NASA Helps Clearing The Fog 65
Roland Piquepaille writes "NASA's Aviation Safety and Security Program wants to cut fatal accident rates by 80 percent over the next ten years. To reach this goal, NASA researchers used "tunnel-in-the-sky" synthetic vision systems (SVS) in recent flights on a Gulfstream V over Reno, Nevada. A guest pilot for Aviation Week & Space Technology (AWST) went onboard and writes that 'NASA Team Brings Synthetic Vision to Maturity.' He was able to see that SVS concepts, such as voice-controlled synthetic vision displays, a runway incursion protection system, database integrity monitoring technology, and enhanced vision sensors meshed with SVS images, were really effective in eliminating low-visibility-induced accidents. However, NASA doesn't say anything about the availability of SVS for commercial airlines. This summary contains more details and illustrations about key SVS concepts."
Re:How is this different... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:How is this different... (Score:4, Interesting)
you know, like when you play all those fancy pc space sims and there's helper virtual tunnels and shit to help you land and see the planned route 'floating' in air.
Re:How is this different... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:How is this different... (Score:2, Informative)
Full story text for your convenience (Score:5, Informative)
"What I really need is a pair of spectacles to see through the fog. . .
Almost eight decades and a host of hard-won technological advances later, NASA's Langley Research Center and its government, industry and university partners are delivering the equivalent of Lindbergh's fog-penetrating spectacles.
Recent flights here on a Gulfstream V (GV) testbed demonstrated that NASA's consortium of researchers has brought "tunnel-in-the-sky" synthetic vision systems (SVS) to an impressive level of functionality. Tweaking of some features is still warranted, and a suite of enhanced-vision sensors (EVS) is yet to be fully incorporated, but a transition from research to commercial products is clearly in the offing.
The research and demo flights at Reno/Tahoe International Airport last month marked the latest phase of NASA's Aviation Safety and Security Program, which aims to cut fatal accident rates by 80% over 10 years. In 2001, similar evaluation flights on a NASA-Langley Boeing 757 were flown at Eagle County Regional Airport near Vail, Colo. Those highlighted individual elements of SVS, and garnered valuable inputs from NASA, airline, FAA and Boeing pilots (AW&ST Oct. 29, 2001, p. 78).
This summer's Reno deployment focused on integrating several SVS elements to give pilots not only excellent airborne situational awareness, but also runway incursion protection on the ground, and a means of ensuring computer-generated displays are accurate depictions of the environment. I was one of several guest pilots given the opportunity to fly in the GV's left seat and see a number of NASA and Rockwell Collins SVS concepts. Specifically, new integrated concepts included:
* Synthetic vision displays.
* A runway incursion protection system (Rips).
* Enhanced-vision sensors, such as forward-looking infrared (Flir) and advanced weather radar systems, mated with SVS images.
* Database integrity monitoring equipment.
By most pilots' accounts, NASA's team has done an excellent job of meeting the goal of its Synthetic Vision Systems Project: finding ways to eliminate low-visibility-induced accidents. Specifically, the project sought to develop technologies and procedures to avoid CFIT--controlled flight into terrain--during poor weather and at night.
Researchers aimed to "make every flight the equivalent of clear-day operations--what we call 'virtual VMC' [visual meteorological conditions]," said Daniel G. Baize, NASA-Langley's SVS project manager. "SVS is another layer of protection on top of enhanced ground proximity [warning systems]--a great tool in itself--but synthetic vision will give a more intuitive and more advanced warning of a potential terrain [encounter]."
Although definitions vary, NASA's team decided "enhanced vision" refers to sensor-based means of giving pilots information about terrain and man-made features when visibility is obscured. "Synthetic vision" is an artificial, computer-generated view based on a detailed terrain database. Combining the two can either be done via "fusion"--creating one image by melding sensor and database elements--or "integration," which overlays sensor and terrain data.
The latter "provides the flight crew with a synthetic view of the environment, regardless of the weather or time of day," Baize says. "We always start with the database, which includes terrain [and] obstacles. Then we position you within that database to the highest degree of accuracy possible . . . using a differential GPS system [at Reno]. We then confirm your position in the database with a variety of sensors."
During the Reno demonstration-flight phase, the GV's standard Kollsman Inc. "All-Weather Window" infrared-based system provided thermal imagery to both head-up and head-down displays, when selected. A recipient of Frost & Sullivan's 2004 Technology Innovation Award, the Kollsman EVS operates in the 1-5-micron region, which allows b
Re:Full story text for your convenience (Score:1, Troll)
Looks like NASA finally ran out of acronyms. SVS is also used for their Space Vision System [neptec.com].
Tunnel-in-the-sky already exists, it's just better (Score:4, Informative)
Commercial airplanes could benefit from this today, which is what's great.
Re:Tunnel-in-the-sky already exists, it's just bet (Score:5, Interesting)
Yet i'm not sure it's more useful: Commercial airliners are _all_ equiped with "Flight directors", with seems to be the best info a pilot could get. It is displayed as two bars on the artificial horizon, and tells the pilot which way he should move the commands to follow in the best possible way the planned route, heading, vertical speed, ILS, speed, whatever the pilot chose to follow.
It uses derivates to the second degree of the raw position data to compute intercept path and anticipations, and following it is a breeze : just keep the cross centered, and you'll get a smooth, perfect trajectory. Cross up, you pull until it's centered. Cross left, bank left until centered. No brain required.
I'm not sure fancy graphics would be quite as reliable or useful: have you ever tried following a tunnel thing in some flight simulator ? It's much harder than stupidly keeping a cross centered, especially after a long trancoceanic flight
Re:Tunnel-in-the-sky already exists, it's just bet (Score:1)
Re:Tunnel-in-the-sky already exists, it's just bet (Score:1)
There is something like this on the market for experimental aircraft http://www.sierraflightsystems.com/symbology.htm/ [sierraflightsystems.com]
Re:Tunnel-in-the-sky already exists, it's just bet (Score:1)
What about after landing? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:What about after landing? (Score:5, Interesting)
When I was working for a regional airline out of Midway in Chicago, the pilots used a gentleman's club called "The Lusty Lady" near the end of the runway to make their "go no-go" decision. If they could see it on approach, they had good enough visibility, otherwise they had to go around and/or fly to another destination.
Re:What about after landing? (Score:3, Informative)
It varies between 75m and several kilometers dependind on the type of approach (ILS ? NDB ?), the class of aicraft and airfield equipment (Cat I/II/II), and of course crew qualification. A pilot in a 777 will need the same RVR as in a Cessna, if he is not Cat III qualified.
Once you've begun the approach, you can descend to the procedure's "Minimum height of descent" (MDH) or "Decision
Re:What about after landing? (Score:1)
Yeah right... (Score:3)
A runway incursion protection system (Rips).
Guess they really had to add "system". Too bad, this screwed up an interesting acronym.
80% ? I doubt it. (Score:5, Interesting)
Adding information to the pilot's input is probably not a good idea. Risk management experts such as René Amalberti have explained in great length that sensory overload exhausts cognitive resources, leaving little for actual piloting. The only few occasions where some new information technology would probably prove useful are situations where lack of information leads to a dangerous difference between what the pilot THINKS is happening, and what is REALLY happening. These sorts of difference is what leads to catastrophe (Sharm el Cheik being only one). I think there are a number of occasions where the SVS would help, but how many new loopholes, how many false assumptions ("The system does not show THAT so the situation is safe") will it introduce ?
I'll keep my doubt until I see the system's limitations.
Re:80% ? I doubt it. (Score:2)
The devil, of course, will be in making it as easy and natural as regula
Re:80% ? I doubt it. (Score:1, Informative)
Uh-huh. As an instrument pilot, I know full well just how much good "regular vision" does you. There are all sorts of fun ways that your brain interprets visual information improperly on days where visibility is unlimited.
The real question isn't how it compares to natural vision, it's how much data it puts right in front of the pilot. There's a
in IMC, sensory overload isn't exactly the problem (Score:3, Informative)
Re:in IMC, sensory overload isn't exactly the prob (Score:2)
Re:80% ? I doubt it. (Score:1)
Although all pil
Same tech on autos? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Same tech on autos? (Score:2)
Plane Crash Info (Score:4, Insightful)
From the statistics on this web site it becomes clear that low-visibility landings account for far less than 80% of the crashes. So other measures are necessary as well if plane crashes are to be reduced by that factor.
Instrument ratings (Score:1)
Can't speak for the FAA, but here in the UK our equivalent, the CAA; does little to encourage private pilots to take up instrument training. It could be argued that the requirements are even obstructive, much of the training is overly complex, unnecessary and much will only ever apply to airline pilots. This of course adds to the cost, and flying is expensive over here as it is.
GA pilots here frequentl
Im a private pilot, and this looks great but... (Score:4, Interesting)
How expesive is it going to be ??????
HSI's are expensive enough that not every one has them...!!!
80%.... I dont think so.
More over, this is so unrealistic, that it really makes me think this is being done by scientists with 0 flight hours, not pilots.
I love flying, and I think the situation is so sad.
The FAA presumes every year of declining accident rates, yes, sure, what they dont tell you is that their pretty charts dont show the also declining number of total pilots every year.
I can see it, by 2020, new mandatory equipment for all IFR flight!!! Great 100 less accidents on its first year....... beacuse 100 less pilots who could nor afford it....
We dont need new fancy computer equipment, we need
to make more efficient what we already have.
We need for airplanes, what Robinson just did for helicopters
Instead of adding fancy equipement NASA should invest
in making current equipment more efficient and cheap!
Most GA airplanes are over 20 years old!!!
The radios are around 5-15 years old on average in a GA airplane, the VOR navigation dates from the second world war!.......
We dont need to add toys to this, we need to fix what we already have.
Already Available, and Affordable (Score:1)
The Synthetic Vision that NASA has been working on is already available for both the experimental and certified market from Chelton (formerly Sierra) Flight Systems. http://www.sierraflightsystems.com/default.htm [sierraflightsystems.com]
When it was being developed, it was only $10k for the single display. (It's more now, especially for the certifi
Re:Already Available, and Affordable (Score:2, Interesting)
You have a point there.
At least price-wise, I can see that, after adding up what you pay for all the normal instruments in a regular GA airplane, probably its about the same.
But, at the same time you hit on one problem.
-Reliability
If the vacuum quits, you know you have the turn coordinator, a completely separate piece of equipment, with a completely different power source.
And, if you need to replace it, you only replace that part, not the whole panel!
I have seen LCD's die on me. What will you do
Re:Already Available, and Affordable (Score:1)
If General Aviation operated under 14 CFR Part 121 (or even 135) they would have an equivalent level of safety. But it would be cost-prohibitive! The fact is that you are in an unnatural environment for the human organism anytime you are high enough (~10m) or fast enough (~50 kmh) to kill you. As the old pilot's saying goes, it is "unforgiving of any mistake."
All the light GA craft with PFD/MFD technology have backup instruments. For an exa
All these great acronyms flying around... (Score:5, Funny)
I'm so immature (though probably older than 95% of Slashdot posters).
- S
An old example of something similar (Score:2)
Okay, it's not quite the same thing as described in TFA, but...
About 10 years back I did some (non-sensitive) work on a test platform for the Tiger [wikipedia.org] helicopter project. One of the experimental bits was an AR (augmented reality) feature; a laser scanner in the nose detected power lines up ahead and traced over them in REALLY BRIGHT COLOURS on the helmet visor.
You can see how something like that could be a lifesaver. Those things flew very low, and pretty fast. Not sure whether the feature made it into the
And then it all went "POOF" (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:And then it all went "POOF" (Score:2)
Training. Duh.
My understanding is that this stuff is supposed to augment the pilot's capabilities, not replace the pilot, nor replace the requirement that the pilot have a clue.
piquepaille (Score:1)
Kickbacks! (Score:2, Funny)
79 stories posted (with obligatory, self-promoting links) this year. That's about one every three days. What does this blog offer besides copy and paste links to the original articles? Advertising!
This is pathetic, and it's obvious there is some kind of monetary link between Roll 'Em and the /. editors.
Way back in 1999, this was funny. Now, it's just sadly true:
http://humorix.org/articles/1999/02/sla [humorix.org]
Re:Kickbacks! (Score:1, Offtopic)
Well? What are you all waiting for over there in the US? Let's slashdot him in the good old POTS way! That line might not be troll-free the next coming weeks
Very risky stuff here. (Score:2)
I've jumped in with this some time ago in response to an earlier Slashdot HUD-in-the-motorcycle-helmet article, but I'll say this again:
It has been shown that this task is a divided attention one (obviously). Hence, when a "highway in the sky" or runway overlay is added, this tends to draw attention to it - and away, in the study (Ames Lab, I think it was) from the sample Cessna that pulled out in front of the sim during landing.
Pilots on the sim landed "through" the small plane without reporting seein
No, no, no. (Score:2)
I can't believe no one has mentioned (Score:2)