Flight Simulator for Upset Recovery_Jeffery Schroeder

Flight Simulators for Upset RecoveryJeffery A. Schroeder Chief Scientific and Technical Advisor Flight Simulation Systems

Federal Aviation Federal Aviation Administration Administration

EASA Safety Conference Staying in Control Loss of Control Prevention and Recovery Cologne, Germany October 4-5, 2011Federal Aviation Administration 1

Federal Aviation Administration

2

Take Away Todays simulators are satisfactory for teaching upset prevention Todays simulators can cover approximately 1/3 of what they need to for teaching upset recovery Remaining 2/3 cover improvements needed in stall modeling, icing modeling, and instituting effective surprise scenarios

Solid proposals are in place to address these improvements Remaining debates on How far to go with stick-pusher-equipped aircraft Best ways to convey simulator limitations What can be done with less capable simulators


3

Outline High-level requirements Mid-level requirements Which of these can we meet today? Which of these cant we meet today?

Top three changes to meet what we cant now Representative stall modeling Icing modeling The element of surprise

Current debates TimelineFederal Aviation Administration 4

High-Level Requirements From U.S. Law signed on Aug. 1, 2010 require part 121 air carriers to provide flight crewmembers with ground training and flight training or flight simulator training to recognize and avoid as stall of an aircraft or, if not avoided, to recover from the stall; and to recognize and avoid an upset of and aircraft or, if not avoided, to execute such techniques as available data indicate are appropriate to recover from the upset in a given make, model, and series of aircraft


5

Mid-Level RequirementsUpset and Loss-of-Control Events in Transport Airplanes, 1993-2007*

75 events 3261 fatalities

*Lambregts, A.A., et. al., Airplane Upsets: Old Problem, New Issues, AIAA Paper 2008-6867, AIAA Modeling and Simulation Conference, Honolulu, HI, 2008


6

Mid-Level RequirementsUpset and Loss-of-Control Events in Transport Airplanes, 1993-2007*Undetermined Other Stall Atmospheric disturbance

75 events 3261 fatalitiesContaminated airfoil

Disorientation Flight control*Lambregts, A.A., et. al., Airplane Upsets: Old Problem, New Issues, AIAA Paper 2008-6867, AIAA Modeling and Simulation Conference, Honolulu, HI, 2008


7

Mid-Level RequirementsHave reasonable confidence todays simulators can mitigate mostUndetermined Other Stall Atmospheric disturbance




8

Mid-Level RequirementsHave reasonable confidence todays simulators can mitigate someUndetermined Other Stall Atmospheric disturbance




9

Mid-Level RequirementsLack confidence todays simulators are up to the full jobUndetermined Other Stall Atmospheric disturbance




10

Representative Stall Modeling

L I F T

Angle of attack11


11

Representative Stall ModelingCan train to here today

L I F T

Stall warning

Angle of attack Approach to stallFederal Aviation Administration

12

12

Representative Stall ModelingCan train here with current data but with some fidelity lost Can train to here today

Stick pusher

L I F T

Stall warning

Aerodynamic stall (i.e.,critical angle of attack)

Angle of attack Approach to stallFederal Aviation Administration

13

13

Representative Stall ModelingCan train here with current data but with some fidelity lost Can train to here today

Stick pusher

L I F T

Stall warning

More needs done before entering here

Aerodynamic stall (i.e.,critical angle of attack)

Angle of attack Approach to stall Stalled14


14

Representative Stall Modeling What it is Stall response is type-specific of the airplane being simulated to the extent that the training objectives can be satisfactorily accomplished


15

Representative Stall Modeling What it is Stall response is type-specific of the airplane being simulated to the extent that the training objectives can be satisfactorily accomplished It allows for teaching the bulletproof recovery technique under a variety of tempting circumstances i.e., degraded dynamic stability (particularly in roll and yaw), degraded control response, roll-off, apparent randomness


16


What it isnt A model that necessarily matches the aerodynamic stall characteristics of the aircraft you fly


17


What it isnt A model that necessarily matches the aerodynamic stall characteristics of the aircraft you fly This is a philosophical departure from today


18

Icing Modeling Current simulator deficiency: We dont model wing aerodynamic effects of the ice Instead, we treat ice as an effective weight increase Pro: It increases the stall speed Pro: It is easy to model this way Pro: Does look like an effective loss of lift Con: Wing still stalls at the un-iced angle of attack So we dont get surprising stalls w/o a shaker first like can occur in the real world

Rime ice

Con: Reversible effects, if they exist, in pitch and roll control not presented

Latest ICAO 9625 addresses these deficiencies

Clear ice


19

The Element of Surprise startle:An event that causes a reflex Example: Pilot winces and blinks after windshield cracks. surprise An unexpected event that causes an emotion Example: Pilot engages autopilot in vertical speed mode at high altitude, gets distracted while airplane runs out of thrust, loses speed and stalls.


20

The Element of Surprise startle:An event that causes a reflex Example: Pilot winces and blinks after windshield cracks. surprise An unexpected event that causes an emotion Example: Pilot engages autopilot in vertical speed mode at high altitude, gets distracted while airplane runs out of thrust, loses speed and stalls.

Our focus is on developing a database of surprise scenarios inserting the scenarios in line-oriented flight training training to reduce the probability of surprise training the proper response to the surprise scenarios


21

Current Debates Stick-pusher equipped aircraft If stick pusher is intending to prevent hazardous stall characteristics, do we still have to show those stall characteristics?


22


Conveying simulator limitations The more we convey, the more we may confuse


23


Conveying simulator limitations The more we convey, the more we may confuse

What can be done with lower-level simulators How much value is derived for stall training in, say, non-motion devices without a buffets, etc?


24

Timeline for Upset Training in SimulatorsNew N&O Compliance period ICATEE requirements Stall-Stick Pusher Group Aviation Safety Law Possible Part 60 changes Stall model evals

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015


25

Summary Todays simulators are satisfactory for teaching upset prevention Todays simulators can cover approximately 1/3 of what they need to for teaching upset recovery Remaining 2/3 cover improvements needed in stall modeling, icing modeling, and instituting effective surprise scenarios

Solid proposals are in place to address these improvements Remaining debates on How far to go with stick-pusher-equipped aircraft Best ways to convey simulator limitations What can be done with less capable simulators


26

Documents

Flight Simulator for Upset Recovery_Jeffery Schroeder