Driving Rotary Simulator Effectiveness through Improved ... · Who are we? •Nova Systems Europe...

Driving Rotary Simulator Effectiveness through Improved Standards

www.novasystems.com Experience Knowledge Independence

Who are we?

• Nova Systems Europe• Fixed & Rotary Flight Test

• Simulation Test• P3 Orion, A330 MRTT, E-7A Wedgetail, C130H/J, F/A18E/F

• Blackhawk, AW101, Sea King


Who are we?

• Nigel Gates• Royal Navy

• ETPS

• EASA TP


Who are we?

• Steve Camporeale• Australian Army

• ETPS FTE

• CEO


Why are we here?

• Flight test background

• Experience of RW simulation test• FSTD(H), CFR 60

• Demonstrate shortfalls in standards

• Suggest improvements


The Need

• Increased synthetic training• Reduce cost

• Increase safety

• More “Negative Training” potential

• Legacy Standards• EASA FSTD(H), FAA 14 CFR60

• Teetering / articulated heads

• Derived from Fixed Wing


Deficiencies


1. Acceleration Response

• Precision Hover• Pilot control of long / lat acceleration

• Attitude change secondary

• Acceleration response essentialto fidelity

• Matched?



• FSTD(H) 2.b.(3):


X

X


• Lack of acceleration test• Critical response not matched

• Difficult to maintain position

• “Nobody can hover the simulator”• Changed control strategy

• Reduced training effectiveness


2. Tolerance Size

• Current tolerances OK for Teetering / articulated• Poor for rigid / semi-rigid

• FSTD(H) 2.b.(1):


2. Tolerance Size

• Sideways flight, 5% Hinge Offset• Tolerance = 75% of Longitudinal / Lateral variation from hover to 42 kts


G/S LON % LAT % PED % COLL %

±5 % ±5 % ±5 % ±5 %

0 40.5 51.6 60.7 54.9

20 39.5 54.3 64.1 58.2

32 40.8 58.4 69.2 53.5

42 46.2 58.3 73.4 50.8

Variation 6.7 6.7 12.7 7.4

2. Tolerance Size

• Large mismatch allowed• Trends corrupted

• Control by “feel” impaired

• Negative training• IFR

• Cat A

• Engine Off Landings


3. Optional Tolerances

• Standards allow for % or absolute tolerances

• But - no guidance on minimum aircraft response• Lateral control response:


3. Optional Tolerances

• Hover, Lateral response• Tolerance = ±10% or ±30

• 85% of aircraft response

• Model inaccuracy could be significant


Target Measured

Roll 3.53 4.66

4. Mission Tasks

• Take off / Landing:• Tight tolerance on Tq, large tolerance on controls

• Modified control strategy to match Tq – value?


5. Other issues……

• Input sizes & rates• ERGA – “Collective step inputs”• Adverse / Proverse yaw – “Moderate cyclic input rate”• Autorotational Entry – “…..a rapid power reduction to idle”

• Systems testing• “FFS….Systems shall be operative to the extent that normal, abnormal, and

emergency operating procedures appropriate to the simulator application can be accomplished ”

• “Accurate replication of helicopter systems functions should be checked at each flight crew member position ”

• Sufficient for integrated FMS / PBN / HTAWS / SVS / EFVS / Radar?

• No AFCS Actuator positions


Suggested changes

• Low speed control response

• Trimmed Flight Control Positions

• Forward flight control response

• Mission Tasks

• Systems


Low Speed Control Response

• Lateral & Longitudinal acceleration tests• Step acceleration response

• Frequency domain testing

• Mission Task Elements - HQR / SFR• Sidestep

• Accel / decel

• Reposition & hold


Trimmed Flight Control Positions

• Match suitable datum• Hover position / Min Power position within ± X%

• Match control delta from datum position• Small fixed tolerance (eg 1%) plus

• ±Y% of control delta

• X / Y selected appropriate to Rotor Head


Trimmed Flight Control Positions


Aircraft Data

±5% Tolerance

Simulator

“Delta” Tolerance

Forward Flight Control Response

• Minimum aircraft response to step inputs

• Appropriate to role, eg• Transport / Utility / SAR – 20 deg

• Attack / Recce – 30 deg


Mission Tasks

• ADS-33 MTE style tests• Autorotation - Pitch / Nr / Airspeed control

• Landing – Position / height capture

• OEI reject – Tq / Speed / Height control

• HQRs / Sim Fidelity Rating Scale

• Tolerances appropriate to role / augmentation

• Define input parameters for Auto Entry test• Lever start / end positions & timescale

• Eg Cruise to MPOG, 1 second

• Nr response

• Open loop pitch / roll• Cross coupling response


Systems Testing

• Proof of match data from aircraft / integration rig• Menu structures

• Screenshots – FMS, PFD, Navigation screens

• System performance – Weather radar, HTAWS, EFVS etc• EG Video - known location / condition

• Guidance for ATP construction• Method / considerations for system test


AFCS

• Actuator positions should be provided by default• Imperfect trim states

• Automatic trim systems


Summary

• Certification Standards could be improved• Precision hover matching

• Application of tolerances

• Assessment of Mission Tasks

• Systems testing


Driving Rotary Simulator Effectiveness through Improved ... · Who are we? •Nova Systems Europe...

Documents

Transcript of Driving Rotary Simulator Effectiveness through Improved ... · Who are we? •Nova Systems Europe...