HUDLS-pres-v-0-11 Draft Subpart E Change - overview Contains requirements and credits for HUD and auto-land systems Introduces new terminology –HUDLS – HUD Landing System –Lower than Standard Category I –Other than Standard Category II Based on simulator trials Based on FAA/JAA harmonisation Allows credit for the combination of ground based systems on-board systems

HUDLS-pres-v-0-12 Terminology (11) Head-Up Display (HUD) - An aircraft system which provides head-up guidance to the pilot during flight. It includes the display element, sensors, computers and power supplies, indications and controls. It may receive inputs from an airborne navigation system or flight guidance system. Note: Flight may include taxi operations, take-off and landing roll (12) Head-Up Guidance Landing System. (HUDLS) The total airborne system which provides head-up guidance to the pilot during the approach and landing or go- around. It includes all sensors, computers, power supplies indications and controls. A Head-Up Guidance Landing System (HUDLS) is typically used for primary approach guidance to decision heights of 50 ft. (13) Hybrid Head Up Display Landing System (Hybrid HUDLS). A system which consists of a primary fail-passive automatic landing system and a secondary independent HUD/HUDLS enabling the pilot to complete a landing manually after failure of the primary system. Note: Typically, the secondary independent HUD/HUDLS is providing guidance which normally takes the form of command information but it may alternatively be situation (or deviation) information.

HUDLS-pres-v-0-13 The regulatory situation today HUD is not recognised in JAR-OPS 1 except as a part of a fail-operational hybrid landing system JAR-OPS 1 does not allow manually flown Cat II or Cat III approaches; Cat III also with auto-land Cat II and IIIA HUD operations are handled as exemptions – TGL 20 gives guidance Cat III is not available to propeller driven aeroplanes since auto-land systems are only available for jet Auto-land systems often qualify for similar considerations Conclusion: JAR-OPS 1, Subpart E needs updating

HUDLS-pres-v-0-14 Benefits of the HUD Improved quality of the guidance Improved situational awareness Smoother transition from instrument to visual ref Combines instrument and visual guidance

HUDLS-pres-v-0-15 Contents of the proposal Manually flown Cat II and IIIA approaches to current minima Lower than standard Cat I operations with DH unchanged (200 ft) and reduced RVR (400 m) Other than standard Cat II operations with DH unchanged (100 ft) but without TDZ and CCL lights; RVR down to 350 m Equipment/airframe qualifications related to HUD Increased training requirements Similar considerations related to auto-land

HUDLS-pres-v-0-16 Safety considerations The reduced RVR values affect only the ability to commence an approach – visual reference requirements remain unchanged Simulator trials indicate that the go-arournd rate is not increased by the reduction of RVR Simulator trials indicate that the landing foot-print is equal or better with HUD and reduced RVR ILS performance specified to support the operations The improved guidance compensates for the absence of TDZ and CCL lights for Cat II operations Auto-land gives reduced workload and improved delivery. The overall safety of operations is considered to be improved

HUDLS-pres-v-0-17 Relations to FAA and ICAO Removal of TDZ and CLL for Cat II/HUD are in line with FAA current applicationsRemoval of TDZ and CLL for Cat II/HUD are in line with FAA current applications RVR vs TDZ/CLL light req are equal but FAA does not apply RVR < 550 with DH 200 ftRVR vs TDZ/CLL light req are equal but FAA does not apply RVR < 550 with DH 200 ft The proposed ILS requirements for Cat I and II are the same as those used for Cat II by FAAThe proposed ILS requirements for Cat I and II are the same as those used for Cat II by FAA The ”Lower than standard Cat I operations” (RVR < 550 m) may require a notification of difference with ICAO – we keep the standard Cat I requirementsThe ”Lower than standard Cat I operations” (RVR < 550 m) may require a notification of difference with ICAO – we keep the standard Cat I requirements The ”Other than standard Cat II operations” are not considered to warrant a notification of difference from Annex 6 but possibly from Annex 14The ”Other than standard Cat II operations” are not considered to warrant a notification of difference from Annex 6 but possibly from Annex 14 The ICAO AWO Manual and approach classification are under review by the OPSPThe ICAO AWO Manual and approach classification are under review by the OPSP

HUDLS-pres-v-0-18 Relations with the aerodromes There are no additional requirements for certification of the aerodromes for Cat I operations The ILS needs to be classified by the three-digit- system in Annex 10 (should always be the case) The ILS performance must be validated to a higher standard for RVR < 450 m but no increased certification unless DH is reduced below 200 ft For DH < 200 ft the aerodrome will need to be Cat II qualified except for the TDZ and CLL lights

HUDLS-pres-v-0-19 Lower than Standard Cat I – trial Testing performed at CST Berlin May 18 / CRJ 100 / 200 simulator 6 CLH pilots 250 runs performed in AI mode at RVR 300 thru 550m 5 Cat I Full Facility (>720m lighting) airfields – ARN 26, DUS 05R, HAM 05, LIN36R & TXL 08L X wind 10 kt, varied in direction Light Turbulence

HUDLS-pres-v Lower than standard Cat I trials (1) GA Rate RVR M No of Runs GA’s%

HUDLS-pres-v Lower than standard Cat I trials (2)

HUDLS-pres-v Lower than standard Cat I trials (3)

HUDLS-pres-v Typical HUD Conformal flight path symbol Acceleration caret Conformal Horizon Conformal reference G/S

HUDLS-pres-v Pilot view at 200 ft HAT and 550 m RVR

HUDLS-pres-v Experiment set up Divided in two experiments Experiment 1 (900 m approach lights) –43 volunteer commercial airline pilots qualified on B737 Experiment 2 ( m approach lights) –28 pilots Experience between 50 to 1000 hrs on B737 HUD and B737-NG qualified pilots Full-motion B737-NG simulator –180 degree FOV visual –Collimated to 20 m focal distance –Rockwell-Collins Flight Dynamics HGS-4000 system

HUDLS-pres-v Experiment set-up –Complete block design –HUD use – repeated factor Two blocks of visibility (between-subjects variable) –Standard minimum visibility (550 m exp 1, 700m exp 2) –Lower than standard visibility ( exp 1, exp 2) Each subject two approaches

HUDLS-pres-v Exeperiment set-up (3) Manually flown from 2000 ft IMC mode –No landing guidance. HUD guidance removed at 50 ft height –Ensured pilots used both runway and HUD symbology in conjunction Performance parameters Absolute centreline deviation at touchdown Longitudinal distance from threshold at touchdown Approach success

HUDLS-pres-v Test results oUsing a HUD resulted in significantly smaller lateral touchdown footprint for all RVR conditions oSmaller T/D footprint in 450 m RVR with HUD than for 550 m RVR without HUD oLikely an effect of flightpath vector oHUD had no effect on longitudinal touchdown performance oNo difference in approach success rate between HUD and without HUD

HUDLS-pres-v End of information