Pilots' artificial horizon lined up for a revamp?

[barnstorm2]

Pilots' artificial horizon lined up for a revamp

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20427335.300-pilots-artificial-horizon-lined-up-for-a-revamp.html

http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/cms/mg20427335.300/mg20427335.300-1_556.jpg

THE artificial horizon, the instrument that tells pilots how their aircraft is banking, is due for a rethink.

So says cockpit ergonomics researcher Donough Wilson of Coventry University in the UK, who points out that conventional displays can be fatally misread when pilots become disoriented in the murk of thunderstorms, torrential rain or heavy snow. Wilson has developed an alternative display which he presented at last week's European Air and Space Conference in Manchester, UK.

The introduction of the conventional artificial horizon in 1927 allowed pilots to fly safely in cloud, which had not been possible till then. It uses a gyroscope to turn a metal plate, half of which shows the ground and the other half the sky. As the plane banks left, the horizon rolls right - and vice versa.

One of the most common types of plane crash involves the pilot becoming disoriented and flying a perfectly serviceable aircraft into the ground. This can happen in a violent storm which throws the plane around, for example, because the artificial horizon can easily be misread (see diagram). "It's just not intuitive," Wilson says. "In the real world, the horizon is the fixed, stable element against which all movement is measured."

Wilson's new artificial horizon is designed for a modern "glass cockpit" flight deck, in which individual dials and gauges are replaced by images on an LCD screen. In the centre of his display is a number showing the compass heading at which the plane is flying. If the plane banks left, for instance, the number banks left too. To get back to level flight, the pilot simply makes the number on the screen level out. Wilson plans to enhance the system by indicating angle up or down of the plane's nose - its "pitch".

Tests with 45 experienced pilots prove the design's efficacy, Wilson says. He now hopes to interest instrument makers in the idea.

Whatever their response, he will have his work cut out getting it accepted, says Phil Hosey of the International Federation of Airworthiness in East Grinstead, UK. "This would be like changing the side of the road a country drives on. And the big question is how long would it take existing pilots to train on this."

Dewar Donnithorne-Tait, president of the Canadian Centre for Unmanned Vehicle Systems in Medicine Hat, Alberta, says it is more likely that the technology will be used by pilots flying uncrewed aircraft from a control centre on the ground. "Anything that reduces the confusion a remote pilot feels because he is not in the aircraft is a great idea. This idea would be even more useful in a UAV than in a manned plane."


.

[Walter]

At headings of 060 or 090 this would be ambigious in my view

[WaspAir]

One of the most common types of plane crash involves the pilot becoming disoriented and flying a perfectly serviceable aircraft into the ground. This can happen in a violent storm which throws the plane around, for example, because the artificial horizon can easily be misread (see diagram).

Nice theory, but no data to show that a misread attitude indicator is the actual cause.

"In the real world, the horizon is the fixed, stable element against which all movement is measured."


Hogwash. The current, traditional style reflects the view out the windshield, and the horizon definitely moves in your sight picture in the real world.
As synthetic vision systems get better and better, replicating the view you would have if not obscured by cloud, we won't need these instruments at all. But the old style more closely matches what those synthetic vision systems will show. In a 90 degree right bank, you see a vertical horizon, with ground on the right and sky on the left, just like the old instrument indicates with black and blue. Unless you're flying R/C, you don't see your aircraft positioned with respect to a fixed horizon.

[GyroDoug]

Does anyone ever use an artificial horizon to fly a Gyroplane? I realize you should only fly a recreational Gyroplane during VFR conditions anyway so it's not like you can't always see the ground, but is there any kind of advantage to having a glass cockpit with an artificial horizon? Would knowing your pitch angle when doing slow flight behind the power curve, be of any value to a pilot or if you were flying at night would it be good to confirm that you were flying straight and level? While I certainly don't think anyone needs one to safely fly a Gyroplane there does seem to be some circumstances when having one would be an added safety feature, Am I missing something here?

[ckurz7000]

I have a hard time relating to what's said in the article. Even looking at the two pictures, my immediate reaction to the AI was to bank left in order to get the blue sky to be on top again. I had to think long and hard in comparison when looking at the right picture with the numbers.

I simply can't relate to what the article says and have a hunch that's it a plain hype article to push a new product.

-- Chris.

[RotoPlane]

I've tried to see an advantage with the new style....I can't find one. The old style gives you the view as if you looked out the windscreen....and that's what I'd want.

[WaspAir]

Does anyone ever use an artificial horizon to fly a Gyroplane? I realize you should only fly a recreational Gyroplane during VFR conditions anyway so it's not like you can't always see the ground, but is there any kind of advantage to having a glass cockpit with an artificial horizon? Would knowing your pitch angle when doing slow flight behind the power curve, be of any value to a pilot or if you were flying at night would it be good to confirm that you were flying straight and level? While I certainly don't think anyone needs one to safely fly a Gyroplane there does seem to be some circumstances when having one would be an added safety feature, Am I missing something here?

I fly with one in an 18A, as a back-up device if things go horribly wrong after several pilot mistakes, because I consider it far superior to the oft-cited solution of a vertical sink to get down through clouds. I hope that my judgment will continue to make it unnecessary for that purpose.

At one time, it was possible to get an ATP gyro rating but there hasn't been any gyro certified for IFR flight, so that's largely moot.

I like having one available at night for the reasons you suggest. It can, I suppose, also help out a little for performance optimization if you're in tight nasty terrain such as deep in mountain canyons where horizons aren't all that apparent and density altitude demands precise flying to get the most out of the aircraft.

[PW_Plack]

At one time, it was possible to get an ATP gyro rating but there hasn't been any gyro certified for IFR flight, so that's largely moot...

Most experimental gyroplanes are issued operating limitations which allow both IFR and night VFR if properly equipped. If you're instrument rated in any powered aircraft category/class, my understanding is you could legally fly a properly equipped experimental gyroplane IFR. It is today's emphasis on recreational use of gyros, not any characteristics of gyroplanes themselves, which caused a loss of interest in flying them IFR.

Helicopters frequently fly IFR missions, and they require more hand-on attention than gyros.

The first takeoffs and landings permitted under US regulations in zero/zero minima were the rooftop airmail flights made by Johnny Miller & Co. in a gyroplane in the 1930s.

There are many remote areas where night might as well be IFR, for the lack of ground references. An artificial horizon seems like an important precaution for flying VFR at night.

If gyroplanes do make any serious inroads into applications such as border patrol and law enforcement, you'll see a return of IFR training in gyros.

EDIT: Important qualifying word "experimental" had been omitted above! (In bold.)

[brett s]

Most IFR certified helicopters require 2 pilots or stability augmentation equipment - the only one I can think of that doesn't is the Bell 222.

The vast majority of single engine helicopters out there aren't IFR certified, and in some countries it's not possible without a twin.

Not a fan of that new artificial horizon at all - I can see where non-pilots would like it, but suspect most of us that have used traditional ones won't care for it.

[Dale Young]

Although I'm used to the traditional, I like the new also. I guess it's all in what your used to.

[PW_Plack]

Most IFR certified helicopters require 2 pilots or stability augmentation equipment...

But in a gyro, if you're trimmed and just let go, it isn't trying to turn you upside down!

Cessna doesn't advise it anymore, but used to recommend to pilots of 150's that if they got into the soup inadvertently while properly trimmed, just steer with the rudder, and take advantage of the machine's strong stability to avoid getting into a spiral. There's nothing analogous to this approach that would work in a helicopter, but in a pitch-stable gyro...?

[WaspAir]

Most experimental gyroplanes are issued operating limitations which allow both IFR and night VFR if properly equipped.

I've never seen any gyroplane "properly equipped" with IFR equipment, including all the attitude instruments, pitot heat / alt air, approach timer, nav equipment, etc. Many don't even have enough panel space.

Anybody have one?

[PW_Plack]

At the AOPA Summit show in Tampa last week, Dynon was showing its new "Skyview" EFIS with either 7" or 10" color display, everything you'd need for a primary IFR, heated pitot system, two-axis autopilot, and synthetic vision, all for about $7K (slightly more for 10".) You'd need a backup attitude system with battery, and a simple alternate static valve of some sort to allow getting static air from inside the pod (where many gyros put the primary static.)

This wouldn't be for everyone, and I wouldn't want to fly into anything that looked like a chance of icing without ice protection, but this system would be fantastic for VFR night. They don't say whether the autopilot system can "learn" a rotorcraft, but a similar offering from the now-defunct Blue Mountain Avionics could, so I have to assume it's just a matter of software.

The heated pitot system is not yet shown on the Dynon website, but the rest of the pieces are here (http://www.dynonavionics.com/docs/news_technology_preview.html). They'll be taking orders starting December 1st.

[PW_Plack]

If you're instrument rated in any powered aircraft category/class, my understanding is you could legally fly a properly equipped experimental gyroplane IFR...If gyroplanes do make any serious inroads into applications such as border patrol and law enforcement, you'll see a return of IFR training in gyros...

Update - A lurker today questioned my understanding of this issue in a PM, so I ran it by Joe Norris at EAA. His understanding matched mine, regarding flying an experimental gyro under IFR with an instrument rating in airplane, helicopter or powered lift, the only instrument ratings currently available from the FAA. Joe added that this is how gliders are flown IFR.

But he also reminded me that you could only fly it solo without the correct category and class rating. Ironically, since there are no active gyroplane CFIIs, that would preclude getting instrument training in an experimental gyro before flying one under IFR. So...a return of IFR training in gyros is NOT likely to return anytime soon.

[Mike Jackson]

Having briefly looked at both displays, my first reaction is the traditional ADI (left) places me "in the aircraft". There is no doubt to me as to my attitude. The display on the right makes me feel like I am a 3rd party observer not in the aircraft - as one might fly an RC model. I do not see how one determines his precise pitch attitude with the display as presented. Roll attitude is unique but still "third party".

I might possibly get used to it with sufficient training but feel unusual attitudes, well beyond 90 deg of bank angle, might be tougher to correctly interpret and possibly delay a necessary quick control input.

Since I do this stuff for a living, the last thing I personally want to do is fly light stuff IFR. To each his own. Day VFR and no radio for me!

[WaspAir]

Update - A lurker today questioned my understanding of this issue in a PM, so I ran it by Joe Norris at EAA. His understanding matched mine, regarding flying an experimental gyro under IFR with an instrument rating in airplane, helicopter or powered lift, the only instrument ratings currently available from the FAA. Joe added that this is how gliders are flown IFR.

But he also reminded me that you could only fly it solo without the correct category and class rating. Ironically, since there are no active gyroplane CFIIs, that would preclude getting instrument training in an experimental gyro before flying one under IFR. So...a return of IFR training in gyros is NOT likely to return anytime soon.

Actually, it's legally much cleaner for glider pilots. There are specific provisions in the FARs for glider IFR flight. For example, 61.3(e)(3) explicitly authorizes IFR glider flight with a glider category rating and an airplane instrument rating. 61.57(c)(2) has provisions for glider IFR currency, and (d)(1)(iii) sets rules for glider IFR proficiency checks. You can keep your currency easily in a motorglider with a good panel, so it's more practical than you might think. You can then (in theory) thermal up into and through clouds in a pure glider, even with a passenger on board.

There aren't any such explicit rules for gyros.

In any event, I'm sure that as a CFII helicopter and CFI gyro, I could give instrument dual in a gyro. The problem is that it doesn't count for a gyro IFR rating because there isn't one to be earned. But you could operate under the hood while I critiqued and served as safety pilot, if you wished . . .

[PW_Plack]

JR, of course...it didn't dawn on me that most IFR training is under the hood or on simulators.

I have a lot of contact with a fixed-wing CFII who is very critical of an industry that hires airline first officers who are aviation university grads with hundreds of "IFR" hours, only 0.8 of which is in actual clouds, but that seems to be the norm!

[ckurz7000]

BTW, in many countries in Europe you can get a "cloud endorsement" for flying a glider in clouds. This is not an IFR rating; it only allows you to fly gliders in clouds. I don't have the specifics about this but I occasionally read reports of such flights.

-- Chris.

[troed@aon.at]

Recently my CFI and me tested the MGL-Avionics-"Voyager" unit in the Magni M24 Orion at flying in the clouds with the base level of the clouds in 1000 ft (so enough reserve to sink and reorient).

The MGL features a terrain view/Art. horizon quite accurate and a flight path (green rectangels called "Highway in the sky"). As long as no wild maneuvres are flown this instrument is well damped and sufficient to keep You right on track, flying curves at bank angles 30-40 ° is no sweat. So to say a mixture between the "old style" and the possibilities of a modern glass cockpit including TAWS (Terrain awareness and warning systems).

My CFI then tried an approach to the runway under full visual conditions (for me) wearing a hood that only gave him sight of the instrument and he tried an approach to the runway. We had to cancel the approach because for this the instrument was not precise enough. We wanna find out now wether it is only incorrect data of the airport or a general imprecision of the instrument.

Summary: IFR-capable instruments (not certified though!) are available at reasonable prize (MGL-Voyager: incl. Sensors: approx. 3.500 US$) and seem to work pretty well. Not full IFR but in case You need it up in the air it gives You good guidance

[troed@aon.at]

Odyssey/Voyager EFIS screen

[MichaelBurton]

Update - A lurker today questioned my understanding of this issue in a PM, so I ran it by Joe Norris at EAA. His understanding matched mine, regarding flying an experimental gyro under IFR with an instrument rating in airplane, helicopter or powered lift, the only instrument ratings currently available from the FAA. Joe added that this is how gliders are flown IFR.

But he also reminded me that you could only fly it solo without the correct category and class rating. Ironically, since there are no active gyroplane CFIIs, that would preclude getting instrument training in an experimental gyro before flying one under IFR. So...a return of IFR training in gyros is NOT likely to return anytime soon.

The real problem with getting an ifr rating in a gyro is that there are no regs in part 61 that allow for an instrument rating in a gyro. This being the case you can not receive an instrument rating in a gyroplane even if you have a CFII and a properly equipped gyroplane.:noidea::(

[troed@aon.at]

Yesterday I had a quite long discussion with a friend of mine (YAK-owner and Pilot with airliner rating, IFR etc.). He told me a lotta things that made me rethink the entire IFR-story.

Only very little BIG airliners (Triple7, Airbusses) are really capable of real full IFR, meaning to T/O and land fully without any sight in almost any weather conds.

Any other "IFR"-equipment (certified or not, legally allowed or not) might only help to get out of a sudden non-sight-sit in flight guiding You ABOVE the cloud layer or BELOW but not INSIDE for a longer period of time (15-20 mins and >) AS LONG WEATHER CONDS ARE NOT TOO TURBULENT INSIDE the cloud layer. Also autopilot-systems (even expensive and complex ones) can handle high-turbulent-IFR only to a very limited degree which somehow shocked me since I believe(d) in the perfection of electronic systems nowadays.

So since my experience refers to CALM weather conds in a typically calm November-fog weather-sit I am now less than any enthusiastic about this "IFR"-training in our gyro and in the future will refrain from these activities since it might make me think I will be able to steer also in other non-visibility weather conds deceiving me to try my luck and fly by chance into X-conds and then die...................

Even with a possible rating for gyros (which does not and will not exist) I understand that man is not born to fly IFR and even birds (yes, I googled it) refrain from flying in "IFR"-conditions if any possible.

[Chuck Roberg]

Angelo, sounds like good decision making on your part.

[PW_Plack]

A discussion similar to this broke out here a couple years ago. I agree that recreational IFR is a questionable risk/reward scenario. But I also believe that having the equipment, and being well-practiced in using it, is not a bad thing. I've flown in haze, at night over a coastline, and in a few other circumstances that were absolutely legal VFR, but could have been done much more safely by reference to instruments.

It would also seem silly to me, given the low cost of newer equipment, to own an aircraft of any sort and have to rent someone else's to practice approaches.

[troed@aon.at]

Paul, THIS we call "Special VFR" in Europe, not quite legal though but easily managable if instrumentally equipped properly.

BUT: in USA even small airfields have runway lighting clickable during night with the radio at approach :yo:, in Europe we don´t have even ONE airfield equipped with this. :Cry: :mad:

[ckurz7000]

If you think that there is some tongue-in-cheek implied with the term "Special VFR" you are wrong.

Special VFR is well definied by the FARs and an entirely different beast as IFR. It is available upon specific request from the pilot intending to take off or land at an airport within a control zone. With a Special VFR clearance ATC clears the aircraft into or out of the control zone with at least a ceiling of 1000', visibility of 1 mile and clear of clouds (without the "special" part, the minima would be higher under normal VFR). The pilot has to be reasonably certain to be able to land under these conditions or continue VFR outside of the control zone.

-- Chris.

[troed@aon.at]

The "special VFR" was meant both as legally defined term by the official rule as well as "tongue-in-cheek" on some airfields stretching the working hours beyond official SR and SS for ULs (we all know the stories, let´s call it more legally correct: "night VFR") .........