The ILS Approach
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Philadelphia PA
Age: 73
Posts: 1,835
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Bomber Aris:
I agree. We should be looking for technology to unlock our potential.
I was lucky enough to fly approaches to a hover with Nick several (i.e too many) years ago, and was quite impressed. We have the technology, but not the political will.
My only concern with a decelerating approach to a low vis / ceiling is that we're going to need to have guidance down to the ground, as there will be a point on the approach where even a Category A helicopter will be committed to land if an engine fails. But given the state of Differential GPS, this should not be a difficult thing to do.
The real question is why don't we have it in work now?
Ask the FAA.
Ask HAI.
Ask AHS.
Ask AOPA (well, maybe not them).
Ask the EMS people.
Ask the military (by the way, we've had man portable ILS systems since the early '70s- ever see one in use in the military?)
I agree. We should be looking for technology to unlock our potential.
I was lucky enough to fly approaches to a hover with Nick several (i.e too many) years ago, and was quite impressed. We have the technology, but not the political will.
My only concern with a decelerating approach to a low vis / ceiling is that we're going to need to have guidance down to the ground, as there will be a point on the approach where even a Category A helicopter will be committed to land if an engine fails. But given the state of Differential GPS, this should not be a difficult thing to do.
The real question is why don't we have it in work now?
Ask the FAA.
Ask HAI.
Ask AHS.
Ask AOPA (well, maybe not them).
Ask the EMS people.
Ask the military (by the way, we've had man portable ILS systems since the early '70s- ever see one in use in the military?)
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Europe
Posts: 535
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK, so assume we're making the rules now for virtually zero/zero (let's say 100m vis 50ft cloud base) approaches. What are the criteria going to be? Let's assume ILS equipped field first.
What tolerence of horizontal positioning (in terms of metres, say) on the ILS LOC and G/S is currently assumed to be reasonable? And vertical, from the G/S? Assume at 200ft. Obviously DME will back up horiz and altimeter/RadAlt the vertical. Presumably as the cone narrows towards the bottom the accuracy of the kit increases, if not the pilot. Do we need Diff GPS for greater accuracy/back up?
Is this a limitation or is the biggest deal one of speed of transition from IF to visual required at v low level?
Another point. Assuming a std 3 deg G/S flown at 70kts, which is prob about as slow as you'd want to go on an approach, nil wind vertical speed is about 350 ft/min. It interests me how slow in terms of mph familiar vertical speeds are - as a rough guide divide ft/min by 100 - so this gives you 3.5 mph. With wheels, what vertical impact speed is the gear designed to withstand? Could you just run on a S76 with no flare at 3.5 mph V/S? Thinking of emergency rather than routine you understand!
Guess Nick and Shawn should know some answers!
What tolerence of horizontal positioning (in terms of metres, say) on the ILS LOC and G/S is currently assumed to be reasonable? And vertical, from the G/S? Assume at 200ft. Obviously DME will back up horiz and altimeter/RadAlt the vertical. Presumably as the cone narrows towards the bottom the accuracy of the kit increases, if not the pilot. Do we need Diff GPS for greater accuracy/back up?
Is this a limitation or is the biggest deal one of speed of transition from IF to visual required at v low level?
Another point. Assuming a std 3 deg G/S flown at 70kts, which is prob about as slow as you'd want to go on an approach, nil wind vertical speed is about 350 ft/min. It interests me how slow in terms of mph familiar vertical speeds are - as a rough guide divide ft/min by 100 - so this gives you 3.5 mph. With wheels, what vertical impact speed is the gear designed to withstand? Could you just run on a S76 with no flare at 3.5 mph V/S? Thinking of emergency rather than routine you understand!
Guess Nick and Shawn should know some answers!
Last edited by rotorspeed; 12th Feb 2005 at 12:45.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having flown over 500 of these fully coupled DGPS approaches, to a hover, in conditions as difficult as 25 knots direct downwind, at angles as steep as 9 degrees, I can tll you that yesterday's autopilots are capable of keepng the aircraft within about 3 feet of the center of the beam, so nothing technically stops the effort. The current nav systems are capable of accuracies within 1 meter, without a ground station, and one inch with one.
Shawn tells it right, the failure of regulators to create the criteria, and the failure of operators to ask for it is where we have ground to a halt.
Shawn tells it right, the failure of regulators to create the criteria, and the failure of operators to ask for it is where we have ground to a halt.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Europe
Posts: 535
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting Nick, thanks.
So are you saying that the industry has not actually put a worked up proposal to the regulators? Guess this would be the first step - at least it would give the regulators something to work on, because I don't suppose they're going take the initiative themselves, which is no surprise.
So are you saying that the industry has not actually put a worked up proposal to the regulators? Guess this would be the first step - at least it would give the regulators something to work on, because I don't suppose they're going take the initiative themselves, which is no surprise.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
rotorspeed,
You are right it is up to us, but the path is uphill!
It could start with an application from us, asking for approval for a particular system, but that would not get a new type of system approved, because it would be called a "special" and therefore a one-off. Each subsequent "special" would have to be approved from scratch at each location, as if the previous ones had never been done. This means special judgements, and no promise of capability until the procedure is done at each place.
To avoid that nonsense, we have to get a system (nav system, approach method, clear zones, geographic boundaries, obstruction clearances, publications) defined in the regulations as a normal one (like ILS, etc) so that rules would be codified and easily applied to each place.
New types of projects are hard to get approved right now. Since the FAA has embarked on a quest for a WAAS and a LAAS system approval, their funds and people are all tied up on these, neither of which has much applicability to us. They are not very useful to us because of the horribly bureaucratic means the FAA have applied to get these done, where the actual capability of the system is a fall-out, not a goal, of the system. (ie, the WAAS will get approved, we will tell you what the minumums are later, thank you very much. and oh, by the way, it will not be a good precision approach, but isn't that just too bad?)
The problem is simple, and we are bound to be miserable for a few more decades. What is the problem? The FAA owns the air, not us. If the Post Office invented email, we would be pasting stamps onto our monitors. If the Food and Drug Administration invented CAT scans, they would be housed inside old battleships. If the cell phone network were invented by the Feds, call phones would need small carts to drag the around. Innovation is brought about not by governments, but by enterprise, with operators and manufacturers all locked into commercial ventures to produce stuff and make it simple, safe, effective and operable.
In short, the FAA has exclusive rights to invent new procedures, and they couldn't find an inventor in the entire organization, with a microscope. No FAA guy will ever lose his job if he never invents another thing. Ergo, nothing will get done. Nothing, until we get the FAA to cede the creativity back to industry, and let us break loose with the technologies that have been around for a decade. The FAA would certainly have to ride shotgun on us, making sure it was safe. That is and should always be their job.
We are trying, I get fired up once per year! Maybe this thread will help.
You are right it is up to us, but the path is uphill!
It could start with an application from us, asking for approval for a particular system, but that would not get a new type of system approved, because it would be called a "special" and therefore a one-off. Each subsequent "special" would have to be approved from scratch at each location, as if the previous ones had never been done. This means special judgements, and no promise of capability until the procedure is done at each place.
To avoid that nonsense, we have to get a system (nav system, approach method, clear zones, geographic boundaries, obstruction clearances, publications) defined in the regulations as a normal one (like ILS, etc) so that rules would be codified and easily applied to each place.
New types of projects are hard to get approved right now. Since the FAA has embarked on a quest for a WAAS and a LAAS system approval, their funds and people are all tied up on these, neither of which has much applicability to us. They are not very useful to us because of the horribly bureaucratic means the FAA have applied to get these done, where the actual capability of the system is a fall-out, not a goal, of the system. (ie, the WAAS will get approved, we will tell you what the minumums are later, thank you very much. and oh, by the way, it will not be a good precision approach, but isn't that just too bad?)
The problem is simple, and we are bound to be miserable for a few more decades. What is the problem? The FAA owns the air, not us. If the Post Office invented email, we would be pasting stamps onto our monitors. If the Food and Drug Administration invented CAT scans, they would be housed inside old battleships. If the cell phone network were invented by the Feds, call phones would need small carts to drag the around. Innovation is brought about not by governments, but by enterprise, with operators and manufacturers all locked into commercial ventures to produce stuff and make it simple, safe, effective and operable.
In short, the FAA has exclusive rights to invent new procedures, and they couldn't find an inventor in the entire organization, with a microscope. No FAA guy will ever lose his job if he never invents another thing. Ergo, nothing will get done. Nothing, until we get the FAA to cede the creativity back to industry, and let us break loose with the technologies that have been around for a decade. The FAA would certainly have to ride shotgun on us, making sure it was safe. That is and should always be their job.
We are trying, I get fired up once per year! Maybe this thread will help.
Last edited by NickLappos; 12th Feb 2005 at 22:07.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Over here
Posts: 1,030
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bureaucracy is always resistant to change, and the operators are the ones who have to force it. But these approaches do require full autopilots, AFAIK, and those cost money to acquire and maintain. It seems there just isn't enough profit to be gained from operating at those conditions to justify paying for the additional equipment, at least in the opinion of the operators. If there were obvious profit to be made, they would be clamoring for the approaches. They aren't. And they aren't putting flight directors in helicopters, either. Some are taking out even the Phase 3 provisions from their S76s, because they don't want to maintain them, and don't want the pilots to become lazy by relying on electronics to do their jobs.
It continues to amaze me how idiots get to be in control of companies.
It continues to amaze me how idiots get to be in control of companies.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gomer,
You hit the nail right on. The question is always "what more can I do, what will it cost to do it, and what can I charge for doing it?" Then we can price the extra business against the cost and decide. But until the procedure is a possibility we can't even whip out the calculator!
I think that we have seen the progression of helo ops toward full capability, just like airplanes went, but 40 years later. We actually debated if we should offer a VFR-only S-76!! We built and tested it, certified it, and sold ONE! Deice is the next boundary, and we will accept that as needed, ordinary and ho hum.
Then, I contend that full zero zero approach to helipads will be needed just to compete, probably in less than a decade. Yes, it will take a full autopilot, but it will help eliminate any reason to cancel, it will help eliminate CFIT and it will make helo ops as reliable as airplane ops. One accident for the fleet per decade would pay for every autopilot.
After we get zero-zero to helipads, I predict that we will have to develop zero-zero approach to anywhere (yes, anywhere) so that helo ops will be brought to a level of assurance and safety that makes them available everywhere.
You hit the nail right on. The question is always "what more can I do, what will it cost to do it, and what can I charge for doing it?" Then we can price the extra business against the cost and decide. But until the procedure is a possibility we can't even whip out the calculator!
I think that we have seen the progression of helo ops toward full capability, just like airplanes went, but 40 years later. We actually debated if we should offer a VFR-only S-76!! We built and tested it, certified it, and sold ONE! Deice is the next boundary, and we will accept that as needed, ordinary and ho hum.
Then, I contend that full zero zero approach to helipads will be needed just to compete, probably in less than a decade. Yes, it will take a full autopilot, but it will help eliminate any reason to cancel, it will help eliminate CFIT and it will make helo ops as reliable as airplane ops. One accident for the fleet per decade would pay for every autopilot.
After we get zero-zero to helipads, I predict that we will have to develop zero-zero approach to anywhere (yes, anywhere) so that helo ops will be brought to a level of assurance and safety that makes them available everywhere.
