January - June 2013 Jan-June Cockpit 2013.pdf · This paper describes the results of the flight...

January - June 2013 1

Janu

ary

- Jun

e 20

13

2 January - June 2013

THE SOCIETY OF EXPERIMENTAL TEST PILOTSBOARD OF DIRECTORS

SOUTHWEST SECTIONChairman ................................ Norm DriscollVice Chairman ............................Eric KinneySecretary ........................................ Jim AcreeTreasurer ........................................Jeff Trang

GREAT LAKES SECTIONChairman ...........................Robbie RobinsonVice Chairman .......................... David GladeSecretary ..........................................Eric FitzTreasurer ..................................... Sam Ryals

EAST COAST SECTION

Chairman .................................Klas OhmanVice Chairman ...........Tobias Van EsselstynSecretary.................................Brian SandbergTreasurer ...............................Scott Dornisch

NORTHWEST SECTIONChairman .................................... Ed KolanoVice Chairman .............. Jennifer HendersonSecretary ................................Gerald WhitesTreasurer ..................................Leon Robert

WEST COAST SECTIONChairman .................................Todd EricsonVice Chairman ...............Andrew McFarlandTreasurer ...................................Jason Dotter

SETP COMMITTEES

Flight Test Safety Committee Chairman ..................................................................Gerald WhitesMembership Committee Chairman ............................................................................. Eric Hansen2014 Fellows Coordinating Committee Chairman ....................................................Steve RaineyPublications Committee Chairman ......................................................................... Allen Peterson

CANADIAN SECTIONChairman .............................Andy LitavniksVice Chairman ................................Jeff PeerSecretary ....................................Chuck EllisTreasurer ..............................Maurice Girard

EUROPEAN SECTION

Chairman ...............................Ignacio Lombo

SOUTHEAST SECTIONChairman ................................. Darren WeesVice Chairman ............................ Varun PuriSecretary .................................David WrightTreasurer .................................Ryan Sanford

57th Symposium & Banquet25-28 September 2013

Grand Californian Hotel & SpaAnaheim, CA

President ......................................................................................... .. Douglas Benjamin, BoeingVice President ............................................................................Mark Stucky, Scaled CompositesSecretary ............................................................................................................Brett Vance, FAATreasurer ...............................................................................................Michael Wallace, BoeingLegal Officer ...............................................................................Gary Plumb, DCS CorporationExecutive Advisor ........................................................................................ Steve Rainey, BoeingPresident-Elect .........................................................................................Kevin Prosser, CalspanTechnical Advisor ............................................................................................ Greg Lewis, NTPSTechnical Advisor ................................................................Kenneth Weir, MajGen, USMC (Ret)Canadian Section Representative .................................Maurice Girard, Bombardier AerospaceCentral Section Representative ................................................Stuart Rogerson, Cessna AircraftEast Coast Section Representative ...............................................................John Tougas, BoeingEuropean Section Representative................................................. Jeremy Tracy, AgustaWestlandGreat Lakes Section Representative .....................................................Robbie Robinson, TextronNorthwest Section Representative ....................................................................... Ed Kolano, FAASoutheast Section Representative ......................................................... Darren Wees, Maj, USAFSouthwest Section Representative ............................................................ Robert Moreau, FedExWest Coast Section Representative ...................................................... Todd Ericson, Col, USAF

Paula S. SmithExecutive Director

CENTRAL SECTIONChairman ............................Stuart RogersonVice Chairman .......................... Dan HinsonSecretary ................................. Aaron TobiasTreasurer......................................Jeff Karnes


COCKPIT is published by The Society of Experimental Test Pilots

Address all correspondence to SETP Publications Chairman,Post Office Box 986, Lancaster, California 93584-0986

661-942-9574

Statements and opinions advanced in technical papers and letters-to-the-editor are those of the authors and do not necessarily coincide with the tenets of The Society of Experimental Test Pilots. Letters to-the-editor are encouraged whenever there are dissenting opinions.

Table of Contents:

President’s Memo ............................................................................................................ 4Technical Articles ...........................................................................................................6Editor’s Memo................................................................................................................34Membership News .........................................................................................................452013 Symposium Information .......................................................................................482013 Symposium Highlights..........................................................................................51Scholarship Foundation News .......................................................................................61SETP Foundation News .................................................................................................63Know The Corporate Member........................................................................................68New Members and Upgrades..........................................................................................70Who...What...Where ......................................................................................................78Section News .................................................................................................................80 Book News .....................................................................................................................83Last Flights.....................................................................................................................84

SETP 2013 CALENDAR

Cover PhotoFirst powered flight of the Virgin Galactic Space Ship 2 on 29 April 2013 over

Mojave Air and Space Port, Mojave CA. Piloting Space Ship 2 were Scaled Com-posites Pilots Mark Stucky (AF) and Mike Alsbury (M). The White Knight 2 that carried the Space Ship to altitude was crewed by Virgin Galactic Chief Pilot Dave Mackay, Scaled Composites Pilot Clint Nichols (M) and Scaled Composites flight

test engineer Brian Maisler. PHOTO CREDIT: Michael Fuchs

Southwest Section Symposium 31 October 2013

The Worthington HotelFort Worth, TX

European Flight Test Safety Workshop29-30 October 2013

Amsterdam, The Netherlands

SETP 2014 CALENDAR44th West Coast Symposium

28-29 March 2014


Grand Californian Hotel & SpaAnaheim, CA

4th Northwest Symposium25 April 2014

29th East Coast Symposium11 April 2014

Great Lakes Symposium22 May 2014


Flight Test Safety Workshop12-15 May 2014

46th European Symposium15-18 June 2014

Central Symposium13 June 2014


PRESIDENT’S MEMO

My tenure as your President has flown by. It has been an extremely rewarding year, although there have been some significant challenges. The specter of fiscal sequestration in the US affected many government operations, with restrictions on government attendance at conferences, symposia and performing non-mission essential travel. This had the potential to wreck SETP’s model of putting on multiple regional symposia, and then selecting the best papers from each symposium to present at the Anaheim International Symposium and Banquet.

We’ve run 7 symposia since sequestration hit: the Southeast Section, at Eglin AFB; the West Coast Section at San Diego; the East Coast Section at NAS Patuxent River; the North America Flight Test Safety Workshop

in New Orleans, the Northwest Section in Seattle, the Great Lakes Section in Dayton, and the European Section, held for the first time in spectacular Madrid. The Central Section symposium in Wichita finished the regional agenda, and we will have a presence at the Experimental Aviation Association’s AirVenture at Oshkosh. We were sweating attendance, and even being able to put on symposia – but you came through despite the challenges: for example, at the East Coast Section symposium, there were 224 attendees, including US Naval Test Pilot School students and midshipmen from the US Naval Academy.

The thing I appreciate the most is the engagement and interaction of our members – both younger, and “more experienced”. It has been extremely gratifying to have a young test pilot talk about how he or she is planning, executing and reporting on test conditions required for their particular program, and have “those who have been there before” be actively engaged and involved in the learning and mentoring that makes our Society better. It happened at Eglin; it was the same in Madrid.

As I traveled to the various regional symposia, I asked how many people paid their own way to attend. Consistently, it’s been about 20-25%, and often it’s retirees on a fixed income. I asked why they do it, and their answers are consistent: they feel it’s their obligation to pass on their testing knowledge, to make testing better and especially safer. In addition, many of them started coming before it was common for travel to be funded by a home organization, and so the symposia had to be worth their personal investment of time and money. For US government people, we’re back to where we started. Our next challenge is the 57th International Symposium and Banquet. Rod “Trash” Cregier, general chairman, and his symposium chairman Bill “Evil Bill” Gray and their team has been working hard to make the Anaheim symposium professionally valuable and useful for continuing education so you will consider spending your own money and take leave/vacation to be there. They are concentrating their efforts on substance: quality papers,

Douglas Benjamin (F)The Boeing Company

SETP President


opportunities to professionally network, and proper surroundings that aren’t extravagant. We’ve held the cost of the symposium down, and the room rates are very advantageous. I urge you to set the time and money aside to make it to Anaheim. You might consider inviting that TPS classmate who hasn’t been engaged in awhile to get re-immersed in testing. We will work to make it worth their investment!

I very much look forward to seeing many of you in Anaheim. I wish you busy test programs with many productive and safe flights!

Sincerely

Doug BenjaminPresident, SETP


TECHNICAL ARTICLES

Birth of an AngelMaj Gen Des Barker, MSETP, (SAAF Rtd)

Thirty-three years on, the Atlas C4M Kudu eventually received its rightful powerplant. Des Barker, the SAAFs production acceptance test pilot for the original Atlas C4M Kudu during 1976, was also the consulting test pilot for Warbirds’ Atlas Angel re-engine programme. This paper describes the results of the flight test programme. Images provided by Paul Potgieter (Aerosud) and Warbirds (Pty Ltd), Wonderboom.

Atlas Kudu is BornBorn out of “duress” from the United Nations Arms Embargo imposed on South

Africa during the 1970s, the Atlas C4M Kudu was spawned in response to an operational requirement from the SAAF for a light re-supply/medevac capability during the Angolan conflict. With the C47-Dakota fulfilling the ‘light transport’ role and the C160/C130 aircraft fulfilling the medium lift component, the nature of ‘bush warfare’ required an even lighter airlift capability with the specific ability to get into and out of remote, unprepared strips.

The operational requirement in fact called for four different transport roles, the first, a cargo load of 2 x 44 gallon fuel drums for fuel placements at remote locations to provide mobility to the logistic support lines in SWA and Angola. The other three, for the casevac role, a stretcher plus medic, for the transport role, 4 passengers, and for the paratrooping role, 6 paratroopers.

Contrary to popular belief, the Atlas C4M Kudu was not a spin-off designed from the AM-3C Bosbok by Atlas just modifying the AM-3C Bosbok and replacing the fuselage


with the wider and larger volume fuselage of the Kudu. In fact, the prevailing duress left local industry with very little alternative but to take the Italian designed AL-60 light civil utility aircraft of the early 1960s, originally designed by Al Mooney of Lockheed, and certify it against the SAAFs operational requirements.

The AL-60 had been manufactured in small quantities in Mexico and Argentina and under licence in Italy. Aermacchi then purchased a licence to produce the type, first in its original configuration as the AL-60B, for some African customers then in a modified version as the AL-60C. This latter version changed from the original tricycle undercarriage to a tail dragger arrangement and it was this aircraft that was manufactured by Atlas under licence.

The basic specification was thus for a general-purpose, light utility transport, accommodating a crew of two and up to six passengers in the cabin or 560 kgs of freight. The first civilian prototype (ex SAAF #999) used by Atlas Aviation for the certification of the Kudu to Federal Aviation Regulations Part 23, flew on 16 February 1974, and the first military prototype flew on 18 June 1975, entering SAAF service in 1976. More than 40 Kudus had been built when production ended in the early 1980’s with the prototype Kudu #999, eventually being assigned to the Test Flight and Development Centre.

SAAF Operational UtilisationThe question within the SAAF at that time was, “was there sufficient excess

horsepower to accomplish the mission? In the early 1970’s, the Rhodesian Air Force’s AL-60B Trojans, had at odd intervals visited AFB Pietersburg in support of RhodAF weapons exercises on the Roodewal Bombing Range, and already then, the Trojan was derogatively referred to by the fighter pilots as a “noise generator, converting fuel into noise”. The Kudu and Bosbok were yet to be introduced to inventory.

SAAF Kudu pilots will readily attest to the fact that the Kudu was in fact underpowered, which meant that high skills, judgement and knowledge levels were required as was respect for the environmental factors that governed ‘density altitude’ to safely maximise output from the Kudu in the ‘hot and high’ conditions that prevailed in SWA Namibia and Angola.

The concept of fitting a turboprop to the Kudu, though, is not new. During 1976, the discussion around the crew room amongst the fixed wing test pilots and flight test engineers at TFDC often breached the subject and in fact, Lt Col Arrie Meulman drew up a concept design for a turboprop equipped Kudu – the flight test fraternity, more than anyone else, understood the implications of releasing an underpowered Kudu to Service and expressed empathy with Kudu pilots having to accomplish the mission in hot and high conditions from rough fields in the middle of nowhere.

The logisticians however, not really understanding the implications, were having none of it – the Bosbok had an Avco Lycoming GSO-480-B1B3 flat-six piston engine and for purposes of standardisation of equipment and training, they were not going to have their world complicated by the logistics support efforts required to provide pilots with a more powerful aircraft.


Kudu ChallengesThe Kudu was not only ‘performance challenged’, but also in some cases, the

flying qualities demanded above average skills. However, despite its performance and handling shortcomings, the Kudu shouldered a large portion of the light utility and transport requirements for the SAAF ‘in theatre’. At the operational level, the slow speed of the Kudu cruising along at approximately 110 KCAS, made it highly vulnerable to enemy ground fire and man-portable surface-to-air missiles. What is certain though, is that the rather limited performance and handling qualities challenges of the Kudu, produced high calibre pilots; young inexperienced pilot’s had to learn to deal with the idiosyncrasies if they were to survive. The SAAFs training syllabus adequately prepared the mostly young and inexperienced pilots with the necessary skills to fly the aircraft safely.

On the one hand, survival was ensured by clever utilisation of the aircraft through flight tactics to counter the ground threat and on the other hand, squadron pilot’s developed standard operating procedures to deal with performance and handling shortcomings imposed by operations into and out of ‘bush strips’; but pilots had to learn to compensate for the shortcomings.

The primary challenges posed by the Kudu from a handling perspective, was the landing, particularly in crosswind conditions. The relatively large keel surface area aft of the centre of gravity, increased the weathercock stability which meant that pilot workload in crosswind conditions was higher than one would have liked.

In addition, the downwash from the full flap landing configuration reduced the tail plane’s pitch authority to bring the aircraft into the three-point attitude for landing which resulted in squadron pilots ‘stealing’ two notches of nose-up trim to reduce the pull force required for the round out. Not a bad idea for compensation, but any balked landing overshoot at full power produced a strong nose-up pitching moment from the all-moving stabilator, that would have to be overcome by a pitch trim rate that was not very quick and as a result, the cockpit could become very busy trying to get the aircraft trimmed out, flaps raised and deal with the directional control challenges imposed by full power.

Also on landing, closing power to flight idle in the high drag landing configuration, tends to decelerate the aircraft rather rapidly and if the round-out height is excessive, the aircraft will drop out of the pilot’s hands. The bottom line is that the Kudu required a high level of coordination in certain flight phases. In accordance with transport aircraft design requirements, the degree of stability about all axes was relatively high, but, inadequate excess power remained the single biggest complaint area by SAAF Kudu pilots; however, this complaint was heard from most SAAF pilots, irrespective of the aircraft type they flew. There was never a SAAF pilot that ‘had enough excess power’; the SAAF inventory aircraft were designed for European conditions, not understanding the stringent requirements for Africa’s hot and high conditions.

Re-engine the Kudu!So, it took approximately thirty-three years for someone with insight into the

requirements of the skydiving mission to realise that with the ready supply of the rugged ex-military Kudu’s, the potential existed to meet the demands of the skydiving mission, provided a suitable powerplant could be installed to overcome the power shortcoming.


The skydiving mission essentially requires short ‘block times’ and quick ‘turn-around times’ ie short time to height with a respectable number of skydivers carried, and a minimum time to descend, all in an effort to reduce the cycle time for each drop load. The cliché of ‘time is money’ is particularly relevant in skydiving which of course, coincident therein, lies the critical requirement for fuel efficiency, all in an effort to reduce cost per load of skydivers. An added bonus of the Kudu airframe of course, is the cargo doors on the Kudu that provides skydivers with easy ingress and exit. The Kudu was no stranger to the skydiving miss ion, having been used extensively by the Defence Skydiving Club at Swartkops for many years.

The Kudu airframe met the requirements of volume, what was needed, however, was a ruggedized powerplant to provide the excess shaft horsepower to provide short field take-off performance at maximum all up weight, the excess shaft horsepower to provide quick time to height, and the ability to descend rapidly without the concomitant issues of ‘shock cooling’ associated with piston engines.

The Angel is Born Several Atlas

Aircraft C4M Kudu aircraft were purchased by Rob Taylor (Pty) Ltd and were subsequently earmarked for an engine replacement of the 340 hp Avco Lycoming GSO-480-B1B3 engine and Hartzel 3-blade constant speed propeller, with a Walter M601D engine and Avia V508 3-blade constant speed propeller. To differentiate from the standard configuration, the aircraft in this new configuration was designated the C4M-TP Angel, a Non-Type Certificated Aircraft (NTCA) in terms of Part 24 of the SA Civil Aviation Regulations (CAR’s).

The Walter Turboprop engine installation on the C4M-TP Angel. (Warbirds)

Walter M601D Engine Description

Type Dual-shaft reverse-flow free turbine.

E q u i v a l e n t S h a f t Horsepower 735 eshp

Propeller RPM max 2080 RPM

Compressors 2 x axial + 1 x centrifugal compressor

Combustion Chamber Annular

Turbine 1-stage axial compressor turbine

Power Section 1-stage axial power turbine

Reduction Gearbox2-stage planetary reduction gearbox (15:1) with torque meter.


The modification programme was undertaken by Johan Lok’s Wonderboom based maintenance and repair company, Warbirds. Structural analysis and modification planning support from Franscois Jordaan’s Aerostruct Consulting and flight test support by Carlos Cabral, a SACAA Class II test pilot, formed the remainder of the project test team.

The EngineThe Walter configuration at 68% of its maximum torque, is equivalent to the

340 bhp maximum of the standard Atlas Kudu. Built in the Czech Republic, the Walter M601D turbo-propeller was designed for use in remote areas with rugged and minimal field maintenance requirements as top priorities and has been installed in the Let 410 (19-seat commuter) operating in harsh Siberian, African, South American, and Eastern European regions.

Fitted with an AVIA V508 3-blade constant speed propeller and spinner, with full feather and reverse, the modification included the following additions; oil cooler, oil lines, electric fuel pumps, wiring harness, relays, voltage regulator, starter-generator, igniters, exhaust, control cables and switches and annunciators.

In addition, Electronic Digital Gauges (ITT, N1, N2, Oil Pressure, Oil Temperature, Volt and Amp Meter, Torque, Fuel Pressure/Fuel Flow), Gascolator, Power Quadrant and Baffling Kit were fitted. The engine also included an auto-start system with electro-hydraulic transducer control to automatically control the starting process optimally to reduce the risk of ‘cooking’ the engine on start-up. Engine starting is accomplished using a combination starter-generator and electronic ignition (dual low voltage torch igniters).

What makes this engine particularly attractive to the skydiving mission, is the recommended time between overhaul (TBO) of Walter M601 engines which is defined by “cycles” (engine starts), flight time, and calendar time. Factory recommended TBO intervals vary from 2,250 to more than 20,000 cycles, from 1500 to 3000 hours flight time, and from 5 to 8 years calendar time between overhauls.

Unlike some turbo-prop engines, “hot section inspections” between overhauls, are not required with the Walter 601. Maintenance between overhauls consists primarily of filter and screen cleaning, compressor wash, oil change, bore scope inspection, igniter replacement, and testing/calibration.

The maximum engine power of the Walter engine is approximately double that of the Lycoming GSO-480 engine. Since propeller speed 2040 rpm is essentially unchanged, this implied double the engine torque and significantly increased helical airflow around the fuselage at maximum engine power which would impact on static and dynamic stability characteristics of the aircraft.

Affect of Airframe ModificationsThe Walter engine installation, resulted in mass and inertia changes which affected

the aircraft performance, stability and control. To maintain the static margin at approximately the same range of CG positions as for the standard Atlas Kudu, it was necessary to move the propeller mounting face forward by 305mm (12 ins). The military radio equipment weighing 86 lbs, was also removed from its original position from the rear racks aft of


the cabin, and modern radio equipment weighing 12 lbs was installed in the cockpit on the instrument panel. A new battery weighing 97 lbs was fitted in the rear to the now unused radio instrument rack aft of the cabin replacing the original battery which weighed 65 lbs.

The net effect was a mass redistribution which, although the static margin was theoretically unchanged, did change the moments of inertia of the aircraft about both the pitch and yaw axes which impacted on the static and dynamic stability characteristics of the aircraft; the exact amount would have to be determined by flight test. With the increased propeller mass, the rotational inertia of the propeller was increased by 26% and although the rotational speed was the same as that obtained with the Lycoming engine, the propeller gyroscopic loads had changed.

The considerably increased installed shaft horse power obviously significantly increased aircraft performance, increased the propeller normal force, slipstream, downwash, and mass flow, the exact optimized utilization of such power was required to be determined in flight test to verify compliance with FAR Part 23, even though the aircraft was to be flown within the NTCA category.

Impact of Turboprop on Handling QualitiesIt is not a simple task to just re-engine with a turboprop by fitting the engine to

the aircraft and ‘away you go’. Critical considerations cascade down from the increased mass flow of the three-bladed propeller at 2080 RPM.

One of the most destabilizing effects on a propeller driven aircraft is the power-on effects, particularly at high angles of attack. This is due mostly to the increased mass flow that develops additional lift over parts of the aircraft, not always for the good though; increased slipstream, precession and torque effect with all the concomitant handling challenges can make the aircraft a real ‘handful’. Increased mass flow increases the lift over the wing, the fuselage, and the empennage, the exact impact only determinable through flight test.

The magnitude of engine torque posed another set of challenges, where do you draw the line regarding acceptable stability and control? Where and how do you make the call for performance increases considering that the aircraft will no longer be flown

Cockpit changes include a new attitude indicator, engine power control’s quadrant, digital engine indicators, fuel flow gauge, Garmin 296 GPS and Communications Stack. (Warbirds)


by military pilots who undergo a comprehensive conversion onto a tail-dragger? Is the performance and stability and control acceptable for the intended role of carrying skydivers? And the excess power, how usable is it? This could only be determined through flight test.

Flight Test ProgrammeThe aim of the flight test programme was to conduct a certification flight test

programme on the C4M-TP Angel in accordance with the requirements of the Non-Type Certificated Aircraft (NTCA) in terms of Part 24 of the SA Civil Aviation Regulations.

Although certification requirements as a NTCA did not specifically call for FAR certification standards, the aircraft was nevertheless subjected to the airworthiness requirements of FAR Part 23, which essentially called for evaluation of the static and dynamic stability testing of the aircraft with the turboprop fitted.

The most significant challenge to the flight test programme was to determine the relationship between maximum torque and the inherent aerodynamic stability of the Kudu. Without the hindsight of wind tunnel testing and aerodynamic load testing, a build-up programme, taking each test point, one by one, was required, particularly in determining the optimum power setting for first take-off.

Without getting too technical, the aircraft was subjected to static, dynamic and manoeuvre stability tests including amongst others, evaluation of the short period, Phugoid, stick force/g, spiral stability, Dutch Roll response, steady heading sideslips, amongst the many different flight test techniques. A build-up programme was adopted, starting at a forward CG/light weight and progressing to near maximum military overload at aft CG. Aspects of performance testing were obviously critical and as such, take-off, climb, level cruise, descent and landing performance tests were conducted.

Stability and ControlInitial aerodynamic analysis raised concerns that the increased torque, slipstream

and precession effects could restrict the handling envelope, but these proved unfounded. In fact, such a large amount of inherent aerodynamic stability had originally been designed into the Kudu, that there was sufficient residual stability margins to recommend the clearance envelope be retained as per the original FAR Part 23 certification conducted by Atlas Aviation.

Interestingly, the stalling speed of the C4M Angel, was approximately 3 to 7 kts lower than that for the Atlas C4M Kudu, depending on configuration viz the more flap selected, the bigger the difference which implied an effective increase in Clmax of 0.2 at 100% flap setting. This amount of Cl increase is significant and was most probably attributable to a combination of effects, including increased propeller normal force, increased mass flow over the nose, wings and fuselage, and the residual thrust from the idling turboprop (100 hp at sea-level).

The implications of increased Clmax of course, was the ability to approach and land at a significantly lower airspeed with the consequent reduction in landing distance, particularly the ground roll. Good for the skydiving mission? You bet! Quicker turnaround times possible if ground taxi distance was decreased.


PerformanceIn an effort to best describe the performance improvements to the Kudu by the

introduction of the Walter 601D turboprop, it would make good sense to relate the aircraft’s performance to the typical skydiving mission. Simulating a mission weight at takeoff of 4683 lbs (320 lbs less than maximum military overload), it represented, in this case, a typical jump load of seven skydivers and 245 lbs of fuel.

The first indication to the pilot that the original shortcoming of insufficient power available had been resolved, was with the take-off. Operating from Wonderboom’s 5997 feet long runway at density altitude 3670 ft, the total takeoff distance over a 50 ft screen height, was 975 feet made up of a ground distance of approximately 760 ft and an air distance of approximately 215 ft.

A nominal torque value of 105 psi (83%) produced a significant acceleration with the tail wheel lift-up at approximately 35 KIAS after 9 secs (215 ft). The aircraft was rotated at 75 KIAS after 16 secs (650 ft) and airspeed maintained at 75 KIAS until 50ft agl screen height, which was reached in 18 seconds. Good enough for the skydiving mission and light transport mission? You bet! An impressive distance for any aircraft operating at near maximum all up weight.

Strangely, contrary to expectations of increased torque, slipstream and precession effects from the more powerful engine, trim settings of zero in pitch, roll and yaw, was adequate to maintain control with predictable response about all three axes throughout the takeoff run and adequate aerodynamic control power. Performance and stability and control as well as flying qualities were considered satisfactory for the mission.

The selection of 105 psi torque, was considered the highest that an average pilot should be confronted with in terms of aircraft controllability while monitoring engine performance, aircraft acceleration and control during takeoff. The reserve capacity of 22psi Tq/and 45°C (ITT limit temperatures) would be available for increased rate of climb for the skydiving mission.

As anticipated, and in accordance with theory, maximum climb rate, a direct function of excess power climb performance tests revealed that the optimum climb speed of the Angel had increased from 85 KIAS for the standard Kudu, to 90 KIAS for Angel. In fact, the climb performance curve revealed best ROC between 88 and 92 KCAS which at 90 KCAS, presented a climb attitude of approximately 12° which provided adequate forward field of view. Total time to climb to a drop height of 10,000 ft pressure altitude (approx 6,000 ft agl) was 4 mins 32 seconds from brake release (ISA dev+8.4°C ) with total fuel used, was only 22 litres.

Level cruise at 80 KIAS at 10000 ft pressure altitude, required only 37psi torque (29%) with a fuel flow of 107 litres/hour.

Throttling back to flight idle, descent without the skydivers present at 135KIAS, was easily accomplished at 2000 ft/min in 3 minutes during which time only 3 litres of fuel was consumed before touchdown.


Landing back at Wonderboom (OAT = 13°C) on R/W 11, in landing configuration of 100% flap, approach speed at 65KCAS (FAR 23 procedure 1.2xVso) over a 50 ft screen height at a relatively heavy weight of 4435 lbs in calm wind, three-point landing without using beta or reverse, the total landing distance was an impressive 592 feet. Impressive, particularly due to the very short ground roll distance of only 217 ft.

Interestingly, the earlier requirement by squadron pilots for the pilot to trim ‘2-divisions nose-up for landing, was not required. Sufficient elevator power was available to generate the required pitching moments for the flare and landing, indicating an increased energy level prevalent. Aircraft handling, stability and control in the landing configuration was satisfactory.

Conclusion Within the scope of the limited flight test programme, it can be concluded that the fitment of the Walter 601D turboprop on the Kudu, significantly increased the performance of the C4M Angel in the skydiving mission. Contrary to SAAF pilot’s experience flying the Kudu under operational conditions during the Angolan conflict, pilots assigned to fly the skydiving missions can look forward to an aircraft in which the deficient performance challenge to operating the Kudu, has been resolved in the ‘C4M Angel’.

Never has there been a pilot that has complained about too much power. There is no doubt that in this case, the aircraft has been provided with adequate power for the mission and many former SAAF pilots that operated the Kudu in the operational area would have given their ‘eye teeth’ for this engine to reduce their ‘stress levels’.

Aircraft Particulars: C4M AngelPerformanceService Ceiling* (calculated) 19,000 ftMax Speed 165 KIASCruising range (calculated) 520 nmsCruise speed 130 KCASMassEmpty weight 2861 lbsStart weight 4497 lbsMaximum All Up Weight 5071 lbsDimensionsWing area 225.72 ft²Height 12.01 ftLength 31.54 ftWing span 42.91 ftCrew 1

* Aircraft not pressurised or provided with oxygen. Maximum altitude thus oxygen limited, not performance.


PILOTS’ OPERATIONAL BEHAVIOUR IN UNEXPECTED, RAPIDLY EVOLVING

SITUATIONS

PRESENTATION OF A METHOD OF ANALYSIS

COGNITIVE LIMITATIONSJean PINET

Experimental Test pilot, PhD psychology-ergonomics, Former President of Air and Space Academy

April 9, 2012

ABSTRACT

This article arises from a thesis: “Dealing with unexpected emergency situations during flight; a cognitive model tested on expert pilots” which elaborated a method for analyzing the operational behavior of pilots in rapidly evolving, unexpected circumstances through an analysis of serious incidents and accidents. The article outlines this method and the results of the analysis, particularly in terms of cognitive limitations when under stress.In the practice of their profession, pilots frequently have to face sudden, unexpected and often potentially dangerous situations. They are trained to deal with them efficiently, and do so in the vast majority of cases. However the brief lapse of time available before the situation degenerates – in the order of a few seconds, a minute at most – means that the cognitive sequence “perception-diagnosis-decision-action” can sometimes be performed incorrectly due to stress by otherwise competent professionals, and lead to a serious incident or even to an accident. The diagnoses as to the causes of these dysfunctions are often global: non-compliance with procedures, fatigue, inattention, errors of all types, lack of discipline, etc. But this type of diagnosis does not contribute much in the way of an explanation unless the cognitive mechanisms that led to the dysfunctions are identified.In order to better understand the underlying causes, it was decided to examine elementary dynamic cognitive phenomena by analyzing behavior in five very different cases of incidents and accidents, all in manual piloting mode. This


study revealed certain common denominators in regards pilots’ reactions - in fact cognitive limitations - which explain the failures observed and open the way to recommendations. The crucial role under stress of a specific cognitive function linked to that of short-term memory is highlighted. In order to perform this analysis it was necessary to create a dynamic model of the cognitive behavior of pilots in which the time factor was explicit, so as to study very short sequences of a few seconds. This model can be applied to cases other than those leading to accidents, for example to studying and designing systems to improve the human-system interface in short flight phases.The complexity and specificity of operational actions combined into very rapid sequences naturally led to calling on pilots’ expertise in carrying out the analyses that enabled validation of the deduced hypotheses. It is unquestionably easier - and more reliable – to elucidate complex technical behavior carried out by professionals if one is an experienced professional oneself; observing behavior from the outside, on the contrary, can often be imprecise and occasionally incorrect.

1- PRESENTATION

This article is derived from a study (Pinet, 2011) which highlighted several elements aimed at improving our understanding of pilots’ operational behavior and contributing to research on the subject by analyzing such behavior during short, unexpected, emergency situations. Many of the results obtained are likely to be transposable to other similar operational situations.

Since the issues in question are highly technical in nature, the article deliberately adopts an operational approach, which is possibly unconventional in psychology.

The total duration of events dealt with here is of the order of a few dozens of seconds to roughly 2 minutes.

In this presentation it is mainly question of:• a detailed method of analysis aimed at rationalizing elements of

operational behavior and synchronizing internal cognitive time with exterior physical time, which can be extrapolated to studies beyond those involving incidents and accidents;

• elementary multi-task cognitive functioning, in stressful conditions and for durations ranging from the short to the very short (around a second) that are characteristic of potentially dangerous situations, bringing out the importance of attention focusing, short-term memory saturation and the threshold effect in achieving corrective action;

• the pertinent and highly effective use of super-experts to investigate internal behavior when high-tech materials are used in a complex environment.

These three aspects are dealt with below.

The research is based on initial knowledge emanating from two types of source: • traditional, with references from scientific literature indicated in the text,


• individual: the author’s own experience gained during 50 years of observations, research and concrete achievements in the areas of flight testing and crew training for large aircraft (Concorde and Airbus). At the time, this experience - mainly gained at aircraft manufacturers Aerospatiale and Airbus and their training center - was oriented towards the immediate practical application of any results obtained - as is common practice in industry - and was not the object of any formal document as would have been required by the scientific community. But it largely oriented research on the issues dealt with here. As a positive testimony one might cite the effectiveness of the training methods elaborated and set up for Concorde and the Airbus family since 1972.

The chosen method of analysis stands out from most existing ones because of the obligation to deal with complex phenomena in an integrated way. However the validity of this method is limited to rapidly evolving cases lasting up to 2 or 3 minutes when pilot’s behavior is totally involved in the search for a vital recovery.

2- METHOD OF ANALYSIS

2.1 NEED FOR NEW MODELS

2.1.1 The analysis of elementary behavior in manual flight for very short periods (a few seconds to some tens of seconds) re-quired the definition of models specific to the study for three main reasons:

The concepts and models available in psychological literature were all mainly suited to a given sector of psychology or cognitive ergonomics, whereas the study of dynamic operational behavior requires simultaneous use of knowledge from all sectors. This is why the concepts cited below were used, although in such an integrated way that constant reminders to them would have overburdened the text and jeopardized its legibility, when their use was self-evident. These are:

• different types of memory (Didier, 1998; Carpenter, Just, & Reichl, 2000) • mental models (Girotto, Johnson-Laird, 2005; Ehrlich, Tardieu, &

Cavazza, 1993; Johnson-Laird, 1983; Johnson-Laird & Byrne, 1991; Lecomte & Wanner, 2004)

• conscious and unconscious actions (Baars, 2005; Rasmussen, 1986; Lecomte & Wanner, 2004; Parasuraman & Rizzo, 2008)

• mental workload (Amalberti, 2006; De Waard, 1996) • timesharing, multiple resources and multitask management (Wickens,

2002; Wickens & Mc Carley, 2008; Cohen, Wherry, & Glen, 1996; Van Hiel, 2007 ; De Brito, Pinet, & Boy, 1998; Loukopoulos, Dismakes, & Barshi, 2009)

• associated cognitive systems (Amalberti, 2006; Hollnagel & Woods, 2005; Woods & Hollnagel, 2006)

• choice and subjective probability (Tversky & Kahneman, 1974, 1981;


Kahneman, Slovic, & Tversky, 1982; Gonzalez, Dana, Koshino, & Just, 2005)

• stress (Alekseev & Sviridov, 1990; Corten, 1996; Laborit, 1981; Wikipedia, 2010; Parasuraman & Rizzo, 2008; Szalma & Hancock, 2003; Selye, H, 1956)

• essential decisions (Klein, 1999; Klein & Rouse, 1989) • intuition (Lebraty, 2007; Klein, 1999) • conflicts with the tunnelling effect (Dehais, 2004; Wickens, 2005; Wickens,

Gordon, Liu, 1998)• diagnosis (Raufaste, 2001; Van Daele & Ait Armeur, 2010) • expertise (Pastorelli, 2010; Raufaste, 2001; Bilalic, McLeod, & Gobet,

2007) • errors and failures (Chauvin, 2003; Reason, 1987; Dehais, 2004; Lecomte

& Wanner, 2004) • resilience (Hollnagel, Woods, & Levenson, 2006; Deharvengt, 2007) • time (Ivry, Schlerf, 2008; Pouthas & Macar, 2005; Buhusi & Meck, 2005)

The models available were essentially kinematic, describing and explaining cognitive mechanisms but not giving their “dynamic” - chronological and time - function in a given situation (Hollnagel, Mancini, & Woods, 1998; Hoc & Amalberti, 1999; De Waard, Van der Hulst, Hoedemaeker, & Brookhuis, 1999).

Above all, none was adaptable dynamically (in other words depending directly on time and evolving chronologically) to brief, operationally complex events calling on all pertinent fields of psychology at a given instant.

Two theories, ACT-R (Anderson & Lebiere, 1998) and Threaded cognition (Salvucci & Taatgen, 2011), open up the possibility of a detailed, dynamic analysis of behavior. However the abstractions used (productions, chunks, buffers) and the direct use of declarative and procedural memories are not suited to our analysis of complex phenomena that involve a great deal more than two or three tasks simultaneously in operational terms.

As will be seen below, we were obliged to use alternative abstractions with alternative building blocks directly transposable to the operational cases under study, roughly equivalent to the two theories referred to in the same way that, for instance, in language, Chinese and English can express the same concepts in different ways. For example, application of the ACT-R method to pilots’ behavior on taxiways (Byrne & Kirlik, 2005) shows that this method cannot yet be used as it stands for complex phases of real flight.

The time constants of the processes under analysis here are of the order of 1 to 5 seconds. However, brief actions of several tenths of a second are dealt with globally and it would probably enhance the analysis to link in some concepts of the Threaded cognition theory.

2.1.2 As Allen Newell had advocated for some time (Newell, 1973),


several notions have to be combined in order to accurately describe complex phenomena

The model that is best suited to analysis of the dynamic operational behavior of the pilot is a combination of three well defined concepts:

• Rasmussen’s kinematic model and the three types of cognitive activities Skills, Rules, Knowledge (Rasmussen, 1986; Rasmussen, Leplat, & Brehmer, 1991);

• the Mental models as presented in operational mode by P.Lecomte and J-C.Wanner (Lecomte & Wanner, 2004);

• G.Boy’s Cognitive functions and Agents (Boy, 1998).

This combination made it possible to define two main bases:• a kinematic model appropriate to the study,• and the expression of its dynamic functioning, thus enabling analysis of

small individual elements.The definition required some readjustments and enhancements in the course of its concrete application to the analysis of the 5 selected serious incidents and air accidents. The final, satisfactory version is described hereafter.

2.2 COGNITIVE MODEL ADOPTED

It is suited to the problem and the abstractions used (operational processor, agents, mental models, cognitive functions, short term memory) correctly translate the events observed. The fact that they accurately represent operational cognitive functions does not mean that they correspond exactly to specific activities and zones of the brain. This correspondence would merit its own research.

2.2.1 Kinematic part

J. Rasmussen’s key notions can be found here:• the conscious sequential cognitive operation• the presence of a Sequential Processor, a kind of conscious cognitive

team leader• the declarative and procedural memories, conscious and unconscious • the short-term memory and the working memory• the presence of ambiguity detection• the interfaces with sensations as inputs and movements as outputs.

The classification of actions into S, R, K (skills, rules, knowledge) was not explicitly necessary in the process of analysis since the notion of appropriate mental models was used in its place, with SRK becoming a sub-product included in these models.

However these basic notions were adapted, on the one hand by introducing the operational mental models and on the other, by assigning specific functions to designated agents.


The conscious sequential processor is closely linked to short-term memory (STM) without which it cannot work, to the point where these two parts constitute an inseparable whole. It is then called Operational processor (OP).

The detection of ambiguity, indeed of all perceived anomalies, is dealt with by a specific agent that can be indiscriminately conscious or unconscious, named Primary agent n°2 (PA2), which acts both on the OP and on its conscious operational delegate the Primary agent n°1 (PA1).

The OP defines and sets the goals of the operational actions and passes on its realizations to the PA1, responsible for conscious actions, which defines more functional objectives and delegates the accomplishment of the corresponding tasks to subordinate agents AGn (n being the number attributed to a given function), which each have a specific function such as manual piloting, managing automated flight, navigation, communication between the crew or with Air traffic control, etc.

It should be noted that this notion of agents used in the cognitive functioning of an individual can be extrapolated to other members of the crew (Boy, 1998). For example, when analyzing the behavior of the pilot in control (Pilot flying, PF), the intervention of the second pilot (Pilot non flying, PNF) can be considered to be that of a specific agent, PNF.

The PA1 and the AGns control conscious actions that can be directly translated into movements, stocked as objectives on the STM for rapid use or stored in the “working memory” (WM) for later use.

Storage capacity for conscious actions is limited as we will see later.It is important to note that conscious actions are launched in closed loop with monitoring of the result obtained.

Unconscious actions can take place alongside conscious actions and are much less limited than the latter in terms of cognitive capacity. However, substantial limitations can result from the use of the same perceptive inputs for both, for example when conscious visual attention focused on an instrument inhibits the peripheral vision that is necessary for unconscious stabilization of the roll attitude in visual flight.

These unconscious actions can be put into two categories:• Delegated unconscious actions: these are launched temporarily (and

last from some tenths of a second to a few seconds), in open loop, by a conscious cognitive function (or an agent) in order to manage a parameter, during a sequence in which this cognitive function is occupied with another parameter, before resuming the initial parameter. One example is altitude intercept in which, thanks to visual scanning, the speed, pitch attitude, thrust, vertical speed and altitude parameters are processed in rapid sequences but must evolve continuously in synchronized fashion.

• Autonomous unconscious actions: these take charge of a complete function, in open loop, but either require brief conscious resetting (of some tenths of a second) or make direct use of perceptions such as stabilization of the roll attitude in visual flight.


The following diagram shows how they are organized.

PERCEPTIONS

Values

Events

Objects

States

Sensations

SENSORY INPUTS

MOTION OUTPUTS

MOTION

COORDINATION

T

T

L

R

R R

UNCONSCIOUS MEMORY

CONSCIOUS MEMORY

WorkingMemory WM

L

L

Autonomous CF

Delegated CF

Long TermMemory LTM

Short Term Memory STM

OPERATIONAL PROCESSOR OP

PA1 PA2

Agents AGx

T : treated - R : recorded - L : launched working areas of CF

Figure 1

2.2.2 Dynamic functioningHypotheses used

We do not differentiate in our treatment of “static” mental models such as images or semantic knowledge and “kinematic” mental models, such as procedures or gestures and their graduation, placed in long-term memory. They consist of operational information memorized in an undynamic way and dealt with indiscriminately for their static or kinematic quality by the agents.

However we emit the hypothesis that their operational use is “intelligent”, in other words initiated and controlled by a cognitive process, conscious or not, linked to the perceptions and goals of the moment (an assigned task is a goal). We deal with this dynamic process, dependent on time, in a different way to the mental models (MM): these are cognitive functions (CF), which use mental models as a “qualitative and quantitative” basis for their temporal function. We assume then that the cognitive functions have a different structure to that of the mental models, and that they are at the root of “dynamic cognitive operation”.

Each agent thus becomes a coherent assembly of cognitive functions used to accomplish the goal set for it by the operational processor OP.


Mental models

These are the basic elements of the pilot’s operational edifice. They are framework-scenarios built up through education, training and experience and consigned to long-term memories (LTM). The pilot’s experience causes them to assemble depending on how they are used into meta-mental models, into mental model networks (Mental model patterns), thus enabling rapid extraction of the entire set of required bases necessary for a given cognitive function to work, whilst at the same time assembling the necessary SRK. They can be said to be the basic elementary cognitive building blocks enabling the construction of actions carried out by the cognitive functions as we will see below.

Their structure seems to be that of an in some way adaptable framework scenario. In the cases dealt with in this study, given over mainly to manual flying, this structure is often based on the application of flight physics equations. Mental models are extracted “on request” from long-term memories LTM by the cognitive functions CF of the specific agents AG or directly by the principal agents PA of the operational processor OP, as we will see below.

This extraction can be subjected to some surprising conditions when it is associated with false or partial perceptions, and/or strong expectations.

We note that in the 5 cases examined the number of mental models MM used was not high, although it was noteworthy (a few dozen). In the case of flying, where visual perceptions prevail, these MM models are frequently mental images.

For the definition and the choice of mental models MM, we based ourselves on a set of notions established experimentally by P.Lecomte and JC.Wanner (Lecomte & Wanner, 2004) and accepted by the international pilot community, which no longer need to be proved, and on hypotheses elaborated through personal observation.

Thus flight physics (an overall set including flight mechanics, aerodynamics, propulsion and navigation), although taught theoretically as knowledge, is learned concretely step by step via real and simulated flight practice. Practice is the memory fixer of knowledge and procedures. It teaches and fixes skills in a descriptive and kinematic way.

Trim skills, as well as gestural and visual coordination, are so learned. For example when stabilizing an altitude after climb, the pitch attitude Θ and the vertical speed Vz are reduced by means of flight controls whilst adjusting the engine thrust by means of thrust controls so that the speed VC remains constant, graduating the evolution to ensure that passengers are not uncomfortable.

Perceptions

Perceptions used in flying are mainly: • visual, the most important, inside and outside the cockpit • auditory for working within the crew and with air traffic control (ATC) or


for audible alarms• tactile for controls and selectors• rotational and inertial, physical perceptions caused by movement of the

aircraft that cannot be relied on and which indeed one must deliberately ignore when in instrument flying.

Phenomena exterior to the pilot are captured by the senses and perceived by the brain through “filters” that transform them into perceptions (Lecomte & Wanner, 2004). These intermediaries are veritable mental models. These perceptions are inputs to the cognitive system.

Particular input comes from tactile or “manual” actions on flight controls, by means of hands in the case of the flight controls, thrust controls and different equipment controls, and feet on the rudder pedals and brakes.

They enable feedback from the loop of conscious actions launched through the movement of limbs. In fact it is mainly the coordination between visual perceptions and manual actions in closed loop which is taught, learned and stored in memory in a kinematic way.

Cognitive functions

What follows is the concrete application of notions introduced by G.Boy (Boy, 1998).

A cognitive function CF introduces the dynamic nature of cognitive relationships. It could be said to equivalent to the transfer function in physics. The following chronological representation gives the time mechanism for a conscious action in closed loop. Each agent manages a functional set of CFs necessary to pursue the goal fixed by the OP or the PA1.

We will take as an example manual flying with its operational agent AG1. The assigned goal for instance is altitude intercept, requiring several tasks simultaneously, each one assigned to a specific cognitive function.

Conscious part

Operational Processor OP (or PA1) => goal => Agent AG1 => => task 1 =>=> CF1 => MM1 + perceptions (vision, hearing, touch, inertia) => diagnosis/action =>=> check result => perceptions => decision => correction, or continue process =>=> task 2 =>=> CF2 => MM2 + perceptions => etc

Simultaneous processing of several parameters


This is required in manual flying.

For example if task 1 relies on controlling speed and altitude parameters, it is not possible to consciously manage both parameters at the same moment, since they are displayed at different locations and require different specific actions. The CF1 function must therefore manage each of these two parameters alternatively, selecting them visually with the aid of its visual scanning function. In order to do this it lets a dependent elementary subfunction cf1’ launch consciously the necessary action for speed, then delegates it to continue unconsciously while it consciously takes charge of altitude with another dependent subfunction cf1”. As soon as it considers it necessary to deal with speed again it picks up cf1’ again consciously, checking that the parameter has not deviated and correcting as necessary, whilst at the same time putting cf1” into delegated unconscious operation. And so on.

This is true of the simultaneous processing of all 5 key parameters: speed, altitude, vertical speed, pitch attitude and thrust.

Unconscious part

• Open loops readjusted after conscious checks for delegated actions (see below).

• Closed loops for autonomous actions (but dependent on perceptions).

Short Term Memory

Elementary cognitive actions, varying from roughly 1/10th second to a few seconds, initiated and controlled in dynamic fashion by elementary cognitive functions, imprint discontinuous ephemeral traces onto the STM. Each trace is different from the previous and the following one since it corresponds to a closed loop of specific elementary action, dealing with a specific parameter - for example holding speed, altitude or pitch attitude - according to the perception-decision-action-control process. As the dynamic mix of conscious elementary actions succeeds in closed loops it is translated into a succession of varied actions, constantly leaving a succession of discontinuous traces on the STM.

For instance, when it is necessary to deal simultaneously with several parameters spread over several displays by means of visual scanning, one can immediately see the necessity to divide one global action into many elementary actions, and then place some of these actions temporarily in delegated unconscious operation mode in order to ensure the continuous set of actions towards the assigned goal.

This is an adaptation of conscious sequential processing with limited retentive capacity typical of short-term memory STM. It thus helps to manage controlled continuous operations with a long duration, for example a 10 to 20 second level-off, without penalizing the whole set of simultaneous elementary actions involved (permanent monitoring of speed, altitude, vertical speed, pitch attitude and thrust).


Triggering event Present moment

SHORT TERM MEMORY

Sequence of action

Time

ACTIVITY RECORDING ON SHORT TERM MEMORY

7

conscious actions

delegated unconscious actions

Figure 2

The retaining length of STM is normally of 1 to 2 minutes. However, observation of stressful situations, particularly during pilot training, indicates that this length of time falls to between 10 and 20 seconds in practice.

An important point to note is that all conscious actions of the CF, whether they come from the OP, the PA1, the AGns, or from their own cognitive subfunctions, compete for the STM, aggregating their sequences. The pre-eminence of one of them in terms of duration, particularly in a stressful situation, can have the effect of saturating the STM and causing attention tunneling in its direction.

2.3 TIME SYNCHRONIZATION

The time references involved in human behavior differ from the universally adopted physical reference time, with great variations in as yet immeasurable factors such as workload, attention and stress. And yet pilots are in direct relation, in direct contact, with the machines and equipment that they handle, which are governed by physical laws, with physical time as a unique, immutable reference. Any analysis of behavioral mental phenomena must therefore be linked to the physical events and physical time governing equipment and environment. No choice exists between the two types of time: one is forced to consider physical time for the whole pilot-aircraft-environment ensemble. The constraint of analyzing events over very short durations provides a workable solution.

The period under analysis, of around a minute, is thus divided up into sequences


corresponding to observed or known elementary operational tasks, time segments delimited by a concrete observation or physical measurement. Sequences can therefore vary in time, usually from a second to a dozen seconds or more.

And each sequence is considered as a separate temporal unit that can be linked to the previous and next one, and to which the chosen cognitive model is applied, enabling detailed analysis of behavior which can then be linked directly to external events, both observed and measured.

Figure 3: Example of selected sequences

2.4 SEARCH FOR COGNITIVE FUNCTIONS USED

This is the trickiest part of the analysis, calling on the greatest possible operational expertise since it is necessary to describe “possible” internal mental processes faced with a given situation, in other words putting oneself in the position of the pilot flying (PF).

For each elementary sequence, in other words each temporal segment, the following technique was used, based on the concept of “reverse engineering” widely used in aeronautic simulation.The “possible cognitive inputs” were matched to the “known cognitive outputs”, and the admissible and possible cognitive functions sorted through to retain only those whose association is operationally possible.

By inputs we mean the visual, auditory, tactile and inertial perceptions available to the pilot. The outputs are the objectively observed results (movements, observed state of systems, words, etc).

The possible cognitive functions are those that can be defined operationally in order to obtain the results observed. Each CF uses its own perceptions, which


must be chosen operationally.

Certain sequences allow for several cognitive functions, different hypotheses that must be taken into consideration when analyzing subsequent sequences. Occasionally these succeeding sequences make it necessary to revisit hypotheses, eliminating or modifying them.

This work requires considerable operational expertise since it is the essential technical-psychological part of the analysis.

The analysis carried out on the 5 cases cited below demonstrated the validity of the method.

3- EVENTS ANALYSIS

5 cases of accidents and incidents were chosen in the initial study (Pinet, 2011). They are given in the following table.

Event no.1 incident A330 Loss of control in Go-aroundEvent no.2 incident A321 Rejected Take-off after V1

Event no.3 incident Concorde Landing in meteorological down-draft

Event no.4 accident F/A 18 Crash in air show

Event no.5 accident A310Landing roll with unexpected asymmetric thrust

Table 1: Five cases of accidents and incidents

They were successfully analyzed by means of the method described. They comprise in all 35 sequences for an overall length of 334 seconds, in other words an average of approximately 9.5 sec per sequence, varying from 1.5 sec for the shortest to 63 sec for the longest. The most interesting sequences vary from 1.5 to 10 seconds.

Eight expert pilots (Flight test and Check airmen) gave their opinion on the hypotheses selected and marked each sequence according to the following grid:

Rating 1: agreed

Rating 2: agreed, additional explanation required

Rating 3: not agreed, other hypothesis

Rating 4: rejected

The results are given below.


Event no.1

Event no.2

Event no.3

Event no.4 Event no.5

No. of sequences 9 6 7 7 6Total duration of event (in sec) 58 45 90 20 56

Min/Max duration of sequences (in sec) 2 / 9 1.5 / 16 7.5 / 63 1 / 6 3 / 14

No. of rated sequences 54 41 42 31 40% of Rating 1 76 76 81 100 90% of Rating 2 22 22 19 0 10% of Rating 3 2 2 0 0 0% of Rating 4 0 0 0 0 0

Table 2: Results of validation process

According to their availability the experts rated 208 out of a total of 280 parts (35, total number of sequences of 5 cases x 8 experts = 280) therefore 74% of the parts.

The result of these rating is as follows:• 173 sequences rated 1 (83%)• 33 sequences rated 2 (16%)• 2 sequences rated 3 (1%)• 0 sequence rated 4

In other words 99% acceptance, thus confirming the validity of the method.

Rating no.2 tended to express surprise faced with the behavior of the actor analyzed, without finding any other answer than the logical hypothesis rationally constructed.

The sequences rated 3 gave rise to supplementary hypotheses introduced into the final study.

4- MAIN RESULTS

4.1- COMMON DENOMINATORS

First of all, common denominators were found for all cases:• surprise giving rise to immediate stress• (normal) focusing of attention due to stress• difficulty to grasp the situation and therefore to correct it, false intuitions • no observable time gap between decision and action• but above all the presence of a lasting focus of attention, a tunneling

effect, ruling out correct management of a situation in a state of divergence • need for strongly contrasting action to pull through.


On the basis of the observations, hypotheses were established on what was fundamentally rational, on what explained and governed the different behavior observed. Thus a coherent set of hypotheses, organized into a whole, was obtained (Pinet, 2011). What follows is a summary of this.

4.2 BASIC COGNITIVE FUNCTIONSurprise causes a level of stress that varies according to the case and that, following the hypothesis selected, automatically triggers a high level cognitive function that instructs the brain to handle the unexpected situation. There are three types of these functions depending on individuals and circumstances:

- adaptable, if focused attention does not get fixed, does not saturate short-term memory, fortunately the most common;

- focused, if attention becomes fixed on the evolution of a reduced set of parameters, causing the tunneling effect and saturating short-term memory;

- reflex, if perceptions are analogous to those memorized in a previous situation.

4.3 COGNITIVE LIMITATIONS

Concomitant to this is the action of our basic cognitive limitations, which we have lived with since birth to the point that we are no longer aware of them. But they regulate behavior in a drastic way when they come into play. And the time available to deal with the stressful situation then becomes the key parameter. In fact it is question of internal time, psychological time depending both on the physical time a situation takes to evolve and the swiftness and efficacy which the pilot puts this time to use. This temporal obligation gives rise to several varying constraints, each essential. By far this point is the main result of the study.

The first problem for the pilot is to sort out their perceptions and allocate processing priorities. The situation diagnosis and resulting decision/action are therefore directly reliant on the validity of immediate perceptions, themselves dependent on two indissociable aspects of the pilot-aircraft interface: instrumental on the side of the emitter and human on the receiving side.

No observable time gap was found in the study between the making of the decision and the taking of the chosen action.

The second problem comes from the neuronal constraint to perform all conscious actions, whatever they might be, short or long, in successive sequences placed chronologically in the short-term memory. This requires rapid, simple corrective actions, calling for straightforward procedures and rules. The real time available is therefore the luck factor (see US Airways Flight 1549 from January 15, 2009). There is thus a need to allocate attention priorities to certain tasks, with the risk of forgetting others due to the sequential execution of difficult or complicated conscious actions.

The third problem is the danger that this sequential build up of conscious actions in short-term memory might cause information at the limits of this memory to


be erased. As a consequence, an overlong focused conscious action can block short-term memory, causing the dangerous tunneling effect which has the effect of eliminating from his or her memory the pilot’s permanent operational objective to “do something else”.

4.4 CONSEQUENCES

We will never succeed in eradicating the unexpected or the unforeseen despite all our efforts to limit their occurrence. The only valid solution is to take into account the cognitive limits caused by stress in an operational situation. To summaries, it is vital under stress to manage, as well and in as short a time as possible, the actions required by the situation whilst taking into account the limitations mentioned. For example:

On the pilot’s side:

- Educating the self control faced with the unexpected requires the elaboration of explicit selection criteria, then practical training in realistic, varied unexpected situations, training that must be pursued and monitored throughout the career. The risk is that of realizing the inadequacy of a large proportion of pilots selected and trained under current criteria.

- In basic training, the accent must be put on acquiring necessary and sufficient knowledge to understand and recognize in flight the laws and rules of flight physics and to assimilate the movements and situations in 3 dimensions. This knowledge must be monitored throughout the career in order to ensure it is maintained.

- In normally, rapidly evolving situations, the PNF situation monitoring task must be prioritized over their other tasks (e.g. during a Go-around or a Take-off).

On the aircraft side:

- Situation diagnosis must be facilitated by reducing the number of relevant parameters to be sorted through in order to judge a situation (currently for a given flight phase 20 to 30 different parameters are shown on the Primary Flight Display, the short-term piloting instrument), and offering the possibility of a synthesis of the situation and/or parameters that current technology can assume better than the pilot.

- In visual and manual flying (which we will never eliminate), limit sequential actions by restricting the pilot’s action to that of defining the flight path to be followed in the short term, leaving automated systems to enforce it; the latter are better equipped than pilots to solve the flight physics equations since they are not constrained by sequential functioning.

- Reexamine the problem of alarms and their perception under stress.

On the procedural side:

- Simple, concise, intuitive procedures to recover complex situations. Reassess


rapid evolution phases requiring a succession of rapid vital maneuvers sometimes in stressful conditions (Go-around for example). There again automated systems can usefully replace manual action.

- Using simple, common sense rules to manage complex situations, in particular with automated systems.

5- CONCLUSIONS

5.1 The brain’s cognitive operational limits are not explicit, and yet they are a reality as tangible as limitations in aeronautic equipment. For the latter a Flight envelopes domain – normal and peripheral – was defined in order to provide a safety margin before reaching their limitations. It would be logical to extend to human operation this concept of a safety margin to be respected in all human-systems interface systems. It would usefully bring together many assorted human factors rules in usage today.

5.2 The method has proved effective and can be used for studying systems, not only analyzing incidents. An analysis of a landing in manual flying of a wide body aircraft was carried out successfully in the initial study (Pinet, 2011). It revealed potential conflicts between primary and secondary goals that the pilot has to chose to deal with very rapidly (total flight time from a height of 200 ft to the ground: around 20 seconds) in a dynamic fashion in varying contexts.

5.3 The present method could be enhanced by linking in some concepts of the “Threaded cognition” theory and neuropsychology in order to deal effectively with actions with a very low time constant, below a second, which are frequently found in flying. The operational problem of rapid choices in the selecting of parameters by visual scanning remains to be dealt with.

5.4 By focusing our analysis on the shorter time spans represented by each elementary cognitive action so as to determine the operational grounds for each of these “small” actions, it is possible to free our reflections from general hypotheses such as the possible influences of fatigue, lack of discipline, errors, etc., which are too sweeping and therefore inaccurate. It then becomes possible to plot, step by step, the cognitive grounds for elementary actions resulting from each “perception–diagnosis–decision–action–check–go on to following action” process. By comparing and combining these elementary analyses it is then possible to identify influent factors, whether internal (physical, psychological conditions, education-training) or external (interface of aircraft and environment). In this way the scope of generalized, superficial judgments is restricted.


REFERENCESAmalberti, R. (2006). Psychologie ergonomique. 2nd year degree courses in psychology, IED Université de Paris VIII (France). http://perso.lcpc.fr/roland.bremond/documents/cours_Amalberti.pdfAnderson, J.R. & Labiere, C. (1998). The atomic components of thought. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.Baars, B.J. (1992). Experimental slips and human error: exploring the architecture of volition. New York: Plenum Press.Bilalic, M., McLeod, P. & Gobet, F. (2008). Inflexibility of experts - Reality or myth? Quantifying the Einstellung effect in chess masters. Cognitive Psychology, 56 (2),73–102.Boy, G. (1998). Cognitive function analysis. New York: Ablex Publishing CorporationBoy, G & Pinet, J (2008). L’être technologique, Paris; L’Harmattan.Buhusi, C. & Meck, W. (2005). What makes us tick? Functional and neural mechanisms of interval timing. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 6 (10), 755-765.Byrne, M.D.,& Kirlik, A. (2005). Using computational cognitive modeling to diagnose possible sources of aviation error. International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 15, 135-155.Carpenter, P.A., Just, M.A. & Reichl, E. D. (2000). Working memory and executive function: evidence from neuroimaging. Current opinion in Neurobiology, 10 (2), 195-199Chauvin C. (2003). Gestion des risques lors de la prise de décision en situation d’interaction dynamique : approches systémique et cognitive. In J. M. C. Bastien (Ed.), Proceedings of 2nd Study Days in Ergonomic Psychology (EPIQUE’2003), 123-134, Rocquencourt: INRIA.Cohen, D., Wherry, R.J. & Glen, F. (1996). Analysis of workload prediction generated by multiple resource theory. Aviation, Space and Environmental Medicine, 67 (2), 139-45Corten, P. (1996). Stress et stress pathologique, cours de psychopathologie du travail, Université Libre de Bruxelles (Belgique). http://homepages.ulb.ac.be/~phcorten/CliniqueStress/DocumentsStress/Doc1.htmDe Brito, G., Pinet, J. & Boy, G. (1998). L’utilisation des checklists dans un cockpit d’avion de nouvelle génération, Technical report EURISCO, Toulouse.Dehais, F, Lesire, C, Tessier, C, Chaudron, L (2000). Conflits et contre-mesures dans l’activité de pilotage. Art. ONERA-DCSD 2000 http://www.laas.fr/rfia2004/actes/ARTICLES/244.pdfDehais, F. (2004). Modélisation des conflits dans l’activité de pilotage. Thesis presented on 24 May 2004 at ISAE (Sup’Aero), Toulouse.Deharvengt, S. (2007). Règlement dans un domaine à risque : l’exemple de la formation CRM des pilotes de ligne. Art. in DGAC report 2007 http://www.ep.liu.se/ecp/023/002/ecp2307002.pdf De Waard, D. (1996). The measurement of drivers’ workload. Published thesis. Traffic Research Center Publication, University of Groningen (Netherlands).De Waard, D., Van der Hulst, M., Hoedemaeker, M. & Brookhuis, K.A. (1999). Driver behavior in an emergency situation in the automated Highway system. Transportation Human Factors, I (1), 67-82.Didier, A. (sept. 1998). Cerveau et comportement humains: exemple de la mémoire. Presentation given at 7th forum of ANAE (CD ANAE 2004).Ehrlich, M. F., Tardieu, H., Cavazza, M., Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1993). Les modèles mentaux : approche cognitive des représentations. Paris: Masson.Girotto, V. & Johnson-Laird, P. N. (2005). The shape of reason: essays in honor of Paolo Legrenzi. Oxford: Taylor & FrancisGonzalez, C., Dana, J., Koshino, H. & Just, M. (2005). The framing effect and risky decisions: Examining cognitive functions with fMRI. Journal of Economic Psychology, 26 (1), 1-20.Hoc, J. M. & Amalberti, R. (1999). Analyse des activités cognitives en situation dynamique : d’un cadre théorique à une méthode. Le Travail Humain, 62 (2), 97-129.Hollnagel, E., Mancini, G. & Woods, D. (1990). Cognitive engineering in complex dynamic worlds. London: Academic Press.Hollnagel, E. & Woods, D. (2005). Joint cognitive systems. Oxford: Taylor & FrancisImbert, M (2006). Traité du cerveau. Paris: Odile Jacob.Hollnagel, E., Woods, D., & Levenson, N. (2006). Resilience engineering: Concepts and precepts. Hampshire: Ashgate 2006Ivry, R. & Schlerf, J. (2008). Dedicated and intrinsic models of time perception. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 12 (7), 273-280.

Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1983). Mental models: Toward a cognitive science of language, inference and consciousness. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Kahneman, D., Slovic, P. & Tversky, A. (1982). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Cambridge: University PressKlein, G. (1999). Sources of power: How people make decisions. Cambridge: MIT PressKlein, G. A. (1989). Recognition-primed decisions. In W. B. Rouse (Ed.), Advances in man-machine systems research (Vol. 5, pp. 47-92). Greenwich : JAI Press.Laborit, H. (1981). L’inhibition de l’action: biologie, physiologie, psychologie, sociologie. Biologie comportementale et de physio-pathologie. Paris: Masson.Lebraty, J. F. (2007). Décision et intuition : un état des lieux. Education & management, 33, 33-37.Lecomte, P. & Wanner, J.-C. (2004). Images et modèles mentaux : Conscience de situation. http://www.academie-air-espace.com/upload/doc/ressources/Representations_mentales.pdfLoukopoulos, L., Dismukes, R. D. & Barshi, I. (2009). The Multitasking Myth: Handling Complexity in Real-World Operation. Farnham: Ashgate.Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63, 81-97.Newell, A. (1973). You can’t play 20 questions with nature and win. In W.G. Chase (Ed.), Visual information processing (pp. 283-310). New-York. Academic Press.Parasuraman, R. & Rizzo, M. (2007). Neuroergonomics: The brain at work. New York: Oxford University Press.Pastorelli, I. (2010). Rationalité des experts et traitement de l’erreur. In M. Amblard (Ed.), La rationalité: mythes et réalité (Chap. 14). Paris : L’Harmattan. Pinet, J. (2011). Traitement de situations inattendues d’extrême urgence en vol ; test d’un modèle cognitif auprès de pilotes experts. http://www;academie-air-espace.org; online resourcesPouthas, V. & Macar, F. (2005). Les bases neuronales de la perception du temps et de la régulation temporelle de l’action. Psychologie Française, 50 (1), 27-45.Rasmussen, J. (1986). Information processing and Human-Machine interaction: An approach to cognitive engineering. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Rasmussen, J., Leplat, J. & Brehmer, B. (1991). Distributed decision making: Cognitive models for cooperative work. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Raufaste, E. (2001). Les mécanismes cognitifs du diagnostic médical: Optimisation et expertise. Paris : PUF.Reason, J. (1987). Decision aids: Prostheses or tools. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 27 (5-6), 463-470.Salvucci, D. & Taatgen, N. (2011). The Multitasking Mind. Oxford: Oxford University PressSelye, H. (1956). The stress of life. New York: Mc Graw-Hill.Szalma, J. & Hancock, P. (2003). On mental resources and performance under stress. White paper, DOD Multidisciplinary Research Program: MURI Operator Performance Under Stress (OPUS). Department of Psychology and the Institute for Simulation and Training, University of Central Florida, Orlando, 2003 Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124-1131.Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211, 453-458.Van Daele, A. & Ait Ameur, L. (2010). Gestion des erreurs et des risques dans l’aide médicale urgente. Le Travail Humain, 73 (4), 299-318.Van Hiel, A. & Mervielde, I. (2007). The search for complex problem-solving in the presence of stressors. Human Factors, 49 (6), 1072-1082.Wickens, C. (2002). Multiple resources and performance prediction. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 3, 150-177.Wickens, C. D. & McCarley, J. S. (2008). Applied attention theory. Boca Raton: Taylor & Francis.Wickens, C. (2005). Attentional Tunneling and Task Management. Rapport technique NASA AHFD, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.Wickens, C., Gordon, S. & Liu, Y (1998). An introduction to human factors engineering. New York: Addison-Wesley-Longman..Woods, D. & Hollnagel, E. (2006). Joint cognitive systems: patterns in cognitive systems engineering. Boca Raton: Taylor & Francis


Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1983). Mental models: Toward a cognitive science of language, inference and consciousness. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Kahneman, D., Slovic, P. & Tversky, A. (1982). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Cambridge: University PressKlein, G. (1999). Sources of power: How people make decisions. Cambridge: MIT PressKlein, G. A. (1989). Recognition-primed decisions. In W. B. Rouse (Ed.), Advances in man-machine systems research (Vol. 5, pp. 47-92). Greenwich : JAI Press.Laborit, H. (1981). L’inhibition de l’action: biologie, physiologie, psychologie, sociologie. Biologie comportementale et de physio-pathologie. Paris: Masson.Lebraty, J. F. (2007). Décision et intuition : un état des lieux. Education & management, 33, 33-37.Lecomte, P. & Wanner, J.-C. (2004). Images et modèles mentaux : Conscience de situation. http://www.academie-air-espace.com/upload/doc/ressources/Representations_mentales.pdfLoukopoulos, L., Dismukes, R. D. & Barshi, I. (2009). The Multitasking Myth: Handling Complexity in Real-World Operation. Farnham: Ashgate.Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63, 81-97.Newell, A. (1973). You can’t play 20 questions with nature and win. In W.G. Chase (Ed.), Visual information processing (pp. 283-310). New-York. Academic Press.Parasuraman, R. & Rizzo, M. (2007). Neuroergonomics: The brain at work. New York: Oxford University Press.Pastorelli, I. (2010). Rationalité des experts et traitement de l’erreur. In M. Amblard (Ed.), La rationalité: mythes et réalité (Chap. 14). Paris : L’Harmattan. Pinet, J. (2011). Traitement de situations inattendues d’extrême urgence en vol ; test d’un modèle cognitif auprès de pilotes experts. http://www;academie-air-espace.org; online resourcesPouthas, V. & Macar, F. (2005). Les bases neuronales de la perception du temps et de la régulation temporelle de l’action. Psychologie Française, 50 (1), 27-45.Rasmussen, J. (1986). Information processing and Human-Machine interaction: An approach to cognitive engineering. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Rasmussen, J., Leplat, J. & Brehmer, B. (1991). Distributed decision making: Cognitive models for cooperative work. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Raufaste, E. (2001). Les mécanismes cognitifs du diagnostic médical: Optimisation et expertise. Paris : PUF.Reason, J. (1987). Decision aids: Prostheses or tools. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 27 (5-6), 463-470.Salvucci, D. & Taatgen, N. (2011). The Multitasking Mind. Oxford: Oxford University PressSelye, H. (1956). The stress of life. New York: Mc Graw-Hill.Szalma, J. & Hancock, P. (2003). On mental resources and performance under stress. White paper, DOD Multidisciplinary Research Program: MURI Operator Performance Under Stress (OPUS). Department of Psychology and the Institute for Simulation and Training, University of Central Florida, Orlando, 2003 Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124-1131.Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211, 453-458.Van Daele, A. & Ait Ameur, L. (2010). Gestion des erreurs et des risques dans l’aide médicale urgente. Le Travail Humain, 73 (4), 299-318.Van Hiel, A. & Mervielde, I. (2007). The search for complex problem-solving in the presence of stressors. Human Factors, 49 (6), 1072-1082.Wickens, C. (2002). Multiple resources and performance prediction. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 3, 150-177.Wickens, C. D. & McCarley, J. S. (2008). Applied attention theory. Boca Raton: Taylor & Francis.Wickens, C. (2005). Attentional Tunneling and Task Management. Rapport technique NASA AHFD, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.Wickens, C., Gordon, S. & Liu, Y (1998). An introduction to human factors engineering. New York: Addison-Wesley-Longman..Woods, D. & Hollnagel, E. (2006). Joint cognitive systems: patterns in cognitive systems engineering. Boca Raton: Taylor & Francis


Editor’s Memo: A Little Help Please!

Greetings SETP Members and associates. I’m AL Peterson the SETP Publications Chairman and I have a favor to ask of all of you. I need your help in finding, soliciting, and sending in good technical articles, RefleXtions style articles, photos, and general member news for publication in Cockpit. Our society members are doing great and fantastic work out there in the world, but you would never know it based on the lack of technical articles and other information that get submitted to Cockpit for consideration for publication. Quite honestly, we struggle every issue to find good technical and RefleXtions articles to publish, and I know we don’t receive a fraction of the news about the great things our members are doing. If you know someone who has written a technical or historical flight test article please encourage them to submit it. If you know someone who has done some interesting flight test work (past or present) but hasn’t written an article, encourage them to hit the keyboard and then send it in. Likewise for sending in news about the great things our members are doing, if you know something interesting that has happened in the flight test world please send it in. Good quality and interesting photos should also be sent in for inclusion in the news section and also for consideration for the cover of Cockpit. Cockpit is sent to and belongs to everyone in the Society and in order to keep it useful and relevant technically, journalistically, and socially we need everyone to actively seek out and send in articles, news, and photos. Thanks in advance for your support. Cheers, AL


FLIGHT TEST REPORT: PATCHEN EXPLORERMaj Gen Des Barker (MSETP, SAAF Rtd)

A summary of the more interesting aspects of the Explorer flight test conducted by the SAAF Museum

Historical BackgroundNot having been designed to comply with universally accepted standards and regulations, experimental aircraft designs sometimes offer interesting phenomena for test pilots since they may exhibit unusual dynamic behavioural characteristics with deviations from what is regarded as ‘conventional’ qualities not commonly found on type certified aircraft.

In most cases though, the experimental designer has designed for a specific mission requirement on a functional airframe that should, in theory, be ‘viceless’. Marvin Patchen’s 1972 Explorer, the only one in the world, was designed as a land-based version of the Teal Amphibian utility aircraft in the NORMAL category.

Having found its way to South Africa from the USA, this design possessed several features required for visual reconnaissance, namely, a high level of stability about all axes, docile handling qualities to reduce pilot workload, a design manoeuvre speed of 100 mph, more than 180° unobstructed horizontal and 135º forward vertical field of view, and a small radius of turn, amongst others.

It was these features that presented a possible solution for a ‘quiet visual recce’ aircraft during the early 1980’s which saw the transfer of the Explorer to the SAAFs Test Flight and Development Centre (TFDC) at AFB Waterkloof. The tasking placed on the TFDC was to evaluate the Patchen Explorer in the quiet, visual reconnaissance role.

However, military operational planners have to consider more than the performance and handling aspects of an aircraft, survivability in a hostile environment is paramount. The classic adage of “don’t go to a gunfight with a knife’, prevented the

A high placed engine, aft of the main wheels, with the elevator directly in line with the propeller wake, calls for due consideration during the landing flare.


Explorer from ever being seriously considered for use within an operational environment where the ‘bad guys’ shoot back.

A 100 mph target at 1,000 ft agl does not require the shooter to have to make significant allowance for ‘lead’ and gravity drop, making such aircraft an easy target for ‘low skilled shooters’. With no future operational application in the SAAF, the Explorer was eventually transferred to the SAAF Museum as a ‘one off’ prototype.Design Features

A design feature for an amphibian is to locate the engine above the wing to avoid water contamination. With the engine positioned just behind the main wheels and converting from the tail wheel Teal Amphibian, to a land-based nosewheel configuration, however, made the aircraft critically sensitive to balance, particularly the landing flight phase.

With two pilots in the cockpit, the aircraft centre of gravity moved ahead of the forward limit, with attendant adverse handling conditions which had to be catered for by a procedure of moving the second pilot’s seat fully backward during landing to reduce the longitudinal stability and enable the pilot to be able to generate pitch attitude for the flare to land.

Historical reports on the Explorer in SAAF service recorded an inordinate number of incidents of nosewheel damage which eventually led to the SAAF grounding the aircraft. The three causal factors to heavy landings could be found in the ‘heavy nose’ caused by the forward centre of gravity, too high a flare for landing and closing of the power to flight idle too early, which instantly reduced the energy over the empennage, leaving the pilot with a helpless feeling of pulling back on the stick with no ability to prevent the nose down pitching moment onto the nosewheel; the only change being the expression on the pilot’s face.

The Flight Test Programme


The Explorer had not flown since 2001 and had been stored in a SAAF Museum hangar with minimum inhibition measures taken on the basis that the aircraft would never be restored to flight status in the future. But, as in all things in life, “never say never” because eleven years later, the decision was reversed.

This obviously required SAAF Museum technicians to conduct a major restora-tion effort to the aircraft and engine systems, amongst others, a major overhaul of the fuel and oil systems, boroscopic testing of engine cylinders, control rigging and a raft of manpower intensive inspections before the SAAFs Director Systems

Integrity issued a Certificate for Flight Trials, which in turn, was the authorisation

to proceed with the flight test programme. Acknowledgement of the enthusiasm and unselfish efforts by SAAF Museum technicians to breathe life back into the Explorer is appropriate.

The ‘return to Service’ flight test programme essentially focussed on the serviceability of the engine, airframe and systems to validate the known performance and handling qualities listed in the POH. Unfortunately, the POH is rather ‘Spartan’ with the minimum amount of performance information presented, making performance validation rather intriguing at best, particularly in determining the actual conditions under which very limited original flight testing of the prototype was conducted. The flight test profile therefore was limited to performance and handling tests on the ground, takeoff, climb, stalling, maximum speed, and several handling qualities tests.

The aft location of the engine behind the main wheels made the aircraft tail heavy which resulted in a requirement for a ‘tail support‘ to prevent the aircraft from tipping onto its tail with a vacant cockpit.


PerformanceWithout any specific, normalised performance graphs to cross reference, an early

morning takeoff from AFS Swartkops (ISA+12°C) at maximum all up weight of 2200 lbs, at full power 24.5”/2700 RPM and rotating at 60 mph, resulted in a takeoff ground roll to 50 ft agl of less than 1,000 ft which was considered acceptable given that the prototype flight manual only stipulated less than 850 feet at sea level.

No normalised graphs were available for performance comparison at altitude and at best, an indirect method of verifying the manufacturer’s data, was to conduct a performance climb at the recommended best rate of climb speed of 75 mph for which there were some data.

Surprisingly 1,000 ft/min climb was generated at 5,000 ft pressure altitude (versus 740 ft/min predicted), decreasing to 600 ft/min at 7,500 ft (versus 560 ft/min predicted). For a 200 hp engine requiring approximately 5 mins 25 secs to climb 2,500 feet at near maximum all up weight in an ISA+12ºC atmosphere, was notable, to say the least. The actual rate of climb achieved, exceeded the predicted values by as much as 250 ft/min at the lower altitudes and 140 ft/min at 7,500 feet. Within the very limited scope of the evaluation, using takeoff performance and climb performance as indicators, the exhibited performance was equal to or better than that contained in the Flight Manual.

Level cruise performance was measured at 6,000 ft pressure altitude where 103 mph/75% power, with a predicted fuel consumption of 76 lbs/hour was recorded. It must be emphasised that the Flight Manual takeoff and cruise performance data was limited to sea level conditions only and that extrapolations had to be made to make predictive comparisons.

Although no performance figures were available for gliding performance, within the flight test risk analysis, test pilots normally do a ‘quick check’ on engine out performance to provide them with some measure to assess horizontal distance available per 1,000 feet in the event of an engine failure.

Simulated ‘engine out’ glide performance was conducted at a performance manual airspeed of 80 mph – no actual determination of optimum L/D speed was done. With the engine back at flight idle and with full fine pitch, this represented the ‘worst case’ scenario. In actual cases, the pilot would in all likelihood pull back the pitch to full coarse to reduce windmilling/propeller drag and maximise range. A rate of descent of approximately 2000 ft/min in effect equated to approximately 0.6 nautical miles/1, 000 feet in the worst case.


Handling QualitiesHandling qualities tests about all three axes were conducted to verify aircraft

stability and control and validation of the airframe rigging. Conventional flight test techniques were conducted at 100 mph, the design manoeuvring speed, including longitudinal static and dynamic stability evaluation of the Short (SPPO) and Long Period (Phugoid), lateral/directional, static and dynamic stability testing by means of steady heading sideslips, Dutch roll and spiral stability. It was interesting to note the effect of the high CG inertia (high engine mounting) and adverse yaw when rolling into and out of turns which required sufficient rudder to balance the turns.

To assess aircraft handling and trimmability at maximum normal cruising speed, com-mencing from 55 mph, a shallow 6º dive at full power was conducted from 8,000 ft to 6500 ft; the aircraft remained fully trimmable in pitch and yaw with no significant lateral/directional asymmetries at all speeds up 142 mph. The doors and windows remained closed; in some cases, on some aircraft, the higher airspeed generates suction areas in and around the cockpit, often opening gaps between the airframe and the canopy/windows.

No adverse handling qualities were identified about any of the axes; the increased control force loads were controllable through use of the elevator and rudder trim and engine behaviour was satisfactory. However, the pitch and rudder trim were particularly

Only elevator and rudder trimmers were provided aft of the console between the two front seats which required an increase in workload due to their positioning.


powerful and discrete inputs were required to initiate trim changes.

In preparation for the landing, the stall speed at the landing mass was determined; the aircraft is not fitted with flaps and the minimum level flight speed obtained was 55 mph, 2 kts higher than the 53 mph stall speed promulgated in the flight manual. With the CG so far forward, there was insufficient elevator control power to drive the angle of attack to a full stall, even with maximum aft stick, with the result that no stall warning activated, this despite the conventional requirement for audio stall warning at 6 to 10 kts above stall speed. At 55 mph, the aircraft was however, on the verge of a 1g stall and was manifested by a 1,500 ft/min descent and a 10º left wing drop at approximately 2º/sec. Based on the minimum flight speed of 55 mph, a rotation speed of Vr = 60 mph (1.2 Vs) with Vliftoff = 66 mph for typical operating conditions at Swartkops at 2,200lbs AUW, was recommended.

Despite the critical sensitivity of longitudinal power to centre of gravity position, the Explorer, even at the forward cg limit, provided predictable response to pitch inputs. However, the landing technique required the second pilot seat to be moved aft to move the centre of gravity aft and ‘lighten the nose’.

ConclusionWhen flying vintage aircraft, it is prudent to have quantitative data on the

performance and handling qualities of the aircraft in an effort to be able to get an ‘early heads-up’ indication of impending performance degradation.

SAAF Museum aircraft have been provided with a mandate to fly by the Air Force Command Council. However, this does not imply carte blanche exposure to the full flight envelope, so, bearing in mind the requirement to ‘keep them flying’, it was recommended that the aircraft be returned to flight status at the SAAF Museum and flown in accordance with the limitations specified in the prototype flight manual with the exception of maximum normal acceleration, which was recommended to be limited to +3g instead of the +3.8g, and the maximum airspeed be limited to the maximum structural cruise speed of 142 mph, not the 160 mph Vne specified the Manual. It is trusted that this ‘one off’ prototype, only Patchen Explorer in existence, will continue to grace the South African skies for many years to come.


REFLEXIONS

Lost and Found in MexicoDrury Wood - Oregon KVA

It is November of 1951. I have returned from a police action in Korea as a member of the First Marine Division. During this tour I have visited various unfriendly areas from Inchon to Chosin .

It is now obvious that our presence there is resented by the North Koreans and their neighbors the Chinese. Their determined resistance means that the Marine Corps is going to be there for an extended stay and the Corps is running out of pilots. The regular squadrons need to be relieved. Where are pilots to be found? In the reserves of course! Notices go out to Marine Pilots who were in WWII. Some of them have not seen an airplane in five years. They will go from no flying at all to flying Corsairs, (not an airplane for beginners).

To make this transition, a unit was formed at MCAS El Toro California to refurbish their skills. On my return from Korea I am ordered this training unit. My job is to fly as an instructor pilot in the back cockpit of an SNJ trainer with a rusty WWII pilot in the front, and teach him, (there were no women at that time) how to takeoff, land, navigate, and become proficient first in the SNJ and then the Corsair. It was dicey at times for both of us.. Once confident that they were safe to take off and land, they soloed and were expected to acquire enough confidence with a little time to move back to the Corsair. Thursday Nov. 15, 1951. Dark is approaching. We look at the status board and see that one of our students has not come home. He is overdue and the fog is moving in. Radio calls go unanswered. We notify ASR, (Air Sea Rescue).. Concern is growing and we cannot search in this fog. We are preparing for a night shift when the phone rings in the duty office and an operator asks if we will accept a collect call from Mexico. It is our missing pilot. He is at the border.... He has landed in Mexico at Campo Otto, not far from the border. It is not an airport but a farm, and he has landed on a dirt road in the middle of it. He says that the airplane is undamaged except for a bent propeller when he put on the brakes and nosed over. .We contact NAS El Centro and they will be pick him up. Our SNJ is at Campo Otto but he cannot pinpoint that exactly.

. The Skipper puts together a plan. Tomorrow we will send two mechanics and a pilot in a van with a new propeller and the tools to change it.. They will each have a mattress from barracks and a week of C rations.


The pilot to fly the SNJ out will be First Lieutenant Drury Wood USMC. He has acquired some proficiency in Spanish by reason of four years of study and a lot of practice with Cuban friends at College. .

The Mexican Consulate is contacted to get permission to cross the line and bring back our airplane. The response is affirmative and the speaker offers more advice. He suggests that the pilot be dressed appropriately.

“How is that?” “Well in formal uniform.”

The upshot of this is that I will wear my USMC dress blues. Complete with billed cap, blouse with medals and blue trousers with the red stripe. Marines do not ask “why”, Just do it. .

Next morning our little task force starts early. We cross the border, at El Centro. The Mexican guard salutes, and we start asking “Where is Campo Otto? We will ask this many more times this day.

Heading south we begin asking and receive general advice but no specifics. Once we are directed to a small farm and drive up to be met by a young man who leads us to the barn. He opens the door and proudly displays a large radial aircraft engine that he says that he has assembled and reassembled many times. It looks as if it is ready to be installed but he doesn’t know into what. He says that he would like to come to the United States and work on airplanes. I praise his work and encourage him to do so but this is not what we are looking for, I want a complete SNJ. .

The afternoon passes and the directions are beginning to be more specific. Once we encounter an American Jeep with two serious looking Mexican police officers toting SMG’s. My Spanish and our mission work and I get my second salute of the day.

Towards dark we turn up the dirt road described by our last pedestrian and there in the twilight sitting on the main gear and tail is our SNJ! We have arrived at Campo Otto.!

We are greeted by the local overseer. The farm is part of a larger one owned by a Patron whose name I have forgotten. Dark comes quickly and we prepare to settle in for the night. The local Boss is pleased to have company and invites us to stay in the house. His family is elsewhere and the local building is an outpost. There is no electricity and the comforts that we enjoy on this side of the border are minimal. I change to my flight suit and hang my Blues in the van. We put the mattresses in an empty room and dine on C rations.

The Boss invites us to a table lit by a kerosene lantern. This serves for his dining and business and once we are seated we are offered his best libation, Tequila and lemon gaseoso. He speaks no English and my mechanics speak no Spanish so they soon retire to the mattresses. We talk for a while and I turn in. I must have my wits about me for tomorrow.


We are awakened at dawn by the roosters. A quick breakfast from the C ration box and we are at the airplane. The mechanics look it over and can find nothing wrong but the bent propeller. Standard maintenance procedure would require that the engine shaft be checked for round but we are assuming that the degree of damage would not cause it to be out of specification and we are going anyway. We were fortunate that the pilot had not run out of fuel and bailed out or crashed. There is enough gas to get to El Centro where I will refuel before heading for El Toro.

After the propeller is replaced there is not much to do. I put on my helmet and buckle my dress uniform in the back seat. We give the mattresses and the rest of the C rations to our host. I can help the mechanics only by telling them to keep repeating “USA which way” and try to follow our path here.

There is one last obstacle. The SNJ is pointed down the road and there is no wind but the cornstalks are high and in the way. I can see nothing over the nose and there is no room for anything but straight ahead. With some reluctance and shame for perhaps abusing the hospitality of my host, I ask if he would have a few of his workers stand on each side and next to the corn a short distance down the road. They agree..

The battery is good and the engine starts after a few coughs. The controls are free, check list complete, the oil is warm and there is nothing else to do but fly.

I put down full flaps, push the throttle to full power and released the brakes .I got the nose down quickly and accelerated down the road missing the corn and all of my runway markers. After getting everything set for cruise I make a short circle and low pass over the farm head for El Centro where I refuel and on to El Toro.

After action report.

The mechanics had no trouble finding their way home.

The airplane was on the schedule the next day. So was I and the student.

The base commander wrote a thank you to the Mexican Consulate. Everyone in Mexico was kind and helpful.

It was like it never happened at the squadron.

I would never do something like that today without a Company of Marines, Air support and some Armor.


David W. Thomas, a dedicated SETP Fellow, left a gift of $10,000 to SETP upon his passing. Knowing of his passion for mentoring young test pilots, the SETP Board of Directors has earmarked Dave’s donation to be used in support of the New Member Reception held during the annual symposium and banquet in Anaheim, CA. Dave has attended many of these receptions to welcome the new members and we feel this is a very appropriate use of his generous gift.

Dave’s son Cameron and his family will join us in Anaheim as we raise our glass to Dave. We hope you will all join us to remember Dave, who we know will be with us in spirit. His generous donation will not be forgotten!


MEMBERSHIP NEWS AND UPDATES

In Canada, if you’re an engineer, you can be known by a iron ring worn on the little finger of your ‘work’ hand. It’s to remind you that you’re the weakest link in the whole chain, and it’s in memory of a bridge that collapsed in 1918 when an engineer made a serious error of calculation.

Along with the ring, Rudyard Kipling was commissioned to write a poem by the Canadian engineers for the ceremony that goes along with the iron ring. The poem was for many years only available to Canadian engineers, but is now in several anthologies of his works - ‘The Hymn of Breaking Strain’ is quite appropriate

Over the years, I’ve mused on adapting that poem to flying, and have reached the point of launching it on the unsuspecting world. So, with some trepidation, here it is:

The Hymn of Flying Strain(with apologetic thanks to Rudyard Kipling)

Flight manuals precisely tell us in lines of black and whiteThe load, the power, the speed of air to use when we take flight.So when our fragile steeds of air lie mangled, scattered on the groundThe blame for loss or error must eventually be found, And laid upon a man, Not upon the machine or it’s workings, but a man.

Instruments carefully measure the force, speed and strainOn things that pull, push and spin so we can read them plain.And know within those careful boundsWe can boldly take to flight yet return safe and sound.

Books of regulation in words of legaleseTell us what we must and mustn’t doTo please watching authoritiesYet in our daily dealings of things aeronautic we findGod put no words or numbers in view before mankind.To no paper regulation He made us, to no procedure tied.No sure track laid before us in what we do or tried.

We bend metal, fuel, plastics, electrons with imagining bold d dare darkness, storm, height, heat and coldUntil flaws of knowledge, strength or calculation, Exceeds some hidden, unknown limitation

We who fly must stay inside man’s careful boundsAvoid those lines undrawn beyond where trouble will be found.So we may take to the air with wings of earthly measureUntil lift, and power and speed we no longer need treasureAnd with God’s blessing fly free from earth’s constricting ties.

-Shawn Coyle (M)


The following are Members we have lost contact with. If you have any contact information for them please contact Susan at SETP Headquarters, 661-942-9574 or [email protected].

Arnold, JulianBull, Gifford

Galli, Hans-RudolfGlendinning, R. J. D.Gordon-Johnson, P.Manero, David G.

Saeger, ElmarShultz, William

Steckbauer, T. C.

****************************************

DON’T FORGET TO VOTE!Election ballots have been mailed or made available online in your

profile. Last day to vote is 9 August 2013.


SPECIAL BUSINESS MEETING

Minutes

The Special Business Meeting of The Society of Experimental Test Pilots was held on Friday, 7 June 2013, at the residence of Doug Shane, Lancaster, CA at 6:00pm. In attendance were 25 members, which provided a quorum as required by the SETP Constitution. (Names of attendees are on file at SETP Headquarters.)

President-Elect Prosser introduced the slate of officers for 2014/15 presented by the Nominating Committee.

For President-Elect: Mark Stucky (AF) Scaled Composites Brett Vance (AF) Federal Aviation Administration For Vice President: Patrick Duffy (AF) Applied Research Associates Tim Morey (AF) Wyle For Secretary: Craig Penrice (M) BAE Systems Michael Wallace (AF) Boeing For Treasurer: Todd Ericson (AF) Col, USAF Timothy McDonald (AF) USAF Test Pilot School For Legal Officer: Roderick Cregier (AF) Col, USAF Nicola Pecile (AF) National Test Pilot School

President-Elect Prosser then opened the floor for additional nominations for each Office, indicating that individual nominations need not have a second.

Jimmy Doolittle made a motion to accept the slate of officers as presented. John Fergione seconded the motion and all voted in favor.

There being no further business to discuss President-Elect Prosser adjourned the meeting.


57th Annual Symposium & BanquetThe Grand California Hotel

Anaheim, CA

25-28 September 2013

Visit www.SETP.org for more information and to register!

GERRY T. MORTON TECHNICAL TOUR: On 25 September a tour will be held at Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL). Attendees will gather at the SETP registration area for continental breakfast and the tour will depart the hotel at 8:20am. Lunch is included in the tour. The bus will return by 4:30pm and the cost is $75.00, which includes continental breakfast, transportation, tour and lunch. Dress for the tour will be business casual and closed toe shoes. All attendees must provide the information requested on the registration form for security clearance purposes. For security reasons, JPL requires that all foreign nationals must make reservations by 26 August in order to attend.

WELCOME RECEPTION: A Welcome Reception will be held in the Sequoia Foyer on Wednesday, 25 September from 6:30pm to 8:00pm. Dress is business casual and there is no cost for this event.

TECHNICAL SESSIONS: Technical Sessions will begin on Thursday, 26 September at 8:30am and conclude on Saturday, 28 September at 12:00pm. All attendees are eligible to receive continuing education credits through Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University. If desired, order a CEU certificate on the registration form. Dress code is business attire or military uniform of the day. The Saturday session is open to guests.

SPOUSES EVENT: A tour has been arranged to visit the Princess Diana Exhibit aboard the Queen Mary in Long Beach, California on Thursday, 26 September. After the tour lunch will be served at Parker’s Lighthouse, followed by a gondola ride through the canals and waterways of Naples Island, near the resort area of Belmont Shore in Long Beach. The bus will leave at 9:15 a.m. and return to the hotel at approximately 4:30pm. Please wear comfortable shoes. Please make your menu selection when registering. The cost for this event is $90.

LUNCHEON: A Luncheon will be held on Friday, 27 September from 12:30pm to 2:00pm. The guest speaker will be announced when confirmed. This luncheon is included in the full-price registration fee, and guests may purchase additional tickets for $55.00 per person.

FRIDAY NIGHT RECEPTION: On Friday, 27 September, an outdoor dinner reception will be held at the Disneyland Hotel. Due to the length of the walk transportation will be provided for those who may require it. Dress for the event is casual and a ticket is included in the full registration fee. For those not purchasing a full registration, tickets are $75 and children ages 3-9 are $25.

2013 SYMPOSIUM INFORMATION


SETP ANNUAL BUSINESS MEETING: The SETP Annual Business meeting will be held upon adjournment of the final symposium session on Saturday, 28 September. This meeting will be open to all grades of membership and corporate representatives. An update on Society activities will be presented and 2013/14 SETP Officers will be installed.

AWARDS BANQUET: On Saturday, 28 September, the 57th Annual Awards Banquet will be held at 6:30pm in the Sequoia Ballroom. The social hour will begin at 5:30pm. Tickets for the event are $135.00. Dress for the event is Black Tie or military mess dress and appropriate formal wear for ladies. The program will include presentation of Fellows, the Ray E. Tenhoff, Tony LeVier, H. R. Salmon, J. H. Doolittle, Eta and Iven C. Kincheloe Awards.

ACCOMMODATIONS: The Grand Californian and the Paradise Pier are now accepting room reservations. The group rate is $202 for single/double at the Grand Californian. For those wishing to stay at the Paradise Pier, located across the street from the Grand Californian, the room rate is $168 single/double. A very limited block of U.S. military/government rooms has been reserved at the Paradise Pier Hotel, for active U.S. military/government employees at a rate of $122. Reservations for both hotels can be made by calling 1-714-520-5005 or online at : https://resweb.passkey.com/Resweb.do?mode=welcome_ei_new&eventID=10384217. When booking reservations please indicate that you are with Society of Experimental Test Pilots. The cut-off-date for reservations is Tuesday, 3 September 2013. Reservations after the cut-off-date are subject to availability.

CANCELLATIONS: The deadline for refunds on cancellations is 20 September.

ATTIRE FOR EACH EVENT:Welcome Reception.................................................................................Business CasualTechnical Tour.....................................................Business Casual and comfortable shoesTechnical Sessions..................................................Business/Military uniform of the daySpouses Event....................................................................Casual and comfortable shoesFriday Night Reception...........................................................................................CasualBanquet.............................................................................Black Tie/Military Mess Dress

For discounted tickets to Disneyland or California Adventure, please see the SETP Registration desk at the hotel.


7th European Flight Test Safety Workshop29-31 October 2013

Amsterdam, The Netherlands

OFFICIAL CALL FOR PAPERS

The Flight Test Safety Committee is sponsoring a Flight Test Safety Workshop on 29-30 October 2013 at the auditorium of the National Aerospace Laboratory NLR in Amsterdam. The purpose of the Safety Workshop is to provide an open forum where test safety issues can be presented, discussed and probed with other members and disciplines of the flight test community. Arun Karwal is coordinating the event.

The theme of the workshop is “Flight Deck Design and Human-Machine Interface”.

Presentations should be limited to approximately 30-45 minutes, including a discussion period. No proceedings are published; therefore, formal written papers are not required. Those interested in presenting please send paper/presentation proposals to the 2013 European Flight Test Safety Workshop Chairman, via email to [email protected]. Also, any questions regarding submitting an abstract may be directed to this mail address. The deadline for abstracts is 13 September 2013 to allow time for appropriate consideration and inclusion in the program.

Visit www.SETP.org for more information and to register!

**********************************************************************

Southwest Symposium31 October 2013

The Worthington HotelFort Worth, Texas

More information will be provided at www.SETP.org as it becomes available.


Southeast Section SymposiumThe SETP Southeast Section kicked off the first section symposium of the year at a new venue but attended by some familiar faces. In order to maximize military member attendance during a period of “conference austerity” imposed by the federal government, the symposium team decided to move this year’s venue to the newly renovated Eglin Air Force Base Club. The conference was well attended, with more than 60 members and guests present for the technical session on 22 Feb, and approximately 50 folks who gathered for the traditional Thursday evening prior mixer, held at the Boathouse Landing in Valparaiso. Corporate sponsorship was outstanding this year, and was key to bringing section costs down to a level where we could conduct the symposium with no charge to attendees other than a nominal fee for the optional luncheon event.

Symposium Chairman Adam MacDonald (AF) kicked off the day-long technical session on Friday by introducing the AM Session Chair, Brigadier General Bill Thornton (M), who kept his four outstanding presenters on time and on target. Southeast Section Chairman Major Darren Wees presided over an outstanding luncheon with desert plenary given by Col Jim Dutton. Shuttle Pilot Dutton gave an excellent treatise on the difficulties of rendezvous docking of the shuttle to the Space Station MIR during one of the final shuttle missions STS-131. Col Mike Contratto (AF) chaired the PM technical session, and his final four technical papers kept the audience amazed and entertained as the presenters continued discussion of the outstanding work being done in the field of RTD&E in the Southeast Section area.

SETP President Doug Benjamin (F) traveled to witness this year’s event and bestowed the Emerald Coast Award for best presentation. Although the competition was stiff, Major Tucker Hamilton (PAM) walked away with the coveted etched acrylic yet glass-like sculpture that represents outstanding test program execution and stewardship. Major Hamilton described the details of surrogate flight testing of the Trident submarine-launched nuclear missile inertial navigation testing using a unique test pod fitted to the F-15E test aircraft while deployed to Cape Canaveral.

Although many of the members missed the previous venue at the Okaloosa Island Ramada hotel, written and verbal feedback of this year’s event was tremendously positive – and the food at the Club was excellent as well. See you all at Anaheim!

2013 SYMPOSIUM HIGHLIGHTS


SETP 43rd San Diego SymposiumTwo weeks before the symposium, I thought the whole event would be a bust due to sequestration and draconian budget cuts. Despite my fears, this year’s symposium proved to be a successful event. Thanks to five military presenters who showed up on their own nickel, the presentation calendar was full. Attendance was about 80. Many thanks to the outstanding SETP staff.

Presentations were as follows:

1. X51 High Risk Flight Test” - (Lt Col Tim Jorris, USAF, Maj Andrew Murphy, USAF (M))

2. “Hitting an Ever-Moving Target: Seeking the Definitive from the Ill-Defined” - (Capt Justin Elliott, USAF)

3. “F-35 Night Lighting Eval” - (Mark Ward (AF), Lockheed Martin)

4. “Introducing Vz - Best Efficiency of Climb Speed for Small Airplanes” - (Norman Howell (AF), Boeing)

5. “Design of Experiment (DOE) and Experimental Design (ED) Applied to the F/A-18-E/F Vulcan Cannon” - (Maj Zachary McCarley, USMC (AM))

6. “Next Generation Auto-GCAS” - (Kevin Prosser, Calspan Corp. (AF))

7. “KC-767A and C-130J Probe and Drogue Compatibility Testing - Solving the Challenges with a Heavy Receiver” - (Stephen Stowe, The Boeing Co. (AF) )

8. “Flight Testing of the Ball-Bartoe Jetwing USB Research Airplane” - (Ralph Kimberlin, Ph.D. (AF))

9. “Carrier Suitability Testing, Circa 1967-72” - (CDR Robert Johnson, USN (Ret) (M))

10. “Maintaining Relevance in the midst of Dramatic Strategic Change” - (Dan Vanderhorst, Dept. of AF (F) and Lt Col Don Sheesley, USAF (M))

Kevin Prosser won the outstanding presentation award for his “Next Generation Auto-GCAS”

Friday night festivities were held aboard the William D. Evans sternwheeler on the bay behind the Catamaran Hotel.

Bill Warlick from Broken Wing LLC entertained the banquet audience with his presentation on the intentional crashing of a (remotely piloted) B-727 airliner in the Mexican desert.

Russ Stewart (M), Symposium Chairman


29th Annual East Coast Section Symposium

The 29th Annual East Coast Symposium was held on Friday, 12 April 2013 in Patuxent River Naval Air Station at the River’s Edge Catering and Conference Center. This was another fantastic East Coast Symposium thanks to the highly focused efforts of Symposium Chairman CDR Robert Bibeau (M) and his East Coast Symposium planning committee. A total of 221 people attended— including experienced flight test professionals, USNTPS students, US Naval Academy Midshipmen majoring in aerospace engineering, and a group of Great Mills High School students from the STEM UAV Design Club. The High School students’ attendance was funded by the SETP Educational Foundation and they were projecting first test flight of their UAV the following weekend. Additionally, we were pleased to have the current SETP President, Mr. Doug Benjamin (F), various former SETP Presidents, several USN Patuxent River test squadron COs, as well as the Commander, Naval Test Wing Atlantic in attendance.

The technical sessions, chaired by LCDR Brian Sandberg (M) and LCDR William Berryman (M), included:

• “T-45C Virtual Mission Training System Technical Evaluation” (LT Chris Weaver, USN and Alicia Conrad, NAVAIR/NAWCAD)

• “Flight Test of the Dual Embedded Global Positioning System Inertial Navigation System Installation in the HH-60H Helicopter” (LT Chad Berman, USN (PAM) and Kacie Fleck, NAWCAD)

• “The Little Strake that Could – Balancing Aero Mods on a Special Missions Regional Jet” (Steve Dunkle (M), Northrop Grumman Electronic Systems)

• “Pilot Interface and Flight Control Design Considerations for V-22 Tiltrotor Transition/Conversion” (Marty Shubert (AF), Bell Helicopter Textron)

• “Yawed Landings Alternative Method for Achieving Crosswind Landings” (John White, NAVAIR/NAWCAD)

• “F-35B Short Takeoff” (Peter Wilson (M), BAE Systems and Dan Levin (AF), Lockheed Martin Aeronautics)

• “V-22 Short Takeoff and Minimum Run-On Landings Testing aboard Nimitz Class Ships” (Maj James Gibson, USMC (PAM) and Jennie Mitchell, NAVAIR/NAWCAD)

• “X-47B UCAS-D Carrier Suitability Lessons Learned” (LT Allan Jespersen, USN (PAM) and Michael Harris, NAVAIR/NAWCAD)

The luncheon keynote speaker was VADM David Dunaway (M), Commander Naval Air Systems Command. His timeless comments were a reflection on the current budget challenges facing Naval Aviation and an encouraging pep talk that we will find a way to continue to be innovative and efficient in the face of any sort of adversity.

The Leroy Grumman Award for best paper, presented by NGC Representatives Dave Seeman (F) and Mike Rabens (F), went to the “V-22 Short Takeoff and Minimum Run-On Landings Testing aboard Nimitz Class Ships” brief given by Maj Gibson and Jennie Mitchell, the second straight year representatives from HX-21 have won the award! After the technical sessions, a reception at the storied Flight Deck Lounge was sponsored by the


USNTPS Alumni Association and turned out to be a fantastic social event enjoyed by all.

The East Coast Section gives special thanks to our corporate sponsors: Wyle, Pratt and Whitney, the Boeing Company, Northrop Grumman, Rolls-Royce, and the Military Retirement Center (Gray Morrison). Finally, the success of this symposium would not have been possible without the outstanding support of SETP Headquarters, the East Coast Section officers/volunteers, and the gracious staff of the River’s Edge.

Luncheon Speaker Vice Admiral David Dunaway, USN (M), Command Naval Air Systems Command


2013 East Coast Symposium Session Chairman,CDR Robert “Timmay!” Bibeau, USN (M)

SETP Leroy Grumman Award Winners

Dave Seeman (F), Jennie Mitchell, Mike Rabens (F) and James Gibson (PAM)


SETP/SFTE Flight Test Safety Workshop

The Flight Test Safety Committee sponsored the annual Flight Test Safety Workshop in New Orleans at the Hilton Doubletree Hotel on April 23-25. The theme of this workshop was “Flight Test: A History Full of Firsts”. The purpose of the workshop forum is to provide an open forum where flight test safety issues and lessons learned can be presented and discussed with members of the flight test community. Jim Richmond, FAA Aircraft Certification Service Flight Program Manager, was the program chairman.

This workshop, following the theme of “first flights” focused on the safety issues involved with making the first venture into any aspect of flight testing. The program commenced with a presentation by Jim Plackis (M) who discussed his “Memorable Moments in 38 Years of Flight Testing with the FAA”. So starting with history that went back into the 1960’s, we moved into current programs and even looked at new programs on the horizon.

The Flight Test Safety Tutorial on the first day of the workshop was presented by Rogers Shaw of the Civil Aerospace Medical Institute whose presentation was on “Aviation Physiology and Human Factors Element”. Rogers gave us an enlightening and entertaining presentation on physiology and human factors in aviation filled with examples and illustrations focused on safety in flight.

Session chairs were Tom Archer, Eric Kinney, Rod Huete and Pete Donath. The session chairs did an excellent job in getting audience participation through the panel discussions. All did an outstanding job.

The 2013 Best Paper award sponsored by Bombardier was awarded to Jake Howard and Paul Donovan of Gulfstream for their outstanding presentation “A Tragic First – Gulfstream G650 Flight Test Accident.”

There were several nominations for this year’s Tony LeVier Award, and all were excellent, deserving nominees. From among this outstanding field of nominees, Col Art “Turbo” Tomassetti was selected as the winner. We all commend Turbo for his contributions to flight test safety. The presentation of the Tony LeVier award will be made at the annual symposium in September.

Special thanks to our sponsors, Bell Helicopter, Boeing, Gulfstream and Wyle. Without the backing and contributions of our sponsors, the workshop would not be possible. And as always, the workshop could not have happened without the great support provided by Paula Smith.


Great Lakes SymposiumOn the heels of the University of Dayton simulator competition held in April, the Great Lakes Symposium on 16 May was a best-ever, with over 90 participants in attendance. Presentations spanned the spectrum from Vireo small UAS testing, to results of F-35 aerial refueling testing and the final X-51 hypersonic demonstrator. The Mitch Cary Award for the Best Paper was awarded to Lt Col Aaron Tucker (M), Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL), for his very interesting presentation on a laminar flow doctoral research project he performed at Texas A&M University. He presented piloting techniques he pioneered for challenges in closely maintaining a desired Reynolds number within a very tight tolerance despite atmospheric variations during extended dive profile test points.

Attendees also heard about Air Force Institute of Technology (AFIT) midair and terrain collision avoidance research, and AFRL’s HIFIRE project in Australia. Luncheon speaker Brigadier General William “Thunder” Thornton covered challenges facing the AFMC Test and Evaluation enterprise. Concluding the afternoon session, a panel discussion continued with AFMC challenges, AFIT’s new Center for T&E educational initiative, and the USAF Airworthiness process.

Section members also joined an SFTE-hosted dinner after the Symposium where the National Museum of the USAF (NMUSAF) Director, Lt Gen (Ret) Jack Hudson gave an interesting presentation on the Museum’s efforts for the to-be-constructed fourth display hangar for Presidential, Space, and Research aircraft, and the new high-resolution, interactive cockpit views available on the Museum’s website.

The Section’s next event, the summer picnic, is in the planning stages for approximately August.


CENTRAL SECTIONThe Central section conducted its annual symposium on June 10th. The section kicked off the symposium informally Sunday evening, June 9th with a social, generously sponsored by Bombardier and hosted by Jeff “Pig Pen” Karnes (AF) at the Bombardier delivery center at Wichita Mid-Continent airport. Attendees not only enjoyed each other’s company, great Kansas BBQ, and beverages, but also the “Chefs Tour” of Bombardier’s Global Vision Flight Deck prototype aircraft.

The next day the section opened its symposium at the Hotel Old Town Conference Center in downtown Wichita. The section coordinated a variety of technical presentations and a question/answer session with a panel of three senior test pilots. Attendees enjoyed a luncheon of Portuguese Pot Roast and an address from Cessna’s Senior Vice President of Engineering, Mr. Michael Thacker, on the topic of Leadership in Times of Change. Presenters provided the following presentations:

“Why We Do Things the Way We Do Them, Lessons Learned from Historical Flight Flutter Testing” -- Mr. Mark Mondt (Bombardier)

“Vmcg Runway Selection – How Wide is Wide Enough?” – Mr. Mark Schlegel (F) (Bombardier)

“Flutter and Air Start Testing of the AT-6” – Dr. Lionel Alford (M) (Beechcraft)

“Part 23 Reorganization” – Mr. Lowell Foster (FAA Small Aircraft Directorate)

“Flight Testing For Dummies – Lessons Learned from Water Ingestion & Precipitation Drag Testing” – Mr. Mike Voigt (M) & Mr. Steve Turner (M) (Cessna)


“A Tragic First – Gulfstream G650 Flight Test Accident” – Mr. Tom Huff (AF) (Gulfstream)

“State of the Society” – Mr. Doug Benjamin (F) (Boeing)

Mr. Marc Manella (AF) (Cessna) acted as moderator for a panel of Central Section senior members consisting of:

Mr. Pete Reynolds (F) (PTR Aero)

Mr. Gerald Baker (F) (FAA)

Mr. Charles Volk (M) (Beechcraft)

Highlights of the topics included: regulatory changes & concerns, flight test events from which they learned the most, industry changes over the last 5 decades, and personal aircraft preferences.

The technical paper judges made a difficult decision amongst several excellent papers, awarding the coveted Lloyd Stearman Award for best technical paper to Mr. Tom Huff (AF) (Gulfstream) “A Tragic First – Gulfstream G650 Flight Test Accident”

The section would like to thank the symposium’s corporate sponsors, Beechcraft, Bombardier, Cessna and Garmin for helping to keep the costs low for our attendees.



SCHOLARSHIP FOUNDATION NEWS

The following notes were received from Scholarship recipients:

This is Aaron Evenson. I have just recently returned from Air Force Field Training and have successfully passed and will enter into the Professional Officer’s Corps (POC) of Air Force ROTC.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Scholarship Foundation for all their help throughout the years and their continuing support. I started an Organization for people interested in a career in special operations. We help people with the training and selection process through our own training program. It’s called Special Operations Pre-Candidate Program (SOPCP) and has been officially recognized by Embry-Riddle as an on-campus club.

Once again thank you so much for all your support. It is much appreciated!

Dear Scholarship Foundation Board,

Thank you very much for your interest in my education. I am so thankful for the support that you have offered in the past, and for your continued desire to help me achieve my Nursing degree. I know that without all of your assistance, I would not be where I am today.

Sincerely,Faith Brown

Dear Scholarship Foundation Board, I graduated summa cum laude with a BA in Anthropology and Ecology on May 10th. Thank you all again for your help and support over the years! Most Sincerely,Robin Fiore


Dear Scholarship Foundation Board,

As is my custom, I want to take this opportunity to bring you up to date on my recent educational experience that has only been made possible through your continued support. Following an internship with the international law firm Pacific Justice Institute, I have continued to work as an administrative assistant for the Torrey Honors Institute, my university’s unique honors program, assisting in or solely designing multiple projects including an entirely new alumni award for the university. I have also been acting as Biola’s Speech and Debate Team’s Assistant Captain and Team Administrator throughout the year, helping train my team and myself for competition all over the country. This year, my partner and I were among the top 5 competitive teams at one of the most prestigious national debate tournaments in the nation, at which I also received an award for fourth best individual speaker. As of this month, I was named the Team Captain for next year’s season.

While I have thoroughly enjoyed my studies in psychology and law the past two years, this semester has marked a decided change in my plans as I begin looking more to the business side of a career path than the legal side. My experience in several different management positions for various organizations while in college has awoken in me a desire to foster the potential of others, a goal that I am strongly pursuing through different internships and part-time jobs as well as a change in major.

Thank you very much for your support.Sean Brohmer Hansen


SETP Members,

Your Society has two affiliated Foundations that benefit the membership directly. The Scholarship Foundation provides financial aid in the form of scholarships to deceased members. The SETP Foundation is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit corporation. The SETP Foundation is for the benefit of and to perform functions of and carry out the purposes of the Society of Experimental Test Pilots (the parent organization). The obvious tax benefits associated with a 501(c)(3) organization is a direct benefit to SETP members.

Specifically the Foundation performs the following functions:1) The Foundation maintains the history of the Society by receiving and maintaining funds, artifacts, memorabilia, written records, oral histories, reports, photographs and other artifacts relating to test pilots and their profession.

2) Enhancing the professional knowledge of test pilots and other aerospace professionals for the purpose of increasing flight test safety. The Flight Test Safety Committee is a joint committee under the SETP Foundation and SFTE.

3) The Foundation provides mentors for educating our youth through the Education/Mentoring Committee. This includes an academic bridge to the aerospace industry working with universities to develop flight test oriented classes and degrees as well as working with industry to develop internships to support the university efforts. The Foundation actively participates and is the largest aerospace specific sponsor of the Intel ISEF student project.

The Foundation also provides educational outreach to high schools to motivate and encourage the pursuit of an aerospace education. We are striving to support educational outreach in all geographic sections of SETP.

The SETP building is aging and one goal of the Foundation is to acquire funding sufficient to provide the Society with a new headquarters building complete with museum quality storage for the Society’s memorabilia.

Your professional Society’s goals are supported by the SETP Foundation. We need your contributions to remain strong, viable and relevant. Please continue to contribute anything you can. You can make a donation when paying your dues, at a symposium, or send directly to the Foundation through the SETP staff. In addition, consider a trust or living will with a donation to the Foundation. With your support the Foundation will be an effective tool to keep SETP strong.

Thanks,Steve RaineySETP Foundation Chairman

SETP FOUNDATION NEWS


ACADEMIC BRIDGE TO AROSPACE INDUSTRY PROJECT

The Society of Experimental Test Pilots Foundation is interested in finding ways to promote Aerospace Careers for undergraduate and graduate students enrolled in universities that offer Aeronautical Degree Programs. I chair the “Academic Bridge to the Aerospace Industry Committee” whose purpose is to generate interest and engage with the aerospace industry to shorten the timeline from graduation to industry productivity by six months. This will be achieved by industry assisting in course recommendations to address their operational requirements. By adding currency to the classroom, and offering internships to students enrolled in the FTE Certificate Program will provide valuable hands on experience with industry professionals. A meeting was held at FIT to generate interest in developing a combined Flight Test Evaluation Degree with their departments. It was agreed to start the process to develop the FTE Degrees and Certificates.

The aerospace industry was also interested in graduate level Flight Test Evaluation Certificates that would provide career enhancement credentials for their personnel. The FTE Certificates for undergraduate and graduate students add academic strength to their aeronautical science/engineering degrees. The Flight Test Evaluation Certificate (science/engineering) is twelve hours with transcripts that can be applied to a MS Flight Test Evaluation (science/engineering) Degree valid up to seven years.

The two track MS Flight Test Evaluation (science/engineering) Degree programs are in current development.

The undergraduate students at Florida Institute of Technology (FIT) have the opportunity to replace their tech electives starting in their junior year with FTE Certificate Courses with completion in the senior year without any additional credit hours.

FIT students enrolled in the Flight Test Evaluation Certificate Program will have better qualifications for industry internships and employment opportunities.

The Flight Test Certificate and MS Flight Test Evaluation Degree (science/engineering) recognize T&E as a discipline, and the Certificate and the MS degrees are the credentials for that discipline. FIT is the first university to offer these two professional curriculums to their students and aerospace industry associates.

We have a meeting at Pax River with NAVAIR and the USNTPS June 24th to present the Flight Test Evaluation Certificate and MS Flight Test Evaluation (science/engineering) Degree Programs. NAVAIR is also interested in the activity for their people at China Lake, and Point Mugu.

The Boeing Company’s T&E department and has invited us to meet in Seattle to discuss both programs.

Northrop Grumman is interested in providing internships to students enrolled in the FTE Certificate programs and potential employment opportunities.


The first Flight Test Evaluation Certificate Course at FIT began February 16th “Airplane Flight Test Evaluation Performance” with Flight Lab. Ralph Kimberlin, Ph.D.,(AF) SETP member since 1971 put together the course and has instructed flight testing for over 27 years. At present, two FTE Certificate courses are planned for the Fall Semester at FIT, “Airplane Performance Flight Test Evaluation”, and “Airplane Stability and Control” both courses will have flight labs.

The FTE Certificate for engineers teaches the students to design, conduct and report on flight test of airplanes and other flight vehicles. In addition to the background theory, instrumented airplanes are used for flight labs where students collect and reduce data to sea level standard day conditions to evaluate compliance to FAA Regulations and for expansion back to specified conditions used in airplane flight manuals.

The Flight Test Evaluation Certificate for aeronautical science students in the flight training program will have emphasis placed on how the aircraft system works, rather than working the aircraft system, for airplane performance and stability and control. This will enhance situational awareness and the decision making process during critical phases of flight. It is important to continue developing aeronautical knowledge skills to enhance the student’s ability to think outside the box in pursuit of flight safety excellence.

Submitted by,Captain Bill Connor Ph.D. (AF) SETP Foundation BOD

************************************************************** SETP’s STEM Outreach to the 2013 Intel ISEF

Many of us were fascinated by the 1999 film October Sky, in which Homer Hickam and his Rocket Boys’ experiments in model rocketry ultimately landed them first prize in the propulsion category at the 1960 National Science Fair. This tradition of inspiring students to explore greater levels of scientific and engineering inquiry has carried on to this day through its current incarnation as the Intel International Science and Engineering Fair (ISEF).

The Intel ISEF is now in it’s 64th year and has grown to host over 1500 student finalists from 82 countries, culled from 455 regional, county, state, and national affiliate fairs from across the world, though principally from the USA. Put another way, these finalists embody the finest large gathering of students assembled under one roof, and as a result, offers one of the best opportunities for SETP to leverage its privileged position in the aerospace industry to inspire pre-college youth to careers in aerospace and predispose them to the flight test profession.

Although the Intel ISEF permits finalists to compete their projects in one of 17 named categories, there is no longer a specific division for aerospace projects. Propulsion, the category in which Homer Hickam competed, has long since been subsumed into the category of Energy and Transportation, coincident with the overall decline in the number of aerospace projects competed since their heyday in the 1960s. This category now represents the largest showing of aerospace projects, with a handful of additional offerings


interspersed within the categories of Electrical & Mechanical Engineering and Physics & Astronomy. Unfortunately, aerospace related projects currently represent only a small fraction of the Energy & Transportation category’s total projects, with roughly 75% of the projects focusing instead on green energy topics (such as biofuels, fuel cells, solar cells, etc.), against which aerospace projects compete on a somewhat unequal footing.

In addition to the grand awards, the Intel ISEF is notable for the numerous Special Award Organizations (SAOs) which offer targeted awards to students in the hopes of encouraging additional projects in the organizations’ represented fields. Of the 66 SAOs at this year’s fair, the largest professional aerospace society—the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA)—was not among them. Fortunately, NASA has joined the ranks of the SAOs as recently as last year; however, inasmuch as NASA offers awards to finalists across all of the 17 categories, their outreach is not specifically targeted at promoting aerospace per se.

This is where SETP comes in. In an effort to incline our nation’s youth back to STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Math) in general, and aerospace in particular, the SETP Foundation Board of Directors approved an outreach initiative on 10 March 2010 to step forward as an SAO to the Intel ISEF. Since our initial involvement in 2010, SETP remains the only SAO with a strict focus on areospace and related fields.

This year’s fair was held in the Phoenix Convention Center, AZ, from 12-17 May 2013, marking SETP’s fourth consecutive year as an SAO to the Intel ISEF. As an SAO, SETP was afforded the opportunity to reach out to the world’s top scientifically-minded pre-college youth, principally through three venues of interaction: 1) as judges to interact with and interview a select number of finalists to determine the Society’s award winners, 2) by offering an aerospace Symposium Session with Q&A, and 3) as an awards presenter during the Special Awards Ceremony.

This year, an initial cadre of four judges (Tom McDonald, Rich Lee, Joe Sobczak and Andy Gerner) narrowed a field of 600+ projects in seven categories to an initial cut of 81 projects, which were then culled to a final list of 13 promising projects. The following day, these judges were joined by two more (Bob Newton and John Fergione) to interview the top 13 finalists and select SETP’s top three award picks and honorable mentions.

The next day, the team was joined by F-22 Test Pilot/Astronaut Colonel Jim Dutton, SETP’s designated symposium speaker and awards presenter for 2013. Before giving his presentation, Colonel Dutton personally met with our top 13 finalists to provide personal advice and encouragement before conducting SETP’s-sponsored symposium session that we co-presented with NASA. The session was open to any and all interested in his experiences as a test pilot and shuttle pilot to resupply the International Space Station. The 1-hour presentation was attended by an enthusiastic audience who remained on afterwards for an additional hour of informal Q&A.

Later that evening during the SAO awards ceremony, Colonel Dutton personally presented each of our top 3 finalists with their awards on stage, in front of an audience of all 1500 finalists and their attending faculty. This year, our top picks went to: Yenny Dieguez,


our third place winner for her work in more efficient configurations of vertical wind turbines inspired by schools of fish; Sumukh Bharadwaj, our second place winner for his computational fluids work in configuring a biplane airfoil for practical application and sonic boom reduction in supersonic flows; and David Zarrin, our first place winner for constructing and testing a working model of a hybrid pulsejet turbine jet engine. Not present on stage were our 3 honorable mentions: Andrew Miller for developing a “Joule thief” to extend battery life; Daniel Dorminy for testing and designing tip rotor components for residential wind turbines, and the team of Eric Chan and Jordan Kuhn for their preliminary design work aimed at developing and testing canard drones for agricultural use. Ultimately, while aerospace projects within Energy and Transportation and related categories still constitute a minority share, we have observed an overall 12% increase in the number of such projects competed since our initial involvement with the Intel ISEF in 2010, something we can only hope to improve upon through our continued influence and involvement as an SAO at the next Intel ISEF, to be held in the Los Angeles Convention Center, CA, from 11-16 May 2014.


KNOW THE CORPORATE MEMBER

The Calspan Corporation has long been associated with aerospace excellence in the support of military and commercial customers throughout the United States and around the globe. Founded in 1940 as the Research Laboratory of the Curtiss Wright Aircraft Company, Calspan’s capabilities and expertise have continued to evolve along-side advancements in the aerospace industry.

Calspan’s primary Flight Research operations are located in a state-of-the-art, 80,000 sq. ft. facility adjacent to the Niagara Falls, NY, International Airport (KIAG), a dual-use civilian/military airport. Built in 2005, the facility has two large hangar bays to support Calspan’s fleet of In-Flight Simulator (IFS) and airborne testbed aircraft. Calspan’s portfolio of aircraft includes a Gulfstream G-III testbed, a Saab 340 Airborne Systems Test and Research Support (ASTARS) aircraft, three Learjet IFS aircraft, and one Learjet testbed. Calspan also operates the USAF Variable stability In-flight Simulator Test Aircraft (VISTA)/NF-16D for the U.S. Air Force Test Pilot School at Edwards AFB. In-house machine, sheet metal, electronics, and hydraulic services support aircraft modifications and operations. Engineering offices, project rooms, a System Integration Laboratory (SIL), and a flight operations room with adjacent radio room round out the facility. Government and/or commercial test teams of up to 50 people routinely use the facility, taking advantage of KIAG’s 10,000 ft. runway and easy access to the test and Misty Military Operating Areas (MOA) over Lake Ontario.

Calspan employs an experienced, multi-disciplined combination of test pilots, engineers, mechanics and technicians, whose sole focus is to provide safe, efficient execution, and world-class support to our customer’s flight test programs. Whether support is provided by the Calspan team at KIAG or Calspan personnel located at NAS Patuxent River, MD, or Edwards AFB, CA, our customers return time and time again because of a constant attention to their needs and requirements.


Since 1947, Calspan has been in the forefront of experimental testing in subsonic/transonic speed regimes, providing aerodynamic test services for the U.S. and international aerospace communities. In support of these services, Calspan operates one of the largest, independently-owned Transonic Wind Tunnel facility of its kind in the U.S.

The Transonic Wind Tunnel is a continuous flow, variable density, closed circuit facility with an 8 x 8 foot (2.4 x 2.4 meter) test section capable of speeds up to Mach 1.35. Custom sting, high angle-of-attack, captive trajectory simulation, reflection plane, and island fairing support systems provide maximum customer flexibility. Test and data acquisition procedures are integrally keyed to provide flexibility in acquiring high quality data quickly and efficiently.


NEW MEMBERS AND UPGRADES

Antonio, Armindo (AM) Flt Lt, Brazil

Joined 27-Feb-13

Barretto, Savio (AM) Cessna

Joined 27-Mar-13

Beaufils, Yann (M)Maj, JASDF

Joined 27-Mar-13

The Society would like to welcome the following new Members:

Baldauf, Sven (PAM) Maj, German AFJoined 16-Jan-13

Banadyga, Brett (PAM)Capt, CAF

Joined 16-Jan-13

Anderson, Bjorn (PAM) LT, USN

Joined 16-Jan-13

Bleyer, Manfred (M)Ministry of Interior Austria

Joined 19-Jun-13

Buckwalter, Hans (PAM)Capt, USAF

Joined 19-Jun-13


Easter, Russell (M) Lt. Col, USAF - Calspan

Joined 27-Feb-13

Downing, Jeffrey (PAM) Capt, USAF

Joined 16-Jan-13

Duke, Jason (PAM) Maj, USMC

Joined 27-Feb-13

Kakoi, Kazuhiko (M)Maj, JASDF

Joined 27-Mar-13

Cordes, Claus (PAM)Lt Col, German AF Joined 16-Jan-13

Cordoves Ortiz, Rafael (PAM) CW3. USA

Joined 19-Jun-13

Hartkop, Matthew (AM) Pilatus Aircraft LTD

Joined 17-Apr-13

Kirschke, Ian (AM)LCDR, USN

Joined 19-Jun-13


Miwa, Yoshiteru (M)Col, JASDF

Joined 27-Feb-13

McCarthy, Patrick (PAM) LT, USN

Joined 16-Jan-13

Webb, James (AM)Boeing

Joined 17-Apr-13

Simmons, Rickey (M) FAA

Joined 27-Feb-13

McCann, Gregory (AM) The Boeing Co.

Joined 16-Jan-13

Sanford, Ryan (PAM)Maj, USAF

Joined 16-Jan-13

Nikkanen, Jaakko (PAM) Capt, Finnish AF Joined 16-Jan-13

Marichy, Stéphane (M)Lt Cdr, French Flight Test DGA

Joined 19-Jun-13

Wilkening, Mark (AM) LCDR, USNR - Northrop Grumman

Joined 16-Jan-13

Abbott, Sarah (PAM) LT, USN

Joined 16-Jan-13Allamandola, David (PAM)

Maj, USAF Joined 19-Jun-13

Beihl, Nichlos (PAM)Capt, USAF

Joined 19-Jun-13 Bookey, Patrick (PAM)

LT, USN Joined 16-Jan-13

Buske, Gerrit (PAM) Capt, German AF Joined 16-Jan-13

Easton, Boaz (PAM)Maj, Israeli AF

Joined 16-Jan-13Endo, Mitsuo (M)

Maj, JASDF Joined 27-Mar-13

Frey, Aaron (PAM) Capt, USMC

Joined 19-Jun-13

Killerby, Jonathan (PAM) Sqn Ldr, RAF

Joined 19-Jun-13Lyon, Richard (PAM)

Maj, USAF Joined 16-Jan-13


Wilkening, Mark (AM) LCDR, USNR - Northrop Grumman

Joined 16-Jan-13

Williams, Timothy (M)NASA Dryden Flight Research Center

Joined 19-Jun-13

PHOTOS NOT AVAILABLE FOR THE FOLLOWING NEW MEMBERS:

Abbott, Sarah (PAM) LT, USN

Joined 16-Jan-13

Aiolfi, Gabriele (PAM)Capt, Italian AF Joined 16-Jan-13

Allamandola, David (PAM) Maj, USAF

Joined 19-Jun-13

Andrews, Trevor (PAM)Maj, Australian Army

Joined 16-Jan-13Beihl, Nichlos (PAM)

Capt, USAF Joined 19-Jun-13

Belew, David (PAM) LT, USN

Joined 16-Jan-13 Bookey, Patrick (PAM)

LT, USN Joined 16-Jan-13

Buck, Robert (PAM)Capt, USMC

Joined 19-Jun-13Buske, Gerrit (PAM)

Capt, German AF Joined 16-Jan-13

Calhoun, Paul(PAM)Maj, USAF

Joined 19-Jun-13Easton, Boaz (PAM)

Maj, Israeli AF Joined 16-Jan-13

Ehlen, Maryann (PAM) Capt, USAF

Joined 16-Jan-13Endo, Mitsuo (M)

Maj, JASDF Joined 27-Mar-13

Fishman, Spencer (PAM)LT, USN

Joined 16-Jan-13Frey, Aaron (PAM)

Capt, USMC Joined 19-Jun-13

Guarente, Christopher (PAM) Maj, USAF

Joined 16-Jan-13

Hefron, Ryan (PAM)Capt, USAF

Joined 16-Jan-13

Hullah, Benjamin (PAM)Sqn Ldr, RAF

Joined 27-Feb-13

Hagner, Rebecca (PAM)Capt, USMC

Joined 27-Mar-13

Hayes III, James (PAM) Maj, USAF

Joined 19-Jun-13

Killerby, Jonathan (PAM) Sqn Ldr, RAF

Joined 19-Jun-13

Killingsworth, Patrick (PAM) Maj, USAF

Joined 19-Jun-13Lyon, Richard (PAM)

Maj, USAF Joined 16-Jan-13

Lundstedt, Daniel (PAM) Capt. Swedish Air Force

Joined 19-Jun-13


Mbhokota, Musa (PAM)Lt Col, S. African AF

Joined 16-Jan-13

McGill, Joseph (PAM)Maj, USAF

Joined 16-Jan-13 Naksahima, Ryohei (M)

Lt. Col, JASDF Joined 27-Mar-13

Robinson, Jeremy (M)Flt Lt, RAF

Joined 16-Jan-13

Owen, Ryan (PAM)Capt, USAF

Joined 16-Jan-13

Ross, Michael (PAM) LT, USN

Joined 17-Apr-13

Vignon, Sebastien (PAM)Capt, French

Joined 27-Mar-13Wright, Paul (PAM)

Capt, USMC Joined 16-Jan-13

Turner, Richard (PAM)Capt, USAF

Joined 16-Jan-13

Spies, Katherine (PAM) Capt, USMC

Joined 16-Jan-13

Rollins, Andrew (PAM) Maj, USAF

Joined 16-Jan-13

Ritzke, Brent (PAM)Maj, USAF

Joined 19-Jun-13Robinson, Brent (PAM)

LT, USN Joined 19-Jun-13

Tacquard, Mark (PAM) Capt, USMC

Joined 19-Jun-13

Rorberg, Kristopher (PAM) Capt, USAF -

Joined 19-Jun-13

Reynolds, James (PAM)LCDR, USN

Joined 19-Jun-13

Pacini, Michael (PAM) Capt, USAF

Joined 19-Jun-13

Morford, Zachariah (PAM)MAJ, USA

Joined 19-Jun-13

Van de Pol, Martin (PAM) Maj, Royal Netherlands AF

Joined 19-Jun-13Wee, Christopher (PAM)

Maj, USAF Joined 19-Jun-13

Zarra, Jay (PAM) Maj, USMC

Joined 19-Jun-13

Congratulations to those members who have upgraded their membership!

Boyce, Erik (M)Capt, USMC

Upgraded 19-Jun-13

Brown, Todd (AF)Boeing

Upgraded 16-Jan-13


Conway, Frank (AF) Upgraded 27-Feb-13

Davies, Simon (M)Flt Lt, RAF

Upgraded 27-Mar-13

Deas, Brian (AM) Maj, USAF

Upgraded 16-Jan-13

Fitz, Eric (AF)USAF Research LabUpgraded 19-Jun-13

Jewell, Jason (M)Maj, USMC

Upgraded 17-April-13

Grant, Mitchell (M)LT, USN

Upgraded 27-Feb-13

Gropp, Terrell (AM)LCDR, USN

Upgraded 19-Jun-13

Hamilton, Tucker (AM)Maj, USAF

Upgraded 19-Jun-13

Hanson, Mark (M)Maj, USAF

Upgraded 19-Jun-13

Lamping, Logan (AM)Capt, USAF

Upgraded 16-Jan-13


Parmitano, Luca (AM)Maj, Italian AF

Upgraded 16-Jan-13

Philipp, Horst (AF)Upgraded 16-Jan-13

Rusanen, Kari (M)Capt, Finnish AF

Upgraded 16-Jan-13

Melody, Thomas (AF)Boeing

Upgraded 16-Jan-13

Reid, Christopher (AM)MAJ, USA

Upgraded 27-Feb-13

Paquin, Jason (AM)Capt, RCAF

Upgraded 16-Jan-13

Poisson, Matthew (AM) Maj, USAF

Upgraded 16-Jan-13

Schlappi, Kyle (AM)Maj, USAF

Upgraded 27-Mar-13

Steels, Bradley (AM)Maj, RCAF

Upgraded 19-Jun-13

Stevens, Timothy (M)Maj, USAF

Upgraded 19-Jun-13


Tsolekas, Ioannis (AF)NTPS

Upgraded 27-Mar-13

Vining, Kirk (AF)Boeing Commercial Aircraft Group

Upgraded 19-Jun-13

Wood, John (AF)AATD

Upgraded 27-Mar-13

Wright, David (AF)Col, USAF

Upgraded 27-Feb-13

White, Andrew (AF)Col, USAF (Ret)

Upgraded 27-Mar-13

Wieringa, Jeffrey (AF)VADM, USN (Ret)\Boeing

Upgraded 17-April-13

PHOTOS NOT AVAILABLE FOR THE FOLLOWING MEMBERS WHO HAVE UPGRADED THEIR MEMBERSHIP:

Abel, Brandon (AM) Maj, USAF

Upgraded 16-Jan-13Bell, David (M) Flt Lt, RAAF

Upgraded 19-Jun-13

Bauer, David (AF) Boeing

Upgraded 27-Feb-13Clift, C. Russell (M)

Maj, USMCUpgraded 17-Apr-13

Crappier, Nicolas (AM) FltLt, French AF

Upgraded 16-Jan-13

Diller, Nathan (AM) Maj, USAF

Upgraded 17-Apr-13

Farmer, Stu (AF) Boeing

Upgraded 19-Jun-13

Greenwood, Jeffery (AF) Bell Helicopter

Upgraded 27-Feb-13Hill, Edward (M)

LCDR, USNUpgraded 19-Jun-13

McKee, Andrew (AM) LCDR, USN

Upgraded 19-Jun-13


Murphy, Andrew (M) Maj, USAF

Upgraded 16-Jan-13

Sallam, Hamdy (AM) Capt, Italian AF

Upgraded 16-Jan-13

Rein, Donevan (M) Maj, USAF

Upgraded 16-Jan-13

Odom, Robert (AM) Maj, USAF

Upgraded 19-Jun-13

Taylor, Matthew (AF) Lt Col, USMC

Upgraded 19-Jun-13

WHO...WHAT...WHERE

After 27+ years of active duty from 1986-2013, Col. Art “Turbo” Tomassetti (AF) retired from active duty in the USMC on 14 June.

Wetting down after final flight on Thursday 13 June


Sallam, Hamdy (AM) Capt, Italian AF

Upgraded 16-Jan-13

Odom, Robert (AM) Maj, USAF

Upgraded 19-Jun-13Capt Robert L. “Hoot” Gibson, USN (Ret) (F) has been elected for enshrinement in the National Aviation Hall of Fame’s Class of 2013.

The enshrinement dinner and ceremony will take place on Friday, October 4, 2013 at the National Aviation Hall of Fame Learning Center and the adjacent National Museum of the United States Air Force in Dayton, Ohio.

**********************************************

LCDR Josh Cassada, USN (Ret) (AM) has been selected to be one of NASA’s newest astronaut trainees along with LCDR Victor Glover, USN (M) and Maj Nicole Aunapu Mann, USMC (M) .

************************************************

WANTED: MEMBER and CORPORATE MEMBER INFO AND PHOTOS!

Keep the members up to date on your Individual and Corporate news, events, and happenings! The Society is soliciting flight test related news about SETP members and Corporate members for publication in the WHO...WHAT...WHERE section of COCKPIT Magazine. If you know of some interesting information about an SETP Member(s) or Corporate member, please send it in. If you have some photos to accompany the news, all the better! All information and photos submitted will be given serious consideration for publication in COCKPIT Magazine. Flight Test events, awards, promotions, gathering,

ect. Should be reported and shared.

To submit news and photos please contact Susan Gron at:[email protected]

SETP HeadquartersP.O. Box 986

Lancaster, CA 93584


GREAT LAKESThe Great Lakes section once again provided test pilot evaluations of aero engineering student aircraft simulator models in the annual AIAA/University of Dayton Flight Handling Competition. Five SETP members volunteered to spend their Friday afternoon and all day Saturday judging the handling qualities and providing feedback for engineering simulator models for a wide variety of aircraft submitted by nine universities’ student teams, from the United Kingdom to Pennsylvania to Mississippi to Dayton. Kudos as well to the Society of

Flight Test Engineers for providing a few volunteers to help with evaluating the student presentations.

The students did a great job as well with a wide variety of different designs and missions represented. There was a LSA Amphibian design, a Human Powered aircraft, a lightweight composite trainer, a biplane pylon air racer design, a hybrid airship, a modified Seneca aircraft, a light attack/trainer design, a wide body jet design and a King Air. Each team presented a briefing on their design and then had the opportunity to brief the test pilot and observe the evaluation. Each team was then personally debriefed on their design’s handling qualities by the test pilot who evaluated their design. All the evaluations were observed real time by all the students in a separate room from the simulator which was set up with a large screen showing the HUD view of the simulator and audio of the pilot (similar to a control room). Students were able to ask questions, observe actual flight test techniques and get an idea of what pilots consider important for handling qualities. The winning teams were announced at a AIAA dinner at the conclusion of the competition. The judges conferred at the completion of the contest and produced the following results:

1st Place - Light Attack/Trainer Design from Mississippi State University2nd Place -Lightweight Composite Trainer from University of Manchester (UK)3rd Place- LSA Amphibian from University of Dayton.

During the competition, the volunteer judges spent time talking with the students and getting them excited about airplanes, flying and engineering.They did an outstanding job motivating the students and representing the Societies of Experimental Test Pilots and Flight Test Engineers!

SOUTHWEST The SW Section SETP and the SFTE had a very good and very interesting meeting on Thursday evening May 9th, at the Worthington Hotel, Fort Worth.

An excellent dinner was served to the 62 people in attendance. Al Norman, Lockheed’s F-35 Chief Test Pilot, gave a presentation on why the F-35 test program is so big and taking so long. We all enjoyed it, and some of us may have understood it! Al is a great speaker. The SETP members are indebted to Jim Sergeant of the SFTE for planning and pulling this meeting off.


The SFTE is planning social evenings on 18 July and 15 August, which I am sure the SETP members will be invited to attend.

We are all planning and looking forward to the SETP Regional and SFTE International combined symposium to be held at the Worthington October 28 through November 1, 2013

-Norm Driscoll (AF)

Rick Simmons (M); Vance Duffy (AF); Jim Richmond (AF)

Paul Metz (F); Tom Meschko (AF); Al Norman (AF)

Jerry Singleton (AF) and David Palmer (AF)


SETP SECTION CHAIRMENCANADA

Andy [email protected]

CENTRALStuart Rogerson

[email protected] COAST

Klas [email protected]

EUROPEANIgnacio Lombo

[email protected] LAKESRobbie Robinson

[email protected]

NORTHWESTEd Kolano

[email protected] Wees

[email protected]

SOUTHWESTNorm Driscoll

[email protected] COAST

Todd [email protected]


BOOK NEWSAircraft Flight Dynamics and Control addresses airplane flight dynamics and control in a largely classical manner, but with references to modern treatment throughout. Classical feedback control methods are illustrated with relevant examples, and current trends in control are presented by introductions to dynamic inversion and control allocation.

This book covers the physical and mathematical fundamentals of aircraft flight dynamics as well as more advanced theory enabling a better insight into nonlinear dynamics. This leads to a useful introduction to automatic flight control and stability augmentation systems with discussion of the theory behind their design, and the limitations of the systems. The author provides a rigorous development of theory and derivations and illustrates the equations of motion in both scalar and matrix notation.

Key features:

• Classical development and modern treatment of flight dynamics and control• Detailed and rigorous exposition and examples, with illustrations• Presentation of important trends in modern flight control systems• Accessible introduction to control allocation based on the author’s seminal work in the field• Development of sensitivity analysis to determine the influential states in an airplane’s response modes• End of chapter problems with solutions available on an accompanying website

Written by an author with experience as an engineering test pilot as well as a university professor, Aircraft Flight Dynamics and Control provides the reader with a systematic development of the insights and tools necessary for further work in related fields of flight dynamics and control. It is an ideal course textbook and is also a valuable reference for many of the necessary basic formulations of the math and science underlying flight dynamics and control.

Aircraft Flight Dynamics and Controls can be purchased at www.Wiley.com. Hardcover - $120.00


Jonathan Kensey Brown (AM), was born on 14 November 1966 and passed away on 9 April 2013. Kensey grew up in the Whidbey Island and Oregon region. He attended school there and began his aviation career immediately after high school, joining the Army Flight Candidate program where he was trained in the UH-1 (Huey) and AH-1 (Cobra). He went on to fly the Cobra operationally during a tour along the DMZ in South Korea.

After leaving the Army, he completed his degree in 1991 at Embry-Riddle University in Prescott, AZ. During this time he began a long association with the tour operators

of the Grand Canyon, an association that would continue for almost 15 years. He was to accumulate almost 6000 hours in the grandeur of the Canyon. In 2008 he joined American Eurocopter and attended the TB-2 (4 mo.) course at National Test Pilot School. The following two years of production test flying the EC-145 and AS-350 provided the needed credentials, and he eagerly sought membership in SETP. Although new to the Society, he developed an immediate fondness for its goals and membership. He counted sharing the table with Rose and Fred Cuthill at the 56th Symposium Banquet as one of his fondest memories. He was an accomplished fixed wing and helicopter pilot with more than 9000 flight hours.

He leaves behind a wife, Christy and two lovely children, Shelby (8) and Nathan (7). He will be greatly missed by his friends, family and co-workers at Eurocopter. Memorial donations in Kensey’s name may be made to the SETP Scholarship Fund.

Quentin H. “QB” Burden (F) passed away peacefully on Tuesday, June 11 2013 after a year-long struggle with Prostate Cancer. He was a Charter Member of the Society. He was born on 2 May 1919 in Coeur d’Alene, ID and was a resident of Saratoga, CA at the time of his passing.

QB served in the U.S. Navy from 1941-1946. He joined the Douglas Aircraft Company in 1950 as an engineering and production test pilot on the AD, F-3D and A-3D airplanes. He attended the U.S. Naval Test Pilot School as a contractor pilot and graduated with Class 14. He

was subsequently assigned as an A-3D Engineering Project Test Pilot from 1955 to 1959 performing 5 complete A-3D structural and 4 aerodynamic demonstrations. In 1969, he was assigned to the DC-8 program and performed the flutter flight test program, the minimum landing distance and engine air starts.

LAST FLIGHTS


Quentin transferred to Lockheed as a project test pilot at the Missiles and Space Company and performed the first flight on the QT-2 airplane, a forerunner of Stealth airplanes for the Army. He performed the structural, aerodynamic and engine demonstrations in addition to the extensive acoustical signature research program. In 1968, he flew the first flight of the Q-Star, a Lockheed test bed for exploration of airborne micro acoustic signature phenomena. He flew extensive flight test of power plants including an airplane version of the Wright-Rotary Engine. In 1969, he repeated the same test programs for the YO-3A.

QB was twice assigned as a technical advisor to the U.S. Army Covert Aviation Systems Command in Southeast Asia, furthering the research and development of various Lockheed airplanes and weapons systems under actual combat conditions. He later became the Chief Engineering Test Pilot for Lockheed’s Missiles and Space Company until his retirement in 1982.

He is predeceased by his father Oscar Burden, his mother Pearl Hansen (Ray), his son Jeffrey L. Burden, and first wife Gloria Burden, his step granddaughter Rachael L. Barnett, and his wife of over 50 years, Shirley J. Burden. He is survived by his stepchildren James M. Holliman (Marie), Rebecca A. Barnett (Eric), Victoria L. Holliman; his grandchildren, Josh (Pam) Burden and Dori Deffit, granddaughter Adriana, and Step Grandchildren Hilary and Alexa Holliman, and Aaron J. Barnett.

A Memorial Service will be held on Friday 6/28/13 at 2:00 pm at the Immanuel Lutheran Church, 14103 Saratoga Ave, Saratoga, CA. Donations in his honor may be made to the SETP Foundation, the American Cancer Society and Alzheimer’s Foundation.

Gunther Eheim (HF), passed away on 2 February 2013 in Deizisau, Germany. He was 93 years of age.

Gunther’s history, as well as that of his company is fascinating. Pre-industry, he was an aviator in World War 2, flying the legendary Junkers JU 88. He cheated death several times, once having an engine shot out by Russian fighter planes over Finland.

A little later, he became a test pilot at the Arado Flugzeugwerke in Potsdam. Asked if he had feared death thoughout this period, he simply replied: “Oh, but I had

no time.”

When the war ended and pilots were no longer required, Gunther fell back on his skills gained from a machinist apprenticeship, as well as his certificate of qualification from the Esslinger engineering school.

Although noted for his huge and successful aquatics manufacturing company, Gunther originally founded a company for the repair and production of technical toys, way back


in 1949. Today many of those toys rank as highly desired collectables.

Eheim was prodigious in aquatics manufacturing from 1963 onwards, after the creation of the magnetic centrifugal pump.

The growth from this point was huge, and by 1971 the company was ready to discontinue its toy repair and manufacture aspect to focus solely on aquatics. At this time, over 100,000 Eheim filters were already in circulation.

In 1974, Gunther re-entered the world of flying, founding the company Contact Air. With a single Learjet 23 in his possession, Eheim would often fly people from the world of politics or business who were concerned about attacks on scheduled RAF flights.

Between then and its eventual closure in 2012, Contact Air eventually amassed eleven planes.

Almost a decade later in 1980, requiring expansion to cope with ever increasing demand, Eheim set up a ten thousand square meter factory and proceeded to dominate the global aquarium scene.

The funeral was held on Thursday, February 7 at the cemetery of Deizisau.He is survived by his wife and former co-pilot Marianne, as well as his son Reinhard, and his two daughters Heide and Ulla.

The funeral was held on Thursday, February 7 at the cemetery of Deizisau. He is survived by his wife and former co-pilot Marianne, as well as his son Reinhard, and his two daughters Heide and Ulla.

John M. “Fitz” Fitzpatrick (F), was born on 12 January 1924 and passed away on 23 March 2013 at the age of 89.

Fitz was a Charter Member and became a Fellow in 1961.

Fitz attended Georgetown University for two years and entered the U.S. Military Academy in 1942. Following graduation in 1945, he received Air Force pilot training. He then went through fighter transition and spent two and a half years as a fighter pilot in the 78th and 86th Groups in Germany.

When he returned to the States in 1948, he requested and was assigned to the Flight Test Division at Wright Field and entered Flight Test. For the next five and a half years, he


participated in the flight testing of all Air Force fighter aircraft. He also graduated from what was then the AMC Flight Performance School at Patterson Field. In the fall of 1953, he submitted his resignation from the Air Force because “they were running out of bedrooms in Wherry Housing.”

Fitz joined Convair as an Engineering Test Pilot at the start of the F-102 program and participated in all phases of the F-102 and F-106 development. At the latter portion of the program, he was Chief Engineering Pilot and was Chairman of the Operations Committee of the joint Air Force – Convair-Hughes armament development program. When Convair-San Diego ran out of fighters, he became Project Pilot on the 990 jet transport. In 1962 he transferred to the General Dynamics Corporate office and shortly thereafter was assigned to Washington D.C. Three months later Fitz was appointed Manager of the General Dynamics Houston office. He packed up his wife, Pat, and six children and moved for the seventh time in nine years. In 1967 he was transferred to the General Dynamics Washington office as manager of Space Systems and Ballistic Missiles. He was then made Director, Aerospace Systems for General Dynamics.

Fitz is survived by his wife of 68 years, Patricia R. Fitzpatrick; children Kim Malek (Tim); Michael Fitzpatrick, Barbara Fitzpatrick (Chips Stewart); Robert Fitzpatrick (Beth) and Brian Fitzpatrick; grandchildren JoAnne, Colin, Stephen, Ryan, Caitlin and Danny; great grandchildren Charlie Anne and Joseph. He is predeceased by his son James “Mac” Fitzpatrick.

Burial at Arlington National Cemetery will be held at a later date.

J. Kenneth Higgins (F) had his last flight on Monday April 22nd 2013. Ken worked a career at The Boeing Company, starting as a Flight Test Engineer in 1966, and rising to Vice President of Flight Operations, Test & Validation for Boeing Commercial Airplanes. He worked on all Boeing commercial models from the 707 to the 777 as an engineer, a flight test engineer or as a pilot. He became a Flight Test crewmember in 1974, and held positions in Crew Training, Production Flight Test, and Engineering Flight Test and was one of the two primary pilots on the 757 certification team. In 1987, he became the Director of Flight Operations and was responsible for the total process of flight testing and certifying new

models of Boeing commercial aircraft. As Vice President, Flight Operations, Test & Validation, he was responsible for all Boeing Flight Operations encompassing Flight Crew Training, Executive Flight Operations, Production and Engineering Flight Test; Flight Test Engineering, Instrumentation and all Boeing laboratories that support flight test and certification activities.


During Ken’s tenure at Boeing, the company developed and certified the 737-100/-200/-200 Advanced, the 737-300/-400/-500, the 737-600/-700/-800/-900, the 747-100/-200/-300/SP/-400, the 757-200/-300, the 767-200/-300/-400ER, and the 777-200/-200ER/-300/-300ER commercial aircraft, as well as the 737 Surveiller, E-3D, E-3F, E-6A, E-767 and Wedgetail Airborne Early Warning and Control aircraft. Under Ken’s supervision, the company safely operated many testbeds, including the 737-200-based Avionics Flying Laboratory, the 757-based F-22 Flying Test Bed, the 767-based Airborne Surveillance Testbed, and the 737-900-based Technology Demonstrator, and laid the foundation for the 747-400-based Airborne Laser Testbed.

Ken directed the flight test organization that met the challenges of certifying Boeing’s first fly-by-wire commercial airplane, the 777, with the largest commercial jet engines (84,000 pounds of thrust initially, and eventually 115,000 pounds of thrust on the 777-300ER), as well as the first-ever ETOPS certification at initial delivery. He directed the development and implementation of the most complex Systems Integration Laboratory for a commercial airplane ever built, which conducted over 6300 hours of “flight” testing. The systems maturity earned in the SIL allowed the 777 program to fly at over 80 hours per month per test airplane and receive its FAA and European JAA type certificate only 10 months after first flight.

Ken was a paragon of Flight Test Safety. He initiated and led a complete review and upgrade of the Boeing Flight Test Safety process. This effort included benchmarking the processes of other flight test organizations and actively participating in SETP’s flight test safety efforts. Some specific improvements included more stringent safety training such as including all test crewmembers, not just flight crew, in Crew Resource Management training, and documenting hazards on a line-by-line basis on all test plans. The practices Ken championed at Boeing were adopted by the Federal Aviation Administration as a template for flight test safety best practices.

In addition to actively flying on engineering and production flights, including flying as first officer on the first flights of the 737-400, 737-500, 747-400, 777-200 and 737-700, Ken provided industry leadership for the implementation of glass cockpits, flight management computers, multi-function displays, common type ratings, the 2-pilot flight deck, and Extended Twin Operating Procedures. He was widely regarded as a new concept advocate and leader in the global air carrier industry. Ken played a key role in supporting major advances in air carrier operations, including for Required Navigation Performance, GPS Landing System, Future Air Navigation System, and data link introductions. He also provided explicit guidance for the development and refinement of the Boeing flight deck philosophy of “the pilot is always in charge” with respect to the implementation of flight control inceptors, and flight crew interface with ever-increasing automation through Vertical and Lateral Navigation via Flight Mode Annunciations and the Mode Control Panel.

Ken was for many years the leader for Boeing support of SETP and its symposia, including sponsorship of audio-visual support of the annual International Symposium and Banquet. He was the 1998 winner of the J.H. Doolittle Award for excellence in program management following the success of the 777 development and certification program, and was inducted as an SETP Fellow in the Class of 2005. He is survived by his beloved wife Sandy and their children, Joel, Shannon and Dan.


Charles Alfred “Al” McDaniel, Jr. left the earth plane at 6:41PM on Jan. 16th, on his way to his next plane! He passed peacefully at home with his caregiver, Dourly, his wife, Ali and a few close friends by his side. He remained at home right up to the very end of his journey and passed in quiet dignity. His life was long and full, the sort of life dreams are made of.

Born in Los Angeles to Fern and Charles McDaniel, Fern fell ill with TB when he was only 4 and grew too sick to care for him, thus he came to be raised from age 5 by her parents, Grandma and Grandpa Johnson. He lived

on 23rd St. about 2 miles from Mines Field, later to become LAX, just after W.W.II. He had 2 other smaller airports close to the house to which he could bike and watch planes land and take off. Planes were his passion from a very young age. Also a gifted artist and draftsman, he studied architecture at Santa Monica Junior College and USC for 2 years before entering the Army Air Corps in 1942, followed by a rare opportunity to enter Test Pilot Training at Wright Field. He began his testing career in 1943 as Assistant Chief of Flight Test at San Bernardino Air Base and eventually test flew every type of plane flown in WWII. A skilled aviator, he never left L.A. during the war, as his combined skills of aviator, aviation mechanic and draftsman were invaluable in the reparation of damaged aircraft, so he couldn’t be spared to go off and fight a war. In fact, during that time he could walk home for lunch.

After the war he joined the CA Air National Guard, under revered commanding officer, General Clarence Schoop; “Schoopy”, as Al called him. One day in 1949, Schoopy received a call from his good friend, Howard Hughes. “Hey, Schoopy, he boomed through the phone in his twangy, demanding voice, I need two good pilots over here, ya got any?” Brief moment of silence, then, “I sure do, Howard.”

“Well send ‘em over;...your recommendation is good enough for me!”

Al and Bart Warren (later killed in the F111B) were hired sight unseen. Thus began a 38 year career, testing aircraft, managing these operations, flying as Howard Hughes’ personal pilot for 8 years, and, along with 14 others, including Neil Armstrong and Scott Crossfield, founding the Society of Experimental Test Pilots. in fact, he is most likely the last of the founding members who gathered in Lancaster, CA to form SETP 58 years ago. He was also responsible for the design of their logo, today, an international symbol known to test aviators globally. Original SETP Logo

Al retired from Hughes in 1986 when he and Ali were married in Dana Point and settled in Laguna Beach. They moved to Carmel in 1995. Since then, his only flying has been


as a traveling passenger. He devoted his life to his hobbies of carpentry and remodeling homes, family and friends, and artist wife Ali. They were hardly ever apart in their 27 years of marriage. He was warm and kind; witty, funny and always enjoyed a good joke! During the last few years, his enormous spirit was dimmed by the ravages of dementia, yet he remained at home with Ali and his amazing care giver, Dourley, whose remarkable loving devotion and care kept him in the game of life. He went out and had an ‘adventure’ each and every day, weather permitting, up until two days before he drew his last breath and stepped up to that next plane bound for glory.

Al is preceeded in death by his son, Craig, who lost his life at 21 in Viet Nam, 101st airborn. He is survived by his wife, Ali (Miner)McDaniel, His son, Charles A. (Chic) McDanielIII, daughter Alanna McDaniel (h-Ralph Gillett) Grandson Chuck McDaniel (son of Craig) and daughter-in-law, Linda McDaniel, (Chuck’s)wife Heather and 4-yr.old twin great grandsons, Craig and Griffin, grandsons Oliver and Stewart-sons of Alanna, and cousins Bob and Jim Thompson, their wives and families..Ali’s 2 children, Robert and Dana Miner, and a million wonderful friends.

A Celebration of Al’s life will be held on Sat., the 9th of Feb. at 2PM at the Monterey Elk’s Lodge, 150 Mar Vista. All are welcome whose life was touched by Al and wish to bid him farewell. In lieu of flowers, a charitable contribution in Al’s name to the Elks Charity Major Project for Handicapped Children would be greatly appreciated.

Philip Gordon Murray (M), was born on 7 February 1959 and passed away on 28 December 2012.

Philip attended RNZAF Officer Training School from 1984–1989 and then attended RNZAF Central Flying School from 1990-1992. He was a pilot for the Royal New Zealand Air Force and then test pilot for Pacific Aerospace Corporation where he conducted experimental test flying of PAC 750 XL and production test flying of company produced CRESCO and CT/4-E aircraft.

Philip also published technical papers on “Understanding Downward Turns Windshear,” “A Study of Low Flying

Accidents” and was a specialist advisor in the writing of “Principles of Helicopter Flight.”

He was the much adored husband and best friend of Chris; dearly loved and respected father, father-in-law and grandfather to Paula, Terry, Taylor and Alex Moseley (Christchurch); Maria Casey (Melbourne); Peter Casey (RAF Benson, UK); Lisa, Patrick and Isla Richardson (Christchurch); Kelly Murray (Melbourne) and Tim Murray (Christchurch). Loved brother of Graeme (Nelson) Stuart (Balclutha), Elizabeth (Dunedin) and the late Ross. His strength, courage, determination and humor in the face of adversity will stay forever


with them in their hearts.

Messages to the Murray family may be sent to PO Box 111-01 Christchurch 8443, New Zealand.

Major Brian Phipps, CAF (Ret), (M), was born in Northwich Cheshire, England on 10 August 1932 and passed away on 9 May 2012.

Brian attended Sir John Deans Grammar School and the University of Liverpool, graduating with a Bachelor of Science degree in Chemistry, Physics and Math. After completing two years of compulsory military service with the RAF, he joined the Royal Canadian Air Force in 1957. He began as an instructor on T-birds and later flew the CF101 with Squadrons 414, 416 and 410 OTU.

In 1969 he attended the U.S. Naval Test Pilot School at Patuxent River, MD. After graduation, he was posted to the Aerospace Engineering Test Establishment in Ottawa, Ontario and in Cold Lake, Alberta. He remained flying test projects at AETE until 1973 when he spent 6 months in Vietnam as part of the Canadian Peacekeeping Force.

In 1973 Brian was sent to Ottawa as AETE liaison at CAF Headquarters. Following this, Brian spent another ground tour in Ottawa and after retiring from the military in 1979, rejoined AETE as a civilian until 1989.

Brian is survived by his wife of 56 years, Stella, two daughters, Susan (Rodney) Thir, and Sandra Vanier, four grandchildren, Richard (Marilyne) Thir, Shalon Thir, Douglas (Kristin) Fitzpatrick, Gordon (Stacey) Fitzpatrick, five great grandchildren, Alexia Thir, Harrison Thir, Brielle Fitzpatrick, Brynlee Fitzpatrick and Carson Miller.

Squadron Leader Gordon Smith (HF), passed away at the age of 93 at his home in Nether Wallop, England on 19 April.

Gordon had an outstanding flying career, initially as an RAF pilot during the last war, then subsequently as a military Test Pilot serving at A&AE Boscombe Down and finally as a helicopter flying instructor for the Army Air Corps at Middle Wallop.

At the start of WWII, he joined the RAF as a pilot and flew a mixture of fighters and bombers during the war.


Afterwards, his continued flying career included duties as Unit Test Pilot at RAF Lyneham on Spitfire and Vampire aircraft. In 1953 the family moved to Hampshire during his “ground tour” as ADC to the Commander-in-Chief of the then Maintenance Command based at Amport House near Andover. Returning to flying after three years, he trained to fly helicopters and was posted to Malaya for a three year operational tour flying troops in and out of jungle clearings. During his time there he was able to resume his golfing interests, winning the prestigious “Lake Cup” at the Selangor Golf Club.

Returning to England, he was posted back to the Andover area as a Test Pilot at Boscombe Down where he flew a mixture of experimental helicopter trials both in the UK and abroad. The “Hot and Cold Weather” trials took him from northern Canada to North Africa and the U.S. Mexican border. As project pilot for the Bristol Belvedere, he flew to Tripoli in Libya and in transiting the aircraft there broke the existing world flight distance record for helicopters.

After 10 years at Boscombe Down, Gordon retired from the RAF to take up a helicopter instructor post at Middle Wallop until his retirement from flying 12 years later in 1981.

His long career spanned 41 years. He flew nearly 10,000 hours in over 100 different types of aircraft, survived three serious emergency landings and trained some 120 students.

During his long retirement, Gordon took up fly fishing and he continued to fish with a group of friends well into his 90’s. He also developed an interest in antiques by concentrating on the repair of writing and sewing boxes and was well known locally as a raconteur for his jokes, stories and one-liners.

Gordon is survived by his wife of 69 years, Constance Bloomfield, their two sons and six grandchildren.

Robert Marion “Bob” Soule, Sr. (M), of Euless, Texas was born in 1921 in Phoenix, AZ and passed away on 28 April at the age of 91.

An aviator from the age of 16, he joined the United States Navy three months prior to the bombing of Pearl Harbor. As a fighter pilot during World War II, he flew in 51 South Pacific battles including Tarawa, Palau, Wake Island, Leyte Gulf and the Second Battle of the Philippine Sea, earning 3 air medals and 2 distinguished flying crosses. He fought in the Korean War, graduated from Test Pilot School, attended the Senior Naval War

College, commanded 3 fighter squadrons, and served on the Admiralty Staff aboard the carriers Saratoga and Independence during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Bob completed 713 carrier landings and flew over 160 different types of aircraft. Following 22 years of distinguished military service he retired at the rank of Commander.

During the 15 years that followed, Bob worked as Head of International Sales for LTV Aerospace, selling fighter planes to friendly foreign governments. A member of SETP since 1959 and an accomplished acrobatic pilot, he was once asked to join the famed Blue Angels precision flying team. An extraordinary man, he was a close friend of the early astronauts, knew presidents and conferred with kings.

Robert M. Soule, Sr. is survived by twelve children: Gayle Eriksson, Lynne Walker, Vicki Soule, Gary Peterson, Robert Soule Jr., Dee Yeager, Ronald Soule, Dorris James, Kent Soule, Debbie Soule, Denise Soule, and Donald Rohasek; thirty-four grandchildren, fifty-six great-grandchildren, and five great-great grandchildren. He also leaves behind his younger brother, Donald Soule, and cousin, Ernest Stone. Bob was predeceased by two grandsons, Brian Yeager and Aaron Soule, and by his beloved wife and companion of sixty-four years, Dortha Soule.

Interment is at the Dallas-Fort Worth National Cemetery.

David William Thomas (F), 80, of Nashua passed away on 13 December 2012 at the Community Hospice House in Merrimack after a long illness. David was born in Kirkland, WA, son of the late Henry and Grace (Erikson) Thomas.

Dave received a B.S. in Electrical Engineering from Washington State University and a Masters in Systems Management from University of Southern California. He served 20 years as an Air Force test pilot in both fixed-wing and rotary aircraft, including a combat tour in Southeast Asia flying the A-1 Skyraider. His flying continued for another 20 years with the FAA and helped

certify S-61 composite rotor blades that are now used on the Presidential helicopter fleet. He concluded his flying career as a consultant test pilot with over 9000 flying hours in 76 types of aircraft and was awarded Fellow of the Society in 2008.

Good natured and easy going, Dave enjoyed socializing at aviation events and gatherings worldwide. He stayed active mentally and physically--a morning crossword puzzle or word jumble, perhaps a jog, round of tennis or golf; and at the end of the day, a martini and a good meal with family and friends. He is pre-deceased by a brother, Donald Thomas. Dave is survived by his long-time friend Helen (Cappy) Orr; Cameron and Loni Thomas of Amherst; Paige and Matthew Galvin of Park City, UT; four grandchildren, Clayton and Caiden Thomas, and Colin and Molly Grace Galvin; a sister, Margaret Buxton of Renton, WA; and several nieces and nephews.Memorial donations can be made in David’s name to Lymphoma Research Foundation or Paralyzed Veterans of America.


During the 15 years that followed, Bob worked as Head of International Sales for LTV Aerospace, selling fighter planes to friendly foreign governments. A member of SETP since 1959 and an accomplished acrobatic pilot, he was once asked to join the famed Blue Angels precision flying team. An extraordinary man, he was a close friend of the early astronauts, knew presidents and conferred with kings.

Robert M. Soule, Sr. is survived by twelve children: Gayle Eriksson, Lynne Walker, Vicki Soule, Gary Peterson, Robert Soule Jr., Dee Yeager, Ronald Soule, Dorris James, Kent Soule, Debbie Soule, Denise Soule, and Donald Rohasek; thirty-four grandchildren, fifty-six great-grandchildren, and five great-great grandchildren. He also leaves behind his younger brother, Donald Soule, and cousin, Ernest Stone. Bob was predeceased by two grandsons, Brian Yeager and Aaron Soule, and by his beloved wife and companion of sixty-four years, Dortha Soule.

Interment is at the Dallas-Fort Worth National Cemetery.

David William Thomas (F), 80, of Nashua passed away on 13 December 2012 at the Community Hospice House in Merrimack after a long illness. David was born in Kirkland, WA, son of the late Henry and Grace (Erikson) Thomas.

Dave received a B.S. in Electrical Engineering from Washington State University and a Masters in Systems Management from University of Southern California. He served 20 years as an Air Force test pilot in both fixed-wing and rotary aircraft, including a combat tour in Southeast Asia flying the A-1 Skyraider. His flying continued for another 20 years with the FAA and helped

certify S-61 composite rotor blades that are now used on the Presidential helicopter fleet. He concluded his flying career as a consultant test pilot with over 9000 flying hours in 76 types of aircraft and was awarded Fellow of the Society in 2008.

Good natured and easy going, Dave enjoyed socializing at aviation events and gatherings worldwide. He stayed active mentally and physically--a morning crossword puzzle or word jumble, perhaps a jog, round of tennis or golf; and at the end of the day, a martini and a good meal with family and friends. He is pre-deceased by a brother, Donald Thomas. Dave is survived by his long-time friend Helen (Cappy) Orr; Cameron and Loni Thomas of Amherst; Paige and Matthew Galvin of Park City, UT; four grandchildren, Clayton and Caiden Thomas, and Colin and Molly Grace Galvin; a sister, Margaret Buxton of Renton, WA; and several nieces and nephews.Memorial donations can be made in David’s name to Lymphoma Research Foundation or Paralyzed Veterans of America.


Dieter H. Thomas, (F), was born on 23 February 1936 and passed away on 13 April 2013.

After 8 years in the German Luftwaffe as a jet and weapon instructor pilot, Mr. Thomas began his study of aeronautical engineering in Munich. In 1963 he attended the French Test Pilot School (EPNER). From 1964 to 1973 he served as a research test pilot with the German Research and Development Institute for Air `and Space Travel (DFVLR). During that period, among other duties, he was a test pilot on the Do 31 VTOL-Transport. In 1973 Mr. Thomas joined the Dornier Company where he worked first as a test pilot

and later as Chief Test Pilot until his retirement in February 1989. During this time he flew the first flights of six different prototypes as pilot in command (Poschel P-300, Do-TST, Do-TNT, Do 228, Do 24 TT, Weigel-Fink) as well as performing three first flights as co-pilot (Do 28 D5-X, Do 28, D6-X). He also served as Dornier’s project pilot for the Alpha Jet and Do 228 aircraft from first flight on. In 1984 he performed high sea state trials up to sea state 4 with the 3-engine Do 24 TT research amphibian. He also was the pilot responsible for the initial cockpit design for Do 328, 34 passenger commuter airplane. Since March 1989 Mr. Thomas worked as a free-lance aviation expert, test pilot and flight test consultant. During this time he performed the flight test certification of the Hoffmann H40 2-seat sportplane. He was responsible for the special certification of Alpha Jets for the Red Bull Company in Austria and civil certification of several warbirds (e. g. YAK-3/YAK-9), reconstructions of M-17 and Me 163 vintage aircraft, the Dornier Seastar and others. In 1990 Mr. Thomas became the Flight Director for the International Aerospace Exhibition (ILA) in Hanover. From 1992 to 2006 he was the Flight Director/Event Manager for ILA Berlin and was also a Board Member on the European Airshow Council. He was the Safety and Flight Test consultant for the Oskar Ursinus Vereinigung (OUV), the German association for the promotion and certification of experimental aircraft. He has published several pilot reports in leading aviation magazines, presented several publications at the Aeronautical Society, and given presentations on the Alpha Jet and Do 24 at meetings of the European Section of SETP. Mr. Thomas worked with students of aviation and aeronautics at technical schools in Nürnberg, Graz, and Munich during the development of their flight test relevant diploma reports. He had flown a total of about 7,500 flight hours on about 180 different aircraft types. He joined SETP in 1968 and became a Fellow in 2007.

A memorial service was held on Friday, April 19 at 13:00 p.m. at the church “Gnadenkirche.” Condolences can be made at the venue of the memorial service or electronically at [email protected].


Lt. Col. Edgar K. Wilson, USAF (Ret) (M), was born on 24 July 1927 and passed away on 25 May 2013.

Edgar was a member of Quiet Birdmen, 8th Air Force Society and AMOOA. He graduated from Murphy High School in Mobile, AL in 1944. He later entered the U.S. Navy as a pharmacist’s mate and two years later joined the U.S. Air Force. In 1949, he completed USAF

Flight Test Pilot Training. In 1959 he studied aeronautical engineering at Texas A&M University.

Edgar’s Air Force career included assignments as Project Engineer for Lockheed’s C-5A and included test projects for planes such as C-130 Hercules and C-133. Some of his projects involved testing cargo planes in arctic conditions. In 1967, he retired as Lt. Col. in the USAF.

His career continued with the Federal Aviation Administration as an Instrument Specialist. In 1987, he retired from the FAA, but continued work as a consultant for aircraft manufacturers Grumman and Boeing Aircraft.

Edgar is survived by his devoted wife of 61 years, Rosemarie H. Wilson; son, Thomas K. Wilson; sister, Lenita Cahoon and her family in Huntsville, AL; nephew, Thomas R. Hesse; niece, Ann M. Hesse and their families in Columbus, OH.

A graveside service was held on 30 May 2013. Those wishing to may sign the online guestbook at www.parrottfuneralhome.com.

The Society of Experimental Test PilotsP.O. Box 986

Lancaster, CA 93584-0986

PRSRT STDU.S. POSTAGE

PAIDSUNDANCE PRESS

85719

Advanced Training Systems International

Aerospace Services InternationalAeroTEC

Air Force Test Pilot School (India)Airborne Systems Group

Airbus SASALCAT, Inc.

Alenia Aeronautica S.p.A.Aviation Partners, Inc.

Bell Helicopter - A Textron CompanyButler Parachute Systems, Inc.

Calspan CorporationCessna Aircraft Company

Clay Lacy AviationDavid Clark Company Incorporated

DCS CorporationEADS Deutschland GmbH

ETPSeXAQT Consultant Group.ForeFeathers Enterprises

GE AviationGeneral Atomics Aeronautical

Systems, Inc.Gentex Corporation

Gladstone Aerospace CorporationGulfstream Aerospace Corporation

Honda Aircraft CompanyHoneywell Aerospace Flight

Test Operations

SETP CORPORATE MEMBERS

International Test Pilot School Canada Ltd.

JT3, LLCKrings Corporation

Lockheed Martin CorporationMarinvent Corporation

Martin-Baker Aircraft Company, LtdMIT Lincoln Laboratory

Modern Technology Solutions, Inc.Mojave Air and Space Port

National Aerospace Laboratory NLRNational Test Pilot School

Northrop Grumman CorporationRaisbeck Engineering, Inc.

Saab AeronauticsSafe Flight Instrument Corporation

Scaled Composites, LLCSikorsky Aircraft CorporationSoftware Engineering InstituteSunshine Aero Industries, Inc.

Symbolic Displays, IncorporatedTest Flying Academy of South Africa

(TFASA)Thales VISIONIX, Inc.The Boeing Company

The Johns Hopkins Univ./APLThornton Corporation

Tiger Century Aircraft, Inc.Universal Avionics Systems Corp.

WyleXCOR Aerospace

Date post:	25-Mar-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times