EUROPEAN OVERSIGHT TRIP

REPORT

COMMITTEE ON

SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

NINETY-SIXTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

serial L

Printed for the use of Committee of Science and Technology

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 1979

Date of visit : June 11, 1979

Location of Visit : Bretigny, France (French Flight test Center)

Highlights

Congressman Barry M. Goldwater Jr., visited the French Government Flight test center and piloted a turboprop transport aircraft equipped with three of the latest development in French aircraft technology. The first device was a Heads Up Display. This consists of a collimated glass mounted between the pilot’s eyes and the windshield.Symbology is displayed on the glass in a way that the pilot can see the symbology and the outside simultaneously. The symbology helps the pilot fly with a greater safety when bad weather is encountered. The second device was an advanced autopilot which is stabilized to fly a commanded inertial track in 3-dimension. The third device was a takeoff monitor. In case of an engine failure or emergency, the device tells the pilot whether it is safer to stop or to continue the takeoff.

Report

Itinerary for the trip and transportation to the Centre d’Essais en Vol at Brétigny (20 miles south of Paris) was arranged by the Direction Générale de l’Aviation Civile (the French equivalent to the U.S. FAA). Their representative, M. Kim Nguyen accompanied the group to the center and provided a briefing en route on the day activities. At the Center, a more detailed description of the technology was given by Mr. Gilbert Klopfstein, an engineer and pilot at the Center.

The test aircraft to be flown was a heavily instrumented Nord 262, a twin engine turboprop.

Congressman Goldwater piloted the test aircraft from the pilot’s seat with Klopfstein in the copilot’s seat. A flight engineer and several equipment engineers and technicians were also on board. The flight lasted 1.5 hours.

The majority of the flight was spent evaluating the HUD, a thomson-CSF model TC-125. The HUD symbology included a horizon line and a synthetic runway. In good weather, the pilot sees that the horizon line symbol coincides with the real horizon, and the synthetic runway symbol coincides with the real runway. In poor visibility, the pilot cannot see the real horizon or the real runway, but he can get the same visual reference by looking at the horizon and runway symbol. In this manner, he can land the plane in poor vivibility the same as he does in good weather. Additional symbology includes actual flight Path Angle, selected Flight Path Angle, Angle Of Attack, heading, and track.

Using these symbols, the pilot can do an approach and landing in a very precise and safe manner in good weather or bad.

After some initial familiarization with the HUD symbology aloft, five approaches and landings were made using the HUD. All five were very smooth and precise. The touchdowns were smooth. They were all within several hundred feet of the touchdown markers.

A demonstration was also made of an inertially stabilized " path track " autopilot. This autopilot allows the pilot to fly hands off while the autopilot maintains an inertial flight path angle and an inertial track over the ground. If the pilot wants to modify the path and/or the track, he simply calls out a change orally, which is entered into the autopilot by the flight engineer (using a keyboard). This allows the pilot to stay " in the loop " while still having sufficient time (i.e. low workload) to act like a manager rather than a servo. Mr. Klopfstein demonstrated and ILS approach using this autopilot. It was obvious that the pilot’s workload was, in fact, very low.

A takeoff monitor was demonstrated during the visit. This is a Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) display which shows a profile view of the aircraft, runway and takeoff flight path. Symbols are also provided showing the point on (or beyond) the runway where the aircraft would stop if the takeoff was immediately aborted and full braking applied, and the takeoff flight path if an engine failed at that point and the takeoff was continued. The pilot of flight engineer can then monitor the progress of the takeoff. If an engine failed or an emergency occurred at any point, the pilot could immediately decide if it would be safer to continue the takeoff or to abort.

The group concluded that the FAA and NASA should be encouraged to expedite their efforts in the Joint FAA/NASA HUD Program, which is overseen by the Committee of Science and Technology.