Helicopter Visual Segment Test Report9. Pae.eeiml Orlarisseeiet Mnte artd Ailsire 10. Wert Unit Me....

transcript

Co Helicopter Visual Segment0) Approach Lighting System4(HALS) Test Report

Barry A. BillmannSt Shollenberger

June 1989

DOT/FAA/CT-TN89/21

This document is available to the U.S. publicthrough the Natonal Technical Information

Pmrr~ Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161. I C

CCUS Dep-nt of 1kspotation iFe" *i I AdmbshuffoI

Technical Canter

C40)Atlantic City inlterntional Airpor N.J. 0640

89 11 01 039

NOTICE

This document Is disseminated under the sponsorshipof the U.S. Department of Transportation in the interest ofinformation exchange. The United States Governmentassumes no liability for the contents or use thereof.

The United States Government does not endorseproducts or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers'names appear herein solely because they are consideredessential to the objective of this report.

Technical Repo"t Docuamenation Page

2.e# o Government Agcvssee. Me. 3. Reciesnts Catalog M.

4. Tile & SubitleS. Repe. noe

June 1989HELICOPTER VISUAL SEGMENT APPROACH LIGHTING 6. Perforatng Organisatioen CedesSYSTEM (HALS) TEST REPORT ACD-330

7. Aurkorv.) - I Paria",O~n eateo Rep.. N.

Barry R. Billmann and Scott Shollenberger DOT/FAA/CT-TN89/219. Pae.eeiml Orlarisseeiet Mnte artd Ailsire 10. Wert Unit Me. ITRAIS)Department of TransportationFederal Aviation Administration 1 f or Great m.Technical Center lrqAtlantic City International Airport, N.J. 08405 13 T i'.d

12. Sgotisering Agam tv ase wed Adilrosse*icDepartment oo Transportation August 1988Federal Aviation AdministrationMaintenance and Development Service 14. Sp.nig Ape... 7 CeoeWashington, D.C. 20590

IS. SuppleWtory Notes

163. Abstract

This Technical Note reports on a test designed to obtain pilot performancesubjective pilot data on the Helicopter Visual Segment Approach Lighting System(HALS). Results identify the performance measures which correlate with the pilot'sability to visually acquire a HALS equipped heliport. Conclusions state that HALScan support existing minima to heliports. Pilots reported unacceptable Cooper-Harper ratings for rate of closure and workload without HALS.( \

17. Key Werid. Is. Distibution satment

Helicopter Lighting System (HALS) This document is available to the U.S.TER*PS public through the National TechnicalHelicopters Information Service, Springfield.MLS Virginia 22161.

39. Security CleassE. (of 6%00 report) 20. security CloselO. (of this Pegl 23. Ne. a# Palo$ 22. Ptuco

Unclassified Unclassified 316

Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-721 Reproduction of e9Isted Ppe authorized

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ix

INTRODUCTION 1

BACKGROUND 1

TEST PROCEDURES 1

Location 1Support Equipment 1

Aircraft 1Microwave Landing System (MLS) 1HALS 2Airborne Data Collection System 2Instrument Meteorological Conditions (IMC) Simulator Foggles 7

Questionaires 7Flight Profiles 7Subject Pilots 8

ANALYSIS OF RESULTS 8

Subject Pilot Questionnaire Analysis 8

Overall Rating 9Alignment Rating 9Deceleration Rating 17Workload Rating 17Controlability Rating 17

Post-flight Questionnaire Analysis 27Pilot Performance 27

Lateral Tracking Performance 27Vertical Tracking Performance 29Deceleration Performance 32Aircraft Attitude Control 33

CONCLUSIONS 35

RECOMENDATIONS 36

REFERENCES 37

Appendix A - UH-lH Helicopter Technical InformationAppendix L - Subject Pilot QuestionnairesAppendix C - Subject Pilot Background InformationAppendix D - Subject Pilot Lateral Position PlotsAppendix E - Subject Pilot Range Rate/Vertical Position Plots

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Figure Page

I Basic Heliport IFR Lighting System 4

2 Heliport Approach Lighting System 5

3 Cooper larper Rating Scale 10

4 Overall Rating Pilot Response 11

5 Overall Rating Histogram of Pilot Response (2 Sheets) 12

6 Alignment Rating Pilot Response 14

7 Alignment Rating Histogram of Pilot Response (2 Sheets) 15

8 Deceleration Rating Pilot Response 18

9 Deceleration Rating Histogram of Pilot Response (2 Sheets) 19

10 Workload Rating Pilot Response 21

11 Workload Rating Histogram of Pilot Response (2 Sheets) 22

12 Controllability Rating Pilot Response 24

13 Controllability Rating Histogram of Pilot Response (2 Sheets) 25

14 Lateral Position vs Range Plot 30

15 Vertical Position vs Range Plot 31

Accession For

NTIS QBA&IDTIC TABUnannounced

JustifiIcation

ByDistribution/

Availability Codes

Dist Specil

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1 Hazeltine Model 2400 MLS Technical Specifications 3

2 Recording Rates Used for Data Collection 6

3 Test Elevation/DH Combinations 7

4 Visibility vs. Slant Range Distance to the Heliport 8

5 Test Scenerio 9

6 Post-Flight Questionnaire Responses 27

7 Lateral Flight Technical Error (Degrees X 0.01) 28

8 Maximum Azimuth Overshoot (Offset Approaches) 29

9 Elevation Errors (feet) 32

10 Peak Decelerations and Locations 33

11 Peak Deceleration Range in Feet 34

12 Pitch Attitude Statistics 35

13 Roll Statistics for Offset Approaches 35

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This Technical Note reports on a test designed to obtain pilot performancesubjective pilot data on the Helicopter Visual Segment Approach Lighting System(HALS). Results identify the performance measures which correlate with thepilot's ability to visually acquire a HALS equipped heliport. Conclusions statethat HALS can support existing minima to heliports. Pilots reported unacceptableCooper-Harper ratings for rate of closure and workload without HALS.

INTRODUCTION

BACKGROUND.

The establishment of precision instrument approaches to heliports is hindered bythe visual segment guidar!ce which currently exists at most urban area heliports.In the visual segment area, inside and below the decision height (DH) location onprecision approach, the pilot normally operates the helicopter uncued throughvisual reference to the landing environment. The unique handling qualities of

helicopters may require enhanced visual segment guidance. The Heliport VersusSegment Approach Lighting System (HALS) has been developed to meet thisrequirement. However, until now, no flight data in conjunction with MLSapproaches had been collected.

TEST PROCEDURES

LOCATION.

The flight testing was conducted from April to June 1988 at the FederalAviation Administration (FAA) National Concepts Development and DemonstrationHeliport located in Atlantic City, New Jersey. The heliport is located at thenorth end of the Technical Center, with an obstacle free approach courseproviding the necessary flexibility for the flight tests. The heliport andsurrounding airspace is in clear view of the ground tracking facilities.

SUPPORT EQUIPMENT.

AIRCRAFT. Through the FAA's Interagency Agreement with the Department of theArmy, the flight test vehicle used was the UH-lH helicopter, tail number 70-16344(reference I and appendix A). The UH-lH (Bell 205) helicopter is equipped with ahorizontal situation indicator (HSI), which combines course deviation indicator(CDI) information along with the slaved magnetic heading, for course guidance.Distance measuring equipment/precision (DME/P) will be used for distance anddecision height (DH) information. The safety/project pilot, in addition to thepreflight briefing, performed the outbound flight, course setup, radiocommunications, and annunciated decision height (DH) information.

MICROWAVE LANDING SYSTEM (MLS). The MLS equipment currently installed at theFAA's Demonstration and Concepts Development Heliport is a prototype systemmanufactured by the Hazeltine Corporation. The system, a model 2400, is a lowprofile precision approach and landing system utilizing microwave phased arrayantenna technology, microprocessor control, and solid-state electronics. Thetime reference scanning beam (TRSB) format is transmitted on one of 200 C-band(4 to 8 gigahertz (GHz)) frequency channels.

The scanning beams are traversed rapidly (39 times a second for elevation and 13times a second for azimuth) "TO" and "FRO" throughout the coverage volume. Eachaircraft receiving these beams derives its own position angle directly from thetime difference between the TRSB beam pulse pairs. In addition, data such asairport and runway identification, course clearance sector size, and otheroperational data are transmitted on the same channel. The equipment recently

underwent modification to conform to the International Civil AviationOrganization (ICAO) 08C format (reference 2). This permits the model 2400 system

to be interoperable with Cabin Class MLS receivers.

The azimuth proportional guidance is provided in a sector -i0° to +10 ° from theapproach course centerline. Clearance guidance provides a full scale fly left orfly right presentation to the pilot. The clearance sectors are from -40° to-100 and +100 to +40 ° about the approach course centerline. Table I presentsthe characteristics of the model 2400 system.

HALS. The HALS being evaluated consists of the Basic Instrument Flight Rules(IFR) Heliport Lighting System and a centerline HALS. The Basic IFR ApproachLight System is presented in figure 1. It consists of perimeter lights aroundthe final approach and take-off area, wing light bars, and edge light bars.Also, in-pad centerline touchdown lights are included. The centerline HALS shownin figure 2 consists of a series of approach light bars spaced at 100-footintervals for a distance of 800 feet. Although the HALS is reconfigurable, onlythe described configuration was evaluated during the test. The describedconfiguration conforms to the approach light system in AC/50/5390-2(reference 3).

In addition to the heliport lighting, a visual glideslope indicator (VGSI) wasused. The VGSI located at the heliport is set for guidance at 6° elevationangle. The VCSI provided the pilot with a well below glidepath indication whenthe aircraft was on an elevation angle less than 4.5*; below glidepath when theaircraft was between a 4.50 and 5.5 ° elevation angle; on glidepath between 5.5 °

and 6.50 elevation angles; above glidepath for elevation angles between 6.50 and7.5* and well above glidepath for elevation angles greater than 7.5*.

Four different lighting combinations were tested. The minimum condition testedconsisted of the Basic IFR Heliport Lighting System. The second conditionconsisted of the Basic IFR System augmented with a VGSI system. The thirdcondition consisted of the Basic IFR System augmented with the HALS. The finallighting configuration tested consisted of the Basic IFR System augmented withboth the HALS and VGSI.

AIRBORNE DATA COLLECTION SYSTEM. The airborne data recording system on theUH-lH is a 6809 microprocessor-based package, which is a combination of anoff-the-shelf data package and FAA designed interface boards. The system is

capable of recording the parameters listed in table 2 for storage on a Kennedymagnetic tape recorder on magnetic tape media. The sensitive equipment was shockmounted against helicopter vibration.

Independent variables for this test were glidepath angle (30, 4.5, and 6°),intensity of the Heliport IFR Approach Lighting System (HALS) (step 3 maximumand step I minimum), with and without the extended centerline approach lightingsystem, centerline and left/right offset approaches, missed approach option, andvisibility distance (0.25, 0.50, 0.75, and 1.00 mile visibilities). Dependentvariables were 250-foot DH for 30 and 4.5 0 approaches, 350-foot DH for 6

approaches; the HALS was always active but the extended centerline approachlighting was turned on and off, and all flights were flown at night with variable

aperture foggles.

TABLE 1. HAZELTINE MODEL 2400 MLS TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS

Function AZ EL

Beam Width 3.5 ° 2.40

Course Width +3.60 EL angle/3 °

Proportional Sector +100 1 to 150

Clearance Sector +10 to +40 ° Full fly up below 1°

Range 20 nmi 20 nmi

Antenna Aperture Size 5 ft x 3.5 ft 6 in x 6 ft

Phase Shifters 8 8

Transmitter Power 10 W nominal 5 W nominal

w (U -C

0 00000

*0 0 00 0 0 s

TABLE 2. RECORDING RATES USED FOR DATA COLLECTION

Sample

Parameter Units Rate (Hz) Resolution

Time hrs/min/sec 39 0.001 sec

Indicated Airspeed knots 2/5 0.0977 knots

Vertical Velocity feet/min 2/5 0.488 fpm

Magnetic Heading degrees 2/5 0.002 degrees

Barometric Altitude feet 2/5 1.95 feet

Radio Altimeter feet 2/5 0.732 feet

MLS Horizontal microamps 2/5 0.02 microamps

Deviation (low)

MLS Vertical microamps 2/5 0.02 microamps

Deviation (low)

MLS Azimuth degrees 19/39 0.005 degrees

MLS Elevation degrees 39 0.005 degrees

DME feet 2/5 3 feet (DME/P)60 feet (ARINC)

Digital MLS Flags 19/39 -

Navigation Flags volts 5 discrete

Transverse 32.15 ft/sec 2/5 0.0012 g's

Acceleration

Longitudinal g's 2/5 0.0012 g's

Acceleration

Vertical g's 2/5 0.0049 g's

Acceleration

Time Code milliseconds - 0.001 seconds

Generator Time

MLS Azimuth millivolts 5 0 - 300mV

Deviation

MLS Elevation millivolts 5 0 - 300mV

Deviation

INSTRUMENT METEROLOGICAL CONDITIONS (IMC) SIMULATOR FOGGLES. The IMC simulatorfoggles simulate IMC. When the IMC glasses are properly adjusted, the pilotmaintains a clear, unrestricted view ok the instrument and radio panels by meansof the unique trifocal area of the Visitron lenses. The selected lower insidequadrants of the Visitron lenses are clear until the pilot looks outside thecockpit, at which time the Visitron lenses obscure instantly to a preset RunwayVisual Range (RVR) setting. At all times the pilot has normal peripheral vision,limited only by the preset RVR selected. The pilot also has free head and eyemovement and can look outside the cockpit for visual clues with limited vision.The safety pilot has minimum work load, and all switch changes and settings canbe accomplished in less than 3 seconds. If the subject pilot were to get into asituation where safety is in any way compromised, the safety pilot can push theON/OFF toggle switch to the OFF/VMC position. Instantly, the obscuration clearsand the pilot has clear viewing.

QUESTIONAIRES.

Following each approach, subject pilots were questionned concerning:

1. Overall visual segment rating

2. Assistance in visual alignment for landing

3. Deceleration cueing

4. Overall workload

5. Aircraft Controlability

This questionnaire information was recorded after each profile run. TheCooper-Harper ratings were reduced to mean and standard deviations. Copies ofthe inflight questionnaire, post-flight questionnaire, and the post-flight pilotbackground questionnaire are in appendix B.

FLIGHT PROFILES.

Approach profiles flown replicated elevation angle and DH/visibility combinationswhich had previously been identified with heliport Terminal Instrument Procedures(TERPS) development activities. Table 3 presents the elevation angle/DHcombinations which were flown.

TABLE 3. TEST EVALUATION/DH COMBINATIONS

Elevation Angle (degrees)

3O 45 6

DH (ht above heliport) 200 250 250Visibility (statute mi) 3/4 1/2 1/2

In order to more realistically evaluate the HALS, both centerline and offsetazimuth approaches were flown. The offset approaches were flown using offsets of5* both left and right of the final approach course centerline. This permittedevaluation of HALS performance in aiding the pilot to align and land the aircraft

when he arrives at DH in a position that represents more than full scale lateraldeviation from the desired final approach course.

The visibility test condition was compared with the slant range distance from theheliport center to DH for each test profile. This comparison is presented intable 4.

TABLE 4. VISIBILITY VS. SLANT RANGE DISTANCE TO THE HELIPORT

Approach Angle DH Visibility Slant Range(degrees) (ft) (Statute mi) (Ft)

3.0 200 3/4 (396 ft) 38214.5 250 1/2 (2640 ft) 31866.0 250 1/2 (2640 ft) 2391

Table 4 indicates that with the 3° and 60 approaches the subject pilot should beable to see the heliport and all approach aids at DH. However, on the 4.5*approach, only the HALS lights would initially be in view at DH.

SUBJECT PILOTS.

The subject pilots who participated in this test came from industry, the FAA, andthe military. All subjects were current and qualified in the UH-lH and held atleast an FAA commercial rotorcraft and instrument rating. Total helicopterflight time of the subject pilots ranged from 600 to over 12,000 hours. Time intype ranged from as low as 75 hours to 5100 hours. A total of seven subjectpilots participated in the testing. Also, test profiles were flown by a pilotfrom AVN-210 who didn't participate in the evaluation of the lighting systems.Subject pilot background profiles can be reviewed in appendix C.

ANALYSIS OF RESULTS

The test design called for all subjects to complete two flights. However, oneflight was lost due to MLS equipment failure. A second flight was lost due tofoggle failure. A total of 12 data collection flights were completed. The testscenario for a single flight is shown in table 5.

SUBJECT PILOT QUESTIONNAIRE ANALYSIS.

Following each approach the subject pilot was asked a series of five questionsconcerning characteristics of the lighting system that was just used for theapproach. The pilot's response to each question was a numerical score rangingfrom I to 10 based on the Modified Cooper-Harper Pilot Rating Scale. Prior toeach flight the subject pilot was briefed on the use of the Modified Cooper-Harper Rating Scale, which is presented in figure 3. A pilot rating of 1 to 3resulted if the subject felt that particular light system characteristic inquestion would permit routine use of that light system for completion of aprecision approach to the heliport. A numerical rating between 4 and 6 indicatesthe subject would only rarely use the light system. A rating of 7 or greater

indicated the pilot's evaluation of the characteristic in question rendered thelight system unacceptable for use. Subject pilot responses to each question arereviewed below.

TABLE 5. TEST SCENARIO

Approach DH Elevation Angle Azimuth Angle LightNumber (ft) (degrees) (degrees) Configuration

1 200 3.0 143* BASIC + HALS2 200 3.0 143 BASIC3 200 3.0 138 BASIC + HALS4 200 3.0 148 BASIC

5 250 4.5 143 BASIC + HALS6 250 4.5 138 BASIC7 250 4.5 148 BASIC + HALS

8 250 6.0 143 BASIC + HALS9 250 6.0 138 BASIC + VGSI

10 250 6.0 148 BASIC + HALS + VCSI

* Centerline Azimuth

OVERALL RATING. Following the approach the pilot was asked, "Did the lightingsystem displayed for use during the approach provide sufficient guidance at DH toallow you to complete the approach to landing visually?" Figure 4 presents themean pilot responses +/- one standard deviation. The mean rating for the lightingconfiguration indicated the pilots would routinely make precision instrumentapproaches to heliports when HALS were available. The addition of the VGSnsignificantly improved the overall rating.

Figure 5 presents the four histograms of pilot responses for the Overall rating.With only the Basic IFR System available, 65 percent of the responses rated thesystem unacceptable or would only consider it for rare use. With the addition ofHALS almost 70 percent of the responses indicated the pilot would use the systemroutinely. When the HALS and VGSI were available, all responses indicated thepilot would routinely use the system.

ALIGNMENT RATING. The second question asked following each approach was, "Didthe lighting system displayed provide adequate alignment guidance to permitproper maneuvering to the centerline of the heliport prior to landing?" A plotof the mean response +/- one standard deviation is presented in figure 6. Again,with the presence of HALS the mean + one standard deviation indicated the systemwas acceptable for routine use. Without HALS the pilot responses weresignificantly higher, indicating an aversion to routine use when HALS was notavailable.

Histograms of the pilot responses to the alignment question are presented infigure 7. Without HALS or the VGSI, less than 50 percent of the responsesindicated alignment was sufficient for routine use. More than 98 percentof the responses indicated alignment was sufficient for routine use when HALSwas available.

I. 0 a .

40 a 0.asc. 0 0 v

a r E L U g

o C a a 0 c 0 aoE 6

E a a2 0 6 c 0

.. Ez u Ia.-a

op C* 060 0 L C 0E 0 LO CL Co E CL-

0 6C0 0

uO ~ . 0 v .0

a EC c~. 0. .2 .E *Eo 0 0.0~ 0;= 0U

02 ~ ~ 0 Vi ee S 0 0 O*

Ia . a

-c kc~ cU U C c c

v0 -0 -

a- a u

M~~ 0 0

a 7o-~~~~~ C ' . C C C

.Z C 6

:: new. .2 0:3 u - 6

a.a' z L 2 .IIh E 0 0 0

0. 0 z

I00 CL 6

ILIiCC

0 ~ ~ .60uU. 0 <O L .za < 0 - 0

I.w IL 0

Lo +Y coIN

0 + 0 +w

0~~ ReC4 ;0

z 0 + 0+

Ci 61 0

0-+ LL.

0 0) co I,- co U) 1w CO) N

oie*S JadieH jadooo

OVERALL with B IFR0 SAMPLES 35 MEAN 4.05 STD LBO

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 6 9 10

Coope Hape Scale

OVERALL with B IFR + VGSI0 SAMPLES ll MEAN &S SID LU

00 0 0 0 0

1 2 3 4 5 T a 9 to

Cooper Harper Scala

FIGURE 5. OVERALL RATING HISTOGRAM OF PILOT RESPONSE (SHEET 1 OF 2)

OVERALL with B IFR + HALS0 SAMPLES 52 LEAN 2.83 ST L94

102 10

4 3 30 0

0 6 9 I0

1 2 3 4 6 8 9 1

Coper NN Scale

OVERALL with B IFR + VGSI + HALS0 SAWPLIES 1It MEAN L82 STO 0.94

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1 2 3 4 5 a 7 a 9 10

Cooper Harper Scale

FIGURE 5. OVERALL RATING HISTOGRAM OF PILOT RESPONSE (SHEET 2 OF 2)

o + 0~~

ILO) 0 C C z

z0 + 0+

0K 0 CO)I

c, N 61

LOI IV:

0 0) Go f.- co LO C) 0

ALIGNMENT with B IFR# SAWLES 35 MEAN 3.49 ST 2.06

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10

coopw -"W Sca

ALIGNMENT with B IFR + VGSI0 SAMPtESU WAX 2.B2 S 1.59

o 0 0 0 0

2 3 4 5 a 7 8 9 0

Cooper Harpe Scae

FIGURE 7. ALIGNMENT RATING HISTOGRAM OF PILOT RESPONSE (SHEET I OF 2)

ALIGNMENT with B IFR + HALS# SAMPLES 52 MEAN L33 STD 0.70

51 0 1 0 0 0 0 0

0 1 1 1 - I

1 2 3 4 5 a 7 8 9 10

Cooper Hwper sea"

ALIGNMENT with B IFR + VGSI + HALS1 SAMPLES I MEAN US ST 0.39

10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

OI 1 1 1 1 T I I

1 2 3 4 5 8 7 8 9 10

Cooper Harper Scale

FIGURE 7. ALIGNMENT RATING HISTOGRAM OF PILOT REPSONSE (SHEET 2 OF 2)

DECELERATION RATING. A primary objective of the tests were to determine theability of pilots to visually acquire the heliport and complete the landingfollowing breakout into visual conditions at DH. The third question asked was,"Did the system displayed provide visual cues for determining rate of closureand/or deceleration during the visual portion of the approach?" The mean pilotresponses +/- one standard deviation are presented in figure 8. Thischaracteristic of the lighting system had a poor rating across all testconditions. The mean pilot responses for all test conditions, except when theBasic IFR Lighting System was augmented with both the HALS and VGSI, indicatedthat the pilots felt deceleration cuing was only sufficient to suppo-t rare useof the lighting system.

Only 15 percent of the pilot responses indicated that deceleration cuing with theBasic IFR System was sufficient for routine use. The fact is present when oneviews the histograms in figure 9. As can be seen in figure 9, even with HALSaugmentation, nearly 35 percent of the pilot responses indicate from adeceleration cuing view point they would rarely or never use the system. Onlywhen both HALS and VGSI are added to the Basic IFR System did a significantpercentage of the responses indicate that the deceleration cuing aspect of thelighting system was adequate for routine use.

Several different performance measures to more fully characterize thedeceleration issue were analyzed. The results of this analysis are discussedbelow.

WORKLOAD RATING. In order to obtain measures of perceived workload, subjectpilots were asked to rate the workload associated with each test condition.Following each approach the subject was asked, "How would you rate your workloadduring the visual portion of the approach?" The mean pilot responses and +/-one standard deviation are depicted in figure 10. When HALS was available themean pilot response indicated the workload was acceptable for routine use of thesystem. The histograms of the responses to the workload question for the varioustest conditions are depicted in figure 11. With only the Basic IFR Systemavailable, more than 55 percent of the responses indicated that the workloadassociated with the test condition would result in the pilots rarely or neverusing the system. When the Basic IFR System was augmented with both a HALS andVGSI, more than 80 percent of the responses suggest that the workload was lowenough to routinely use the system.

CONTROLLABILITY RATING. The final question, which required a subjective pilotresponse following each approach, was designed to detect any aircraft relatedissues which might be biasing subject pilot opinion of the light systems beingevaluated. The question asked was, "How would you rate aircraft controllabilityduring the visual segment of the approach?" Figure 12 indicates very littledifference concerning aircraft control for each of the systems tested.Regardless of the lighting system being used, aircraft controllability wassufficient to routinely use the system being tested. The histograms presented infigure 13 also indicate the pilots expressed little difficulty with aircraftcontrollability. The results of the response to this question strongly indicateworkload and deceleration problems that appear when HALS is not present are not amanifestation of aircraft controllability.

0 +4 0 C

co C) C1

0 Y r~~I.- CD V) CO - o

aleoS JsdJRH jadooC)

RATE DECEL with B IFR0 SAWLES 35 MEAN 4.97 5TD L68

1111'I

I0to .a a

C .H. 9o5 ,

3-3 T3 3

1 2 3 4 S a 7 9 1

Co HM-p Sefils

RATE DECEL with B IFR + VGSI0 SAMPLES H1 MEAN 3.4 S UT.37

0 0 0 0 0 0

2 3 4 5 8 7 8 9 10

Cooper Harper Scale

FIGURE 9. DECELERATION RATING HISTOGRAM OF PILOT RESPONSE (SHEET I OF 2)

RATE DECEL with B IFR + HALS# SAMPLES 52 MEAN 3.23 STD 2.17

15Is5-

14113-

A TI T7

a 5 55

1 2 3 4 5 6 T 9 O

Cooper -tw Scal

RATE DECEL with B IFR + VGSI + HALS0 SAMPLES U MAN 2-W STD7"

3 3 3 3

0 0 0 0 0 00

I 2 3 4 5 5 7 8 9 10

Coop" HatPef Scale

FIGURE 9. DECELERATION RATING HISTOGRAM OF PILOT RESPONSE (SHEET 2 OF 2)

0 + C,+ . .

CtoE-4

z0 + C>+310 O O oI

0- + 0LL.0Y) CVO co

P.- 0cmJU,

o Y co t o LO orC) 0

*ieoS jodjBH jadooC)

WORKLOAD with B IFR0 SAMPLES 35 MEAN 4.03 STD L76

T 7T -55

1 2 3 4 58 9 0

Coope r aq Scde

WORKLOAD with B IFR + VGSI6 SAMPLES II MEAN 3.45 STD L88

2I2 2 22

11 1 1

010 0 0

I 2 3 4 5 6 T 8 9 10

Cooper Harper Scale

FIGURE 11. WORKLOAD RATING HISTOGRAM OF PILOT RESPONSE (SHEET 1 OF 2)

WORKLOAD with B IFR + HALS# SAMPLES 52 WEAN 281 ST L84

* 12fl

10 24 4 5 8 39 I

1 2 3 4 5 8 7 8 9 10

Cooper Har Scale

WORKLOAD with B IFR + VGSI + HALS*SAMPLES U AN 2.30 STD 134

'II o 0 0 0 00

I 2 3 4 5 5 7 8 9 tO

Cooper Haipe Scale

FIGURE 11. WORKLOAD RATING HISTOGRAM OF PILOT RESPONSE (SHEET 2 OF 2)

C3 + CLn 0 I +cj cmJ LL.w

-Y cI : o OY)Ili c~ 0 Hw CO-

Z 0 + +

00 0o 1-

Ci -4 cCO.,

+ O 0P- co cC-i -~

0 0 o I,.- co In 'q. cl N m

oI9*S JsdieH Jsdooc3

CONTROLABILIT( with B IFR# SAMPLES 35 MEAN 2.51 STD Los18-

15 - Is15

S0 0 0 0 0

25 6 8 9 to

COXTROLABILITY with B IFR + VGSI# SAMPLES1U MW.A 2-18 STD L11

0 0 0 0 0 0

I 2 3 4 5 5 7 8 9 10

Cooper Harper Scale

FIGURE 13. CONTROLLABILITY RATING HISTOGRAM OF PILOT RESPONSE (SHEET 1 OF 2)

CONTROLABILITY with B IFR + HALS0 SAMPLES 52 MEAN 2.05 ST LOS

22- 2t

S i1210

,0 0 0 0 0

1 2 3 4 5 a 7 8 9 tCooe Harpe Scale

CONTROLABILITY with B IFR + VGSI + HALSSSAMPLES I MEAN 200 ST 0.95

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 I I !II

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Cooper Harper Scale

FIGURE 13. CONTROLLABILITY RATING HISTOGRAM OF PILOT RESPONSE (SHEET 2 OF 2)

- SAi iES i i lll I2.00I I i 0.95

POST-FLIGHT QUESTIONNAIRE ANALYSIS.

Following completion of the test flights each subject pilot was asked to completea post-flight questionnaire. One question asked was, " Do you feel the HALS isrequired or essential as an addition to the Basic IFR Lighting System under thefollowing MLS approach angle operations?" The responses of the seven subjectpilots are presented in table 6.

TABLE 6. POST-FLIGHT QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES

Approach Angle HALS Required HALS Not Required

3.0 6 14.5 5 26.0 5 2

All subject pilots made the comment that some sort of visual vertical guidanceaid for use during the visual segment of the approach is required. All subjectsfelt the VGSI when available substantially reduced their workload.

Two pilots with the highest amount of helicopter instrument flight time statedthat the deceleration during the visual-portion of the approach to a.heliport is

considerably more difficult when a precision approach is flown to DH than when anonprecision approach is flown to an minimum descent altitude (MDA). They feltthe difficulty arises because the pilot must maintain fairly precise verticaltracking with the precision approach while decelerating. Instrument scan from

inside the cockpit to the heliport and visual guidance outside the cockpittransitions are more difficult for precision approaches due to the precisevertical tracking requirement. However, the nonprecision maneuver does not

require the same vertical track precision and the deceleration can beaccomplished more easily with aircraft in level flight.

PILOT PERFORMANCE.

Several aspects of pilot performance were investigated. These measures of pilotperformance were obtained through use of the range tracking facilities and/or on-board data collection equipment. The data collection portion of each approachbegan when the aircraft passed DH or when the pilot stated he had the heliportlights in sight, which ever occurred first. The data collection period endedwhen the aircraft first descended below 50 feet radar altitude or when it crossedthe leading edge of the heliport on its approach. Data recording rates were5 hertz (Hz) for aircraft recorded parameters and 10 Hz for range trackedparameters.

LATERAL TRACKING PERFORMANCE. The standard deviations of the lateral flighttechnical error were computed for each approach. Since wind conditions for agiven flight can impact lateral tracking performance, table 7 presents thestandard deviations of the lateral flight technical errors for each approach.

TABLE 7. LATERAL FLIGHT TECHNICAL ERROR (DEGREES X 0.01)

Flt Elevation Centerline Approaches Offset Approaches

No. Angle Basic Basic+HALS Basic Basic+HALS

1 3.0 50 34 150 -

4.5 40 26 - 190

6.0 64 116* - -

2 3.0 19 86* 27 1014.5 - 62 230 2016.0 - 21 273 159

3 3.0 41 20 185 -

4.5 - 43 179 -

6.0 - 30 103 138*

4 3.0 25 39* 31 114

4.5 - 21 189 237*

6.0 - 56 30 128*

5 3.0 71 100* 166 104

4.5 - 48 119 180

6.0 - 104 55 44

6 3.0 58 28 107 109*

4.5 - 64 78 190*

6.0 - 25 176 9

7 3.0 39 16 109 138*

4.5 - 13 75 179*

6.0 - 16 122 71

8 3.0 17 38* 18 141*

4.5 - 40 151 80

6.0 - 39 198 129

9 3.0 80 13 131 119

4.5 - 12 i14 176*

6.0 - 26 192 114

10 3.0 45 18 188 117

4.5 - 27 87 158*

6.0 - 26 56 107*

11 3.0 67 57 125 98

4.5 - 39 125 119

6.0 - 153 161*

12 3.0 18 29* 135 37

4.5 - 38 24 179*

6.0 21 88 107*

*BASIC + HALS exceeds basic standard deviation for similar conditions.

In table 7 the lateral performance improvements with the addition of HALS can beseen. For the centerline approaches, on 8 of 14 occasions the lateral flighttechnical error (FTE) with HALS was smaller. Improvements in the pilot's lateraltracking performance for offset approaches was not as pronounced when HALS wasavailable.

For each approach a plot of lateral position versus range was prepared. Anexample of a plot is presented in figure 14. This is an example of an offsetapproach. These plots were used to identify if on an offset approach the pilotattempted to maneuver to the centerline when he visually acquired the heliport. Atotal of 43 offset approaches were flown during the tests. On all but two of theapproaches the pilot attempted to maneuver to the approach centerline once hevisually acquired the heliport. The accumulated lateral position plots can bereviewed in appendix D.

Table 8 depicts the maximum amount of lateral overshoot in feet which occurredwhen the pilot attempted to correct to the centerline on offset approaches. Thenegative mean value associated with the Basic IFR only lighting conditionindicates that the pilots, on the average, never got to the approach centerline.The considerably larger standard deviation for this lighting condition alsoindicates poor pilot performance in correcting to the centerline when HALS wasnot available.

TABLE 8. MAXIMUM AZIMUTH OVERSHOOTS (OFFSET APPROACHES)

Mean Overshoot Std Dev

Test Condition Feet .Feet N

Basic IFR -15.89 38 24Basic IFR + HALS 8.74 7 19

VERTICAL TRACKING PERFORMANCE. Pilot performance in the vertical domain wasalso investigated. For each approach a plot similar to figure 15 was prepared.This plot presented range rate and elevation error versus range. Theseaccumulated plots can be reviewed in appendix E. For each approach the maximumvertical error above and below the reference glide slope was determined. Theseerrors are expressed in feet. The location in range from the heliport for eachof these errors was also determined. The mean and standard deviation for each ofthe errors are presented in table 9.

The addition of HALS reduced the peak overarc errors by 15 percent. When HALSwas available the peak errors tended to occur earlier in the approach, indicatingconsiderably smaller peak overarc angular errors. Although the pilots rated theaddition of the VGSI as the best lighting configuration, no improvement in theirvertical performance can be detected. For both peak overarc and underarcconditions, the errors increased with the addition of the VGSI. The fact thatthey rated the addition of VGSI as the best condition despite their performance,can be explained by the added confidence the VGSI provided in terms of verticalposition. The pilots tended to relax when they had an on glidepath indication.A narrower on glidepath window would increase pilot vertical performance withouta significant increase in workload.

g (Id) IHOI3R t11I pi r sz 6 Z LZ ZZ6 1 190! 0-0

wCCD 5

ta 0-4

C? 1. 0

TABLE 9. ELEVATION ERRORS (FEET)

Mean Std DevStatistic Test Condition Feet Feet Number

Maximum Overarc Basic IFR 79 34 35Basic IFR + VGSI 97 57 11Basic IFR + HALS 69 33 52IFR + HALS + VGSI 74 28 11

Range to Max Basic IFR 1975 972 35Overarc Basic IFR + VGSI 1763 769 11

Basic IFR + HALS 2085 1099 52IFR + HALS + VGSI 1521 536 11

Maximum Underarc Basic IFR 5 17 35Basic IFR + VGSI 17 19 11Basic IFR + HALS -6 36 52IFR + HALS + VGSI 14 30 11

Range to Max Basic IFR 2673 1771 35Overarc Basic IFR + VGSI 1292 680 11

Basic IFR + HALS 1866 1319 52IFR + HALS + VGSI 1223 561 11

Another point that should be made is the fact that the addition of HALS tended toeliminate underarc conditions. The mean peak underarc of -6 feet indicates a

majority of the approaches displayed no underarc when HALS was available.

DECELERATION PERFORMANCE. The pilots stated the most difficult aspect of thevisual segments of the precision approaches was the ability to decelerate andland at the heliport. Analysis was conducted to characterize decelerationperformance with and without the HALS.

Figure 15 presented an example of vertical plot information which was obtainedfor each approach. The vertical position versus range is shown. In addition thenominal deceleration profile that would have resulted with a constantdeceleration to landing for that approach is shown. Plotted against this nominalprofile is the range rate for the approach. These accumulated plots are inappendix E. In general, when HALS was available the decelerations were smoother.

For each approach the location of the peak deceleration in G units was obtained.Table 10 presents the mean peak decelerations and the mean range to the locationwhere the peak occurred for each test condition.

The mean peak decelerations with HALS was 25 percent smaller than the peaksobserved with the Basic IFR System. The peak decelerations tended to occurearlier in the approach when HALS was available. The addition of the VGSI alsotended to smooth the decelerations. When the VGSI alone was added to the BasicIFR System the peak deceleration values were reduced by more than 50 percent.

TABLE 10. PEAK DECELERATIONS AND LOCATIONS

Mean Std DevStatistic Test Condition (G's) (G's) Number

Peak G's Basic IFR -0.31 0.26 35IFR + VGSI -0.14 0.52 11

IFR + HALS -0.23 0.21 50IFR + HALs + VGSI -0.18 0.1 11

Range to Basic IFR 1800 1025 35Peak G's IFR + VGSI 887 598 11

IFR + HALS 1899 1445 50IFR + HALS + VGSI 970 581 11

The locations where the peak decelerations occurred were reviewed for eachseparate approach to see if different test conditions resulted in a differentpattern of the peak deceleration locations. These are presented in table 11.The lack of deceleration cuing without HALS resulted in two missed approaches.These are marked with an MA in table 11. Additionally, one peak decelerationlocation with the Basic System was -229 feet. In this case, the pilot flew 229feet beyond the center of the heliport before reaching his peak deceleration. Ononly four ocassions during centerline approaches did the peak G location with theBasic System occur earlier in the approach than with HALS for a similar approach.The analysis of peak G location indicates when HALS was present, smootherdecelerations were made and the peak deceleration occurred earlier in theapproach. Two missed approaches occurred without HALS because the pilots couldnot decelerate sufficiently to land.

AIRCRAFT ATTITUDE CONTROL. Aircraft pitch and roll was recorded to determine ifany significant differences resulted with the different light systems which weretested. The mean peak pitch values in degrees and the location where theyoccurred are presented in table 12.

Very little difference was detected in the peak pitch values. This resultsbecause the pilots are using near maximum pitch angles with which they stillretain line of sight to the heliport. When the VGSI was present the peak pitchattitudes occurred considerably later in the approach. This probably indicatessmoother pitch application when VGSI was present. It is important to point outthat these pitch angles are associated with the Bell UH-lH helicopter. Otheraircraft capabilities may not match these values.

The roll data were reviewed to determine the peak roll angles that occurredduring the offset approaches. As shown in table 13 the peak roll angles withHALS was only one-third the peak roll angles without HALS. Again, thisindicates the pilots could more easily smooth their roll inputs when HALS waspresent.

TABLE 11. PEAK DECELERATION RANGE IN FEET

Flight Elevation Angle Centerline Approaches Offset Approaches

Number Degrees Basic ALS Basic HALS

1 3.0 611 4162 856 4032

4.5 819 3184 - 2804

6.0 1090 1299 -

2 3.0 1893 1563 MA 1530

4.5 2303 2424 -

6.0 865 775 2990

3 3.0 1824 817 MA -

4.5 2511 2663 -

6.0 718 1151 619

4 3.0 1584 2887 584 2030

4.5 1037 662 3270

6.0 - 1347 1410 657

5 3.0 920 262 3538 3548

4.5 - 2562 1660 5085

6.0 - 1232 -229 453

6 3.0 1433 2476 4025 2180

4.5 - 652 2172 637

6.0 - 640 364 624

7 3.0 2442 3462 1177 8222

4.5 - 990 1157 1400

6.0 - 806 1076 735

8 3.0 2128 3838 3767 2978

4.5 - 1515 1407

6.0 - 646 1197 1290

9 3.0 1203 1338 849 655

4.5 - 1163 1529 1476

6.0 - 1215 412 1853

10 3.0 606 1063 3459 3603

4.5 - 1470 1691 794

6.0 - 1351 1091 2086

11 3.0 502 1775 1152 1104

4.5 - 1060 1697 2382

6.0 - 538 1286

12 3.0 2177 1167 1965 4094

4.5 - 3033 3863 1464

6.0 470 1976 735

MA - Missed Approach

TABLE 12. PITCH ATTITUDE STATISTICS

Mean Std DevStatistic Test Condition (De-) ( Number

Peak Pitch Basic IFR 7.10 1.55 35

IFR + VGSI 8.96 3.29 11IFR + HALS 7.12 2.27 51IFR + HALS + VGSI 7.97 2.91 11

Feet Feet

Range to Basic IFR 1788 1204 35Peak Pitch IFR + VGSI 1120 621 11

IFR + HALS 1561 1032 51IFR + HALS + VGSI 893 556 11

TABLE 13. ROLL STATISTICS FOR OFFSET APPROACHES

Mean Std Dev

Test Condition (Dg) (Dee) Number

Basic IFR 3.31 4.42 24Basic IFR + HALS 1.19 5.18 19

CONCLUSIONS

Several conclusions can be made based on the subjective and objective dataanalyses of the Heliport Approach Lighting System (HALS) test results. The HALScan support the precision approaches to heliports when the approach minimacontained in the draft Heliport Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS) documentare used. When HALS was used all approaches were successfully completed evenwhen guidance was significantly displayed from the nominal approach centerline

Decision Height (DH).

All subject pilots rated the approach light system characteristics significantlybetter when the visual glideslope indicator (VGSI) was available. Although therewas not a detectable improvement in pilot vertical tracking performance with theaddition of the VGSI, all subjects rated the workload lower and the decelerationguidance better when the VGSI was available. The VGSI was not optimally tuned toenhance pilot performance for these tests.

On two occasions the subject pilot was unable to complete the approaches to theheliport resulting in missed approaches. In both cases the HALS was not

available for the approach. The critical nature of the missed approaches cannotbe overemphasized. The pilot elected to miss well inside DH, resulting in a

flight path which placed the aircraft well below the 20:1 missed approach surfacefor a significant period of time.

The mean pilot responses for the deceleration cuing and workload characteristics

(-3.6) indicates pilots would rarely use a system if HALS were not available.Analysis of subjective comments and performance data indicates that HALS provides

more benefit than just extending the range to ground contact. These benefitscould not be quantified. However, decelerations were more constant and wereinitiated sooner when HALS was available.

A question which must be addressed is what are the appropriate minima when HALSis not available. This test was not structured to answer that question. Testingto address that issue requires that the approach minima be a test variable ratherthan a fixed condition as it was in this test.

The benefits from a vertical guidance aid such as the VGSI must be investigatedmore fully. This test was iut designed to optimize the performance gains thatare possible when a lighting aid is present to provide vertical guidance.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the analysis of test results the following recommendations are made.

1. Release the heliport Microwave Landing System (MLS) Terminal InstrumentProcedures (TERPS) with minima as published if a Heliport Approach Light System(HALS) similar to the one evaluated in these tests is available. Minima withoutHALS should be very conservative (i.e., 400 feet and I mile or greater) untilfurther testing can be accomplished.

2. Design and conduct a series of tests to determine the appropriate approachminima for precision instrument approaches to heliports when an approach lightsystem is not available. Also, testing to identify optimal visual glideslopeindicator (VGSI) beam widths and location on the heliport should be conducted.

3. Previous heliport MLS testing had identified the fact the pilots had theleast difficulty with deceleration and landing when the elevation antenna waslocated well in front of the landing area. With deceleration difficulties notedin these tests, that work should be revisited and consideration given torelocation of the elevation antenna at heliports.

4. The HALS configuration tested resulted from considerable preliminarydevelopment efforts conducted over a period of several years. The length of thesystem can be shortened; however, any reduction in length would result in anincrease in minimums. Conversely, any lengthening of the HALS system wouldresult in a decrease in minimums but with a real estate penalty. Therefore, werecommend the basic HALS configuration used be considered standard and individualnonstandard sites be tailored accordingly.

5. Development of advanced instrument procedures for use at heliports andvertiports should continue. Several topics which should be addressed includedeceleration below Vmini airspeeds prior to decision height (DH), range/rangerate biasing of the flight director pitch cue and pilot performance when manuallyflying flight director aided approaches to heliports.

6. Expanded testing to augment the data with data from the S-76 should beconsidered.

REFERENCES

1. Interagency Agreement DTFA01-80-Y-10530 between the FAA and Department of theArmy, U.S. Army Avionics Research and Development Activity, FAA Handbook 8620.3b,United States Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS), July 1976.

2. Interagency Agreement DTFAO-80-Y-10530 between the FAA and Department of the

Army, U.S. Army Avionics Research and Development Activity.

3. FAA Advisory Circular, Heliport Design, AC 150/5390-2, January 4, 1988.

APPENDIX A

UH-IH HELICOPTER TECHNICAL INFORMATION

WEIGHT AND BALANCE CLEARANCE FORM F R~Amm FORil U2E T. 1TRANSPORT OAr am) O. it 118.404(USE5 RZVSRSZ FOR TACTICAL MJSSION) Sol "I (WW) TMf SS-40S-9

1109 AIRCRAFT TYPE room NONE STAY"N

MUUiVsopltir/FMNTNO SERAL NO. 70 PILOT

LIMITATIONS IftE ' onO

CONtTON TAKEWF LAINGS uNImusG It MOMEII

GOwn MInIi? 7,5O 9 m 2 OIL ( , Aj-!;/

S TOTAL AKRAFT 3Cnrw (No.)WEIGT (Ael. f) 17915"t)OPtRATI WIGT 4 CIIII'l BAO8AGIE

PLUS UYIMATIED LANDIG

J391-10 MTEAD' EQFUIDPMENT .

PERAINGU. wam IN tol,~l5C. 6 A4I)1

-TOTAL AIOPE RAT W EIG ?

Z_______ #. C. G.'- TAKEFF

/i*,V= 4

Q DIST IUTION OF ALLOWABLE LOAD (PAYLOAD),FIWEGTUPPER Ol"hITSLOWER CWMPAARhVfI

WU7 PASSENGR CONFT PA-ISNGMA ~ R 5N o .N. WeE GNN o IN G W I

ZL A -

~~~~~~ z'~p-Q/7-/~ * ~ .~ _

93. 194

TOA -RA L A

COPTRPLAED NUMBER (V 1101 Ill

___ __ _/7 __ 0

-I Enter constantusd

A~lieshlo tod.e gr--oss

weight (Re!. 20). -

Id ____ CORRECTIONS OWd. 14) 13 TAKEOFF CONDITICN (U~teneemd)--3a CANGES (+ or 14 CORRECTIONS (J/ Mfvjbed)

wuw ru I Imn0 OR 13 TAKEOFF CDDI (Cl - -l

- ______ ___ _ 1__I LOlS AM SUPPLY LOAD DINOPMr L --. .

_________ _____ _______It MISC. VARWIAN

__________ ______________20 ESIMATED LANDING CONITION

_________21 crTIMATtV LANDING C. G.-W~N.I. / 3.5eIZZ _ ___ __ _ _ COPUTED NY

TOTAL MEIGI 09MOVD WEI GHT AND IIAAPNCK _AUrHO~flT

TOTAL Weem ADDED + PILOT EMU _____________________

D D 1SPT 54 365FA-1

UH-IH AIRCRAFT DIMENSIONS

14 FT. 1.67 IN.

F T . F T .9I NI N

1 -q F. 0.5IN

6- FTF. 6.6 IN.--

MAXIMUM LENGTH.Si FT 0.6 IN. ROTORS TURNING

FT. 1.~ IN. GROUND LINE AT 600 LISS3

41 FT. 5.0 IN.

APPENDIX B

SUBJECT PILOT QUESTIONNAIRES

IN-FLIG'. QUETIONNAIRE

Pilot: Run (Approach) No. Date:

Note: All responses should be rade by circling the number mostdescriptive of the degree of guidance received or workloadinvolved.

1. Did the lighting system, displayed for use during this approachprovide sufficient guidance, at decision height, to allow youto complete the approach to landing visually?

Excellent InsufficientGuidance Guidance

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

2. Did the system displayed provide ad-q'ate alignment guidance topermit proper maneuvering to the centerline of the helipad priorto landing?

Excellent InsufficientGuidance Guidance

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

3. Did the system displayed provide adequate visual cues for deterriningrate of closure and/or deceleration- during the visual portion ofthe approach?

Excellent InsufficientCues Cues

1 2 3 4 5 6 "7 8 9 1o

4. 1ow would you rate your workload during the visual portion ofthe approach?

Extremely ExcessivelyLight Neavy

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

5. How would you rate aircraft controlability during the visualsegment of the approach?

Easy to Very DifficultControl to Control

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

TABLE POST-FLIGHT QUESTIONAIRE

Pilot: Date:

1. Do you feel that the Centerline Approach Lighting System is required oressential, as an addition to the basic IFR lighting system (Cross) under thefollowing MLS approach angle operations?

Approach Angle Required Not Required

3.0 degrees

4.5 degrees

6.0 degrees

2. If you have checked the Centerline Approach Lighting System as required forany of the above approach angles, please describe the form of additional guidancethat you feel it provides.

3. In the event that the Centerline Approach Lighting System component cannot beprovided (i.e. because of lack of clear space in the approach zone, etc.), do youfeel that the published approach minimums (Decision Height/Visibility should beincreased?

Yes No

4. In general, do you feel that your ability to execute a safe and expeditioustransition from instrument to visual flight was enhanced on those approachesduring which the Centerline Approach Lighting System was provided for use?

Yes No It really didn't matter

5. Can you think of any changes or additions to the Heliport Approach LightingSystem tha you feel should bye incorporated?

TABLE POST-FLIGHT QUESTIONAIRE

Pilot: Date:

1. Do you feel that the Centerline Approach Lighting System is requiredor essential, as an addition to the basic IFR lighting system (Cross)under the following MLS approach angle operations?

Approach Angle Required Not Required

3.0 degrees

4.5 degrees

6.0 degrees

2. If you have checked the Centerline Approach Lighting System asrequired for any of the above approach angles, please describe the formof additional guidance that you feel it provides.

3. In the event that the Centerline Approach Lighting System componentcannot be provided (i.e. because of lack of clear space in the approachzone, etc.), do you feel that the published approach minimums (DecisionHeight/Visibility should be increased?

Yes No

4. In general, do you feel that your ability to execute a safe andexpeditious transition from instrument to visual flight was enhanced onthose approaches during which the Centerline Approach Lighting Systemwas provided for use?

Yes No It really didn't matter

5. Can you think of any changes or additions to the Heliport ApproachLighting System tha you feel should bye incorporated?

TABLE POST-FLIGHT PILOT BACKGROUND QUESTIONAIRE

Helicopter Visual Cueing Aircraft Type ______________

Pilot Qualifications

Affiliation ________________________ _____

Address

City ______________ State _ _____ Zip ______

Phone (optional) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

FAA Helicopter Ratings : ______________________

Total Flight Hours : ________________________

Total Helicopter Hours : _____________________

Total Time In Type:

Total Helicopter Hours Last 6 Months _______________

Time In Type Last 6 Months _________ ____________

APPENDIX C

SUBJECT PILOT BACKGROUND INFORMATION

SUBJECT PILOT 1 BACKGROUND QUESTIONNAIRE

Affiliation - Petroleum Helicopters Inc.

FAA Helicopter Ratings - ATP/Rotorcraft-Helicopter

BH206,BH212,S-76

Total Flight Hours - 12,466

Total Helicopter Hours - 12,286

Total Hours in UH-lH Type - 1,185

Helicopter Instrument Flight H urs - 541

Helicopter Night Flight Hours - 428

Affiliation - FAA Technical Center

FAA Helicopter Ratings - Commercial, Instrument

S-65, Instrument Instructor

Total Helicopter Hours - 600

Total Hours in UH-1H Type - 75

Helicopter Instrument Flight Hours - 100

FAA Helicopter Ratings - ATP, CFI

Affiliation - FAA - Sacramento FIFO

FAA Helicopter Ratings - ATP, CFI - Helo and Instrument

Total Hours in UH-1H Type - 800

Helicopter Instrument Flight Hours - 100 Simulator and Hood

FAA Helicopter Ratings - Rotorcraft Helicopter

Total Hours in UH-IH Type - 210

Affiliation - USAF IFC/IP

FAA Helicopter Ratings - Rotorcraft Helicopter

FAA Helicopter Ratings - Commercial Instrument Type SK-58

Total Hours in UH-IH Type - 5,100

APPENDIX D

SUBJECT PILOT LATERAL POSITION PLOTS

C) 0 U~

-~ C 0

L.0 /-

4r In i

rNJ"C-

= 0g, LLJ -,o

0 LLccn

ul LLJ

C::)-C)

W cn0oU

C) (NJ

Lr)o' c

Czi LU

0 00 0:

LAJ0 Ltl0

V) C) 1

C:)U)0

(Dr- n

(n .-0

L , =) <

or 0 < U

CCu_-j(00

LA&JU-

m -a--

z IJ Lf)

(04£ Li)

4. Itr

al rV?0

DoczCj U

or 0 0) u

COi-, =) <

Co r- ;wLACJ 0 LL

0 D-17

-J 00Ci)i

+-o CU00

Z N 0U

tbD-10

-a co.4 It

00, =C

D "I -

-j 0)-LAJo

00 crO

0a 00.

-j co:wN

CCw \O IsLii

(,\j Z:

\ \ r)

L1(0hJ D

LL < .

0 z/ -

on I,-VIt

z l z >.

a: cl LJ

hiJ C3.

* =UIf

m - O-

0 ii) 0 Ln.

00 Lco

00. 0:

crKr0 U'

ui 00/

of/ Go D

zJ WI.LI ko/

C' (DW,

/L LLUw 0

o/ 0 C

w (5C LAJ

LLLOcr~ 9'

0 LO <

0iC., 00

,uJ Lr

<j _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _

o ~ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _D- 3 2_

0 LO <

_ _ _ __

uoj2f) C.10

0j I I, r-j L

Lk/LLJ

w < Li

LD 0 0I

z 0) LXOC LD<u

(.D-35

0 LLO0

+ 14Uo

w 0ha)

%-J4-JW-w

W V) tr.

LA-0U-L

cc a~ (0

Ur (0)

Z 0nw+

"0 C (

ro 0'U,n

LAJ LL

LA C (

n - xN

z co - J

I (D/ 0)-

UU L& 0

w t)Dr

U.l Co

LA-J/ (

u(0r) _

"0 nu.n

Di 0 N

CO LfLiij

o D ;4 U

W. 00w

Lc,'ww

0 Io0r)Iz

w 0LaJ)

0u.) tI

-, 0 0

CMLU4 C

0 0 f.-

a 00z W UJ

i0I= z~

D - -UJ

w0w crz0

Z ID7 q -

-.- (D

- U (%4

(A04c* +

z to w*) N,)

o 3i -

U.D-57

LAJ 00

uiI <a O

3 (N - Lj

co rz NJ

LALCO,

<3 /U0<

0m r to <

L- C 2

U, J(0

/1 (0i

z [ii00

LO~Cl-J

E c,0C,

U 0 CD

uJW0wc,0 Lo 00 <

LAJ -LJ

to 0o(W*0

-: z* D 0

uA 0(0

NL 00L

ftJ cLD <

00 Ir-.

*0D-66

CC,w L(00L

t 0 - Dz

ClD(JoJ

LJLa:J

a., --

z waMl

u , IfD

100MC C

0 *)0('0

N LL)D 4 I, -m O 4

0LAJ0 r

0Otr D z

coN~co:

V) C, (

I.. - r

C )1) 00f

If) C) -

CC)0(00

ww0- 0

Z (V(AJ)

-, C\J

NJ L.ccr,

=) 0(j)i

zi LUc (

LLLiii

trr)C\j

+ 00(0.0

w I,:0f 0

+0L)(0

N, -ir& W

w.010 (0

r) 0 LO

-Dwn--

0 c0w (0

0C C.0

C'))00oC-

r) xLn.

LU 00000

C)C, ~'C)

Cu 7/I.3J

03 1:000

vW.- ~*C*)

o~D-8-

w ujC'0

ziLL ,U)cUnLr

4.., 1in

C) CC''(

to 00' _D

zN WDoI -

a) I7 .- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _/ C(

Ln C) C)

/- L .

/L *LL.cr CD

oD 0ULO0I ID

Uc\,cr.*

w 0C2 w

cC,)M(J

w o r)

x ww 0

U CC-. Cz

NL *LLJ:

C') Of

E) LbLCC LO )

II,-C.)

r) 0(Lo

00ODL(

wMn 0-1

oicLLLL

cr-j- '

LAII(0

D -.U.V) U.

9 CDj-(D

U)r LO

c LO <

Lii 0C.,

U-Jor 00f)

w V) <

C,a )r

w 0 0 u

w 0az uJ

I-JW 0 (D

Z WD0 _

~DOD-9(7

Ir. -0w (

0 O(0U U-

'C. Lbw

aJ - CI)

WD 0<,

U..I..

Li.OL0.

LA.;0 0O

ILL VI w

w InQ M

LI; CC)z

z NJ z

D , 0i

w ww V

cr--LL\J

0 7 '-)/r.Fd I.I

LaLo f)

Cr).- 0 LO

4L 0 C

CdCwi LUJCC

C?. C.

-. 4-.IN W

D~ 11 -1L~

D- 103

£fl Cc

wC C, C)

0 0oLO a

LL) LO

Ln0 (n

4r wK0 CD

f.-J L

-J < LI')

w U,Inl

(07..-

C)i L0:a)

z-4 U)D -. -

orw, u

w - <I000

0- 0C)

o N=:) "I -j~

-x -!r<

/ Lu0 ,

I.-.-j

:> - -

a 0 0 .

pr D Z

w LoW) LW

hi (0z

w uw LOu

/0LI)O

cr)WL L

W" 00V

U, w C0 ii3

L)3 Li

0 - lI-

w wLU, w

0,.C. (0

< LLan

z. 0co 9

00w~o '

o) 0()

C) 0a)LOO

In ULlo

0 0000

ILII..

-4 I/<N

C~to f

w wIn 0 -

-Jo K0 a

-1 0<i

11 D-11

LL.C, /0

/rCL / L

PI 0 Lr0

o I- >

= - r -I ; -j

D-1 18

LU ciQ w3

WA-Cmg-.

0 - <U

uJ ww L/

C, /l00

z rD .

w ~ < ws

* o7.00

hi~ fU (f

I wco0 KN \ l

LUb www

W- 1.0

w L'UI

j0L0* _

1- 0 r

0 i 00

LA //cr

00co m L.

uJ wu.' (D

I...-we

D , a.,*r l LU

w ww50

0UK(0)

gL. C'.

wwUl Q t,

0L(coL

Z orjD P -<

~D-127

APPENDIX E

SUBJECT PILOT RANGE RATE/VERTICAL POSITION PLOTS

(IA) iHO1]H

000- 0n

C) L.L

w WC. c

~.0I +

00 .- ___________________

< 8 29 99 OOO 099 wO~co rJ- Lu0zN U (SIONI) I1Vd O dAO~D 1- : L1

Cc- 1j

o (i) IHOIDH c

U- 92 9Z 6Z'ZIE Z '6S 1 190 1 z 0 2 0*0,-

0 (1d IHO 13H

(1) 1HO I H-Oz 84t 09 869- 08 8 12 O62 00'69 1 OZ 6Z OOO0-

wn zU)<

0U, 0 0 0 zU 1 I0 -J

0 (IA) iHOI3Hoe 811 0 8612 0 O8 tic ~ 0Ot'62Z 06 02,62 o-0

nL (I J) i OI3

OZz 0 6 88L- 0162 '91 0 6 0-0

uu-ci 0w

-Jo G'

0 0,00' - Z0 s / j0 ,0u

C)L0 1 (1 1 IHO I3H98*9 P9 8s fr, 6,l 9101 00 -0-

Lie (0

LU CLD

+0o co

o O1* (I.) iHOIBH00

wNcr-'

0 UCVJ

I I ) IH II

Cfr) *

c o -III0l v2

0 (IA) 1HO13H8Ap 9z9Z 6ZZLZ Z sL gI-g 0P9o

4c 0 <

(Pd) IH0I3H 784- 9C9- S;? &V e-6 1901 ZOIZ9 00 -

LLuJC)D

- t C)

U.LC)~

CId IHI]v OE o I~CE ZO'66L 891Z2 C,99 00 -7t

+a 000

00 ,4,~

<00 0UJ

0 (1])1H~I7InO&0 9 862 08 8 1c 01'6Z 0,9 0 26 2 00c-

wo U')

fz 00)-J w

C)iNA 3J~ OVl 1)O

(Ii) iHOIJHoz 811V 0O 86C 08 8 1_ 0 OV ~ 'I691 0 z6 2 00O-

CNODC)

0?_ O846 08 8LC2 0 O 62Z O6S;I O*2 0-1,

.4LI04

(iJ) iHOI3H IOZ 81' 09 862 08 8 tz OL 6P O '6S;1 02<62 00 -0-

> 08 u0

(Jo (0

-. 0 -

.4.)U-

0. 54 -C

00 = 2

Too4< 20 1*-0068 z9 -zu~ o(0

cv w(S 1 N)O 3I~d 39NVJ (\3)40 (\.r)

w -, C)

Cn.,-1 0

(IA) iHSLBH81C 9p-S9z 6 Z Z i £ 1 91190 1 0Os'000'-

C) (i) IHOIBH

(nLL.wAw

w w*W 0

CO1(D r-, 08 29- u - g ooo o -)

-Jw i(IN)3V 3N 8)3~

(1j) iHOL3Hv 2SZ ZZIZ Z6;L ;190OLz -90 OQ- ..

Co (IA..J 1Hl.13Hf

V 89- 9 9Z 6ZZZ Z691 S;1901 0OIY00-

'I-;coa

o (1-4) IHOIJHoz iti 09'862 08,81C 0 '2 OV~f O63t 02*62 00-

InlU N

U .L i)

0 C/)c0)-

oz 84t OS;86Z 08 812 2 6OVt6O 'V6Z 00 -0'

Li)w. -~

hi LO <

(0c0)-

ton ~(JA) 1HO13H00 :Q? 8.10 09 869- 08 8L 2 0 'V62? S O Z'& 0612

K (DhCi

-Jn"7 (0

r~J *Li

<0 0 9990U L

98 19 £zPS 8;Z 6*L2 S* t9 0L 00 -,hi 10

(0 /C0)-

to 0)C

0 x V~

to rZNz NDzO L

D ) (0 -j(iN(3V 3N88AVJm v<

O o* (J ]) 1HO13H98~~~9 L9O *o

5': Li

- --00-0o0i 9 C 06

Z CV- W 10 Il~ ION OAQf)D J N,11<

0 (J'* rfHl11 103Hzo

U (006-

0 Cw .:0 LO)

(i) iHO11Htt842 z C99Z 6ZZI Z6 S -90L Z0,29 0010-

zzLLLL

-J (NJ

C) 0 *L0 0n

< II +0

* 000 .- I-

(SION i) IlVd ]9NVdJ 3>lOV8l

0(I) IHO I]Hv v 842 92 1 9Z 6 £Vz16s ~ 901 019s 00 -

&I !! N

4 J (.0LJ

LL'JX . (Lo

(iJ) 1HO13Hv iv 8A P- 9 99Z ZZ ? ?.6& 1 S L90 1 zO~ P9 00

LaawA --. O

W (0) HO 1

(i) 1HO13Hoe 8J4 05;862 0818L2 0 V69- 0 O'69L OZ 6Z D - C-.

.0UJ (0

U C (0

ii 0U-

+: - 0

o 0 0-1 0 -

0 (19) 1HOl3HO~' 0&86 Q8t'V~ O6I 062 00 -0-

U r -.

C0 0 .

(iPd) 1HO13H 7

ozOS;869- 08*812 0 'V62Z 0 O6 91 OZ 6Z 00 -0%

w 0 SOA I J3N8 >O~D N -

10 1 (IJ) IHOI]H98 r9 t'z sz 2 _ z z9 0O1i00

-. C.c

W L LL4L

10 C) C

0.0N00 1)

o (NJ I~ ON DOd

o~ 1. * (1d) iHC)I3H o00

U -)00

-- j0 0 L')

98 8 29 8E- 6L P 6Z*LZ ~9O01 000

w wLC)

R: 0C) n Z

00 OO 99 0kO~z E w UD N -) (S ION >0 ]lVd IONV8 d]l>iDVdlm U-) <

vtt8,42 9-S6z 6ZZI 6 £9c 90Ot....s

W0 LU)

D iJm Lii U

o (IA ) 1HO13H9pf8- 9C;9z 6ZZ ZZ'9 90 1 2O0&O2iY

i co <f

0000~00

L i-4 -

o: 0cy<

co (Ii) iHOI13H

V. )L()

-j - 1q,

0 (id) 1HO13Ht9z84 S;J9? zZ 9L 9L9 20,29O OOo-:

I I .0w(

000 : J-Jo

l v2 0 0

J) IHO 13HOz81 & 986C 08 8 12 O62Z O 6; 000-

U L 00

0 00 ! 0o O 0 Z

Ln (Ii) iH913Hoz 8' 09'86P- 08 8 L P O62 O 6S; OZ*6Z 00 ~-

C\1JU) -L

www VUCI i(IOA I ONd IO8wrL

to (IA) iHO13HU, (.0

0 LO)in -

-J C 0~

DC%, -j

98 *a zPI 9 ' Z 6'9 v61 t90 1 00 0'

hi - ')

00 Z)r- *

W I.N,D <0

o 1OL* (1.9) iHOIBH98 r9 -9 85; & 26' C 6Z*LZ ~ 9 0L 00Q0

U 0) o<

cn D0Z N

tn 00 z -q 22 00022-2 o:z

wn <LU

o L0t* (id) iHOIBH98,99 zP5; 89E P 6Z'LZ t9 0 1 0

tiJ 0 fCj

o 0C1U00

0S O A Iif)3N J ~iVJ

-. 0-9 0

zzLL.L<

r0 (D I

< wrCo - VL ~ )-,vjIN~ ]o~

w to<0

(1)iHOI]H009 2 S;(6Z Z L0Z6 ; 1 9 0 t

rl 0 (DcnU

.C) 9 9

w (S1 j J 0 V) iVJ

0 (IJ) IHO13H

C.,lwwC)U,

z C)JLL

o (IA) IHO1 H r

Oz 84t O9*86C 0O8Vc 6CZ P 6 02 62 00D0w0

-J (0c

LO)I'.cr

Ifl UL

N-J (\(SJ

Ln (id) 1HO13HOz84, 9862 088E?12 0V~ Ot61 & 000' 62 C)o-

(Ni iNA 1 3N86>3dw J O

-- - - -- - -

to (i) iH9I]H0Z 81tt 0O&862 08,812 0 O62 0t'69 1 Oz 62z 000-

Cv 1 j

=I I- -

C) (J ) i0J3

L*Li0)

oo 2 01o -: o

<0 08 z999 0 -o 2

o (A)iHOIJH z0

98,99 8s£6' Z Si t9 0 000- .

(0C0)-

ft "IC o 0

98,99 26 t6z 7p9 01 00 -D

x CZ w

W )< w

O (Pd) 1HO13H C

t~814- 9- 9 ZZLZ 6 9O90L OQ'O 00- &

CCU --

LLiwwmoUt

(IA IHOIJ3HME 9 9? 6ZZ Z 'S;I S;L90 L 2 - 00 -

Wo to w

CO) (JA) IH IB3H

, 0)-z N U (SiO) l~d30N~ DO~0

=> I, -W0 to<

(Ii) iHOI3H00

-. 0hVi

cchi 00

0886 O8 1P_ 0 O62z 0 6 02*62 00 -0-

w - If)

LLUW 0w

t o U 3 : \

0 (i') I[ICIT H

oz 84tv 09862 08 8 1P- 0 O62Z Ot69 02 62 00 1-

(SINA 3a)30VJ 3Qd

oz8t sl os;862 0 8 IC 0 O62Z Ot 6 1 OV6 2 00i-.0

LL C(0

WJ (D <

o0 1D (Pd) iHC)IBH00

0C) O*)q 0 . vz - )C)-10

980 0 (J)OH13

uj 03 r)

0 0). 0

C)0 1 t (IA) iHOIBH9BI8 -9 8' 2 I Z Z9 0000-D

0- LI)

00t'C)

o (IJ o -TflU849 39z:i 6 aZIIZ Z 6 t L t901 ,2

0 7 \ j

(i) iHO11HMEt84 9&LZ6ZZiZ ;190 1 20OI9 00 -

(iJ) IHOLJH0 84- 9- S9z Z L Z ZZ S; S;t -go 20O s;o -0

'.3 0LLf)

0'C~C5

00+ 00)

0- 40 -.CD N 0- SO )lv IN8 )O~

(i) 1HO13H

LV9Q 00'0-.

0ui LO

uw0 0 o0 010

M : (0 <

(19) iHO13H0?-811' 09'862 08 8 1 P 'V62Z Ot'&1 02 62 000C)- ..

- C\jIf)

w 1000)-

0 (IJ) 1HDI3Hoz 811 0 8P 08 8 t_ O6ZZ 00'69 1Q0OIYZ00-,

00 ,0.

a o 0 -6 29,9 C2 9 ooo 919Z 22 21 oo:,o

0.in(I ) HO 3

oz8V 0;8C 0 ,1 6z Z6 0-a

co I z

o 1Oi* (i) 1HO13H98 rg z S 5;9 -6LP 6Z'LC t9 0L t.0-

-- 0-* 0

(Do0 0'

I+ 0)+ C

O O1 * (IJ) 1HO13H98 cg z C g9 26 12 6Z* i t90 1 00 -N

hiLL) U

9S~9 oo(DI I I I

< -, 03 i r i)

I.0 U)

ft 00D

Di "Ia ,( 0N)II8IN 8jV4

(IA) 1HO13H U

V E 9zS;9z Z6 &9 90L zoPS 0o:.

-Jc4 .

0 a1)I..j

zn C\j0~

w 0 0 919 4:o4 r 0 -6 99

z 0 W4J NJ J I N d O~

o0 (IA~) 1HOIIH .

9ZS't'84 2 z 6; 99 ~L 90 1 O P- 00 -

m L O <w

o 00 0 (iNO (f)IN8 14VJD ol -W-#D <

(i) IHOL]HvSC 9c 99Z 6 ZV5;1 9190 L O2 00 - ,

.- LI'

00~~1 Z)0 -I

zJ 00(V(i M ] V8 I N )0~w <Lw

o(Ii) iHOI H 1oz8siv 09 86 08 8 1z Q6Z 0 0 6 9L 0 Z6 Z 00 0cx

LiOe- 00

wC.,8 Z , U E 0 0 zzIo -'o

MwoSO I IN86)O~

0niH IIi IHOF.811 0 6Z 0 O8 LZ 0 OV6ZZ 0V 0 26 2 00&

-CCJar)

+ 0 Cf00

<wz SL4> 1A3NV 3Ql<

98 *r9 6?22s; 26 I0 6Q* I

I..-0 L

L O * .

o L10 (1j) 1HO13H

w 0 CD -

0+~ _o

cn z N .

W D no r) *zr .8 299 02

o W -IN~ dAV

(S 10 NLq<..

LOL * (i) iHOIBH98 *9 zPI 9Z P-LC 6Z' i t9 01 00QIX0

LJ OD <

0 ~ (id) iHOI]Hv Bi 92 S9 6Z ZI Z Z S I I 01 2 ,9o .0

a.', 0

(Ii) 1HO13H0 A- 9z S9z 6Z'ZIZ ZZ69L 90 1 2 - 00 -0'

o (iJ) fiHO13HL

a; LO)

r) 0 r)

ocz IL

CO'ft co D c o - D (NJo,, r- 0.68cc - s J

a). (QO~) I V V J Q~

(iA) iHOLBHt't'842 29Z 6ZZIZ Z ~63 LV90 1 zO cs 000- ,

U i Cj L

+ 0z0 ,~

V) AI) iHO IBHoz 84' 09 869- 08 8 1- 'V62Z 0 '691 OZ 6Z 0 O1-

U0 (0I

- ) 00

oz8t O& 9862 0818[c 01 O62Z OP '691 0162 00 '-.0

uc. (0

z () 0 LD4 N j( IA ld OVl IV

tOE-9-

(IJ) IHS IIHoz 8110 0O&86C 08 8 1C 'V6Z IZ ? O6s OZ '6 000-

z LL *LLolvjINV Do~tD < W

-JE- 7"

o 1 (IJ) 1HO13H00

In - C\j

uuJLAJ

Z ) 0 J

D 0j( 0NA i~ OV~ D Vj

0O (L) H913H98,8 9 8 £ 6'12 6Z'LZ t9O01 o-a

I I I0

U . C c

98 r9 85 £ 61 t'9O 00Z1L Z.0(D

LL)r 0w

V)r *~

(E-100

o(1A) 1HO13H 7

0C9 VO~Q0.*.3-

U. ) Lo0e

-, D<0 ,02C

N .'0 d

0 (1.J) IH0IBH '

t 8C 9cS 99Z 6ZZiZ Z19 (10 2O*cg 00 -

IND<0o1 - 6 9 2 0 ' 94 0

z CV LU(S ONI 31 8 IO V *'iO d

o (1]) iHO13H

o (Id) IHOI3Htlt8C 9 ;z 6ZZiZ Z'S £90OL ZOIC9 00'- .

4~4.LL

(Ii) 1HO13HOUt OZ86 O8L*O66 t' 00 -

o (i-) 1HO13Hoz 811V 09'862 08,81C 0O1V62 Ot '69i 01262 00 - .

hi0 f)

LO-LAj

l - Z-

CVN (SIONA) ]l~d 30)N'd JDfOiVdI

LnIi I HOI3Hoz 84t 09'862 08 8 tP- 0 QV6P OV 65; 0P6Z ) 000o

0*i LO <

i LI)w

0 0L (iJ) 1HO13H98 89 ZZE s;Z 6*LZ 6Z*I 179,01 00 -

I I ICD

wrtdI U ('

hJ CC <f

C) r) *

w J0 0

0 O(J)

' D40 08 1 *9 2 -G 0 00 Z zU 21 )o 0,z 0V UDtoo.O>)I~d3N~ iVi

0(E0108

(A) 1 H 013HME 9 S9 6Z Z Z S;L S;190 1OOI9 ) ) X£0

+ 0r) 00

co 0 ,8zIq 2 - o lo 9 9 0:1

z C'.' WD r-, SIONA) 3ivdj 39NVd Di>4Vd

E- 109

0 (I A) IHOI13He''8cp 9c9e 6' Z Z 6 1 1 £ 90 1 2O*cg 000-

0 (1 J).0 I

LLJ U' <\.

D <001 30 *2 , 9 00!J

z or); WLDU.)> lv OV88>o~

0 (Ii) HO 13HL L0 OO 0~

V) (IJ) 1HO13HQz 811' 09'862 08 8 i z '691CO 'V6Z 000'.

w t~)2L

"0 U- <

o? 0 r)

Z N Nju

%, (SIONA) I1Vd 30NVd d]>iOVdiiWO < Wu

1(-4) iHO I Hoz 81' 09'86P- O818Lz 0O16Z OV 69L 0 26 2 0 -o

c.cr0 (

(Ii) 1HO13H 7oz 811' 0*862 08,812 0 O6N Ot '69 1 O& 6Z 00 -

ww 0 -8 9 9 0,02 *z ,:o

W- (D I

10L (Id) 1HO13H98 *9 zzs 8;Z C6t 6Z'LZ 0'9O0 00 -

-. zLoU0

~-Zr.l

co r-N(0 0VU SIN> J83N88*Q~

cc tD t

98 G9 £zPS 89Z 6LPC Z'I t9 0 QQ'0Qs.o

-' 03Lo

0 -1i~U Z

0 co Crs ,!,

(iJl) iHOIDH92 59?- 6 &V Z S ;190 L z1c 00 -

U r)<. V)

w0LAJO

0 (IA) 1HO13Hv11C 92 99Z 6ZZIZ Z*9 191 2 P-9Q 1O. ODO-

(DU. 0

ulLi')

co D D2 8P. s 0 .v : 20

* E.119

0VO (2O iH&

V 4- 9 9 Z6;1 9 ,0 0c 0-&

hJDVS --

LiJLa 0

(Id) iHO13H9c99 6z z8Z69t A90 Q2sL O oIY

-a)U 00

0 )LO -7

."* (1)

Go 0 :w 0 - 8z-90 - 2 1Zo!N-, -

Ln (i) iHO13HQz8L S869- O881 0 O6E OV*691 OZ 62 0 OOO -

00U- MIcof 68z)q C2 1 o ovo -,*0.r - u?- W-

=>((N) 183NV 3Oo

(IA) I H 9 BHOZ 821' 05; 6P 08 8 li! O6CZ 0 t6s; O& Z6 Z D 2

0 0 LI)

V, (id) IHOIBHoeO1 986C 08,812 0 OV6Z 0O&91 262 00 -

U CiU-)

wwL~LO

o L01 (1Ii) iH I 3H

LUJLii

Z I- *- (SOI)IV IOV J3iOV i

o0 1O (i) 1HO13H

UV <-- 00

4.. U )

0) F- z

zD j( 0N> 1VJIN8CQ8

a: t L

0OL (IA) iHO13Hge89 zzrs slz 6 C z z 9O 0O1 00

u9-uiz

-J'4(IN) 163NV ~O8

'4 .- -

Helicopter Visual Segment Test Report9. Pae.eeiml Orlarisseeiet Mnte artd Ailsire 10. Wert Unit Me....

Documents