LPV procedures for HEMS Mountain Rescue (HEDGE WP2)

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?

[email protected] 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