Report No. FAA-RD-74-119, II(/2

ILS GLIDE SLOPE STANDARDSPart II: Validation of Proposed Flight Inspection Filter Systems and

Responses of Simulated Aircraft on Coupled Approaches

Lee Gregor Hofmann,'1 John J. Shanahan

Q ) Dunstan Graham

7 -

1

October 1975Final Report

Document is available to the public through theNational Technical Information Service,

Springfield, Virginia 22161.

Prepared for

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIONFEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

Systems Research & Development ServiceWashington, D.C. 20590

I NOTCE

This document is disseminated under the sponsorship ofthe Department of Transportation in the interest of infor-m"tion exchange. The United States Government assume noliability for its contents or use thereof.

Technical Reort Documentation Pae

1.Roereo.u~onment Accession Me. 2. Rteipient's COW 0e N.

/LFA - ____- ___ ___

A. Tifl an Ig 00

~' IL.GLDEPOPE 8ANDARDS. 2ART 11. YALIDATION OF 0ct7W15P~OPSEDFLGF~NSPECTION FILTER~ T~S N

~ESPNSESOF Mt4LATED AE:R&RAP'T ON COUPLED APPROACHES,

go omn -ohn J. I hana I 1P.' 'TNo.

/ ~ Lee Grego/oran Loh J Snhanf,/Dunstankam TR-t 1-I9 ''e~mn O~~tztI~ Hje mdA~dve--' ~ ~10. Wek Uif 9. (TRAIS)

sSystems Technology, Inc. ~ wu .

13766 South Hawthorne BoulevardHawthorne., California 90250 .4- P 0. op., " Cvvo

12. Sponsoring Agency Noim. and Address Final, tos I, 1111111 .FedralAvitio Adinitraion10/29/74 t 9/29/75

Systems Research and Development Service ______________

800 ndepndece Aenu , S.W. 1. spent ring son -Coo I

This report contains the data base for vaidaition of the longitudinal approach and lending models used in Phase, I of contract No.tU~.AW.~3.O.The einsilutiot: models include, Conmir PM Iin cmbinat.ion with the Lear DIegler, Inc. 'W1IY Autmatie Tanding

Anc~~ aLniort!Aly suoncnted vorriun of tits 1.91 .7ystam, or a manual flight, director version or the IM !Votes;, and Piper PA "wihit invevi.od coupler andu Al~tttrott.C Mystum, 5isplitied simulation models include an aircraft with perrect pitch attitude and

i~vpv caiitril niwd u pro ,rtcosnl voul,.r mothiul (tr I~yjtome No, I) %sid aii airerart, with pvireu*, rsso'eiltand airapic4 cor.-

trol 54. a prc.porti.oral-pl-.&iflntaimrl coupler model (7i.1ter Cysica ItW. 29,. The first four riodels cover ao rangie of aircrt And Glide

l~p' si~ki, t~~'i~vs~'. h. let'ar two models represent the .1vnmleas of th'- airorsft-eoorpler sysa'.ei in a hilihy simplfied wayW.1.16I tiiil1er dtitrtl. Irdiestul i ni actual gild* paaih do,/titon and actual glide pAth deviation rate enaparigag to glide

Tih isrv si- r.,d.,ls' renponbs to () prof.otyp,) Gilds 0loTW7 faults /ckpe, sinioids, ard zpecially cniigrefd wa',efolus) an'e *o

x~tu.-il il i;!.tip'lc diiTerarl.ial trsacu, rautords ror W,~ IL Ulid.' Clupo facilitaja are acxiumi.a-d, A total f f~l rro iail record'

fosr s.ois ijai'iirmod~lo in rcespoi to .. l lide Slope Inputs, andl all simulation wmJlnj in response to sloe,!c Glide CIopa

irrult-, are jii,o~n In aasdi'.on, 8 roopuad recordsi docuent response standard deviations which arise because of random wind salA wind

shir v..ri~btiity trcm one. approach to another and from turt.uia'nre. Results show:

0 !*^ir-' accurate itirat:r of Indicated and actual EiideW path deviation and glide pathi deviation rate are provided by ?Llter SystemN,:',aircrr w.th pa-r!'.et rnte-of-climb niki tAirepecd rontrol rand propoirt onal -plus. Intoga I coitpler imodl) tAaan hy Filter

0 T!;ere lj rut'starti'al similarity in the gross nature of' the responses fur all aircraft a&M Glide Slop coupling techilqu@3 amongtc. ulgil wn ait!; rvvepct to the rosponous catimtod wsinn 1,itor r'yfltems NoU. I andl P.

0 Tla.' I .:rtinlly .,5vw01ftI 'Olilur hl ilbta :titnifly ntt,iuateai ecipaincos 1,o "hiph* frequency IIi Gilds Clap atisctue fur all

v:nrla.ue oxer i'.iatel glide poth dovistion (as ot would expett. This It the principal feature difrerentlating thea~r~srftcdiiiQ t!" iiamtiisatioi simulated. ih. Itaertially ausaented coupler also results In a modest reduction in longi.

tIlL.'al, touohdovn diopersion,

e lisq six~dation tvcnistu.a reportedm in PhAse I of Contrast ?to. tDl.I'7iWA340 ran be used to prediot a typical mean longitudinaltomichiosei point using fligcV. Irsipqction data for a specific ZIA Glide 0op facility and can predict the typical longitudinal

dirsoit of tit,-.' totichv~ont dinpoirsiom fomtprint arising from winds, win *hear and turbulence.

DitracSarising from faeilityto-saiUty variability in XIJ Glide slop structure and winds, wind shear and turbulence

combine in a syre rgistic way which causes- longitudinal touchdown dispersion for the combination of all disturbances to grvatly

exiceed the root.sum.squars dispersion@ for each disturbance acting separately,

o Vs. 2v tolerances (developed in Phase I of Contract No. DOT.FA7IaWA.3)i.O) applied to the corresponding responses of Tuter Mysoe

Mo. P are succoeft)l in discrimfinating aginst those ILA Glide elope fasilitics which produce out-ot-specification approach$*and landings.

17. Key Words III. Distribution slttment

Instrumentation Landing System (ILS) Document is available to the publicAutomatic Landing Sys4 em through the National Technical Infor-Flight Control System mation Service, Springfieldr VirginiaFlight Inspection Stanciardi 22161.

19. Security Ciessif. (.f this eort) -2. soewity Cl06sif. (of this poee MeN. of 10ges 22. price

Unclassified Unclassified 252

FoPrm DOT F 1700.7 (6-72) R 0 4IO61 w e ae 60"heled

,,,

1IT

0.2. 1

* Z

L"

I---

I*"

oil i , , if f,

0

I-. " IE 1 16 I f1 9 -I El

I I•

vI Ila Ift*II''I''L

*Iiii[ 2W

The research reported here was accomplished for the United StatesDepartment of Transportation by Sytem Techno , ., Hawthorne,California, under Phase 31 of Contract DOT-FA7iWA-3340. The program wassponsored by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Systems Researchand Development Service, Washington, D. C.

This research, conducted from December 1974 to April 1975, was accom-plished under the general direction of Mr. Dunstan Graham at SystemsTechnology, Inc. Mr. John F. Hendrickson served as Technical Officer forthe FAA. Valuable guidance throughout the course of this research wasprovided by Messrs. Henry H. Butts, Richard D. Munnikhuysen and John F.Hendrickson of the FAA.

The manuscript was released by t:;e auth'ors in October 1975.

[L illi

TR-104-1-II

iPWCDG PAGE BLANK..' Fdfl4D

I. NROCTIoN . . . ........... . 1

Organization of Filter System and Aircraft/Control System Simulation Data ... ... .......... 2

Organization of the Report .

II. SELECTION AID VALIDATION OF A FILTER SYSTIREPRESETATION OF TYPICAL AIRCRAFT/CONTROL SYSTEMDYNAMICS ON COUPLED APPROACHES .... ...........

Final Selection and Validation of a Filter System. . . .

III. SM]UJIATED AIRCRAFT/ON15OL SYSTEM PERFORMAX E WITHACTUAL ILS GLIDE SLOPE DATA IPUT .... ... ..... 9Landing Performance ...... ..............

Application of Flight Inspection Tolerances ..........

TV. CONCLUSIONS ........... ......

REFERCP . ........ .............. .

APPENDIX A. Filter System and Aircraft/ControlSystem Simulation Response Plots for PrototypeGlide Slope Fault Inputs ..... .. ......... . -

APPENDIX B. Filter System and Aircraft/ControlSystem Simulation Responje Plots for ectual ILSGlide riope Flight Inspection Data Inputs . .... . B-i

TIR- 1 ,5 1- II

L=T OF flI

yp. Block Diarm for iter System Which GeneratesTypical Aircraft Indicated Deviation and Actual PathDeviation and Actual Path Deviation Rate Responses(Filter System No. 1) . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2. Block Diam for Alternative Filter System V, 'eh

Gene-ates Typical Aircraft Indicated Deviation,Actual Path Deviation, and Actual Pea.n DeviationRate Responses (Filter System No. 2) . . . . . .. . 6

3. 2a Tolera'ce Levels for Application to Filter SystemNo. 2 Responses in AppendixB. . . . . . . . . . . 1

4. Critical 2a Levels Corresponding to Key CV-88)Simulation Response Variables in Appendix B . .. . .. 2D

A-I. Responses of Filter System No. 2 to PrototypeGlide Slope Fault No. 1 . . . . ............... A-

A-2. Responses of Filter System No. 1 to PrototypeGlide Slope Fault No.2. . . . . .... ... . A-6

A-3. Responses of Filter System No. 2 to PrototypeGlide Slope Fault No. 2 .. .. .. . . .. a... A-8

A-4. Responses of Filter System No. I to PrototypeGlide Slope Fault No. 3. . . .. . . . .. . . A-10

A-5. Responses of Filter System No. 2 to PrototypeGlide Slope Fault No. 3. ............. A-12

A-6. Responses of Filter System No. 2 to PrototypeGlide Slope Fault No. . . . . . . . . . . . . .A-14

A-7. Responses of Filter System No. 2 to Prototype

Glide Slope Fault No. 5 ......... . . . . . . A-16

A-8. Responses of Fi. er System No. 2 to PrototypeGlide Slope Fau-t No.6..... . . . . . . . . A- 18

A-9. Responses of Filter System No. 2 to ProtLtypeGlide Slope Fault No. 7 ............... . . . . A-20

A-i0. Responses of Filter System No. 2 to PrototypeGlide Slope Fault No. 8 ............. . . . . . . A-22

A-11. Responses of Filter System No. 1 to PrototypeGlide Slope Fault No. 9 ............... . . . . A-24

TR-1043-I-II Vi

Pae

.- 12. Responses of Filter System No. 2 to PrototypeGlide Slope Fault No. 9 ......... A-26

A-13. Responses of the CV-880 Aircraft with LSIAutomatic Landing System and ConventionalGlide Slope Coupling to Prototype Glide SlopeFault No. 1 .... ........... .... A-2

A-1 -. 1rcsponses of the (V-880 Aircraft with LSIAutomatic Landing System and ConventionalGlide Slope Coupling to Prototype Glide SlopeFault No. 2 ...... ........... .... A-3

A-1;. Responses of the CV-880 Aircraft with LSIAutomatic Landing System and InertiallyAugmented Glide Slope Coupling to PrototypeGlide Slope Fault No. 2 .. ...... ..... A-34

A-16. Responses of the CV-880 Aircraft with ManuallyControlled Flight Director System and ConventionalGlide Slope Coupling to Prototype Glide SlopeFault No. 2 ...... ............ ... A-37

A-17. Responses of the Piper PA-30 Aircraft withInvent,:1 Flight Control System and ConventionalGlide Slope Coupling to Prototype Glide SlopeFault No. 2 ........ ............ . A-4O

A-18. Responses of the CV-880 Aircraft with LSIAutomatic Landing System and ConventionalGlide Slope Coupling to Prototype Glide SlopeFault No. 3 ......... ........... . A-43

A-19. Responses of the CV-880 Aircraft with LSIkutomatic Landing System and InertiallyAugmented Glide Slope Coupling to PrototypeGlide Slope Fault No. 3 ....... ...... A-46

A-2 . Responses of the CV-881 Aircraft with LSIAutomatic Landing System and ConventionalGlide Slope Coupling to Prototype Glide SlopeFault No. 4 ................. A-49

A-,1. Responses of the CV-88) Aircraft with LSIAutomatic Landing System and Conventiona.LGlide Slope Coupling to Prototype Glide SlupeFault No. 5 ..... .......... .... A-52

TR-1oI43-1-II vii

A-22. Responae of the CV-88 Aircraft with LBIAutmtc Wandi Bstm m CoventioaCle Mope coqplifg to Pratotyp Glide moeFeat No. 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-"

A-23. Respan -e of the CV-88 Aircraft with LIIAutomtic Lening Sytm and ConventimlGlide Sope Cowling to Prototype Glide SlopeFinilt go. 7 ......... . . .58

A.2h. Reapouse of the CV-880 Aircraft with L8IAutomatic Landing System and ConentioumlGlide Slope Coupling to Prototype Glide SlopeFault No. 8 .... ............. . . . A-61

A-25. Responses of the CV-880 Aircraft with LSIAutomtic Lending System and ConventionalGlide Slope CAupJ.ing to Prototype Glide SlopeFault No.9. . . ................. . A-64

A-26. Responses of the CV-880 Aircraft with LSIAutomatic Landing System and InertiallyAuented Glide Slope C,,uling to PrototypeGlide Slope Fault No. 9 . .. .. .. .. .. A-67

A-27. Responses of the CV-880 Aircraft with Manual yControlled Flight Director System and ConventionalGlide Slope Coupling to Prototype Glide SlopeFault No. 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-70

A-28. Responses of the Piper PA-30 Airczrift withinvented Flight Control System and ConventionalGlide Slope Coupling to Prototype Glide SlopeFault No. 9 ..... .............. . . A-7

B-1. Responses of Filter System No. 2 to ILS Glide SlopeInput No. 1 .................... . . . . B-6

B-2. Responses of Filter System No. 2 to ILS Glide SlopeInput No. 3 . ..... ................ B-8

E-3. Responses of Filter System No. 2 to LS Glide SlopeInput No. 4 ..... ............... . B-1O

B-4. Responses of Filter System No. 2 to ILS Glide SlopeInput No. 5 ...... ................ B-12

B-5. Responses of Filter System No. 2 to ILS Glide SlopeInput No. 6 ...... ................ B-14

TR-104-1-II viii

B-6. Responses of Filter Systam go. 2 to 15 Glide Slope

&7?. Pe -pnes of Fil tdr System No. 2 to UX Glide Slopeinput No. 9. . ........... . . -18

B-8. Responses of Filter System No. 2 to ILS Glide SlopeInput No. 11 ............ .. B-20

i B-9. Responses of Filter System No. 2 to ILS Glide SlopeInput No. 12 ............. . B-22

B-1). Responses of Filter System No. 2 to ILS Glide SlopeInput No. 13 ....................... B-24

B-1 1. Responses of Filter System No. 2 to ILS Glide SlopeInput No. 14 .. .............. .B-26

B-12. Responses of Filter System No. 2 to TIS Glide Slope

Input No. 15 ...... ................ B-26

B-13. Responses of the CV-880 Aireraft with LSI AutamticLanding System and Conventional Glide Slope Couplingto Glide Slope Flight Inspection Record No. 1.Category II-III Utilization Simulated ......... B-30

B-14. Responses of the CV-880 Aircrast with LSI AutoticLanding System and Conventional Glide Slope Couplingto Glide Slope Flight Inspection Record No. 3.Category II-IIT Utilization Sinulated .. ...... B-33

B-11. Respons.s of the Piper PA-30 Aircraft with InventedFlight Control System and Conventional Glide SlopeCoupling to Glide Slope S ight Inspection RecordNo. 3. Category I M Utilization Simulated ... . B-36

B-16. Responses of the CV-880 Aircraft with LSI AutomaticLanding System and Conventions Glide Slope Couplingto Glide Slope Flight Inspection Record No. 4.Category II-III Utilization Simulated .. ...... B-39

B-17. Responses of the CV-830 Aircraft with LSI AutomaticLanding System and Conventional Glide Slope Coupling4 to Glide Slope Flight Inspection Record No. 5.Category II-III Utilization Simulated ..... .... B-42

B-18. Responses of the CV-880 Aircraft with LSI AutomaticLanding System and Conventional Glide Slope Couplingto Glide Slope Flight Inspection Record No. 6.Category Il-III Utilization Simulated .... ..... B-45

TR- 1)43-1-II ix

11619. Napmm at tia Y-VS0D Aircrat ith LBI AtaticLmdug ftem md Ovintioml WM Slcpe CQxVngto Mide Slope 11i~at Inspection Bawdr go. 7.

13-20. Responses of the CV-88 Aircraft with LSI AutmticLe ndin System Mid Cavni mWide Slope Couplingto MIde Slope F"4&t XMspection ReOMd No. 9.CtegoqIUtilzation Sinlated. . B-51

B-21. Responses of the CV-88C Aircraft wiLth LSI AutmticLanding System ad Couventionol Glide Slope Couplingto Glide Slope Fligt Inspection Record No. 11.Category IUtiliaation Siulated . 5 .... B54

B-22. Responses of the CV-88 Aircraft with LSI AutmticLanding System and Conventional Glide Slope Couplingto Glide slope nlight Inspection Re-cord No. 12.Category I Utilizatin Simlated . . . . . . . . . B-57

B-23. Responses or t.he CV-M8 Aircraft with LSI AutoiuticLanding System " Conventionmi Glide Slope Couplingto Glide slope nlight Inspection Record No. 13.Cac~egory I Utilization Simlated .. ... .. ...- 6D

B-24. Responses of the Piper PA-30 Aircraft with Inventednight Contr,,l System *nd Conventional Glide SlopeCoupling to Glide Slope Flight Dnspection RecordNo. 13. Category I Utilization Simlated ........- 63

B-25. Responses of the CV-880 Aircraft with 131 AutomticLanding System and Conventional Glide Slope Cowlingto Glide slope nlight Inspection Record No. 14.Category I Utilization Similated...........-66

B-26. Responses of the CV-880 Aircraft with LSI AutomticLanding System and Conventional Glide Slope Couplingto m1ide slope flight Inspection Record No. 15.Cateipry Il-I Utilization Simulated.........-69

B-27. Responses of the CV-881) Aircraft with LSI AutomaticLanding System and Conventional Glide Slope Couplingto Glide slope Flight Inspection Record No. 2.Category II-rII Utilization Simlated.........-72

B-28. Standard Deviation Responses to Wind, Wind Shear,and Turbulence for the CV-8& Aircraft with LSIAutmtic Landing System and Conventional Glide SlopeCoupling to Glide Mlope flight Inspection Record No. 2.Category II-III Utilization Simulated........B-76

TR-l043-1-IT x

B-29. Responses of the Piper PA-30 Aircraft vith InventedFlUt Control System and Conventional Glide SlopeCoupliug to Glide Slope Flight Inspection RecordNo. 2. Category II N Utilization Simulated . . . . . B-80

B-30. Standard Deviation Responses to Wind, Wind smear,and Turbulence for the Piper PA-30 Aircraft withInvented Flight Control System and ConventionalGlide Slope Coupling to Glide Slope Flight Inspec-tion Record No. 2. Category II M UtilizationSimulated .... ............ . . . . . B-84

B-31. Responses of the CV-880 Aircraft with LSI AutomaticLanding System and Conventional Glide Slo.)e Couplingto lide Slope Flight Inspection Record No. 10.Category I Utilization Simulated ......... . . B-88

B-32. Standard Deviation Responses to Wind, Wind Shear,and Turbulence for the CV-8&) Aircraft with LSIAutomatic Landing System and Conventional Glide SlopeCoupling to Glide Slope Flight Inspection Record No. 10.Category I Utilization Simulated . . . . . . . . . B-92

B-33. Responses of the CV-880 Aircraft with LSI AutomaticLanding System and Inertially Augented Glide SlopeCoupli 5 to Glide Slope Fl ight Inspection RecordNo. 10. Category II-III Utilization Simulated . . . . B-96

B-34. Standard Deviation Responses to Wind, Wind Shear,and Turbulence for the CV-880 Aircraft with LSTAutomatic Landing System and Inertially AugmentedGlide Slope Coupling to Glide Slope Flight Inspec-tion Record No. 10. Category II-IIl UtilizationSimulated ..... ................ . B-100

B-35. Responses of the CV-880 Aircraft with LSI AutomaticLanding System and Conventional Glide Slope Couplingto Glide Slope Flight Inspection Record No. 16.Category I Utilization Simulated .. ....... .. B-10

B-36. Standard Deviation Responses to Wind, Wind Shear,and Turbulence for the CV-880 Aircraft with LSIAutomatic Landing System and Conventional Glide SlopeCoupling to Glide Slope Flight Inspection RecordNo. 16. Category I Utilization Simulated .... .. . B-I08

B-37. Responses of the CV-880 Aircraft with LSI AutomaticLanding System and Inertially Augmented Glide SlopeCoupling to Glide Slope Flight Inspection RecordNo. 16. Category II-III Utilization Simulated . . . . B-112

TR-1043- 1-II xi

B-38. Standard Deviation Responses to Wind, Wind Shear,and Turbulence for the CV-880 Aircraft with LeiAutomatic Lending Systen and Inertial.y AupwtedGlide Slope Coupling to Glide Slope night Inspec-tion Record No. 16. Category II-ll UtilizationSilm l t d o. . *. . . .* *. . . . . . . .- * . . # . 116

B-39. Responses of the CV-880 Aircraft with LSI AutoticLanding System and Inertially Aupented Glide SlopeCoupling to Glide Slope Flight Inspection RecordNo. 24. Category II-ITl Utilization Simulated. . . . . B-120

B-40. Standard Deviation Responses to Wind, Wind Shear,and Turbulence for the CV-880 Aircraft with LSIAutomatic Landing Systema and Conventional Glide Slop"Coupling to Glide Slope Flight Inspection RecordNo. 24. Category I-l71 Utilization Simlated ..... B-1I

B-41. Responses of the CV-880 Aircraft with LS1 AutmticLanding System and Inertially Akpented Glide MAopCoupling to Glide Slope Flight Inspection RecordNo. 24. Category II-III Utilization Similated. . . . . B-126

B-42. Standard Deviation Responses to Wind, Wind Shear,and Turbulence for the CV-880 Aircraft with LSIAutomatic Landing System and Inertially AupentedMlide Slope Coupling to Glide Slope Flight Inspec-tion Record No. 24. Category II-III UtilizationSimulated. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B,132

TR-1o43-1-II xii

LIST Or 2XI3

1. Response Caqarison for Filter Systems No. 1 and No. 2

Across Aircraft/Control System Combinations for GlvanPrototype Glide Slope Faults. . . . . . . . . . . 8

2. Res Comparison for Filter System No. 2 with theCV!- L SI Simulation Across Prototype Glide SlopeFault Inputs . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . 8

3. Landing Performance for Actual Glide Slope FlightInspection Data Inputs. . . . . . ....... 10

4. Gain Values for Modified PA-30 Autothrottle . . . . . . 13

5. Comparison of Test Results for Tolerances Upon FilterSystem No. 2 Outputs and Upon Aircraft/ControlSystem Outputs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

A-1. Summary of Filter System Response Data to PrototypeGlide Slope Fault Inputs . . . . . .. . . . .. A-1

A-2. Summary of Aircraft/Control System Combination ResponseData to Prototype (lide Slope Fault Inputs . . . . . . A-2

B-1. Sumnary of Actual Glide Slope flight InspectionData Records . . . . . . . . . . . 0 . . . . B-2

B-2. Sunary of Figure Numbers for Filter System andAircraft/Control System Response Data to ActualGlide Slope Data .. .. .. .. .. .. . ... B-3

B-3. Summary of Figure Numbers for Aircraft/Control SystemResponses to Actual Glide Slope Data, Wind, Wind ShearAnd Turbulence ...... ............. . . . B-3

TR-I043-1-II xiii

Ai , U W AID

SPBML NOEMI

AbbrevliatioUi

DIM Difference in depth of modulation

FAA Federal Aviation Administration

ICAO International Civil Aviation Organization

ILS Instrument Landing System

ILS An imaginary point on the glide pathilocalizer course measuredPoint "B" along the runway centerlit, extended, in the approach direction,

3'00 feet from the runway tnireshold

ILS A point through ...hich the down rd extended straight portionPoint "C" of the glide path (at the commissioned angle) passes at a height

of 100 feet above the horizontal plane containing the runway

threshold

ILS The distance from Point "B" to Point "C" for evaluations ofApproach Cat2gory I and Category II training systems. The distance fromZone 3 Point "B" to the run;,:ay threshold for evaluations of Category II

operational systems

RTT Radio telemetering theodolite

Symbols

C Covariance for vari.bles indicated by subscripts

d or D Actual glide path deviation in linear units (ft)

or DCB Distance between the 0 DDM lccus and the straight-line asymp-tote at the commissioned angle as measured in the vertical planecontaining the runway centerline, measured normal to thestraight-line asymptote (ft)

de or DE Indicated glide path deviation in linear units (ft)

H Total altitude of aircraft wheels above GPIP on runway (ft)

or HD Actual rate of climb (ft/sec)

KIu Integral of airspeed error feedback gain in autothrottle (lb/ft)

TR-1043-1-II xiv

K9 , Pitch attitude gain in autothrottle (lb-thrust/rad)

t or T Tim (sec)

X Total horizontal displacement of aircraft center of gravityfrom GPIP on the runway in the direction of the centerline,or longitudinal force applied to aircraft (ft or 1b)

be or DEL E Elevator deflection angle (rad)

5T or DEL T Engine thrust perturbation (lb)

7c or ETACB Differential trace referenced to the ideal 0 M locus forthe commissioned angle, in angular units (ILA)

rie or ETAB Indicated glide path deviation in angular u,,ts (.A)

T or ETAP Actual gla.de path deviation from the ideal 0 DDM locus for thecommissioned angle in angular units (IA)

Sor ETAPD Actual glide path deviation rate in angular units at fixedrange (g.A/sec)

9 or THETA Pitch attitude perturbation (rad)

0 Correlation coefficient for variables indicated by subscripts

Denotes one standard deviation in general; may be particularizby subscript

Tu Airspeed low-pass filter time constant (sec)

TO Pitch attitude low-pass filter time constant (sec)

ft!cua Notation

E[. ] Expected value of [.1

(")TD Touchdown-related value of (.)

(7) Denotes mean or expected value of (.)

() Derivative with respect to time of (.)

The standard aid to low visibility approach and landi In commruia

aviation is the Instrument Tani System (1LS). Two radio beams (the

"Glide Slope" and the "Localizer") are formed to guide an aircraft on the

proper approach glide path and along the extended runway centerline in the

landing direction. Part 7 of this report documents the results of using

system simulation and analysis techniques to determine maxim levels forILS Glide Slope beam structure characteristics which still result inacceptable approach and landing outcomes. These results, in turn, led

to recommendations for revision of the flight inspection procedure which

is used to assure the accuracy of I. Glide Slope facility guidance. The

recommended procedure proposes that limits be applied to indicnted

path deviation, actual glide path deviation, and actual glide path det-va

tion rate responses for typical aircraft/control system combinations. This

is in addition to the current practice of applying limits to the "differen-

tial trace" generated in the course of flight inspection. These additional

limits would be upon variables which are directly relevant to the approach

and landing outcome. This is in distinction to limits placed upon the

"differential trace" variable alone since the differential trace relates

only indirectly to approach and landing performance. It is proposed that

the required responses for "typical aircraft/control system combinations"

be generated by a filter system having as its input the "differential trace"

signal in the revised flight inspection procedure. The filter system would

be part of the airborne flight inspection equipment. The filter system, in

effect, is a highly siMplified, but representative, simulation of any air-

craft executing automatically or manually coupled approaches.

Here in Part II of the report, validation of assumptions and in-depth

exercise of the aircraft/control system simulations and filter systems is

the central purpose. The objective is to identify the filter system which

generates responses most representative of typical aircraft/control system

responses, and to provide deterministic response data for the aircraft/contro:

system combinations simulated.

, :n~.-I 1

OmAB~5OF FflMU BMW AU1D hAmnO LSO=T 5MW1A!I Mnh

The nature cf this validation task requires a subtantial data base.

The required data base is included in this report in the form of nmeros

cmpiter-drawn plots. The fact that several different types of ccpsrisns

must be made precludes organizing the 4ata in a universally suitable my.

Therefore an organization which facilitates reference has been chosen.

The data base is organized primarily by type of input (prototype Glide

Slope fault or Glide Slope flight inspection record with or without c.Chas-

tic atmospheric disturbances). The secondary level of organization is by

the particular dyramic system generating the responses (the pp_ 4ular pro-

posed flight inspection filter system or aircraft/control system cmbination

simulated).

OAFTTIM to T FT

Section II is concerned with selection and validation of a filter system

representation of typical aircraft control system dynmmics during coupled

approaches.

In Section III, simulated aircrafticontrol system responses to actual

ILS Glide Slope facility flight inspection data are evaluated for accepta-

bility of approach and landing performance. This evaluation is Made by

examining touchdown sink rate and location, and by examining tho responses

for exceedances of their critical 2a levels (developed in Ref. 1) for accept-

able approach and landing ou .omes. Simulated flight inspections aing the

filter system concept are used to evaluate the same ILS Glide Slope flight

inspection data using the 2a tolerance levels developed for the recomended

revised flight inspection procedure in Ref. I. Section III also presents a

comparison of ILW Glide Slope facility acceptability results as determined

by simulated approach and landing v~d as determl-.ed by simulated flight

inspection. In addition, touchdown dispersion t rising from wind, wind shear

and turbulence effects is presented for approaches and landings simulated

for several different ILS Glide Slope facilities.

TR-1O -iII 2

A final section, Section IV, sunmarizes the principal conclusions

derived from this simulation effort.

The filter system and aircraft/control system response plots for the

prototype Glide Slope fault inputs are contained in Appendix A, and the

response plots for actual ILS Glide Slope flight inspection data inputs

are contained in Appendix B.

1.i

I,

I TR-iC. 1 -I-JI

1ZWC AM VATAUin OF A PIME SIM3

mm -F wfnWAL AIXIOUM-

Two filter systems have been proposed in Ref. I for the processing ofI ILS Glide Slope flight Inspection data. Filter 8yftm No. I is a Ighlysimplified simulation of typical aircraft/controi system cmbnation. It

assumes perfect pitch attituft and airspeed control, and a proportional

control re seuntation of the approach coupler. Fiure 1 Is a block dia-

pam for Filter System No. 1. The essential dynamic behavior of the air-

craft in this Pimplification is the first-order log in rate-of-climb

response to pitch attitude changes.

Filter System No, 2 is au alterrative highly simplified simulation of

typical at-czsft/control system combiations. It assumes perfect rate-of-

climb and airspeed control, and a proportional-plus-integral representation

of the approach coupler. Figure 2 is a block diagram for Filter System

No. 2. The dynamic behavior of this simplified simulation is independent

of all aircraft dynamic characteristics. It depends only upon the coupler

dynamic characteristics and kinematic relationships.

The responses of these two filter systems will be compared with the

responses of the four simulated aircraft/control system combinations in

- order to select the one filter system which provides the best general

repres entation of all simulated aircraft/control system combinations. The

nature of the response comparison is qualitative. Reproduction of response

features without particular regard for manitude is the main criterion.

Differences in response magnitude are calibrated out by the procedure used

to evolve the permissible tolerance levels for flight inspection in Ref. 1.

Y=~ 8M3X AND ULM!TW(W A PE=U IM

Table I lists figure numbers for comparable resporses of the filter

systams and aircraft/control system combinations on each line. Actual

comparison shows that:

TR-io43_i-II 4

3

43

CCo

O$4

fl% 00u

0 ) 0 4'

aO I-

; aEl

~$4)0~a

0 0 4

0P - r0

r4

540

TR-1043-1-I

L.0

Wi Typical Glide Slope coupler Integral path

gain, 0.20 rad/sec

K0 Conversion constant 12,278.. (j.uA/rad)

K1 Course softening gain function; ,I 1.0 ,H 600 ft ; decreasing linearly to zeroat H=1:0 K1 0 V H :Oft

K2 Typical Glide Slope coupler gain , 0.2918(ft/!:ec )/tsA

Figure '.Block Diagram for Alternative Filter System Wicv- GeneratesTypical Aircraft Indicated Deviation, Actual Path Deviation, nnd

Actual Path Deviation Rate Responses (Filter System No. 2)

* Filter System No. 2 is sight4 superior to lterSystem No. I in its ability to reproduce qualitativelythe response characteristics of the aircraft/controlsystem combinations.

* The response characteristics of all aircraft/controlsystem combinations simulated with the exception ofthe inertially augmented system are sIilar.

* Responses of the inertially auipented system in actualpath deviation, D, and actual path deviation rate, DD,are considerably smoothed and attenuated, respectively.The indicated path deviation response, DE, for theinertially augmented system approximates the GlideSlope forcing function, DCB.

The first point above is the basis for selection of Filter System No. 2 for

representing typical aircraut/control system dynamic behavior. The fact

that Filter System No. 2 does not represent the inertially augmented system

responses accurately is of little importance because of the third point above.

Nab.ly, since DE is approximately DCB for inertially augmented systems, and

because it has been shown in Ref. 1 that the limiting factor for inertially

augmented systems is the missed approach rate (which in turn has its source

in large indicated path deviation), tolerances placed upon DCB alone are

sufficient to assure adequate performance from inertially augmented systems.

Of course, it would also be possible to consider a third filter system which

would be a highly simplified simulation of inertially augmented systems, but

this does not appear to be warranted.

The second point above is the basis for not specifically considering

manually controlled flight director systems further. The manamlly controlled

flight director system responses are very similar to the LSI automatic landing

system responses in Figs. A-14 and A-16 and in Figs. A-25 and A-27. Addi-

tional manually controlled flight director runs therefore are unnecssary.

Table 2 lists figure numbers for comparabje responses of Filter System

No. 2 and the CV-880/LSI automatic landing system for all nine prototype

Glide Slope fault inputs. Actual comparison shows good qualitative agee-

ment in response shape and phase for all prototype Glide Slope inputs. This

validates selection of Filter System No. 2.

TR-1043-i-II 7

TABLE I

ESSPcSEOARI8N FOR MMtE SMS3 1O. 1 AMD) R). 2ACROSS AIRRAF/CCTOL MW c A s FOR

GIVEN IHOTTM GLIIE SLOPE FAULTS

FILTE BY.VT ARRAPT/CONTRL SYST

DTO'yp1 GLIDE F13GUEA M FIGRME NM lSP ,FAU.LT M. NO. I ] ..2 LSI IS / Fd/ PA-30

2 A-2 A-3 A-14 A-15 A-16 A-17

3 A-4 A-5 A-18 A-19

9 A-1i A-12 A-25 A-26 A-27 A-28

TABLE 2

RESPONSE COMARISON FOR FILTZR SYRD 10. 2 WITH THECV-880/LSI SDIWLATIDN ACOS8 PRO TOM3

GLIDE SLOPE FAULT IMf S

PI)TOTYPE GLIDE FILTERSn rsT 1O. 2 CV-88O/LSISLOPE FAULT 4O. FIMM rUMo ..... N. M

A-i A-13

2 A-3 A-14

3 A-5 A-l8

4 A-6 A-20

5 A-7 A-21

6 A-8 A-22

7 A-9 A-25

8 A-1O A-24

9 A-12 A-25

it TR-IO43-1-II 8

ht n4 m m me

In this section the per n prediction capability of the aircraft/

control system smulatin model will be presented. In addition, the key

flight inspection tolerances developed in Ref. 1 will be applied to the

responses of Filter System 2 to illustrate their effectiveness in discrinl-

nating against ILS Glide Slope facilities tiich would induce out-of-

specification approach and landing perfomance.

Table 3 smmrizes the landing performance data for the simulated

aircraft/control system combinations in response to actual Gi Slope data

inputs. Data for 22 runs in respoz to 16 different Gl1de Slope f.clities

covering all categories of service is given. Among these, 8 runs are given

which include calculation of the dispersive effects of wind, wind shear and

turbulence upon landing performance.

The mean sink rate at touchdMown afd the mean location of the touchdown

point with respect to the Glide Path Initial Point (GPIP) in Table 3 My be

regarded either as the average values at touchdown in the presence of atmos-

pheric disturbances, or as the values which would occur in the complete

absence of atmospheric disturbances. The mean sink rates resulting at

touchdown are reasonable, but are slightly on the high side, for all runs.

(No special attempt vas made to tune up the flare comzter in the himla-

tions to achieve the more usual n1imxd sink rate at touchdown of 2 ft/sec.)The mean touchdown point location is acceptable for all cases except

No. 14 CV-880 LSI

No. 16 CV-880 LSI

and the following cases are near the borderline but are nevertheless within

specification:

TR'-1I0-I -I9

0

kVVCU' 0 "a WOO, VI9 &lr

4.

00 00 0 0 0\ d-

If\ OWN%\n 0't

o 00 0 0

hto

\0 - -

INO - 1 t 1-

o- -c Lr 0-0Is~* r~'

IINo. 4 CV-880 LSI

No. 7 CV-880 LSINo. 10 CV-880 IS*No. 12 CV-880 LSI

The standard deviation of the sink rate at touchdown arising because of

random atmospheric disturbance effects is small (approximately ).340 ft/sec)for the 8 runs wherein that statistic is computed.

The longitudinal dimension of the ±2a touchdown footprint is well within

the permissible range for all runs. It is interesting to notice, however,that the longitudinal dispersion arising from atmospheric disturbances alone

is much smaller than that arising from the combined effects of atmosphericdisturbances and ILS Glide Slope beam alignment error and structure. (This

may be seen by comparing entries in Table 7 with comparable entries in

Table 3 of Ref. 1.) In fact, the longitudinal dispersion for the combina-

tion of inputs is much larger than the root-sum-squared values for the qepa-

rate inputs acting alone. The mechanism of this effect can be appreciated

by considering the approximate equation for the ±2a touchdown footprint

dimension (Eq. C-1I1 from Ref. 1):

If the expression in the brackets is squared and the quantities are considered

to consist of two (or more) uncorrelated components, then

- (CXHI + CXH2 +a I kH ) Ok( + ox-, + 0a2 +

where CX1i io the covariance of X and H. It is clear that if all a2 areXiof comparable size, all ali are of comparable size, and the magnitude of

CXH I is very large in comp-ison to the other CXHi then

TR-I041)- -II 1

> - "I'"

- x1 oil+ 2+

where the righthand side is sum-square of the components.

All pilot acceptance related factors in Table 3, the standard deviations

of pitch attitude ard normal acceleration, are well within the permissibleranges for all runs for which these quantities were computed. Notice that

the values computed are mainly specific to the aircraft and are to a il

extent specific to the control system.

The missed approach rate predicted for the 8 runs wherein atmospheric

disturbance inputs are included is acceptable. However, the missed approach

rate for the Pipe:: PA-30 is 8 percent higher than the target missed approach

rate of 0.05. In attempting to complete the runs for the Piper PA-30, the

autothrottle law described in Ref. 2 was found to be ineffective. (No auto-

throttle at all would result in bette, performance. ) The autothrottle law

of Ref. 2 was used for the simulation work reported in Ref. 1 without modi-

fication, and appears to be almost entirely responsible for the poor landing

performance reported in Ref. 1 for the Piper PA-30 and the invented control

system. The autothrottle gains are modified to the values listed in Table 4

for the simulation runs reported herein. These gain values were derived by

reference to the longitudinal acceleration equation for the Piper PA-30. The

root-mean-square thr 4 tle activity for the modified and unodified auto-

throttle control law gains is comparable. However, dynamic performance for

the modified autothrottle is superior.

The data for Glide Slope identification mabers 10, 16, and 24 permit

some tentative assessment of the benefits of inertial aupentation in the

Glide Slope coupler law. In every case, the addition of inertial augmenta-

tion reduced the longitudinal dimension of the ±2v touchdown footprint by

the modest amount of 15 percent, and, in two out of three cases, the Mean

touchdown point is closer to that for the ideal Glide Slope, 500 ft (from

Table 3, Ref. 1).

TR-1043-i-II 12

TAMA )i

GAM VAWM FOR MOOD= PA-30 M E

1/.% - 0, rta/sec

Ku 25A lb thru)t/(ft)sec)

Ku= 1.25 (lb-thrust/sec)/(ft/sec)

1/Te - 0.5 rad/sec

K0' = 1800. lb-thrut/rad

A1I ORZC OF FLM UCM T 0O !0lAOI

The purpose of this subsection is to dmonstrate the effectiveness of

the proposed flight inspection filter concept in discriainatiq sapint

those ILS Glide Slope data record for which out-of-specification aproach

mid landin performance is indicated by simulation results. This dn-

stration proceeds by ccupri of hypothetial facility rejections land

upon simulated system performance evaluation with facility rejections based

upon sisilated flight Inspections using the filter system concept.

The tests applied to the simulation data are as fllo . The responses

in actual glide path deviation (EAP), indicated glide path deviation (IA)

and actual glide path deviation rate (EPD) of Filter System No. 2 to the

differential trace (ITACB) of the flight inspection data for each of the

12 different ILS Glide Slope facilities* are cupared with the 2a tolerance

levels corre sponding to each response vhriable and the differential trace

* itself. The test fails for a given facility if any one response variable

exceeds the corresponding 2a tolerance level given in Fig. 3 for more than

5 percent of the record lenqgtht. (For more details concerning application

SFigures B-la through B.,12I of Appendix B.

SThe record lengths from simulation are somewhat shorter than those whichwould result in flight inspection since only the last 750 ft of descent issimulated. The last 750 ft does cover the most crucial phase of the approschand landing however.

TR-1043--3f

0

M4

F -I

4

go 50

W-%

TR-i4 -lii 1

___* ___

i-jo--

K4 - -_______ ____________

* I

__ I I

* I ,----

U).

.f-4

4.)

0____ ____ C-,

U)

____ ____ ____ ____ .1

* __ __ __ _ 8-o0.-.

SU,w

_____ _____ - N"- - 1 8g~ 0if,

k i

_ _ _ _ I_ I _

00

Fn.)w4:

T 1 3 -

•I i 0

In 0

In

TE-10431-II4 1

-lS

'I

In

II

I

Si°

I I

W IL

-1043-1- 1 17

of these tolerances, refer to the "Data Analysis" subsection In Section III

of Ref. 1.) This test is applied for two levels of the tolerances. One

level is appropriate for Category I facility performance; the second levelis appropriate for Category II or III facility performance. The results

of this test (blank or P = pass, F = fail) are indicate' jy the above-the-

line entries in Table 5 for each variable and category of performance.

Table 5 also contains the results of comparing the simulated responses

of the CV-880/LSI aircraft/control system combination in actual glide path

deviation, indicated glide path deviation and actual glide path deviationrate to the differential trace of the flight inspection data for the same

12 ILS Glide Slope facilities' with critical 21 levels (given in Fig. 4)

which juzt permit ac.-eptable approach and landing performance. (These levels

are developed in Ref. I.). The test fails for a given facility if any one

response variable exceeds the corresponding 2- level for more than 5 percent

of the record length. This test is applied for levels appropriate for Cate-

gory I operational performance and for Category II or III operational perfor-

ma.nce. The results of this test (blank or P = pass, F = fail) are indicated

by the below-the-line entries in Table 1 for each variable and category of

performance.

Comparison results summarized in Table 5 show that all facilities

rejected on the basis of simulated system performance at a given operational

category level are also rejected on the basis of simulated flight inspection

for that category level. Furthermore, only two facilities rejected by the

simulated flight inspection are found to be. marginally acceptable by the

simulated system performance evaluation out of the twelve facilities tested

at each of two operational category leirels. These findings tend to indicate

that flight inspections using the filter concept tend to be slightly con-

serw.vtive.

Figure B-1 a, B-1la, B-16a through B-21a, B-2"a, and B-L6a of Appendix B.

TR-W4h3-1 -II 18

T"" 5

COMMRI5N OV TEST ESULTS F(R TOLIfICES UPFILMU S!g NO. 2 oC S AND UPM

AIRn2AF/COMdIJ S!ST OUTfPUT.S

Mm: ACTAL V W AND TEST CATEGORY FACIL1T

ID. NO. FACIITY ETACB ETAP ETAE ETAPD RESULTSCATROMR II-IlI I II-III I II-III I II-III I iI-III

III F/P F/P

3 III

4II

5 II

6 II

7 II

9 I F/F F/F F/F F/F F/F

11 I F/F F/F

12 I F/P F/P F/P

13 I F/F F/F F/F

14 I F/Pm F/P F/F F/F F/F

15 I F/F F/P F/F F/F F/F F/P F/F F/F F/F

Legend

F/ = Test fails for Filter System No. 2 output

/F = Test fails for CV-880/LSI simulation output

/P = Test passes for CV-880/LSI simulation output

No entry indicates test passes for Filter System No. 2 output and forCV-880/LSI simulation output.

Note:

I. The "Pass" is an artifact of the ETACB trace presentation in Fig. B-25.

TR-1043-1-II 19

.4-11

Oli

4

.-H

'.4

In 0to

TR-104-1-II 20

-I

~1 I 1 f43

44

0

a..

4Lz

T 4 I - 8

TR-143- -II 21

I- I

Nj I* *'0~@C

-~-. ~ j

I I I

I I __

tI I I____ ____ .1---- -.9.I __ I __

I I__ __ __ liii

'a

_ _ I _ _

______ _____ _____ ______ 8

wI-

___________ - - 8gv~

j TR-1043-1-II 22

1k

TR-103-1-I 23

Other observations of interest from Table 5 are as follows.

" Two Category I IS Glide Sope facilities (Nos. 11 ad 13)are apparently acceptable for Category 3-Ill serviceinsofar at tolerances on the differential trace are con-cerned. (Recall this tolerance is comparable to the exis-ting flight inspection standard on structure except in ILSApprmach Zone 3 wherein the tolerance becmes increasunly

less restrictive than the existing flight inspection stan-dard as the runway threshold is approached.) However,tolerances applied to the indicated path deviation an/orthe actual path deviation rate outputs of the flightinspection filter system result in rejection of thesefacilities for Category II-11I service. This findingillustrates the increased discrimination provided bytolerances applied to the several filter system outputsin comparison to the level of discrimination obtained whentolerances are applied to the differential trace alone.

0 Only one facility, commissioned for Category I service(No. 12), has a Category UI11I level of performance.However, the conservative nature of the filter systemobscures this fact in this particular instance.

" All ILS Glide Slope facility data records except two(Nos. 1 and 15) pass the tolerance tests for their actualcommissioned service category. In the case of No. 1, simu-lated system performance shows that this facility is actuallymarginally acceptable for its actual commissioned servicecategory, but the conserva~tve nature of the filter systemobscures this fact.

The above findings tend to confirm the position that flight inspections

based upon the filter system concept are successful in discriminating against

those ILS Glide Slope facilities for which out-of-specification approach and

landing performance can be expected. Furthermore, the filter system concept

does not result in the rejection of any ronmarginal ILS Glide Slope facilities.

Therefore, the ruethod is not overly conservative.

Finally, it is interesting to note that the data in Table 3 indicate

that the Category II-III level of landing performance is achiefable with

inertially augmented Glide Slope coupling fEr Category I facilities No. 10

and So. 16.

TR-1043-1-II 24

[7 Iv

This section provides a mmmmry of the major conclusions reached as a

result of the system simulation studies reported herein.

0 More accurate estimates of indicated and actual glidepath deviation and glide path leviation rate are pro-vided by Filter System No. 2 (aircraft with perfectrate-of-climb and airspeed control and proportional-plus-integral coupler model) than by Filter SystemNo. 1.

0 There is substantial similarity in the gross .ature ofthe responses for all aircraft and Glide Slope couplingtechniques among themselves and with respect to theresponses estimated using Filter Systems No. I and 2.

* The inertially augmented coupler has substantiallyattenuated responses to "high" frequency ILS GlideSlope structure for all variables except indicatedglide path deviation (as one would expect). This isthe principal feature differentiating the aircraft/control system combinations simulated. The inertiallyaugmented coupler also results in a modest reduction inlongitudinal touchdown dispersion.

• The simulation techniques reported in Ref. 1 can be usedto predict a typical mean longitudinal touchdown pointusing flight inspection data for a specific ILS GlideSlope facility and can predict the typical longitudinaldimension of the ±2a touchdown dispersion footprintarising from winds, wind shear and turbulence.

• Disturbances arising from facility-to-facility varia-bility in ILS Glide Slope structure, and winds, windshear and turbulence combine in a synergistic way whichcauses longitudinal touchdown dispersion for the coa-bination of all disturbances to greatly exceed the root-sum-square dispev-ions for each disturbance actingseparately.

* The 2a tolerances (developed in Ref. 1) applied to thecorresponding responses of Filter System No. 2 are suc-cessful in discrim'.nating against those ILS GlideSlope facilities which produce out-of-specificationapproaches and landings.

TR-1043-1-II 25

1.Nobsn, Iee Gregor, at ml., ILS Glide Otemmrds. Pkrt 1: A

2. Kosiol, J. S.,. Jr., Siulation Nobei fr theM PA-m Maneue-

able Aircraft 6 h U&nAwsh =- A71 -11, u39,Y 1971.

TR-10143-1-II 26

ATPWRM A

mmm izw mm m m8PU J R AID 1001am

The data in this appendix are arravged In the manner smmarized in

Tables A-1 and k-2. Table A-1 provides a cross reference of identifica-

tion numbers (in first colmn) assigned to the prototype Glide Slope faults

described verbally in the second colmn. Graphical presentations of these

faults are available in the figures whose umbers are listed in the third

and fourth colmns. The graphical presentations are given both in linear

units (feet) in the DCZ (dc) trace of these figures, and in avgular units

(A) in the HTACB (iiC) trace. Filter system responses to the various proto-

type Glide Slope fault inputs are given in the figures designated in the

TABLE A-I

SWWM OF FILT SYSTW RESPONSE DATA TOPR1lOTYPE GLIDF SLOPE FAULT IMRN S

PROZOTYFE GLIDE SLOPE FAULT FIGURE ND. FOR r0SPONSE OF

NO. DESCRIPTION FILT NO. 1 FILTER NO. 2

1 20 ft step at I OK ft range A-i

2 20 ft step at K ft range A-2 A-3

3 10 ft cosine 3K ft wavelength A-4 A-5

4 10 ft cosine 1K ft wavelength A-6

5 3 ft cosine 1K ft wavelength A-7

6 large amplitude arbitrary function A-8

7 Large amplitude arbitrary function A-9

8 Moderate amplitude arbitrary function A-tO

9 Moderate amplitude arbitrary function A-1 A- 12

TR-I043-I-II A-I

TANA A-2

SUW OF AXERAP/CNML SreM --- LID ISU1

DATA TO lPUO H T .I MM FAV IMS

AmRCRAT/mF L S!STO BDII?1DPRM~r RESPONSE FIM -UGLIDE SWPZ CV-880 CV-880 CV880

FAULT rin Lai5 1hMLX PAo30_______ IR U DIRETOR IV

A-13

2 A-14 A-i5 A-16 A-17

3 A-18 A-19

4A-2

5 A-21

6 A-22

7 A-23

9 A-25 A-26 A-27 A-28

third and fourth columns of Table A-i. Table A-2 provides a cros reference

of the aircraft/control system responses to the various prototype Glide Sloe

fault inputs by input number, aircraft/control system configuration. and

figure number. The details of the filter systems are given in Figs. 1 and 2

in the main text and in Ref. 1. Details of the aircraft/control system ca-

biations rimulated are given in Appendix B of Ref. 1. Definitions of the

symbols used appear in the front matter.

IDO ON 8OMATIM DATA

Filter system response data appearing in Figs. A-1 through A-12 closely

simulate results which would be obtained in a hypothetical field test of the

filter system. The only asauption made is that the inspecting aircraft is

approaching at constant ground speed and rate of descent. This assumption

TR-i043--II A-2

is close to the facts of actual operation. The filter system responses

extend down to the point where the ideal path asymptote has an altitude of

50 ft. This point nominally corresponds to the point of runway threshold

crossing.

The aircraft/control system combination response data appearing in

Figs. A-13 through A-28 have the following characteristics requiring further

explanation. The DCB (1c) trace represents the Glide Slope forcing function.

The ETACB (Gc) trace is derived from the DCB data. The DCB trace is active

until the Category II decision height is reached on a manually completed

landi (flight director and Piper PA-30 cases). Below the decision height

the DCB trace is set to zero. On automatically completed landings, the DCB

trace is active until the flare initiation altitude is reached. Below that

altitude, the DCB trace is held constant at the value prevailing at flare

initiation. All flight director and Piper PA-30 cases utilize the GlideSlope forcing function in simulated Category II approaches with manually

completed landings (designated II M). The other two cases, the CV-880 with

the LSI automatic landing system (LSI) or with an inertially augmented version

of the LSI automatic landing system (IS), utilize the Glide Slope forcine

function in simulated Category II or III approaches with automatic landing.

Finally, the magnitude of most, if not all, of the prototype Glide Slope

faults is much larger than could be tolerated in actual operation. For example,all prototype Glide Slope faults except No. 5 fail to meet the Category I

flight inspection standard for structure (±30 pA on a C"a basis). Furthermore,

Glide Slope 'ault." No. 1, 5, , 3, 7, 8, and 9 were not tracked within the

required tol~rance for continuinC a Category II approach (±37.5 LA or ±12 ft

whichever is larger, from an altitude of 700 ft iown to the decision altitude)

by the systems simulated, even in the complete absence of atmospheric distur-

ba- e effects. The prototype Glide Slope faults nevertheless have been used

as supplied.

TR-1OW-1 -If A-5

(ItA)

gym

IpA)

Em

(jpA)

I

point 8 POWntCTIME (me) Threshold -

Figure A-1, Reapauise of Filter Sytm No. 2 to Prototype(aIide Slope Fat No. 1

TR- 143- -11A-4

(fto

0

3

S.L

i t t/ec)*~;:7;:*'*P~gu~ A..1(COncluded)TDS;;c

(ILA)

COTO

(PuA/sec)

ILS ILSPoint B Point C

Threshold

TIME (sec)

(a)

Fi~'re A-,;. Responses of Filter Systew No. I to PrototypeG1lide Slope Fault No. 2

TR- 104 - A--,I

'' E S _

(ft)

K

22

ILS ILSPoint 8 Point C

Threshold

I TIME (sec)

(b)

Figure A-2. (Concluded)

TR-1043-1-IIA-

IK.

(p(a)

ITRRZ3~~I -

(ft

ILPon ix17________

r ,r ( s.-ct)rshl

I, _ _ _ _ _ _ _- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __l_ _ _ _ _ _

II3 20

Si.

ItOS

ILS pouwt

N -u. ~ n s e ~ of ril~ter S 3te " O 10.- 2 ootp

A-0

0

(ft)

(ft/stc.'

ILSPoint a ILS

TIAICThrOWhrd

(b)

FlgucA-4. ,On~cluded)

TR- 1043. -l

A-11

rrn~sel (as

p1. N otGIIA" lor ft 110.

o-

I:.!0 (t)

D(Of)

(ft)

1321 Oft/sec)

IL

T'Main a5 c L IL S

(b)

FiueA-5. (Conluded)

A- 13

H

4LA)

100.

CTFP-(ILA)

(ILA)

IL

ILS ILSPoint B -Point

EATIME (ndc Thwho

Fimwur A-S. R!K-ponses of iilter System Nio. 2 to PrototypeGlide Slope Fault No. i

-.R-1043-1-ITA-1

~(f

(f t)

ii. (t)

20.

ILSTIME (seci.~l

(b)

TR- 104.. 1-IlA- 7

zo.1

l(a)

FiueA7 esosso iteHytmIoE2t rttpGldeSop autNo)

Ix

0

(ft)

20.

(ft)

S.

ILSTIMIE ( sec)

Thrft 8 'I

(b)

A- 7

(pA)

ETRE

( (a)

FiIrL-.Rsosso ite ytnN.2t rttp

GldeSop autNo

00

(It)

Ih33I. (ft/see)

ILL-Pointn ILJ

TIME (~ ThrtI11J1d

(b)

igure A-8. (Cclude)

A-19

(fLA)

CTFI

TIME (sec

Figuic A-9. Responses of Filter Systems No. 2 to PrototypeGlide Slope Fault No. 7

* 3m~

D

(f(b)

A..2

H

* 4LA)

EThP(jtA)

*CTNC

ILS ILSPoint B Point C

AmC ThraholdJTIME (soc)

Figure A-10. Responses of Filter System No. 2 to PrototypeGlide Slope Fault No. 8

TR-i043-1-II A-22

0

(ft)

ffta.

S.L

Points ILSTime ('.c)TWO~i

(b)

Figurt A-10. (COncluded)

[1?. 1043-. 1-.lIA 2

(PLA)

CTFO

ILL

'IpointBaPitThrehi

TIME (sec)(a

*1 Figure A-1l. Responses oft Filter System No'. 1 to PrototypeGlide Slope Fault No. 9

TR-i043-1-II A-24

0 11n

,D

ana

(hIS

1 a l Pow....I l I IUIlII-- I I I I ll II II "-

a ,

rt m ('*mL$

(b)

Figure A-11. (Concluded)TR10-lO 1-1,1

IL I

am

(1LA)

I

C1 A/sec)

ILS ILSPoint 8 Point C

ThresholdTIME (sec)

(a)

Figure A-12. Responses of Filter System No. 2 to PrototypeGlide Slope Fault No. 9

Th-i43-i-ii A-26

14

(f t)

IL

(I(b)

1i u r A -2 ( o cl d dA-!

it)

(/tA)

(4,A)

I I

C I W66(ILA)

(sA/uc)

TIME (sec) MDA 'tDFlare

(Ct.U DH

Figure A-13. Responses ot the CV-880 Aircraft with LS Automatic LandingSystem and Conventional Glide Slope Coupling to Prototype

Glide Slope Fault No. 1

TR-1043-1I-Il A-28

(ft

(ft)

c

33

7?16E( So) Cat. IDif TFlare!

(b)Plgure A-13. (Cont in)

A-29

0b)

19.

[1 (ft/sec)

.05

3CLE(rod)

THETR.(rod)

K.

AZA(ft/sec2 )

cat. IMDA TCot.I O

TIME (sec)

(c)

Figure A-13. (Concluded)

TR-103-1-Il A-30'

CT"P~(ILA)

1um

(ILA)

3=

4jLA/sec)

Cat. I MDA T

i~i~uFlareTIME (sec)

(a)

Figare A-14. Responses of the CV-880 Aircraft with LSI Automatic Landing

System and Conventional Glide Slope Coupling to PrototypeGlide Slope Fault No. 2

TR-i43-l-II A-31

Ax

MI"

(t(b)

?I u e A-14. (C ti ed

-XI A-32

.05

mELC. IA.(rod) O

(ft/seca)

CtLIDHI

TIME Wse)

(W

Figure A-1~4. (Concluded)

TR-1043-1-II A-33

S. . ........... ..

Eot(if)

3MM

(#.A)(pA)

3MM

ETfw(ILA)

(I&A)

5.

4aA/sec)

As ~ m~ Cat I TDTIMElw(c)

(a)

Figure A-15. Responses of the CV-880 Aircraft vith LSI Automatic LendingSystem and Inertially Aupented Glide Slope Coupling to

Prototype Glide Slope Fault No. 2

TR-103-1-II A- 34

(I)

(il /

IL /

3m

* Cot. I MAT

TIME (so)

(b)

Figurw A-15. (Cootlnued)

TR-103-1-II A-35

Pcs

V (ft/sec)

DECL 9(rod)

(rod)

L 1AZ "

(ft/sec)

cat I MOA- TD

TIME (sec)

(e)

Figure 4-15. (Concluded)

STR-1043-1-II A-36

(ILA)

ETR

CTAP

(pA/sec)

TD

FlareJTIME (sac)

I Figure A-16. Responses of the CV-880 Aircraft with M~anually ControlledFlight Director System and Conventional Glide Slope Coupling

to Prototype Glide Sl'ipe Fault No. 2

/ (ft!)

((b)

P*1ur A - 6.tp)t au d/ H14311/A-38

m

(rod)

(rod)

EIm

TR-lO)13-l-II I-3

Inc

(ILA

(pA)

(ILA/sec)

I Cat. I MDA

Cat. B EC;itTIMES(w) Flare-

Figure A-17. Responses of the Piper PA-30 Aircraft with Invented FlightControl Systm and Conventional Glide Slope Coupling to

Prototype Glde Slope Fault No. 2

1* ______

Wi

'te

ILftV K.

C~t I rD

Ca.b)O T

0b)

w)

(aod)

(rod)

AZ(ft/sec2)

TIME (560)

Figure A-I (COncl4dd)

A-112

(ILA)

(pA

Cota IM~ TDTIME (sc)

Fiore

Figure A-18. Responses of the cV-880 Aircraft with LSX Automatic LandingSystin and Conventional Glide Slope Coupling to Prototype

Glide Slope Fault No. 3

((b)

A-44

ZELT

.05

(rod)

(rod)

AZ

Cat. I MDA~

Cat. I DHTIME (si) RoweS

Figure A-18, (concluded)

011

(puA)

(ILA)

Cot I D H

TIME(sec)Co.IDFiore -'TD

Figure A-19. Responses Of the CV-880 Aircraft vith LSI Automatic Landing

System and Inertially Aumented Glide Slope Coupling to

Prototype Glide Slope 'Fault No. 3

TR-1043-i-ii A-4.6

ILD

Ca I

AA

I *

2L

(ft/sec)

2EL C(rod)

TNETR _________

(rod)

S.

AZ(f t/sec)

Cat.MDA~ IITDCot I DH

ail ~Fiore -

TIME (SKc)(c

Figure A-19. (concluded)

TR-1043-1-Il A-148

H]

(pA)

1am

(,"A)

(PA)

Cat. IMDAt T DCat.fI DH

Flare-J

TIME (sec)

Figure A-20. Responses of the CV-880 Aircraft with 14S1 Automatic Landing

System and Conventional Glide Slope Coupling to PrototypeGlide Slope Fault No. )4

- - -A-hO

p It

(I(b)

Fiue -0

(Ittnud

A-50MDA

UN.$

* (ft/wc)

(rod)

(rad)

AZ(ft/see')

Cat. IMDAT

il .U FlareTIME (sec)

(c)

Figure A-20, (Concluded)

TR-1043-1-II A-51

(ft

(,sA)

(pA)

(pA)

* ICt. IMDAt TO

Cot A DH

TIME~)FFareJ

Figura A-21. Responses of the CV-880 Aircraft wil~h LSI Automatic Landing

System and Conventional Glide Slope Coupling to PrototypeGlide Slope Fault No. 5

TR-1043--II A-52

(f t)

DIWif

2E~

0

(ft/sec) Cat. IMDA' t tTD

Cat.BIDHI

Am Flare -J

TIME (s'e)

Figure A-21. (Continued)

(Ni)

(ft/uec)

(rod)

THE"h*1 (rod)

AZ(ft/sec2)

cat I ITD

Cat. U1 DH

TIME (sec)

(c)

Figure A-21. (Concluded)

(puA)

I (ILA)

(,sA/sec)

TIM (sc)Cot. I MDA] Fiore

(a) Cot. 11 DH

Figure A-22. Resrnse - of the CV-880 Aircraft with LSI Automatic Landing

- System and Conventional Glide Slope Coupling to PrototypeGlide Slope Fault No. 6

Vxl

(ft)

0.

/ (ft/sec)

TIME (sec) COXt.l T

F19-re -2,t(Continued)

A-5 6

0ib)

N"(ftsec)

Jog

331EL(rod

THNETA(rod)

C.

AZ(ft/seca)

Ct. Ir DH T

Floal

TIME (sec)

(c)

Figure A-.22. (concluded)IRl431I A-57

loc.

ITI 100.

CTREL"210.

CTRPM

TIME (sec) C at. MDA J TDCot. lr

(a)

Figure A-23. Responses of the CV-880 Aircraft with LSI Automatic LandingSystem and Conventional Glide Slope Coupling to Prototype

Glide Slope F&ult No. 7

TR-1Oh3-I-TI A-58

D(ft)

(ft)

I

(fiIK)Cat. I MDA 1 I t f

Cat. R DH TD

.E~IkuUFlareTIME (sec)

Figure A-23. (Continued)

'R-l0h3-1-II A-59

31ELT.

IiXI

(ft/sec)

J39

(rod)

AZ(ft/sec2)

Aot.I MICot. I R M D H TO

Flare j.TIME (sec)

Wb

Figure A-Li>. (Concluded)

ITIZ

(ILA)

Q&uA)

TIME(sedCat. IMDAJ I TDTIME~~at (sec C .DH T

Flare(a)

F4igure A-24. Responses of the. CV-880 Aircraft with LSI Automatic LandingC' System and Conventional Glide Slope Coupling to Prototype

Glide Slope Fault No. 8

Th-10h3-l-1I A-61

Mr.

2m

D

2m.

* (fi/e)

Cot. IMDA-t I ~

F lareTIME (sec)

(b

Figure A-24. (Continued)

TR-io043-1-II A-62

AAC

IIR

E

* -I THCTR

* Cat. IMDA 1 f tCat. R DHI TD

* Flare -

TIME (sec)

(c)

* Figu~re A-24. (Concluded)

9TR-1043-l-II A-63

(1 A)

(PuA)

(jLA)

(IA/sac)

TIME (sec)

Cat. IMDA JJ T

(a) Flare-

Figure A-.25. Responses of the CV-880 Aircraft with LSI Automatic LandingSystem and ConventionF. Glide Slope Coupling to Prototype

Glide Slope Fault No. 9

K 20(f)1

20.

(f(b)

Figure -25C (Cntinued

TR-10h3-1-II A-65

LML

MAW

(rod)

AZ(ft/sec2 )......

*ICat. I MDA1Cat.IIDH T

Flare

TiME(sec)

Figure A-25. (Concluded)

(ft) " -o

(p&A)

(ILA)

(pA)

(IpA/sec)

TIME($ec)Cat.IMDA

Cot. DHJ TD

(a) Flare -

Figure A-26. Responses of the CV-880 Aircraft with LSI Automatic LandingSystem and Inertially Augmented Glide Slope Coupling to

Prototype Glide Slope Fault No. 9

r

V (ft)

7A0

H D

(ft)

(f t/sec)

Flare

TIME (sec)

(b)

Figure A-26. (Con~inued)

2U

Ums(ft/sec)

MEL E4(rod)

.09

(rod)

AZ .(ft/sec2) CtI D~

Cat.U DH TD

Flare -TIME (sec)

(c)

Figure A-26. (Concluded)

*TR-l03-l-II A-69

(ft)

(JLA)

9.

TIME (sec)

Co.IMD TDCot. II DH

(a) FlareFigure A-.27. Responses of the CV-880 Aircraft witi Manually Controlled

Flight Director System and Conventional Glide Slope Couplingto Prototype Glide Slope Fault No. 9

(ft)

(i(b)

1iue7-7 (otiudTzio31- A7

2LWlb

(rod)

(rd

AZ(f tAec2

Cat. I MDA'

.ilnCat. U DH JJTITIME (sec) Flare -

Figure A-rcT. (Concluded)

C"VV

III)MD

Ca.D

5,E~)flt

ofte ie ii0Aicaf

ih ne 2ib

i p re' A-28 . esPoflhseB o vet p ier Glide M rcr& e C**Itb i 1 et oa y~

Co t~ tro l Sy st 'o a Co~ e l o -p F l t S o 'e 90 1 g t

pototype Glide SlV alt1o

A-73

: ft

(Cat- I "A

,1

in| Cat. it O ToTIME (sec)

Flre

(b)

Figure A-28. (Conti nued)

TR-10h3-1_11A-7

(ffI L.

m mwmwm m mm(ft/~ml

(Ib)

(ft/sec)J

3EL C.(rod)

?HCTR.(rad)

AZ(ft/mE2 )

Cat. I MDAJ i T

Cat. R DH T

TIME (sec)

(c)

Figure A-28. (Concluded)

TR-10143-l-II A-75

( PiZCEDIIG PAE BLAICM T nD)

AMR=ID B

MM SYR= AID AUA1/C0 0L B!yg UDNUARNm 0HXPONTS F0R ACTAL ILS GLj= SLOfl

Table B-1 provides background information for the 16 actual ILS Glide

Slope flight inspection records used as inputs to the filter system qnd

aircraft/control system simulations. This table also provides a working

identification number (first column) for each record. Graphical presen-

tations of the differential trace from these records are available (Figs. B-I

through B-12 and Figs. B-27, 31, 35, and 39). The graphical presentations

are given in both linear units (feet) as measured with respect to a straight

line at the commissioned angle for the particular (aide Slope facility, and

in angular units (iA) as would be measured with respect to the ideal 0 DDM

path by a radio telemetering theodolite set to the conmissioned angle for

the particular Glide Slope facility. The linear unit measurement is the DCB

(d) trace, and the angular measurement is the ETACB (_c) trace in the series

of figures which follow.

The data in this appendix are arranged in the manmer summarized in

Tables B-2 and B-3. The second column of Table B-2 lists figure numbers

for the responses of Filter System No. 2 to the various ILS Glide Slope

flight inspection data inputs. The third through sixth columns of Table B-2

list figure numbers for the responses of the various aircraft/control system

combinations to the various ILS Glide Slope flight inspction data inputs.

The odd numbered figures listed in Table B-3 contain similar response datafor 4 additional ILS Glide Slope flight inspection data inputs. The even

numbered figures listed in Table B-3 present the standard deviations in the

response variables arising from random levels of wind and wind shear from

one approach to the next, and from stochastic turbulence. Defintions of

the symbols used appear in the front matter.

TR--1043-I-II B-I

nEw =N ATA B-

CATIDN FACILTY TYPE CATE3ORY DATE

I Atlanta, GA 9R Null Ref. III 2/13/73

2 Atlanta, GA Capture Effect III 3/19/73

3 Atlanta, GA Capture Effect III 3/23/73

4 Pittsburgh, PA 1OL Capture Effect II 8/5/70 ?

5 San Francisco, CA Null Ref. II 5/6/69

6 Oakland, CA Nul Ref. 5 /2/69

7 JFK, NY 4R Null Ref. II 1/28/69

9 Staunton, VA SB Ref. I

10 Staunton, VA End Fire I

11 Staunton, VA End Fire I McF. Rept.

12 Bradford, PA Null Ref. I 10/3,/70

13 Bradford, PA Null Ref. I 7/22/74

1A Colmbus, GA 5 Redlich Array I 9/23/70

15 Coltmbus, GA 5 Null Ref. I?

16 Columbus, GA 5 Capture Effect I 9/28/71

24 La Guardia, NY 22 Wave Guide II 10'6/73(Before Modification)

TR-1043-1-I B-2

TABLE B-2

SMARY OF FIGURE IWU S FOR JTII? S!Si=3 ANDAICRA!T/COKfWL SrYr( ESOW DATA

TO ACTUAL GLIDE SLOPE DATA

AIRCRAFT/CONTbL S!S'J-I OOMBIATIONGLIDE SLOPE FIITER

RECORD .SYST CV-V880 CV-80

AUIMEIT DIRECTOR

1 B-1 B-13

3 B-2 B-14 B-i5

4i B-3 B-16

5 B-4 B-17

6 B-5 B-18

7 B-6 B-19

9 B-7 B-20

11 B-8 B-21

12 B-9 B-22

13 B-10 B-23 B- 24

14 B-1 -2

15 B-12 B-26

TABLE B-3

SWMARY OF FIGURE NIERS FOR AIRCRAFT/CONTROL SYS7EKRESPONSES TO ACTUAL GLIDE SLOPE DATA,

WIND, WIRD SHEAR AND TURBULENCE

AIRCRAFT/CONML SYSTE (OMBINATI0N

GLIDE SLOPE Cv-880 CV-880RECORD ID ED. cv-88o INERTIALLY FLI J PA-30

LSI AUGMUTED DIRECTOR IME

2 B-27, 28 B-29, 30

10 B-31, 32 B-33, 34

16 B-35, 36 B-37, 38

214 B-39, 40 B-41, 42

TR-I043-I -II B-3

Filter system response data appearing In Figs. B-i through B-1 2 closely

simulate results which would be obtained in a'field test of the filter system

at the given 1LS Glide Slope facility. The only asumption made is that the

inspecting aircraft is approaching at constant ground speed and rate of

descent. This assmption is close to the facts of actual operation. The

filter system responses extend down to the point where the ideal path asymp-

tote has ar altitude of 50 ft. This point noainally corresponds to the point

of runy threshold crorsing.

The aircraft/control system combination response data appearing in

Figs. B-13 through B-26 and odd numbered figures B-27 through B-41 have the

following characteristics requiring further explanation. The DCB (ac) trace

represents the Glide Slope forcing function. The DCB trace is derived from

the ETACB (6) data. The Z24CB trace is active until the Category I minimum

descent altitude or Category II decision height is reached on a manually

completed landing (CV-880 Category I and Piper PA-30 cases). Below the

minium descent altitude or decision height the E!ACB trace is set to zero.

On automatically completed landings, the ETACB trace is active until the

flare initiation altitude is reached. Below that altitude the ETACB trace

is held constant at the value prevailing at flare initiation. These cases

include Category II or III approaches and automatic landings with the CV-880

and the LSI automatic landing system (LSI) or an inertial.y augmented version

of the LSI automatic landing system (IS).

The standard deviation plots (even numbered figures, Figs. B-28 through

B-42) require further informton for correct interpretation. The first

point is that the altitude, H (h), and ground range, X, traces in all figures

are the mean (or expected) values of those variables. These provide the capa-

bility to read the standard deviation traces as functions of altitude, dis-

tance or time, as desired. The nuct feature is that the standard deviation

data for each variable is presented in two components for simulated Cate-

gory I approaches and manal)y completed landings. One component, the trace

designated W in the figures, is that arising from random wind and wind shear

effects. The other component, the trace designated T in the figures, is that

TR-1043-1-TI B-4

arising from turbulence. The total standard deviation, which is not plotted,

is given by the root-sm-squared value of the two components. The standard

deviation data for sil=4ated Category II and III approaches and landings is

presented in siilar fashion down to the Category II decision height. How-

ever, below the decision height, the total standard deviation is plotted.

This is because the standard deviation components cannot be distinguished

below the decision height because the model of the missed approach decision

process operates in a nonlinear manner upon the standard deviation compo-

nents at the decision height. This model of the missed approach decision

process is also responsable for the fact that the total standard deviation

value Immediately below the decision height is less than or equal to the

root-sum-squared value of the standard deviation component values imme-

diately above the decision height. This arises because the missed a.proach

decision process is modeled in the simulation as the expected outcome of a

single discrete Kalman measurement update at the decision height.

TR-10i3-i-II B-5

31s

p I fL t p o w C

iisoes OfS f 1143.te y t 4 . 2

Figure S B-I a e Slope -nu

B- 6

jR 03

IX I

20.

(Vt)

(V(b)

/ir B-1 (CncuddTR-10431ii

( 1 t/sB-7

VIM.

tjxASc) L

-ThreStjod

p~e p~ f~ es of' F ilter 3Sjt e' o 2 to

ThSar (;,j&e Slope ~h~ o

Fx

AL IL

(I(b)

103 1 iue 32 (I)luld

BD

Ixfi

IL

Lhrf#bo

pigure G1.1ce Slope Tnput I"o. eP~ ~ ~ it? S s~ I .2t

20.

3c~

(ft)

as(tl/wc)

I 'Point~ aL b Ift

77AE (ft)ThreshM

FigUre B-3. (coric3udedl)

TR- 1043-.1-11

tk 7ao

qLA)

Tre~hold

~jgU~e~ I~esofoi Fi~ter SYstem No2 to

Fi rI S cf. I. S l-o p e~ l~ 4o

B- -

D

(ftI/sec)

_______ILS ILS

TIME (sec)'i hehl

(b)

Pigur B-4. (Cone] Uded)

ITS 1

\ ypA)

pIIS oit

-

T t h (Mab o d

or Filtr S~sto 0 2 to

i g e B -5 . R eSP O uh58 s o f v u N o .6

?i~~~, Glid3e Slope ~ t

TR-iO4-1-:E

(t)

(ft)

Cft)

(ft/secj

II! TI&IEsec) (b)Threhoci

Figure (concluded)

TR - 10 4

(f t)

(juA)

3?Zj

(ILA)

A 3"A

ILS LSPoint8 PaintC

ii iBIS Ttnshold -TIME (sec)

(a)

Figure B-6. Responses of Filter System No. 2 toILS (aide Slope Input No. 7

TR-l043-1-II B-16

I0

/ f/sc

CfS IL

TIM E (Se )Th e ol

Fjgt~.~B-6(Concluded)

B- 17

IIII ~

-TM tr)S~ol

ofFler1%e "'?t

5.pue Ir &Io

Figure j e Slope i it 1 . 9

T-R 10B--1

£7____

(fts!c

I *~TILI (se)M i&U2e By. () -Threshold

TR- 1043 1- 11 19

tpLA/Secl

POWtB "i

Ise Fil.ter2TSGlide 3.P

B-2

(V(b)

Fi u e - . (POc)d d

(T)-703

B-2 1

tpA)

powt

of Fil1ter SYste xf ho. to

RespO wse.. . , o

B -22

D

(ft/)

r o ILS ILS (TME (sec) Point cJ

Threshold

(b)

Figure B-. (Concluded)

TR- 1o43-1-1.1B- 23

(pA)

VV

ItsS

poiniBs ir5~~~

piure -10. -esvoses ?jo. 13Gliae Sl~oe

I.4

of 043Io. 13

B22t

Ux

r0

IL

(V(b)103 iue 10 'nuei2B125

(.A)

(puA)

(pA)

ETRPM

ILS ILSPoint B Point C

.i-1 4 1 .ThresholdTIM E (sec)

(a)

Figure B-11. Responses of Filter System No. 2 toILS Glide Slope Input No. 14

TR-1OL 5-1-II BC

/ (t)

O(ec)

(soc) ILSI

a~~;mwmmmmaj. (b) i het

B-2 7

~ft

375

CTRP

(ILA)

CTRPZ

I DMEAgac)

TIE(e)ILS ILS

(a)Thehl

Figure B-12. Responses of Filter System No. 2 toILS Glide Slope Input No. 15

II

33b

Pontatoit(b/1rshl(I'eB7.

Cnldd

DR143i1(Bi29

(1sA)

37S

(ILA)

3vic

ETRE

(pA)

ETRP31(pA/sec)

Col. I MDA T

TIME (sec) Cot.1 reD

Figure B-13. Responses of the C'V-880 Aircraft with LSI Automatic LandingSystem s&nd Conventional Glide Slope Coupling to (aide Slope Flight

Inspection Record No. 1. Category II-III Utilization Simulated

TR-1043-1-II B-30

I2CL[ (ft)

0.331E

(f t)

(ft/sec)

Cat. II DH T

* ~i~fuFlare 1JTIME (sec)

(b)

Figure B-13. (continued)

':1TR-l043-1-II B-31

2:T(Ib)

(ft/sec)

(rod)

(rod)

AZ

(ft/seC2)

Cot. IMDA 1 JI TDICat Hl DHTIME (sec) Flare

Figure F-1 c 'oncaded

TR-1043-1-IIB3

=.1

T"

(gtA)

CTRI

IERP3

FlarejTIME (tc)

(a)

Figure B-14. Responses of the CV-880 Aircraft with LSI Automatic LandingSystem and Conventional Glide Slope Coupling to Glide Slope FlightInspection Record No. 3. Category II-III Utilization Simulated

T-1043-1-II B-33

On

(ft)

(ft)

(I(b)

7R 103 /'r -1#(otud

(ftB-34

3.

trod)

THETRI(rod)

AZ

* Col. IMDA~t~

Cot 1 DH TD

TIME (se)

(c).

Figure B-14. (Concluded)

Iip-H a

(ILA)

Lw

(#aA)

IL

Col. IMDAI t tT

1TIME (sec) Floale

Figure B-15. Reqawes. of the Piper PA-Do Aircrsft vith IrnenFightControl Sysm and Commintional Mide Slope COwling to Glide SlopeFliGht Ihipection Record 110. 3. Catery II M Utilization Siwlated

TR-103-1-1 B-3

Ax

77

(Vtse)

TIME(sec) O F io re'I! ~~~igr B15- (Conltinued) Ct7MA-

JR 1 4 - -r B-37~r

LT.1S

XICI. "r .... ... ...

(rod)

(rod)

] L

AZ(ft/sc2)

cat. I MDA -

Flare]TIME (wc)

(c)

Figure B-1,. (Concluded)

TR-1I043-1-II 3-38

H

(0A)

3TS

TIE

ETRPM

Cat. IMDA t tT-I Cat. EIDH j 1T

TIME (sec)AFlr

Figure B-16. Responses of' the CV-880 Aircraft with LSI Automatic LandingSystem and Conventional Glide Slope Coupling to Glide Slope Flight

Inspection Record No. 4.~ Category II-III Utilization Simulated

TR-lo43-1-II B-39

(ft)

2CL

(f t)

22(ft/sec)

TDCot. 11 DH

FlareuTIME (sec)

(b)

Figure B-16. (continued)

TR-lo43-1-ii B- 4Q

i2000.0Ib)

(f/Sec)

J35

I(rod)

J35

THETR

(rod)

Sh.

AZ

(fft/seC2 )

TDICat.ll3 D H

TIME (sec)

(c))

Figure B-16. (Concluded)

A TR-10h15-1-II B-41

(I.LA)

ZTS

EFRP(MA)

3,5

(ILA)

ETFRPZ

Cat. H DH

.6ai FlareTIME (sec)

Figure B-17. Responses of the CV-880 Aircraft with I-SI Autcmatic Landing4 System and Conventional Glide Slope Coupling to Glide Slope Flight

Inspection Record No. 5. Category II-III Utilization Simulated

TR-l043-1-II B-42

D

(if)

(ft)

E.

22

Cat. R DH -' T

In IbisFlare J

TIME (sac)

- (b)

Figure B-17. (Continued)

TR-lo43-1-II B-J43

IK 2T

IMuKL C

(rodec

(rod)

AZ* (ft/SWcZ)

.1 TDCat 1 DH.,

TIME (sc)Flt

(c)

Figure B-17. (Concluded)

TR14--IB4

ETS

3T.E

ETRPQipA)

ETME

W.$ I DTDis Am Flore]

TIME(sec)

Figuire B-18. Responses of the CV-880 Aircraft with LSI Autcaatic LandingSystem and Conventional Glide Slope Coupling to Glide Slope FlightInspection Record No. 6. Category II-III Utilization Simulated

TR14--IB4

(ft)

D

31C(ft)

S.

30(ft /sec)

I lTDCat. U DHI

AD FlareiTIME (sec)

(b)

Figure B-18. (continued)

TR-l43-1-II B-46

Ub)

U".

(ft/sec)

(red)

THETRI(rod)

AZ(tM/Secz)

Cat.X I MD

TIME (we)

(c)

Figure B-18. (Concluded)

TR-10 4 3-1-II B4

H

3T.S

ETrRC&

(ILA)

3TS

(puA)

3T.S

:RE

ETRPM3

Catl MDAt t TD

Cut.U13 DI

* TIME (sec) Flore~

(a)

Figure B-19. Responses of the CV-880 Aircraft with LSI Auttc'matic LandingSystem Pid Conventional Glide Slope Coupling to Glide Slope Flight

Inspe-cion Record No. 7. Category II-III Utilization Simulated

TR-i0h3-1-IH B-48

Ix(ft)

DI (ft)

2L

Cat.! MDA T

TIME (sec)

(b)

Figur~e B-19. (continued)

TR14--IB4

31I T1(Ib)

r - (ft/sec)

31EL C(rod)

THETIR(rod)

S.

AZ(ft/sec 2 )

Cat. IMDA~

Cat. 11 DH T

ibis FlareTIME (sec)

(c)

Figure B-19. (Concluded)

37-5

ETR

(,uA)

ETFNP(pA)

* Cat. IMDAt TDie~ITIME (sc Cat. fl D

:1(a) lr -Figure B-20. Responses of the CV-880 Aircraft with LSI Autoatic Landing

System and Conventional Glide Slope Coupling to Glide Slope FlightInspection Record No. 9. Category I Utilization Simulated

TR-1043-1-II B-5 1

I; 4

(ft)

D

(ft)

(ft/sec)

Cat. IMDA j T

Cat. 13 Dh t

TIME (sec) Flare-

(b

Figure B-20. (Continued)

*TR-lo43- 1-II B-5~2

(Ib)

2AL

(rod)

AZ

Cat. I MDA - I lTDCat. 11 DH

TIME (sec) Flare

(c)

Figure B-20. (Concluded)

(ILA)

3T.K

F (ILA)

RTE(IiA)

K.

Cat.u I EPTTIME (sec) Cat. 11DH

(a)FlareJ

Figure B-21, Responses of the CV-880 Aircraft with LSI Automatic LandingSystem and Conventional Glide Slope Coupling to Glide Slope Flight

Inspection Record No. 11. Category I Utilization Simulated

TR-lo43-1-II B-54

H

D

(ft)

3M

Cf t/sec)

cat. IMDA-t JTTIME(sec) Flare

(b)

Figure B-21. (continued)

TR-l043-1-II B-55

(lb)

(f tlsec

J35

(rod)

THETR(rod)

AZ(ftisec2)

Ct. IMDAJCat IRID TDTIME (sec) Flare

(c)

Figure B-21. (concluded)

TR-1043-1-II B-56

(0t)

375

(,tA)

CTRP3(MA)se

Cat. EIDH

FlareTIME (sec)

a)

Figuxj B3-2;1. Responses of' the CV-880 Aircraft with LSI Automatic Landing3y~tmn and Conventional Glide Slope Coupling to Glide Slope Flight

* Inspection Record No. 12. :-aterory I Utilization Simulated

r

(ft)

D(ft)

(f0.

(ft)se

Cat. 11 DiHr - TD

TIME (sec)

(b)

Figu.re B-22. (Continued)

T.1431IIB5

f (Ib)

(ft/sei9)

33EL E(rod)

MHEh

(rod)

C.

AZ(f t/sec2)

Cat. IMDA 1

in ---AARCot. il DH T

TIME (sec) Fiore J

Figure B-22. (concluded)

TR-1043-1-.II B-59

37.5

(pA)

CIRI

(P(a)

TR4-1I B6

Ix

(ft)

D(ft)

(ft)

(ft/sec)t

Cot.I1MDA T

Cot ADH~

am Fioea

TIME (sec)

(b)

Figure B-23. (continued)

TR- 1043- -11 B-61

331EL T(Ib)

10.

(1 t/sec)

MELE

(rod)

AZ(ft/sec')

Cat. UI DH T

TIME (sec)

(c)

Figure B-23. (Concluded)

Th.'1o43-1-II B-62

H

(pA)

ETE

(p~A)

Cat I MDA T

dm Flare* TIME (we)

(a)

Figure B-24. Responses of the Piper PA-30 Aircraft with Invented FlightControl Systest end Conventional Glide Slope Coupling to Glide SlopeFlight Inspection Record No. 13. Category I Utilization Simulated

TR-1043-1-II B-63

MI

C.

TIME(3ec)

C t 8 DH..

Flare I(b)

FIPUr B-4.(Cotilu,)

B- 54

(I.)

(rod) j

I,.(ft/AZ 2 )

Cat. IMDA1

Cot. I DH j T

TIME (sec) Flare

Figure B-24. Concluded)

TR-I0h3-1-II B-65

H

ETFI

(,sA)

375

(juA)

(iuA/sec)

Cat. I MDA- t H

TIME (sec)-DFlare-

(a)

Figure B-25. Responses of' the CV-880 Ai' craft with LSI Automatic LandingSystem and Conventional Glide Slope Coupling to Glide Slope Flight

Inspection Record No. 14. Catego' I! Utilization Simulated

TR-1043-1-II B-66

OI

ID

(It)

/ 33

7-14 E (Sec)C at. DH I / D?IME (Sir)Fiore

(b)

B-67

2LT

31EL E(rod)

THICTt"(rod)

AZ(ft/sec)

Cat. 11 DHF~r jTIME (sec)

(c)

Figure B-2§,. (Concludect)

I I

(jsA)

[. 37SC

(jAA)

Iii-".Cot.IMDA ITIME isec)

(a) Flare] TD

Figure B-26. Responses of the cV-88(0 Aircraft with LSI Automatic LandingSystem and Conventional Glide Slope Coupling to Glide Slope Flight

Inspection Reeord No. 15. Category II-III Utilization Simulated

Tm-lo43-1-II B-69

(f0.

m

(ft)

20.

D

I (ft)

20.

I (ft)

(ft /sec)

(At. IMDA I TCat. UDH'-

.fiJqDUFlare -TIME (sec)

(b')

Figure B-26. (Continued)

_, - o '; l I R-7

A (Ib)

(rod) w

TI4ETIRI(rod)

AZ(f t/sec)

Cot B DH -T

A FlareTIME (sec)

(c)

Figure B-26. (Concluded)

rH

4LA

(pA)

ZTFU ETRPWIH (14A)

I(pAe)

Cot.I13 DH

TIME (sec)

Figiue B-27. Ra-" oflses of~ the CV-880 Aircraft with IS! Automatic LandingSystem and Conventional Glide Slope Coupling toGlide Slope Flight Inspection Record No. 2.

Category II-III Utilization Simulated

x

U. 3c

SI (Vt

(fw/Sfcj

COtI.IMD I T

IME scSf) O tDDJlrj D

(b)

A FIQreB-27 - (Contlnued)

B-73

0ib)

LIVISMAU

J35

IC c

(rod)

5.

AZ'(ft/sec2)

Cat. IMDA~ TD

Ar~.nmCat. IU DHTIME (se) F lore-

(c)

Fligure B-27. "Continued)

j0

(rod/see)

(ft /sec)

TDCot.Iat. Dire

TIME (sed)Ctl

(d)

Figure B3-27. (Concluded)

~I

I

CT I

WI

TTD

rCat. fi DH

(FA)W r

TIETFIP

FTI=HI . ... dr Deito RepnsstoWn.id-har.n

(LA) WLi2.

(pLAe) W,

Cat. I MDA T

Cot. 11 DH T

__h .... 1 ,]1]Flare

TIME (sec)

Fjwwze B-2. Standard Deviation Responses to Wind, wind Shear, andTurbulnce for t e V-PB0 irraft uvith LSjI utomatic Landing

System and Conventional Glide Slope Coupling toGlide Slope Flight Inspection Re-ord No. 2.

Category II-III Utilization Simulated

TR-io 43-1-I B-7

xI

D T_________________

T(ft) wI

2.I ITi(ft/sec)w

cat. I MDA -I ICat. U DH

.Ei~i~uFlarejTIME (sec)

(b)

Figu~re B-28. (Continued)

TR-io43-1-I B-77

IT- f lm ,, . . . .. .

2w3EL T ..... __

ib)

T

K. I

II

URS -NC4(ft /sec)

TI I

(rod)

THE-S w

(rod)

1. TWI

(fl/seC2)

Cat. I MDA

. ......... , -J D H

TEFigure B-29. Continued)

TR-l043-1-IT E-76

I

I- IIIJ31 T, I

rod/sec) I I

2. I WIIIHM1

(ft /sec)

CCt. M ] TD

Flare-

TIME(sec)(d)

Figure B-28. (Concluded)

TR-1043-1-II B- 7 9

UH

37S

(ILA)

375K

E-TFWP

Cot B H

TIME (sec) Foe

Figure P-20. R.ponse.-, of th~e tip r t -5D %rcra~ft wit) . In~ented FlioitP'ontrol. Syst-m a.ni "onvevvcion~l 111Ai flopa "ouplin'- tc Gl~ide Slo'peF1 i rnt Inspe( t 0on Fcc, -d No. 'a+t-rorv II 1.1tilizatior S~mulatel

II32.

(t

V~IMA t~TD( T) wCt 1

Fl , r _S (.t ru d

TR-1031i

ZL

(Ib)

Lmd

AZ4

Cal I MD'A T 1Col 11

TIME Isec)

1 Llu ~ l

ii

FA

I S

W I

III

CO I {SA Ca I I T

Figure B-29. (Concluded)

?IR-1043.-II

(ILA)

2Q

LITREI(A L A S C C o I 1 A

TIME (mic)'a

F~iure '--3). 3tanlard D'iation Res-)onscs I o Wi'ni, lincl S car, andr'.~i:lvr.cc for t- ?ip.cr .,rcraft wit Inv-rmted Flight

"ontro& ? ,t-r and 'onventional 2llid- Stop- 'ouplinz toC1. Uope 1 ig' e lnoc-neorl I~o

:itc or-v T1 ~ atiol, -MIllsitejii

TrR-1043-1-rI

TIT #

( T IM seIFk

e

I iue j3n. ( Otiu.

T3 - 1043-_ _ _ _ __1__-_

__11

B-85

MM T.

(mT

K.w

T *THE~T

TOcat t DH Fire

TIME (sec)

(c)

Figure B-30. (Continued)

iisT

Cat. I MDA'FoJ D

Cot.fl DH T

TIME (wc)(d)

Figure B-30. (Concluded)

TR-l03-1-II B-87

-A

(iPA)

Em"E(pA)

I 5.

Cot.!I MDA t.i180~.D COX DTHTIME(wc)

Figure B-31. Responses of the CV-88 Aircraft with LSI Automatic LmndingSystem and Conventional Glide Slope Coupling to Glide Slope Flight

Inspection R~ecord No. 10. Category I Utilization Sioulated

Th-lo43-1-II B-88

c7_______T (Sft o.11DlT

(b ir

/ V jF i g ue B 3 ( C onti nu ed)

I 1-89

(Ib)

URft /sec)

(rod)

THETIS(rad)

AZ(f t/sec2 )

Cat, I MDAI J D

.60 IUD Cot. II DH - TI

TIME (sec) Flare -(c)

Fig~ure !-51. (Continucd)

TR-104L5-1-TI B-90

(rod/sm)

Cf t/sec)

Ca.IMDA' tTIME (sec) CCat. IH DH$~or 1 T

(d)

Figure B-31. (Concluded)

Tm-io43-1-HI B-91

.,,

(ft)

20.

ETRC&.

(LA)20.T

(MA)

T

ETRI'n"E -

(p.A/sec )

( ,u A s e c )C t . I M D A

Cot. U DH

Flore,

TIME (sec) (a)

Figure B-32. Standard Deviation Responses to Wind, Wind Shear, andTurbulence for the CV-880 Aircraft with LSI Automatic Landing

System and Conventional Glide Slope Coupling toGlide Slope Flight Inspection Record No. 10.

Category I Utilization Simulated

TR-I043-1-II B-92

D

(ft)

T

.1 T(fi) Ic

V TD

Cat. 11 DH JTFiore -

TIME (sec)(b

Fixure B-32. (Continued)

(1b)

K. T

( ft/sec

*1 T

(rd)

13. TF- w

AZ

Co. IMDA J J TOF!om

I IME (mc)

(c)

Figure 3~-32. (Continuedl

ATR-it,43-1-II -9

ITtw

(rod/sec)tw

Cat. I DH... ..J TDH-0 - l JIB- -- -----

TIME(sec)

Figure -il32 . 'Concluded)

TR- 1043--II B-95

*mvwu us som - - - - = - -- --

so.

(PiA)I

ETRE(,pA)

ETRE M

Cot. MDA TD

.fib~uFioreJTIME (sec)

Figure B-33. Responses of the CV-880 Aircraft with LSI Automatic LandingSystem and Inertially Augmented Glide Slope Coupling to Glide Slope

Flight Inspection Record No. 10. Category II-III

Utilization Simulated

xI

(ft)

213.

Db(fi)

20.

(ft)

MmIMAW

Cot. 1 MDA I I T

Cat 13 DH ~oe

Figure B-33. (Continued)

TR-l043-1-II B-97

33EL T(lb)

1'1(ft/sec)

(rod)

THETR(rod)I

AZI(ft/sec)

cat. I MDA' 1

AiI'.nCot. U DHi

TIME (sec) Flare

Figure B-33. (Continued)

TR-1043-1-II B-98

in.

I

tr/sec)

I

o I

TIM r(sec)c Co.1O

I

Figur B-3ICnldd

TRi431I B-

-II(ft/sec) I

* I II

Cot! MA I l T

TIME (sec) Ct.! OI H

Florgi(d)

Figui'e B-33. (Concluded)

TR- 1043-1-II B-99

H

CLO

(MA)

ITI

ETRP ..

ETRT

(MA/sec) WCut I MDA I

Cot. BDH

aimIDA Flare] T

TiME (sec)(a)

Figure B-34. Standard Deviation Responses to Wind, Wind Shear, andTurbulence for the CV-880 Aircraft with LSI Automatic Landing

System and Inertially Augmented Glide Slope Coupling toGlide Slope Flight Inspection Record No. 10.

Category II-III Utilization Simulated

TgR- Io4-- i-T II- 100 -

r(ft)j

Ia.

(ft1) 1

H 120.I

(f) 0wI

2..

(f/ 1c wj

2. TI

Cat. RDH

gii.DUFlareTIME (sec)

(b)

Figure B-34. (continued)

Th-1043-1-II B- 101

UD w

M EL E- w

(Ib) T .I II I

I T I

(ft/sec ) II I

TEIT I

S mj:) . I .. . ..

"HETA {J w I

(rod) I

I I

T

(ft/sec2) -Cat. I MDAI

TD

(rod) 1

j

Cat. 13 DH

Flare

TIME (sec)(c)

1igure B.34. (Continued)

B

-TR- I045-1-TI B-I02

(radisec)

w '

Cat. ]IDHT

[ ~~~ TM (sec))Ct.IMA

(d)

Figure B-314. (Concluded)

TR-1 043-1-I l -0

H -(0t)

37.5

ETRP(kPA)

37.S

ETFIE(iiA)

(kLAec)

Cat. IMDA~

TIME(sec) Flare

~ure -3.Responses of the CV-8G<X Aircraft with LSI Automatic Landing

~:ti.and 'onventional Glib op CoIpliiw- to Slide Slope Flight

In -p-ct3m) 7<2ord T~o. I~ Catr ,ory I Utilifl'aticfl Simulated

±'~)7 -1TT

C(ft)

0e

* 20.

D(ft)

CL

(ft)

WSW

(ft/sec)CotI MDA-' IIii~h SCOtU DH iD

TIME (s.c)(b)

Figure B-35. (Continued)

TR-lo43-1-II B-105

3EL T(Ib)

URS(ft/sec)

(rod)

THETFR(rod)

AZ(ft /SeC2)

Cat. IMDAt J t TTIME tsec) Flare1

F;igure B- - '7-ontinued~

I-

0

Hm

(fC/otc I I

C.ICot.U3DH'T

TI ME (sec)Flr

Figure B-35. (Concluded)

VrA

(ILA)

20.T

2.

I wCTRPZI

Qa.A/Col.) MDA1ICat. U DH1

Flare~TIME (sec)(a

Fig1~re B-36. Standard Deviation Responses to Wind, Wind Shear, andTurbulence for the 01-880 Aircraft with LSI Automatic Landing

System wnd Conventional3 Glide Slope Coupling toGlide Slope Flight Inspection Record No. 16.

Category I Utilization Simulated

:9(ft)

10.T

(ft) w

IC

(.) [ w

2.. T

(ft/sec) Cot. I MDA t

Cot. DH1

Flare

TIME ( w) (b)

Figure B-36. (Continued)

TR-1043-1-II B-109

i : EL T.... . ......... . ... ,(b)

I - TU IR S .... .... w ,,,_.-

tft/sec)I

T

F I (Pod)J31

.0J1 T1

THETIR.

(rod

1. T

A Z ,_..._,,_... ... ..1 "" (ft/sec2) I-

TDCat. 113 DH

A 7 1il1" lnFlareTIME (sec)

r (c)

Figure B-36. (Continued)

TR-1O43-X-II B-110

Q 17 w(rod/se:) 1

L ~ ~~~(ft/sec)Ct!MA- 1 I T.iihjnFlare

TIME (sec) (d)

Fiqure B-36. (Concluded)

TR-1043-1-II B-111

iI

' I

I)

(gLA)I-I

3W75

Crm"

H IfLA)

(isA)

ACot.I MDA t TD

Florej

TIME (Sec)(a

Figure B-37. Responses of the cV-880 Aircraft with LSI Automatic LandingSystem and Inertially Augmented Glide Slope Coupling to Glide Slope

Flight Inspection Record No. 16. Category II-IIIUtilization Simulated

R-1043-1-Il B- 112

(ft)

(f(b)

Figure B-37. (Continued)

I TR-1043-1-II B-1135

HII

31EL TI (II(lb) I

I~I

i I

TH.E __ _ _ _ __ _ _ _3 1 I

f /sec)

THETFII

(rod)

t II 4 t o.lhCa t. 11 DH TD

TIME (see) Flare

('c0

Figure B-37. (Continued)

TR- I043-I-II B-114

I.I

(rod/sec)

I

(ft/sec)

II

Cat. I MDA TCot.1 DH T

TIME (sc)

(d)

Figure B-37. (Concluded)

? ,i.TR-l0o43-1I-I B-115

H

(ft)

213.

CTRCb,(,.LA)

ETRP

213.

ETRE.(jpA)

2.

ETRIaP(kA/aec)

Cat. I MDA

Co. aD DH

FloreTIME (sec)

(a)

Figure B-38. Standard Deviation Responses to Wind, Wind Shear, andTurbulence for the CV-880 Aircraft with LSI Automatic Landing

System and Inertially Augmented Glicee Slope Coupling toGlide Slope Flight Inspection Record No. 16.

Category II-III Utilization Simlated

1B-116

n

II

(ft) I t

SD T

I(ft) W

I

I. I(ft/sec) T

.Ill dialFlare.

TIME (sec)

(b)

Figure B-P. (Continued)

TR-Io43-1-IT B-117

3 IEL TII(tb) i

I

US

(fisec)

II

T I

MEL c WI(rod) I

I~I.

D1 ~TL

THIETRI(rod)

1. T_

AZ Iw(ft/sec2) A

Cat. H DH

i.u Flare-

TIME (sec)(c)

Figure B-38. (Continued)

TR-1043-1-II B-118

w0 -

(rod/sec)

w

ii. I Iii II

f t/sec) Cot.I MDAIT

Cat. 13 DH

Flore.

TIME (sec) (d)

Figure ' 'o (Conrlud2d)

TR-I05-1-II B-119

(I&AI

ETFRIE

Cot IlD

TIME (sec) FlareJ

(a)

Figure B-39. Responses of the CV-880 Aircraft with LSI Automatic LandingSystem and Iriertially Augmented Glule Slope Coupling to Glide Slope

Flight Inspection Record No. 24. Category II-III4 Utilization Simulated

mR-lo43-1-xI 1-120

xI

20.

(ft)

W.

(ft)

30,

(ft/see) A

Cat. R DHI

TIME (sec) Foe(b)

Figure B-39. (Co:tinued)

TR-1043-1-II B 2

MEL T(lb)

(ft /sec)I

31EL E(rod)

THETA _________

(rod)

AZ(ft/sec2)

Cot. I MDA 1 ~ ~ T

TIME (sec) ()Flare

Figure B-39. (continued)

TR-l043-1-II -C

1

ailM 1:tnH~r* TDTIME (sec) Ct 11D

(d) lrJ

Figure B-39. (Concluded)

4TR-i0h3-1-II B-123

C!ET0.

(ft) I

20. I

T1P I

(rTA) I

ETR20. TI(Cut) I

TI

2C. I

Flare

ZD.D

TIME (sec)

( (a)

Figure B-40O. Standard Deviation Responses to Wind, Wind Shear, andTurbulence for the CV-880 Aircraft with LSI Automatic Landing

Syrstem and Conventional Glide Slope Coupling toGlide Slope Flighit Inspection Record No. 24i.

Category II-III Utilization, Simlated

TR-1043-1-II B-124

I

I

(ft) 1I

TI

4i

D • III-(It) iwI

(It)

2.1 TI

313(O K) W1

* I

Cat. MDA[ Cot. 11 DH I

aimi Flore J

TIME (sec) (b)

Figure B-40. (Continued)

TR-1043-1-II B-125

I

W31EL T W(Ib) si

S. I

TILURS wuI ... -'

(ft/sec) IT I

mmE. w I(rod) I

T

THETR WI(rod)[

AZI(ft/sec2) I

Cot.!I MDA}Cot. DH

jig I1.0 FlareTIME (sec)

(c)

Figure B-40. (Continued)

TR-IO43-1-II B-126

I

Hm - L T =I

Cl ITIME (secTI

I• I

(d)

Figure B-40. (Conciled)

Tg-In431-I

II

5DnH I

II

I

37.5

(ILA)

37.5

(pA)

3.5

CTTD

ETFIPI

Cot.. IIDJT

Cot.I13 DHFlare

TIME (sec)(a)

Figure B-I Responses of the CV-880 Aircraft with LSI Automatic LandingSystem and Inertially Augmented Glide Slope Coupling to Glide Slope

Flight Inspection Record No. 24 . Category II-IIIUtilization Simulated

T• i431T _ 4nz, _ , - '

20.

(f I)

20.I

(ft)

S.

33

(f t/-,ec)

TD

.i Ihlou FlareTIME (sec)

(b)

Figure B-241. (Continued)

I... -

I

MEL T-jib)

3.0.I

URS

(ft /sec) I

XSI ,a I

MEL E -,(rod)

i II.

,o, I

THETR . I

(rod) I

S.I

AZ _(ft/sec 2)

Cat-I MDA TD

Cat.I HDH

TIME(sec) Fiore -(c)

z'igure B-41. (Continued)

TR-I043-1-II B-130

0I(rodAK)

Cot. IID

Tfls c 1 ME( e)Il r

(d)

Figure B-4+1. (Concluded)

HI

IIi I

(.A)

( eA) W I

2.)

(P)

CTRPT

Figure B-42. Standard Deviation Responses to Wind, Wind Shear, andTurbulence for the CV-880 Aircraft with LSI Automatic Landing

System and Inertially Au~nented Glide Slope Coupling to1 ~ Glide Slope Flight Inspection Record No. 24.Category Il-III Utilization Simulated

jTR-I043-1-II B-152

1" (ft)~

310.

Dl TI(ft) rW

20.TI31 I

(.ft)

2

(ft/sec) ~wT

I Ct. IMDA } I TD~ Flare

TIME (sec) (b)

Figure B-42. (Continued)

Tm-1043-1-Il -3

III

(Ib)

II

r. I T I .

*1 I p

TI

rod)

I. T

_ I .T

(rod) I

Col T H

I

TIME (nc)Sfs(c)

Figure B-42. (Continued)

TR-143-1-II B-134

IIII

TI

(rod/sec) I

2. _ wI.1 T

(ft/sec) C ot. M DA TD

Cot. 11 ljTIME (sec) (d)

Figure B-42. (Concluded)

TR-1043-1-II B-135