Participated in my first NASA GA research project (long)

A few months ago I saw a news item on WSI's website (an aviation weather
provider for pre-flight and in-flight) stating that NASA was looking for
pilots of all experience levels to participate in upcoming GA research
projects. For the fun of it, I completed the web-based survey, which
asked about my certificate, medical, ratings, aircraft time, and flight
time.

Two weeks ago I received both an email and a phone call stating that my
aviation experiences qualified me for their latest GA research project,
a comparable safety study between round gauges and different primary
flight displays, what they call "Synthetic Vision Displays." I called
the coordinator right back and was offered a slot, which I eagerly
accepted. NASA needed twenty five pilots, of which I was number twenty
one.

The study required me to travel to Newport News, Virginia last
Thursday night, then spend the entire day Friday at the research center
flying a simulator under various weather scenarios with different
instruments/displays. NASA would pay for all travel expenses and
provide a modest stipend for my participation. I didn't care about the
money; I was motivated by this, my first opportunity to fly a full-
motion, million dollar simulator and participate in a small part of GA's
future.

Friday morning started with a briefing of the overall research project,
which was to determine whether there was an increased level of flight
safety in aircraft equipped with primary flight displays. NASA would be
testing three types of primary flight display and comparing my flights
with the PFDs to my flights with "baseline" round gauges, then adding my
results to the group of subject pilots to arrive at the group results.

All three displays are variants of the Garmin G1000/Avidine PFD systems
currently available with some notable enhancements, including one with
simulated terrain and obstacles displayed on the primary display
(synthetic vision display), as seen on page 24 of this PDF:

http://avsp.larc.nasa.gov/pdfs/GVSIT...S_Overview.pdf

After the research briefing, I spent the next two hours working with a
CFII to become acquainted with the simulator, a 757 cockpit reprogrammed
to the flight dynamics of a Cessna 206. The researchers covered the
entire co-pilot's panel with wood to downplay the complexities of a 757
cockpit and placed a small LCD screen over the pilot's panel. On this
screen they would display the baseline round gauges and the various
PFDs, depending on the flight scenario.

At first I was concerned that this 757 cockpit would be too much of a
distraction, but incredibly it only took a couple of practice flights to
get the feeling I was flying a Cessna 206. The airline yoke felt
amazingly like the responsiveness of a Cessna yoke, thanks to some
excellent reprogramming of the simulator.

Reno International Airport, of Reno, Nevada was the airport of choice
throughout the training and experiment. Reno was chosen for the
obstacles under the traffic pattern (apparently two hotel/casino
buildings were erected right under the base leg to 16L) and the nearby
mountainous terrain.

During the practice flights, the CFII had me perform some basic air and
VFR pattern work, then called for the day-time low weather scenario for
me to fly an ILS. On the first practice approach, I followed the ILS
within acceptable tolerances and at the decision height I looked up but
could not see the runway. Thus I declared a missed and began a
straight-out climb out when the researcher stopped the scenario.

The researcher told me that in that scenario the aircraft should have
broken out at minimums and that I should have seen the runway to
complete a landing. I again informed him that I didn't see it. Because
this was only a practice flight, he and the CFII agreed that they would
run the ILS approach again, but this time I was to look much harder for
the runway.

Again, I followed the ILS down to within tolerances and when I looked
up, no runway. However, recalling what the researcher said, I spent an
extra few seconds out the window (all without dropping below the DH) and
the runway, like a ghost, came into sight. Now having a visual, I
completed the landing and the scenario stopped.

So, that was the problem, I told the researcher. The approach lights in
this simulator are terrible. Normally, I would expect to see the
approach lights at DH. Not seeing any approach lights, I assumed the
visibility and clouds were much lower than expected and declared a
missed, perhaps prematurely but certainly within my rights to do so.

The researcher apologized for the rather poor approach lights simulation
but informed me that there was nothing he could do to improve this.
Unbeknownst to me, this would become a very interesting point later on.

With the round gauges complete, I then flew three practice ILS's using
the PFDs, starting with a PFD containing a simple flight director and
moving to the more complex simulated vision display with
terrain/obstacles and the "fly through flight path boxes" on the PFD.

Two of the three approaches I again could not see the runway and
declared a missed at DH, and two more times I received a "you should
have seen the runway at DH. We were really expecting you to land"
comment from the researcher. Expecting me to land? Who's flying the
aircraft here, I thought. I was starting to get angry with this
"expecting you to land" attitude and thought to point out that landing
was not *his* option, especially with the poor approach light simulation
going on. Instead, I stated that I would fly a missed if I couldn't see
the runway.

Soon it was noon and the practice sessions were complete. I was now
pretty comfortable with the simulator so we broke for lunch. After
lunch, I bid farewell to the CFII, whose job was now done, and I
prepared to climb into the cockpit for the actual research scenarios.

The eleven or so scenarios (a few visual approaches with both the gauges
and the three PFDs, and a few ILS approaches with the gauges and PFDs)
were scrambled up so that I wouldn't know what to expect as each one was
run.

At the end of each scenario, the researcher would ask me some questions
about other traffic calls I overheard on the simulated ATC radio
(presumably to gauge my workload). He then would hand me a tablet PC to
answer 15 questions about my impressions of workload, comfort level,
etc. during the flight scenario.

Most of the afternoon simulated instrument approaches ended in a missed,
too. However, the researcher did admit that those were designed to have
weather much lower than DH.

Eleven flights later, the test was over. I joined the researcher in his
office for post research debriefing. He asked me about my overall
impression of the new systems.

I stated that flying behind the synthetic vision display PFD during
instrument approaches was *very* nice. I did note that for VFR flying,
less was better and there should be a "declutter" option to remove the
terrain and obstacle information from the display on the most complex
PFD. The researcher admitted that this was a recurring comment from the
other pilots.

He then asked me if I had any questions. Of the twenty subject pilots
before me, did any of them crash, I asked. Two pilots hit the hotels on
the base leg in low visibility and one hit the mountains, he responded.
Interestingly, all were VFR-only pilots and all were flying the standard
round gauges *or* the flight director PFD when they did so.

Under the same weather conditions, all landed safely when using the more
advanced PFDs with the synthetic displays. That was an interesting
fact, I agreed.

The researcher then asked me about the 757 simulator itself. Was it a
distraction or was I comfortable in it. I commented that it helped
having the copilot panel covered, but the flaps lever, which was a
standard locking Boeing flaps lever and detents at every setting, was a
bit distracting.

I then reminded him of my unhappiness with the approach light
simulation.

My contribution to this study was now over. As he was showing me the
door, the researcher suddenly stopped and looked at me, then said, "Now
that we are done, I have a confession to make." OH?

"The approach lights were purposely dimmed throughout this experiment
because we wanted to see if you, the instrument rated pilot, would dip
below minimums with this new technology. The FAA is very interested to
see if pilots would be tempted to do something unsafe when behind these
PFDs.

"Of the previous twenty pilots participating so far, only one other
pilot complained about the lack of approach lights and that pilot also
executed a missed at or above DH every flight where marginal visibility
was right at the DH."

"Oh, one other question," the researcher stated. "Would you be
interested in coming back around March '05 to participate in the second
phase of this experiment, to be conducted while piloting NASA's Cessna
206 equipped with these PFDs?" "You bet I would!" I answered.

No wonder they use psychologists to run these tests, I thought while
walking out to my rental car with a big smile. Little did I know that
the smile was short-lived for I spent the rest of the evening sitting in
Philadelphia International, my USAirways connecting city, awaiting
weather and a long line of airliners all competing for the one departing
runway. A fitting end to an interesting day, it was.

--
Peter

"Peter R." wrote in message


At first I was concerned that this 757 cockpit would be too much of a
distraction, but incredibly it only took a couple of practice flights
to get the feeling I was flying a Cessna 206. The airline yoke felt
amazingly like the responsiveness of a Cessna yoke, thanks to some
excellent reprogramming of the simulator.

I thought the same thing, too. I spent the first few minutes in the sim
trying to figure out if I could squeeze it into my garage or if I'd have to
build out a room in the basement...

During the practice flights, the CFII had me perform some basic air
and VFR pattern work,

You should have seen my face when he asked me to turn *into* the mountain.
"Um, that hill's pretty close. You sure we can make the turn?" "Yes, I want
you familiar with what the terrain looks like in the sim and if you don't
turn soon you *won't* make it."

The researcher told me that in that scenario the aircraft should have
broken out at minimums and that I should have seen the runway to
complete a landing. I again informed him that I didn't see it.
Because this was only a practice flight, he and the CFII agreed that
they would run the ILS approach again, but this time I was to look
much harder for the runway.

hmph. Right.

At the end of each scenario, the researcher would ask me some
questions about other traffic calls I overheard on the simulated ATC
radio (presumably to gauge my workload). He then would hand me a
tablet PC to answer 15 questions about my impressions of workload,
comfort level, etc. during the flight scenario.

That's probably the best use of a TabletPC I've seen, yet. However, I felt
a bit...odd voicing my answers, in addition.

Most of the afternoon simulated instrument approaches ended in a
missed, too. However, the researcher did admit that those were
designed to have weather much lower than DH.

He never told *me* that. He only told me afterwards that I should have been
able to see the runway. Only once in the IMC runs was that the case and
when I did I was already in the midst of initiating a go-around.
Real-world, I'd've asked for another shot.

I stated that flying behind the synthetic vision display PFD during
instrument approaches was *very* nice.

No kidding, it was - especially after flying two hours almost solid IMC to
get there. The remains of what used to be Hurricane Ivan were moving up the
Applachians and a solid wall of Level 3-5 thunderstorms prevented me from
flying home that night. Flying home the next day was even *more* IMC than
the trip down. Boy was I wishing for that SVS PFD!

I did note that for VFR
flying, less was better and there should be a "declutter" option to
remove the terrain and obstacle information from the display on the
most complex PFD.

Yeah, that was my thought, too. He was a bit surprised by my rather quick
"Oh, yes I do!" when he asked if I had any thoughts on the SVS PFD in VFR
scenario. I had to keep reminding myself to look outside and stop trying to
fly the technically perfect approach. Real-world, that could be a b-a-d
situation.

He then asked me if I had any questions. Of the twenty subject pilots
before me, did any of them crash, I asked.

I never crashed, but I absolutely blew the hell out of the ILS-in-IMC
approach using round dials. I was tempted to request another shot, but was
able to (barely!) recover the approach. At one point, I'd've sworn I saw a
lightning flash. The strange thing was, I had to keep adding more and more
power (much more than previous runs) to maintain airspeed/altitude. Later I
found out that the "lightning" was actually the Aztec overtaking me in the
"pattern" due to my slow speed.

Nobody had an idea on the power situation and that was the only time it
occurred. He did mention the simulator sometimes has a "contol lock"-type
situation where it won't respond properly to control inputs.

Two pilots hit the hotels
on the base leg

It was very cool watching the "obstruction block" in the SVS PFD swing by
off my left wing when I couldn't see squat outside the window.

My contribution to this study was now over. As he was showing me the
door, the researcher suddenly stopped and looked at me, then said,
"Now that we are done, I have a confession to make." OH?

"The approach lights were purposely dimmed throughout this experiment
because we wanted to see if you, the instrument rated pilot, would dip
below minimums with this new technology. The FAA is very interested
to see if pilots would be tempted to do something unsafe when behind
these PFDs.

"Of the previous twenty pilots participating so far, only one other
pilot complained about the lack of approach lights and that pilot also
executed a missed at or above DH every flight where marginal
visibility was right at the DH."

Well that explains a lot! He also told me that I should have been able
to see the runway in all the IMC scenarios. My response was "That's fine,
but I'm not pushing MDA/DH in any of *my* flying - fancy PFD or not." I'm
now kinda glad that's on tape.

"Oh, one other question," the researcher stated. "Would you be
interested in coming back around March '05 to participate in the
second phase of this experiment, to be conducted while piloting
NASA's Cessna 206 equipped with these PFDs?" "You bet I would!" I
answered.

"Oh, hell yeah!"

Vid/pics of my trip there and back:
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer/flights.asp#040918

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_s...veloperid=4415
____________________

On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 23:04:49 -0400, Peter R.
wrote:

A fitting end to an interesting day, it was.

....and an interesting post. Thanks for putting it up.

z

Lucky you!

Great post, Peter, thanks.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

Dan Luke ) wrote:

Lucky you!

Great post, Peter, thanks.

Hey, you can do it, too! Here is the NASA link with the subject
application:

http://flight-research.larc.nasa.gov/subjects/

--
Peter

Very nice writeup Peter. Thanks for sharing. Man, I'd jump at the
opportunity to participate in something like this. Good for you in
sticking to your guns and executing a missed approach when you did.

--
Jack Allison
PP-ASEL, Wanna-be IA Student

"When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the Earth
with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there
you will always long to return"
- Leonardo Da Vinci

(Remove the obvious from address to reply via e-mail)

"John T" wrote in message
m...
"Oh, hell yeah!"

Vid/pics of my trip there and back:
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer/flights.asp#040918

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer


Cool website!!

How do you mount your video camera? Or do you have someone in the backseat
with a really steady hand?

Jay Beckman
Chandler, AZ
PP-ASEL

"Jay Beckman" wrote in message
news:2WAdd.7321$SW3.1273@fed1read01

How do you mount your video camera? Or do you have someone in the
backseat with a really steady hand?

Thanks!

Here's the link describing how I typically set up the camera:
http://www.tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer/CockpitVideo.htm

There are flights I've taken where passenger considerations - or just plain
forgetting the tripod - have dictated putting the camera on the dash (thank
goodness for image stabilization), but usually the camera is mounted on a
tripod with two legs on the floor and the camera raised to the ceiling for
stability.

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_s...veloperid=4415
____________________

"John T" wrote in message
m...
"Jay Beckman" wrote in message
news:2WAdd.7321$SW3.1273@fed1read01

How do you mount your video camera? Or do you have someone in the
backseat with a really steady hand?

Thanks!

Here's the link describing how I typically set up the camera:
http://www.tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer/CockpitVideo.htm

There are flights I've taken where passenger considerations - or just
plain forgetting the tripod - have dictated putting the camera on the dash
(thank goodness for image stabilization), but usually the camera is
mounted on a tripod with two legs on the floor and the camera raised to
the ceiling for stability.

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_s...veloperid=4415
____________________



Outstanding!!

Thanks for the link with the pic. Very ingeneous..

Jay

When I want to take video I set the camera on the top of the panel on an
unused sponge. I have a couple of elastic straps that hold it securely
to the sponge. No image stabilization needed. I set the camera to the
landscape setting so it won't focus on the windshield, it focuses on
infinity. It is much easier with a camera with the swing out window. I
adjust the camera up and down in such a way that the engine cowl is just
barely showing on the bottom of the screen, camera fully zoomed out. I
also have an audio cable that goes from one of the headset jacks to the
cameras mic in jack. Works like a charm except for there being no
engine noise on the film. Works really cool when you put it on a DVD
with music in the background.



John T wrote:
"Jay Beckman" wrote in message
news:2WAdd.7321$SW3.1273@fed1read01

How do you mount your video camera? Or do you have someone in the
backseat with a really steady hand?


Thanks!

Here's the link describing how I typically set up the camera:
http://www.tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer/CockpitVideo.htm

There are flights I've taken where passenger considerations - or just plain
forgetting the tripod - have dictated putting the camera on the dash (thank
goodness for image stabilization), but usually the camera is mounted on a
tripod with two legs on the floor and the camera raised to the ceiling for
stability.