LPV procedures for HEMS Mountain Rescue (HEDGE WP2)
Post on 11-Nov-2014
1078 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
Transcript
27/05/2011
Mountain Rescue - LPV approachesUnlocking EGNOS benefitsUnlocking EGNOS benefits
Philip Church, HeliosPhilip Church, HeliosMarc Torres, Marc Torres, PildoPildo LabsLabs
AIRMED 2011 – 25 May 2011
2
SCOPESCOPESCOPESCOPE�What is HEDGE?�Benefits of LPV Procedure� Implementation Process�Validation�Results
3
What is HWhat is HWhat is HWhat is HEDGEEDGEEDGEEDGE????
�HElicopters Deploy GNSS in Europe�Project commissioned by the GSA and part-
funded under the EU’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP7)
�Aim to develop and demonstrate:• new helicopter approach procedures• other EGNOS applications for general aviation
4
RNAV approaches are being RNAV approaches are being RNAV approaches are being RNAV approaches are being implemented worldimplemented worldimplemented worldimplemented world----wide for the benefits wide for the benefits wide for the benefits wide for the benefits
of airspace usersof airspace usersof airspace usersof airspace usersWidespread use of GPS based RNAV procedures (particularly in US and Canada)
Many conventional approaches can be flown as an RNAV overlay
Lower minima available compared to NPA
In many cases RNAV approaches can use existing avionics for little additional cost
Existing FMSNew generation panel mount
GPS
Benefits to
airspace users
5
RNAV approaches offer lower minimaRNAV approaches offer lower minimaRNAV approaches offer lower minimaRNAV approaches offer lower minima
Example, Finland EFRO 03, Cat D aircraft.Calculated using Eurocontrol Minima Estimator Tool
231ft
APV SBAS (LPV)
270ft
APV Baro-VNAV
287ft
GPS NPA
VOR NPA
ILS CAT I
NDB NPA
370ft
450ft
Lower minima give airport
capacity gains in low visibility
6
The HEMS benefitThe HEMS benefitThe HEMS benefitThe HEMS benefit
�Steep approaches� Improved access in low visibility operations� Increased availability
Improved operational resilience to enable 24hr operations
Improved operational resilience to enable 24hr operations
77
Procedure DesignProcedure DesignProcedure DesignProcedure Design� Procedure specifications:
• 5.3 NM FAS
• 5.96º GPA (10.4%)
• 464 ft OCH
� Aerodrome limitations:• No ATC
• A/A frequency
• No lighting • VFR aerodrome
8
Avionics architectureAvionics architectureAvionics architectureAvionics architecture
8
Cushions removedCushions removed
Stand-alone
platform
Stand-alone
platform
99
Avionics equipment preparationAvionics equipment preparationAvionics equipment preparationAvionics equipment preparation
Garmin CDI/VDI installedGarmin CDI/VDI installed
1010
Procedure validationProcedure validationProcedure validationProcedure validation� 7 LPV approaches were successfully flown:
• App1. Approach flown down to DH/A• App2. Approach flown to helipad (landing)
• App3. Approach flown down to DH/A [problem in data recording system]
• App4. Approach flown to helipad (landing)• App5. Approach flown down to DH/A
• App6. Approach flown to helipad (landing)
• App7. Approach flown to helipad (landing)
1111
Validation Validation Validation Validation –––– lateral profilelateral profilelateral profilelateral profile
1.6 1.65 1.7 1.75 1.8 1.85 1.942.32
42.33
42.34
42.35
42.36
42.37
42.38
42.39
42.4
42.41GNS480 LatLon @ App1
Longitude(º)
Latit
ude(
º)
1.6 1.65 1.7 1.75 1.8 1.85 1.942.32
42.33
42.34
42.35
42.36
42.37
42.38
42.39
42.4
42.41GNS480 LatLon @ App2
Longitude(º)
Latit
ude(
º)
1.6 1.65 1.7 1.75 1.8 1.85 1.942.32
42.33
42.34
42.35
42.36
42.37
42.38
42.39
42.4
42.41GNS480 LatLon @ App4
Longitude(º)
Latit
ude(
º)
1.6 1.65 1.7 1.75 1.8 1.85 1.942.32
42.33
42.34
42.35
42.36
42.37
42.38
42.39
42.4
42.41GNS480 LatLon @ App5
Longitude(º)
Latit
ude(
º)
1.6 1.65 1.7 1.75 1.8 1.85 1.942.32
42.33
42.34
42.35
42.36
42.37
42.38
42.39
42.4
42.41GNS480 LatLon @ App6
Longitude(º)
Latit
ude(
º)
1.6 1.65 1.7 1.75 1.8 1.85 1.942.32
42.33
42.34
42.35
42.36
42.37
42.38
42.39
42.4
42.41GNS480 LatLon @ App7
Longitude(º)
Latit
ude(
º)
1212
Validation Validation Validation Validation ---- lateral profilelateral profilelateral profilelateral profile
1313
Validation Validation Validation Validation –––– vertical profilevertical profilevertical profilevertical profile� Stable descending at 750 ft/min at 70 KIAS� Height loss after the MAPt very small� High Climb gradient achieved after MAPt (>800 ft/min)
2.1195 2.12 2.1205 2.121 2.1215 2.122 2.1225
x 105
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
2200
GNS Altitude @ App6
time(s)
Alti
tude
(m)
2.11242.11242.11242.11252.11262.11262.11262.11272.11282.11282.1128
x 105
1220
1230
1240
1250
1260
1270
1280
1290
1300
1310
1320
GNS Altitude @ App5
time(s)
Alti
tude
(m)
14
14
Validation Validation Validation Validation –––– vertical profilevertical profilevertical profilevertical profile
1515
ConclusionsConclusionsConclusionsConclusions� Flyability:
• The helicopter was only VFR equipped and did not have an autopilot.
Hence, it is no adequate for IMC flight and requires higher piloting skills.
In spite of this, the procedure was easy to fly.
� Operational advantages:
• The designed LPV is an IFR approach simple to fly. It does not need
ground installation. It is as well helpful in case of bad weather, during
night and easy to set.
� Limitations observed:
• for the Missed Approach, with a target altitude of 10000 ft, and at the
IAF, at 7400 ft, it might be dangerous to fly in winter time without de-
icing systems.
� Guidance presented to the pilots:
• screen too small, low resolution. The CDA is not in direct field of view of
the pilot. AS 350 B3 used for the test was not an IFR helicopter with
stability augmentation, AP.
16
Questions?Questions?
philip.church@askhelios.com http://hedge.askhelios.com
17
The project has received Community research funding under the 7th Framework Programme
This material reflects only the author’s views and the Community and the GSA are not liable for any use that may be made of the information contained herein
top related