinal Cooper Harper rating; Is it controllable? No and rate it a 10 even though most

of the time I was able to control it. At times it was not doing what I am commanding and

therefore it is not controllable. However I believe we need to make sure we sort the task out

before we look further at it. Lateral directional; is it controllable? Yes. Is adequate

performance attainable? Yes. Is it satisfactory without improvement? Yes. Cooper Harper of

3. There is no lateral problems whatsoever and that 10 rating I really don't feel comfortable

with that but then again I don't feel comfortable by saying it is controllable until I find out

more about what is causing these really abrupt negative flight path angles, I really think we

need to look at this a lot more closely.

Pilot F

Task 7252 Elevator Hardover (TE down) during landing 23 Jan 97; Runs 85-90

I guess my initial response is, is that, I really don't like the way this works in that, I'm now

controlling the actual flight path, and I have to really lead it, I have to anticipate what I

think... how I think the actual flight path is going to respond to the commanded flight path,

and especially for the initial perturbation, when the flaps, or when the... when you initially

get the hardover, that initial response, you get a big split there, and it's... you can't... before

you come back and push the nose forward, you have to start doing that before you actually

see a response, in other words, you have to about stop the cue, and just when you stop it,

you have to reverse the command. Then as you come down lower, and the command come

together, you get the actual on the 3 degree line, and then you get your... but your

commanded still stays up about, maybe a little bit above the horizon or around the horizon

somewhere, and you have to fly like that for a while, and then you have to just kind of put

them together, and if you... you have to anticipate everything, and if you miss the

anticipation, there's really little time to correct, because you can't really go make a large

input. If you make any large inputs other than the initial one, you can get out of phase, and

kind of get into a PIO. The first data run that I did, I got all adequate, or well, adequate or

desired performance, then the second few that I did, I started trying to too tightly control the

task, and we did not get very good results out of the adequate zone, on some parameters all

of the time, and then towards the end I figured out that I was trying to control things too

tightly, rather than being patient, but just using anticipation. So anyway, coming in, is it

controllable? I'm going to answer yes to this, although I do not think that a crew could catch

this error, manually reset the flaps, and recover the airplane, VFR. I think this is beyond

what I think would be acceptable, in other words, I guess what I'm saying is, is I don't think

this is something that I would... even for a malfunction, think that would be acceptable to put

out in revenue service. I just think that, you know, we're jumping on right on resetting the

flaps here, we're not allowing any time for pilot recognition, and if we delayed on the flaps a

little bit longer, I don't know that you'd be able to recover. You also have to consider that,

you know, this is CAVU conditions, and any kind of weather conditions, I think even if you

did recognize it, immediately get the flaps reset, I'm not so sure that the results might not be

catastrophic. So, you know, the bounds of this task is; we knew it was coming, we knew

what was going to happen, we were ready to jump on it right away, and so in the context of

that, I'm going to say it's controllable, is it adequate performance obtainable with a tolerable

pilot work load? Boy, that's a hard question, and I'm looking over in the blocks for guidance

here to, it says in Number 7, is adequate performance not obtainable with maximum

tolerable pilot compensation, controllability not in question. Number 6 is adequate

performance requires extensive pilot compensation. Knowing what compensation to use, I
168

would have a tendency to go towards the 6 level, I guess, and I would have a tendency to say

it, because with extensive compensation you can... you can get adequate performance here,

and I think we've shown that with the numbers. Again, in the context of this task, which we

knew were going to happen, which were not accounted for recognition time, or anything

else, I'm going to answer yes to that. Is it satisfactory without improvement, definitely not,

and I'm going to give it a 6, but I'm going to emphasize that that's only for this specific task

that we're evaluating, if I put in some recognition time in there, or accounted for normal crew

recognition time, I'm not so sure that I could answer yes to; is it as controllable? So, you

know, there's kind of a disparity here, and I kind of feel like my rating is in error. I probably

kind of feel like it should be done in the 7 or 8 range, but if I make the jump, with the leap

of faith, if you will, that we're doing it in the context of this task, and it's okay to... you

know, know it's coming, and the minute I see the red light to call for the... you know this is

happening when the adequate and the commanded cues are already split anyway, so, if I call

it just on the red light, ask for the flaps and reset it, if I buy into that concept, then I guess I'd

rate it a 6, but anyway, we'll do a 6 both axis.
169

Task 7253 Rudder Hardover during landing

Pilot A

Task 7253 Rudder Hardover during landing 17 Jan 97; Runs 18-20

One rudder hardover at 300 ft, and we are getting desired adequate performance in general,

generally adequate, and so I'm going to say in the longitudinal axis... we're getting, how

about the... the bank and all the lateral things, those are all desired and...? Okay, I guess the

things that you're rating are not things that seem to crop up, one of the things that came...

probably the most substantial thing, is on landing there's a lot of almost full rudder required

during the roll out after touchdown, to stay on the centerline, and that's probably one of the

more significant things, as well as rudder applied during the... rudder requirement during

the approach... a certain amount of rudder, and so, I would... we're actually getting desired

performance out of this, but we would, I don't know whether it's satisfactory without

improvement, tolerable pilot work load? Yes, is it satisfactory without improvement?

Probably, no, you don't want to have hardovers, though, I give it a level 2. Let's give it lateral

directional 4, and we're getting generally adequate, adequate to desired in longitudinal, so I

guess I would tend to give it a 4 in longitudinal. Most of the problems in the longitudinal

are, have to do with the distraction, of having to deal with a rudder hardover. We did notice

on the approach, that as the instant rudder hardover comes in the commanded flight path

vector and the actual flight path vector immediately split out the instant, the hardover comes

in, seems rather coincidental, and that there's sometimes a large split, and it requires a certain

amount of jockeying to get back on the path, and the glidepath, and zero out, get down into

the proper touchdown zone, although, most of the time it was too much trouble to get

adequate performance, somewhat difficult to get in the desired box.

Pilot B

Task 7253 Rudder Hardover during landing 09 Jan 97; Runs 55-57

The hardover itself is reasonably benign, you've got enough rudder to compensate for, but

while you're concentrating on the directional axis, the longitudinal gets away, and I tend to

error on the high side, instead of erring on the low side during something like that, so,

you're correcting for that from then on, and that caused me to flow a little bit down the

runway, and I was able to get adequate on two of the three, and I was a little bit long for

adequate on one of them. So, I'm working hard, but adequate performance is achievable,

control wasn't really in a question...in question. Longitudinal is where it suffers because

that's the critical axis for this runway box, but it's really...where it's happening is lateral

directional, so, it's Cooper Harper is going to be a little bit odd here as a result. Let's see,

longitudinal; it's controllable, it's adequate, I'm able to get adequate performance, and I'd call

it considerable pilot compensation, HQR5. Lateral directional, it's controllable, adequate

performance is achievable, and I think it's fair to call it moderate pilot compensation and give

it a HQR of 4. Let's see, so what did I say here, I said a 5 for longitudinal and 4 for lateral

directional. That concludes my comments.

Pilot C

Task 7253 Rudder Hardover during landing 16 Jan 97; Runs 46-48

Well, after practicing and learning what to expect and all, it was controllable, but I'd have to

say barely, I was on the edge of problems most of the time, certainly no adequate
170

performance with tolerable pilot work load, even though I was...the actual touchdowns, I was

managing to get adequate performance, that was even close to the tolerable pilot workload,

and definitely would require improvement. Every...let's talk about longitudinal, longitudinal

is very similar to what I was seeing, or was much more useable, and useful, able to control it.

The pitch itself, I probably should start with that one, it was, I'd say satisfactory without

improvement, and give it my usual 6 or so for the longitudinal, it was getting adequate

performance, and the pitch itself wasn't too bad. The reason I was getting some of the

dispersion, is I was having to just freeze the controls due to a lat-dir problem, and thus the

longitudinal part suffered, but the actual flare and so on, there was, you know, it's kind of

difficult to see that while you're trying to stay alive keeping the wings level, but I'd give

the...a longitudinal a 6, the lateral-directional is the one that I my first, very initial comment

was about, is it controllable, yes, but barely adequate performance, no, and I was able to keep

from exceeding the limitation on this specific task, but that was at least intense pilot

compensation, and every time I started to mix up a little bit with the aileron, and do anything

even remotely fast, in other words, just almost moderate, I would start to get into a PIO, and

the only thing I could do is freeze the stick, and then start the task from that point, and on

one of them, I was getting a increasing oscillations, it felt like just before touchdown I was

lucky to be that low, it's really pretty grim, and the other thing I noticed, on the practice runs

in particular, I wasn't hawking the sideslip indication nearly close enough, and once you get

that sideslip way out there, and then start making large corrections, rudder and aileron, pretty

soon you get into a PIO that does go absolutely uncontrollable, and so it's very imperative

that you not let the sideslip get away from you, because once you do, it is a very devil to get

in. This task, I think, if you lose any...do any of these things close to the ground, I would

want to go around, would be my first indication, and then I'd rather fight the problem all the

way around the pattern I think, then trying to salvage a pass like that, because it is much, the

odds of it being successful aren't very good, and the lateral-directional rating was a 9. I took

extensive...I think that's what it is, extensive pilot compensation, to keep from exceeding the

limitation.

Pilot D

Task 7253 Rudder Hardover during Landing

Not performed by this pilot.

Pilot E

Task 7253 Rudder Hardover during landing 10 Feb 97; Runs 11-13

I tried as much as I could in the short time we had to do the task as we continued on down

to put in some rudder doublets and mess around with the controls and see if there were any

problems. The directional response is just slowed somewhat by the loss of one rudder panel

and see if it was hard to do much in the directional axis to get you into trouble. The speed

decay at operate is still there on this one. Get you down to about 151 knots sustained and

that's a problem. Also the feed forward gains that prevent you from ballooning on

glideslope in close are not active so you have a real problem holding the thing on glideslope.

There is a steady delta between actual and commanded gamma which keeps the ghost

gamma visible pretty much from 200 ft all the way down and well into the flare. So if we

ever redo this task we will probably want to fix that. Longitudinally, I tend to be more or

less fairly close on the three data runs. Two of them... one of them in the box, one of them

close to the box and one of them a little long and I got pretty much adequate H dot so it was

pretty much adequate type performance. So for longitudinal rating for the landing; Is it
171

controllable? Yes it is. Is adequate performance attainable? Yes it is. Is it satisfactory without

improvement? No. Adequate performance requires considerable compensation. Be a Cooper

Harper 5 based on performance and once again the dynamic ground effects really made it

very difficult to predict the response in the flare. Laterally, I met the desired criteria all the

time even with the... I was always within the 10 ft parameters even with the rudder failure.

So controllable, yes, adequate, yes, satisfactory, no. I'll rate it a 4. It does take moderate

compensation to meet desired performance.

Pilot F

Task 7253 Rudder Hardover during landing

Not performed by this pilot.
172

Task 7254 Rudder Hardover during landing rollout

Pilot A

Task 7254 Rudder Hardover during landing rollout 17 Jan 97; Run 22

It's a full left rudder hardover at touchdown, and it appears as though it is... seems

survivable, and lowering the nose helps getting on the brakes, using the nose wheel steering,

however, you will not remain on the runway, we go roughly two to three hundred feet off the

runway, and although, it appears to be survivable, assuming that there's nothing... no other

airplanes you're going to take out, and that's the only comments I have.

Pilot B

Task 7254 Rudder Hardover during landing rollout 09 Jan 97; Runs 63-64

Technically this...the failures being introduced in a flight phase where you don't have

adequate control power to compensate for the failure, because you're introducing it when

your nose is in the air, and in order to get authority you're going to have to change the flight

phase, you're going to have to lower the nose to the runway, so, I think technically this is a

level 1 failure. This is one of the ones that, yeah, you can control it and we were able to do it

without crashing, but after practice and after understanding what it was that I had, but you

introduce this to a pilot without a thorough brief on what's going on and you're probably

going to lose the airplane, so, I think this is definitely a level 1, and I've been told we don't

need to rate it, but controllability is definitely an issue here, and I'd say from a certification

standpoint, control is going to be lost at some point in this maneuver. If I had to rate it to

just about any reasonable criteria, it would be an HQR of 10, for longitudinal, or for lateral

directional rather, for longitudinal it's not a factor, the...nose lowering, is okay, and the

landing as much as we've seen before. So, that concludes my comments.

Pilot C

Task 7254 Rudder Hardover during landing rollout 16 Jan 97

That would be level 3, if that happens to somebody for real, you're going off the runway,

would be my guess, because just saying rudder hardover, you got to know which one right

away, and in order to get enough directional control, you have to put the nose down, you

have to put it down so fast, you're really going to drive it down, you break something just

doing that, on the hand, if you don't put it down that fast, you're going to go off the runway,

so, one way or the other, you're going have one bad news ride there, and again, having that

happen to you right at touchdown would likely be worse case, if it were earlier, you could go

around and have it organized, if it happened later, you probably already have the nose

somewhere near the runway anyway, and it might even be better, but right at touchdown, that

definitely would be a level 3, and I think you're going to lose that. Just in a side one, I did

some landings here, with no motion, I was desired up and down the line, and I have no

explanation for that.

Pilot D

Task 7254 Rudder Hardover during landing rollout

Not performed by this pilot.
173

Pilot E

Task 7254 Rudder Hardover during landing rollout

Not performed by this pilot.

Pilot F

Task 7254 Rudder Hardover during landing rollout

Not performed by this pilot.
174

Task 7261 Elevator Hardover (TE up) during 2-axis upset

Pilot A

Task 7261 Elevator Hardover (TE up) during 2-axis upset 17 Jan 97; Runs 0-71

As far as the effects of the hardover, they're almost negligible, but the only thing that you

notice is the waterline moves up a couple two, or three degrees, and the flight path vector

stays right where it is, and it's virtually a hands off fault, and not a problem. Longitudinal

Cooper Harper, I think I could still give it a 3, and lateral directional a 3.

Pilot B

Task 7261 Elevator Hardover (TE up) during 2-axis upset 09 Jan 97; Runs 77-79

We accomplished the task as per the card within desired performance bounds with some

compensation at the hardover. You've got to readjust your pitch attitude, but it's nothing that

I would call moderate. So, give both longitudinal and lateral directional, it's controllable,

adequate, satisfactory, mildly unpleasant deficiencies, minimal pilot compensation, HQR3.

That's a 3 and a 3. Comments complete.

Pilot C

Task 7261 Elevator Hardover (TE up) during 2-axis upset 16 Jan 97; Runs 65-67

For lat-dir, it is satisfactory without improvement, and the lat-dir was really not a problem at

all, I think probably a 2, I hardly even had to think about that anymore. In pitch, satisfactory

without improvement, probably no, would be not, it would come to desired performance

once I learn how easy I need to pull, I did get it, but it really took a lot of compensation

watching, and very good concentration to keep from exceeding the G limit in particular.

Attitude was not a problem, and I never felt like I was...getting to ready to go into a unusual

attitude at all, it all was just the G, and without actually feeling G, it's kind of hard to track

accurately much closer than what we did. Did manage to get desired, and it was moderate

pilot compensation, 4 for pitch, so, that's longitudinal 4, lat-dir 2.

Pilot D

Task 7261 Elevator Hardover (TE up) during 2-axis upset

Not performed by this pilot.

Pilot E

Task 7261 Elevator Hardover (TE up) during 2-axis upset 10 Feb 97; Run 30

We only did two runs for these because we are getting some kind of glitch as you are make

the recovery. There is a big split between actual and commanded gamma which we don't

know why it's happening. But it is pretty much a non eventful recovery up to that point. The

initial failure causes a slight nose up of about 1.3 g nose up spike. And then that damps out

and I smoothly added power at a very smooth rate commensurate with what I want to do at

Mach 2.4 at a high altitude. We don't want to be jockeying the power too much and didn't

really didn't get any coupling with power in pitch. It took a little bit of aft stick force which
175

is interesting with the trailing edge up, I would have thought I wouldn't have had to work so

hard in the pitch axis but it took some fairly high stick forces to get the nose coming up but

about a 1.3 g recovery is what I chose to stay below the 1.5 max. I had no problem

commanding the g. I thought I could have selected whatever g was asked, I just chose about

1.3/1.35. Therefore longitudinal and lateral directionally it is no problems noted. For the

longitudinal rating; Is it controllable? Yes it is. Is adequate performance attainable? Yes it is.

Is it satisfactory? I would say Yes, rate it a 3. I tell you what I'm going to take that back. I'm

going to say it's not and rate it a 4. The reason being, you get the initial pitch up when you

have the failure and it does take a little bit of compensation to kind of recover from that. It is

a little bit of work to... you can fly the selected g but it does take a little bit of effort. Lateral

directional; Controllable? Yes. Adequate? Yes. Satisfactory? No. Also a 4. The main reason

is the continual problems we have had with the lateral axis in which it takes a little bit of

work just to hold wings level or to hold an angle of bank. It just won't hold an angle of

bank, you have to work at it. So that does make the workload a little higher than it should

be.

Pilot F

Task 7261 Elevator Hardover (TE up) during 2-axis upset

Not performed by this pilot.
176

Task 7262 Flaperon Hardover during 2-axis upset

Pilot A

Task 7262 Flaperon Hardover during 2-axis upset 17 Jan 97; Runs 73-74

In the... the asymmetry was such that, and a right turn, we would go out to about 25 degrees

of bank, and a left turn, it would bring the wings level, which makes it extremely easy, so,

we're not using any excessive bank angles, however, we're basically inadequate to desired

performance for lateral directional, and I think I could give it a 4 in lateral directional, and a

2 in the pitch axis longitudinal. It seemed to be a noticeable roll, but it is easily corrected,

and not a big problem.

Pilot B

Task 7262 Flaperon Hardover during 2-axis upset 10 Jan 97; Runs 2-4

Block 5 - Failures The hardover was to the right in all three cases, so there's a difference

between which direction I put my initial angle of bank in, if it's to the left, it helps me

recover, if it to the right it impedes recovery. The longitudinal CHR or the longitudinal task

was pretty much as before at this Mach number, you just got to pay a little bit of attention to

control and pitch attitude, and watch airspeed, and particularly you've got to watch the

unstart envelope. Lateral directional CHR was made difficult by the hardover obviously,

controlling angle of bank, particularly to the right, and the right is what's going to drive the

lateral directional CHR, longitudinal is the same in all cases. In all cases the maneuver was

possible without exceptional strength or skill, and without exceeding in D. Longitudinally

HQR, it's controllable, adequate, satisfactory, minimal pilot compensation, HQR3. Lateral

directional, it's controllable and adequate, however, I think this is more like level 2

performance, desired performance requires moderate pilot compensation, HQR4, so, in

summary the HQR's are a 3 longitudinal, and 4 lateral directional. That concludes my

comments.

Pilot C

Task 7262 Flaperon Hardover during 2-axis upset 16 Jan 97; Runs 70-72

Let's talk about pitch first, no we'll talk about lat-dir first. I would say not satisfactory

without improvement requires, or...yeah, requires improvement. It's almost two tasks,

whether you do it right to the left. When you do the left bank it's almost self-recovering,

which would make it much easier, when you do it to the right you get into a control power,

even hitting full stop was not enough to keep it in the desired, so, it was not difficult to keep

it adequate, I mean, it was fairly easy to get adequate performance, and I was always right on

the edge of...at best, I was right on the edge of desired and adequate, but consistently,

especially with the...starting with the right bank angle and this failure, adequate performance

required considerable pilot compensation, and that would be a 5 for lat-dir, and in pitch, I'm

going to say it's satisfactory without improvement, even though one time I was up in the...I

only got adequate performance, the lat-dir really, if...what little bit of extra effort it took on

the lat-dir, let the pitch get away, and it's such a fine adjustment on G without actually

feeling G, to try to track it, you have to be looking right at the gage, so, I believe...let's

see...on that, satisfactory without improvement, I'm going to say no, and give it a 4, I've got

the desired performance, but it required moderate pilot compensation, and again for the

reasons I said, so, 5 for lat-dir, and 4 for longitudinal.
177

Pilot D

Task 7262 Flaperon Hardover during 2-axis upset

Not performed by this pilot.

Pilot E

Task 7262 Flaperon Hardover during 2-axis upset 10 Feb 97; Run 32

This was not a real big problem. 3 and 6 failed and they failed to give a right roll. So when

you are in right angle of bank, you had to initially work a little bit harder to get it to roll back

to wings level. When you are in a left angle of bank, it pretty much handles the recovery for

you and no problems longitudinal recovery. No problems with overcontrolling pitch or

anything like that and once you initially counteract the roll input from the failure, it's pretty

nice to maintain wings level. Therefore for the longitudinal rating; this is basically your load

factor which you very easily able to control to within probably to within a couple

hundredths of a g. It is not a problem there. Is it controllable? Yes it is. Adequate

performance attainable? Yes it is. Is it satisfactory without improvement? Yes. I'll rate it a 3.

Laterally; controllable? Yes. Adequate? Yes. Satisfactory? No, a 4 and mainly because of the

same thing. It doesn't want to hold a particular phi. You have to work to maintain a bank

angle or wings level.

Pilot F

Task 7262 Flaperon Hardover during 2-axis upset

Not performed by this pilot.
178

Task 7286 Go-around with Autoflap failure

Pilot A

Task 7286 Go-around with Autoflap failure 17 Jan 97; Runs 76-78

This a loss of all aileron flaperon, and what do you call those other things out there, all the

trailing edge... all them trailing edge devices for roll control were lost on the go around, so,

we're down to rudder to control a bank angle, and notice that... one think I noticed was that

the deflection of the... on the go-around, the relative position of the waterline symbol, and

the flight path vector symbol, is kind of a good indicator of how much sideslip you have,

and how much rolling moments you're inducing to get the airplane rolled back, and that's

kind of helpful to have that information available to you, in this kind of circumstance. They

look moderate roll rate coming back, could be achieved by maybe one or two degrees of

sideslip. May not be so obvious if you had a large crosswind though, however, you can

probably use a sideslip indicator to help you rolling left and right, as far as the magnitude of

the sideslip, and then the... later the... insuing roll, then the sideslip comes into effect. And

so, I didn't... I had a couple of runs that were pretty much straight down the line, and didn't

require much correction, and a couple of runs that required some correction and with

judicial use of rudder, it seemed like you could keep it straight. However, so lateral Cooper

Harper, let's go through the decision tree. Is it controllable? Well, in this case yes. Is

adequate performance obtainable with tolerable pilot work load? I guess yes. Is it

satisfactory without improvement? No, and deficiencies require improvement. I think,

actually we were getting adequate performance in terms of roll basically. Okay, moderately

objectionable deficiencies I think would be a good way to describe it, requires considerable

pilot compensation, could be a 4 or a 5, basically, I want you to know what's required, taken

by surprise it could be disaster, but I'll give it a 5, and on pitch, I'll give it a 3... Cooper

Harper.

Pilot B

Task 7286 Go-around with Autoflap failure 10 Jan 97; Runs 5-7

The effect is at the trigger that you basically lose lateral control from the wing devices, and

you go to the rudder, and since you have to excite the roll mode through the Dutch roll,

you're getting into some Dutch roll, once I realized what was going on, I stopped getting in

phase with it, the first time I was in phase with it pretty good, and the apparent mode is PIO,

it's not quite that, because the mode is damped...the basic mode is damped, you just have to

completely get out of the loop, and let it damp a little bit, then you can get back in the loop

again, and it's not a problem, that's the first input after the failure that excites it. Okay, so

from the sample of an evaluation base, this...the aircraft had the ability to go around from

low altitude without contacting runway, minimum of airspeed loss, no tend...well, no

tendency to PIO, yeah, I think there is a tendency to PIO, so I...we're right there on the

boundary, desired and adequate, and that's in primarily in roll and yaw, there were no

geometry strikes. I was able to keep the performance to within adequate, but not always

within desired, so longitudinal, just the standard problems of flying the approach, it's

controllable, adequate, I think the task is a level 2 type task. Flying raw data down to 30 ft, I

think pushes you into a level 2 territory, so, I'm going to say desired performance requires

moderate pilot compensation, HQR4. Lateral directional, it's controllable and adequate,

deficiencies warrant improvement, and this is another one that's somewhere between 4 and

5. Since we got some PIO there, I'm going to push it into a five, so, lat. dir. is a 5, adequate
179

performance requires considerable pilot compensation, so the HQR's are 4 longitudinal, and

5 lateral directional. That concludes my comments.

Pilot C

Task 7286 Go-around with Autoflap failure 16 Jan 97; Runs 109-111

Well, let's talk about pitch first. Once I get sorted out whether I had throttles or not, and

things like that, that usually worked out reasonable, it's...I could get adequate performance

okay, and that is a lot of work though, and adequate performance, that's close to a 6, that's a

high gain task anyway, I may be nice to it, I'll say...I'll give it a 5 in pitch. I could get the

adequate performance, and it was at least considerable pilot compensation, and just giving

the fact that, to take an airplane around at 30 ft like that, that's a really high work load

anyway, how much extra due to handling qualities, well, I'd have to say just considerable, so,

I'll give a 5 for pitch. lat-dir, however, it's not adequate to performance obtainable, with

tolerable pilot work load, I managed to luck out and get it once, but in general, when I flew it

the way I would just normally, normally fly it, it was very close to the edge of control,

and...just...I was lucky that I didn't need a quick input any lower, I'm sure I would of done

some disastrous things, and I certainly was working hard to maintain control, and barely

successful, I'm going to say 9, that was intense pilot compensation to keep from...to keep

the bank angle from going crazy, and like I say, I could find a way with preknowledge, I

could find a way to do it, but from anything that would be a normal procedure, the control

would have been very difficult, 9 for lat-dir, and I think it was 5 for longitudinal.

Pilot D

Task 7286 Go-around with Autoflap failure

Not performed by this pilot.

Pilot E

Task 7286 Go-around with Autoflap failure 10 Feb 97; Runs 33-37

This is one with a real handling qualities cliff. If you are not very very careful with the

rudder inputs at the go-around when you have the autoflap failure, you can get into a

divergent PIO and lose control of the aircraft. I did two, the first one I lost control, the

second two I was very smooth and very small inputs. I accepted a very slight roll off and

didn't try to rapidly try to correct it and I was able to control it that way. So there is a real

handling qualities cliff there and therefore it needs to be emphasized that the comments are

more important than the ratings on this one. I met the desired criteria in roll which is

basically... Actually I would probably say I met the adequate which is plus or minus 10

degrees. Yea, I had a non divergent PIO so basically I was adequate. However you are right

on the edge there. So the rating is going to reflect what I actually did but my opinion is that

this is a very dangerous situation and it's a potential for loss of control of the aircraft. So

longitudinally; exceeded the desired but met the adequate criteria for altitude loss and a lot

of that was... I have always had a problem at the go-around finding the TOGA button and

getting the autothrottles off and also this thing really balloons in close, so you are really

fighting trying to keep on glideslope. Therefore I was a little bit late getting the autothrottles

off and then I have to get the throttles off and then the TOGA. So there's a lot of mess

going on which really negates my ability to make an optimum altitude loss recovery. Neverthe-less for that one, longitudinally; Is it controllable? Yes it was. Is adequate performance
180

attainable? Yes it is. Is it satisfactory? No. I met adequate criteria and I'm going to rate it a

Cooper Harper of 5. For the lateral one, again the caveat is, you got to do this just right not

to lose control, so... I will go ahead and rate it based on my performance. Controllable? Yes.

Adequate? Yes. Satisfactory? No. Basically met the adequate criteria which is plus or minus

10 degrees angle of bank with PIO is not divergent, I'm going to rate it as a Cooper Harper

of 6. Requires extensive compensation not to overcontrol it.

Pilot F

Task 7286 Go-around with Autoflap failure 23 Jan 97; Runs 105-107

I guess, before I forget, the first note is on one of the climb outs we saw, that as you're

accelerating, lowering the angle of attack, you get to the point where if you have like 5

degrees of right bank, you can put in full left stick, and it will just hold 5 degrees of right

bank, and if we step on the rudder, to try to roll us, we have to step in order to roll left, you'd

have to step on the right rudder, and I guess, these are two separate issues, and I realize that

this is a failure state. This failure state with the go-around, where you can get in a condition

of climbout where you could not, if you were in 5 degrees right bank, cannot roll back to

wings level, I don't think would suitable. The task here is really limited to rating the goaround task, accelerating, and for that part of the climbout, it's probably really not what we're

tasked to look at here, so, I'm going ignore that part for rating this task, because I think it's

beyond the bounds of the task. If I was rating that, when I get to the question is it

controllable? The answer would be no, and I'd have to give it a 10, because I'm getting to the

point, where I cannot, I cannot roll the airplane back to wings level. Is it adequate? Again,

ignoring that we'll answer yes, is it adequate performance obtainable with a tolerable pilot

work load, and boy this is a hard one to answer too. Where it says adequate performance...

I'm reading the qualifier for a seven (7), adequate performance not obtainable with

maximum tolerable pilot compensation, controllability not in question, well you know, that's

kind of true if you just real ginger, and make sure you don't get any bank inputs in... that's

not true. Again, I'm having a real hard time answering this yes and no question as far as

adequate performance with maximum tolerable pilot work load. I think in this case just

because, I think I'm going to say no, and I think I'm going to come in here and give it a 7 in

the lateral axis. Again, I don't like splitting Cooper Harpers, but I think I will split the

Cooper Harpers here, I think I'll give it a 7 laterally, and I think I'll answer yes

longitudinally, and come up and say is it satisfactory without improvement? I think the

answers no, because the lateral axis does have some impact on my ability to perform the

pitch function, also because of the split and the cues that we saw, mostly we did get desired

in the last time, but it's hard to get the pitch capture task. Some of the... let me think about

that for a second. I guess I'm going to say no, and I'm going to give it a 4 for pitch. This is

kind of a post flight from this session, I guess, just a couple brief comments; One, realizing

that there were malfunctions throughout there, but even without the malfunctions throughout

the evaluation, it seems to me like the flare control is a little bit inconsistent, because

sometimes I can put the... and we noticed the big inconsistency going from zero wind to

crosswind, I mean to a headwind on the circling approach, I believe, but my perception at

least is, is sometimes I can put the flight path vector one... you know, just touching the

horizon line just below, but touching the horizon line, and I'll get a descent rate, and on other

times it seems like I just level off and float down the runway, and there's no split cue, but I'm

trying to a very fine controlled task, and I wouldn't think that for those very small inputs

down there, that I should be getting perturbations between commanded and actual, unless

that's a function of ground effect, and anyway I think that needs to further investigated. I

just wanted to reiterate a couple things, on the elevator hardover on takeoff, and on landing,

although we can do those tasks as mentioned, the crew recognition would have to be
181

considered, and overall controllability would have to be considered. It's really hard trying to

anticipate with those large splits, and I think those need improvement. The flaperon loss roll

control, I think we need to look at the fact that at zero alpha, right rudder would cause a left

roll, and also that I run out of total roll control authority at zero alpha on the climbout, where

if I'm having 5 degrees of bank set, and I use full stick, I can't roll to wings level. The

decrab... oh also, with the flaperon you can't use a steady heading sideslip crosswind

landing type control from 200 ft, and that's... or am I confusing those. Okay, we did the...

but now what... was that with the... Okay, just... I think I got what I was saying was

confused here. The... all flaps locked at 30 degrees takeoff... or go around case, is a case

where we saw the rudder and roll, right rudder causing left roll, and the fact that at zero

degrees alpha, and also at zero degrees alpha, that if you set 5 degrees bank, or if you have 5

degrees of bank, you cannot roll back to wings level with full stick, and then you had to use

the 50 ft decrab on the flaperon failure, which caused you to lose 75 percent of your roll

authority, and on that one, you couldn't do the... the crosswind controls from 200 ft down,

you had to do the 50 ft decrab, and then you also had to, I guess, make sure that once you

did the decrab, you didn't float, or you would get the roll off, and again all of those, I think,

need to be assessed, but I don't think they'd really be suitable, and anyway, just to carry over

from one of the other day's landings, the 50 ft decrab, I really should think that even with the

high winds, the 35 knot winds, you should have the capability to do a 50 ft decrab with this

airplane. Anyway, that's it.
182

Task 7291 Loss of 75% Roll Control during landing w/X-wind

Pilot A

Task 7291 Loss of 75% Roll Control during landing w/X-wind 17 Jan 97; Runs 26-30

Cooper Harper on the longitudinal, I think we were getting alternating desired and adequate,

or was it we occasionally had inadequate too, didn't we? Hard sink rates, high sink rates. So,

on average I would guess, its says back there, without improvement, well, a little bit

annoying. I think the sink rate problems, with high sink rate, were due to primarily the... on

my own part not realizing that with a strong crosswind, as you push in rudder, an other wise

reasonable landing can be made a very hard landing, because if a lot of thrust is not added,

in proportion to the amount of rudder that's used, and so that's basically what gave the hard

landings. After I became accustomed to adding the proper amount of thrust for the

crosswind condition, that went away, so I think taking that into account, the... I think we can

say we were somewhere between a 4 and a 3, adequate and desired on the pitch control, and

I don't think the pitch control was really affected all that much in terms of the... this

particular failure. I guess I'll give it a 4 on... in terms of pitch and autothrottle would help

under these circumstances, autothrottle to touch down would add the amount of thrust that

would be required to arrest your rate descent so you could concentrate then on, on the task

of a normal flare. The lateral directional control, we got a wing tip strike on occasion, but

generally it could get adequate, or varying between adequate and desired after a reasonable

amount of practice, and although, occasionally if large... large inputs are made for whatever

reason, then it goes quickly to a 10. So it's... you're just right on the edge of a problem, so, I

guess I'll just make the comment that, I guess I'll give it a 5, but with the comment, that if

large control inputs are made, they have to be made on this... on our approach for whatever

reason, then the rate limiting, the control surface limiting occur to the point where they can

create a disaster. But it's a matter of circumstances, and on the particular approach, heavy

turbulence could present a major problem.

Pilot B

Task 7291 Loss of 75% Roll Control during landing w/X-wind 09 Jan 97; Runs 67-69

15 Knot crosswind landing, Loss of 75% Roll Control during landing w/X-wind. Task was

do-able with adequate and desired performance in general. Bank angle suffered a little bit on

occasion, let's see, and the wide distance suffered a little bit on occasion. I found that

Procedure A was a whole lot easier than Procedure B in the practice with motion off, so we

didn't do any Procedure B with motion on, and that's different than what I found without the

failure so, there may be an issue of technique here with the failure, but it's certainly a level

two type failure. The work load goes up considerably, but it's not catastrophic, it's entirely

do-able. Longitudinal HQR; it's controllable, and adequate, and adequate performance

requires considerable pilot compensation, HQR5. This is another one where I might give it

between 4 and 5, but I feel like I'm working hard enough and I'll call it a 5 for longitudinal.

For lateral directional, same thing, controllable, adequate, satisfactory, but I'm working, and

HQR of 5 as well, for the same reasons. So, 5 and a 5. That concludes my comments.

Pilot C

Task 7291 Loss of 75% Roll Control during landing w/X-wind 16 Jan 97; Runs 56-59
183

Let's do the longitudinal first, that's easy, yeah, all those things are going to be up

to...satisfactory without improvement, I was getting some desired in there with fair amount

of work, but I was getting desired in longitudinal also, so I bring that up to a 4, and lat. dir.,

is it controllable, boy, this is just barely with tons of compensation, I could definitely, would

require improvement. The problem is once you get a bank angle in on the ground, I would

just go right against the stop, trying to bring the wings level, and whether it came back or

not, as almost happened, is luck of the draw, so, I'm going to give that a 9, and...because I

couldn't keep it in control enough to keep from touching the wing tip without a huge amount

of compensation on it, so 9 for lat-dir

Pilot D

Task 7291 Loss of 75% Roll Control during Landing w/X-wind

Not performed by this pilot.

Pilot E

Task 7291 Loss of 75% Roll Control during landing w/Crosswind 10 Feb 97; Runs 18-20

Task 7291, 15 knot crosswind approach and landing, 75% roll loss, card 60. This is not a

good task either. The 200 ft forward sideslip technique... what happens is you have with that

rudder coming in in a crosswind, you do start to get some roll moments on the aircraft and

when you try to oppose them you rate limit and get into a big PIO. You just can't control it,

had two geometry strikes. So I elected the 50 ft decrab method and what happens on that

one is you just touch down right before the thing gets out of control. I had roll PIO on three

of the four approaches I did with that technique, including the practice ones and was saved

by the runway. So this was not good at all. For the longitudinal rating, is it controllable?

Marginally yes. Is adequate performance attainable? Well I got adequate performance on all

of them but I'm going to say no because I want to rate it, deficiencies do require

improvement and I'm going to rate it a 9. Intense pilot compensation is required to retain

control. Literally if I had flared any higher than 50 ft I think probably on one or two of

those, I would of had a geometry strike and a divergent roll PIO. So, obviously you're just

on the hairy edge on that one and actually there is no a whole lot the pilot can do even

though you are trying real hard. It is a question of being right there. Any kind of gust or

anything else, I think you would lose control and get a strike. That would be.... I should be

talking laterally. The longitudinal rating, let me go back over that, scratch that longitudinal

rating. Is it controllable? Yes is it. Is adequate performance attainable? Yes it is. Is it

satisfactory without improvement? No. I pretty much met adequate longitudinal

performance criteria. Pretty much in the box. Maybe just a little firm one time when I

wasn't... so it was borderline desired/adequate. So I would say; is it satisfactory without

improvement? No it is not. Deficiencies do require improvement, adequate performance

requires considerable pilot compensation, a 5. For the lateral rating, Is it controllable? Yes,

marginally. Is adequate performance attainable? Yes it is but controllability is in question

and therefore it is going to have to be level 3. And I'm actual going to change that and rate it

a Cooper Harper of 8. Considerable pilot compensation is required to maintain control and

basically you can just not allow any kind of rolling moment to get started because you can't

stop it, so you have to anticipate rolling inputs and correct them right away. And the other

thing you have to do is maybe even minimize the flare. You may even have to kinda drop the

nose and get it to land because you can not overpower that rolling moment.

Pilot F
184

Task 7291 Loss of 75% Roll Control during landing w/Crosswind 23 Jan 97; Runs 98-101

We found out during the practice runs that you can't do the forward slip from 200 ft, so you

have to decrab at 50 ft. We also found out during the practice runs, and one of the data runs,

that if you decrab at 50 ft, and then float down the runway that you're gonna die, well maybe

not die, but it's not a good thing. Anyway, again, by the time you would get this, and get the

recognition, I think it would be a little late for the pilot to make the analysis at that point, that

oh yeah, I have to decrab, and oh by the way, if I decrab and I float, I'm going to lose, or I'm

going to end up not having enough roll control authority to continue landing the airplane,

and I also think that it's not, again... I don't think it would be suitable to have an airplane

where you have to decrab at 50 ft, and you have to be on the runway within X amount of

time, or you're going to lose... run out of roll control authority. So, given all that as it is, I'm

just going to go in and rate the task as flown with the decrab at 50 ft, just consider that, I

guess what I'm saying is, is that's a compensation, you have that in the back of your mind, I

think it's unsuitable compensation, but if I'm just rating it as far as how extensive the

compensation is, the suitability of that compensation, I guess, isn't directly relevant to the

ratings, so, given that I don't think the compensation is really suitable, I'm going to ignore

the suitability and just look at the extensiveness of the compensation. So, is it controllable?

Yes, adequate performance obtainable with a tolerable pilot workload, and I guess, here quite

easily I could answer no, if I took in crew recognition, weather, and also the fact that yet, one

of the compensations you have, is that once you decrab, you have to make sure you get on

the ground pretty expeditiously. I'll ignore that though and answer yes. Is it satisfactory

without improvement? No, and I guess in question is, how much compensation is there.

Adequate performance requires considerable or extensive compensation, and I guess I'm

going to say extensive compensation, I'm going to go with a 6, just note that if, if you

consider the idea of that, that if you float, and the compensation of having to get on the

ground is not suitable, and that's not one you can use, you could easily answer no to the

controllable question. So anyway, that's that. Yeah, I'm sorry, we'll do 6 and 6 both axis,

again you know, certainly it's a roll control problem here, and certainly you could probably

be in... again, on how you bounded the task, you could actually be in level 3 or even in the

10 range for lateral control, but it's really so tied together with the task that you're doing

here, I'm just going to stick with a 6 and a 6 for the two of them, plus the bounds that we

talked about.
185

Task 7292 Flaperon Hardover during landing w/X-wind

Pilot A

Task 7292 Flaperon Hardover during landing w/X-wind 17 Jan 97; Runs 32-35

It's all adequate and desired. With a hardover flaperon and with crosswinds from the left, we

seem to get a wing tip after touchdown during the V rotation, and just after the V rotation,

and however, from the crosswinds, from the right... the left... we get no wing tip strike, so if

there's a favorable crosswind direction and an unfavorable direction, it's a wing tip strike,

however, the adequate to desired performance can be obtained in terms of the approach and

the touchdown. I guess I would have to rate the lateral directional, they have a major

deficiency, it's... I can't say that it's controllable in the one crosswind direction, so I'd have to

give it a 10, however, if the proper runway is used for the proper crosswind, it could be as

high as a 3, without any major deficiencies, so it depends on the crosswind direction for

lateral directional Cooper Harper. Longitudinal Cooper Harper, looks like we were in the

adequate to desired range, I would give it a 3.

Pilot B

Task 7292 Flaperon Hardover during landing w/X-wind 09 Jan 97; Runs 74-76

General after the practice, I was able to get it within desired and adequate performance. I'm

deliberately reducing input, so to avoid lateral PIO, there is a pronounced tendency for

lateral PIO. In fact, on the last one I got into a little bit of that even after touchdown. We're

also only able to do this do to the moments encountered from the crosswind from the righthand side, you do it from the left, you'll get a wing strike on the right hand side after

touchdown. Longitudinal HQR; it is controllable with a lot of work, and adequate

performance is attainable, however, the tolerable work load, I think here, is the issue, there's a

considerable amount of work load to maintain adequate performance, and I'd say

considerable pilot compensation is required for control, make this the lateral directional,

because these arguments apply to the lateral directional axis, so, the lat-dir is HQR of 8.

Longitudinal; it's controllable, adequate, I think it's fair to say that desired performance

requires moderate pilot compensation, HQR of 4. It's almost...I'm almost tempted to make it

a 5 here, but it's close enough that I'll give it the benefit of the doubt, and call a 4. So,

longitudinal is a 4, lateral directional is an 8. That concludes my comments.

Pilot C

Task 7292 Flaperon Hardover during landing w/X-wind 16 Jan 97; Runs 60-62

Ten. No question, as soon as it fails and it starts to do bank angles, and I try to make any

corrections at all complete, divergent PIO, and when I just let, I said okay, I'm going to let it

drift and settle down, and then try to sneak it back, and in doing that I didn't have time to

even line up, and so to hurry it along, next thing I know, it's back into PIO, it's a ten as far as

I'm concerned, and that's lat-dir, and pitch is no different than before, so, I don't know what

were those, as little as I saw, it was probably a 4, I think it was, something like that. Rather

academic point.

Pilot D

Task 7292 Flaperon Hardover during landing w/X-wind 24 Jan 97; Runs 58-60
186

Really the failure itself is pretty innocuous, the aircraft recovers very nicely, but for some

reason, it apparently is doing something to control system, my tendency to PIO laterally on

this particular control system is aggravated immensely when this failure is in, and I'm

getting roll PIO's, essentially I have to let go of the stick laterally to keep the thing under

control, and if I had let go of it at the right step, we make it, if I don't, we get a geometry

strike. Pilot rating longitudinally is 7, but the lateral is an 8.

Pilot E

Task 7292 Flaperon Hardover during landing w/Crosswind 10 Feb 97; Runs 25-28

This is task 7292; The 15 knot crosswind with a Flaperon Hardover. The flaperon hardover

is attempting to roll you to the right and there is a big difference between a right crosswind

and a left crosswind as far as controllability. With the right crosswind and I'm essentially

going to rate it for the right crosswind but give you a rating also for the left crosswind. I

only recorded against the right cross wind. The right crosswind, you initially get a rolling

moment to the right, if I make an aggressive input to the level the wings which you would do

if you were normally flying an approach and you get a roll upset, not knowing whether it's

wake vortex induced or turbulence, whatever. The pilot typically will make a very aggressive

move to stop the roll and go wings level. If you do that, you get into a pretty significant rate

limited PIO which it is difficult to get out of. I actually had to physically get out of the loop

and then smoothly get back into the loop to retain control. So learning from that, I made a

very smooth small amplitude correction to the initial upset and that worked out fine by being

very very careful and making very small, smooth roll inputs. For the rating now with the

right crosswind with the flaperon failure that gives you a right rolling moment. The

longitudinal rating basically pretty much desired performance so controllable? Yes,

adequate? Yes, satisfactory? I'm going to say yes and rate it a Cooper Harper 3. It is

borderline level one/level two. You're trying to be so smooth with the roll inputs that you

really get your gains up and you are pretty much smooth in all axis. I will admit that I'm

reluctant to put in any significant control input either longitudinally or laterally in the flare

because I pretty much want to get it on the ground and I'll accept a firm touchdown in order

to land it safely. So I was fortunate that those worked out so well. Obviously had I not...

had I hit the dynamic ground effects in such a way that I was coming in firmly, I don't think

I would have made a pitch input for fear of overcontrolling it and ballooning and then

getting slower and not being on the ground. For the lateral rating; pretty much I met the

desired criteria for displacement and I don't really like the fact that you are right on the hairy

edge especially when you get that initial roll upset. So is it controllable? Yes it is. Is

adequate performance attainable? Yes it is. Is it satisfactory without improvement? No it is

not. I'll rate it a Cooper Harper of 4 for meeting desired criteria. I'll make this caveat. It is

very very close to being uncontrollable. I think being smooth you can do it repeatedly but

that has to be the foremost consideration being smooth on the control inputs. I'm going to

go ahead and rate a left crosswind because it is significant. Longitudinally it is really

difficult to rate it because you are in such a fight in the lateral axis. but I will give it a lateral

rating. Is it controllable? No it is not. Cooper Harper of 10. Basically you were not able to

overcome the right roll. You do not have enough... you have insufficient control power and

will continue to roll to the right. I did make one touchdown that it was a pretty nice

touchdown actually and once I slowed down, it just kept rolling off on the right main gear

and eventually got a geometry strike, at full left full lateral control commanded.

Pilot F
187

Task 7292 Flaperon Hardover during landing w/Crosswind 23 Jan 97; Runs 77-80

Basically, the transients easily controllable as long as you kind of let the flight control

system take care of it. If you try to get into closed loop, which I think here would be a

tendency to do if I was really surprised with this on final, I could see overcontrolling and

maybe initiating a PIO. I'd probably be able to recover from the PIO, but I'd probably

choose to go around, and if I waited too long to go around, down near the runway, I think

you'd get a geometry strike. Basically, the technique that I use for the failure is, is I put in a

very small roll control, much smaller than I would, due to the initial roll off that I get from

the flaperon failure. The point is, is the flaperon failure, you get a pretty high roll rate, but

then it kind of arrests itself, by the time the pilot recognizes the roll rate, he's putting in a...

or at least this is my perception, at least, he's putting in, in the opposite roll command, and

the system rolls off from the other direction pretty rapidly then, and that kind of starts you

off into somewhat of a lateral PIO. As far as the landing itself goes, I don't know that it's

really that much more difficult than the landings that we were doing the other day after you

get everything stabilized, it's just that, you're not really starting from a stabilized approach,

you're trying to get it squared away. Another thing is, is I have to be a little bit ginger with

the ailerons and the rudder, just to make sure that I don't excite anything, at least that's my

perception again, based on the practice runs. We were able to get almost desired

performance, but adequate, and I'm just looking at the last run here, we were 96 ft long on

the desired box, and we had a heading error of 3.1, which put us into the adequate area. Still

alignment is not the easiest thing to pick up, and once again, you're still kind of trying to

realign the airplane from the perturbation that you get with the flaperon bank and the

flaperon hardover, which causes a bank, which causes a course perturbation, and I think

that's part of, it increases the work load just a little bit. I think you could probably, after a

few more runs, I think I could probably get all desired performance, but that's really not the

point here. I think, let's do the Cooper Harper, it's definitely controllable, you get adequate

with a tolerable pilot work load, with the acceptable, or the note that, I really think if

somebody was flying with this on final, that there'd be a little tendency to get into a PIO. I

think that they could recover from it quickly, but I think it would induce a couple of

oscillations. Is it satisfactory without improvement? We're not getting desired performance,

I'd have to answer no, we're not getting desired performance, so, that would really put us into

the range of a 5, and I'm going to give it a 5 in pitch and roll, it's probably a function of both

of those axis are hard to get squared away on, or to get the performance parameters on.

Pitch is probably slightly harder, but the reason you're having the problem with the pitch is

just because you're not as stabilized, and you can't put as much attention to the pitch task as

you could before. I guess, I kind of think we're a little bit shy of considerable, but I would

consider considerable pilot compensation, so I kind of, I guess I kind of want to rate it a 4,

but based on the performance parameters, we'll give it a 5 and a 5.

This is the amendum to the statement after we rated the task, we went back and tried

Procedure A, which is the decrab at 50 ft, and in retrospect, I think that... I don't know that,

we just tried it real quick, and we didn't really get appreciably better results, we got about

equivalent results. I think that probably, if I really, really worked at it, on the next run, I think

I could probably get desired all the way through, doing the decrab this way. I guess the

point is, is I chose the decrab at 200 ft because we had had a couple during the practice runs,

big oscillations closer to ground, and my philosophy was, is I'd rather get things stabilized

up high, I put in the rudder and everything up high, so that I have a chance to get everything

stabilized before I get down next, or close to the ground, and then in retrospect, I think you

can do better on this task, if you do Procedure A. And reason is, is because you get the

transient from the flaperon failure, you get the airplane squared away again, and then you

can get your tracking solution taken care of, and then you do the decrab and landing, and so
188

you kind of segment each task versus... what I had to do was play the alignment problem,

and then also play the... correcting back to centerline problem, simultaneously doing the

Procedure B. I'm not so sure, right now, I'm not so sure I have a strong preference one way

or the other, I think you could do it either way, but I guess I think it is slightly easier using

Procedure A, probably should've done it.
189

Takeoff Rollout Pilot Questionnaire

Pilot A

Takeoff Rollout Pilot Questionnaire 13 Jan 97

1. Adequacy of Yaw Control Power (Engine out) ?

 It's quite adequate, required 20, 30 percent rudder, light forces, seemed to be plenty of

control.

2. Ability to maintain runway center-line ?

 I found at least from the view of the pilot, maintaining center-line until after liftoff in which

case the runway, I think probably in retrospect, one of the things that caused a deviation off

centerline was the fact that the runway disappears from view, and you no longer...you no

longer have a...something to reference to, and so there's a tendency to drift off centerline

once you get above about 5-10 degrees of pitch, and ride around in the liftoff area, but I

think it's not because of the rudder control power, or the control authority is plenty adequate,

but I think it's just the view that you have of the centerline and where you are on the

centerline, I think that could be overcome by just making some standard corrections back

onto centerline using bank angles, or maybe a little more rudder.

3. Braking Capability ?

 Was...seemed to be adequate.

4: Effects of wind and turbulence ?

 The crosswind seemed to be taken care of with rudder adequately, I saw no large problems

with the crosswind, and as far as the takeoff rollout, I guess the main problems that I saw

were the...just the...were the fact that runway disappearing and there's less indication that

you have drifted to one side, maybe that can be solved by some additional cues, or just

practice and change in procedures.

5. Summary of Good/Bad features ?

 The rudder control seemed to be adequate at high speeds, 170 knots, V1 seemed to be...I

don't know VMCG is, but it must be...must be quite, quite, high. What is it...127, so, you're

well above VMCG, so that's...that's what it feels like on the airplane. There's plenty of

rudder control. The thrust asymmetry compensation would probably maintain the centerline,

but still I think there's a...in order to maintain the centerline after liftoff, I think it's a delicate

balance of applying some bank angle to get back on centerline, and getting...due to thrust

asymmetry, and bank...and you don't want to use too much bank angle because you're going

to get a strike, pod strike, so that's ... I guess that's the summary on that.

Pilot B

Takeoff Rollout Pilot Questionnaire 06 Jan 97

1. Adequacy of Yaw Control Power (Engine out) ?

 That was entirely adequate. I don't believe I was at the stops. The combination of rudder

and brakes, its a handful, you're working but it entirely doable. And I'm deliberately keeping

it really tight on the order of 5 ft or less of deviation. There's no need to really have to do

that. But even despite all that, its doable.

2. Ability to maintain runway center-line ?
190

 That's fairly easy. Particularly in the absence of engine failures. And certainly in the

absence of crosswinds its real easy.

3. Braking Capability ?

 Seems adequate. I don't have a problem with that. I think I'm feeling anti-skid releases. I

don't know if that's simulated or not but I'm certainly feeling an inconsistency in

longitudinal acceleration and deceleration which feels like anti-skid releases. Whether that's

an anomaly or a real good simulation... I don't know. Okay.

4: Effects of wind and turbulence ?

 The wind is more of an affect than turbulence. You can definitely see the requirements to

point the nose into the wind to compensate for the side ports on the airplane on the rollout.

That's a little bit disconcerting because you don't really have an aim point of velocity vector

would be nice there. and other than that, it's doable. I'm pretty much using the center-line to

use for drift control.

5. Summary of Good/Bad features ?

 In summary---relatively pleasant. Fairly solid level 1 airplane on the rollout no major

problems.

Pilot C

Takeoff Rollout Pilot Questionnaire 15 Jan 97

Takeoff Rollout Pilot Questionnaire Question 1.

 Adequacy of Yaw Control Power, Engine out. It seemed like without the crosswind in there,

there's very little difficult, and as I recall, I had desires on those, that was not a problem. I

was surprised how benign it was, and didn't see any particular problem, I often waited for a

little bit of...oh, no, yeah...this is engine-out with no wind...I waited for a little bit of motion

before I put the rudder in just to make it a little practical kind of a thing, and it was...as soon

as I saw it start to move, I pushed in the rudder and came right back, so, plenty of yaw

control that I saw with engine-out no wind. Ability to maintain runway center-line is very,

very easy, no problem, one time just to see what it's characteristics were a little better, I

purposely moved myself off to the side then came back and recaptured the centerline, it felt

fine, it wasn't too sensitive, I didn't overcontrol, and it felt nice, nice and tight, I was very

comfortable with it the whole time. Braking capability ? Looked pretty good for an airplane

this heavy, and we were stopping well within the end of the runway, and that appeared to be

very good. Anti-skid; this is a good simulation of those, there's no pulsing in the breaks or

anything, I just climbed on them and waited for it to stop, it was a no brainer, but they did

appear to be effective. Effects of Wind and Turbulence ? The crosswind with the centerline,

or the engine-out made big time difference, and this time I don't think I ever kept it in

desired, and adequate was the best I could do, but that sure did get my attention, and one

problem, it's awful easy to revert to old feelings and when you start making big changes to

the left with the rudder, sometimes people tend to put in a little stick to the left also, and with

the bank angle constraints this airplane has on the ground, that would be of concern, I didn't

see it, and just...that's an observation off to the side, not anything that's a big production

about it all. Good features ? Really accurate, plenty of power, good control, and the bad

features were not do to control power, particularly things like that, but that crosswind just

gives you fits, and it's really difficult and the set of the requirement for precise wings level,

raises your anxiety quite a bit because it doesn't take very much rocking to touch something,

but in general the yaw axis control was fine.
191

Pilot D

Takeoff Rollout Pilot Questionnaire 22 Jan 97

Okay, Pilot D on the 22 of January, commenting on the takeoff rollout for all of the various

tasks we did, up through the engine-out with the crosswind, which of course was the most

difficult.

1. Adequacy of Yaw Control Power (Engine out) ?

 The adequacy of the yaw control power, engine out, by itself was, plenty adequate, if you

throw in the crosswind and the engine out, it became slightly marginal.

2. Ability to maintain runway center-line ?

 Ability to maintain runway centerline. Didn't seem like any big problem, except perhaps

during the rotation.

3. Braking Capability ?

 Braking capability on the rejected takeoffs, seemed adequate, we were stopping at about

3000 ft, of course that's just a mathematical thing there anyway.

4: Effects of wind and turbulence ?

 The effects of the wind turbulence. The turbulence doesn't seem to be a big factor in the

takeoffs, it maybe contributing to some real PIO's and some wing tip strikes on the

crosswinds, but it didn't feel like a big factor. The crosswind was a big factor, and it was

giving me a hard time on the engine out crosswind.

5. Summary of Good/Bad features ?

 Summary - The good features... having a hard time coming up with any real, good, strong

features. I think the tailstrike bar was one that I liked. I think there is several things that need

to be improved in the display, and procedurally or aircraft changes also. Starting out I think

that it would be nice to have the V speeds up on the head up display for the takeoff roll.

That would really cut down the scan pattern, and for this phase of flight... any additional

clutter is not going to be a problem. It doesn't have to be a full airspeed scale. It can be just

V number, is all we really need. I had a little bit of trouble with the pitch rate rotation, I'm not

sure that it's really needed, or that it be tracked as closely, maybe this is the real problem,

that the performance criteria is maybe just a little tight to be realistic, I don't think it needs to

be quite that tight. The 10 degree tail strike is a bad feature of the airplane, or the 12 degree

tailstrike, whatever it is. It's really adding to the work load, and making it hard to take

advantage of the performance of the airplane, and that particularly shows its self up in the

crosswind engine out where the inability to get a clean break with the ground is really

contributing to strikes on the aircraft problems. If you have the big crosswind and an engine

out, it's very easy to get the... I had a tailstrike at 4 1/2 degree, correction, the nacelle or wing

tip, I'm not sure what strike. At 4 1/2 degrees roll angle, that's really way too restrictive, I

think operationally. I think we either need to put longer landing gear in the airplane, or if we

have strong crosswinds, or maybe even normally, we need to think about increasing the

takeoff speed just slightly to get away from this extended period on the ground. Had

another problem on the takeoff rollout, actually this is not the takeoff rollout, why don't I

truncate it here, and we'll pick it up later.

Pilot E

Takeoff Rollout Pilot Questionnaire 07 Jan 97
192

1. Adequacy of Yaw Control Power (Engine out) ?

 I thought there was adequacy. My biggest problems were not having information to really

tell me where I was on the runway centerline, once I start rotating I can't see any... I can't see

anything to tell me if I am drifting or not, but I didn't feel as a pilot I ever go to a limit. I

never put in full control deflections of either aileron or rudder. The control law may as Lou

said, may have commanded full deflection, but I never asked for anything like that so I

wasn't asking for anything more.

2. Ability to maintain runway center-line ?

 The ability to maintain runway centerlines for no crosswinds is no problem. For the

crosswinds it is easy on... or very simple when you're pre-rotation and once you start

rotating you lose any cue to tell you where you are on the centerline so it's difficult at that

point.

3. Braking Capability ?

 Braking capability I thought was fine, no problems there.

4: Effects of wind and turbulence ?

 The turbulence just kind of creates a little disturbance about the commanded gamma and

you do occasionally see some deltas between commanded gamma and actual gamma. I was

always closing on commanded and the actual take care of itself for these tasks for the take

off and up and away. When certainly in the engine out crosswind, you do have a tendency

to over bank the aircraft on the ground which could lead to a geometry strike, and airborne

the only problem is with the big crab angle with the HUD being so big it's kind of hard to

keep track of everything.

5. Summary of Good/Bad features ?

 The only bad features was the lack of the cues once you rotate as far as maintaining your

own centerline because this thing rotates at such a high angle you quickly lose any cues as

to where you are laterally on the runway. Good features being a flight path command

control law, it's very nice as far as being able to put the flight path where you want it. In

turbulence though, it does bounce around more so than I would like, but it's not bad, it's just

a little more of a work load in turbulence. For the engine failed below V1 and I am

assuming these are for all the tasks I did right ? Oh, just the takeoff and roll-out. I have

comment on some things that are beyond takeoff roll- out. Sorry about that. Any rate, for

takeoff roll-out though, runway centerline is very simple or do, bank capability is excellent,

effects of wind turbulence, the crosswind just for roll-out does require a little bit higher

work load to maintain centerline, but you kind of have to set the water line upwind and you

have to kind of feel where the center of gravity is, but what I was doing was kind of working

out real well. It's good/bad features, really no bad features and I've listed the good features.

Pilot F

Takeoff Rollout Pilot Questionnaire 23 Jan 97

1. Adequacy of Yaw Control Power (Engine out) ?

 For the cases that we looked at, now we were looking at engine failure after V1, so we

should of been a fair amount above VMCG. The airplane was very controllable, it took

slight rudder pressure to return the airline back to centerline tracking. I thought that was all,

I didn't feel like I was lacking in any control power to make the correction for those

particular cases that I flew. In the crosswind case, I also didn't feel that, you know, it took
193

some more rudder throw, and then at least in my... from my perception, as you rotated it, it

took increase in rudder, when you had the engine out in the crosswind, and there I felt like I

was using a lot of rudder, I don't think that I was up against the stop, although you guys can

check the tape of the strips and see, but anyway, I didn't feel like I was... had a lack of

control power per yaw control in any point for the maneuvers that we flew. ...there may be

some cases where, I guess I'd ask you to look at the strips real carefully for the after rotation

phase, and I realize that that's really after rotation is not really covered under the takeoff roll,

but while I'm thinking about it, I would check the strips there, because that isn't quite a bit of

a rudder requirement, and I'm not so sure that there might be some cases where you are

approaching, using all the control power that you have. I can't really make a definitive

statement from what I saw here, but I think it's worth looking into.

2. Ability to maintain runway center-line ?

 Ability to maintain runway center-line. With the display as it is, I didn't think that it was

difficult to maintain runway center-line, no wind... in the no wind case. You have the DME

right below the waterline and the two of those on the extended center-line really work well to

help the pilot control the airplane to the runway center-line. With the crosswind case, I tried

putting in some cross control, some aileron, because it seemed like we were, without having

a heading change, or without really seeing any appreciable bank angle, but I... like a wing

coming up and compressing the strut, it seems like we were just drifting laterally on the

runway, and when I did that, I think I got some pitch control in there, and we ended up with

a bumpy ride down the centerline, which degraded the task later on during the rotation

phase, and also the end of the runway center-line tracking task. The technique in the

crosswind that seemed easiest was to just keep on correcting back to centerline, or on the

last one of the last runs that I did, I noticed that I could just hold in a heading correction on

the rudder, i.e., just keep the waterline a little bit into the wind, and the picture was is, as if I

was going down the runway, with centerline yawed, and again I didn't see any appreciable

change in bank, i.e., looking for a compressed strut, so I was a little bit curious about that,

and I guess this would leave me to just ask a question about your ground model, and how

accurate the ground model is. Anyway, we had a little bit of discussion, and I guess I can

kind of understand, as far as a skid angle goes to restore the offset in the forces in the Y

direction due to the crosswind, why we could probably saw what we saw.

3. Braking Capability ?

 We didn't do any aborted takeoffs, so I can't really answer that.

4: Effects of wind and turbulence ?

 The turbulence I don't really have any comment about the wind. I do think that we need to

look at the beta cue. I made comments during the runs on all of these, but the beta cue, from

the perspective of it being way up at the top of the display, and your focus, or field of regard

is at the bottom of the display, and also the fact, that you're running down the runway now,

with this beta cue displaced, and with the engine failure, until your airborne, that beta cue

really doesn't help you, so you have to visually satisfy, or... I guess it gives you no aid in

how much rudder to put in for the engine out problem, and as far as during the rotation, as

you bring the nose up, and you start losing the runway extended, it becomes difficult to

figure out how much, how much rudder you need to stuff in there, and it would be nice to

have the cueing that was more accessible in your cross-check and it would also be nice to

have, well, let me rephrase, the second thing is, is I think we really need to look seriously at

what the beta cueing does for the pilot versus lateral acceleration, perhaps a need for both to

be displayed in different formats, or how it's going to be used. I think there's a lot of issues

around this that are really important, I think it's important to remember that pilot's have

grown up using the lateral acceleration cueing methodology, and I don't really want to take
194

any cues that the pilot would normally have away from him during the rotation phase in the

transition in the flight, and I'm not so sure that he can use the beta cueing to full advantage,

during the initial... during the rotation phase, and just as you, and after you break ground,

and I think that's about it.

5. Summary of Good/Bad features ?

 I didn't really see, as far as just actually tracking the rotation, any real big problem, except

for, even just on the initial roll, having the beta cue displaced is a little bit distracting for me.

Oh, the one other thing that I was going to mention is, is in low visibility, the pilot's field of

regard is going to come in closer to the bottom of the display, and so I think it would be

worth looking at some tracking in real low visibility, because the display that you have for

tracking with the waterline on the horizon, and then the little DME number right underneath

that, really aids in being able to track the centerline, and I don't think in low visibility

conditions, you're going to be able to be looking up that high in the HUD, and I think that

there should be an assessment made with, I guess without those cues, or with reduced

visibility, so that you can look at the ability to track close in, and I realize that this is more

than just a flying qualities issue, this is an XVS issue, and a lot of things involved in this. So

you know, I didn't see anything with control laws that would cause me any concern from the

evaluation we did, but that's just kind of a side note.
195

Takeoff Rotation Pilot Questionnaire

Pilot A

Takeoff and Rotation Climb Questionnaire 13 Jan 97

1. Adequacy of Pitch, Roll, and Yaw Control Power ?

 First question is adequacy of Pitch, Roll, and Yaw Control Power ? Seemed to be plenty

of...plenty of control power in all directions.

2. Predictability of Pitch, Roll, and Yaw Responses to Pilot Inputs ?

 The only problem that I...one of the main problems that I noticed was just trying to

maintain that constant directed pitch increase on the liftoff following the inputs for pitch,

seemed to throw me into a bit of a PIO around that pitch guidance on rotation. Seemed to

me that I was able to use a lot smoother technique when I didn't have the guidance, just to

maintain nice, smooth, pitch rotation, and I think perhaps, just some regular feedback on

whether your pitch rate technique is too slow or too fast, and just let the pilot adjust it, and I

think the...it's possible that, that guidance...that special guidance is not necessarily required

or even desired, the pitch bar for tailstrike was sort of a handy reminder, that of where you

might get into a problem there.

3. Ability to control and track pitch attitude, flight path, bank angle, and heading

?

 That all seemed to be quite easy, no special problems there, as far I could tell. The bank

angle seemed to be a little touchy as far as the response, the motion cues seemed to be quite

pronounced for just a small amount of lateral input, and a track...track hold feature with zero

bank would be helpful in maintaining track. It's fairly easy to let the, just the turbulence, the

turbulence would cause the bank angle to vary and then the track to vary.

4. Ability to control airspeed during climb (autothrottle off) ?

 That seemed to be relatively easy, I think we're getting desired performance on that, yeah, I

didn't see any big problems there.

5. Were there any PIO tendencies in the Speed, Pitch, or Roll Axis ? If Yes, was the

task continued or abandoned ?

 The only PIO tendency might be in tracking the rotation rate after...at VR, I would tend to

overshoot or undershoot, and not track that rotation rate guidance as precisely as I wanted

to. It might be...part of it, I think might have been due to the fact that there was no...it didn't

seem to be any obvious indication of one that was going to start moving, it would appear,

and it would may or may not move up, be like, kind of like the drag race, racers have these

lights that sequence down, and say okay, bingo, now you go, I need to add some kind of a

gamma guidance like that, it would be good to have some kind of indication up there, as to

when it...when it's going to start moving. I usually over start it too early, and then had to

slow down, and speed up, and so, I think I might have been better off just to ignore it

completely, and do a normal rotation rate on it. Maybe there's a technique for using it that I

haven't mastered yet, but it's not readily apparent.

6. Pitch/roll inceptor and rudder pedal characteristics: force and displacement,

sensitivity, and pitch/roll harmony ?

 ...seemed to be...seemed to be quite reasonable, Sensitivity, the only sensitivity problem I

noticed was perhaps in roll it seemed to be just a little bit sensitive. It's hard to get it out of

the detent without experiencing some kind of lateral G, noticeable lateral G, and I don't
196

know if it's a fact that we were up in the front end of the airplane that moves around more

than the other parts of the airplane. Pitch/Roll Harmony seemed good.

7. During the Takeoff Rollout, were there any problems ?

 During Takeoff Rollout, didn't see too many problems, the only problems I saw were

maybe on the engine failure trying to maintain centerline, but the deviations all were quite

reasonable compared to existing airplanes.

8. During the Takeoff Rotation, were there any problems ?

 Takeoff Rotation, I think I described, the only problems I could see were in trying to track

that rotational guidance, and I'm not sure exactly what the problem was for me, but it seemed

as though, slightly difficult to track it, I know how important it is to track that precise takeoff

rotation rate, but it was difficult to get desired performance in tracking that rotation rate.

9. Effects of winds and turbulence ?

 Were not especially a problem.

10. Summary - Good/Bad features ?

 The rudder tracking on the runway seemed quite good, plenty of rudder control power,

brakes were good, and the pitch control seemed to be reasonable, I think most of the

problems are associated with the display, the way the display guidance worked on rotation.

So that's the end of that.

[This pilot answered some of these questions later in his series below]

Pilot A

Takeoff Rotation & Climb Pilot Questionnaire with crosswinds 13 Jan 97

[This pilot answered most of the questions on this questionnaire earlier.]

9. Effects of winds and turbulence ?

 Question is, during takeoff rotation, okay, the effects of wind and turbulence ? The

crosswinds that we evaluated in the second session today makes a difference in that using

rudder, creates a lot more drag, and if you ... if you don't get the rudder in just right, and

keep the airplane on the centerline, and try to correct for some deviation, you cannot use a

bank, and you have to use, in some cases, more rudder to correct back, in which case that

increases the drag even more, and extends the ... extends the liftoff more, and creates more...

more deviations, so, there is some fair amount of sensitivity to keeping the airplane on the

center ... centerline, and when you start rotating, and you get into the rotation, and you've got

a lot of rudder pushed in, and you have to increase it even more then to keep the airplane

straight, then that does have a effect on the ability to track the centerline in the airplane

performance, so there is a effect there. We did have one pod strike, and one of them is

attempting to turn back towards the centerline, that doesn't work, and although I had the

visual impression that I was high enough to turn, when in fact the airplane is so long, it

seemed like you're quite high off the ground, when in fact, your wheels are still on the

ground, or you're less than a couple feet high. So, that was the trap that I fell into, that might

be a characteristic of... due to the physical dimensions of the airplane, that can be a potential

problem in this kind of a scenario. It's important to keep the wings level until you're at least

20, 30, 40 feet high, but as far as the ability to control the airplane on a engine-out takeoff, it

was not a major problem if you keep tracking the centerline. The effects of the pitch rotation

guidance on takeoff were ... seemed to induce some oscillation and required much more
197

attention, I think, it kind of takes away from the attention you can pay onto the other

portions of the takeoff, so that may be...that may have a detrimental effect, maybe there's a

way to present that kind of information in a ... another form that's a little easier, rather than

having two of these brackets out on the extremes of the bore sight symbol.

Pilot B

Takeoff Rotation and Climb Questionnaire 06 Jan 97

1. Adequacy of Pitch, Roll, and Yaw Control Power ?

 Pitch, Roll, and Yaw Control Power was adequate. I don't recall hitting the stops, I guess

that's a good thing because the side stick had some problems at the stops longitudinally.

Periodically when I would wipe out the controls I would get a vibration against the stops.

Again, the procedure of cleansing the controls as Bruce calls it is generally adequate to stop

that but there's an anomaly there.

2. Predictability of Pitch, Roll, and Yaw Responses to Pilot Inputs ?

 I think that the predictability pitch , roll, and yaw response is good. The only special control

technique is the dag-gone pitch rotation rate metrics are so tight that you've gotta really

anticipate the movement of that bar. You can't react to and that tells me that it kind of

inordinately sensitive. But again, if we're increasing the task flow to brake up the HQR's

then that's fine.

3. Ability to control and track pitch attitude, flight path, bank angle, and heading

?

 Pitch Attitude Tracking , I thought was relatively pleasant. I gave it a HQR4 on that one

task because of what I just talked about. The sensitively required. That is the metrics...the

tightness of desired tolerance. Flight Path control was good, fairly easy. Bank angle control

was probably the least easy of all of this in terms of fighting the turbulence. And it just

seems like there's a disparity in the longitudinal and lateral directional axis in turbulence. If

you pretty much don't make any inputs, let go of the stick in turbulence, you're going hold

flight path longitudinally, you are not going to hold bank angle lateral-directionally. You

gotta make lateral inputs. And it would be nice if we had a bank angle...a functional bank

angle hold system that would latch at zero a little bit quicker than it is. Heading control was

also relatively easy. I'm not really controlling heading here, I'm really controlling the velocity

vector position with respect to command guidance in general and that was relatively easy.

4. Ability to control airspeed during climb (autothrottle off) ?

 I'm not really doing that a lot yet in any of these tasks, again, because I've got guidance. I'm

not really controlling to airspeed, I'm controlling to the position of the command guidance.

However, having said that I'm able to maintain airspeed when it is controlling airspeed by

doing that.

5. Were there any PIO tendencies in the Speed, Pitch, or Roll Axis ? If Yes, was the

task continued or abandoned ?

 I did not notice any PIO tendencies in the speed, pitch, or roll axis. However, there was an

oscillation of the control system that I talked about that occurred on a couple of occasions.

There was an anomaly, I hope.

6. Pitch/roll inceptor and rudder pedal characteristics: force and displacement,

sensitivity, and pitch/roll harmony ?
198

 Force and displacement, there was an inconsistent breakout that I felt in the longitudinal

axis that if you left the stick alone for awhile in a certain position it tended to stick there.

When you're moving the stick around, stopping briefly through the neutral point, you seem

to get a..I seem to get a lighter breakout and friction bend than when I left it there. The effect

is though every once in awhile the stick is sticking , if you will , in a center position. You can

always breakout, but it just seems like every once in awhile the breakout friction was

inconsistent. It got higher . So there's something going on there. I commented when it

happened, so you can go back and look at the data and look at the force and displacement. A

bit inconsistent. I don't think that it inordinately affected my CHR's. But it certainly affected

the feel of the airplane. Sensitivity felt about right. Pitch and roll harmony, I think is as good

as you can make it in a side stick control is okay. The characteristics of the control loss in

the two axis are a bit in disharmonious in that ,again , you don't have to do anything to

maintain flight path longitudinally. You do have to do something to maintain that lateral

directionally in turbulence. However, sensitivity and harmony appeared good. There is an

observation that you should note and that's periodically when I'm making large pitch inputs,

as in take off rotations or cut-back, I'm putting in inadvertently lateral inputs in associations

with longitudinal. I don't really have an error , it's just the nature of the control and being off

axis from your body is causing inputs. We also noticed that in the last Ames.2, Ames.1,

Ames.2.

7. During the Takeoff Rollout, were there any problems ?

 No problems during the takeoff rollout. I've talked about that.

8. During the Takeoff Rotation, were there any problems ?

 During takeoff rotation I had a problem that I've mentioned before due to the sensitivity ..or

due to the tolerance in the metrics. It's tight enough and there's a little bit of a problem with

pitch rate predictability. Again, from a mission relatable standpoint, I don't think It's a

problem, I think we're making it a problem by the stringency of the requirements.

9. Effects of winds and turbulence ?

 Turbulence affecting me, is as I mentioned primarily lateral directionally.

10. Summary - Good/Bad features ?

 In summary I think from a mission standpoint, its a solid level 1 configuration, despite the

level 2 HQR's. That concludes my comments.

Pilot C

Takeoff and Rotation Climb Questionnaire. 15 Jan 97

1. Adequacy of Pitch, Roll, and Yaw Control Power ?

 I don't think I hit the stops on anything, I rolled as fast as I wanted to, I pitched as fast as I

wanted to, control power seemed fine.

2. Predictability of Pitch, Roll, and Yaw Responses to Pilot Inputs ? Any special

control techniques required ?

 It was pretty good, things get so...get...quite busy there right at rotation and the...I had to

leave the pitch quite a bit, in order to keep the rotation a little more than I had expected. Any

special control techniques required ? The only thing that I did, that I learned that would

help, is about the time the magenta brackets came on, I would start the backpressure coming

in for the rotation, and by the time it was telling me to come up, I was having the nose come

up, it was still in desired on the upper side and pretty soon the bracket caught me, in other
199

words, I could lead it a little bit that way, and get a lot more accurate rotation on it. For what

it's worth, in the experimental design, it would have been a lot more efficient in the training

part, if I would of had that bracket to chase, to see what a proper rotation rate would have

been, I think I could of knocked off a couple of practice runs there, just because I had to

bracket it myself, and do it a couple of 3 times to see how it worked out, where as, if I would

of had that initially just to say, okay that's how fast you've got to do it, then it would have

been a little bit quicker, it doesn't have anything to do with the rating, but it would have cut

down on some practice runs for me, although I haven't rotated this airplane before. I didn't

see a big tendency to overshoot, maybe a little bit in pitch, that's a fairly rapid pitch rotation,

and I might have gotten just a little bit of overshoots going on it, but it apparently was

staying well within the desired area, so I don't have a complaint about it.

3. Ability to control and track pitch attitude, flight path, bank angle, and/or

heading ?

 Ability to Control and Track the Pitch Attitude, these aren't in first and second segments, I

assume, you're talking just in general, because the pitch attitude capture, that one took a little

bit of work, but then once it was settled down, it became, you know, it's a real no brainer,

once you get things down, all you're doing is fine tracking of pitch attitude ... is very easy.

Flight path, once I learned different techniques that are going through, on one of them you

just keep the attitude right on going, and whenever the flight path comes on you just keep

the pull going, because you're going to be below it, and on one of the other ones, I learned

just to come up, get the attitude, don't wait for the flight path marker to turn on, and I usually

wasn't very far off, so I didn't have to do very much, so just a little technique in stopping it

there, but if in the real life, you're going to do one or the other one, I assume, once you find

which one is the one you want to do, you're not going to have three different techniques

here, and it's fairly easy to learn, so which ever one you have, once you start using only one,

it should be very easy. Bank angle on these with all the engines working, was no problem,

the lat-dir was fine, I don't think I ever had any problem with that, and heading is the same

thing, gosh, it just tracks right along and no problems on it, I can't think of anything new.

One, I don't know whether inceptor is in here or not, but one thing I noticed for the first

time, when I started doing the small pitch tracking for the flight path marker, in particular,

it's the first time I noticed the large breakout in the inceptor. I was making a lot of small

corrections right about center, and for the gradient that you're working with there, that

breakout was a little high, and I know you're going to do a lot of work on it, but that's kind

of an aside. I didn't see it at all during the landings, but I may of had the inceptor out of the

breakout, you know, the center position, or I'll call it the detent, out of the center position

enough, so, it didn't...wasn't a factor. Today when I was doing the fine pitch tracking, I

noticed it in also roll. Okay, we've got something here on heading, and this may be a place to

put in. I'm not sure what's going on with the, there's some relationship here that apparently

the flight control system is doing something that I don't understand. Are we in the engineout here, because that's where this really played a factor. Okay, let me just add, I noticed

through the engine-out, that soon after takeoff, why of course you need a heck of a lot less

rudder than you did when it was on the ground, and so I would tend to have too much

rudder in, and often I didn't catch it until I'd already caught the heading bug, so I was

tracking pretty well, and then I looked up and said, whoops, way too much rudder, but since

I was tracking, I was hesitant to pull...take the rudder out, because I though that...then...you

know, if I'm holding too much, and it's on there, as soon as I let off, it's going to split, but if

I just gradually came off, it wouldn't do it, and I didn't understand that, that's a...that's a un...I

almost want to say, an unairplane like thing, I've never seen that before, there's something

going on there with the sideslip and track, but it was puzzling to me. Engine-out was where

you noticed it ? Yeah, engine-out, because that's where I'm using so much rudder and have

to take it out, it actually was true other times, I forgot what I was doing one time, and I was
200

just going move us over with a little bit of rudder like that, and I got the sideslip, nothing

moved, and so, like I said, there's...I don't know, I don't know what...it's just a anomaly in

what I'm use to seeing, that's all, it didn't, you know...knowing it, actually, it probably is, if

anything less work load. In other words, you centered this thing, and if you're off a little on

sideslip, ...you know...you just zero your sideslip error, you don't change your tracking

ability, that's a plus, but how can that be, I don't understand that, that's a puzzle. Well, if

we're going to talk about, okay, let's...that was just a thing because I saw the heading. Let me

run down through this, and I'll come back and we'll talk about single engines and stuff in a

bit.

4. Ability to control airspeed during climb (autothrottle off) ?

 Did I do one of those ? Yeah, you did all the manual thrust stuff when you were chasing

your velocity vector...Oh yeah, that's right. Yeah, that was nothing, oh I know why I did,

because I was thinking, I wasn't working the throttle, you were, that's why I was like wait a

second, so, for me it was autothrottle all the time, what the hells the difference there, just one

is Lou throttle and the other is airplane throttle. Okay, yeah, there was no problem with that.

The flight path vector was moving slow enough, very easy to stay with it, it was very easy.

5. Were there any PIO tendencies in the Speed, Pitch, or Roll Axis ? If Yes, was the

task continued or abandoned ?

 Not in any of this takeoff thing, I can't remember any. No, I don't recall any PIO tendency

in any of the three. No, so the answer to that's no, good.

6. Pitch/roll inceptor and rudder pedal characteristics: force and displacement,

sensitivity, and pitch/roll harmony ?

 I got ahead of myself there with the breakout thing. As far as the forces and displacements,

and Sensitivities, and Pitch and Roll Harmony, I didn't really have a complaint with them,

my only concern was that the breakout was kind of annoying, and more than it really hurt

very much, I don't think it hurt the performance that much, but it's really a annoyingly large

breakout force.

7. During the Takeoff Rollout, were there any problems ?

 With the exception of the single engine that I'll come back and talk about, I'd say with

everything working, no, I didn't see any problem at all, takeoff and rollout.

8. During the Takeoff Rotation, were there any problems ?

 And again, with everything working, it just takes several passes to learn how much you

need, is what it amounts to, something like this is, you know, not having been exposed to

this aircraft at all, while this took a few passes while I bracketed what was necessary, but by

the end I was feeling fairly comfortable, because I knew how fast it had to rotate, so, I would

say after the initial learning curve, I didn't see any problems, but it took a fair amount to

learn.

9. Effects of winds and turbulence ?

 With everything working, sure naturally the workload went up with a strong crosswind, but

I didn't see anything, and I think I was keeping things in the desired with everything

working, and got to expect the work load to go up. On this crosswind, or did I catch any

wing tips on the crosswind except for the side...single engine, we only did refused takeoff,

oh you only did, is that right, what the heck did we do to takeoffs...we didn't do any takeoffs

with...I'll be damned, okay. See this the beauty of having comments when you're doing the

thing, you can remember what you just did, and not what you did this morning. Okay,

well...again...I'll come back, as far as the turbulence goes, the level of turbulence is more
201

annoying, we have pretty fine tolerances on the some of the tracking things there, and the

turbulence was almost the limit of what you had for desired, you know, in other words, it

goes along, and if you didn't do anything, you just had everything dead centered, you'd just

about go from stop to stop on desired with the deflections of the turbulence, and...but still I

would say that the turbulence was not problem, and that just has to do with how accurately

we were trying to...the task called for, that certainly didn't cause handling quality problems

that I could see. Okay, now let's talk about single engine, and single engine without

the...without a, what is it, 35 knot crosswind, yeah, without the 35 knot crosswind, as single

engine V1 cuts go, I was quite pleased with it, I thought that it was not as nearly as hairy as I

anticipated, it was fairly straight forward, the fact that it yawed fine, but I had plenty of time

to bring it back. One thing that may have...when you have such a long airplane, and you're

yawed very much, you are translated to the right, even though your CG may still be going

down, and then when you push the nose back around straight, you then bring your body

back, and so there was a tendency, especially the first couple of times I did it, to overdue

that, and I'd end up bringing myself past, and then come back, so it's like one overshoot or

so, I think that's something...just a...a couple of more passes, and likely wouldn't of done

that anymore. So, as far as, without the crosswind, the single engine characteristics I thought

were quite easily handled, and with the exception of that, I'm looking at sideslip every once

in a while. I didn't see anything really to make a lot of comments on that I didn't want make

my Cooper Harper ratings. Now, the other thing, though, when you start getting into the

crosswind, it is...that really gets your attention, and probably the single biggest thing that go

my attention was: (a) the amount of...that the airplane wanted to roll, it must have...and

obviously, has a lot of dihedral effect with such a swept back wing and everything, and so, it

really took a fist full of ailerons to keep it from rolling, but the thing that surprised me so

much, is especially once you rotated it, how little bank angle it took to touch something, boy

that is really critical, and where this showed up, was when I didn't have any wind to rotate,

pitch was my primary concern. As soon as we had a crosswind, now my primary concern

was, screw the heading, is one thing, keep it on the concrete, my concern was touching a

structure, and boy, that makes a very, very, high gain type task, and to the point where I...as I

recall this one, I gave a 8 or a 9, because I was concerned about exceeding a limitation of the

airplane, and that, looking out the window, especially just did not look like much of a bank

angle. I was amazed that we had touched something at that point, and apparently the

clearance...once you rotate the clearance on structure, gets less, and it's really sensitive,

otherwise I must have been awfully close to it a bunch of other times, and didn't realize it,

and that one ... that was really tough, and it was ... one time, as soon as I rotated, I locked

right onto the roll indicator, and that was fine, and the pitch went to heck, so then I went to,

next time I said, well, I'm not going to let that happen again, and I watched the pitch, hawked

that real carefully to make that one right, and unintentionally got the 4 or 5 degrees of bank

in there, and touched the damn wing thing, so, all I'm saying is that really...somewhere along

the way...going to have a problem with that, I would guess at least, I don't know, how about

a guess, at least once out of ten engine outs, you're going to scrape the heck out of

something, and probably more, that's going to have to be something that's...would be trained

like crazy, and I'm not sure you ever would get that out of there, because it seemed to make a

difference whether there was a crosswind or not, so not only is the guy absolutely shocked

that one of these things quit, but on top of it he's got to remember whether he had a

crosswind or not, to know which one to really concentrate on, because that's the most

important, and I just don't think that's going to happen, and with the exception of the rate

limiting that I saw on the...yesterday, I'd say that one, and this one are the two things that are

real show stoppers, and really have to be...needs some more work somewhere, and

because... illucidate which two tasks you think are show stoppers...the task, well, the one

that I saw the rate limiting on, yesterday, was wing low crosswind landing, that was, and I

saw the rate limiting, now no matter where you see the rate limiting, no matter what you're
202

doing, I mean, I happen to see it there, because I was working real hard at it, so that one,

that's anything that you're going to get into that, obviously unsat., and then this one, while

it's not quite as bad as the rate limiting problem, this one I can see bending medal on this,

sooner or later you're likely going to do that, if nothing else changes, and...okay, anything

else we got down to here, I don't recall, I know there weren't any sustained PIO's, I might

have gotten, you know, one overshooter, maybe a couple overshoots, but nothing that I said,

whooaa boy, I'm in a PIO, what am I going to do here, it wasn't anything like that, I don't

recall on any of those...talked about that, I could keep it on the runway, even with the

crosswind engine out, I kept it on the runway okay, kept it within adequate, but I didn't think

I would ever be able to get it down to desired, in any kind of practical scenario short of,

where at 169, I know the engine is going to quit at 170, so I'm going to start pushing the

rudder, whether you learn, and if you leave it, you know, you're not learning anything, that's

why initially I mentioned that I was waiting until I saw a yaw before I went full rudder, you

know, it still got adequate, but probably not a practical scenario. Okay, I covered that. I think

that will do those. Okay, these will go fast, okay, now, how much more tape shouldn't be a

problem. This is going to go fast.

Pilot D

Takeoff and Rotation Climb Questionnaire 22 Jan 97

Okay, Pilot D on the takeoff and rotation pilot questionnaire. Looks like I've covered part of

this on the takeoff and rollout, but let's press on, I'll repeat it if necessary.

1. Adequacy of Pitch, Roll, and Yaw Control Power ?

 For the rotation it was plenty adequate, but with perhaps exception of the crosswind with

one engine out where it takes, apparently takes almost full rudder and full aileron to counter

it, at the speed that we're taking off.

2. Predictability of Pitch, Roll, and Yaw Responses to Pilot Inputs ? Any special

control techniques required ?

 Is good. I don't think there's any special control techniques required.

3. Ability to control and track pitch attitude, flight path, bank angle, and/or

heading ?

 I really didn't have the feeling that I was controlling pitch attitude. We're either controlling

pitch attitude rate, or we're trying to control the flight path, which are both a little bit

unconventional for a normal takeoff, it's giving me a little bit of problem. Flight path, ability

to control and track, yet it was a little bit busy, I don't think it needs to be nearly as busy as it

is for takeoff, tends to increase work load. Bank angle, slight tendency to PIO, have a loose

roll mode on the aircraft. Heading, really no big problem, other than what is aggravated by

the bank angle control problem.

4. Ability to control airspeed during climb (autothrottle off) ?

 Again, I think it's just a little bit busy on those tasks for following the climb guidance ball,

it's just a little bit busier than it really needs to be.

5. Were there any PIO tendencies in the Speed, Pitch, or Roll Axis ? If Yes, was the

task continued or abandoned ?

 Yes. Yes, was the task continued. Okay, the PIO tendencies aren't really divergent PIO

tendencies, it's just the fact that the business in both the roll and the flight path command are

causing an increase work load. You sit there and you oscillate about the... you have a
203

tendency to sit there and oscillate about the commanded value, and so the fix for it, is to

back off your gain a little bit, I try to stabilize it by using pitch when possible.

6. Pitch/roll inceptor and rudder pedal characteristics: force and displacement,

sensitivity, and pitch/roll harmony ?

 Okay, force and displacement on the pitch roll inceptor are not too bad. Rudder pedal is not

too bad. Sensitivities, you know, I don't have any complaints there. Pitch/roll harmony, don't

have any complaints.

7. During the Takeoff Rollout, were there any problems ?

 No.

8. During the Takeoff Rotation, were there any problems ?

 I think the only really problem area I had there was with the crosswind and engine out, as

I've discussed previously, that you're in this critical condition close to the runway for

extended periods, and have a tendency to get both tail and/or wing tip tailstrikes.

9. Effects of winds and turbulence ?

 Wind has a big effect with the engine out crosswind. Turbulence didn't seem to be a big

factor.

10. Summary - Good/Bad features ?

 Okay, summary on the good features, bad features I don't like, I was having a tough time

following the pitch rate command. Maybe it's a good idea that I... either the performance

criteria is too tight, or it needs some tail and... I'm just... really can't follow that thing as

desired. Other bad features, I think, are the transition between the use of the waterline for the

reference and the flight path for the reference, where you're doing the tight tracking task on

the waterline first, and then switching to a tight tracking task on the flight path. A little bit of

a problem there, and I'm not sure that we need to have those two tight tracking tasks back to

back there for the takeoff.

Pilot E

Takeoff and Rotation Climb Questionnaire. 07 Jan 97

1. Adequacy of Pitch, Roll, and Yaw Control Power ?

 I never reached any limits, any pilot limits, I've never went to any side stick limits or rudder

limits so I think as far as a pilot I thought I had pretty in control power in all three axis.

2. Predictability of Pitch, Roll, and Yaw Responses to Pilot Inputs ? Any special

control techniques required ?

 I thought it was very predictable all along except for the crosswind 35-knot engine out

crosswind takeoff where you would get an uncommanded roll into the wind once you broke

ground because you were holding side stick into the wind, and that was pretty abrupt unless

it was uncommanded, I'm obviously commanding it, but I don't know I'm commanding it

because I am trying to maintain wings level during the rotation and then as soon as you

break ground the thing seems to really want to roll in the direction that you've commanded,

so it's an abrupt, unpredictable roll-off and that's on the 35-knot engine out crosswind. Any

special control techniques ? I try to anticipate that, but you just don't know when it is going

to break ground and therefore I didn't handle it very well.
204

3. Ability to control and track pitch attitude, flight path, bank angle, and/or

heading ?

 Once I got the first task figured out what I was suppose to do, it worked out fine... Flight

Path was no problems, Bank Angle overall, no problems, and Heading... really didn't worry

about a heading on any of these tasks, so I won't comment on that.

4. Ability to control airspeed during climb (autothrottle off) ?

 On the task that I did, I never really manipulated throttles it was all just very by the numbers

type take-off profiles, so I have no deferential comment on that.

5. Were there any PIO tendencies in the Speed, Pitch, or Roll Axis ? If Yes, was the

task continued or abandoned ?

 The only PIO tendencies I had was when I had misinterpreted the 2010 card and thought I

had to capture 10 degrees pitch attitude and when I tried to aggressively capture it I did get

into a Pitch PIO. Of course, there are lots of things going on there, I'm transitioning control

laws, I am trying to use a flight path to control law to capture an attitude and there are some

other things that transitions are going on there as you break ground, but at any rate that's the

only PIO and that was an incorrect task accomplishment that I did, so that really doesn't

apply to any of the cards. It was just something I noted. So really there was no yes answer

to that based on the actual descriptions of the tasks and the cards.

6. Pitch/roll inceptor and rudder pedal characteristics: force and displacement,

sensitivity, and pitch/roll harmony ?

 Force & displacement was fine, Sensitivity was fine, Harmony was excellent.

7. During the Takeoff Rollout, were there any problems ?

 Well, not really except for the crosswind where you did have to work to maintain centerline

tracking.

8. During the Takeoff Rotation, were there any problems ?

 During the 35-knot crosswind engine out, there were problems in that you had to be careful

that you didn't over bank the aircraft, and there were some kind of uncommanded roll inputs

that we talked about earlier. They were commanded in the sense that, that I had the inceptor

over, but they were unpredictable or undesired and therefore not commanded. I didn't intend

to do that

9. Effects of winds and turbulence ?

 I've pretty much discussed that already.

10. Summary - Good/Bad features ?

 The bad features are the 35-knot crosswind engine out, there is a difficulty in maintaining a

wings level attitude and you can if you are not careful overcontrol the bank during that brief

mode when you are getting away from the ground. Good features, flight path command law,

the gamma dot V, works fine throughout all these tasks. There is really no problem except

for the ones already mentioned.

Pilot F

Takeoff and Rotation Climb Questionnaire. 23 Jan 97

1. Adequacy of Pitch, Roll, and Yaw Control Power ?
205

 The same, just the note that I made with the crosswind and the engine failure, during and

right after rotation, you might go back and look at the amount of rudder that was in there.

Of course you can look at all the tapes and see if there is anything... any control surfaces

close to saturation.

2. Predictability of Pitch, Roll, and Yaw Responses to Pilot Inputs ? Any special

control techniques required ?

 If you let the... one thing that I didn't really like very much, was this transition in rudder

control law, between on the runway and in flight, and I guess it takes about 10 seconds right

after rotation, and I thought it made it difficult to track, because I'm having to readjust the

rudder pedals, and the control laws changing at the same time, and at the same time, I'm also

trying to pick up and track laterally the flight director cue, and right after rotation, that's kind

of a busy time, and I'm trying to get everything squared away, and in addition to that, I'm

having the control laws change over this decrement of time, and I think we really need to

look at that real careful. If you release the rudder pedals, or make a large input, that causes

you a... at least slightly down the line, after some very small time decrement, a lateral input,

that you have to correct for, and you can get some roll bobbles at that point, anyway, it's

annoying to say the least, and I think there's got to be a more elegant way to get through

that, that particular phase, and also, again, I think we need to look at the beta cue, lateral

acceleration cue, the use of that on the ground and in flight, and square that away a little bit

better too. I think that some better cueing, and also the cue being lower around... the pilot

being able to pick up the yaw or the lateral acceleration cue, either one in his field of regard,

rather than having to raise his eyes up to cross-check at the top of the display, would also be

helpful. As far as predictability goes, I didn't have any real problems with the pitch, I think

overall the airplane could be a little bit crisper. The yaw response was really... what we just

discussed was really my concern, and that does enter into the roll response, like I said, the

roll, as I have mentioned before, when you put an input in, if you want to stop the roll, or the

pitch attitude somewhere, you almost have to reverse the stick, which kind of makes it pop,

makes the airplane pop to a stop, I'd prefer a little bit crisper roll control too.

3. Ability to control and track pitch attitude, flight path, bank angle, and/or

heading ?

 I think we've discussed most of the issues that... already as far as controlling and tracking

these things. The biggest thing is the yaw, and I noticed that mostly with the crosswind and

the engine failure, again, no really new comments there except for my taste the airplane

could be a little bit crisper. I'd prefer a crisper airplane and let the pilot back off on his gains

for passenger comfort, and I think that... also some of the roll, well, we've already talked

about the pitch and the roll coupling together with the way the stick is set in the cockpit and

I also think the stick could be to maybe friction and breakout band wise a little bit better to

and that may improve some of these things that we're seeing.

4. Ability to control airspeed during climb (autothrottle off) ?

 Really, most of everything that we've been doing, we've been doing to pitch attitudes, not

really trying to control airspeed with pitch, so I don't know that I have a good answer for

this. I didn't see anything particularly during the takeoff profiles we did with respect to this

that really causes a problem, except for, there are sometimes when, actually for... I don't

know, a second or two, which seems like a long time to me, you'll see the commanded flight

path vector in the actual flight path vector split on some of these profiles, and you know, we

talked about this yesterday, it was one of the questions, and you know, flight path vector, the

actual one is still a performance parameter... to a commanded one. I'm concerned somewhat

that some of the pilots are going to, really that commanded one is... command and actual,

except for when there is a split. I'm wondering if there might be a need for separate
206

symbology. Anyway, I guess what I really want to state here is, is with manual throttles in

the gamma control, I think we need to look at that more in detail too, because now you

become gamma on pitch only, and I'm not sure if there aren't some time delays in there, but I

guess in my mind if we're going to use a gamma control airplane, when I turn the

autothrottles off, it's no longer controlling to the window, or the selected airspeed, but it

seems to me like it should still, my throttle should basically give me speed down the flight

path or airspeed control, but my engines still... and pitch control should still work together

to control gamma. Anyway, I think that the manual throttles and with the gamma control, I

think needs to be looked at and considered a little bit more carefully.

5. Were there any PIO tendencies in the Speed, Pitch, or Roll Axis ? If Yes, was the

task continued or abandoned ?

 I think with a really tight gain, when you're trying to make very... track a roll attitude very

closely. I do think there's maybe a slight tendency that pilot can couple up, there's definitely

a tendency to overcontrol, and I would equate it to a predictability problem, the coasting to

the stop... and I can't really get the airplane to respond to a crispy... crisply, and I also have

problems making very small precise inputs, and so the overcontrolling, I think in some

cases, is the pilot didn't back off on his gain. He could couple up and maybe, maybe

starting... start towards getting a PIO, I think you can quickly arrest that by backing off on

his gain, but I do think that the pitch axis needs a little bit more work in that area.

6. Pitch/roll inceptor and rudder pedal characteristics: force and displacement,

sensitivity, and pitch/roll harmony ?

 I do think the stick could be tuned a little bit better. I think the sensitivity issue... I think for

tracking very small roll angles, there may be a little bit of a control harmony and sensitivity

issue, it could... part of it could be equated to friction and breakout, but I do think that it

takes a lot of effort to track a small bank angle precisely. If I allow it... you know if I just let

go of the stick, and I don't perturb in roll when I'm making pitch inputs, it'll pretty much

hold a roll attitude, but if I want to correct it by 1 degree or so, if I want to do that fairly

quickly, it's kind of hard to do, if I take... if I'm very patient with doing it, then I can do it,

but anyway it... I think it could be better.

7. During the Takeoff Rollout, were there any problems ?

 And I don't think during the rollout we saw any problems except for the one noted already

about the... in the crosswind the displaced beta cue is kind of a detractor, and we probably

should look at the low visibility stuff, and then a little bit of an angle off, which we talked

about probably due to skid angle on the tires, to maintain centerline on the crosswind.

8. During the Takeoff Rotation, were there any problems ?

 That's still difficult to track the rotation bars real precisely and get desired performance.

You can get adequately fairly easily. The... again the, going through the rudder pedal control

law transition, is... I didn't really like the way that worked that well, and I think that could

use some work, and also if you let some yaw rates develop, you can get into a situation

where you get some of those lateral inputs or lateral roll offs, you know, that you have to

correct for.

9. Effects of winds and turbulence ?

 Effects of Wind/Turbulence. We've kind of really already covered the wind, and the... or...

in all these questions.

10. Summary - Good/Bad features ?

 I think we've pretty much covered too.
207

Stall/Turning Pilot Questionnaire

Pilot A

Stall/Turning Pilot Questionnaire 13 Jan 97

1. Adequacy of pitch and roll control power ?

 There seemed to be plenty ... plenty of each, yes, the... in the stalls, the harmony is

disrupted, because of the pitch protection from that high angle of attack protection, the

forces go high, while the aileron forces remain low, and that creates some perturbations in

roll.

2. Predictability of Pitch and Roll Response to Pilot Inputs ? Any special control

techniques required ?

 Is quite predictable and the only special technique really required would be to pay attention

to the forces light aileron versus heavy pitch forces.

3. Ability to control and track pitch attitude, flight path, bank angle, and heading

?

 Pitch Attitude, does ... could be easily controlled as well as Flight Path, and Bank Angle,

and Heading in the recovery as the pitch forces were reduced the ... it was easier to control

bank angle, although, you can control it within limits, there is some little oscillation, plus or

minus 5 degrees around the target, because of the control harmony change as you went into

speed, to lower speeds. It would be helpful to have markings on the angle of attack indicator,

and also like desired approach angle of attack, and precautionary angle of attack, and also

red line or stick shaker.

4. Ability to Control Airspeed during Recovery ?

 Was fine.

5. Were there any PIO tendencies in the Speed, Pitch, or Roll Axis ?

 I say there was slight PIO tendency in roll because of the unwanted roll inputs, and the

heavy pitch forces, it was a fairly minor item. Nothing divergent.

6. Pitch/roll inceptor and rudder pedal characteristics: force and displacement,

sensitivity, and pitch/roll harmony ?

 The Pitch and Roll Inceptor Characteristics, I mentioned the Force & Displacement is

probably adequate for ... in desirable for deterrent...as a pilot deterrent for low speed

operation, like I say, the aileron sensitivity seems a little high when the ... when the pitch

forces go up.

7. Effects of the Wind/Turbulence ?

 Wind and Turbulence was not a real factor in the tasks, and I'd say that the ... perhaps some

increase in the aileron forces would ... would be appropriate when you're in low speed

protection, with higher elevator forces might be appropriate, have higher aileron, slightly

higher aileron forces.

8. Summary - Good/Bad features ?

 Some of the Good features here is the protection, angle of attack protection seemed to be

good, although alpha ... a better alpha indication with scales and color coding as to proper

ranges of operation, and the limits ... alpha limits would be, I think would be mandatory for

this airplane. For this task it would have been good to have the G meter within normal
208

viewing, in a position where you could view it in a normal seated position, it was out of view

above the top of what you call a window, you had to duck your head down to see the G

meter. So, that's all the comments I have on that.

Pilot B

Stall/Turning Stall Pilot Questionnaire 06 Jan 97

1. Adequacy of pitch and roll control power ?

 Adequacy of pitch and roll control power was adequate. I don't recall ever reaching the

stops.

2. Predictability of Pitch and Roll Response to Pilot Inputs ? Any special control

techniques required ?

 Pitch and roll response relatively predictable in the recovery there's times where you just

kinda have to let directional axis find its own way for awhile, rather than putting inputs in.

That's really the only special control technique. Other than that, I found it relatively

predictable in pitch and roll..with one exception, I guess I should mention, and that's a minor

tendency for roll PIO. That seemed fairly consistent it was in conjunction with moderate to

large longitudinal inputs and I attributed it to control inceptor cross coupling. There, since

the axis of the control inceptor is aligned with the fuselage and not with my arm, I'm

inadvertently putting role inputs in in conjunction with the large longitudinally ones, and its

causing me to have to fight it. I found on pitch down, that I can control that a little bit by

using the heel of my hand instead of my entire hand to push the stick down, trying to avoid

those lateral inputs. That seemed to help a bit, but there is a pronounced cross coupling

tendency. I believe the control pitch attitude, you're fighting the....I was fighting the pitch

axis a little bit in terms of hunting for the right attitude and the right force after the stall

protection control laws kicked in. But again, it wasn't inordinate and it wasn't enough to

consistently kick it into level 2.

3. Ability to control and track pitch attitude, flight path, bank angle, and heading

?

 Flight path control was somewhat linked to that since I'm really controlling flight path at

that point, and the same comments will apply. Bank angle control with exception of the PIO

tendencies that talked about was okay within 5 degrees in general. Heading control, again,

was relatively good, the only..the problems I got in conjunction with the longitudinal inputs

applied both to turning stalls and to where you're controlling angle of bank and to..straight

stalls where you're controlling a combination of heading and angle of bank.

4. Ability to Control Airspeed during Recovery ?

 I wasn't really trying to control airspeed during the recovery, other than to have an increase,

but, there was no control. I wasn't controlling a rate during the recovery so I think that's

kinda N/A.

5. Were there any PIO tendencies in the Speed, Pitch, or Roll Axis ? If yes, was the

task continued or abandoned ?

 I talked about PIO in roll .....and what I did was continue the task with reduced pilot gain. I

tried to back off a little bit. I did not have to abandon the task to prevent divergence.

6. Pitch/roll inceptor and rudder pedal characteristics: force and displacement,

sensitivity, and pitch/roll harmony ?
209

 Force and displacement characteristics seemed about right for the control inceptor. I did not

have a repeat this afternoon of the problems I had this morning. Sensitivity is ...yeah, its

kinda hard to call sensitivity okay when I'm having problems with precise control and angle

of bank. But, I think that due to cross coupling , predominately. When I'm controlling lateral

axis only, I don't seem to have the same problems. Pitch and roll harmony in terms of

mechanical characteristics and sensitivity I think are okay...again, it would be nice if you

have the same sort of latch in angular bank control that you have in flight path control with

the gamma control law, such that a lack of input in turbulence would pretty much give you

straight level flight. Right now that's not the case, you gotta make constant ...relatively

constant lateral inputs. And that was due to the wind and turbulence which was the next or

turbulence which is the next question.

7. Effects of the Wind/Turbulence ?

 Wind, I don't think we had a cross-wind in any of these, it was just turbulence. And it

wouldn't have affected me anyway because I'm controlling the airplane with respect to the

ground.

8. Summary - Good/Bad features ?

 So in summary the predominately complaint I have is the cross-coupling and the control

inceptor. And the rest of it look pretty consistently good.

(BACKGROUND: Do you think that could be fixed by tuning the inceptor ?

) Possibly, I don't know. Its hard to extrapolate on that one. You might...canting the axis

might help a little bit, for me, but you might want to run it...it might hurt other pilots who

may not...who may expect to have to pull to the left. I'm consistently, when I pull back, I'm

consistently putting a small right input. And when I push forward, I'm consistently putting a

small left input in.

(BACKGROUND VOICES) Yeah, It should probably be mentioned that not too long ago I

participated in that Ames 2, and we did look at a variety control inceptors and I did have

problems with cross-coupling there. I had not complained about it significantly to my

knowledge in the past but maybe I am getting enough experience now with the system that

I'm seeing small things like that. It's not ...you wouldn't call them unsatisfactory. And, its

very low amplitude PIO. Its not anything pronounced on the order of one degree or so. But,

its there. That's it.

Pilot C

Stall/Turning Pilot Questionnaire 06 Jan 97

1. Adequacy of pitch and roll control power ?

 Yeah, it was there, it takes a lot to get that 21, boy, you can tell something is fighting you

like crazy, because it takes a lot of pressure, and to the point where...you know...I don't

think anybody is accidental going to pull that much pressure, with as little forces as you

need to fly this normally, in order to get it and maintain it up anywhere near that 21, you're

pulling so hard, I can't imagine getting there, not realizing, boy, something is really wrong,

why am I doing this, so, that was a good indication there. Now here, again, the task today

was to keep it within 5 degrees of bank angle, and all I could say is, that was fairly easy,

that's a lot different than trying to get to 5 degrees, or you know, either roll in, or roll out,

that's when...it's like balance, some of these things are like balancing a stick, as long as you

keep it real small, it's fairly easy, if you get it very big, then you start seeing problems, but

for the task that I had of just maintaining wings level, it was easy, no problem.
210

2. Predictability of Pitch and Roll Response to Pilot Inputs ? Any special control

techniques required ?

 Predictability, the toughest thing, when you start getting a real high alpha, you can chase

that karat all over the place, but I never felt like I was completely out of control and just

overshot a few times.

3. Ability to control and track pitch attitude, flight path, bank angle, and heading

?

 Pitch Attitude and Flight Path, did pretty much what I wanted to. You tend to overshoot as

you chase it like I said, but...and I'm talking about at the 21 degrees now. Bank angle, I

never had a problem with the straight ahead ones, or the turning ones that I just had to roll

out. The technique I was using, it's the same one you use in any other airplane, as you get

off the backpressure, and then roll, the straight ahead ones I could just, and the heavyweight

one too, I think...there was...I could just get off the backpressure, recovered itself, with the

lighter weight ones, and probably I'd have to see, gee I don't remember, but at least the

lighter weight ones I had to push to kind of hurry it along, it wasn't doing it quite as fast as I

liked, but minimal, minimal, hardly worth talking about.

4. Ability to Control Airspeed during Recovery ?

 Ability to Control Airspeed during the recovery ? Wasn't trying to control, I was just

trying to get it going in the right direction, of course it did.

5. Were there any PIO tendencies in the Speed, Pitch, or Roll Axis ?

 Any PIO tendencies in the pitch or roll axis, okay, what I said holds for all the things I saw,

and this, the PIO tendency here, is the only one that I...made a difference whether the engine

out, the engine was out or not, and on this one, if I was real smooth and slow, I could get...I

could bring it right back, and get the desired performance, but if I hurried it real fast, and got

that yaw going, then I would get into a PIO that...it would damp out, but it was several

oscillations that I was fighting. It seems like once the sideslip got away, you're in for a ride,

because to get the thing finally settled down, it's going to take a little bit of time, and I

noticed that when I rolled it fast, I was trying to keep the sideslip zero in the turn, so I was

holding a little bit, and then when I would roll fast, I tried just freezing it once, and then

trying to...trying to stay ahead and keep the sideslip centered, and that's when I really

noticed this anomaly with sideslip indication, I don't know what to say about it, but there I

did see a PIO, and even though, I might have lucked out and kept the oscillations within

desired, we at [my organization] at least have a thing, if you have a PIO, that's never desired,

so, that automatically puts it into a 5, I might have dipped into the adequate on the bank

angle anyway, but with the PIO in there...certainly not desired characteristic.

6. Pitch/roll inceptor and rudder pedal characteristics: force and displacement,

sensitivity, and pitch/roll harmony ?

 Inceptor characteristic, I mentioned the forces were nice and high, as I would expect them,

and yet it didn't seem to effect my ability to roll as fast as I wanted to, even when I was

holding the force, not much else on that, ...

7. Effects of the Wind/Turbulence ?

 ...and there's not wind and turbulence on the stall, and turning stall, unobserved I guess,

and...

8. Summary - Good/Bad features ?
211

 ...in general, very, very benign from what I've heard or war stories from previously, it's a

vast improvement, and gee these were, you know, as benign stall characteristics as you could

ask for, with the exception of that one with the engine out, and a rapid roll recovery, other

than that, they were all pretty easy, not difficult. That ought to do it. {Emergency Descent

comments} Do you think you'd like to add on the emergency descent ? No, that's...I'll be

surprised if you can ever get that to be quick enough, because we were twice the time above

25, and I...you know...as far as I could tell, I was going down about as fast, I might have

improved it by 25 percent, but that still wouldn't meet your criteria, you're going to end up

with something else on that, I'm sure, but as far as the display itself goes, that's not a bad

display, in fact, considering that you had that step in there, it was a big help, because I would

hate to try to say okay, at this altitude, okay, what...I should be at such and such airspeed,

and go on, I mean, it did take that away, and the predictor helped, there's probably...with a

little work, somebody is going to be able to come up with a pretty cook book style recovery,

in other words, do this, do this, do this, and then control the predictor up and down with

backpressure, something like that, there's probably some magic technique in there that

would help it, and in a case like that, if you do have one that works, it's not a bad idea,

because this a pretty hairy situation, if you're at 50,000 ft, where your blood is going to boil,

and you just lost your pressurization, you know, the odds of your mind being really settled

down, and saying okay, what do I need to do now, it's nice to have something that you can at

least get started, you know, get the nose down, get doing this, don't go over this bank angle,

put this limit on, okay, now you get started, all right, now you've got time to say, okay now,

how do I modify what I'm doing to make it better, but to get the initial stuff going, it's almost

like bold face procedures, you're rote almost just to get you started, it's a good idea. Do you

find having to hold sidestick override the lateral system roll limit ? That's a...that's a good

point, that would have been nice, I think if I could have eliminated that, yeah, some kind of a

override, I hadn't thought about that, that's a good point, yeah, that was a distraction after a

while, only because you're holding it for so darn long, my god. If it was on the left, it would

have been harder ? Good point, probably...yeah, but that's...sure...that's why I kept...I put it

at 45 and I'd look around and start tracking things, and I've got to say, geeze, I'm back at 35

or 40, I have to put it back in, that's why, yeah, good point, I hadn't thought of that, but now

that you bring it up, you're right. You'd recommend a defeat on that ? Yeah, yeah...some

kind of a thing that would've...that would've improved it, yeah, it sure would.

Pilot D

Stall/Turning Stall Pilot Questionnaire 22 Jan 97

1. Adequacy of pitch and roll control power ?

 I think that was the overwriting impression I got from the stall serious, was that we had

plenty of pitch control power, and in fact, you know, the initial recovery is essentially to just

let go of the stick in the aircraft, the stall... you know, the envelope protection recovers it at a

very nice rate.

2. Predictability of Pitch and Roll Response to Pilot Inputs ? Any special control

techniques required ?

 It's good, maybe tendency to bobble particularly in roll, so you have to keep your gains low,

I think it would be a special control technique.

3. Ability to control and track pitch attitude, flight path, bank angle, and heading

?

 Ability to Control Pitch Attitude is reasonable. Flight path angle was not applicable. Bank

angle tendency to PIO there. Heading, not really a factor.
212

4. Ability to Control Airspeed during Recovery ?

 N/A.

5. Were there any PIO tendencies in the Speed, Pitch, or Roll Axis ?

 Yes, and tended to, in both the pitch and the roll, particularly roll, and tended to compensate

by just using a reduced gain, just taking it very slow and easy, which is appropriate for the

maneuver anyway.

6. Pitch/roll inceptor and rudder pedal characteristics: force and displacement,

sensitivity, and pitch/roll harmony ?

 Pitch/Roll Inceptor Characteristics, all reasonable. Not saying they're optimum, but they

were all reasonable and not a factor in the performance, I didn't feel.

7. Effects of the Wind/Turbulence ?

 Wind and Turbulence, we didn't have any wind. Turbulence apparently only had light. It

definitely wasn't a factor.

8. Summary - Good/Bad features ?

 Summary Good features, the aircraft is very nice. Recovery characteristics as far as the

pitch authority to get the airplane back into the envelope. Bad features are the tendency to

PIO a little bit, particularly in roll.

Pilot E

Stall/Turning Stall Pilot Questionnaire 07 Jan 97

1. Adequacy of pitch and roll control power ?

 I though there was adequate both pitch and roll. A couple times I went to the stops just to

see where I could get and I felt that the recovery rates were adequate both time. Interestingly

that I got, I maxed out the elevators by not going to the stops, so going to the stops a couple

times, I was actually, I had already saturated the controls, but I didn't feel like I needed a

whole lot more authority, so I thought it was okay, but the fact that you can saturate the

controls with just slightly forward stick during the recovery, may indicate that there might be

some trimming that might need to be done in the control law where a pilot will still be able

to command more authority with forward stick. You don't want to just go slightly forward of

neutral and saturate your flight controls and have a whole bunch of wasted stick, inceptor

movement, but I think it's fine, I wouldn't... don't think you need to adjust anything.

2. Predictability of Pitch and Roll Response to Pilot Inputs ? Any special control

techniques required ?

 Pitch was very predictable. Roll was a little PIO prone in several different areas. I noticed

around 17 or 18 degrees angle attack on the straight ahead stall recoveries, I occasionally

got a little roll PIO, and also in some of the turning stalls, which would recover, especially

with power on, which will recover more rapidly, I would get some roll PIO down around 7

degrees alpha at the low end, so in that case the roll response wasn't as crisp as I would like,

also in the tuning stalls, trying to hold 30 degrees angle in bank was hard especially with the

engine out, and it shouldn't be that hard, the control law should allow you to be able to pretty

much hold an angle of bank without having to work so hard. As far as any special control

techniques, I was just fighting to try and hold the angle of bank or to keep from getting

PIO. I did find that if I used a more..., on the turning star recoveries, if I used a less

aggressive correction to wings level from the 30 degrees angle of bank, it would not tend to
213

PIO, but if I used a very aggressive roll recovery to wings level, I would PIO, so obviously I

would tend to not be quite as aggressive not to get the roll PIO. The roll PIO is probably

plus or minus 1 or 2 degrees and probably around 2 hertz.

3. Ability to control and track pitch attitude, flight path, bank angle, and heading

?

 For the stalls, I don't know if that's a really easy one to answer because I was trying to close

on a speed deceleration rate and not necessarily a pitch attitude, and what had to happen was

you had to use the pitch attitude to close on the deceleration karat flying a flight path

control, control law, so we're not really finding the control law as it's optimized to be flown,

but it's.... the pitch attitude is still easy to control, but on that task I am trying to close with

deceleration karat at times especially on the power on ones I seem to have a little bit harder

time closing on the 1 degree per second deceleration. Flight path, we didn't really ever close

on the flight path on any of the stalls, so there is really no comment there, it was all basically

attitude type flying. Bank angle, I have already mentioned it was difficult to hold 30 degrees

angle of bank, also I would have to hold rudder in, and when I would roll over to the 30

degrees angle of bank I would get a side slip, uncommanded side slip that would required

constant rudder pressure to rudder pedal input, to negate, so that shouldn't happen either, we

need some type of an aileron rudder interconnect type function to null out the side slip when

you roll into an angle of bank. And the interesting thing is when you roll into the angle of

bank, if you do nothing, the side slip stays there, in fact the side slip will stay there forever.

Heading, we really didn't close on heading at all, so it's not a factor in this evaluation, so

flight path and heading we really never tried to close on.

4. Ability to Control Airspeed during Recovery ?

 Again this question is kind of non-applicable, basically I am just trying to push the nose

over to some, indeterminent body angle and let the aircraft recover, so due to recovery,

you're not really trying to control airspeed or you are not able to accurately close on that, so

that's not really applicable, I don't think.

5. Were there any PIO tendencies in the Speed, Pitch, or Roll Axis ?

 Yes in Roll, No in Pitch. If yes was the task continued, or abandoned ? There is never a

question being diversioned, there were very minor roll PIO's, just kind of nuisance, and

basically if you reduce the pilot gain, you will exit the PIO.

6. Pitch/roll inceptor and rudder pedal characteristics: force and displacement,

sensitivity, and pitch/roll harmony ?

 Force & displacement ? Fine Sensitivity ? Fine Pitch/Roll Harmony ? Fine. No

problems on any of those. Very nice inceptor characteristics in my opinion.

7. Effects of the Wind/Turbulence ?

 No effects on these tasks. If the turbulence was making the speed stability a little bit worse,

I was aware of it, perhaps it was, there really... because of the nature of the task where you

are really kind of high gain trying to enclose on the deceleration karat, I don't know whether

the turbulence was exasturbating that or not.

8. Summary - Good/Bad features ?

 I think it stalls pretty nice, or I think it approaches the stall very nicely... approaches the

high angle of attack condition. A couple times I released the stick and let it recover on its

own and it always seemed to want to recover on its own so there is no tendency to release

the stick and have it want to go into a higher stall condition, or higher angle of attack.

Diversely, at times I went full stick motion, no deceptor, was very aggressive to the stop, and
214

I got no ill effects, there was no tendency to have a alpha spike, or something like that. So

basically, you could either, you could... recover from doing nothing, just releasing the stick

to go in full force stick aggressively and you still got a recovery. The bad features we talked

about the roll PIO, the occasional roll PIO, and the difficulty in holding the angle of bank,

and also the speed stability when you are trying to get the higher angle of the attack, the

Gamma Dot V doesn't seem to want to make it easy to close on a 1 degree per second

deceleration. That's all the comments to those questions.

Pilot F

Stall/Turning Stall Pilot Questionnaire 23 Jan 97

1. Adequacy of pitch and roll control power ?

 I think it's fine, there was one issue that came up, and that was about how much pitch rate

could be initially generated at, right at the stall, and I think using forward stick we could

generate about 3.4 or 3.5 in the condition that we looked at. I would recommend that, I

guess the Milspec says 4 degrees per second squared as a minimum, I think this was

something that probably should be looked at in the TIFS, so that you get some tactile

feedback too, you know, there's not the... it's not a real airplane, so, it doesn't quite have the

urgency in the simulator, than it does in a real airplane, and also the pilot doesn't get a lot of

the tactile feedback that he does in a real airplane as far as sensation of G and that, and I

think that probably this should be continued to be scrutinized, and probably looked at in the

TIFS also, for what it's worth.

2. Predictability of Pitch and Roll Response to Pilot Inputs ? Any special control

techniques required ?

 Again, a little bit of a tendency to couple roll inputs with pitch, and the same thing that we

talked about pitch, or I mean roll tracking all along. If I want to track plus or minus two

degrees, and I'm very patient, I can do that, if I want to really hold it right on the roll attitude,

and I'm pretty aggressive with the tracking, or trying to track that I can get some... I can see

some over controlling and the technique is just to back off on the gain a little bit.

3. Ability to control and track pitch attitude, flight path, bank angle, and heading

?

 During the recovery you do go through at 15 degrees where you have transition from

releasing back pressure to a push, I didn't really think that was a big deal. We've already

really kind of talked about the roll phenomenon.

4. Ability to Control Airspeed during Recovery ?

 We didn't really... that wasn't really a metric that we tried to control to, we basically were

just flying AOA throughout this maneuver, so.

5. Were there any PIO tendencies in the Speed, Pitch, or Roll Axis ?

 And again, I'll make the same comment about the roll, you definitely can overcontrol on roll,

if you back off on your gain a little bit, you'll stop doing that. I'm a little bit hesitant to say

that it's a PIO tendency, but it is leaning towards that direction of slight PIO.

6. Pitch/roll inceptor and rudder pedal characteristics: force and displacement,

sensitivity, and pitch/roll harmony ?

 Nothing that is basically the same as we discussed previously on the previous question.

7. Effects of the Wind/Turbulence ?
215

 I didn't really see anything significant there.

8. Summary - Good/Bad features ?

 I think we've kind of covered that.
216

Climb/Cruise/Descent Pilot Questionnaire

Pilot A

Climb/Cruise/Descent Pilot Questionnaire 15 Jan 97

1. Adequacy of Pitch and Roll Control Power (as applicable) ?

 There's plenty of pitch and roll control power, that is not a problem.

2. Predictability of Pitch and Roll Responses to Pilot Inputs ? Any special control

techniques required ?

 There is...in some of the very precise pitch control tasks where precise vertical speed is

required, it's...requires some very fine touch on the pitch attitude, and which requires

scanning, the pitch, or the flight path vector symbol on the head up display, and sharing that

with a scan on the altimeter, and vertical speed indicator head down, because the...often

times the display for vertical speed on a head up display is too course, and the altimeter

often times is...seems to be quite difficult to read, especially very near the target

altitude...seems.

3. Ability to Control and Track: flight path, bank angle, heading ?

 That is affected by the head up display to a large extent, most of the problems encountered

in these controls, in these tasks were based on available information for a control input,

rather than the control itself. A vernier input on the flight path control, blip it to the nearest

tenth of a degree, or less might be appropriate, and along with the digit rolling... digits on

vertical path information, flight path angle to the nearest tenth, or perhaps hundreds of

degree for supersonic flight, and combining that with a blipping a trim button or would give

you better tracking. Bank angle, the ability to control and track bank angle, that would have

been approved by, could be improved by a track hold feature, of which would allow the track

to be held once the...essentially at wings level condition existed for a reasonable wings level,

was existed for a certain period of time, the same thing goes for the vertical axis and altitude

hold, function where basically zero vertical speed was held for a certain time period, then

altitude hold function could be invoked until the pilot directs otherwise, the track hold

function would help the heading a little bit. One of the things that seemed to be apparent in

this simulation was, the sidestick detent for roll, seemed to be light compared to the forces

on pitch and roll, in other words, it was fairly easy to get out of the detent and command

a...some kind of roll input, and which causes small heading change, and so, your attention is

diverted to controlling roll angles, a fair amount of your attention is diverted to that. That

could be improved upon.

4. Ability to Control Airspeed (Autothrottle Off) ?

 [This] didn't seem to be a problem in spite of the large amount of friction in the throttles,

accel-decel cue seemed to be working, essentially, effectively, except...perhaps when large

vertical speeds were involved, then it seemed to not work very good. The high rates of

descents, 4000 ft a minute, the...holding...was it holding airspeed, I think, it was off, and so

that, you can still hold airspeed, but you just had to disregard the accel-decel cue on the

HUD at times.

5. Were there any PIO tendencies in the pitch or roll axis ? If yes, was the task

continued or abandoned ?

 For speed, no, I don't think there were, Pitch, can't say that there were necessarily... there

were overshoots and undershoots of desired vertical speed, but I wouldn't really call them a
217

PIO, same thing with roll, slight roll deviations that were undesirable, then again, I wouldn't

call them a PIO, so I guess the answer to that question is no.

6. Pitch/Roll Inceptor and Rudder Pedal Characteristics: Force & displacement,

sensitivity, pitch/roll harmony ?

 I think I touched upon the fact that when heavy... the forces are, and under some conditions

are, relatively heavier for pitch, and when you are requiring fine tuning of roll, the detent

coming out of the center detent in roll seems to be very minimal, and it's fairly easy, at least

it was easy for me to get a roll input, when I really didn't want it. I think it was because the

lower... the combination of forces of pitch, pitch force being somewhat high, slightly high,

and the roll force being high, but the detent being quite low, I don't think, I had a tendency to

fly with the left wing down, I'm not sure whether it was the ergonomics of the sidestick, or

whether it was just a display where we had an asymmetry in the... a fact that we had airspeed

displayed on one side, and nothing on the right side of the...on occasion, on the right side of

the flight path vector, might have been a visual thing or it could have been ergonomics, so I

had to fight consciously to keep from doing that. I think the lower... what appeared to be a

lower detent breakout force for roll, seemed to be effecting that. Pitch and Roll Harmony

seemed reasonable.

7. Effects of the Wind/Turbulence ?

 It seemed as though you can fly hands off in some of the vertical speed tasks, and see a

variation in the pitch, in the flight path vector and the airspeed... and vertical speed, so you

had to constantly, be fine tuning that particular aspect of it to stay within tolerance.

8. Summary - Good/Bad features ?

 Some of the Good and Bad features. The good features are the... I like the ability to see the

margins you have on the inlet unstarts, that seemed to be pretty effective in avoiding an

unstart, and I think you need that kind of a cue, and they also need a good... good G, well, if

you're doing simulations, you need the G more than you do, if you're really flying the

airplane you can feel the G's, and you restrict yourself to something that's... the airline

passenger would not... would want to... would feel good about, or would not alarm a

passenger, so, you would automatically restrict a lot of your inputs based on the seat of the

pants feel, but for simulation, it might be good to have a G meter, it probably displayed what

you did have, but I'm not sure that the vertical tape G meter was the best display in the

world. I can say I mentioned as a bad feature, I think...I suspect that the detent for roll is just

a little weak, and perhaps that was letting me get out of the detent when I didn't want to.

Pitch detent seemed to be fine. The display features, the vertical tape features, trying to hold

altitude, interpret very small altitude deviations on the altitude vertical tape on the HUD, is

very difficult, and also the resolution of the vertical speed, seemed to be lacking and would

be good to have digital vertical speed displayed at the top and bottom, and/or bottom of the

vertical speed indicator to help read that out. The displays they used for the descent, the

profile, the normal descent, and the emergency descents, they were usable tools, but for the

most part, they would be somewhat strange to most pilots, and one of things that perhaps

would be a good, to do, would be to look at pilot performance with an airspeed indicator,

that would be equivalent for what we have on most airplanes today, a Mach indicator with a

programmed barber pole, and a clacker, so that you can see immediately and exactly how

much margin you had, some indication of... some knowledge, some prior knowledge, or

perhaps maybe a indication, on the altimeter of the knee points, where you go from a

constant airspeed, a variable airspeed, variable keys to, constant keys barber pole, would be

of value to kind of cue the pilot in, but, hey, you're coming up on a knee here, you need to be

alert and watch the airspeed, because you could overshoot, or undershoot. I think that's all

the comments I have, the rest of them are all made as I went along.
218

[Not sure why, but the pilot answered the same questions again]

1. Adequacy of Pitch and Roll Control Power (as applicable) ?

 There's plenty of control power, both in pitch and roll, however, there was an observed

tendency at high altitude heavyweight to... began to touch the boundaries of PIO rolling out

aggressively from turns, because of the time delay involved in the control response, and the

tendency to overshoot the desired control, or desired bank angle. There seems to be a large

amount of overshoot, 10-20 degrees on roll at high altitudes heavyweight, high speed, so,

less apparent and not a problem down at low altitudes, intermediate altitudes and as you get

to lower, and lower altitudes, it becomes less of a problem, in the mid altitudes it's not quite

as noticeable. At 64,000 ft, it seems more apparent. That reduced the Cooper Harper ratings

in terms of roll control, and high altitudes. Light... high altitudes, lightweights, seemed to be

slightly less apparent, and not as much of a problem.

2. Predictability of Pitch and Roll Responses to Pilot Inputs ? Any special control

techniques required ?

 In terms of predictability, pitch was always predictable, however, the roll response was

somewhat unpredictable in terms of, at high altitude, as was said before, the large amount of

anticipation that had to be made in terms of rolling out on a particular bank angle, you

actually have to stop the roll with opposite input, if you want to precisely roll out. The very

lower altitudes, 3 or 4, or 5 degrees at the most bank... coasting when you center the detent,

was noted, that's sort of normal.

3. Ability to Control and Track: flight path, bank angle, heading ?

 Was good, and with the exception that... again, the comment... suggestion is made that a

submode of longitudinal control, which could be an altitude hold, when you're maintaining

very close to zero, very close to zero vertical speed, in addition, bank angle, when you're

close to zero bank, in constant track would be, a feature would be... would be good when the

stick is in the detent. Bank angle control was, again, hampered to some degree by the...

assumingly in a very small detent around zero, and the bank angle was affected by

turbulence and so forth, it did not seem as though, especially at high altitudes, that the bank

angle was being maintained constant when your hands were off the stick, and it seems to me

that's the basis of the control law.

4. Ability to Control Airspeed (Autothrottle Off) ?

 The main comment there is the friction of this particular autothrottle quadrant is fairly high,

so there's a large effort... there's a significant effort in overcoming the friction, it's a bit of a

distraction, the Cooper Harper ratings that I gave tended to ignore that particular aspect of

the simulator, and assumed that you would have reasonable friction in the throttles.

5. Were there any PIO tendencies in the pitch or roll axis ? If yes, was the task

continued or abandoned ?

 I didn't see any in terms of speed and pitch, however, in roll at heavyweight high altitude,

there was a slight tendency towards a PIO, it was not divergent, but could be noticeable by

other pilots who are being quite aggressive with the controls.

6. Pitch/Roll Inceptor and Rudder Pedal Characteristics: Force & displacement,

sensitivity, pitch/roll harmony ?

 Like I say the Force and Displacement, the sidestick, if grabbed and squeezed, and used in

that manner, would tend to mix the inputs inadvertently, and on occasion where aggressive

controls are being applied, in pitch or roll you'd get some cross talk in terms of the inputs,
219

the... it's possible that the detents and forces could be redone slightly to improve this, the

detents seemed to be very small in roll, although, it's certainly noticeable in pitch and roll,

but it's quite small, compared to the forces vs. displacement. Pitch and Roll Harmony are

reasonably good, with the exception of getting... when you get into envelope limiting where

you have to hold a large force and displacement, and say for example, in pitch or roll, then

the other axis is out... is non harmonious, at that point, and it's easy to... even more easy to

get cross inputs, unwanted inputs in the other axis.

7. Effects of the Wind/Turbulence ?

 They seemed to be affecting, especially roll. I put the stick in the detent, and the bank angle

was not being held as precisely as you would expect.

8. Summary - Good/Bad features ?

I suppose a good feature isn't... if you... in pitch at least, if you just keep your hands off the

stick, the flight path angle seems to hold quite, quite well, however, in bank this is not quite

as much of a feature. There seemed to be more variable... in variation in bank with your

hands off the stick. On the HUD display, it would be desirable to go through the, actually

the whole HUD display, and review it to see if meets the... well, to... perhaps investigate the

use of the latest, the best available HUD displays that are currently in use on airplanes

throughout the world. One problem on the HUD was, where various symbols got overlaid

on top of each other, it becomes a little hard to read. The Mach number needs to go out to

three digits, Mach number is difficult to see on the HUD, so you have to use the head down

Mach number, which goes out to three digits, it works quite well, except for its letters are a

little small. So, that's an issue that probably ought to be looked at, is the... is to use a HUD

display that is the best available based on current state of the art. Counterpointers for

airspeed and altimeter, probably would be better than tape displays, and that's just one

example of how that... how the HUD can be improved, but I think, the effort needs to be

established on getting... improving the HUD display, I think pilot performance could be

significantly improved by... by improving the HUD display.

Pilot B

Climb/Cruise/Descent Questionnaire 08 Jan 97

1. Adequacy of Pitch and Roll Control Power (as applicable) ?

 Okay, this is Pilot B, these are my comments, at 3:00 on Wednesday the 8th. Pitch and roll

control power I never got anywhere near the stops on the tests this afternoon, so that was

adequate.

2. Predictability of Pitch and Roll Responses to Pilot Inputs ? Any special control

techniques required ?

 In general, at high speeds when you are commanding an increase or decrease in G there is a

pronounced lag in the G response. So that I will make an input, you'd expect there to be a

first order lag in the pitch rate and at a constant airspeed, therefore G, but it's more

noticeable than what I am used to in other aircraft. Now the only supersonic aircraft I have

ever flown before has been a fighter vehicle, a whole lot less pitch inertia, none the less, there

is a problem in that if you put in a little bit of input and expect to see a G response and don't

see it right away and you are tempted to increase the input, and by the time it catches up

you've got way too much g on. Now what I didn't look at was this effect with set of the

pants cues, all in place, you know the motion system obviously can't keep up with this kind
220

of stuff. So I didn't really look at it with that, and it may be that that damps it enough, it's not

a problem, but there is a small problem with predictability and pitch, that anytime you are

pulling any appreciable G's or pushing appreciable G's, in high speed flight, means that you

have got to be real careful. Kind of exasperating this is the fact that the relationship between

pitch rate and load factor is...changes quite a bit at these speeds, so that a very small pitch

rate is going to result in a whole lot of G, even more so than people might be used to flying

in subsonic airplanes, so we've got to be careful there, and that may even motivate the forces

are low enough on the controls system that may even motivate a change in grading it as we

get to these higher speeds, to increase it, so you don't inadvertently, I mean if you're

grabbing a lunch tray or doing something in the cockpit that ends up bumping the stick

supersonic and you move it any appreciable amount you are going to be in serious, serious

trouble, so that's probably what it is looking at ultimately. The special control technique

there is not to put any high inputs and to be very, very gentle with inputs particularly push

inputs, because of the sensitivity of the airplane to unstart. Didn't look at yaw response a

whole lot today except in the VMCL and there it was pretty much predictable and relatively

linear.

3. Ability to Control and Track: flight path, bank angle, heading ?

 Ability to control and track, this is question 3, flight path, bank angle, and heading, with

those exceptions, not much of a problem. Bank angle and heading there is really no problem

at all, supersonic. It takes so much in the way of pulling to get any yaw rate established on

the airplane that you are not going to be prone to do any of it.

4. Ability to Control Airspeed (Autothrottle Off) ?

 Airspeed control autothrottle off, not much of a problem in the way of airspeed control,

Mach control is a problem. But again, our tolerances may be tight enough here, a hundredth

of a Mach is really, really tight at altitude, that we don't need to worry about it as much as we

are with the tight tolerance. Yeah, it's a problem in the task that we have, but I'm not sure it's

really an operational problem of the airplane.

5. Were there any PIO tendencies in the pitch or roll axis ? If yes, was the task

continued or abandoned ?

 No PIO tendencies in any of the axis with what I did this afternoon. Some of the VMCL

stuff we did this morning, there was minor PIO at very high alphas and low airspeeds when

we were exploring what the min. airspeeds were, but nothing this afternoon.

6. Pitch/Roll Inceptor and Rudder Pedal Characteristics: Force & displacement,

sensitivity, pitch/roll harmony ?

 [We] may be a little bit sensitive in pitch at high Machs, the force there is a relatively low,

the gradients are light and airplane is relatively susceptible to engine inlet unstart at fairly

low forces, so we might want to look at stiffening those up. In terms of harmony, I didn't

notice a problem with harmony, but I think that even if we stiffen up the longitudinal it may

be okay, because I am spending so much time working on the longitudinal and devoting

very little attention to the lateral. I'm not finding myself inadvertently making inputs across

the axis so I don't think harmony is a problem and I suspect it may not even be a problem if

we stiffen up the longitudinal. Now the forces, by the way, are pleasant, but they may be

inappropriate for this mission. I'm not flying an airplane for 2 1/2 hours on autopilot and

cruise and inadvertently bumping the stick and seeing what happens here, that's where I have

a concern.

7. Effects of the Wind/Turbulence ?
221

 Turbulence just added to the entertainment factor by providing the necessity for inputs. I

can't say that it was a real problem though in terms of adding significantly to the work load.

8. Summary - Good/Bad features ?

 In summary, it's a relatively pleasant flying configuration up and away. No major problem

in setting the...doing the task, with the one exception of the descent profiles, and I should

have mentioned this before. The envelope protection occurring at an airspeed that your

operationally going to fly routinely is a problem. If I am going to operationally fly at 2.4

Mach and a 2.41 I've got a system that's going to start pulling on the stick. I've got a

problem with that, and that did interfere with some of the tests that we're trying to operate in

that regime, trying to set a precise descent rate and having the system fighting back on me,

so I think if you are going to have an envelope protection system like that you might want to

push it out to something greater than what you're operation going to fly. In this case maybe

2.5 Mach. Let's see, other than that, except for that, that test would not have been all that

difficult, but that limited us to adequate performance instead of desired. The rest of it was

pretty pleasant with the caveat that I mentioned about sensitivity and light forces and

gradients in maneuvering. Any questions ? That concludes the comments

Pilot B

ClimbCDQ Climb/Cruise/Descent Pilot Questionnaire 09 Jan 97

[This is the second response of this questionnaire that Pilot B gave. He answered some of

these questions in a previous session above.]

1. Adequacy of Pitch and Roll Control Power (as applicable) ?

 Completely adequate, I don't think I ever had problems with hitting the stops or not having

enough control power.

2. Predictability of Pitch and Roll Responses to Pilot Inputs ? Any special control

techniques required ?

 Relatively predictable, very mild tendency for, I even hate to call it PIO, it's overshoot in roll,

if you get real aggressive in roll, there is a very small tendency to overshoot and make a

couple corrections and get a little bit out of phase with it, but it's very, very minor, it's less

than a degree, and it's only in response to very high gain inputs. Is that a function, by the

way, of Mach number ? No, no it's not, it's just a fairly quick airplane in roll, the roll inertia

is well enough that in the gains in the system are low enough, high enough rather, that it's

very responsive in roll, and as a result if you get aggressive with it, you can overshoot. But

you only see at high inputs ? Yes, only with very large inputs and very high gain, in fact,

inordinately high gain fast, for this phase of flight. We're deliberately making the task

artificially high, high gain in order to break out some of this stuff. I don't think it effected, I

mean I was able to keep it within desired performance bounds to spite that, so we're not

talking about anything that's inordinate. Pitch predictability, the only time I had a problem

with that, was in trying to control VSI, and it basically, you'll see that in my HQRs, anytime

VSI is in control, the HQRs tend to be degraded a little bit, in some cases down to the level

2 area, down into the four, type area. I'm not sure how operationally realistic it is in this

airplane to try to hold VSI in manual flight at anytime other than approach and landing, and

even then, one could argue that you are flying flightpath, so, you don't really need to do it

then, so, I'm not sure how operationally reasonable any of this is.

3. Ability to Control and Track: flight path, bank angle, heading ?
222

 [In] general I could do it within the desired bounds, whenever I had to throw VSI into the

task, it reduced my accuracy in the other ones, and that's primarily a scan issue, not

primarily a flight control issue. I don't think you're going do anything with flight control

system to make that better, other than put an autopilot in, it's just a matter of where you have

to scan. Putting the airspeed tape up did help for this task, but I would be hesitant to ask that

tape be put up there in all phases of flight at low altitudes, because it adds a whole lot of

clutter to the display, and again, I'm just not sure that this task is a reasonable one

operationally. Also, adding to the problem was, I perceived the foreground symbology in

there to be slightly out of focus. I always have in this simulator, I don't think it's a matter of

tuning it, I just think it's a matter of limitations of the simulator, but the symbology is

apparently very slightly out of focus. For instance, it's tough to see where the point of the

VSI arrow is, because of that, it's also tough to see very small airspeed deviations breaking

out from the acceleration karat because of that, because of the focus problem. These are...I

don't have a lot of major things to talk about, so, these are minor things...these are in the

light noise.

4. Ability to Control Airspeed (Autothrottle Off) ?

 Let's see ability to control airspeed autothrottle off. The only issue there was the one I just

mentioned, being slightly out of focus with small errors. There was one occasion where

we...we got a little bit slower than we should of because I misread the card and thought I

couldn't sacrifice altitude, and so we got I think 2 hundreds of a Mach below instead of one

hundredth, but I could of recovered that by descending, and didn't. So, controlling airspeed

either with pitch or with throttles, I felt was good.

5. Were there any PIO tendencies in the pitch or roll axis ? If yes, was the task

continued or abandoned ?

 I mentioned a very slight PIO tendency and roll with high gain inputs. No tendencies

whatsoever that I noted in pitch. Very slight Dutch roll tendency when you rapidly recover

from a 30 degree angle of bank type turn. This is the type of maneuver that would be

extreme, if you had people, particularly people walking around in the airplane like you're

going to, for a lot of the flight regime. Despite that, though, I was able to excite the Dutch

roll and maybe got one or two oscillations. It was damped relatively low frequency as you'd

expect and it didn't interfere with precise control because I let it go, because the magnitude

of it was low enough that I wasn't real concerned about it, so, I just kind of let it go until it

stopped and it damped itself out after a couple of overshoots.

6. Pitch/Roll Inceptor and Rudder Pedal Characteristics: Force & displacement,

sensitivity, pitch/roll harmony ?

 I did use rudder pedals a little bit today and rolled them out and into the turns just to help a

little bit, I think also because it is a habit for me in the airplanes that I have flown. It does

tend to help in this airplane, it helps the precision a little bit, both in the roll in and the roll

out, and I felt the force displacement characteristics were fine, very small inputs. As far as

pitch and roll, force and displacement I thought was okay, very pleasant, sensitivity was

pleasant, pitch and roll harmony was pleasant. The force gradients are quite low and as I

mentioned yesterday, probably bear looking at it a little bit to see if they are appropriate in

terms of envelope protection. For the cruise...for the up and away phases, the climb cruise

and descent. In the approach and landing phase, I think they're fine, it's up and away that I

am concerned about, it's the inadvertent inputs, both in terms of structural problems and in

terms of passenger and crew comfort would concern me. I'm not convinced there's a

problem here that bears fixing, it's just a caution that I think is worth looking at.

7. Effects of the Wind/Turbulence ?
223

 Turbulence had the most effect as you would expect at the lower speeds, in fact the last test

that we did, the turbulence transients were outside of the desired band, I though on a couple

of occasions and they happen so fast that you're going to be real hard pressed to correct for

them before they've already influenced your vertical speed, but again I'm not sure that's a

realistic task anyway, but that's what degraded me into level 2, decidedly in the last test, and

again if I could have given half grades, I probably would have rated it even lower than I did.

8. Summary - Good/Bad features ? 

In summary I haven't seen any show stoppers today, I've seen some things I didn't like, I

commented on the overspeed protection happening one knot above your operational limit

speed. I think you typically have two speeds, one is an operational limit and the other is a

cleared limit, and I think the overspeed protection ought to be somewhere in between those

two, not balanced...not pushed to one end of that band. Other than that, relatively pleasant.

That concludes my comments.

Pilot C

Climb/Cruise/Descent Pilot Questionnaire 16 Jan 97

1. Adequacy of Pitch and Roll Control Power (as applicable) ?

 [Descents] I couldn't have used 5 percent of what was available, so it certainly was

sufficient, that was not a problem.

2. Predictability of Pitch and Roll Responses to Pilot Inputs ? Any special control

techniques required ?

 [Descents] Yes, it was all quite, roll and yaw were all very predictable, nothing has changed

on that, and the pitch was not too bad, there was a definite, I was noticing the large breakout

force in pitch, and that might tend to give a little bit of an overshoot, I was getting some

overshoot, but my biggest problem was I was having to concentrate on the speed control

very, very accurately, and with the mechanical characteristic of the throttle, it kind of made it

a, not a...that contaminated the whole evaluation quite a bit, but in general, I'd say

predictability of pitch, roll, and yaw was fine, and with just that one little anomaly there, right

about center I could feel the breakout, and it was annoying.

3. Ability to Control and Track: flight path, bank angle, heading ?

 [Descents] Boy, it is really sensitive, wow, to put it on a...well, no, on the flight path, sure

enough, I'd get quite a ... an overshoot. I probably should be talking about two different

things here, because we've...I've been talking about, primarily the descent, and actually we've

got climb and cruise in there too. Okay, let me just continue, everything I've said up to now,

has been descent, and I'll talk about descent now, and then I'll come back and we'll talk about

climb, and be very short, but it probably should divide it up, because the two were separated

in difficulty. For the descents on the flight path control, it was very difficult to not get an

overshoot in there, and you know, given enough time, I could bracket it, and finally get it

back, but usually had that one time overshoot. Bank angle, well, it would have been easy, the

only thing that, when you lock on to the flight path marker like that, you can have a degree

or two in there of bank angle and not realize it, because the bank index is quite a bit above

the flight path marker, and I was using the HUD for everything except the cross check on

rate of descent and heading, but not often enough, just because the bank angle index was so

far off, and just in one degree, it doesn't take too long before you've got a couple of degrees

on the heading off too.
224

4. Ability to Control Airspeed (Autothrottle Off) ?

 [Descents] Of course I said that, the karat is great, I love it. The indication on the

thermometer error, that's fine. That's all good indications, should be very easy to do, giving a

little bit ability to have more of vernier type thrust control.

5. Were there any PIO tendencies in the pitch or roll axis ? If yes, was the task

continued or abandoned ?

 [Descents] I can't really say they'd be PIO tendencies, they get an overshoot, and I caused it

and all, but not a...certainly no classic PIO big cycles getting...not very many usually, it's

kind of a one time overshoot, and then wait, see what I get, and then try one more, and

hopefully that would be a smaller overshoot and finally get it settled down.

6. Pitch/Roll Inceptor and Rudder Pedal Characteristics: Force & displacement,

sensitivity, pitch/roll harmony ?

 [Descents] Rudder pedals I didn't use enough, and didn't really have any, much of a

comment on those. Force and displacement, and not using very large displacements on this,

but the force and displacement was fine. Sensitivity, I think would have been ... was

reasonable and the pitch and roll harmony, no complaints about that. The biggest complaint,

two...two...two complaints, (1) breakout in the inceptor, both pitch and roll, is too large and

definitely the friction on the throttle, no sense of talking about that anymore, I beat it to

death.

7. Effects of the Wind/Turbulence ?

 [Descents] Really shouldn't be any, and I don't imagine that you're going to get a lot of

turbulence at 50,000 ft, whatever was put in the sim did not appreciably bother me.

1. Adequacy of Pitch and Roll Control Power (as applicable) ?

 Okay, now let's talk about the climb ... leveling off in the climb, certainly adequacy...for

question 1 now...adequacy of pilot...or pitch and roll control, again, couldn't of used 5

percent of it, there was plenty of it.

2. Predictability of Pitch and Roll Responses to Pilot Inputs ? Any special control

techniques required ?

 Predictability was fine too, the display I wasn't particularly happy, this caused me a lot more

concern as I was trying to level off on a altitude. Which display ? The display of...actually

the primary one was the altitude itself on the right hand side on the HUD. I finally decided I

could do better with the round dial down below, so, I kind of used the flight path marker to

make a change, then check inside for the altitude, and I don't have anything against tape

altitudes, we have it in the F-16, and I use it, you know, fairly regularly, because it's both

digital and analogue. It has a little pointer thing ? No, no, doesn't have that, the one that's in

our particular HUD is strictly a tape, I would rather have the other, the other one is much

preferred, I've flown it a few time, and that ones better, but the one that I'm used to using in,

and I have no complaints with that, but with this one, I think probably if there would have

been maybe a bigger tick mark, and possibly...and not blue, yeah, and the other thing was...I

think there's...of course your HUD is not the clearest, I mean that by itself doesn't negate it

too much, but if you put just being a little bit fuzzy, and then just the layout of the numbers,

it wasn't...it wouldn't be my first choice, I'll say that, so actually any, the leveling off

problems that I had, weren't due to flight control system as much as they were display, and

then again throttle. [Other voice: My mother just designed that part.] She did, oh oh, we're

going to have to send her back to HUD design school, remedial HUD design.

3. Ability to Control and Track: flight path, bank angle, heading ?
225

 Okay, ability to control track. Again, that's the ability control, the attitudes and so on, to get

it back is not too tough if you've got better indicators, and didn't have the...even with the

friction, I could keep it within it, but it was a lot of work, and a lot more needed too, the only

technique I could find that worked was walk 'em, in other words, move one, see what that

gives me, and then move the other one, and so on, and try to overcome the lack of ability to

make very small changes in the throttle.

4. Ability to Control Airspeed (Autothrottle Off) ?

 Ability to control airspeed, same thing, acceleration carat is great, and the thermometer is

fine.

5. Were there any PIO tendencies in the pitch or roll axis ? If yes, was the task

continued or abandoned ?

 Were there any PIO tendencies, no I didn't see any...

6. Pitch/Roll Inceptor and Rudder Pedal Characteristics: Force & displacement,

sensitivity, pitch/roll harmony ?

 Pitch, and Roll Inceptor, I've already beat that to death, and nothing new, and comments are

the same,...

7. Effects of the Wind/Turbulence ?

 and again, effects of wind and turbulence at 50,000 ft is really not much of a player.

Whatever was in there I hardly even noticed, so, thank you very much.

Pilot C answered this questionnaire later in this test, see below

Pilot C

Climb/Cruise/Descent Pilot Questionnaire 17 Jan 97

Pilot C answered this questionnaire earlier in this test, see above

1. Adequacy of Pitch and Roll Control Power (as applicable) ?

 Adequacy of pitch and roll control certainly was more than sufficient. No problem on that.

2. Predictability of Pitch and Roll Responses to Pilot Inputs ? Any special control

techniques required ?

 Well, in general, they were good, especially when I had a display, that all I had to do was fly

along a line, and things like that, times that predictability tend to overshoot and a few things,

had to do mostly with the rate of climb and descent. The first series, I kept trying to fly it

like every other airplane I've ever flown, as soon as I'd see it, a trend start on the VVI, I

would make a definite input, and near the end, the last one or two, it suddenly dawned on me

that this is a gamma dot command, and likely it could hold the response better than I could,

and yes that did in fact happen, so it made all the difference in the world, you know, I've

been flying it the whole week, this is the first time that that particular item of the up and

away advantage of it came through.

3. Ability to Control and Track: flight path, bank angle, heading ?

 Well, again, it's quite easy using it properly. It was easy any time when I was just tracking

the horizon for flight path, there was only one of the VVI that I was chasing. A little bit

sensitive, and as a result I was putting in more commands than I really needed to, and bank

angle, interestingly enough, 30 degrees was easier to hold than the 15 degrees, I tended to
226

wander some on the 15 degree bank task, on the 30 tended to be much more stable, and the

heading at the turn rates and so on we had, I just almost waited till I got to the heading in the

bank angle, when I rolled out, sometimes it would even drop back one, so, that made it quite

easy, so controlling and tracking bank angle particularly at 30 degrees was quite easy, 15 a

little more wander, no explanation why.

4. Ability to Control Airspeed (Autothrottle Off) ?

 Only on one did the, I think it was just one, or maybe two, that the Mach thermometer didn't

work, and that increases work load all over the place, because there is no Mach indicated

except the small digital one up in the corner, or come inside, and so, that wasn't too great. As

long as I could use a thermometer, though, the speed was not inordinately difficult.

5. Were there any PIO tendencies in the pitch or roll axis ? If yes, was the task

continued or abandoned ?

 I really didn't see anything that I would call a PIO, that's such bad connotations, and I didn't

see anything that I would call that.

6. Pitch/Roll Inceptor and Rudder Pedal Characteristics: Force & displacement,

sensitivity, pitch/roll harmony ?

 Rudder pedals I didn't notice there was much difference. Same story, not going to beat this

anymore. Breakout does effect it when you're making very small, fine, tracking corrections,

both pitch and roll. The forces and displacements and the harmony, I didn't have too much,

didn't have a complaint of about, it must have been reasonable.

7. Effects of the Wind/Turbulence ?

 That might have been on the VVI in particular, it's very sensitive about the 1000 ft per

minute tics, and as a result I would tend to overcontrol, and the turbulence would just get it

started, and I would try to catch it, instead of letting the variations kind of average out, and

let the flight control system take care of things like that. That's one thing that would get me

in there working, and I would end up driving it out of tolerance, and I think that pretty well

covered those, good and bad features on that. Is that it ? Okay, yes VVI is, and the one I'm

talking about, is the one on the HUD, the arrow, and in general it's very easy to read, I like it

that way, what I don't like about it, is it's a long ways away, and this is one of those things

people always say, pilots are never happy, and the thing is, if you get a big HUD, which

most people really like, that means that some information is going to be a long ways from,

usually the flight path marker, that's what everybody is locked in on, and so if they move

things in so that it's close enough, then pilots bitch because it's cluttered, it's one of those

catch 22 items, but here's a case in particular, that it was a long ways away, it's fairly easy to

read, but it was so far away that it was just as easy to come inside, as it was to go all the way

over to look at that. Now, add that to the sensitivity of it, which bordered on maybe a little bit

too sensitive, and that decreased my fondness of it even more, and going back to the head

down display actually was the clue to improving performance. I hate to say it, because like I

said, I like the general layout of that vertical velocity indicator on the HUD, but due to the

distance away, and maybe a little bit too sensitive. A little bit of variation makes a big

difference in the length of the arrow, and so, when you're looking at it, you know, this is a

100 ft per minute...or a 1000 ft per minute, and it was doing a lot of this, where down on the

head down, it was just making a small thing, so you see, when you're making corrections,

you tend...you see a big motion, you tend to make a big, and you tend to overshoot, so it's

just a little too sensitive. I think if the scaling would have been less, that would've helped it,

and also when you get motions like that, I don't know what kind of massaging of the data

and so on, you know, what sort of filtering in that, but usually there's some kind of filtering

on those kind of things, so it's not all over the place, and so that can get in there too. The
227

only I would say, is that there's something going on, on that, that I tended to overcontrol that

a lot more than I did the heads down, and the fact that they were so far away, and that was

also true of bank angles, a lot of times we had bank angle wander a little bit, and that's

because when you're only talking 2 degrees, you don't see it very much on the rest of the

display, but unless you're looking right at the point, a spy point we'll call it, and it was far

enough away that it wasn't in my peripheral vision, I had to specifically look up at it, and

then come back down, and so that, but like I said, those are tough questions, you know,

because you're going to get people with preferences all over the place on that, it's pretty

hard. So that would do that, and I wrote up some things that I don't know where they'd be...I

can write it up or put it on the tape, probably just as easy. So, I came up with a whole list of

things that I saw this week that might be some interest to somebody. Now a lot of these

things I've mentioned before, but I just...so, I wont beat them to death, but a couple of things

on the task that I noticed, maintaining bank angle is not much, you know, that doesn't tell

you very much about the flight control system, in other words, if all you got...if you correct

every little tiny item that's...that tells you something that it doesn't tell you an awful lot, the

variations you did, the ones that came to mind, and actually you did later on was the bank

angle stalls, and then come back to the level, and I would have added a task of capture of

bank angle more than once, in other words, like say 30 degrees, or 15, or whatever makes

sense when you're that close, then back to zero or 30 to one side, to 30 to the other, it would

of given a better feel of what's going on, because there's a lot going on when you get to that

high alpha, and I wouldn't, you know, to uncover a problem, I think that might....that's right,

a little more maneuvering, and a couple of the others, you know, the whole task was just

maintain level, and I've seen a lot of things, that as long as you keep the errors small you

don't see much, you let the error get very big, so you have to put a bigger input in, and

things bother a little bit. On the offset landing, 250 ft, I mean I know you're trying to find

thresholds and stuff, and I, you know, 250 is fine, that's what you're using, might be

interesting just to back that up to 300. This is a 300 ft long airplane, that weights 600 and

some thousand, and I just thought that was getting to be a little more than you're asking, I

know it's an academic question, and so, it's all right, but maybe a check at 250 and then

another one at 300, and see how close you are to badness. Okay, we did the TIFS approach,

yeah right, oh you did it at 300, oh, I got the idea of 250, 300, you weren't doing it at 250, he

was calling it, yeah, he was calling it at 250, oh, correction, yeah, we were off set 300 ft, oh,

no, no, no, no, I was talking about making how...how close in are you when you make this

correction, I mean you're approaching, well, like I said, it's an academic question, which I

don't think too much when we do that. Were they doing it in TIFS, and getting good...ever

able to accomplish it nicely, No, That's what I thought. Anyway, you're getting a little bit far

out on the task, but that's a minor point. We always use at least a minimal comment card

when you do the Cooper Harper, that way you don't forget anything. I know I was thinking

of some things when I was flying along, and I tried to put them...remember them for the

Cooper Harper, I think...so I put those on, and then doing the comments at the end, are

fairly general, and you lose something, and there were a couple of times when I was

thinking, oh yeah, I've got to remember to mention that, and that's probably not, you know,

that's the way we do it. Or specific things to ask about for each task, you know, what are

you really interested in and make sure everybody talks about something like that. Just for

mine, that I noticed, for somebody who has not been in one of these gigundess airplane

simulations at all, landings first probably put an extra complication in there, I think if I

would have done the up and away things, and then come down, I think it might of had a little

better feel for the airplane, and the other thing, before...at a minimum, before the landing,

what I would do next time, is with the gear down, flaps down, all this kind of stuff, again,

makes the maneuvers down low, just fly it around. What does this kind of input give me,

yeah, that kind of feel for the airplane would've gone a long way, that's one reason it took so

many practices and that's one way to learn how it flies, but probably a few, up and away, the
228

low altitude, you know, just feeling the airplane would've been worth while, I think it

would've been...made a little bit more efficient. Okay, that took care of that, the only things I

had contaminants as far as the simulation, I've already talked throttle friction and breakout,

no reason to add that, a little bit of clipping on the HUD, you've told me that you knew that

it was low, but yes by clipping, I mean I was as close as I could get to the HUD at the eye

position, and still I had to look up a little, especially on the...the only thing that really

affected me was the localizer, I had to stretch to see that a little bit, minor contaminant on

that, though, that's not a big one, and...but the one that was a major one, was the TOGA

button position where you have to shut off the autothrottle at 50, and then come back around

and hit that, and I would miss it, and that was, you know, take a lot of concentration that

shouldn't be a problem. It won't be in your airplane, That's my point, you know, you will

have a TOGA button that's handy, I'm sure. On the HUD things that I really liked, I like the

accel karat, I like the airspeed error thermometer, that was good, I've already said that I like

the general layout of the vertical velocity with the arrow, with the...other than...a little far

away. The...using the sideslip on the triangle was very natural, and I liked it except that is

again, a long ways from the flight path marker, and I especially on the engine-out, I had to

really definitely look quite a ways away to see it, if there was, and I don't know the answer to

this, but if there's a way to get the sideslip closer to the flight path marker, you'll help

yourself. That's been suggested by previous studies. Yes, that would be worth the task right

there, to see how that would...that was my only complaint, and so the sideslip indication; got

a good and a not so good, because of...it's a little far away. Does this rotate, or is that always

like that, does that rotate with bank angle, or does that only stay level. That stays level in

the... That might make it a little more intuitive also, and at a higher bank angle looking at

sideslips, to go in there looking at it like this, you know, you know as far as putting... Oh,

oh, yeah, yeah, I see what you mean with the bank angle, now that the arrow is up... This

wouldn't do that. I think that's likely a good suggestion, you know, my...just...gut feeling is

that that would probably be good. Well, I don't know, I've always had actual flight path

shown with my flight path marker, and I got to say that I still like that, however, I know with

this flight control system that the commanded is good, if you're going to do this, then the

fact that you have the dashed one come out to show actual is, hey, I'm all for that. As I

mentioned once before, I think if anything I might like to have the actual come out a little bit

quicker, in other words, there seemed to be a certain tolerance before it came out, and where

that bothered was, again, on the approach, by the time the actual came on, and it always was

above the other one, and that's what I had to push over to, I just felt that if I saw that a little

bit earlier, I could of made the correction before the error got quite so big. I'm not real crazy

about your alpha G or altitude tapes, and that's...and that has to do with the design of them,

not the fact that their tapes, because I have flown tapes before that I did like. These just look

like an awful lot of extra lines were put in there, and then that one of course having,

obviously having blue on your HUD, against the blue sky is...you know...that's self-evident,

but I didn't like those tapes as well as many of the other ones that I have seen, because in

general, I don't have anything against tapes, but those just seemed kind of busy, and they

certainly were along ways away from what I wanted to see. In fact, you have to call up

individual ones and so on...could be good, could be bad, the fact that you can get rid of them

if you don't want them, is always good. The tailstrike bar, too far away from the flight path

marker in...particularly in the landing and what do you call it, the go-around, it's just so far

up, I didn't even see it, it was no help, if I hit the tail, I hit it, if I didn't, it was only...kind of

luck, it wasn't because I was looking at the tailstrike marker, that's for sure, and to me, I

would like to see a track indicator somewhere, when you're flying an ILS, you're doing this

with heading, and this kind, you know...just doing it with heading, to have a track marker,

really tells you how much, in the crosswind, how far over before you get to see a ... I was

kind of surprised to not see a track marker. And the velocity vector doesn't do that, doesn't

provide that function. It gets you to where you're going relative to the ground. Yeah, yeah,
229

yeah, you're right, it does.. You mean a command. No, well, I mean, you know, a command

would be nice. Actually what would be nice, would be track hold, that's what would be nice.

We all agree. Maybe if I were to have consciously thought before I started, about okay,

that's my track, you know, the flight path marker, than maybe that would have done it, yeah,

yeah ,you're right, I guess that would be true, but anyway, I wasn't thinking of it as a track

marker, maybe I should have, but that didn't cross my mind at the time. On the flight control

system, the things I liked, the single engine-out characteristics are great, you've got lots of

authority, nothing crazy happens that I notice. Of course it's a very, very, tight task in bank

angle, but I mean, as far as the flight control system itself went, gee I thought that was.

You're right, I don't know, all I know is...when I lose an engine I'd see just, you know, minor

deviations, and I wasn't pushing full rudder by a long ways to bring it back, so I mean,

maybe the rudder itself was damn near maxed out for reasons that I don't know about, but

the way I felt was, the single engine-out task, you know, and the flight path, I'm assuming,

the flight control system and all was what was keeping it so small. Of course geometry

plays a big part, the engines aren't placed a long ways away, but whatever, that is a

characteristic I kind of like. ILS tracking is almost a no brainer, even without my thinking

about the track indication. Autothrottle takes most of the work out of there, that's a great

thing, and the roll response is way better than I expected. It may be that...that good of roll

response for other reasons, you know, failure states and those kind of things, but for

whatever reason, the roll was better than I expected, like I said, for such a big airplane. Pretty

sluggish longitudinally, but the roll response for input was nice. Some not so good, and

here we get into, you know, some tradeoffs again. There were some times particularly with

turbulence and so on, and in close where I felt a little disconnected with the airplane, and I

don't know how much of that is due to the size and the inertia of the airplane. I don't know

how much of it is assume, ism, you know, there's a certain amount of that, and I don't know

how much of it was due to the flight control laws. I don't know, I can't break out what it was,

but there were some times when I'd see the airplane do something that I didn't think I

commanded and it tends to make you feel a little disconnected, not a nice feeling. But like I

said, I can think of three reasons why it might not be...what part each one played, I'm not

sure. Any particular tasks that was worse on. Down close turbulence in landing, that's where

I noticed... Any particular axis worse than the others ? Rudder and beta seemed to not ...

Yes, I can't say that I can...there was some of that in pitch that I would feel as perceiving,

whatever was there, I mean, it appeared to me that something went on there that I didn't do. I

didn't notice it so much in bank angle, let's say, but in the...with the sideslip in the yaw, that

was, that was a very definite one, and a little bit of that in pitch, and what I was thinking was,

if you're going to have this, it's going to be gamma dot, then it ought to be tighter gamma

dot, because for most of the time, it's very tight, in otherwords, you're control and you're

actual is very close, but then it gets off, and so the amount of work load you have varies, and

you've got to pick up the fact, oh, now's the time when I've got to do it, instead of let the

airplane happen, but you see that possibly would just disconnected, the tighter you do this,

the more the airplanes going to have to do things that you don't command. What are you

pointing to ? The tighter control, the more the airplane is going to have to do things on it's

own, and that's going to hurt this disconnect feeling most...quite possibly, see so, that's

another one of those catch 22's, a tradeoff, where's the best combination, because you can't

have both things, I suspect, you know, this is kind of...I'm really kind of extrapolating here.

The sideslip I talked about, there's something there just did not feel like airplane like always,

and one thing that I noticed, once you get the sideslip really large, that's when strange things

go on, and that's when I started seeing big...even PIO's and so on. I get this huge sideslip,

and next thing I know, I started working the ailerons pretty hard, and we would get a pretty

good PIO going, likely this rate limit in the roll, that's the biggest, that's probably the biggest

safety thing I saw, I mean that's got to be far enough away that you guys aren't going to get

to it, or sooner or later, it's going to be a disaster. I mention track hold would of been nice to,
230

and a couple other things that...just to throw out...and these are pretty obvious, everybody's

going to notice it, but a couple of things that made the overall things difficult, one is the

tolerance that you're allowed in bank angle, well actually, anytime you're close to the ground,

but specifically at rotation. I mean I touched the wing tip, and it was only 4 degrees of bank,

and I was really surprised, and I heard Paul say something that he got a nacelle at 2 degrees,

boy, that is so fine, I mean sooner or later you're going to get a gust, you're going to get

some anomaly in there that's going to give you that kind of thing, you're going to touch

something, and I know that's the shape of the airplane, but that is a very, very, large

limitation right now, and then the other one is constraint by regulation, that noise thing, boy,

that is...you're making these configuration changes in close right at the time you don't want

to be doing those things, and the less you can get away from configuration changes in close

the better, and I know that that's a problem. Incidental, I was going to ask you, I notice we

were doing 3 degree glideslopes, and I'm assuming that's what your setting up your noise ...,

there are glideslopes at 2 1/2 degrees, that's going to blow you out of the water. I mean, I'm

sure you guys know that. Why are there 2 1/2 degree glideslopes ? I don't know, but I

think that would solve a lot of the landing dispersion kind of things, and the 3, I always

though was either for clearance, you know, for another words, 2 1/2 would be the more

standard, and then 3 was put in as a lot of the civilian ones, I know for sure, a lot of them are

2 1/2, and you see if you got flat terrain, maybe and so on, then the 2 1/2 is fine, but then if

you've got a problem with buildings sticking up and so on, then you have to come in steeper,

and also of course, that does help the noise, higher or longer. I thought 3 was ILS standard.

Well, it might be, but I know there are a lot... Niagara Falls is 2 1/2. That's right, and

Buffalo's 3, I think, yeah, I think there is a difference between those...I'm not sure, but yeah I

know, Niagara's 2 1/2, I think, spent a lot of time flying that one, okay, well those are the

comments I had to make, you know, you had said when you started, say anything that came

to mind. Okay.

Pilot D

Climb/Cruise/Descent Pilot Questionnaire 22 Jan 97

1. Adequacy of Pitch and Roll Control Power (as applicable) ?

 Absolutely no problems there. I think the real problem is going to be, that Bruce and I were

just discussing here is that, how do you keep the airplane riding smooth enough, how do

you make small enough inputs so that you're not banging people around in the back end.

2. Predictability of Pitch and Roll Responses to Pilot Inputs ? Any special control

techniques required ?

 Predictability of all responses to Pilot Inputs are good, with the exception of roll, I do have

a tendency to... for a roll PIO, and I have to back off, this is the technique I use, but again

since this a transport category airplane and everything should be smooth, it's really not a real

serious problem, but I think there's a lot that could be done with the lateral control system. I

you make... it's very apparent, if you make a step roll input of just a reasonable magnitude,

10 degrees per second or something, and let go, the thing on coast before it snubs down on

roll attitude 10 or 15 degrees of bank, which is just really way too loose. Should snub down

in a couple 3 degrees.

3. Ability to Control and Track: flight path, bank angle, heading ?

 We were not doing any flight path... tracks, we were tracking only H dot, which is quite

difficult because of the instrumentation that we're using. The ability to make flight path

changes to the resolution that you can read on the scale is pretty good. The one we're asked

to do... plus or minus 200 ft per minutes, particularly supersonic, it's a pretty tough task.
231

Bank angle is relatively easy to control with the exception of the PIO tendency we've

discussed. Heading is very easy, particularly supersonically things change so slow.

4. Ability to Control Airspeed (Autothrottle Off) ?

 Airspeed with the autothrottle off is relatively easy to control. You know, as long as we use

a plus or minus 5 knot criteria, it could be improved significantly I think by putting some

throttle lead into the chevron we're using for the longitudinal decel, and I do understand the

longitudinal acceleration cue as being driven off of airspeed rate, which I think is a good

thing, but it does need... it's got quite a bit of lag in it, needs some quickening with throttle.

5. Were there any PIO tendencies in the pitch or roll axis ? If yes, was the task

continued or abandoned ?

 Pitch I really not... well, we're not using pitch directly in these tasks, these climb, cruise, and

descent task we're using flight path, and there is very little of any tendency to PIO in flight

path. I didn't notice anything there. Speed, I have a tendency to oscillate a time or two,

because of the lag in the chevron, discussed earlier. Roll, I do have a PI... definitely have a

PIO tendency as discussed early, you just have to back off on the gain. They're not

divergent, but you just back off on the gain.

6. Pitch/Roll Inceptor and Rudder Pedal Characteristics: Force & displacement,

sensitivity, pitch/roll harmony ?

 No problems with any of the issues here, Force, Sensitivity, Harmony. Again, as on some

of the other tasks, I don't think, necessarily... I'm not saying they're optimum, but I don't

think they're impacting the performance of the task.

7. Effects of the Wind/Turbulence ?

 We didn't have any winds that I know of. Turbulence is not a big factor, although I did note

that when we were trying to control to the sink rates, within plus or minus 200 ft per minute,

the turbulence was almost giving that much variation in the sink rates. So, there was a little

bit of effect there, but not much.

8. Summary - Good/Bad features ?

 Summary, like the flight path display, it does have a problem supersonically, that you get

real poor resolution in [height].

Pilot E

Climb/Cruise/Descent Pilot Questionnaire 10 Jan 97

[Pilot E answered this questionnaire three times - after completing the "Operations after

Upset" block 3, halfway through completing the "Climb, Cruise, and Descent" block 4, and

then after completing block 4 in its entireity. All responses are included below.]

 Answers after completing "Block 3: Operations after Upset"

1. Adequacy of Pitch and Roll Control Power (as applicable) ?

 Throughout most of the envelope it was fine, the most glaring problems occur in the

VMCA demonstration, obviously, at some point when you find the magic minimum

airspeed, and of course that's determined by the fact you don't have enough yaw, or roll

control power. Pitch power was always adequate, in fact the pitch rate, this vehicle is very

impressive at all speeds. We found about between a 120 and a 125 knots of a dynamic

VMCA demonstration was about where we could control it, and we ran out of officially yaw
232

control power, I had full left rudder in with engine 3 failed, engine 4 failed, I had full left

rudder, and mostly full left sidestick, and was sustaining a very, very large almost full scale

beta deflection, and could not really roll in the proper directions that we did have a heading

drift, so, that's obviously... that's the definition of VMCA, so, we pretty much found it. The...

on the emergency descent the... there's a real flight controls cliff at about 46 degrees phi, 46-

47 degrees where you depart, and you cannot arrest that with opposite stick, so, we're

somehow, we're running into a problem there on roll control power.

2. Predictability of Pitch and Roll Responses to Pilot Inputs ? Any special control

techniques required ?

 One problem there I noticed, a couple problems at higher altitudes, there tends to be a

coupling of either roll axis with pitch inputs, I frequently almost all the time I did a pitch

recovery, I found myself with about a plus or minus one degree roll oscillation about zero,

and it was very difficult to hold zero degrees phi, or wings level. Also, at high altitude, high

Mach number, I noticed a problem with anytime you command a angle of bank, there's a

awful lot of effort to zero out the sideslip, I generally had to carry, if I was in a right turn,

right angle of bank, I generally had to carry left rudder continuously, especially the

emergency descent, this required holding left rudder inputs for 5 minutes, just to maintain a

zero yaw, and interestingly enough, when I held that left rudder pressure, I pretty much was

showing zero degrees rudder deflection, when I took my foot off the rudder, I would get a

rudder deflection and a sideslip, so, somehow, there needs to be some tuning done in what I

would call the aileron rudder interconnect type portion of the control law, the lateral

directional control law, and my special control technique there was actually holding in

rudder, to holding rudder pressure, to zero out the perceived yaw based on the beta indicator

on the top of the HUD.

3. Ability to Control and Track: flight path, bank angle, heading ?

 Flight Path is pretty good for the task we did today. No problems there. Bank Angle was

difficult, several times in trying to control 45 degrees angle of bank in the emergency

descent I went too far, and had the departure, and we're going to look into that quite a bit, I

guess on the data, and just trying to capture and maintain a bank angle, we notice this in the

buildup phase for this project, I think Douglas folk's came out, and we actually improved it

quite a bit, but I think there's some more we might want to do. Heading control similarly is

not as tight as I would like it, because of the susceptibility in turbulence of the angle of bank

to wander plus minus one or two degrees. Again, things I've been harping on are ideas like

track angle hold submodes, and that type of stuff where if you were within plus or minus a

degree of zero, you'd actually command that track and the thing would, would actually hold

it, and... or we need some type of a phi... a bank angle hold where if you commanded a bank

angle, it will stay there. A better way is probably a initial turn radius hold submode, where

you would command a initial turn radius, and it would vary the angle of bank to command

that turn radius.

4. Ability to Control Airspeed (Autothrottle Off) ?

 That was not really applicable on today's tasks.

5. Were there any PIO tendencies in the pitch or roll axis ? If yes, was the task

continued or abandoned ?

 Slight PIO in speed during the VMCA demonstration at the very low speeds, very, very,

slight pitch attitude changes would result in fairly significant speed changes, especially if

you drop the nose a couple of degrees more you should, you would accelerate fairly

quickly, and it was easier to get into a more or less kind of a very large amplitude low

frequency speed and attitude type PIO. No real pitch PIO noticed today. Several times I've
233

mentioned earlier, slight roll PIO's, basically with high altitude, high Mach number, when I

was putting in a pitch command. Now, it could be we need to tailor the breakout forces and

the lateral axis of the sidearm controller, or maybe some control law tuning you might want

to do, but the data will show very slight, almost consistent PIO, plus minus one or two

degrees when the pitch input was made. Only one time did I actually get out of the loop to

stop the roll PIO, but most of the time I just stayed with it, and I never went divergent.

6. Pitch/Roll Inceptor and Rudder Pedal Characteristics: Force & displacement,

sensitivity, pitch/roll harmony ?

The sidearm controller seems very, very good to me, however, one thing to look at perhaps

is breakout in roll, and that may be something to examine if we ever have time to try and

look at why we're getting this little pitch PIO. The force gradients I think are fine, it feels

pretty good to me, the harmony seems really good. Number 7. With the caveat, Number 6...

Question 6... with the caveat that there might be some breakout, we need to check on the roll

to not couple with roll inputs, with pure pitch inputs.

7. Effects of the Wind/Turbulence ?

 We noticed turbulence altitude would cause a G oscillation of plus or minus about .03,

which in the task, we had to hold at plus or minus 1 G, further limits your ability to keep it

the desired performance standards, because if you are at .07, and you get a gust that gives

you a .03, then you get the .1 G exceedence. So certainly, the turbulence was affecting the

longitudinal acceleration. Oh, I guess, the vertical acceleration, rather. The winds were not a

factor today.

8. Summary - Good/Bad features ?

 I'm really concerned about the handling qualities cliff, at about 46 degrees angle of bank, at

altitude and high Mach number. The departure is uncontrollable, actually we did get out of it

on one... one time, but sometimes we just keep rolling over to about 80 or 90 degrees phi

and the program will shut down, so, that's something we need to look at, as to why that's

occurring. Another bad feature is, we have a... you can only command 30 degrees phi

without having to hold continuous lateral force on the stick, and we are trying to hold a 45

degree phi for the emergency descent, so what happens is, you have to hold continuous

force in there, and if you get distracted trying to follow the VMO curve it's easy to exceed

the 45 degrees and depart, so, we either need to get rid of that on the emergency descent,

have some way to disable the 30 phi hold, or 30 degree envelope protection, facet of the

control law, and allow us just to command a hands off phi, or we need to put a bank angle

limit, so the aircraft will not exceed 45 degrees phi, and then you can just hold whatever you

wanted, and it would hold 45 degrees, and that should be something easy to do.

 Answers halfway through "Block 4: Climb, Cruise, Descent"

1. Adequacy of Pitch and Roll Control Power (as applicable) ?

 Not too may comments different than what I made after finishing block 3. I really had no

problems with Question 1. There's plenty of Pitch and Roll Control Power able for these

tasks.

2. Predictability of Pitch and Roll Responses to Pilot Inputs ? Any special control

techniques required ?

 Predictability, Question 2, is not a problem.

3. Ability to Control and Track: flight path, bank angle, heading ?
234

 Ability to Control and Track Flight Path, Bank Angle, and Heading ? The only thing I can

comment there is on the... when you try to hold a constant vertical velocity, the ability to

control and track flight path, is a little troublesome due to turbulence effects on the gamma

dot V control law. The bank angle is a little bit difficult to control anytime, as far as holding

a zero degree phi, and again, I mentioned before it is something that should be corrected and

that obviously leads to heading control also, which requires more work than it should, for

mostly... most of these were purely longitudinal tasks, and there shouldn't have been that

much effort in the lateral axis.

4. Ability to Control Airspeed (Autothrottle Off) ?

 Ability to Control Airspeed, Number 4. For the decel and accel, 350 to 250 at 15,000 ft,

turbulence certainly was a factor there, and the card, the criteria for the card, indicates no

overshoots for desired, but you get... if you want call it a overshoot, you do get a airspeed

delta at times, just from the turbulence effects, and I watch that very carefully, and could

correlate it to that, the airspeed carat, or acceleration carat would be perfectly level with the

wing of the velocity vector, and we still would get better, or one knot or so delta around that

target speed, so that is a factor in that card, trying to make those criteria.

5. Were there any PIO tendencies in the pitch or roll axis ? If yes, was the task

continued or abandoned ?

 No real PIO tendencies noted today, on 5.

6. Pitch/Roll Inceptor and Rudder Pedal Characteristics: Force & displacement,

sensitivity, pitch/roll harmony ?

 Again, with the purely longitudinal task, at times you would excite the lateral loop, and

again don't know exactly if that's a breakout problem with the stick or some control law

tuning.

7. Effects of the Wind/Turbulence ?

 Comment on that already on the task that required the lower altitude tasks. The turbulence

was more of a problem as far as intercepting the airspeed without an overshoot.

8. Summary - Good/Bad features ?

 Pretty much the same as I mentioned earlier as far as on these tasks, basically the effect of

turbulence on the gamma dot V control law and the lateral directional control law is

probably maybe a little more of an effect than I would like to see, and the ability to control

flight path in these constant VSI climbs, is probably a little harder than it should be. Good

features, most of decels are level, accels and decels, were very, very, minimal pilot input to

hold within desired altitude criteria, certainly an altitude hold submode would have made it a

Cooper Harper of one.

[Pilot E answered this questionnaire a third time at the completion of Block 4: Climb, Cruise

Descent in a later session below.]

Climb/Cruise/Descent Pilot Questionnaire 29 Jan 97

[Pilot E answered this questionnaire twice in earlier sessions above.]

 Answers after completing "Block 4: Climb, Cruise, Descent"

1. Adequacy of Pitch and Roll Control Power (as applicable) ?
235

 There was no problem there, plenty of power available, in fact very, very, sporty roll rates at

Mach 2.3 and Mach 2.4, almost like a fighter, so it's, you have plenty of roll control power,

and similar pitch control power.

2. Predictability of Pitch and Roll Responses to Pilot Inputs ? Any special control

techniques required ?

 I didn't make any yaw inputs, but pitch and roll seemed predictable, no special control

techniques required.

3. Ability to Control and Track: flight path, bank angle, heading ?

 Flight Path, for the turning... for the climb, the turns during the climbs, this was at

transonic, it's difficult to control the flight path to the tolerance is required for the plus or

minus, a couple 100 ft used to have a 1000 ft per minute climb or descent. There's no real

guidance there, and it's just counting by it's guess where to put the flight path marker, so,

that's kind of difficult. Bank Angle, also difficult to control, because it just doesn't like to

capture a bank angle, nor does it like to remain in any particular bank angle, including zero,

so, it's just hard there. Heading, it's difficult to control heading because the bank angle

doesn't like to stay at zero, but not real difficult, especially the high altitudes, high airspeeds

where it takes a lot of bank angle to get much of a heading change.

4. Ability to Control Airspeed (Autothrottle Off) ?

 For the Mach 2.3 heading changes, I notice a real poor predictability in speed control, it

took at one point to regain just a little bit of speed, it took about a 1 degree, a minus 1 degree

gamma at full throttles, and had to give up 800 ft to regain a hundredth of a Mach, of .01

Mach, whereas other times in that same task, just slight power additions would increase the

Mach, so I didn't quite... this is wings level, so, I didn't really understand it, I made a lot of

comments on that task in particular.

5. Were there any PIO tendencies in the pitch or roll axis ? If yes, was the task

continued or abandoned ?

 No PIO really in speed, but none really in pitch, but roll, whenever you're doing a

aggressive phi capture, you'd get about a 3 to 4 cycle, maybe 2 hertz, plus or minus 1 or 2

degree roll PIO, and the more aggressive you are, the more significant is that PIO, it did not

go divergent, and if you get out of the loop it damps pretty quickly.

6. Pitch/Roll Inceptor and Rudder Pedal Characteristics: Force & displacement,

sensitivity, pitch/roll harmony ?

 No real comments there, I've made some in the past. Force and displacement were fine, I

though it worked fairly well all the way around, and no real coupling, or tendency in any of

these tasks for any pitch inputs to excite or to cause any roll... uncommanded roll inputs.

7. Effects of the Wind/Turbulence ?

 For the climb, cruise, and descent, none noted.

8. Summary - Good/Bad features ?

 No real good features, the... it would have been nice to have a little bit tighter control of the

gamma dot V for maintaining a vertical speed, and also for maintaining altitude during a

turn, it did tend to wander a little bit, we weren't probably enough of a delta between

commanded and actual to trigger the ghost flight path marker, so, I was not holding altitude

like I thought the airplane should, even though the commanded gamma was on the horizon.

Similarly the bad features I've noticed... I've mentioned about the lateral axis, and about the

one task, with the .23 Mach and a speed predictability.
236

Pilot F

Climb/Cruise/Descent Pilot Questionnaire 21 Jan 97

1. Adequacy of Pitch and Roll Control Power (as applicable) ?

 For the maneuvers that we did today, I didn't see any place where we were running out of

control power. I guess that's basically it.

2. Predictability of Pitch and Roll Responses to Pilot Inputs ? Any special control

techniques required ?

 Yeah, my preference would be for the airplane to be crisper, I really have a hard time getting

the airplane to respond to the last little bit. In other words, if I'm trying to acquire 1 1/2 G's,

as I... first of all, as I approach that, I have to approach it cautiously, I guess that's the best

way to put it is, is I have to approach everything that I'm trying to capture cautiously, more

cautiously than I'd really like to do. It appears that there's a tendency to overshoot, because

when you release force on the any of the control, the aircraft in that axis continues to coast

for a little bit. That's basically it, we talked about that a lot during the flight. The yaw

response, that might be worth looking at a little bit more, I guess my initial reaction is that I

would recommend that we look at the use of yaw, versus lateral acceleration, and the

difference between those two, and how they are used in cockpit by the pilot, and how timely

the inputs are that they provide. Certainly, lateral acceleration rates and yaw rates, and yaw

dispersions are coupled together or related, but there seemed to be a lack of, I could not...

for a yaw rate developing or a lateral acceleration rate developing, it seemed to take a lot

longer for me to recognize that, than it would in a conventional airplane. Having said all of

that, to back pedal a little bit, I guess, part of that could be also in the gaining between... for

the display, that you're using for the yaw, and so, making an assumption that it's the use of

yaw, instead of lateral acceleration may not necessarily be an appropriate comment, because

you could have the same problem that we're seeing here with the lateral acceleration cue that

was not properly tuned. Anyway, I think that it's worth looking at this. When I talk about

the overshoots in the axis, we definitely saw that in pitch and roll. It's a little bit harder for

me to see that in yaw, because the only indication that I have in yaw is the yaw... the split

roll marker, but it did seem like when I would put a rudder input in, the lateral, or the yaw

indicator would move, overshoot slightly, and then come back to where it was, so I generally

were just getting one overshoot. That's about it. Special techniques, again, reducing pilot

gain as you're approaching the area that you want to look at, is the technique that I used to

compensate.

3. Ability to Control and Track: flight path, bank angle, heading ?

 Ability to Control and Track Flight Path, actually, I think overall the ability to control flight

path is pretty easy, with the noted predictability comment that we had in number 2. As far a

tracking flight path goes, it's pretty easy to track flight path, the easiest way is, is just to

reduce pressure on the stick, like we talked about in the rapid descent, it works real nice in

that, when I put in roll controls, or I move the throttles, I don't have to worry about the pitch,

the flight path stays exactly where I want it, and that reduces work load for a lot of the tasks

that we did today by a fair amount. Bank angle control, again, I would say that it's fairly

easy to control bank angle, the one... again the predictability that coasting the crispness of

the airplane, we already talked about. I will note that there's a tendency, or initially there was

a large tendency for me to couple a roll response with the pitch response, because... and I

believe based on the limited experience that I had in this sim today, that that was a function

of ergonomics, ergometrics, and it was something that had a fairly steep learning curve.

Towards the end of the period, I don't think I was doing it as much, at least I didn't feel like I
237

was having to pay as much attention to it, I'm going to be interested in seeing what happens

this afternoon going back into the sim. Tracking bank angle is real easy if I release the stick,

again, because of the crispness of the response, and I think this is more so in bank angle

than in pitch, I have a tendency sometimes to get into a lateral PIO, because I would turn up

my gain because I wanted to stop the pitch exactly where... not the pitch, the roll angle

exactly where I wanted it. I'd put in a roll input, I'd be rolling there, and then I'd reverse the,

actually front in the other direction to try get it to stop, and then I'd end up going in that

direction for a while, and so I did have a tendency to couple up with the aircraft and roll

control a little bit, and I would just note that this could be a function of several things. And

even the perceived crispness of the airplane and predictability of the airplane could be a

function of tuning the controller a little bit better. So, you know, we're getting into the area

where the tuning of the flight control system and the tuning of the stick controller, both have

a lot of how the pilot perceives the airplane. The reason I say this is, I can give you

observations and feelings that I have, but unless we really went in and started breaking down

things and looking specifically for what was the cause by the flight control, and caused by

the stick, I'd have a real hard time breaking that out without doing a specific task. Heading

control was real easy as a function of bank control, again, the easiest way for me to track

any of the flight path, bank angle, or heading, is to put the airplane where I want it, and then

release the stick, and again, simply because I feel that way, leaves me to believe that we could

do a little bit better, there's a slight tendency for me to couple up with the controller and the

flight control laws that we have.

4. Ability to Control Airspeed (Autothrottle Off) ?

 We didn't really do a whole lot towards this task today, most of the airspeed controlling that

we did was controlled by flight path, by gamma, for the rapid descent, for the VMC, that we

looked at. So, I don't know that I really have a lot to say about that. As far as controlling

airspeed with pitch, it is responsive. Again, and this isn't just a function HSCT, in any

airplane when you go to control airspeed with pitch, it's not the quickest way to control

airspeed sometimes, and you have to be a little bit patient with it. Having target pitch

attitudes that you know that are going to work, or that you think are going to work, are

going to be important for that, and you know, we kind of hunted around and looked at some

things, and experimented with some things, particularly on the VMC today, and... but pretty

much, I would say that the ability to track an airspeed, once you've captured it, is pretty good

with pitch. Capturing it with pitch, there were quite a few times today where I was really

hunting for a pitch attitude, and again, part of that, I think if you flew the airplane day in and

day out, you'd get a little bit more familiar with basic pitch attitudes.

5. Were there any PIO tendencies in the pitch or roll axis ? If yes, was the task

continued or abandoned ?

 Most notably what I saw today was a tendency to PIO and roll more than anything else. It

wasn't a real bad tendency, and again, I don't know how much of that is a function of stick

dynamics. If yes, was the task continued with reduced pilot gain, this is the second part of

question 5, or abandoned ? We didn't abandon any of the task, because of lateral PIO, and

basically, yeah, just reducing the gain. One good thing about this airplane is, is that at any

other maneuvers that we did today, I could just release the stick in the lateral axis, and I'd be

within 5 degrees of where I wanted to be, and then I could come back in and slowly adjust

it. None of the times today did we have enough of a PIO where I had to release the stick. I

don't want to infer that. There was just a slight gain reduction and I don't think it was really

any big deal.

6. Pitch/Roll Inceptor and Rudder Pedal Characteristics: Force & displacement,

sensitivity, pitch/roll harmony ?
238

 Force & displacement, I think the displacements and the force gradients were fine. I think

perhaps, if you played with the force and displacement gradients on the sidestick controller,

I think actually you could of maybe optimized it a little bit, for this particular simulator. I

think also that the ergometrics of the side controller and this airplane and the tendency to

couple pitch and roll inputs, probably should be addressed. Sensitivity, again, that gets back

to the friction and breakout issue, and I think that maybe the lateral PIO might be a function

of the ergometrics, and also maybe a little bit of friction and breakout being likely. Might be

adjusted a little bit, I don't know. It's really hard for me to comment on Number 6 here,

because we didn't really do a lot specifically looking at that, where you're really going to

isolate those things out. Pitch and Roll Harmony, I don't really have any comments on that,

for small inputs, again, between ergometrics of coupling the two together, and the friction in

breakout band, we probably could look at a little bit more, but for the most part, I didn't

really... I don't think I have any trouble, control harmony.

7. Effects of the Wind/Turbulence ?

 I don't think we really had any Wind/Turbulence, so Number 7, there's no comment for

that.

8. Summary - Good/Bad features ?

 I guess, just to highlight one of the things that we already talked about, I think the cueing

for yaw or lateral acceleration, probably needs to be looked at, and I would say that there's

not a real strong immediate indication of what rudder I need to step on when I have an

unstart or an engine failure, and I think that would delay the recovery. Let's see, the other...

there's something else I wanted to say as far as features go, oh ugh, one other thing that I

would just note is, on the display with the unstart envelope and the concentric rings, for the

task that we were doing today, and you know, we were thinking about it, and using that, it

actually worked fairly well, better than I was really anticipating it working. I don't know that

it's really, totally intuitive, it's intuitive in the sense that, we know that it's going work that

way, and when we start to push the airplane over, we see that concentric rings work, and so,

you adapt to it fairly easily, but I don't know that it's the most intuitive way that we can

display that information. I would be a little bit concerned, there are a lot of rules, and I don't

know them all off the top of my head right now, but there are a lot of rules that concern

engine operability, and I think that we need to really look at engine operability at the correct

rules as they apply as far as the envelope, the airplane within it's flight envelope and not

having problems from an operability standpoint, and what the flight envelope is for these

engines to operate. In other words, I'm not so sure that if I went out and did an engine

operability program on a current generation subsonic airplane, if I pushed over .6 G's, and

the engine coughed, I don't know if that would be certifiable. So, I think this is an issue that

we need to...really think about, I'm not saying it's not do-able, or anything else, I'm just

raising this as an issue that we really need to investigate early on. Certainly, flying an

airplane with the engines like this, up at altitude at the high Mach numbers, all the current

generation military, well, the older generation military airplanes, I don't really know about

the Concord, but the older generation military airplanes, their engines were very sensitive, at

the corners of the envelope like this, and people knew that, and the military got around that

with training. Regardless of what you do, and how good the engines are, there's definitely

going to be some training issues, as far as an HSCT type airplane would be concerned. Let's

see, is there anything else, we did talk briefly about the rapid descent or the emergency

descent, and there's some issues that need to be discussed there. Overall though, I think the

airplane is very controllable for that, it's just a matter of performance numbers and how

we're going to do all of that, but that's all I have.
239

Approach and Landing Questionnaire

Pilot A

Approach and Landing Questionnaire 15 Jan 97

1. Adequacy of Roll and Yaw Control Power (Cross-wind landings) ?

 Hey, we did not do... we haven't done crosswind landings yet, so, I'll skip that, that's

question 1.

2. Predictability of pitch, roll, and yaw response to pilot inputs ? Any special

control techniques required ?

 Any special techniques required ? The straight end landings all required a substantial

amount of thrust increase in the flare, 2 or 3 knobs, to permit the gamma law to make the

flare properly, if you did not use an increase in thrust or decrease the thrust, you've got a

hard landing, and in addition to that the gamma command versus actual tended to split out,

and also resulted not getting what you commanded in a hard landing. Other than that, the

landings were within adequate to desired, and then most of the variables were in either

landing long with a smooth landing or landing in the box with a slightly firm landing, and

either desired or adequate, if you... in most cases, and there was no roll anomalies noted in

the straight-in landings, however, in the offset landings where high gain roll tasks were

required in realignment with the runway, and also minor corrections in the flare... during the

flare, a PIO tendency was observed and if you maintain your hand on the stick, the cab

motion seemed to create body motions that tended... encouraged full stick travel, and the lag

in the roll response tended to also encourage a PIO, so, we had numerous case where we

had to just stop the simulation to prevent a crash. The... so the rating for that one, and the

Cooper Harper for the lateral mode in that case was a 10.

3. Ability to control and track pitch attitude, flight path, bank angle, and heading

?

 Longitudinally was fine, other than the... as noted before, it does help in the flare if you add

thrust to permit the system to comply with your flight path vector commands. Bank Angle

Control was fine until you got into high gain tasks in the flare, in which PIO is observed. I

don't believe we had any problems with heading... headings or the pilot's approaches.

4. Ability to control airspeed (autothrottle off) ?

 I believe was satisfactory, the throttle being used is slightly stiff, but in spite of that we can

still hold the speed within prescribed limits, with the... under all the approaches even with

manual throttles.

5. Were there any PIO tendencies in the pitch or roll axis ? If yes, was the task

continued or abandoned ?

 None in pitch, but we did notice a divergent roll PIO that could be stopped by, or prevented

by simply making a correction and taking your hand off the stick, which is not a real...

realistic thing for pilots to do in the landing flare.

6. Pitch/Roll Inceptor and rudder pedal characteristics: force & displacement,

sensitivity, and pitch/roll harmony ?

 I think perhaps, the detents are a little too low, turning of the stick, perhaps, needs to be

looked at again, not sure whether they're too light or too heavy, but... or maybe it's just the

control law itself that's the problem with the PIO in the lateral axis. The Sensitivity, it seems
240

to me that there was some what of a lag in the roll response, which tends to roll PIO. Pitch

and Roll Harmony seemed reasonable.

7. Flare and touchdown: any problems with runway line-up, sink rate control,

tendency to float, nose lowering ? Any special control techniques required ?

 As I have said before, the aggressive lateral corrections led to a lateral PIO. The sink rate

control, once... the, once... once it's learned what it takes to arrest the sink rate, basically,

added thrust to supplement the normal flare, the... that seemed to be satisfactory, however, it

is not necessarily normal to be adding thrust in the flare, most, and maybe this airplane is...

has this characteristic, and this would be required, but it seems unusual. Tendency to float,

there wasn't any tendency to float, except when on occasion when the sink rate was quite

low, very close to the ground, you close the throttle, and it would be quite a while before the

airplane would settle in. No problems with nose lowering. Special techniques required, I

guess would be the added thrust in the flare, and for the PIO problem we encountered,

technique there, would be to make corrections, and release your.. .release the stick, rather

than keep your hand on it.

8. Approach vs. Landing - which was more difficult, and why ?

 I'd say the landings are much, are more difficult than the approaches.

9. Effects of the Wind/Turbulence ?

 Were mostly effected holding airspeed, because the airspeed was wandering around a bit,

and required a lot of throttle activity.

10. Summary - Good/Bad features ?

 Good features seemed to be mostly in the ILS approach where everything seemed to be

straight forward, corrections and however the PIO's and the added thrust for flare seemed to

be undesirable features.

Automatic Flap Transition in Approach and Landing Tasks (excluding decelerating

approaches)

11. Was the automatic reduction in pitch attitude that conicided with the

automatic flap transition acceptable ?

 It is a question of how close in to the runway this happens, and what automated features are

engaged, it's probably acceptable if the autothrottle is engaged, and under those

circumstances, the thrust... the forward feed and the pitch... into pitch, helps maintain your

glide path and maintain your speed, so there's very little pilot work load with that situation,

with manual throttles on, then it takes more work, and if there's no forward feed, then you

have to pay attention and adjust your flight path angle when you start ballooning above the

path as the flaps extend, and also if you're at manual throttles, then you can be caught by

surprise, and have the airspeed reduce excessively on you as the flaps extend. It would be

preferable if that transition occurred at a higher altitude, like a 1000 ft or so, and seven, eight

hundred ft, you have at least 3 miles, 3 or 4 miles of stabilized approach.

12. Please describe any changes you would suggest to the initiation altitude or

timing of the automatic flap transition.

Okay, I would think that you would want to have a stabilized, ideally, you'd like to have a

stabilized approach. If you're doing manual throttles, you really ought to have that, perhaps,

manual throttles would be a non-normal event in this airplane, but in that event, the automatic

flap transition should occur, perhaps, with the gear down, or with... at a 1000 ft, or
241

something in that, among those lines, there's 750 ft, no lower than, no lower than 750 ft... the

stabilization of the flight path can occur.

13. Please list any adverse characteristics you perceived as a result of the automatic

flap transition.

Most of the adverse characteristics... the main one is doing manual throttle operation where

it can take you... can take you by surprise, and one of the problems is you, if your attention

is diverted elsewhere, the flaps can be transitioning and slowing you down, before you

realize it, and it's a possibility that you could get... so, there's no annunciation of how these

flaps move. I assume that, perhaps, there would be a flap indicator that you could watch, but

maybe there needs to be some annunciation of this flap transition, it needs to be done

manually.

14. In your opinion, is the automatic flap transition acceptable for use in a

commercial transport, assuming that pilots are trained for any failure

contingencies associated with such a practice ? 

Decelerating Approach and Landing

I think having an automatic flap transition that occurs at 400 ft on the approach

automatically, with this... it can be a serious... serious problem for this airplane, because if it

doesn't go as planned, and if the procedure is to go around and plan another approach,

you've gobbled up an awful lot of fuel droning around at low airspeed, perhaps, with the

flaps out, and a high drag configuration, certainly, at low speed, and so, part of your

situation... unless a failure allows you to go ahead and land, as is, which or may not allow

you to take tail clearance, may cause you to make a approach at higher speed. May not...

may well not be acceptable, have a similar situation with existing aircraft, where you can

extend the flaps late in the approach, and not have them come down properly, that's still a

possibility. Perhaps, it's not all that much different than any of today airplanes, but the plane

is very critical as far as droning around low altitude, gobbling up lots of fuel, can't afford to

spend much time troubleshooting problems, in a terminal area.

15. Was the airspeed decay profile used in the decelrating approach acceptable ?

If not, what chracteristics did you find objectionable ?

 The only thing I saw was that apparently, past the threshold, it's slightly higher airspeed, 5-

10 knots higher than normal, and the other characteristic was that the... you came across the

threshold, or came through 50 ft with quite a low power setting, and in order to do the flare,

it requires power, so, having to spool up the engines in a timely way, can create a problem if

the pilot is distracted and waits a little too long, then time delay in this engine spool up can

cause a problem for arresting the rate of descent. Perhaps the spool up needs to be done

earlier, and at some point the airplane needs to be on top speed and spooled up to normal

approach speed. I guess, while, each time I offer comments, the next question.

16. Please describe any suggested improvements you may have to the decelerating

approach procedure.

I'd like to see a early configuration, and at a 1000 ft, certainly no lower than 750... thousand

ft, and the decel profile should allow, should be such that, the last... at 200 ft or so, the... no

lower than a 100 ft, the engine should be spooled up to stabilized approach speed. Higher, if

you need to add thrust in the, than the engines can spool up, other than that, it seemed

perfectly fine, I like the idea of a higher approach speed, the airplane flies better, at higher

speeds you can see better... your angle of attack is not as great, less use of fuel, so, there's a
242

lot of good things about flying a fast approach, as long as you staying fast as long as you

can, and precede in staying clean as long as you can.

17. Do you find either the decelerating approach or the nominal approach profile

to be more acceptable than the other from a piloting standpoint ? Is so, why ?

 Personally I would... when you say a nominal approach, you're talking about a automatic

reconfigure and autothrottles ? If autothrottles are used, used and programmed properly,

then I think you can... you can, you configure at a lower altitude and there's no particular

problem with that at all, you can also, in addition, you can, as a alternative you could

reconfigure at a higher altitude, and fly the... fly a decelerating approach, and especially if it

was with autothrottles, that would also be fine. It's a fact that if a decelerating approach is

made, and then I think that it had to be some minimal altitude where the engines are or the

speed is stabilized briefly, and the throttles are spooled up, and in anticipation of having to

flare, plus unless it's found later on, that thrust is not, added thrust is not required for a flare.

We didn't do crosswind landings yet, so, I won't comment on that.

[This pilot answered this questionnaire again following crosswind landings below.]

Pilot A

Approach & Landing Questionnaire 16 Jan 97

[This pilot answered the initial set of questions in this questionnaire earlier.]

1. Adequacy of Roll and Yaw Control Power (Cross-wind landings) ?

 There doesn't seem to be a problem with the control power, however, the... there are

problems with crosswind landings. The first one is that, as cross control, as pilot gains get

increased when the crosswind correction is applied, there's a very strong tendency to get into

a PIO. In order to avoid this, it can be avoided by very careful avoidance of any roll inputs

during the crosswind correction, and this requires quite a bit of conscious effort, and tends

to detract from the ability to arrest the sink rate, in terms of the ability to provide enough

rudder to align the airplane with the runway, there is enough rudder, however, the... it's not

really desirable to... it's not advisable to remove all of the yaw error on landing, because

the... this creates an excessive amount of drag, and a considerable amount of thrust

requirement. There is, in terms of, along these lines when a lot of, on the crosswind

correction is applied, it's very critical that thrust be increased preferably ahead of time to

allow for the engine spool up to help in the flare, and as you flare, a considerable amount of

increase thrust is required, especially when you're at the same... if you're at the same time

correcting for the crosswind. In terms of the timing of the crosswind correction, the... the

later the correction comes in, the more chances of successful landing, the... if the rudder is

kicked out, or the crosswind correction applied too early, then considerable amount of thrust

is required for quite a extended period of time, this also tends to create more requirement for

roll corrections, which leads into a PIO tendency. That completes number...Question

Number one. Let's see we're going to...

Crosswind Landing Procedures

18. Did you prefer Procedure A (decrab initiated at 50 ft) or Procedure B (forward

slip initiated at 200 ft) for performing the corsswind landings ?

 A normal procedure on subsonic airplanes is to establish a wing low correction that

probably... in the area of 100 ft, and so 200 ft would be a little early for me, I would prefer
243

to start that sideslip later, and the... for this particular airplane, an attempt was made to

determine what procedure works best for this airplane, and it seems as though, as mentioned

before, the later the correction is applied, the better off you are, and so, you tend to have a

sort of a combination forward slip and decrab at the last minute, actually what it really boils

down to is, is probably a decrab in the flare, and it seemed as though the most successful

landings that I attempted were, actually decrabbing after the flare had been initiated, and this

was influenced... this technique was influenced to some degree by the problem with the PIO

and the lateral axis, the longer... the longer the airplane spends in a side slip, the more likely

it is that a PIO would develop, because of the lateral inputs that are required, and so for that

reason, I tended to prefer delaying the crosswind correction until the very last minute.

19. Do you feel that this aircraft can be landed reliably in a 35-kt crosswind using

either of these procedures ? 

The way the control laws are set up right now, the roll PIO would prevent this, and some

technique given, if that could be solved, then if that could be eliminated, then perhaps, more

attention could be placed on providing an optimum procedure, which would probably be a

late crosswind correction with, which occurred after the flare was initiated, and after the

thrust has started increasing, and if then there was not PIO tendencies, and the roll was

tuned, so that that was not a problem, then perhaps that could be achieved, but the overriding

attention was on the... trying to avoid the PIO, so that then the landing could be achieved.

20. Please describe any suggested imporovement you may have to either of

crosswind landing procedures.

I guess I maybe of already covered that, the late... the nature... the aerodynamic nature of the

airplane is such, that the drag increases dramatically when a lot of rudder is applied, so, and

that requires a lot of thrust requirements, so that this airplane will likely be just by it's very

aerodynamic nature is going to have to have a late correction, and it will have to have a thrust

increase in the flare, and this may, perhaps, this could be easily tuned through an autopilot, I

mean an autothrottle, which would provide the proper amount of thrust, for a normal flare,

and then closing the throttle as at the appropriate time, in the flare. This could be the most

likely scenario. This could also perhaps be done manually, but certainly, the more

crosswind... the more crab that could be tolerated at touchdown, the less of a problem this

would be. If you could touch down in a 5 degree crab, then the problems with added drag

due to rudder, would be reduced considerably, and so, actually, a crosswind landing gear

would be perhaps well suited to this airplane, I'm not sure it's practical though.

Impact of Aeroelastic Dynamics

21. Please describe any adverse efects that you perceived as a result of the

aeroelastic dynamics.

22. Of the maneuver tasks that included a comparison of the aeroelastic dynamics, which

was most adversely impacted by these effects ? 

HUD symbology Issues

23. Was the appearance of the actual flight path symbol (triggered when flight

path angle error exceeded the threshold value) helpful or more of a nuisance ?

Would you suggest any modification to the logic which triggers the appearance of

this symbol ?
244

Well, I suppose I used it under certain conditions, when you're trying to fine tune a landing

flare, or a tracking task, it... I guess it was helpful to know that I was not getting the

commanded path, however, I'm not... I'm a little suspicious that it might produce some,

under some conditions, confusion, on the part of the pilot, as to what to do with that. It's

conceivable that a very aggressive pilot could be closing on the actual gamma and have the

commanded gamma making large excursions, but I think it is important to know where your

actual gamma is going, and, however, I suppose that you really don't know this in existing

airplanes, so, it, I guess, in summary, it was... I did use it on occasion to fine tune my

command inputs, and knowing for instance, the actual gamma was not what I was

commanding during certain phases of flight, flare, and the accelerations, and so forth, and I

guess, having flown the airplane... for someone... if someone has flown the airplane, and it

gets to understand where the splitouts occur and what they're most likely to be, perhaps,

they could be anticipated. In that sense, perhaps, it would take some of the mystery out of

landings and other maneuvers by knowing exactly what your commanded is doing. Ideally,

it would be best if the commanded gamma could be achieved all the time within reasonable

tolerances. As far as, would I suggest any modifications to the logic which triggers the

appearance of this symbol ? I think that this, perhaps, several scenarios for the breakout of

this symbol, might be evaluated in the future, and the future simulation, and further

experience with this might suggest some modifications to the logic. The logic that was used

in this simulation seemed to be reasonable.

24. Was the tailscrape indicator symbology presented on the HUD useful during

execution of the go-around tasks (4086 and 4085) ?

 I guess I'd have to say no, because... mainly because on the approach... during the approach

I was concentrating on the flight path marker, and during the flare I was to continue to flight,

concentrated on the flight path marker, and on adding thrust, the thrust required for a flare...

continued to concentrate on that, and at 30 ft or the go-around altitude, I started the goaround, added thrust, actuated the go-around switch, and at that point was intent upon

getting a positive rate of climb which requires looking at the flight path marker, calling for a

go-around, or calling for gear up, and then establishing a flight path of 12 degrees, so I

seldom looked at the waterline indicator marker, and consequently, I can't say as I used the

tailscrape indicator at all, or even... not sure I even saw it, although others did.

Pilot B

Approach and Landing Questionnaire 07 Jan 97

1. Adequacy of Roll and Yaw Control Power (Cross-wind landings) ?

 I haven't done cross-wind landings really. So I guess I can't answer that yet. They were

adequate for the landings that we've done so far.

2. Predictability of pitch, roll, and yaw response to pilot inputs ? Any special control

techniques required ?

 I haven't done a whole lot of yaw inputs. Pitch and roll...roll is not so much an issue. No

special control technique required. Pitch is an issue in the flare. We just started talking

about that a little bit. I have a problem in predicting the affect of fine pitch inputs and rapid,

particularly rapid pitch inputs, in the flare. But, I don't recall having to this extent previously.

Basically, what's happening is.. I'm putting in initial pitch input into arrest the sink rate to

get it close to desire for touchdown and then trying to fine tune it. And what I'm finding is

that there's such a large split between my commanded pitch input and my actual flight path

that I'm having problems in predicting for rapid inputs, where to command the.....where to

put the commanded indicator in order to get the desired performance that I want. And what's
245

happening is that I'm either floating a great deal consistently or I'm landing hard

consistently or both. And when I say hard, I'm dropping between 4 & 5 feet per second. So

I'm able to consistently get adequate performance. But whereas previously after 3 or 4

landings I was able to pretty consistently get desired to the best of my recollection. I'm

at....not able to do that anymore. I think one of my landings today was in the desired range

and all the parameters and the rest of them were in the adequate range. So, I'm seeing a

fairly consistent trend here. I guess I can't tell you for sure if its ground effect or control

laws. I can tell you that I'm seeing a lot of splits between the commanded and actual gamma

..down low and to the best of my recollection its more than I've seen in the past. In any case

I'm having a problem with the ..with control. Which kinda leads to the next question.

3. Ability to control and track pitch attitude, flight path, bank angle, and heading

?

 (a) Flight path is a problem down low in the flare for me. (b) Bank angle is kinda of a

nuisance. It isn't so much a problem as it is a nuisance. In that there's no true bank angle

hold mode in this control law. The bank angle hold up in a way as a soft bank angle hold, in

other words, what happens is, if you set it 10 degrees angular back and then reduce the

inputs to zero or let go of the stick, it would hold 10 degrees angular back until you get a

gust upset and as soon as the gust changes the angular bank by a couple of degrees it wants

to stay at the new bank angle when it changes. So it seems like the bank angle is holding

whatever it had last until it got an upset. Whether it is commanded upset or whether its a

natural upset. So there's no true bank angle hold mode as a result of which you have to

constantly put in lateral inputs in order to maintain any bank angle. So, what would be nice

to see is a true bank angle--a hard bank angle hold mode, and, as I've mentioned before a

latch near zero plus or minus 2 degrees or plus or minus 3 degrees where you will not

change the commanded bank angle at that point. (c) Same thing for heading, its no real

problems with it. Its just a nuisance having to make the lateral inputs. You don't have to

make those inputs longitudinally because of gamma dot V.

4. Ability to control airspeed (autothrottle off) ?

 Ability to control airspeed I think is fairly easy. We've got the right control laws from what

I've seen on the acceleration carrot it looks real nice. So, no major problems with that. It

increases work load with the autothrottle off , but you'd expect it to. But the display is

certainly helping you.

5. Were there any PIO tendencies in the pitch or roll axis ? If yes, was the task

continued or abandoned ?

 I didn't note any PIO tendencies in pitch or roll.

6. Pitch/Roll Inceptor and rudder pedal characteristics: force & displacement,

sensitivity, and pitch/roll harmony ?

 The force and displacement characteristics on the side stick and the rudder pedals occurred

about right. (b) Sensitivity was okay. (c) Didn't note any problems with pitch and roll

harmony today. Minor tendency to couple the axis in pitch and roll. In other words, when

I'm making a pure pitch input, minor tendency to inadvertently make a roll input. Certainly,

nothing is severe as what I saw yesterday. Its fairly minor.

7. Flare and touchdown: any problems with runway line-up, sink rate control,

tendency to float, nose lowering ? Any special control techniques required ?

 Runway line-up is a problem on the offset landing task, you would expect it to be, that is

the whole idea behind the task. Definite problems in sink rate control. Definite tendency to

float for me. Much more so than I recalled in the past. No problem with nose lowering. (b)
246

Special control techniques consisted of basically trying to set the attitude that you want in

the flare and try to avoid any large inputs just prior to touchdown. Whereas previously I felt

like I could finesse the sink rate just prior to touchdown, I no longer feel like I can do that

here with this ground effect model. So, you gotta pretty much set what you want and if you

get lucky, and you get the right one, you'll get in a box, if you don't --you won't.

8. Approach vs. Landing - which was more difficult, and why ?

 Of course, the landing was much more difficult that the approach for reasons I've just

discussed.

9. Effects of the Wind/Turbulence ?

 The effects of turbulence is just to add to the workload. We didn't have any cross- winds to

speak of today.

10. Summary - Good/Bad features ?

 In summary its a pretty solid level 2 configuration. I don't think there's any longer any

doubt that I know whether its level 1 or level 2. It's very solid level 2. And I think previously

I thought it was borderline level 1 or level 2. Up and away it very clearly level 1 like it has

been.

Automatic Flap Transition in Approach and Landing Tasks (excluding decelerating

approaches)

11. Was the automatic reduction in pitch attitude that conicided with the

automatic flap transition acceptable ?

 The automatic pitch reduction is acceptable. I've got two problems with it. One is the

longitudinal flight control system does not adequately compensate for it. . In that you get

some heave and you always go a quarter to a half a dot high in the absence of any

compensating inputs. That doesn't make it unacceptable it just a nuisance. The other

problem I had with it is from a certification stand point. I believe that most regulatory and

customer pilots are going to have a problem with large configuration changes below 400 ft

which is what we're talking about. And to do it at 150 ft where things moving on the airplane

externally, I think many pilots are going to find unsatisfactory. And I think its more than a

50% type thing if you got 1 out of 5 that find it unsatisfactory, you're going to have a

problem. Because, one of those people is going to be on your regulatory team or on your

certification team from a customer...so., you ought to be looking for numbers more like '9

out of 10 pilots like it' before you feel comfortable about doing something like that . I

got..I've happen to be one of the ones who have a problem with it from a regulatory stand

point. I would suggest the initiation altitude of that flap transition be higher if you're going

to make it automatic.

12. Please describe any changes you would suggest to the initiation altitude or timing of the

automatic flap transition. The timing is fine. I don't have any problems with the amount of

time it takes to ramp the flaps in. That's about right.

13. Please list any adverse characteristics you perceived as a result of the automatic

flap transition.

I think I've covered the adverse characteristics that I perceived.

14. In your opinion, is the automatic flap transition acceptable for use in a

commercial transport, assuming that pilots are trained for any failure

contingencies associated with such a practice ?
247

 In my opinion it is not acceptable for use in a commercial transport. I don't believe that you

can train pilots for any failures contingencies associated with such a practice, unless you can

guarantee ten to the minus ninth that the flaps are going to go where you say they are going

to go. And that's both flaps or both sides of flaps unless you can guarantee they are going

to go where you say they're going to go at that point. I don't think you can train to this...to

failure contingency. Somebody is going to miss understand what's going on.

Decelerating Approach and Landing

15. Was the airspeed decay profile used in the decelrating approach acceptable ?

If not, what chracteristics did you find objectionable ?

 Allright...with decelerating approach...I found this more acceptable. I didn't have a problem

with the airspeed decay profile and with auto throttles on. I don't think you are ever going to

certify it with auto throttles off ....because I think the pilot is going to attempt to, to...ignore

airspeed and concentrate on flight path and as a result at which you can get really really

slow and not notice it. Until it's too late.

16. Please describe any suggested improvements you may have to the decelerating

approach procedure.

I made some improvements on this while we were doing it and that was up the power setting

to 10% for this profile.

17. Do you find either the decelerating approach or the nominal approach profile

to be more acceptable than the other from a piloting standpoint ? Is so, why ?

 I think we all understand that this profile is artificial, because you got a canned set of

environmental scenarios so you setup a power setting. Ultimately you'll want to have some

sort of a profile on an auto throttle.

Crosswind Landing Procedures

18. Did you prefer Procedure A (decrab initiated at 50 ft) or Procedure B (forward

slip initiated at 200 ft) for performing the corsswind landings ?

 Haven't done crosswind Landing Procedures, so I'll avoid that.

19. Do you feel that this aircraft can be landed reliably in a 35-kt crosswind using

either of these procedures ? 

20. Please describe any suggested imporovement you may have to either of

crosswind landing procedures.

Impact of Aeroelastic Dynamics

21. Please describe any adverse efects that you perceived as a result of the

aeroelastic dynamics. We didn't do aeroelastic today, so, I won't mention that.

22. Of the maneuver tasks that included a comparison of the aeroelastic dynamics, which

was most adversely impacted by these effects ? 

HUD symbology Issues

23. Was the appearance of the actual flight path symbol (triggered when flight

path angle error exceeded the threshold value) helpful or more of a nuisance ?
248

Would you suggest any modification to the logic which triggers the appearance of

this symbol ?

 I felt like the actual flight path symbol was helpful today. In that...particularly in the flare,

and it gave you some lead as to what was really going on , but, although I needed it a whole

lot more today than I recalled needing it in the past, because of the amount split that I saw

there. There was times when I saw a full velocity vector width of split between the actual and

the commanded. Which is more than I recalled seeing in the past. Upwards of between 1

and 2 degrees a split for an extended period of time. I..for some reason don't recall seeing

that in the past. I think the logic which triggers it is fine. I just wish that it didn't appear quite

as often . It may be that the commanded symbol is too quick. But the idea of making it

quick is to show you where the actual is eventually going to go. The problem is there's lots

of times in a dynamic scenario where it takes one heck of a long time to get there. So, you

really need it more than...you needed more of input that you thought you did ...to get it

where you want, so, I think that's worth looking at.

24. Was the tailscrape indicator symbology presented on the HUD useful during

execution of the go-around tasks (4086 and 4085) ? 

Haven't done go-around yet so I can't talk about that one. So, that should finish up the

questionnaire.

Pilot B answered this questionnaire later in this test, see below

Pilot B

Approach & Landing Questionnaire 07 Jan 97

[This is the questionnaire following the Block 2 testing that Pilot B did on the 7th of

January in the afternoon. He answered some of these questions in a previous session

above.]

1. Adequacy of Roll and Yaw Control Power (Cross-wind landings) ?

 The adequacy of roll and yaw control power for cross-wind landings was, I'll say was

marginal. Particularly in roll, in terms of actuator, I met the rate limit quite frequently. Times

when I'm feeling it, times when I'm not. Yaw control I'm feeling like I putting in most of the

rudder to drop it safely for 35 kt cross-wind.

2. Predictability of pitch, roll, and yaw response to pilot inputs ? Any special control

techniques required ?

 Pitch predictability is okay, roll and yaw combined predictability in response to inputs is

tough. Its a lot of work associated with that.

3. Ability to control and track pitch attitude, flight path, bank angle, and heading

?

 Ability to control flight path is somewhat degraded in cross-wind landings. It seems

tougher that it was before, I know there's increased CL beta and that may have contributed to

it , I don't know, but it sure seems a lot tougher than it was. Bank angle control particularly

was more difficult.

4. Ability to control airspeed (autothrottle off) ?

 I don't recall doing any autothrottle off stuff.
249

5. Were there any PIO tendencies in the pitch or roll axis ? If yes, was the task

continued or abandoned ?

 Minor PIO tendencies in the roll axis. I commented on that.

6. Pitch/Roll Inceptor and rudder pedal characteristics: force & displacement,

sensitivity, and pitch/roll harmony ?

 Pitch and roll inceptor characteristics were okay.

7. Flare and touchdown: any problems with runway line-up, sink rate control,

tendency to float, nose lowering ? Any special control techniques required ?

 Runway line-up problems big time in cross-wind landings. Sink rate control problems,

there was a tendency to float and corrections with the sink rate. And problems in nose

lowering in cross-winds. Special control techniques is just to minimize the inputs to try to

avoid the....saturating the rate limits.

8. Approach vs. Landing - which was more difficult, and why ?

 The landing was more difficult than the approach for reasons I've just discussed.

9. Effects of the Wind/Turbulence ?

 Turbulence makes things tougher. The cross-wind is a bear in this airplane.

10. Summary - Good/Bad features ?

 In summary particularly at 35 kt, we're right on the ragged edge of control. I might question

whether this configuration is certifiable with the techniques, that I saw and the amount of

workload that is necessary. In any case the forward slip technique is doable. The decrab

technique is, I think is .. arguably uncontrollable. Certainly the way I was conducting it,

which was to start it right after 50 ft. Again, if we try to do the same task in degraded

weather conditions at night, that sort of thing, I think it will be real difficult.

Automatic Flap Transition in Approach and Landing Tasks (excluding decelerating

approaches)

11. Was the automatic reduction in pitch attitude that conicided with the

automatic flap transition acceptable ?

 Yeah....comments are pretty much the same that I had from earlier. I think there's two

problems associated with that. One is reliability. Changing things that low. And the other is,

is being at a low altitude with things moving on the airplane that you're not directly

controlling. I'd prefer to see that earlier.

12. Please describe any changes you would suggest to the initiation altitude or timing of the

automatic flap transition. I'd prefer to see the initiation altitude earlier. The timing is about

right for in terms of how long it takes to clear.

13. Please list any adverse characteristics you perceived as a result of the automatic

flap transition.

Adverse characteristics, the sight picture is changing once you get down low. The necessity

to correct for heave at that point adds another control task into the picture. Particularly in

cross-winds and an already high workload scenario.

14. In your opinion, is the automatic flap transition acceptable for use in a

commercial transport, assuming that pilots are trained for any failure

contingencies associated with such a practice ?
250

 And in my opinion this automatic flap transition at this low in altitude is not acceptable. I

don't think training is an issue here.

Decelerating Approach and Landing

15. Was the airspeed decay profile used in the decelrating approach acceptable ?

If not, what chracteristics did you find objectionable ? 

16. Please describe any suggested improvements you may have to the decelerating

approach procedure.

17. Do you find either the decelerating approach or the nominal approach profile

to be more acceptable than the other from a piloting standpoint ? Is so, why ? 

I talked about the decelerating approach in the morning session.

Crosswind Landing Procedures

18. Did you prefer Procedure A (decrab initiated at 50 ft) or Procedure B (forward

slip initiated at 200 ft) for performing the corsswind landings ?

 I prefer, much prefer a forward slip and that I think that the decrab was unacceptable now.

By the way I don't recall believing that it was unacceptable previously to this cycle 3. And

I'm wondering whether the increase of CL beta or ground effect or both is contributing to

my perception, that, I no longer think it is acceptable to do a decrab in this configuration.

The problems...are predictability and roll response, weight limit, saturation, PIO, and loss of

control.

19. Do you feel that this aircraft can be landed reliably in a 35-kt crosswind using

either of these procedures ?

 I feel that I can land the airplane reliably in the simulator, and the simulator condition, this

is question 19 now. In the 35 kt cross-wind, I'm convinced that in the present configuration,

I wouldn't want to hand it to a FAA pilot to demonstrate to him in a certification roll. I have

a problem with this. I don't think its easy enough that you can hand it to a customer or to a

regulatory pilot. Cause the workload is way, way too high for that.

20. Please describe any suggested imporovement you may have to either of

crosswind landing procedures. Suggested improvements.

I think that the ARI [aileron-rudder interconnect] needs tuned. So that there's less coupling

between the lateral and directional axis and I think we have a symbology problem. I think

we have a problem with guidance as far as where to put the nose, where to position the nose

of the flare. The requirement to concentrate on the sink rate control on the longitudinal axis

detracts from your ability to control lateral directional. I think that if we can make that easier

by tuning the presentation of the velocity vector in a dynamic situation. And, I guess I don't

want to suggest how to do that, but right now when I move the stick in the flare I get a wide

separation between the commanded flight path indicator and the actual flight path indicator.

The commanded flight path indicator is too quick, its not giving me real time information, so

its largely useless. When I get in a real dynamic situation, and the actual flight path indicator

doesn't give me predicted information as far as where its going to go in the near future. So, I

guess I need something in between those two. I'd like to see, we either need to relax the

limits on bank angle, with respect to wing tip or nacelle strikes through changes in

geometry, or we need to provide stearable gear, or we need to provide an improvement in the
251

flying qualities to allow, maybe more decouplings like I said of the two axis to allow reliable

cross-wind landings at 35 kt.

HUD symbology Issues

23. Was the appearance of the actual flight path symbol (triggered when flight

path angle error exceeded the threshold value) helpful or more of a nuisance ?

Would you suggest any modification to the logic which triggers the appearance of

this symbol ?

 The appearance of the actual flight path symbol was helpful, although as I just said it's not

really enough. There is so much lag in that because of the inertia of the vehicle that you

don't have a reliable predictor as to where it is going to go in the near future, and it takes too

long to catch up with the commanded indicator when you get down low, so I don't really

have anything to guide on. The modifications I suggest to the logic on this is to give me

either a quick and actual flight path or a lagged commanded flight path, or maybe merge it

into something that is neither actual nor commanded that is something in between that's

used for in the dynamics of the flare.

24. Was the tailscrape indicator symbology presented on the HUD useful during

execution of the go-around tasks (4086 and 4085) ?

 The tailscrape indicator symbology was useful, although not a whole lot and the reason

being is you're concentrating so much on that flight path indicator that you're only

peripherally looking at the tailscrape indicator with respect to the water line. In fact I had to

go through one go around before I realized having been prompted that the tailscrape

indicator was only valid with respect to the water line, it had nothing to do with the flight

path indicator. I am not sure how to fix that either, because if you put the tailscrape indicator

down low, it's going to be in the way, so I am not sure you could, maybe you could flash it

when you get close, you need to provide some peripheral queue that you are getting close to

scraping, to make it more useful. Although, I've go to admit that I did see it peripherally and

once after two or three times looking at it, realizing what it was telling me, I was able to use

it a little bit. Primarily what it was a training tool, I learned that when I saw it, when it got

close, that I needed to back off on the aggressiveness of the Go-Around, and once I got a

feel for how aggressive I could be in the go-around I think that's what I was using more

than that indicator.

Pilot C

Approach and Landing Questionnaire 13 Jan 97

1. Adequacy of Roll and Yaw Control Power (Cross-wind landings) ? 

2. Predictability of pitch, roll, and yaw response to pilot inputs ? Any special control

techniques required ?

 For the ILS approach, it's got predictability of Pitch, Roll, and Yaw Response to Pilot

Inputs, and for the level part of the ILS and the glideslope, and localizer down to, near the

end of segment one, the last couple hundred feet of segment one, things change, but up to

that point, the predictability was fine, I had no complaints with roll, pitch, yaw, and it was

quite, quite easy to keep desired performance, and I think the times that I saw the...only

adequate performance, was in the very end of segment one, when things were starting to

happen, and that would get me out to the adequate, and either the pitch or the localizer. So,

pretty much on the approach, I had no problems, the real problem came in when you come

in real close on segment two, the very end of segment one, and throughout segment two, the
252

roll actually felt all right, and the only reason I got out of desired on, and yaw, the reason I

got out of desired on that, was because I was concentrating so much on the pitch, that I just

let the displacement left and right go, because I could see I'm still on concrete, so I'll accept

that, if I can just make this pitch behave, and...but the predictability in pitch and so on, says

to pilot inputs, but there were things that went on that I didn't put in, and sometimes I put

something in and I didn't see the response I expected out of it, so, the predictability in pitch,

in the nominal in segment two, was poor at best.

3. Ability to control and track pitch attitude, flight path, bank angle, and heading

?

 Ability to Control and Track, oh, I see what you mean, Flight Path, well, that's what it said,

it's the...the glideslope is the hard thing, to try to keep the flight path and keep it all one

continuous path as opposed to ballooning, then sinking below, and so on. I even went as far

as to change technique, and try starting out low so that when I got the balloon that I knew

was coming, it would bring me back, but at the same time, the balloons also was getting

attitude changes, and it was just too many changes for me to process, and I would end up

with surprise touchdowns, and almost all of them were long, because I really hesitated to

pushover as hard as I had to that close to the ground, knowing I was going to have to rotate

at the last moment, or at least felt like I was going to have to rotate at the last moment to

keep arrest to sink, and with wheels that far back, that's asking for trouble, I know. Ability to

control Bank Angle, it was doing what I wanted, I didn't have any complaint with that, and

same thing with heading, as long as I had just minimal amount of concentration on either

one of those, there was no difficulty.

4. Ability to control airspeed (autothrottle off) ?

 It takes a lot of practice, and I don't think how much practice I ever could get, would I ever

be able to keep it completely in the desired, which I think was 5 knots, when you push over,

and have to make large throttle changes, I would then start chasing the airspeed, and about

the time that I'd almost get it under control, we'd go through this big, goat rope here with the

attitudes and ballooning, and now I can't concentrate enough on the airspeed, so, I would get

off again, but the...I'm not sure on the...when I was...just say, pushing over from the level

part of an ILS, when I pushed over, and then tried to capture, I would get more than 5 knots

off, and part of it may have been, you have to make a large input, and there seemed to be

quite a while before the acceleration karat moved, now I don't know whether that's due to

just engine response being slow, or whether it had to do with the dynamics of the display, in

other words, maybe the display was too far behind, but I do know that it would get me

started, and if...and you can have a PIO in a throttle, and I felt like I might have been doing a

little bit of that, I was just chasing the airspeed a lot, and I'm not sure whether, like I said,

engine response or display, but it was a factor everytime I made a big throttle change.

5. Were there any PIO tendencies in the pitch or roll axis ? If yes, was the task

continued or abandoned ? Were there any PIO tendencies in the Pitch or Roll axis

?

 I didn't see anything in roll, and the problems I was having, I think I was overcontrolling in

pitch, but I don't recall anything that jumped out at me, and said, boy, I think that's a PIO,

it's...you know, you're getting a lot of oscillations in there that you're driving, but I think I

was overcontrolling, so the PIO tendencies I recall on the scale, they often

say...unus...undesired motion, and yeah, it would have been from overdriving, but I don't

recall, certainly there was no...a PIO in there that was a full cycle that was expanding, in

other words, if there were any cycles there, they were converging, anyway, and it's hard to

tell, you know, with so much going on, there...you know...however you want to define some

of these terms is the problem.
253

6. Pitch/Roll Inceptor and rudder pedal characteristics: force & displacement,

sensitivity, and pitch/roll harmony ?

 Okay, as far as Pitch/Roll Inceptor and Rudder Pedal Characteristics, Force &

displacement, all felt fine to me. Sensitivity, I didn't have any complaint with, I felt like I had

sufficient authority and everything, and the pitch and the roll harmony was okay, the

airplane feels more responsive than roll, than it does in pitch by quite a bit, but the harmony

as far as force harmony or displacement, harmony didn't jump out at me as, oh boy,

that's...that's all messed up, it was within a reasonable boundary, there's quite a...quite a

variation you can have there, and still be quite useable. Just as an aside, the only thing I

noticed the whole day, was on one of the approaches, I seemed to pick up more breakout

force in pitch, as it went through center, in other words, if the quote, detent kind of a feel, I

really noticed having to push and it break loose, but it was only on one pass, and other than

that, I didn't notice it. If it was there, well, I just didn't notice it, but on one of them I did

see...it did appear to me, to be different than the other times, and like I say, it was only on

one pass, so it makes me think there might have been an anomaly on that particular one.

7. Flare and touchdown: any problems with runway line-up, sink rate control,

tendency to float, nose lowering ? Any special control techniques required ?

 I think I pretty well covered those, but let me just reiterate here. The line- up, as long as

things were under control in pitch enough that I could concentrate at all, the line-up was not

bad, and certainly, until I got close to the runway, I mean, I'm talking about almost to the

overrun, line-up wasn't a problem, gee, I could...the initial line-up was very easy, maintaining

a localizer was easy, it's when I got in real busy and so on, that sometimes I let it drift off.

Sink rate control, boy, I don't think I ever really sorted that one out, if I was...if I just refused

to take anything except a comfortable sink rate, every landing was long, but on these things

we usually try to get desired performance if you can, and any time I did that, the sink rate

went to pieces on me, so, that was...I consider sink rate very difficult. Tendency to float, I'm

not so sure that I was floating as much as, it just seemed on those first few, I always seem to

be high at the time I started my flare, and there just isn't anything you're going to do, but

land long, so the fact that I landed long, doesn't necessarily mean that once I was all flared,

that it floated too much, so, while the touchdowns were long, I don't think it was just the

classic, get down, set you're attitude, and it floats a long time, it didn't appear to me to be that

way, and nose lowering, sometimes I let it drop, but that wasn't due to the airplane, it was

more just technique, I mean, if I...if I would of just landed like I had passengers back there, I

wouldn't of had a problem lowering the nose nice and smoothly, and so on. The times that I

was specifically checking that, it was...it was very controllable and nice. Sometimes after a

bad landing, I just kind of kick myself, and just kind of let the nose drop, but that's more

laziness, than it is handling qualities. Any specific control techniques required ? I tried, I

couldn't find any that I was happy with, and some of them weren't very...weren't very natural,

certainly, weren't very comfortable, when you're that close to the ground, you get that

ballooning, it is very hard to grit your teeth, and push your...the nose even further down,

because the attitude change came in all by itself, and now you see that your high, you've got

to push even further down, and that's a bad, bad feeling. I certainly would hate to see

something like that. Tim even mentioned, how about when you drop out of the clouds, well,

if you've got this stuff going on, the first time you see the runway, and you've got to push

your nose down to hit the spot, I don't think you're going to do it, I think you're going to be

landing long. So, the only other special control, other than sometimes I just grit my teeth,

and except what I had to do, is I tried to come in a half a dot low on the glideslope, so, that

when this phenomenon occurred, that, you know, it would put me back to where I wanted to

be, but I never did get a...I never could, if I put it low enough where that would have started

to put me in the box, I would have been considerably out of the, certainly, desired maybe
254

adequate on the glideslope tolerances, if we had it, because I would of had to have been,

probably at least a dot low to have that little technique work, and of course, that puts me out

there, so, it's kind of a tradeoff, it's tough.

8. Approach vs. Landing - which was more difficult, and why ?

 Approach and Landing, well, by now you certainly know which was more difficult and

why. The approach actually was quite easy, up until the point the thing started to change on

short final, and the only reason on the the first ones, the approaches didn't get very good

Cooper Harpers, but it wasn't due to the everything up and away, as much as it was when I

was getting in close, and if you would have started segment two at 400 ft instead of 200 ft,

you would of gotten vastly different ratings on the glideslope, so, there's a little bit of a

contamination that gets in there, because what you got for most of the flying is not...is not

what you...it gets contaminated by the last couple of hundred ft in there.

9. Effects of the Wind/Turbulence ?

 We really didn't have crosswind, the turbulence was in there, there was some, and it, you

know, it...it was noticeable and took some work, but I mean it was...it was not a big player.

The level of turbulence that was in there did not effect the ratings I don't believe. One

comment on that, I suspect it's the turbulence that's making the airplane move around, and I

watched that the flight path going right where I want it, but the airplane, it's sure moving

around a lot, and occasionally that would bother me a little bit, when I was getting in down

low, and wasn't sure what input to put in, and all of a sudden the airplane would do

something on it's own, that...that's not a nice comfortable feeling. Yes, pitch is the problem,

the turbulence in the lat-dir, I didn't see anything that up...it was affected at all, in pitch,

however, the problem about the time that, due to configuration changes, apparently, for

something the airplane would start it's heaving and pitching, there may have been something

in there that was due to turbulence, and that just added to the already uncertainty, and from

about 200 ft on down, my anxiety level went up remarkably in there, just because of these

things going on that I wasn't sure how I was going to sort out, and I tried a couple of

different...intentionally tried a couple of different techniques, but I never found anything that

I was very happy with.

10. Summary - Good/Bad features ?

 On that particular one, the up and away, the glideslope, and the localizer control is great,

down low, I didn't see any big problems in the lat-dir, the pitch, however, was the problem.

Well, it looks like I've probably gotten ahead of myself on the questionnaire here, because

now we're going to talk automatic flap transition in approach and landing tasks.

Automatic Flap Transition in Approach and Landing Tasks (excluding decelerating

approaches)

11. Was the automatic reduction in pitch attitude that conicided with the

automatic flap transition acceptable ?

 I'd say no, that's too close to the ground to have your nose going down, and even though

your still safe, it's not a...certainly not comfortable, and it's something that raises your

anxiety and just starts a lot of things going on, so in my mind, I didn't think that was

acceptable. Would it be any better if, I mean, it looked like glidepath changed when that was

going on...oohhh it did...the control system helped that intact better with that would that be a

problem ? I don't know, I'd like to try to see, I mean, I wouldn't try to predict that, I think

I'd have to see it, before I can predict that, but that might have...if this...I know why you have

to do it in there, if all of this could have gone on, so that I would of had a chance to solve the

problem, and then go on in and land, it would not have been, it would have been a non
255

problem. This stuff happening at 4, 500 ft would not have been the problem, my concern is,

I'm close to the concrete down there with this airplane that stretches back to counties away,

and I've got to get this settled out so that I'm not making any last minute quick inputs,

because that's always been my thing. Big airplanes, when you're down in the flare, there's

not a awful lot you're going to be able to correct anymore, you better be pretty well set up,

and I was still correcting when I was getting down on that one, and it was very upsetting,

and Tim's thing...I don't know, it seemed to balloon, I watched myself go from low to high

in a hurry, maybe if I didn't do that, I don't know, maybe...so, the attitude change by itself

might not of done it, but I can tell you the attitude change plus the flight path change was

certainly not acceptable.

12. Please describe any changes you would suggest to the initiation altitude or timing of the

automatic flap transition. Well, I think I pretty well did, if it was...and I know it's not a

option, but if it would have been earlier from a handling qualities point of view, it would of

likely been a non event, if it would have been up further away from the ground, I'd had time

to get settled out before I actually got in the flare, and thus, the altitude and the timing are

tied together anyway.

13. Please list any adverse characteristics you perceived as a result of the automatic

flap transition.

Okay, any adverse characteristics as a result of the automatic, I've already told you

both...both the nose dropping like that, and the heaving, and then the combination together

makes each one by themselves, would have been tough enough, and to do both, it was

certainly adverse to say the least.

14. In your opinion, is the automatic flap transition acceptable for use in a

commercial transport, assuming that pilots are trained for any failure

contingencies associated with such a practice ? 

Well, I can't say too much about the training because, you know, I've got a grand total of

what, 2 1/2 hours of landing this airplane now, and...but I can say in that much training, it

certainly would not be acceptable, and I would be concerned about this, I think too, if you

train it, then unless you see it all the time, you might revert to more natural type

compensation when you got yourself in a bind, and keep in mind all of this is without

turbulence and any anomaly, this was a fairly benign conditions, and it would be interesting,

will be I'm sure, when I get a chance to do it with some environmental changes, but with this

one, I...you know...it's amazing how many things the pilot can be trained to do, but I would

say that in the things that I did, I didn't see anything that was even approaching natural type

compensation, that I would want to try to train somebody to do, in fact, here's a interesting

point, I'm getting a little bit ahead of myself, I think had I done the deceleration one before I

did this automatic flap one, I think that the decelerating approach one, would have started out

with better characteristic, or better Cooper Harper ratings and so on. It is a...that was a much

more natural type of flare and landing then the nominal was, and after working so hard and

trying all these things on a nominal, when I got to the deceleration, I was kind of thinking

that I still had to do some of those when actually that was hurting me, and that's one of the

problems when you get into training things out, you can teach people bad things, as well as,

you know, maybe it'll work, in this particular instance, this is the way to do it, and if that's

what they see most of the time, that's probably what they're going to want to do another time,

and when that might not be the appropriate thing to do, if that makes sense.

Decelerating Approach and Landing
256

15. Was the airspeed decay profile used in the decelerating approach acceptable ?

If not, what chracteristics did you find objectionable ?

 That was very acceptable to me, the only thing that came in as a surprise, and had a, and

probably thought about it a little ahead, they've certainly been fore warned, the first time I

tried the flare that was working before, and it didn't work, and it was a surprise. What was

the difference, and the difference is, that apparently the airspeed is a little bit lower when you

initiate the flare, on the decelerating one, did you say, and as a result, you don't have as much

cushion there, and so the same flare, I was rotating and continuing down, so in other words,

what was a reasonably timed flare on a nominal was a late flare here, because I just didn't

have as much, you know, the airspeed was dying off, and I just didn't have as much to catch

it with, so, then I said, ah, ha, I think I've got it, the trick is, make a little more natural, and the

next one was a little bit, the other thing was, when I kicked off the autothrottle, I was also

retarding the throttle on this one as I had on the ones before, and you see, that set me up,

you see, that's why I'm saying, if I would have done this one first, it would have been a much

more even flow type of learning curve, with the other one, that...that set me up to do some

things that actually hurt when I came to the deceleration point. I didn't see anything that was

objectionable, that's very reasonable, as I mentioned, keep in mind now, there were no...there

was not turbulence, and gustiness on this. If we are really close to, you know, if speed is

going to make that much difference, then possibly, you know, a last minute wind shear is

going to put you in world of hurt, it could be, I don't know, I'm just postulating here,

something I'm sure we'll get a chance to see, but, that would be my only caveat. In the

conditions that I saw, that was not objectionable, if there was enough to flare there, and in

fact, it allowed me to be a lot more accurate on my touchdown without having a lot of

floating. Okay, in other words, it did appeared to be about the right speed for those

conditions anyway, and I know, usually when you've got gusty conditions you bump the

speed up and all that, but all I'm saying is, for what I saw, I didn't see anything that was

objectionable.

16. Please describe any suggested improvements you may have to the decelerating

approach procedure.

I'm not sure that I have anything, again, going back to in the conditions that I saw, I didn't

have anything that I can think that was real bad, oh, one...now that I mentioned...the only

thing that I saw that I had to concentrate a little bit on was, the flaps change there

somewhere, and you're commanded flight path marker and your actual one split, you've got

to be aware of that and aggressively put your actual one where you want it, because on the

first couple, I was a little bit lazy in catching that, and as a result, they were just a little bit

long, and I think that was the difference between getting the long adequates, and later on

getting the desired was, I just wouldn't let myself balloon, so they took that little out, that

was the...maybe the minor compensation I had to put to give it a 3, but that would be the

only thing for somebody to stress, is okay, when they split, make sure that you put your

actual and down right now, don't wait for it to come down by itself, I guess is probably,

because you know it will, I mean, you know, sooner or later, it's going to come down, but

that will just get you enough extra altitude, and you're probably going to land a little long.

17. Do you find either the decelerating approach or the nominal approach profile

to be more acceptable than the other from a piloting standpoint ? Is so, why ? Do

you find either decelerating or nominal profile to be more acceptable than the other

from a piloting standpoint ?

 And that's what this whole conversation has been about. I much preferred the decelerating

approach, and it just...it's more natural, I can fly it more accurately, and if that would meet

the noise criteria, then it would be hands down winner, as far as I'm concerned, and for all of

the other reasons that I talked about. The rest of the things are on crosswind, and they're all
257

last on cards. Unless there's something else, any questions in particular, did that make

sense.

Pilot C answered this questionnaire later in this test, see below

Pilot C

Approach & Landing Questionnaire 14 Jan 97

Pilot C answered this questionnaire earlier in this test, see above

1. Adequacy of Roll and Yaw Control Power (Cross-wind landings) ?

 I don't think I required full throw on anything with the exception with trying to recover

from giant PIO in roll, but that was...I think I had the power that I needed. It was some other

problem that caused the PIO, and then once I got going in the PIO, then I hit the stops, but

I'd say that the control power in both roll and yaw was sufficient, don't really have much to

add...most of this approach and landing, I covered so much yesterday, I don't really see too

much to increase here. Effects of winds and turbulences, the whole section on the crosswind, and the turbulence, other than just making the airplane bob around, as it's trying to

hold it's gamma, I didn't see the turbulence on the standard ones as being a problem. The

standard...approaches and landings yesterday, certainly weren't and today, every once in a

while, there was a big one that came in with a cross-wind step and I don't know, if that's

what I saw close to the ground or not, then it was pretty big, but in general it didn't seem to

really have that large in effect, it was more just a kind of rumbling and heaving and so on,

and it wasn't a big deal. Let me come down here to cross-wind landing procedures, anything

else I have to say about the wind and stuff will come out in the rest of these questions.

Crosswind Landing Procedures

18. Did you prefer Procedure A (decrab initiated at 50 ft) or Procedure B (forward

slip initiated at 200 ft) for performing the corsswind landings ?

 Considering the fact I got into a giant PIO and had two wing hits on the ground, Procedure

A was undoable for me if I got it...if I got the PIO started it was...I was losing control. On

the ones where I didn't get to the threshold where I got into the PIO, the performance was

actually, surprisingly good, as I mentioned before, if it's not on tape somewhere, in most

airplanes, if it is considered okay as far as flight manual kinds of things to do, this

Procedure A, which is wing low, that's the one that I would prefer, I much prefer that, I can

do it in airplanes that I'm not as familiar with, and it works, and so, I'm much more

comfortable doing that, and in this case it appeared, that until I got into...as long as I avoided

a PIO, it was a more precise way of putting it down. Unfortunately, if I got the inputs going

to a point where the PIO started, of course, then pretty soon, it was divergent definitely and

pretty soon I was going stop to stop and ended up with a bank angle that caught a wing tip

and thinking two different situations, and one of those were practice runs, but that's

immaterial, it was there whether it was practice or not. In one data run, I felt the beginning of

it, but luckily I was close enough to the ground and was able to back out of the loop enough,

I assume that was it, that I could...continue the landing and did make the landing. As a

result, when it came time to choose Procedure A or Procedure B, I had to cross Procedure A

out for the potential for losing control. My comments about wing low and so on were

correct, my labeling of Procedure A, is decrab, was wrong. Up until this point, I've been

talking about the wing low, which unfortunately was Procedure B, I didn't read the

description. Another very interesting thing, it was easier for me, and this is going to be

something we'll want to investigate with a couple of standard landings, but it seemed to me
258

to be easier to put it in the desired box for and aft with the crosswind than it was without the

cross-wind, and the only thing I can think of that's apparently different, is the amount of

drag that's on the airplane when you are using this wing low procedure, that that was

something that helped me put it in the box for who knows what reason, but that's just an

observation, I'm not sure what that means. As far as the decrab method, that one always

takes more time to learn and takes better judgment, better knowledge of the airplane and

how it responds, it always seems that way to me. You decrab too soon, you pick up drift, if

you decrab too late, you'll land in a still in the crab. You have to time it right on the money,

and that's one of the reasons why I never cared for it too much, but in this case I could

straighten it out, I had the authority to do it, but due to where I was, left and right on the

runway, several times I did not get it to the adequate lineup, I still landed in a crab, because if

I would have decrabbed anymore, I would have drifted not only out of the box, but I was

even concerned of drifting to the point where it wouldn't be on the runway. One side line

here, and this is a contaminant, I notice that I always had this drift to the left, no matter

which direction the wind was coming from, the airplane was doing a nice job of staying on

localizer initially, and then we would just pick up this little bit of left drift in either case, and

later on we discovered that it was just a touch out of...the rudder was just a touch out of trim,

and my comment was, if it's that sensitive, then probably there should be a big indicator of

trim position on this, because that could of played a part, I noticed that it was much easier to

land with the wind out of the left than it was out of the right, and even after the touchdown, I

was having a hard time just...the rollout keeping the aircraft on the runway with the wind

from, here we go again, the wind from the right, but with the wind from the left it was not

such a big deal, and apparently I'm surprised that such a small amount of rudder trim would

have such a large effect, but there was a definite difference between the difficulty with a left

or a right crosswind, so I suspect there was a contaminant in there somewhere that in either

case, I was never very happy with the crosswind landings using the decrab method, even

though I think I did end up getting adequate performance, this is at the 25 knot level, I think

I got some adequate performances in there. It was not my favorite, to say the least, I could

make it work.

19. Do you feel that this aircraft can be landed reliably in a 35-kt crosswind using

either of these procedures ?

 Do you feel that this aircraft can be landed reliably in a 35-kt crosswind using either of

these procedures ? Again, at the level of proficiency I have right now, using the decrab

method, I'd have to say no, I was concerned about it, I can manage to barely keep it as far as

position on the runway, and I could not keep the heading under control to the point, and

when you're off on heading, you're talking about loading the landing gear, so you know, it's

very important, even if everything else was adequate, the fact that it wasn't lined up is a show

stopper, I thing. So, I'd have to...to 19, given my level of proficiency and using decrab

method, I'd have to say no, it might be something I can learn later on, but I sure don't have it

now.

20. Please describe any suggested imporovement you may have to either of

crosswind landing procedures. Any suggested improvements,

well the suggestion is being brought up about...what do you call those trucks...stirrable

trucks, or whatever, B-52 kind of things, and that would...I would suspect, that would make

a ton of difference, and that would...I would think that it would improve the capabilities

immensely to have something like that. The only other thing I had heard, and this is getting

more analysis than I usually do in an evaluation like this, if in fact the PIO was what I was

seeing before, that I saw before, was due to rate limiting, than if we can stay out of rate

limiting, I'm not so sure of what maybe then the 35 knot would have been able to do, I can't

put a rating on it, I'm just suggesting that that might have, because I felt a lot more control
259

with the wing low method than I did the decrab method, but of course, once you start getting

into a PIO that's going to get your wing tip, why then that's no longer a player, but if you

were to do away with the rate limiting, than that, very well, might have than an improvement

that I could suggest.

HUD symbology Issues

23. Was the appearance of the actual flight path symbol (triggered when flight

path angle error exceeded the threshold value) helpful or more of a nuisance ?

Would you suggest any modification to the logic which triggers the appearance of

this symbol ?

 I would say, I thought it was helpful because when the flap deconfiguration was going on, I

had to revert to the actual flight path symbol, or I would have gotten, I would have landed

longer than I did, which was already pretty long, so, by having the actual flight path symbol

shown, than I could make the correction that was necessary. The other thing would be, if

you don't do that, and this is what I'm more used to, and that is, just have it be the actual

flight path all of the time, I never really felt the need to have a commanded and an actual

before, if I could only have one, I certainly would have the actual one. The fact that, if they

were off by a certain amount, than I got the actual, well, okay that's fine, that would be my,

probably, my second choice, but from my point of view, what I've seen so far in the short

range, see, I've flown an actual flight path symbol now hundreds of hours, and I've flown

this one just a couple of hours, but my first thought on it, is given a choice, I think I would

just as soon have the flight path marker be the actual on all of the time, and I understand that

there is some, as I recall with the gamma dot, there was some other consideration in there,

but it escapes me for the moment, that I'm just kind of given free thought ideas here. Would

you suggest any mod. to the logic which triggers it ? No, probably if anything, I might

even have it come on a little bit quicker, because it seemed as though there was...by the time

it came it on, there was quite an error between the two. I think possibly even having it, if

you're going to have this split one, I think everything else being equal, I'd probably would

prefer having it come on with a smaller error from the commanded one. Minor point, it's not

a giant difficulty.

24. Was the tailscrape indicator symbology presented on the HUD useful during

execution of the go-around tasks (4086 and 4085) ?

 Well, considering that I scraped it when I had the indicator, and I didn't when I didn't' have

the indicator, that probably takes a little elaboration, I guess that's what this next part

probably is for. Apparently, I started out without the tailscrape indicator, and did not have

any problem. As it turns out, apparently, I was coming fairly close to the tailscrape, but of

course I didn't realize it because I didn't have an indication of how close it was at that point.

So, when we put it on, I thought oh, that will be nice, but one thing that I was surprised, is

even though that's a different color, and it's red, white, it's...you know, it should be, just jump

out and grab me, I was more concerned about the not touching down part of the phase to the

point, watching the flight path marker, which is incidentally quite a ways from the attitude

and tailscrape indications, that it's pretty far up on the HUD, that I honestly did note see the

tailskid marker, in other words, when I hit, the first time I looked up said, oh, oh, there's the

waterline on the tailscrape, and I never saw it. The only thing I can say is that it might be

more useful if it were closer to the flight path marker then I would have seen it, as it was, it

was out of the scan and...a couple of times, I thought the marker did not come on, and of

course after you scrape the tail once, you're a lot more sensitive to watch for it, but

considering the number of times that people are going to have to go around in this

condition, you're not going to see that very often, you'll see it in ground sims, every six

months, or whatever it is, but it wasn't anything that obviously that helped me during this
260

particular, the way it's mechanized and so on, the way the task was presented, it didn't help

me at all. And incidentally, as I mentioned, it may be on the tape some place else, in general,

throughout the approach, pilots tend to be success oriented, they are going to land, and to

suddenly have to go around at a 50 ft breakout or certainly at 30 ft, is a real shock and it

doesn't, the recovery and initiation of the go-around does not come in instantly, there's a lot

longer delay, now here I knew the task was to go around, and this is different than what you

would see in operational use, so, I know you have to do these kinds of things for the test,

but just in a practical point of view, I suspect people are going to touchdown or they're

going to scrape the tail more often, if they really, honestly have that fuel truck on the runway

that everybody likes to use as a reason to go around. I think the surprise and shock and

delay in initiating the go-around is probably going to cause you to touchdown or tailscrapes

more than this particular test would show, that we were flying. I think the other thing,

possibly that might have brought it at the...waterline does not grab your attention, and so

even if you were to...when you're looking down to where the flight path marker is, even if

you were to see the tailscrape marker, unless you go right and start looking at the waterline,

it's not something you're going to pick up in your peripheral. I think, there is probably a

better...it's not a bad idea having a tailscrape indication, but I'm not so sure that that's the one

that I would use, I think I would use some indication of nearness of tailscrape, that was

close to the flight path marker, I think. I think that's going to be lost. It's hard to say, you

know, making what, 5 passes of this, it's not a lot of data points to work with, but I think if I

were to try to improve the tailscrape indication, I would use some symbology that was closer

to the flight path marker, because at this point, you're waterline is pretty high, considering

where your flight path marker is, so you're looking at something up here, so it's got to be

something peripheral, because you are locked on to the flight path marker. That would be

the only thing I could suggest, and of course that effected the rating and once you scrape the

tail, you scrape the tail, you can't disregard that. It did effect the rating quite a bit on that,

however, I probably was closer. Oh, one other thing on it, when you get this close, the

last...your last correction for the landing plays a big part. If your last little input was to

lower the nose a little bit, and now you've got to reverse it, there is so little time between that

initiation and an actual touch of something that, if your last input happened to be a nose up,

then you're in great shape, but if your last one happened to be down, that can make all the

difference in the world on this go-around, and as I mentioned before, the only thing that I

had that was kind of a contaminate on this, is the TOGA switch was in a very unnatural

place and it was difficult to push the autothrottle, come back around and push the TOGA at

the same time, and trying to put the power in, and at the same time, I'm trying to bring the

nose up. That's just kind of a side comment, that's sort of contaminated some of...this

particular part of the task.

Pilot D

Approach and Landing Questionnaire 23 Jan 97

1. Adequacy of Roll and Yaw Control Power (Cross-wind landings) ?

 I think we have adequate control power, in fact I was tending to over control initially on the

decrab maneuver.

2. Predictability of pitch, roll, and yaw response to pilot inputs ? Any special control

techniques required ?

 I was getting some large roll overshoots initially, pitch is fine, and yaw, it just takes a very

high force to get up to the desired values, and it seems pretty well damped, but the rolls

seems fairly, lightly damped, as I have noticed... noted in several other places with respect to

the test here, and I was getting some large roll overshoots, and with a high dynamic, high
261

speed dynamic maneuver that the low altitude decrab requires, I was getting some, initially I

was getting some geometry strikes, so, special control techniques, just have to really learn to

take it slow... as slow and easy as you possible can from 50 ft, and try to undershoot, if

anything, in any case, okay, enough.

3. Ability to control and track pitch attitude, flight path, bank angle, and heading

?

 Flight Path is relatively easy to display, is this... I'm speaking with respect to the approach

now, the display is very good, very accurate display, with a high resolution flight path,

depressed pitch line, and very expanded scales on the glideslope and loc. A little bit of work

load associated with the terrible scan involved. Bank Angle, ability to control and track, I still

have a tendency to overshoot, and PIO on bank angle. Heading is quite easy to control.

4. Ability to control airspeed (autothrottle off) ?

 It significantly increases the work load, I think with some practices, I could keep it within...

keep it within desired. A couple things might help, one is, is there is a lot of lag, in the

longitudinal acceleration cue, which tends to make you PIO on airspeed. The other thing is

that the flight path, and the airspeed tape are a little bit fuzzy, and just a little... there not real

sharp, it's just a little hard to see small airspeed errors, I think either larger scaling on the

airspeed error tape, or a crisper display would definitely help on the airspeed control. Most

important, though I think, if we could take that lag out of the longitudinal cue, using some

washed out throttle.

5. Were there any PIO tendencies in the pitch or roll axis ? If yes, was the task

continued or abandoned ?

 Yes, in roll for me, and the tasks were continued with reduced pilot gain. On a couple of the

decrab maneuvers we got some strikes, so they were abandoned at that point.

6. Pitch/Roll Inceptor and rudder pedal characteristics: force & displacement,

sensitivity, and pitch/roll harmony ?

 No real problems with Force, Displacement, Sensitivity or Pitch/Roll Harmony that I could

see. Again, I think I've commented earlier, I don't see any big impact on the performance

from the controllers. Maybe they're not optimum, but they're plenty adequate, rudder pedal

forces get a little high for the decrab maneuver, and/or the forward side slip, but I think that's

appropriate.

7. Flare and touchdown: any problems with runway line-up, sink rate control,

tendency to float, nose lowering ? Any special control techniques required ?

 Don't have much of a tendency to float, no problems with line-up. Sink rate control, it's...

I'm adequate most of the time, a little bit of a problem there, I think it's... you know just a

matter of resolution on the flight path display. Nose lowering, no real problems, I had... we

stopped the simulator a couple of times, as I was kind of forcing the nose onto the ground

during the crosswinds. Any special control techniques required ? Not a control technique,

but I was moving the visual glideslope intercept point down the runway from where the

electronic glideslope tends to bring you, to kind of move my nominal touchdown point

further, up closer to the desired area, compared where as with the, using the electronic

glideslope, I almost had to do a two segment approach to get it in the desired distance.

8. Approach vs. Landing - which was more difficult, and why ?

 Landing is definitely more difficult. The approach is fairly easy, good display as mentioned

earlier. Turbulence is not an effect. The commanded gamma display is very nice for the

approach, the scan pattern for the approach is a little bit off.
262

9. Effects of the Wind/Turbulence ?

 Except for the crosswinds, we didn't have any winds. Turbulence, it's not a big effect, it's

there, but you just learn to ride it out. The crosswinds are definitely a big effect, particularly

on the low altitude dynamic decrab maneuver.

10. Summary - Good/Bad features ?

 The display is very... has high fidelity, you have the capability of flying very accurate

approaches. The flight path display during the flare is pretty good. The decrab, it's easy to

see how much you have to decrab, a little hard trying to tell exactly where you're going to

touchdown. Bad features, maybe the high rudder force, although I think they are

appropriate. Okay, bad features on approach and landing, as far as the approach, I think the

poor scan pattern as mentioned earlier, is one. For the flare and landing, really got several.

The new vehicle is much harder to flare and land than the previous vehicle. It feels like, if

you want to start your flare at 50 ft, it feels like a very high pitch rate is required to keep

from touching down hard. Another bad feature was that the electronic glideslope, I don't

think is tailored to the right position for the desired touchdown point. I had to actually move

my visual glideslope point down the runway about four or five hundred feet to help get into

the desired touchdown box. I think that's about it.

Automatic Flap Transition in Approach and Landing Tasks (excluding decelerating

approaches)

Okay, continuing on with the approach and landing questionnaire. The automatic flap

transition in approach and landing tasks, this is excluding the decelerating approach, I

haven't done those yet.

11. Was the automatic reduction in pitch attitude that conicided with the

automatic flap transition acceptable ?

 Yes, I think it's required, you need to get the attitude down for flare and landing, and the fact

that it's actually moving is almost transparent, which is maybe a shortcoming of the display,

it really doesn't seem to bother you.

12. Please describe any changes you would suggest to the initiation altitude or timing of the

automatic flap transition. I think historically we've liked to have flown stabilized approaches

at least for the last few hundred feet, and this kind of goes against that, it doesn't seem to be

a big impact as far as flying qualities go. I think I'd, as a pilot, should just be more

concerned about reliability issues of the system.

13. Please list any adverse characteristics you perceived as a result of the automatic

flap transition.

It does require pretty careful tailoring of the feed forward into the pitch attitude, to keep the

aircraft from ballooning or sinking, as the flaps go out. They didn't have it quite perfect this

time, but it was plenty adequate. So, I think that's one adverse problem that you're faced with

that. The other, of course is, are there any reliability problems, having that transition taking

place at such a low altitude.

14. In your opinion, is the automatic flap transition acceptable for use in a

commercial transport, assuming that pilots are trained for any failure

contingencies associated with such a practice ?

 Well, I don't want any failures down there, so, I don't agree with that. I think you need to

have ten to the minus nine flaps, if it's going to be acceptable, or the... actually the results of
263

any flap failure would be ten to the minus ninth, as far as pressing on, and making an

acceptable landing. Thanks.

Pilot E

Approach and Landing Questionnaire 08 Jan 97"

1. Adequacy of Roll and Yaw Control Power (Cross-wind landings) ?

 [skipped]

2. Predictability of pitch, roll, and yaw response to pilot inputs ? Any special control

techniques required ?

 Okay, I haven't looked at the questions, I don't think they're very appropriate, but we'll go

ahead and press on. The predictability... Yes, there's no problem with predictability and I

don't really recall any special control techniques.

3. Ability to control and track pitch attitude, flight path, bank angle, and heading

?

 Flight path in the turbulence requires a little bit more work than it should, I would like to go

set a gamma and just have it hands off, and you can't do that, the same with bank angle and

certainly heading, it does wander heading, so it takes pilot compensation for all of those, I

think we certainly have the state of the art to improve that quite a bit by putting the mission

earlier track angle sub modes, altitude hold submodes, that kind of stuff in the actual control

laws.

4. Ability to control airspeed (autothrottle off) ?

 No better than it was before as a backside airplane and it does take a lot of compensation

on the manual throttle approach and that detracts from your glideslope and localizer tracking

capabilities. Certainly the HUD helps with the acceleration carat and the airspeed error tape

and those are I think essential to help us to maintain fairly tight control.

5. Were there any PIO tendencies in the pitch or roll axis ? If yes, was the task

continued or abandoned ? 

6. Pitch/Roll Inceptor and rudder pedal characteristics: force & displacement,

sensitivity, and pitch/roll harmony ?

 I commented on this yesterday, no problems. Force and Displacement, Sensitivity,

Pitch/Roll harmony is all fine.

7. Flare and touchdown: any problems with runway line-up, sink rate control,

tendency to float, nose lowering ? Any special control techniques required ?

 On one of the tasks, the manual throttle... we said the manual throttle approach had to much

problem at lineup... on the deceling approach with auto throttles, for some reason I had...

when I took over command of throttles at 50 ft or there abouts, between 150 ft, I had

problems with lateral lineup, and end up lining up slightly out of the desired box to the right

each time and we are going to look into that. I had no other problems with that on the other

landing tasks. Sink rate control ? Yes, I had a real problem with that as far as meeting the

desired criteria with dynamic ground effects model we currently have it's very hard to

project your flare performance. Several times I actually leveled off and floated outside the

box and when you level off you're really in a bind because if you drop the nose at all to

break your level off, you are decelerating, you are going to land firmly, if you don't, you're

going to slow down, you're going to land firmly, so if you overcontrol the flare even slightly
264

and level off, you're really in kind of a bind, and with the power response of the engines

with lag from idle, basically with the throttle you can't really save yourself with the power

application, so you're really kind of in a mess. I never felt that I really had good control of

the flare today and it was not predictable. Any special control techniques required ? Well I

would like to find what special control techniques I should use to better and I have not

discovered them yet.

8. Approach vs. Landing - which was more difficult, and why ?

 The landing is far more difficult, I think the new dynamic ground control effects model has

really made it difficult to have consistent flare performance.

9. Effects of the Wind/Turbulence ?

 No wind today. I did this morning, but turbulence certainly effected both flightpath angle

and the track and kind of a nuisance mode where you're just kind of drifting slightly around

the flightpath angle and in and around the desired track and it just requires constant

compensation.

10. Summary - Good/Bad features ?

 The bad features I've talked about are the lack of the more sophisticated submodes to the

flight control law which requires continual pilot compensation in turbulence and also the

flare performance being not very predictable at least for me I could not get a consistent flare

performance or landing performance. The best landing where I felt that I was most in

control and did just what I wanted and I really liked it ended up being adequate performance

I landed about 5 ft per second, I landed in the box, that's the landing I felt the most proud of,

but I just... the airplane did what I wanted it to do as far as... I felt like I had predictable to

do and commanded what I wanted, but still without the ground effects we've been used to in

the past, it landed firm, but certainly we've got to figure out a way to more consistently

predict the performance of aircraft in the flare.

Automatic Flap Transition in Approach and Landing Tasks (excluding decelerating

approaches)

Okay, these are continuing questions for the automatic flap transition in approach and

landing tasks (excluding decelerating approach)

11. Was the automatic reduction in pitch attitude that conicided with the

automatic flap transition acceptable ?

 Talking about the automatic reduction in pitch attitude, and was it acceptable. Well, it's

acceptable in that... we've got it tailored now with some control law modes we made in the

fall when the Boeing folks came here to Langley. We've got it so that... we don't get

disturbances on the glidepath when the flaps come in. However, I'm still of the opinion that

that large reconfiguration that low to the ground in a backside airplane that has problems

with a flare anyway, is probably not the thing we want to do, so, I don't particularly like that

huge reduction, what I consider huge reduction, pitch attitude occurring that low to the

ground. So, is it acceptable ? I don't really thing so, certainly we've done a lot to make it a

lot better as far as being transparent, as far as glideslope performance, but certainly when

you flew it manual throttles you saw hug drag coming in about 200, 300 ft which required a

large power addition, but you couldn't predict when that was going to hit you, and so

typically you get slow at about 200 ft above the ground which I don't particularly care for

either, so I'm still having my reservations about this automatic flap transition.
265

12. Please describe any changes you would suggest to the initiation altitude or timing of the

automatic flap transition. I think certainly needs to be further out on glideslope and I don't

know if having it come in over 40 seconds Vs 18 seconds is better or worse. I guess my

feeling would be to have it higher up than have it come in more quickly to get it over with,

but that's a real WAG right there, it could be the 40 second is not bad, certainly the higher

up on the glideslope the higher above the ground we do it and get a stabilized final approach

the better, and that's some problems we're going to face with noise and the like, so I know

it's not an easy situation, but I don't think we've optimized this whole thing yet.

13. Please list any adverse characteristics you perceived as a result of the automatic

flap transition.

Well, the main thing is the huge increase in drag, when I say huge, a noticeable increase in

drag requiring a power advance low to the ground, certainly the things you could anticipate

that would be bad, would be if you're in auto throttles and the auto throttle failed to respond

properly the pilot could get underpowered very quickly and end up landing short, and you

don't want to do that in a 500 million dollar airplane. If you have to fly manual throttles than

it just complicates the back side nature of the approach. So, what's happening is you are

changing the attitude and putting in a lot of drag low to the ground, I just... I think we need

to be careful about that.

14. In your opinion, is the automatic flap transition acceptable for use in a

commercial transport, assuming that pilots are trained for any failure

contingencies associated with such a practice ?

 My opinion is that it's not a good idea to do this, however, we may have no choice, and if

we have not choice, than what we need to do is to work has hard as we can to minimize the

effects of it. I think... I mean I don't even know if it's possible to look at the noise reduction

kits for the aircraft's engines, obviously I've looked at them, I'm sure they must not be

suitable alternative, but I'm... I'm of the opinion that if we could find some way around this,

it would be good. So I guess, basically I'm saying, I do not think it's acceptable, however, if

we are forced to do it, then we just need to work a little bit harder to mitigate the effects as

much as possible.

Decelerating Approach and Landing

15. Was the airspeed decay profile used in the decelerating approach acceptable ?

If not, what chracteristics did you find objectionable ?

 The profile was okay, I've flown a number of decelerating approaches in other unpowered

vehicles in my career, but the problem is, is that we are trying to land this aircraft at a

particular spot on the runway and the target is fairly tight tolerances, so if you are

decelerating all the way, you run into real problems with being able to have the proper

energy at the threshold, and I think perhaps what's happening to us today is that once we get

into around a 100 ft we start decelerating more rapidly than is really acceptable. I found

myself landing a couple times, we were under power and I landed at high attitude short and

firm and also the high attitude is indicative of a low speed. I landed slower than the nominal

approach on each landing, so it maybe that we need to spend a little bit more time figuring

out a more optimal deceleration schedule and I think what we want to have happen, is that

we want to have it decelerate as slowly as possible as you get closer to the ground, in

another words, of course that makes the noise problem more significant, but I don't think

when you want to come in with a fairly significant deceleration rate as we approach between

200 and 100 ft. That's the characteristics that I just find objectionable.
266

16. Please describe any suggested improvements you may have to the decelerating

approach procedure.

Well, what I would do is try to move the... I would try to make yourself as stabilized on the

approach as possible, as high up on the glideslope as possible and I would think certainly

we should be in a situation by no lower than 200 ft when we are at a fairly stabilized

approach, but the backside nature of the aircraft, I think we were considerably, you are

gonna set a pilot up for mishap, if we have this thing decelerating below 200 ft, if the pilot

doesn't catch that deceleration, you get a gust of wind, you get anything that... slow spool up

time of the engines, anything like that, that could occur, you could find yourself landing a

little bit short and little bit firm. So we need to be more stabilized with the power on the

airplane and stabilized at a higher power setting lower to the ground. These engines at idle

have a very... what I consider a fairly lengthy spool up time, and I think for a transport

aircraft that is very dangerous to be in a situation where you are unspooled and low to the

ground and in the transport flying I've done, in the airline flying, that's been a situation you

don't want to get unspooled low to the ground especially if you end up getting a little bit

slow. We need to be up on the power more as we get below 200 ft.

17. Do you find either the decelerating approach or the nominal approach profile

to be more acceptable than the other from a piloting standpoint ? Is so, why ?

 Well, I think there is negatives to both of them and not very many positives. The

decelerating approach, and again from my navy experience, that was one of the things that

we did not want, was a decelerating approach. An aircraft carrier landing is similar to this

and that we were trying to make a target approach landing at a certain point, obviously the

real world may not be so concerned with landing between a 1000 and 1500 ft, but

nevertheless, we don't want to land long, with the airplane landing at the speed we will be

landing at, so, decelerating approach in this situation is a real trap and can get you way

underpowered, low to the ground, and slowing down at a rapid rate, and you can dig

yourself a hole from which you can't retrieve yourself, especially with slow spoolup time of

the engines. That does however get the autoflap transition at a higher altitude. If you stick

with the nominal approach and you do the autoflap transition at a lower altitude you now

find yourself putting a lot of drag on the airplane at around 200 ft which I don't think is very

good either and that has it's inherent problems. The auto throttles make both approaches

better, but my question is that auto throttles may not always work and I think we're kind of

setting the pilot up to fail on the landing at some point down the road with these two

approaches. So, I guess I find both of them objectionable for similar reasons in that we are

low in the approach, we are not at a proper energy profile that I would like to see it. That's

the end of the questions for this morning.

Pilot E answered this questionnaire again later in this test; see below

Pilot E

Approach and Landing Questionnaire 09 Jan 97

Pilot E answered most of this questionnaire earlier in this test; see above Okay this is a

continuation of the pilot questionnaire for approach and landing for Pilot E. Most and

questions were already answered on the first page.

1. Adequacy of Roll and Yaw Control Power (Cross-wind landings) ?

 I thought there was basically enough of both roll and yaw control power. Interestingly, I

seem to have a much easier time making landings with the wind from the right than with the

wind from the left, although, my recollections that I had pretty much full rudder in with the
267

right crosswind and with the left crosswind I did not, but I had much better performance on

the right crosswind as far as heading deviation, so it could be that for whatever reason I was

not using enough yaw control power with the wind from the left, but it would be interesting

to see if any other pilots have any clear cut differences between right and left crosswinds.

On the 35 knot crosswind landing with the wind from the right, as I mentioned just a second

ago, I did feel like I had almost full rudder pedal in there, so, I think if you were to check the

data on that and see just whether the rudder was saturated or not, conservatively I was

commanding almost full rudder, so that's something we should look at on the data.

7. Flare and touchdown: any problems with runway line-up, sink rate control,

tendency to float, nose lowering ? Any special control techniques required ?

 The only other question to really comment from today's work was question No. 7 Flare and

Touchdown. On the circling approach with the 35 knot headwind I felt like it was an

easier... the flare problem was much easier, of course with 35 knots, our ground speed is

quite a bit slower, by 35 knots obviously, and gives you more time to have in the actual

landing zone to make your corrections. We've seen this in other programs where you have

rapid decelerations in the flare and your opportunity to land is brief due to high

deceleration. With the headwind in the slower groundspeed, you do have more time to kind

of judge the sink rate and I think... I felt much better on the landings into that stiff headwind

than on normal, nominal landings without a headwind, so that might be something worthy of

note that it seemed a much easier task with a 35 knot headwind.

18. Did you prefer Procedure A (decrab initiated at 50 ft) or Procedure B (forward

slip initiated at 200 ft) for performing the corsswind landings ?

I certainly prefer Procedure B, the forward slip, mainly because you can get most of the crab

removed prior to working that flare task. I think at 50 ft, trying to solve the flare problem

with these dynamic ground effects currently modeled which we've discussed makes it harder

to do the flare, I think having to set the flare and rapidly take out about... oh, shoot, almost a

12 degree or so crab angle, without overcontrolling that plus establish your bank angle into

the wind so you don't have a downwind drift. I think it's asking a little bit too much of me at

any rate to do that all well, the short two or three seconds between 50 ft and touchdown. I

think the forward slip is definitely the preferable procedure for being a much more

controlled approach.

19. Do you feel that this aircraft can be landed reliably in a 35-kt crosswind using

either of these procedures ?

I think that it can be using Procedure B for me, and I think it involved just some training and

practice. A practice... a learning curve... there was definitely a learning curve in evidence

here, I think I was doing better as I practiced more. Also today... yesterday when we were

doing the 25 knot crosswind landings, from personal point of view I was feeling very poorly

and was not performing as well as I normally could. I felt a little bit better today and I think

I did a little bit better in 35 knot crosswind landings than I would have done yesterday.

That's just an editorial note to be considered with all the other data, but any rate, I think 35

knot crosswind landing is achievable. For me assuming the winds always from the right.

(Please... that was just a joke there...)

20. Please describe any suggested imporovement you may have to either of

crosswind landing procedures.

I have to sleep on that one and think about it, certainly, I think the forward sideslip that I

mentioned is a better technique, there may be some symbology improvements we can make

to help make it more obvious to the pilot when he has aligned the fuselage with the runway
268

centerline, that's one possible... I think in the HUD conference we had in September, I think

there were some suggestions made along those lines that we have not implemented on this

assessment. Other than having to be sure you add power when you put in that big rudder

movement because of the extra drag and I think I was just doing that almost subconsciously,

I don't have any other improvement techniques right now without thinking about it more.

HUD symbology Issues

23. Was the appearance of the actual flight path symbol (triggered when flight

path angle error exceeded the threshold value) helpful or more of a nuisance ?

Would you suggest any modification to the logic which triggers the appearance of

this symbol ?

I think it was extremely helpful. I like the way its modeled right now. I'm closing always on

commanded gamma, but I like to have that actual gamma available for two reasons: (1) To

let me know if I need to make slight adjustments in my commanded gamma based on the

delta between the two. (2) I think it would certainly show very quickly any type of control

law breakdown. I've actually experienced that in flight and the appearance of the actual

gamma would have much earlier alerted me the fact that we had an control law problem. So,

I certainly am very much in favor of the way it's implemented and I would like to see it

remain.

24. Was the tailscrape indicator symbology presented on the HUD useful during

execution of the go-around tasks (4086 and 4085) ?

It's interesting, until it's really called to my attention by Dave Raney, I was not really

noticing it, I was so intent on the actual placing my flight path to stop my sink rate, and I

didn't really notice it and in fact I really didn't notice it all in the very first one at the box

when I was very, very aggressive and ended up getting a tailscrape, so when it was called to

my attention, I did seem to notice it, but at times I got... one other approach... I got wrapped

up in my stand pattern and kind of didn't pick it up. When I didn't have it and I knew it

wasn't there, then I tended to be much more cognizant of the fact I can get a tailscrape. So,

it's kind of a reverse result of what you would think would happen. I did not ever get a

tailscrape without it because I was very, very aware that I needed to be very careful and I

would stop my rotation, actually to allow the aircraft to fly away from the ground before I

continued it. So, in my case, the fact that it wasn't there seemed to be more of a cue to me to

not ignore that tailscrape problem than when it was there, however, that was all brought

about by the last run I did on the set of runs with the tailscrape indicator there. Certainly, I

think we should have it, it could just be for other pilots, it may pop up into their scan much

more quickly and I think the tailscrape problem on the low altitude go-around certainly

warrants further investigation and it certainly is a clear-cut problem that we have identified,

so I would definitely leave the tailscrape indicator on the HUD.

Pilot F

Approach and Landing Questionnaire 21 Jan 97

1. Adequacy of Roll and Yaw Control Power (Cross-wind landings) ?

 We won't address because we didn't do crosswinds.

2. Predictability of pitch, roll, and yaw response to pilot inputs ? Any special control

techniques required ?

 We already kind of talked about the pitch control, i.e., the gamma control, and how the

actual commanded flight path differ. That causes a large predictability problem, we saw that
269

on the last data runs that we did, and then again when we were doing the manual throttle

runs also, when the actual and the commanded flight path vectors split, it's hard to anticipate

how quickly they're going to come back together again, and you need to be able to anticipate

that in order to really set a command gamma position, and I do think that that's a real issue

here, and I think that's going end up being an issue in other places too, I think it's just an

issue in general using gamma control. The roll and... you know, the tendency to couple

pitch and roll is still here, and the predictability issue of pitch, roll, and yaw, will pitch and

roll coasting to a stop, and not being real crisp and the response of yaw getting an

overshoot. Those are all the same here, the technique is basically just to reduce your gain,

there is definitely a learning curve here, being slow and more patient, and starting to back off

on your inputs when you're trying to capture something early is basically the technique that

you use to correct for the predictability problem. I don't want to say a problem. For

predictability not being quite as good as I would like to see it, and it's something that's very

intuitive to correct for, you know between this morning and this afternoon, I could definitely

see a learning curve where it's becoming more internalized as to what I expect from the

airplane.

3. Ability to control and track pitch attitude, flight path, bank angle, and heading

?

 Flight path control particularly on a decelerating kind of approach, I don't want to say is

difficult, but work load and compensation that's required, both increase because with the

balloon, you see a split in the flight path marker, and the commanded and the flight path

marker actual. Down near the runway, with maybe some small corrections or it seemed, my

perception was sometimes even without correction we were getting a split between the two,

and when you have the split, it's hard to control, I mean in essence you're not really

commanding to the flight path at that point, and we've already talked about the predictability

and the delay. Bank angle, the comments are the same as I've made before, and heading, I

think was the same as I've made before. Again, you just need to be, for the captured task,

you need to be a little bit patient, and make small inputs, and just let it kind of drift over

there. You go hands off, and everything pretty much stays where it's at, so all of that makes

it pretty easy.

4. Ability to control airspeed (autothrottle off) ?

 We consistently, with the flap configuration... reconfiguration, on the approach and

landings, with manual throttle, saw a dispersion of 5 or 6 knots, and I think with a little bit

more experience I would do better at compensating for that, but... and that is a fairly tight

task, and as I mentioned before operationally, I probably wouldn't quite fly exactly that way,

but again, I think this is a function, I would like to see this with a different display, and a

different set of throttles in there, I think that it would make a big difference in your ability to

control and track the airspeed through the reconfigurations and the initial pushover, and I

think that's effecting your results a lot, maybe by a level of flying qualities, because I think

we were basically level 2 on those tasks, and I think you may still be level 2, but I think we'd

be a lot better off than it would be closer to level 1 or maybe even level 1 in that area.

5. Were there any PIO tendencies in the pitch or roll axis ? If yes, was the task

continued or abandoned ?

 I don't think I really saw any PIO tendencies for the tasks that we did this afternoon. Do

you recall any, no, okay.

6. Pitch/Roll Inceptor and rudder pedal characteristics: force & displacement,

sensitivity, and pitch/roll harmony ?
270

 I don't think I've changed any response from the general comments that I made earlier

today on the up and away stuff that we did, there's still a tendency to couple roll commands

when I'm trying to make a pure pitch input, a roll that's greatly reduced, due to familiarity

with the sim, I do think the inceptor could be tuned a little bit better, but before I would tune

it, I would try to get the ergometrics right, so that you're not coupling up between the axis,

and I don't remember that I have any real problem with the harmony. I guess on the

approaches where your bleeding off airspeed, I think that it is hard to get consistent

performance, particularly in gamma at sometimes, and again we've already kind of covered

that in the predictability. I don't know that this is really particularly the right place to bring it

up, but while I have it on my mind, when you're flying manual throttle, and you're flying a

gamma control, you've taken something as we've discussed before we really started this,

you're decoupled basically, normally to control gamma I use pitch, and I use power. Now if

I take the power out of that, the airplanes ability to control gamma is only based on what it

can do aerodynamically, and that causes a little bit of a... I guess ending consistency or

predictability problem, or what's a better word to use, I guess, I'm not so sure that this

becomes consistent with the idea of using just pure gamma control when the autothrottle is

disengaged, because now the airplane is still going to try to do it aerodynamically if it can,

but I think that's why with the decelerating approaches, we're seeing a difference between

commanded and actual gamma, and that difference, it's not a consistent predictable

difference all of the time, based on deceleration rates, climb rates, descent rates, and where

the power is set. And now it makes it a order of magnitude harder for me to control gamma,

in some respects, than it would with a traditional airplane, and a HUD with just a flight path

vector that's actual, and I think this is something that needs to be looked at throughout the

entire envelope.

7. Flare and touchdown: any problems with runway line-up, sink rate control,

tendency to float, nose lowering ? Any special control techniques required ?

 Problems with runway line-up, sink rate control, tendency to float, nose lowering, and any

special control techniques required. I don't think the nose lowering was a problem in this

airplane, in this simulation, I mean. Tendency to float, again, there were a couple times where

I put the commanded flight path vector on the horizon, and we... because the actual is now

lagging behind it, we touched down fairly firm, and there were other times, where I would

put the commanded flight path vector slightly below the horizon, like maybe a quarter to a

half a degree, and I would not get consistent results, even though, or at least I perceived I

didn't get consistent results, even though I didn't have a split between a commanded and

actual flight path vector, and I'm not so sure what the tolerance is before the two of them

split apart, but in the flare mode, it doesn't take much of a tolerance. You can see larger

disparities, when you're down in the flare mode, when you're talking about very small rates

anyway, so, I'm not so sure, maybe if you had the actual commanded up full time, if you

would have seen a delta, but it just didn't trip the threshold to be displayed, I guess is what

I'm trying to say. Sink rate control, you know, unlike a traditional airplane, where you can

just release backpressure, at least my perception was, is if I wanted, if I over rotated the

airplane in the flare or the round out, I had to actually bump the nose forward to get the

gamma back where I wanted it. This is not, you know, we've seen this with the F-16, and like

so experimental, like I used to demonstrate this in the Lear jet, that's not the most natural

thing that pilots will do, fixed pilots tend to fly the airplane with force, and generally if you

over rotate in the flare, what the pilot generally is used to for flying all those other airplanes,

and is just to release back pressure, or just to hold what he has and his airspeed will bleed

off, then he'll start to settle again, and with the gamma control, at least my perception was, is

I actually have to bump the nose to get the, or bump forward to get the gamma back to

where I wanted if I over rotate. Line-up, is okay, with the visual here, and also at Ames, lineup tended to be a higher task, or a higher work load task than I would generally expect it to
271

be, and I don't know if that's a function of visual, or function... I guess I don't perceive it as

being a function of flight control problem, or flight control system, and I can use, you know,

the flight path vector, and also the flight path vector relationship to the waterline, and the

relationship of those on the end of the runway to help with the line-up issue, but it is more

tasking than just when I go out and fly a regular airplane, although traditionally, at least for

me, the line-up problem takes more work in the simulator, than it does in a real airplane.

Sink rate control, again, just to add a little bit to that, the sink rate, going through ground

effect, and the variability of that, along with maybe some predictability issues, which we've

already discussed. Hitting the box with the appropriate sink rate, it's a fairly small box for a

fairly big airplane, and fairly big higher speeds. I think the task is appropriate for what we're

doing here, and even if we're dipping into level two flying qualities, I'm not sure that... I

guess I think we need to look at the big picture, because I do think that there are airplanes

out there now a days, doing the same task, might not do real well, I'm not saying that they

wouldn't be level one flying qualities, but I'm certainly... certainly there are airplanes out

there that would make it a fairly high work load kind of task to hit this box. One thing that

most of the traditional airplanes, or transport category airplanes now a days, that we have out

there flying, are that the approach speeds are a little bit lower. So, you know, a small error in

the touchdown generally, I guess, you have more time in that flare portion, than you do in...

at the higher speeds to hit the box. Let's see, I was definitely using the gamma symbol today

in the flare, try to make the box, I was using it, just kind of interpolating, or looking at my

rate of descent from 50 ft down, to try to get the... just a small negative gamma right at zero

radar altitude kind of thing. I was integrating that visually, and also using the information

the airplane had to give me. I'm not so sure that that's the best technique to use, and that's

not necessarily the same technique that I used during the Ames evaluation, and there

definitely is a big learning curve as we progress through the session, I started being able to

pull in, and use more information on the HUD display. This HUD display is not a lot, but it

is different than what we used at Ames, and not only the display quality, as far as the clarity

goes, but the symbology, and it takes a while to kind of get used to the symbology, so, that

could be... there could be some effect there.

8. Approach vs. Landing - which was more difficult, and why ?

 The landing is more difficult, it's a higher work load task, and requires more compensation.

9. Effects of the Wind/Turbulence ?

 I think we had some light turbulence in there, and I didn't really see any big of effect on

that.

10. Summary - Good/Bad features ?

 I think we kind of covered them along the way here, I just think we need to put a lot of

thought into the gamma control in the first place, and the second place, the issue of

commanded and actual, I think we need to address, and make sure that... that it's well

thought out. The other thing that I noticed, too, it seemed like I was getting the split between

the commanded and the actual a lot more today, than I remembered getting at Ames, and I

don't know if that was a function of, you know, where it breaks out, or... yeah, different,

okay.

Automatic Flap Transition in Approach and Landing Tasks (excluding decelerating

approaches)

11. Was the automatic reduction in pitch attitude that conicided with the

automatic flap transition acceptable ?
272

 I think it's okay, there were a couple times when I really noticed the big change in pitch

attitude, even though I was gamma based going through the flap extension, and... you know

I think that there's more to look at it here, but all in all I think the simulation handled that

pretty good. Now we're just talking about the nominal approach and landing here, so.

12. Please describe any changes you would suggest to the initiation altitude or timing of the

automatic flap transition. Well certainly, I think we all could have it with desire to have the

flap transition occur up higher, and the airplane would be more stable. Not... I guess I think

the jury is still out on that, I'm not so sure that what we have here... as long as we meet the

reliability, and everything else, as far as, because this has to occur, or you're going to hit the

tail, so it would be a, I guess a fairly, the system... it would have to show a level of liability

as far as ten to the minus seven, or a ten to the minus nine or a ten to the minus tenth kind of

stuff. I don't know, I think I'd have to look at this more, particularly here, to really come up

with a definitive decision on what I thought about the initiation altitude. I guess overall in the

simulator, it seemed like it was pretty... that you could handle it fairly easy to get through

that transition. Although, I do... I do think that effects your touchdown dispersion, I think

simply because it is a dynamic maneuver that you probably, it might even be interesting to

look at some approaches without the... actually that might be very interesting to look at,

some approaches without the automatic flap transition, and compare them back to the

approaches with the flap transition, to see what the delta in performance is, and see what

comments you get back from that.

13. Please list any adverse characteristics you perceived as a result of the automatic

flap transition.

I guess that's why I say it would be kind of nice to look at, some without the transition, I'm

not so sure that there are anything that I would really list as adverse characteristics at this

point, except for, if there is a problem the crew... this might have to be a system that has

enough redundancy and reliability that it's not going to fail, because if it did fail, or at least if

it did fail, you're going to have to show that the crew can take the airplane around, and safely

do it, and you know, not have a strike and not compromise safety in any way.

14. In your opinion, is the automatic flap transition acceptable for use in a

commercial transport, assuming that pilots are trained for any failure

contingencies associated with such a practice ?

 You know, that's really the crux of what 11 to 13 was kind of getting to, and I guess, I don't

think that I can definitively answer that right now, I think that in my mind, I'm not so sure

that this is not okay, but there's a lot of issues that this is a very complex question, I guess in

that, first of all, we generally, I mean, we all know that crews are going to be trained to a

certain level that operate the airplane, but beyond that we generally try not to approve

airplanes that have to be compensated for by training. In other words, you know, no training

above and beyond what a normal aircrew would get, and the way this question is worded,

I'm not... assuming that the pilots are trained for any failure contingencies associated with

such practice, well, you could train... there's no doubt in my mind, maybe this is a good way

to explain it, and this is kind of applicable to 11 to 14. There's not doubt in my mind, that

for military airplane, you could definitely train around this issue, and that wouldn't be a

problem, but the military traditionally trains around things that a civilian can not train

around, because the training programs just are not the same, and the level of safety that

you're operating at aren't necessarily the same, the military is willing to train around things...

Deficiencies in aircraft, as long as they can meet the mission, and as long... I guess what I'm

saying is, what you can train around in the military, and what you can train around in the

civilian world, are definitely two different levels, and as far as what you would approve from

a certification basis, or from a acceptability point of view of developmental flight test and so
273

forth, so, I guess in my mind the jury still out on this, I'm not so sure that, I guess at this

point I'm not so sure that I see that there is a problem, but I'm not so sure that I can say that

there isn't a problem. Anyway, but like I said, so far from what I've seen just from a flying

qualities standpoint, not looking at system integrity or reliability, or anything else, for the

normal approach case, I'm not so sure that, I mean it doesn't seem to be a real big deal, I

guess.

Decelerating Approach and Landing

15. Was the airspeed decay profile used in the decelerating approach acceptable ?

If not, what chracteristics did you find objectionable ?

 Our current practices and procedures in the FAA, at least from the outside, as I understand

them, is that you have to stabilized by 500 ft on the approach, and I think this is with good

reason, I think there have been a fair number of accidents that have occurred, because of a

destabilized approach at low altitudes. There are a lot of issues that you have to look at, as

far as a deceling or rateing approach is concerned, you know, for example, environmental

turbulence, wind sheer, engine loss, other continuances that... it would all have to be handled

if you plan on doing a deceleration approach at every airport like this. Additionally, at least

the way I would invision this airplane, is you're going to have to have a VFR operating

capability. We use VFR modes of operation at all the major IFR airports now, days when

the weather is clear to increase traffic flow into that airport, and so, I think for that reason,

this airplane has to be able to operate in a visual environment, and you may not always have

an ILS or DME, of course, you should probably always have GPS, you know, by the time

this airplane would be on-line, so, that may be a mute point. The other thing is, is that a lot

of times when you have to do emergency returns, or for other malfunctions, you're going to

come back around and land at the airport. All of these factors, I think have to be considered

if you're going to talk about doing a decelerating approach. All and all, from what I saw

today with the autothrottles on, and I don't remember what ratings that we came up with, I

think we flew... basically, okay, 5 and 4, okay, you know, again we're looking at that

touchdown box, which is fairly tight, and we got 5 and 4, basically we're talking level 2

flying qualities, for that particular task, although the next question, yeah, now that was for

the approach, though. It's definitely not a... with the autothrottles on, it's definitely not a

problem for the approach phase, I don't think there's any problem there. For the landing

phase, it did seem to make the task harder than just a nominal landing when we were

stabilized on the approach, and I think, again, parts of that come, I think just from the fact

that you're not stabilized when you start your round out and flare. The whole things a little

bit more dynamic, and requires a little bit more for pilot compensation. I don't know that

there's any specifically one item that sticks out, that there is that, I'm sorry, I'm not sure that

there is any one item that sticks out that I necessarily find objectionable, except for that I

does make the task harder than... that's about it, I guess.

16. Please describe any suggested improvements you may have to the decelerating

approach procedure.

I know this doesn't help out the noise case, but I think it would be interesting to look at

doing the deceleration approach down to 600 ft, or 500 ft, or to be stable at 500 ft, and see if

that changes your results much. I'm thinking now, the other issue with the decelerating

approach too, was that when we did this, the flap configuration started earlier, correct, and

that's right, I'm sorry, things are starting to run together here. The other thing that we noted

on this, is this is where we were seeing the split in the commanded and the flight path vector,

handling it through the balloon, and then towards the later portion of the approach we were

doing that, and we were less consistent on the ability to flare the airplane and touch it down,

because generally we were touching down with the commanded flight path vector in one
274

place, and an actual ghosted flight path vector somewhere else, and so what you were having

to do is, accept the commanded... command flight path vector someplace, so that the

associated, actual flight path vector was really where you wanted it, and so you kind of

second order of control out there, if you will, so, that... and that is what... I guess I would

call that objectionable. Going back to Number 15, that would be an objectionable

characteristic, and then... and that's what did cause the problems there.

17. Do you find either the decelerating approach or the nominal approach profile

to be more acceptable than the other from a piloting standpoint ? Is so, why ?

 I think clearly the nominal approach in my mind is better, and that is because I can use the

control system, and the display appropriately, in other words, I'm not getting... I'm still at

times getting split between commanded and actual, but I'm not seeing that as often, with the

nominal approach the airplanes more stabilized. I start my flare from a known quality most

of the time, not from a dynamic decelerating point, but from a stabilized point when I start to

flare around out 50 ft. We don't see the split between the command, wow, I already said that,

between the commanded and the actual flight path as much, so, that's it, and I think that's as

far as we can go on this questionnaire.

Crosswind Landing Procedures

[Pilot F completed the following questions after crosswind landings on 22 Jan 97.]

18. Did you prefer Procedure A (decrab initiated at 50 ft) or Procedure B (forward

slip initiated at 200 ft) for performing the corsswind landings ?

 My preference was to do the decrab maneuver at 200 ft. The 50 ft decrab you have get

everything right, or it doesn't work, it doesn't really give you any time to correct things. Out

of that I think is a predictability problem, part of that, it's a big airplane, and it takes time to

move everything around. I think probably something in between the two would work, like

you know, a 100 ft decrab or something. One thing to think about is, operationally, for a

manual landing, I think it would be hard to expect a pilot to start to decrab maneuver until he

was visual, and so, you know, 200 ft he'd have to start at right when he broke out on a

category 1 ILS. Anyway, that is one thing to consider. I think things that I noted with the

crosswind is one, now these are perceptions, and as I noted earlier, I think it would be worth

looking into a little bit more. It seems as you put in a lot of rudder, like from 35 knot

crosswind case, that the last portion of the rudder causes the roll task to be a little bit more

difficult. Maybe the roll control becomes a little bit more sensitive or requires a little bit

more attention to manage. Another thing that I noted is that I don't feel like I get as much

feedback, or very much feedback for the cross control that I put in with a conventional

airplane as I start feeding in cross control, I get some tactile feedback because of the throws,

and also the forces that I'm having to hold, and I can feel the tradeoff between the forces that

I put in, or take out rudder and put in, or take out bank angle, and I don't really get that here.

I think the thing that really makes the crosswind landing task... we've split up the axis for

the Cooper Harpers, and I guess... I think there is some overlap from axis to axis, in that, I

think the flare task because you can't... with a normal crosswind landing, I would fly the

airplane down to the runway, and then I would flare, and I would be adding in crosswind

controls, and as I bleed off airspeed, I have to put in more crosswind control during the

flare, but I also, with a typical airplane, put in the crosswind controls during this flare, but I

have this flare portion to get the controls in correctly, I don't have to time the round out

specifically with the flight path vector so that I just hit the box. I guess my point is, when

I'm in this flare, I can actually level off the airplane, and I can hold a constant pitch pressure,

and as I bleed airspeed the airplane will start sinking again, and for the closure task for final

formation task, I think it's easier without necessarily having a gamma control law. The other
275

thing is, if I over rotate in the flare, I have to push forward, I think this something that is

exemplified here because you are very busy in the other axis, so that you can't pay as much

attention with the pitch axis as you normally do, so you kind of see that maybe, you need to

control it... or change your control scheme as a pilot using it, or that maybe there maybe

some deficiencies there. One thing that I would note is it, at least what I'm familiar with, I

think we have a history that pilots fly the airplane with force, or very sensitive force, and like

for example, the F-16 in the landing mode, they change from a G command system to more

of a blended pitch, and G command kind of system, to give it the feel of a traditional

airplane, and one of the reasons they did that is because if you over rotate it, it was going to

hold one G when you release the stick, because that's what was trimmed for, and that means

that the airplane would just level off over the runway, so you can't quit from that flare, and

let the airplane settle, or just release a little bit of back pressure if you over rotate it. I think

they use the same control law when you open the air refueling door, for formation, for the

refueling task, because it makes it a little bit easier. So anyway, I think that's something to

consider. The 50 ft decrab, like I said when we flew it, basically I felt like the rate that I had

to do to bring the nose across to get the heading aligned with the runway, if I still wanted to

touch down in the box, was more rate, then I really wanted to, and as I put in a lot of rate, the

roll control problem became very difficult, and I think part of that is, is we were seeing some

of the Dutch roll in there. We did one Dutch roll on final, and we saw about a full cycle for

the rudder input. Let's see rolled right, yeah, or close to a full cycle, and I think what

happens is, is if you rate the rudder across, you get that delayed roll, which is part of the

Dutch roll that we were seeing, for at least the Dutch roll type response that we saw, and that

roll was hard to counteract.

19. Do you feel that this aircraft can be landed reliably in a 35-kt crosswind using

either of these procedures ?

 I think you can land in 35 knot crosswind, I don't think that you are going to reliably,

repeatedly, consistently land in your desired performance parameters at 35 knots, I think

you can land it on a runway consistently. One thing I think is worth thinking about is, I'm

not so sure how much bank you're required to use to land at 35 knot crosswind, but I

suspect that it's probably up around 3 degrees or at least that was kind of my impression.

As I noted before, pilots tend to use a little bit more cross control than they really need in

the cross wind generally. It's hard to get it spun on everytime, and I guess my point here is,

if you're going to get a strike some part of the airplane at 7 degrees or 8 degrees, I think we

really need to look at our margin, of how much... how close we are to a limit, when we're

doing these tasks, and then we also might want to look at how the pilots going to know what

those limits are, because those limits change a lot with pitch attitude, and especially if the

pilot needs to be... have an increase to learn of some attitudes in the landing phase, we might

want to have something to help him out, something in the HUD to help him out maybe, or to

observe those limits, unless those limits are something that are easy to observe, or easy for

him to recognize. For example, like most transport airplanes, bank angle has some effect on

striking parts of the airplane, but not... I don't think as much as it does on this airplane,

because most of the engines are either up high on the airplane, or if they slung under the

wings, they're up towards... where the main gear are, so there is not as much change in

geometry with pitch, as far as striking something.

1. Adequacy of Roll and Yaw Control Power (Cross-wind landings) ?

 You guys can can look at the strips, I'm not sure how much rudder pedal deflection we had

at 35 knot crosswind, but it felt to me like there was a significant amount. I don't think I'm

on the stop, but I don't think we were real far off the stop, so, that's something you can get

off the strips. For what we did, I think that the roll control and the yaw control was

adequate. Another reason why pilots tend to put in a little bit more, I think I mentioned,
276

when we were flying this in the cab, is that it's easier to take them out, and it's more quickly

to take them out. Especially if you're getting some gusty conditions with the crosswind, it's

easier to have a little bit more rudder stuffed in generally. Now this is on most airplanes,

you know, each airplane is a little bit different, but generally, it's easier for me to have a little

bit more rudder stuffed in, because I get a little bit better response, I can respond to gust a

little bit quicker with the aileron, it has to take some rudder out, it's easier to take it out than

it is to stuff it in, and so we were looking at pretty steady crosswinds today, I think that if

you put this airplane into a scenario where the crosswind was gusting, I suspect that you

might see some problems, because this a pretty high task to try to get it in the box now, with

the gusting, I can see picking up a drift rate pretty... you know over the runway, that would

be pretty significant. You know, another thought here, and you know, this is a big airplane,

and there's lots of forces at landing and everything else. I'm almost wondering though, if...

you know gamma control works real well on an airplane that has a no flare landing, or you

just drive it, hold the gamma, and drive it on to the runway. Ideally, I think for the control

law that we have here, if it was an acceptable procedure, I think it would be better if you just

held the crab, and held the gamma and just flew it into the runway. Now, I don't think you

can accept the landings that way, but I guess my point is, I'm wondering if there is not some

in between on the gamma, rather than really making it kind of do it, try to do a flare task

with a gamma control making it a, you know, a partial flare, like raising the flight path vector

to 1 1/2 degrees and then driving it on, or something like that, and I'm wondering what effect

that would have. Obviously, that would have a lot of effects as far as your aeroelastic model

goes, as far as your gear model goes, and everything else, but anyway, that's a thought in

looking at the flight control system, you know, you could design the airplane to land

differently, and that might... that might be an option, I'm not suggesting that's way to go, I'm

just saying that, that might be an option to look at, because I think you guys with the

crosswind cases in particular, are probably not getting the performance you'd really like to

get, and I think with the landing task in particular, that this control law, trying not to make it

a flare landing like you do with a conventional airplane, might help you out if you want to

stay with the gamma control. If you can't make the gamma control work right, and I'm not

saying you have to do that. I'm just saying that just with all the other options, it's something

to look at. Let me see if there is anything else that I wrote down here. Oh, I already talked

about this in the cab, the more and more I think about it, if I'm flying down final and the

airplane is reconfiguring, I'm not so sure that I should really get a transit that I have to

respond to. You can probably train through that, and I guess I just kind of feel that we can

do a better job at that and probably we should, and I think that's effecting your landing

performance too, because you know, the pilot's putting a lot of attention to the flight path

control that last two or three hundred feet, and I guess I'm not sure that there is a reason you

should have to do that, and I guess we were talking about the stabilized approach yesterday,

and it really doesn't fit that definition either. I don't think it's a big deal, and it's a transient

that's easily hand-able, that the crew can handle, but I'm just... I guess what I'm really getting

at, is in modern flight control design, I would kind of think that we would be designing an

airplane, you wouldn't have that transient. If you do have that transient, at least on the last

portion where we were doing the go-arounds, I would see a fair... I would have the

commanded flight path vector on the 3 degree line, and we would be holding glidepath, and

then during that transient area, I would see it starting to drift high on glidepath, and before I

got a split, in other words, I add a commanded flight path vector of 3 degrees, no actual

flight path vector popping up, but I would see us drifting high in the glide path, and if I

started my correction, if I anticipated and said okay, I know I'm going to get this, and I'm

watching for it, if when I got that, I'd push the flight path vector over, and deflect below the 3

degrees, I would get a small perturbation, and you know, shortly after that point, then I

would get the split between the actual and the commanded, but the first cue that I had, that I

was not getting what I had commanded, was on the glideslope indicator, and anyway... Just
277

one last note, between the go-around cards that we did in the approach and landing cards

that we did, there definitely seemed to be a difference in the ballooning effect during the flap

transition at 390 feet on down. On some of the landing cards, it seemed like I could almost

go through that transition hands off and only get a small perturbation and glide slope, and

on the go-around phase, going through that transition phase, it took a fair amount of pilot

action to keep the perturbation small, and the first indication of the ballooning was, the

glideslope to change, anyway.

[Pilot F answered additional questions in this series later in the test below.]

Pilot F

Task 4069 IAG (TIFS) Offset Approach & Landing 22 Jan 97; Runs 41-42

Okay, I guess the first comment I have is I think there is a pretty good learning curve on

how to do the landing, and where exactly you put the flight path vector, I would have put it

more to almost like playing a pinball or a video game. Let me back up in saying that, it has a

very video-ish game kind of flavor to it at least in my opinion, and the reason I say that is,

I'm starting to learn that there is a certain rate that I can use in the round out and flare and

also about where to put the flight path vector to get in the touchdown box, when I say box,

to get the desired rate of descent. It's still hit or miss, if I get outside of the basic stabilized

parameters that I'm kind of looking for on the approach, than I have to work very hard to

correct to get back in. Anyway, for this task, I don't think there is any problem flying the

approach, making the correction back to land on centerline, laterally and holding the

glidepath for that is fine. I'm noticing that I am using a lot different technique here than I did

with the Ames simulation that I participated in before. Before, when I made the offset, I

would duck under, and then flare the airplane so that I would try to touch into the

touchdown box. This time I'm basically leaving the flight path set on the touchdown aim

point and just making the lateral correction and then trying to do a very mechanical kind of

round out to just kill the descent rate, but keep the descent rate on the flight path vector onto

the runway. We'll go ahead and rate it, I guess, we'll do the ILS task first, it gets no different

than any of the other ILS tasks that we've rated so far, that as I can see with the autothrottles

on. It's controllable, obtainable work or a... adequate performance attainable with tolerable

pilot work load, satisfactory without improvement for the ILS portion, and that puts us into

level one, and I would say that it's a 2, for both lateral and longitudinally. One other thing

that I noticed is, although, if I want to stay exactly on glidepath, I have to work and kind of

anticipate through the flap transition. If I just leave my hands off the stick to the flap

transition, the airplane... it will stay within plus or minus, half a dot or so, quite easily. I

guess what I'm saying is, is that I can turn down the gain through the flap transition and

accept a little bit larger excursion still within the desired box, and reduce the work load a fair

amount. For the landing task, is it controllable ? Yes, is it adequate performance obtainable,

try that again, with a tolerable pilot work load ? Yes, is it satisfactory without improvement

? And here I'm going to look at the descriptors for a 3 and a 4. Minimal pilot compensation

required for desired performance is a 3, and desired performance requires moderate pilot

compensation is a 4, we got desired performance on one run, and almost desired on the

other. We were a half of a foot out of the lateral box of the second one we did. I'm going to

have to think about this for a second here... I guess I'm going... again I really don't like

breaking out the axis for the rating, but I'm going to do it here, I guess in pitch I'm going to

say it is a 4, because I still... in my opinion it takes some gamenship to make the touchdown

point, longitudinally and the sink rate both work out, and I think it's a combination of we're

using a gamma control kind of airplane which would be perfect for a typical low flare

landing, but in an airplane that we are really trying to flare, and I'm not so sure that this
278

control is optimal for the flare, although, it's something that... I think that there is a learning

curve on, and you can learn to compensate for, I guess I would just say it's slightly over

minimal compensation for that, and so I would put it in the 4. The lateral task, I'd say is a 3,

the airplanes not real crisp, and you have to be patient for it, and start your correction at 250

ft, if you mess up the transition, I have a feeling that you would have a hard time correcting

back in, in fact on the second run, I held the heading off for a little bit too long, and it took

some fairly larger inputs that I really wanted to make to kind of get stabilized back, and we

were a half of foot out of the desired box, so, anyway, I'm going to call it laterally, laterally

directionally a 3, and longitudinally a 4.

Pilot F

Approach and Landing Questionnaire 22 Jan 97

[Pilot F answered earlier questions in this series above.]

HUD symbology Issues

23. Was the appearance of the actual flight path symbol (triggered when flight

path angle error exceeded the threshold value) helpful or more of a nuisance ?

Would you suggest any modification to the logic which triggers the appearance of

this symbol ?

 I guess, first of all, if there are going to be significant times when the commanded flight

path vector and the actual flight path vector don't agree, I think that there needs to be some

way to communicate that information to the pilot. Typically, the HUDs... current

generations that are out there right now, or at least my understanding is, they use some

smoothing routines and basically, what you see is what your flight path is, but there is some

filtering and smoothing to it. In this case, we're trying to use a flight path vector as a control

instrument, rather than a performance instrument. In the traditional HUDs, the flight path

vector is really a performance instrument, and pitch and power, even though the pilot may

not be always specifically using that in a cognitive manner, pitch and power still are the

control instruments, are which are controlling the airplane to. The reason I say all of this is, I

did find it a nuisance at times, the actual flight path vector popping off. I think that it's going

to be important if we have actual and commanded flight path vector symbols, that the pilot is

very aware of what the difference between the two are. We did see on some, landing tasks,

like with the headwind , where at least the pilots perception was, that the flight path vector

was not, the commanded was up, there was no actual ghosted flight path vector up, so only

the commanded was up, and when it was set on a certain position, during the landing, round

out and flare with the 35 knot crosswind, the pilot perception was, is that, he was not getting

the same gamma, that he did in a no win situation. And I don't think that that's very good, I

think that, not only because predictability and consistency suffers, but if I command a flight

path, I expect to get that flight path, and I expect all my other supporting performance

instruments; vertical velocity, the visual world outside and everything else to support, yet I've

commanded, unless I'm not getting it. I think this a more complex issue than I can just really

discuss right here, and I think it warrants a lot of discussion in the community, because

really we're starting a... to go into a flight path vector based control system and a display

and a control instrument like that, I think there's a lot of, a lot of issues which need to be

discussed. I guess right now, I might be inclined to look at varying the trigger point at where

the flight path, the actual flight path symbol comes up, and during the aggressiveness at

which the flight control system maintains flight path, commanded flight path, and I realize

that there's a big tradeoff here between passenger comfort and everything else. I think that

this might be something that would benefit a lot from TIFS, because there is a big difference
279

between even in a motion based simulator, seeing this, and seeing this in a flight

environment where you actually feel G in the seat of your pants, and as far as tuning the

flight control system to follow the commanded value, and as far as where you want to pop

up this actual flight path vector when there is a variation, I think that issue needs to be

looked at in a very controlled evaluation, rather than just really basing it on opinion. One

thing that I mentioned before is, when the airplane is reconfiguring itself, I'm not so sure

that I think from a pilots perspective, realizing that this may not be an easy thing to design

to, but basically, if I put a commanded flight path vector of minus 3 degrees, and I'm not

getting some kind of an environmental perturbation that's bouncing me around, and I'm not

making any input, if the airplane reconfigures itself, I think it should hold 3 degrees, I guess

I don't really think I should be getting the ghosted actual flight path vector or seeing

ballooning, or whatever. I realize that's a lot to ask, but I guess philosophically, I think we

kind of need to decide rather, especially at low altitudes, if that's really what we want to do,

rather the flight control system should be more robust and be able to handle that, and I

realize that the forward feed past used for the reconfiguration, or for the flap transients,

aren't necessarily the final cut at it and they're not necessarily optimized for all conditions,

and they may be more optimized for some weights and CG's than others. Anyway, I guess

that's about it, I really think that this is an item that deserves a lot more discussion and a lot

more evaluation. Let's move on.

24. Was the tailscrape indicator symbology presented on the HUD useful during

execution of the go-around tasks (4086 and 4085) ?

 Okay, I got to see the go-around task with the tailstrike indicator, the 30 ft go-around task

with the tailstrike indicator up first, and then the second one, the second time I saw the 30 ft

go-around, I did not have a tailstrike indicator. I personally liked having the feedback of

where the tailscrape would occur, and I felt I missed it on the second runs where I didn't

have that, and I think it made me a little bit more hesitant to pitch the airplane up, not having

it there. Having said all of that though, I think this relates to question 23 in that, the pilots

doing a... using the command flight path vector to control the airplane, and he's flying that

flight path vector. Perhaps he would be doing this with a guidance cue in the final

resolution, and then when he does the go- around, his task, his defined task, is to rotate that

flight path... the commanded flight path vector to accomplish the go-around, but the

tailstrike indicator is referenced to the waterline of the airplane, and I guess I would think

that there maybe more elegant ways to handle this situation, but I guess, and I realize we're

trying to be consistent with the takeoff mode too, and I realize that the geometry strike issue

is a function of pitch attitude, not flight path angle. There are quite easily... it can quite easily

be done to limit the flight path vector, based on limiting and attitude, though, and I'm

wondering for the go-around case if perhaps we shouldn't explore putting a tailscrape

indicator maybe smaller and slightly different shaped or with brackets or something, lower

in the display referenced to the flight path vector, even if we keep the one referenced to the

waterline out. Again, I think this is an issue that deserves further evaluation. I think that

there is a lot of good and keeping displaced consistent between go-around and takeoff, but

I'm not so sure that I have enough data here to really say that I, you know, what I think the

solution would be, but I think that we could do better than what we're doing, but my

preference is to have a tailstrike indicator for the go-around phase. It brings up just a

general comment that I have about this simulation and the airplane, it seems like, at least my

perception is, is that we're going to be geometry strike limited, or close to being limited,

quite a few times during the takeoff, landing, and go-around phase, and especially with

crosswinds, gust turbulence and everything else, and I think this is something. I'm sure there

are people looking at it in detail, but I think this is something that we really need to think

about, both from a controllability standpoint and how much leeway the pilot needs to be able

to perform normal flight maneuvers, we don't want him... we need to give him some margin
280

that's reasonable to work with for different malfunctions, for gusts, for malfunctions

occurring close to the ground, for turbulence and everything else, and just for crew error,

because there is going to be some slight technical error for any maneuvers that the crews do.

In addition to that, if we are even with that margin going to be close, we may need to start

thinking about some strategy for making the pilot aware of where those limits are and how

close he's getting to those limits and how much margin he has, and again I think this is

something that needs to integrated into the system, it could even be a combination of

envelope protection and displays and warning systems, kindly notice there's three separate

things, I don't really have an answer for this, but I do think it's something we need to look at

in detail down the road.
281

Go-around Questionnaire

Pilot A

Go-around questionnaire 16 Jan 97

1. Adequacy of Pitch Control Power ?

 There seemed to be an adequate amount of power, although we did get to elevator angles

that were basically full-up elevator at times. The elevator required was considerably less,

maybe half elevator when a classical approach and flare were made. The conditions were

category three, so, there were some special, higher work load during the approach to stay

within the ILS bounds, and start a flare while still... still in the clouds or close to it. The

visibility was reduced. That's a bit of a distractor, and so it took a few practice sessions to

get the practice runs, or runs to get the routine down, but once the thrust and pitch were

adjusted as required for a nominal flare, then that left the engine spooled up at 30 ft for

example to the point where additional thrust was quickly available, and the pitch to positive

rate usually gave about a 20 ft descent (ascent), and an adequate go-around.

2. Predictability of Pitch and Roll Responses to Pilot Inputs ? Any special control

techniques required ?

3. Ability to Control and Track: flight path, bank angle ?

 The ability to control flight path was adequate. Bank angle, of course there's... although,

PIO tendencies were not particularly a problem in this maneuver, there is a slight tendency

to PIO in roll. That leads to the next question.

4. Were there any PIO tendencies in the pitch or roll axis ? If yes, was the task

continued or abandoned ?

 None in the pitch axis, however, roll; there was a slight tendency to PIO after the airplane

had reconfigured going... descending through the 400 ft level. And... so, in each case,

however, the task was completed, and that tendency did not seriously detract from the

maneuver.

5. Pitch/Roll Inceptor Characteristics: Force & displacement, sensitivity, pitch/roll

harmony ?

 The force seemed reasonably, as well as the displacement, and this sensitivity was

satisfactory, although... in pitch, and roll it seemed to be a bit overly sensitive when the final

flap setting was finally set. And that's one of the things that kind of leads to a PIO in the

more aggressive maneuvers. Pitch and Roll Harmony was... force wise is probably

satisfactory, but as far as roll is concerned, it seemed a bit sensitive in roll, it's difficult to get

in and out of roll detent without some jolt in the cockpit.

6. During the approach, were there any problems ?

 Down to 200 ft there were no particular problems, except that on the glideslope, when the

flaps reconfigure, they... the pilot sees what is an apparent unexplained deviation from the

glideslope, and so, starting at about 400 ft, there is a series of small corrections back to the

glideslope that tend to be a very repeatable, and there a bit of a bother to the pilot, and they're

kind of a distraction. If you have other things going on, whether your other distractions...

there's one more distraction to create a problem for the pilot, and that would be advisable to

try to eliminate that kind of a perturbation in the glideslope.
282

7. During the go-around, were there any problems ?

 During the Go-Around, the main problems in the Go-Around were concerned with, not

getting stabilized and getting the rate of descent checked to execute a normal flare, and

getting a thrust, and actually a thrust has to be added and pitch changed, if that is not done in

a timely matter then the go-around... the go-around can result in a touchdown on the runway

briefly as you go around.

8. Was the altitude loss following initiation of the go-around satisfactory ?

 I guess I'd have to say, yes it was considered... it was about as you would expect for any

airplane that's making a touch... a flare, and a go-around from the flare, or a go-around from

just above a flare, so nothing particularly unusual except that on occasion, full elevator was

required for the go-around, however, this didn't seem to interfere with the go-around

commands. On occasion when one of the touchdown to the runway was made... that was

primarily because of the improper setup for the flare, and that kind of goes back to the

preoccupation with the glideslope anomalies, and the fact that the approach is being made

down to CAT III, and it was using raw data.

9. Effects of the Wind/Turbulence ?

 I think were somewhat minor.

10. Summary - Good/Bad features ?

 Well, a good feature of a flight path vector control law, is that it allows you to select a flight

path vector and hold it. Some of the bad features are the... the, I guess, I might mention that

the go-around switches and the autothrottle disengage requirement for the flare, are

involved. Some rapid fire switch... switchology actions that can be a problem until your

fairly used to this particular simulator. I guess some of the bad features might be that the...

there's a significant amount of thrust that needs to be added just to get a flare under normal

conditions, and another bad feature would be that the glideslope... apparent glideslope

deviations during the reconfiguration, and the tendency to... slight tendency to PIO in roll is

a bit of a distracter. The auto... the throttles on this airplane... in this simulator were a bit

stiff, and that can be a distraction in the flare. That's all the comments I have.

Pilot B

Go-around questionnaire 07 Jan 97

1. Adequacy of Pitch Control Power ?

 For the 50-ft go-arounds the pitch control power was inadequate for the metric that we

gave. The one thing I didn't try was to reduce the aggressiveness of the initial input, I was

saturating elevator pretty quickly, and I didn't try to reduce that, to see if I could get more

effectiveness by using less elevator, which is possible if, I don't know if the model actually

stalls the tail in this scenario, or if the lift curve slope is non linear at the tail, but I guess it is

possible. In any case, I was at the stop, I was saturating the control and I was not able to get

the altitude loss within the specified tolerance.

2. Predictability of Pitch and Roll Responses to Pilot Inputs ? Any special control

techniques required ?

 On the other hand I thought the response in pitch to the control input was relatively

predictable, I didn't have a problem with setting the pitch attitude, it just wasn't reducing

altitude fast enough. No special control techniques, it's almost an open loop test. I am going

to the stop-in-pitch until I get the flight path vector above the horizon, hit the TOGA and put

the gear up. Of note on some of the 30-ft tests TOGA wasn't registering, and I thought
283

initially I was hitting it and then it was confirmed later on I was hitting it and it just was not

getting registered consistently, and we are looking into why that was.

3. Ability to Control and Track: flight path, bank angle ?

 The ability to control and track flight path angle was okay and bank angle was okay, the

work load was a little bit high, because you are concentrating so much on getting the nose

up accurately that the lateral directional suffers just from neglect, but it's not inordinately

difficult.

4. Were there any PIO tendencies in the pitch or roll axis ? If yes, was the task

continued or abandoned ?

 I didn't notice any pronounced PIO tendencies in Pitch or Roll. That's number 4.

5. Pitch/Roll Inceptor Characteristics: Force & displacement, sensitivity, pitch/roll

harmony ?

 Pitch and Roll Inceptor characteristics were okay with the exception of hitting the stop in

pitch. At that point there is no relationship between force and displacement by definition

that's expected.

6. During the approach, were there any problems ?

 During the approach , yeah there were problems flying the raw data approach down to 30 ft,

which was what the task I was being asked to do, it's non mission relatable, you are not ever

going to ask a pilot to do that without a flight director and that detracted a little bit from the

go-around, it would have been nice to have a flight director so that everything suit cased, I

am not dividing my attention between the impending go-around and flying the approach.

7. During the go-around, were there any problems ?

 I think I talked about any problems we were on the Go-Around, that's questions 7.

8. Was the altitude loss following initiation of the go-around satisfactory ?

 I think the altitude loss of the exception of the tail scrape that we have the altitude loss was

satisfactory in all of these including the ones that were labeled inadequate because we didn't

meet the 30 ft required on the test, so we need to talk about that I guess.

9. Effects of the Wind/Turbulence ?

 Turbulence had an effect in terms of accuracy on the approach -didn't have much of an

effect on the go- around.

10. Summary - Good/Bad features ?

 Summary, 30 ft go-arounds, tailscrape is an issue and that the special control technique

there is to reduce the gain, don't get too aggressive on the controls once I learned that, I

didn't have a problem with it, and the 50 ft go-arounds in this configuration with the

technique that I use, you are going to lose more than 30 ft. And that concludes my

comments.

[An additional pass through this questionnaire was made on the following day below]

Pilot B

Go-around questionnaire 08 Jan 97

[This questionnaire was first answered on the previous day above]
284

We revisited the 30 ft go-arounds, did some 50 ft for practice, and then revisited the 30 ft

ones again. Let's see, summary comments, I was concerned that there might be a technique

issue, that if I reduced the aggressiveness of the first input that might reduce the altitude

loss, I did, but only by about 2 or 3 feet and it was still inadequate, it was over 30 ft, so if

there is an effect there, it is not a pronounced effect, so I think the answer to this, is that 30 ft

is largely not do-able, unless there is some magic trick that I haven't found that can be

found, but given all that and given that the airplane is very susceptible to aggressive

maneuvering down there in terms of tailstrike, the maneuvers do-able, but you've got to be

real, real careful about tailstrike. I'm not sure that's a handling qualities issue as much as it is

a training and technique issue, once you get a feel for what the proper technique is and get a

feel for what it feels like to do the go-around like that, you can do it just fine. I don't

remember this, it may have been that we had different geometry constraints than we have

now in the past, but I don't remember this being as much of a problem with the Ames goaround task as it is here. I don't recall ever striking the tail before and I've hit it a lot here.

Could be my memory, or could be that we weren't concerned about tailstrike in terms of

freezing the simulator or anything like that, I don't know, but at any rate, I know that they

have, there have been reports of tailstrikes at Ames in the go around. Okay, going through

the questionnaire.

1. Adequacy of Pitch Control Power ?

 It's adequate, I'm saturating the elevator in the 50 ft go-arounds, I don't tend to saturate it in

the 30 ft go-arounds, because the nose is already coming up in the flare, so the problem in

the 30 ft go-arounds isn't so much pitch control power as it just being real careful not to

scag the tail.

2. Predictability of Pitch and Roll Responses to Pilot Inputs ? Any special control

techniques required ?

 Predictability in terms of pitch response it's predictable in terms of tailstrike, it's not

predictable, it's something you have to experience, it's not something that is intuitive, that's

why the TSI is so valuable. The only problem I had with the TSI is that it's essentially out of

your scan. It's a peripheral cue at that point because you are at a high enough angle of

attack, that it's out of your area of focus on the HUD. I don't know whether you might want

to flash it or, but you need to get the pilots attention in some other way than you are doing,

as you get close to tailstrike. Again, with a fuselage this long, it's not intuitive. A special

control techniques definitely, I'm into question 2 now, and that consists of just backing off

on the elevator input particularly as the nose approaches the horizon, because if you think

about it, at the point where you are going to hit the tail is at the point where the flight path

vector is above the horizon and the pilot's thinking about the go-around being over at that

point, you are not intuitively thinking about tailstrike at that point. It's where the velocity

vector is, the velocity vector is going to be above the horizon when you hit the tail, because

by definition you are pointed up and your vector is up, so the pilots thinking the maneuver

is essentially over at that point, and the times that I have gotten tailstrikes I've been surprised,

I haven't been thinking about safety of the airplane in terms of striking the ground at that

point, because I'm moving in the other direction at that point, so again it is not intuitive that

as you rotate that what's going on at the CG is not what's going on at the tail, and I guess

your velocity vector is even forward of the CG, so it's even worse because of that.

3. Ability to Control and Track: flight path, bank angle ?

 Not really an issue in these go-arounds.
285

4. Were there any PIO tendencies in the pitch or roll axis ? If yes, was the task

continued or abandoned ?

 No PIO tendencies in pitch or roll that I noticed today.

5. Pitch/Roll Inceptor Characteristics: Force & displacement, sensitivity, pitch/roll

harmony ?

 Pitch and roll inceptor characteristics were okay. Force and displacement seemed

consistent, breakout friction was appropriate. Sensitivity was appropriate to the task. Pitch

and roll harmony was okay , I didn't notice any problems there today. I didn't notice

inadvertent inputs today, but I'm not sure that the task , it did not, I'm not sure that the task,

in other words, inadvertently cross coupling between the axis, and I'm not sure that the task

would be prone to showing that, but in any case I didn't notice it. You would think during

the go-around I would have noticed coupling, and I didn't. Although, I did notice that on

most occasions when I changed my scan to look up for the go-around indicator, that I was

not at zero angle of bank, I was at some angle of bank other than zero. So I think what's

going on is I'm not really controlling angle of bank tightly in the pull-up, I am more

interested in getting clear to the ground and I'm not...once I am controlling angle of bank I

don't have the large pitch input in, so maybe that the coupling is still occurring, I'm just not

noticing it because I'm not trying to control to it.

6. During the approach, were there any problems ?

 Problems during the approach that were any different than what I've seen before, that the

approach is a difficult one because you are flying raw data, you don't have a flight director,

and particularly down to 30 ft you're flying, essentially raw data, you've got a little bit of cue

from the visual bit, but not much, so it's a difficult task, but nothing inordinate in terms of

handling qualities.

7. During the go-around, were there any problems ?

 No other problems than what I've noted in the go-around, that is question 7.

8. Was the altitude loss following initiation of the go-around satisfactory ?

 The altitude loss during initiation of most of the go-arounds was satisfactory, on one of

them I got a tailstrike so it's kind of hard to say it was satisfactory. From a wheel height

standpoint it was, that again the geometry of this airplane is considerably different than a

conventional airplane. You've really got to consider what's going on at the tail as distinct

from what's going on at the CG.

9. Effects of the Wind/Turbulence ?

 Turbulence was a factor in the approach. It just meant that you had to keep the work load

up and make constant inputs.

10. Summary - Good/Bad features ?

 I think we have a training issue here, I'm not sure we've got a handling qualities issue,

because I don't know how you get around the geometry of the vehicle. I don't think anything

that you do in the flight control law is going to prevent that geometry from effecting you,

I'm not sure you want to get real automatic about this because you want to, if the pilot

decides to strike the tail, you want to give him the authority to do that I think. That's why

you've got tail bump devices on tails, but you've got to find some way of notifying the pilot,

I think, that you are about to do that, so that if you don't want to do it deliberately, you don't

have to. I think the TSI right now is a peripheral cue, that at relatively low angles the attack,

it's like takeoff, it's valuable because that's where you are looking, but on the approach and

the go-around you're focusing on the velocity vector and the waterline is well above that. On
286

the other hand, if you move the TSI down to reference to the velocity vector, I think you're

going to have a problem with clutter into this place, so I don't know how you do that, maybe

you flash it, maybe that's, when it gets close or when you have a rate, what I have seen done

with other indications in the cockpit is when a combination of rate and position reaches a

certain threshold, then you flash it. Like we use to do with turbine inlet temperature on the

F-14, when the combination of the temperature that it was at and the rate that it was

approaching the limit resulted, I think it was a combination of rate product type

combination. When it reached the threshold, then you flashed it. You could also look at time

to strike, which is a combination of rate and position, is a product combination when your

time to strike reaches a certain threshold or below that than you flash it at that point, but you

need, that's typically the way you get around peripheral cues and requirements of instant

notification, you've got to do something to let the pilot know that it is about to happen. What

was the other thing I was going to comment that we don't have cards for ?

(Block three Ripple Unstarts) The unstart cues are excellent, and it is at a phase where I

don't think where you are as concerned about clutter as you are in other phases. We've

asked for visual up and away primarily to keep the pilots happy that they can see outside

and to see weather, but in terms of seeing small targets out there, you're not going to at

Mach 2.4 so you can afford to put some symbology up there, and I think the way you have

it implemented is fairly good, I'm not sure it is the only way to do it, I'm not sure you

couldn't do it with less clutter up there, but it certainly is nice to have something that shows

you how sensitive the vehicle is to pitch inputs particularly. The first time I did the maneuver

for practice, where you pushed over to seven tenths of a G it got an unstart, so that's really a

learning evolution there, and the place to learn it is going to be in the simulator for training.

BMCL was the other one, I wanted to comment on. That's more of a demonstration, I think

we got 10 knots lower than we expected to, I'm not sure if that's a change in technique or a

change in the aerodynamics, but I think we found the speed, I think if we've been even a

couple knots slower than a 130 it wouldn't of passed. The technique is a little bit different

than what you've go on the card that I was using though, the card targets 0 degrees angle of

bank and that's not the way you do it in flight test, and that's not the way I did it there. What

you target is right up to 5 degrees, you allow the angle of bank to develop and you try to

limit it to 5 degrees. If I had targeted it...if I had targeted it at zero bank angle than the speed

would have been a lot higher than that for a successful maneuver. Anything about circling

approach ? No, that's pretty much a no brainer, it's almost a instrument approach really, the

way it's being flown, you could do the whole thing without a visual. How would we best

recreate that or simulate that, do you think ? I'm not sure that is not fair, the way we are

doing it, I'm not sure you would want to make it any tougher than it is, because in this

airplane, with this class of navigation system you are certainly going to know where you are

even in a circling approach and the scales are going to be appropriate, you've got enough

display space to put the scales proper and all that. We've done that in TIFS, right now, with

current technology, so there is a...we've talked about this in XVS, there is a link between

what's acceptable in field of view and a navigational standpoint from a XVS display, and

additional supplementary information that you have head down. The more information you

have head down, the more you can afford to limit the field of view head up. You can

certainly see that here because it is freely limited display, it's more limited than we expect

XVS will be and the simulator, yet it's certainly acceptable in the circling approach. I didn't

feel it was any big deal, it was certainly no tougher than any of the other approaches we have

done. Any specific comments on the inadvertent speed increase, 2- axis upset, or we didn't

get that far ? We did the speed increase. The only thing there is what I've already

commented on and that's the unstart indicators are very, very useful in that maneuver. That

concludes the morning comments for Pilot B.

Pilot C
287

Go Around Questionnaire 14 Jan 97

1. Adequacy of Pitch Control Power ?

 I've been talking about the go-around here, adequacy of pitch control, yes, it was certainly

there, more than was necessary. Predictability, response, and pitch input, it took a little bit of

practice, and incidentally a suggestion, for somebody who has never done any go-arounds

with this airplane and so on, to know what the response is, and how quick you have to put

things in, you might try the first practice one or two, with the whole visual out, not doing it at

breakout, and that way it will give a guy a feeling for, okay, I've got to put in this kind of

pressure, and so on. It took me about two or three passes before I bracketed what kind of

inputs it took, because I had...I was clueless to how hard I was going to have to pull, in fact

the first time I think we over G'd it or something, and I think if I would of had the full visual

and then just do-able, I would of had a feel a lot quicker, it wouldn't of taken as many...

2. Predictability of Pitch and Roll Responses to Pilot Inputs ? Any special control

techniques required ?

 Okay, on the other side of the tape I was talking about the predictability of pitch and roll

response on the go-around and any special control techniques required, and I was saying

for the training purposes that if we would of had the whole visual out, it would of made it a

lot...I could of picked up the pitch and roll response necessary a lot better than the breaking

out and then have to do it, because you have no idea, when you start, what it's going to take,

and its time...after you do a few, it isn't so tough, that if I had the whole visual, I think I

could have done it in one or two practices instead of three or four.

3. Ability to Control and Track: flight path, bank angle ?

 Once I learned the secret of taking care of the pitch and then coming around and using the

TOGA switch that I had said on previous places, at least once or maybe twice now, the

TOGA switch was in a very awkward position, and so hitting the auto throttle off and then

coming around and doing the TOGA at the same time, I was bringing the nose up and

pushing the throttles forward, meant an awful lot of things to do, the TOGA switch would

have been in a better position, likely would not have...it would have smoothed out that whole

transition considerably. Bank angle was not a difficulty. On the ones that were...go-arounds

at 50 ft, I didn't see anything, because as soon as I broke out I was given the go-around. On

the other hand, for the 30 ft, I had started to correct any misalignment at all and so had some

bank angles in there and did a few variations on it, but I didn't see any problem with bank

angle, that's for sure, and flight path control, was okay. It just took a little bit of learning of

technique that would make it work the best, and I don't know...it looks like...I'm not sure I

said anything about it on this part, but most pilots are focused on landing and the fact that

here we're suddenly asked to go around, is negated by the fact that we knew we were going

to go around the whole approach, and thus there isn't the delay that would normally...the

surprise factor that would have been in their head, if it had been a real go-around in an

operational world, but you know, we've got to do, what we've got to do for the test, but that's

just a comment.

4. Were there any PIO tendencies in the pitch or roll axis ? If yes, was the task

continued or abandoned ? Any PIO tendencies in Pitch or Roll ?

 I didn't see any on this, in either axis.

5. Pitch/Roll Inceptor Characteristics: Force & displacement, sensitivity, pitch/roll

harmony ?
288

 Force & displacement, Sensitivities, and Pitch and Roll Harmony are the same as they were

all along. I don't know if they are ideal, but they're certainly well within the range, I didn't

have any, I have not had any complaints about them, all along, nor did I in this go-around.

6. During the approach, were there any problems ?

 This was the one that where we had picked up the slight drift to the left, but in general the

approach itself was a piece of cake, there's not very much on...no, I take that back, at this

point we have gotten rid of the drift, because we had centered the rudder better, the rudder

trim. Disregard what I said. There were no problems in the approach, it's pretty much a

piece of cake. Do notice though, and this kind of applies more to just general than it does to

this specific test, but the glidepath indications on this mechanization, at about a 100 ft starts

to drop precipitously. Now a 100 ft sounds to me like that's too high to be very much in the

way of ground effect, but the glideslope would drop a lot. If I were to chase that, I would of

had a pretty good rate of descent going, that I would of had to arrest somewhere along the

way, and when your ceiling is right there you see, before, when I had good visibility all the

way down, I could shape things, but in those kind of weather conditions, you're not going to

want to be below that glideslope anymore than you can help. I mean you make that as

accurate as you can, and so the early hold at a little bit glideslope, a little bit high, so that you

are a little below the glideslope, is probably not a very good factor, and everyone of these

go-arounds, there is not doubt in my mind, I would of landed long.

7. During the go-around, were there any problems ?

Okay, during the go-around were there any problems ? Well, there was the one tailstrike,

that's a big problem, but when I had settled on the technique they are usually...that was

sufficient, but this is one of those things that would have to be practiced in the simulator a

lot or it's going to give problems in the real world. The good news is, there are very few

times that you go around at 30 ft, but on the other hand, maybe if you're talking about CAT

III on this airplane, or something that might be a different factor.

8. Was the altitude loss following initiation of the go-around satisfactory ?

9. Effects of the Wind/Turbulence ?

 Well, certainly didn't help, but I didn't see that as a major difficulty in the go-around.

10. Summary - Good/Bad features ?

 Pretty well covered them, through them. I think go-around, especially on this airplane,

would be a great candidate for some autopilot kind of things, flight director...no, automation,

in other words, hitting the TOGA switch for the go-around it would have been a definite

assist if that would have taken care of the throttles for instance, and started you

going...you're going around, you're going to go full power, so that's something you can

automate for me, if the TOGA switch whhhhooo, throttles go forward, that would have

assisted considerably, and that would then give the pilot only the pitch attitude task, and I

think that would have likely been a benefit on this. That would be the only suggestion I

have, I think this is an area, and again because it's a surprise, if you're response to this

surprise is only, hit that button, that's a heck of a lot better than, oh, if this happens, push this

button, bring the nose up this fast, but not too fast now, you see what I mean, in another

words, that's one that I think would benefit from automation, and as a pilot I don't usually

suggest automation. I think that pretty well does those. Did you have one of these for the

circling approach ? Okay, well I guess this is as good a place that I've put on it at anything,

because I discovered, and an interesting thing, when I was landing on the other runway, I did

not see the problems that I saw on the initial runway, and why will be a very interesting
289

thing to investigate. I think it is worth while looking at, the feeling of this ballooning, this

attitude change. It looked like he was drug in on the visual, when you said, you're white on

white. Yeah, well, I'm assuming that the VASI's were correct. Did they work, because he

seemed to be a long ways out and I checked the radar altitude and he was only like 300 ft

high, and I said, wow, that seems to be awful low to be that far out. Because that's what I

was using, I assumed that they were correct. I don't know, but it appeared that he might have

been drug in, now I don't know if you want to check that and see what it's like. Well, it's

easy to see on the visual too, because you're 3 degree thing was still there, was it not, as I

recall, and see where that was. That will tell you where it was. Yeah, I've brought it down to

white and red, and of course it's bright red, it's PAPI, or what the hell ever they call it. So,

unless the angle was off, that's an interesting thing, because that would make all of the

difference in the world. I can believe that. Now when you say drug in, you mean the

glideslope was set too low ? I only thought, when he said he's white on white, I said there

is no way you can be white on white, he's only 300 ft AGL here, you know, and he looked

like he still had a long way to go, so. One difference on that landing of course is that you

had a 35 knot headwind. Yes, that's correct, and that certainly made the difference as far as

the touchdown, I agree with that. The thing...so that didn't surprise me, the fact that my

problem before was that I always landed long, and I got 35 knot headwind and it comes out,

that makes sense, but this feeling of doing that, changed, and what I'm wondering is if this

glideslope...and I'm obviously trying to cross it out, but this glideslope...when you get close

to the ground, you start seeing something on a HUD, start to really drop. It's giving me this

feeling that this is what's happening because that's, you see, if the glideslope in fact, here we

are, we're around the glideslope and this airplane is going to go right down the glideslope,

yup, this happens, that means that you've climbed, and so if this is coming down when it

really shouldn't be coming down, it's giving me this feeling, and it is about the time that the

flaps, I'm sure the attitudes changing, and it's got to change. At a 100 ft the flaps are done.

Okay see, there you go, okay well then, where all this is coming in, and I'm not sure, but I'm

seeing this come down, and you see the difference was on the other...I didn't have any

glideslope indication, so, that peripheral cue out there maybe have been a mislead all along

here. Another thing I discovered about this yesterday, is we never made a conscious

decision about it, we are flying the same turbulence feel every single run. You maybe getting

the same little gust. What I'd like to do, oh, I see, whhhhoooo, anyway, there is a couple of

three things, it shouldn't take a lot of passes, go back to the regular runway, do it without the

glideslope, let me just do a visual without any glideslope information up there, let me just go

ahead and fly this thing, and if it turns out that I don't get this feeling then I really feel bad

because I should have picked that up before, some peripheral thing is effecting my thing

here, but anyway, it's worth knowing. We can try that and then try it without turbulence at

all, and just see, because if you say we're getting a gust...you know I might have just been

getting that time after time, and it was running me long, I hope that's it because that means I

told it like it was. Okay, that was the only thing that was different on it, because I couldn't

believe how easy it was to land on this one, I said, god this cake compared to what I was

struggling with yesterday. Why is that ? So anyway, I think it will be worth two or three

passes, just short in passing, you know just a straight-in one, trying it without the glideslope

and without the turbulence, just to see if something in there was what was giving me the fits

there. I hope that's it. Maybe we should take a look at that tomorrow. Yeah. We're suppose

to start take-offs.

Pilot D

Go-around questionnaire

Not completed.
290

Pilot E

Go-around questionnaire 09 Jan 97

1. Adequacy of Pitch Control Power ?

 Yes, I had no... in fact, I was very impressed with the pitch rate of the aircraft, I think we

have plenty of pitch control power.

2. Predictability of Pitch and Roll Responses to Pilot Inputs ? Any special control

techniques required ?

 The pitch rate, actually it's so good, that at times I had to actually slow down my pitch rate

to avoid a tailscrape. That was a special control technique I did use. I actually would cue on

the 12 degree gamma flight path reference marker without the tailscrape indicator and would

be aware of where the waterline was referencing that before I increased my pitch rate to

continue the go- around, but plenty of pitch rate power.

3. Ability to Control and Track: flight path, bank angle ?

 I've made similarly comments along this before. Bank angle, I tended to... it's just not... it

should be better. You tend to oscillate about wings level by about 1 or 2 degrees and I think

we can work... I think the harmony of the stick is good, I think the control law can possibly

be improved or maybe we do need to do some more work on the harmony so we don't

inadvertently trigger a lateral input when you're making an very aggressive longitudinal, but

I think, I think the harmony is pretty good, I think it's just... we had the same thing happen

at Ames with yoke, and stick and side stick. It's just not real easy to hold wings level in this

control law.

4. Were there any PIO tendencies in the pitch or roll axis ? If yes, was the task

continued or abandoned ?

 For the go-around task, no, neither in pitch nor roll.

5. Pitch/Roll Inceptor Characteristics: Force & displacement, sensitivity, pitch/roll

harmony ?

 I think it's excellent for this McFadden that we are using right here.

6. During the approach, were there any problems ?

 The only thing I noticed, since we're flying on instruments all the way down to 50 ft or

roughly there about it was very... it took a lot of work to control the glideslope in the final

stages of the autoflap transition, and I'm not sure why that was because we're suppose to

have feed forward compensation to take care of that, but I tended to want to go higher on the

glideslope each time, and had to really, really work hard and force the commanded gamma

about a half a degree or so below the reference marker and hold it there, and I still would

find myself slightly climbing. So, there is some kind of problem going on with these

particular cards, 4080, or is it 4085 and 4086, something funny is going on versus the visual

approach where the glideslope seems to work out real well, I really had to work on the

glideslope at around 300 to 200 feet, and... so I meant to mention that in another comment.

7. During the go-around, were there any problems ?

 Laterally, I mentioned just a little kind of plus or minus 1 or 2 degree oscillation about

wings level and none noted pitch, except you have a very good pitch rate and you've got to

watch out for.
291

8. Was the altitude loss following initiation of the go-around satisfactory ?

 You know, I'm not too displeased with it, I think losing 40 feet with a 384 thousand lb.

airplane has got all the other... deficient performance based on the backside characteristics

in the like... I don't think that's too bad, we were measuring the altitude loss from 50 ft, but

that's where the pilot not flying makes the go-around call, there is a lag between his

verbalizing that call and the pilot receiving it and then thinking about what to do and actually

executing it. Plus the ergonomics of the go-around button make it a little bit tough for me

sometimes to hit it and get the throttles going forward at the same time. So, I think this...

probably, I figured about a 1 second delay between 50 ft and when the pilot actually is into

the go-around and I figured that's about 12 ft loss based on about a 800 ft per minute or

700 ft per minute sink rate, so you're only down 38 ft when you initiate the go-around and

so the go-around is actually taking maybe 25 feet or so, which I think is fine. So, I think the

performance criteria for that maneuver are too strict, and I think from when the call is made

at 50 ft until the actual leveling out and climb, a 40 ft I think is perfectly fine, I think our

criteria is too hard, too rigid on this one.

9. Effects of the Wind/Turbulence ?

 Certainly the wind and turbulence do tend to make the localizer glideslope tracking harder

than they should be, and I think we just need to get a little more bells and whistles features

on both our lateral directional and longitudinal control laws.

10. Summary - Good/Bad features ?

 No real bad features, there are features of the aggregate system that make potential for

tailscrape a viable potential, and that is fact that you have a very, very good pitch rate

capability, you also have the tail far away from the center of gravity because it's such a long

aircraft, and you can rotate the tail into the runway, so I think we need to spend some time

looking at the low altitude go-arounds and determine maybe some optimal techniques to

ensure that we don't get tailscrape. Review commentary about this task by another pilot:

Pilot F

Go-Around Questionnaire 22 Jan 97

1. Adequacy of Pitch Control Power ?

 I think that there is adequate control for the maneuver. I didn't feel like I hit any stops in the

stick, I did think that we might of hit some rate limits on occasion, but you guys can look at

the data, and see if that's true. I don't remember if it was on these runs or not. I will note that,

as I noted before, on the first few runs that we came back in doing the go-arounds, it was

after we had broke, taking a break, and it took me a while to get back into the normal flare

mode, and plus I was also allowing the airplane to balloon during the flap transitions. The

flap transitions caused, pilot perception wise, is that the airplane ballooned more with the

flap transitions than on the go-around cards than they did on the landing cards. Regardless,

I started doing data runs probably before I really had gotten back in the swing of things.

The thing that pointed out to me though, is that at 50 ft, I need to do a pretty significant flare

maneuver in order to make the go-around work.

2. Predictability of Pitch and Roll Responses to Pilot Inputs ? Any special control

techniques required ? Any special control techniques required ?

 Actually for this case, I don't know that I really solved too many problems in predictability,

you know, basically I could put the flight path vector where I wanted it to be. Again, there

seemed, and this a perception, but depending on how fast I entered the ground effect and

what the angles were, and everything else, sometimes it seems like on the altitude lost in the
292

maneuver could vary greatly by the initial setup conditions, but I think that's kind of true

with any airplane, it just maybe seemed a little bit more apparent here for small changes, like

the slightly steeper glidepath. Again, you can look at the data, I'm not sure that is a

perception.

3. Ability to Control and Track: flight path, bank angle ?

 Really other than just the normal comments that I initially made about, the airplane could be

a little bit more crisp for my taste, but for this maneuver it's not really highlighted that much,

plus there probably has been a learning curve between yesterday and today, but I didn't

really see any problems associated with this task, with regard to tracking or controlling

flight path and bank angles.

4. Were there any PIO tendencies in the pitch or roll axis ? If yes, was the task

continued or abandoned ?

 And I don't think we saw any PIO tendencies in the go-around, so I'd say no.

5. Pitch/Roll Inceptor Characteristics: Force & displacement, sensitivity, pitch/roll

harmony ?

 I don't think that, you know, given all the comments that I've made in the past about this, I

don't think that there was anything really highlighted in the go-around case, the go-around

case, I think in general was more of an open ended task that doesn't require a lot of fine

tracking, as compared to doing the landing task or something. I think basically the force and

displacements were okay. I still have a tendency to couple roll inputs with pitch for this

simulation in the way the stick is installed in the simulator, I think there is a learning curve

on that, and I've also kind of experimented with arm rest location and the... a little bit with

the seat height within the range of staying in the desired eye height, by changing the tilt on

the seat back, and then the tilt on the arm rest a little bit. It really doesn't seem to make a

whole lot a difference. I think that maybe the stick being outboard a little bit, I don't know, I

think that I would like to play with the stick placement a little bit to look at that. Sensitivity

really didn't seem to be an issue on this maneuver.

6. During the approach, were there any problems ?

 No.

7. During the go-around, were there any problems ?

 Refresh my memory. I don't remember any problems that we really saw except for on the

30 ft ones, there were a couple times when we touched down, but I had, we touched down

firmly, as a matter of fact, and I should comment about that again, I think that was a good

function of not initiating a proper flare on the airplane, because had I initiated a proper flare

on the airplane and then initiated the go-around at 30 ft, we certainly shouldn't of landed

hard, and we did, and again I think that was just a matter of kind of getting geared back up,

and kind of getting used to the control system again. I think it does note though, that again,

I've characterized the flare task as being a kind of mechanical task that requires some

gamenship, and I think this exemplifies it a little bit more. My normal scan and everything

else that I use in landing the airplane as far as trying to kill off the descent rate and

everything else, it requires a lot more attention in the simulator here, and some of that could

be the simulation, but I think some of that is, the fact that it's not very tolerant of errors. If

you over rotate or if you rotate too fast during the initial part of the round out and flare, then

you have to work very hard to correct that during the later portion of the flare, with a typical

airplane, I can just kind of release backpressure, and generally make things work out. Part

of that could be it, experience with the traditional airplane, and part of that could be, the

flight control system and the display. Again, also if we are seeing some differences in
293

commanded, and actual flight path that aren't really apparent to the pilot on the HUD, my

perception was with the 35 knot headwind, if we're also seeing that kind of things with

different descent rates entering ground effect, etc., that could be part of the issue, and that

could be... a perception on the display could be causing a problem versus there being a

problem in the flight control system, or it could be a combination of two, and yet I've

mentioned doing some landings with the ground effect model on and off, and I think that's

probably a good idea. I'd recommend doing that.

8. Was the altitude loss following initiation of the go-around satisfactory ?

 Yeah, when we did it right, I think it was. You know, going around from 30 ft out there, you

need to do a pretty aggressive airplane... pretty aggressive maneuver with an airplane that

big, not to touchdown during a go-around, and hopefully if it was CAT III kind of landing,

you should be over the runway, anyway, and if you touchdown, it's not great, but it should

be something that is do-able, and certainly the ability to go around from low altitudes,

touchdown and continue the go-around, the airplane has to be able to have that capability

too.

9. Effects of the Wind/Turbulence ?

 We didn't really have to much wind or trouble up on the go-arounds, so I don't know that

that's really an issue here.

10. Summary - Good/Bad features ?

 I think we've pretty much covered all of the comments that I have on the go-around, or at

least that come to mind right now. Anyway, I think we can do better with the displays, I

think we need to make sure that we're consistent with the displays and the philosophy of

flying the airplane and the flight control system. Anyway, that's it.
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved

OMB No. 0704-0188

Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data

sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other

aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and

Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302, and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0704-0188),

Washington, DC 20503.

1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave blank) 2. REPORT DATE

July 2000

3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED

Contractor Report

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

Pilot Comments for High Speed Research Cycle 3 Simulation Study

(LaRC.1)

5. FUNDING NUMBERS

C NAS1-19000

6. AUTHOR(S)

Melvin L. Bailey, Editor

WU 537-08-23-21

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

 Lockheed Martin Engineering and Sciences Co.

 Hampton, VA 23666

 

 

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION

REPORT NUMBER

 

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Langley Research Center

Hampton, VA 23681-2199

10. SPONSORING/MONITORING

AGENCY REPORT NUMBER

NASA/CR-2000-210306

11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

Langley technical monitor: E. Bruce Jackson

12a. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

Unclassified-Unlimited

Subject Category 08 Distribution: Nonstandard

Availability: NASA CASI (301) 621-0390

12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE

13. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 words)

This is a compilation of pilot comments from the Boeing High Speed Research Aircraft, Cycle 3 Simulation

Study (LaRC.1) conducted from January to March 1997 at NASA Langley Research Center. This simulation

study was conducted using the Visual Motion Simulator. The comments are direct tape transcriptions and have

been edited for spelling only.

14. SUBJECT TERMS

High-Speed Civil Transport

15. NUMBER OF PAGES

302

High Speed Supersonic Transport 16. PRICE CODE

A14

17. SEC U RITY CL ASSIF IC AT ION 

O F REPO R T

Unclassified

18. SEC U RITY CL ASSIF IC AT ION 

O F TH IS PA GE

Unclassified

19. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION

 OF ABSTRACT

Unclassified

20. LIMITATION

 OF ABSTRACT

 UL

NSN 7540-01-280-5500 Standard Form 298 (Rev. 2-89)

Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z-39-18

298-102