Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-8kt4b Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-29T02:52:48.913Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The making of helicopter flying qualities: a requirements perspective

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 July 2016

Gareth D. Padfield
Gareth D. Padfield*
Affiliation:
Flight Management and Control Department , Defence Evaluation and Research Agency, Bedford, UK
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this review paper, a recurring theme is the interplay between flying qualities as a technical discipline and flying qualities as an operational attribute. This interplay provides the setting for a presentation on the status of helicopter flying quahties, using maritime helicopter operations as the focus, particularly the recovery phase and the helicopter-ship dynamic interface. Poor weather, inducing high sea states and ship motion, along with complex, invisible and disturbing airflow and degraded visibility, make the dynamic interface a particularly demanding environment for both pilot and helicopter.

Flying qualities are a product of four elements — the aircraft, the pilot, the task and the environment — and the maritime application serves to give this viewpoint its full perspective. Mission-oriented flying quahties engineering is described within the systems framework of Aeronautical Design Standard 33 (ADS-33), utilising concepts like the mission task element, usable cue environment, response type and dynamic response criteria. The innovative constructs introduced by ADS-33 for flying qualities in degraded visual conditions are given special attention. The paper argues that the requirements for what constitutes safe and easy, or Level 1, flying qualities now exist and are well substantiated. New aircraft can now be designed to achieve these performance and safety standards while existing aircraft can be upgraded with integrated flight management systems featuring advanced control/flying qualities technologies.

In this context, the paper also promotes the concept of concurrent requirements capture and preliminary design, to maximise the likelihood that user requirements are achieved and that designs are robust and work first time. The multidisciplinary nature of flying qualities is emphasised, embracing aeromechanics and flight dynamics, controls and displays and human factors. Similarly, the importance of high-fidelity design tools and comprehensive evaluation methods in the concurrent process is stressed.

Handling deficiencies can increase the risk of helicopter accidents, particularly in degraded visual conditions or in emergencies where excursions beyond the operational flight envelope can lead to piloting difficulties. These situations are the new challenges for flying qualities engineers, and two areas are discussed here in some detail. First, flight in severely degraded visual conditions, highlighting the importance of understanding the fundamentals of human visual perception in the development of integrated control and display augmentation. Second, handling qualities following tail rotor failures are discussed and results from current research to develop new advice for aircrew are presented. The author takes the view that much more can and needs to be done to assist the pilot in the management of the tension between performance and safety in helicopter operations, through the provision of improved flying qualities.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 102 , Issue 1018 , December 1998 , pp. 409 - 437
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Aeronautical Society 1998 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Stewart, W. Flight testing of helicopters, the 745th lecture to the Royal Aeronautical Society, 29 January 1948.Google Scholar
2. Stewart, W. and Zbrozek, J.K. Loss of Control Incident on S-51 Helicopter VW209, RAE Technical Report Aero 2270, 1948.Google Scholar
3. ATCOM, Aeronautical Design Standard (ADS-33D) — Handling Qualities for Military Helicopters, US Army ATCOM, 1994.Google Scholar
4. Padfield, G.D. and Hodgkinson, J. The influence of flying qualities on operational agility, AGARD CP 548, Technologies for Highly manoeuvrable Aircraft, Maryland, 1993.Google Scholar
5. AGARD, Operational Agility, AGARD Advisory Report AR 314, April 1994.Google Scholar
6. Brotherhood, P. and Charlton, M.T. An assessment of helicopter turning performance during NoE flight, RAE TM FS(B) 534, January 1984.Google Scholar
7. Charlton, M.T., Padfield, G.D. and Horton, R.I. Helicopter agility in low speed manoeuvres, 13th European Rotorcraft Forum, Arles, September 1987 (also RAE TM FM 22, April 1989).Google Scholar
8. FAA, Federal Aviation Regulations Part 29 — Airworthiness Standards for Transport Category Rotorcraft, FAA, 1983.Google Scholar
9. CAA, British Civil Airworthiness Requirements, BCAR 29, Rotorcraft, CAA, Issue 83, 1986.Google Scholar
10. UK Defence Standard 00970; Design and Airworthiness Requirements for Service Aircraft, Vol 2 Rotorcraft — Book 1, 1988.Google Scholar
11. Martyn, A.W., Phipps, P. and Mustard, E. The use of simulation to develop an improved understanding of helicopter tail rotor failures and aircrew emergency advice, AGARD CP 592, Advances in Rotorcraft Technology, April 1997.Google Scholar
12. Hodgkinson, J., Page, M., Preston, J. and Gillette, D. Continuous flying quality improvement — the measure and the payoff, AIAA Paper 92-4327, Guidance, Navigation and Control Conference, Hilton Head Island, S Carolina, August 1992.Google Scholar
13. Padfield, G.D. Helicopter Flight Dynamics, Blackwell Science, Oxford, UK, 1996.Google Scholar
14. Schrage, D. The impact of TQM and concurrent engineering on the aircraft design process, American Helicopter Society Conference on Vertical Lift Technology, San Francisco, 1989.Google Scholar
15. Tate, S. and Padfield, G.D. Simulating flying qualities at the helicopter/Ship dynamic interface, Proceedings of the 50th Annual Forum of the AHS, Washington DC, May 1994.Google Scholar
16. Padfield, G.D. and Wilkinson, C.H. Handling qualities criteria for maritime helicopter operations, 53rd Annual Forum of the American Helicopter Society, Virginia Beach, Va, USA, April 1997.Google Scholar
17. Cooper, G.E. and Harper, R.P. The use of pilot ratings in the evaluation of aircraft handling qualities, NASA TM D-5133, 1969.Google Scholar
18. ANON. GeneralRequirementsfor Helicopter Flying and Ground Handling Qualities; Mil-H-8501A, 1961.Google Scholar
19. Hoh, R. New developments in flying qualities criteria with application to rotary wing aircraft, Helicopter Handling Qualities, NASA CP 2219, April 1982.Google Scholar
20. Strachan, M.W., Shubert, A.W. and Wilson, A.W. Development and validation of ADS-33C handling qualities flight test manoeuvres for cargo helicopters, proceedings of the AHS 50th annual Forum, Washington DC, USA, May 1994.Google Scholar
21. Padfield, G.D., Charlton, M.T., Mace, T. and Morton, R. Flying qualities evaluation of the UKAH contenders using the ADS-33 methodology, proceedings of the 21st European Rotorcraft Forum, St Petersburg, August 1995.Google Scholar
22. Benquet, P., Rollet, P., Pausder, H.J. and Gollnick, V. Tailoring of ADS-33 for the NH90 programme, Proceedings of the 52nd American Helicopter Society Annual Forum, Washington DC, USA, June 1996.Google Scholar
23. Williams, S.L. and Long, K.R. Dynamic interface flight tests and the pilot rating scale, Proceedings of the 53rd Annual Forum of the American Helicopter Society, Virginia Beach, VA, USA, April 1997.Google Scholar
24. ANON. RN Aircraft Operating Handbook, Chapter 20, Factors Affecting Embarked Operations, BR766(C)(1), CINCFLEET/FSAG/P766C, February 1996.Google Scholar
25. Hoh, R.H. Handling qualities criterion for very low visibility rotorcraft NoE operations, AGARD CP 423, October 1986.Google Scholar
26. Lumsden, R.B., Padfield, G.D. and Wilkinson, C.H. Challenges at the helicopter-ship dynamic interface, proceedings of the 24th European Rotorcraft Forum, Marseilles, France, September 1998.Google Scholar
27. Wilkinson, C.H. and Padfield, G.D. A requirements capture manual for maritime helicopter handling qualities — a guidance note; unpublished DERA report, June 1997.Google Scholar
28. Howitt, J., Whalley, M.S., Strange, M.E. and Dudgeon, G.J.W. An investigation of the impact of automatic flight control system saturation on handling qualities in hover/low speed manoeuvres. Proceedings of the 54th Annual Forum of the American Helicopter Society, Washington DC, USA, May 1998.Google Scholar
29. Brocklehurst, A. A significant improvement to the low speed yaw control of the Sea King using a tail boom strake, 11th European Rotorcraft Forum, London, UK, September 1985.Google Scholar
30. Wilson, J.C., Kelley, H.L. and Donahue, C.C. Development in helicopter tail boom strake applications in the United States, RAeS International Conference on Helicopter Handling Qualities and Control, London, UK, November 1988.Google Scholar
31. Ellin, A.D.S. An In-Flight Experimental Investigation of Helicopter Main Rotor/Tail Rotor Interactions, PhD Thesis, University of Glas gow, Aerospace Engineering Department, April 1993.Google Scholar
32. Ellin, A.D.S. An in-flight investigation of Lynx AH Mk5 mainrotor/tail rotor interactions, 19th European Rotorcraft Forum, Cemobbio, Italy, September 1993.Google Scholar
33. Srinivas, V., Chopra, I., Haas, D. and McCool, K. Prediction of yaw control effectiveness and tail rotor loads, 19th European Rotorcraft Forum, Cernobbio, Italy, September 1993.Google Scholar
34. ANON Flying Qualities of Piloted Airplanes; Mil F - 8785C, USAF, 1980.Google Scholar
35. Schroeder, J.A. and Eshow, M.E. Improvements in hover display dynamics for a combat helicopter, piloting vertical flight aircraft — A NASA/AHS Conference on Flying Qualities and Human Factors, San Francisco, January 1993.Google Scholar
36. Zalenka, R.E. et al Results from the NASA Automated Nap-of-the- Earth Program, J Amer Heli Soc, April 1997, 42, (2).Google Scholar
37. Padfield, G.D., Tomlinson, B.N. and Wells, .M. Simulation studies of helicopter agility and other topics, RAE Tech Memo FS197, July 1978.Google Scholar
38. Landis, K.H. and Aiken, E.W. An assessment of various sidestick controller/Stability and control augmentation systems for night nap-of-the-Earth flight using piloted simulation, NASA CP 2219, 1982.Google Scholar
39. Massey, C.P. Pilot/control system interfaces for future ACT equipped helicopters, Proceedings of the12th European Rotorcraft Forum, Garmisch Partenkirchen, September 1986.Google Scholar
40. Morgan, J.M. and Sinclair, S.R.M. The use of integrated side-arm controllers in helicopters, AGARD CP-425, October 1987.Google Scholar
41. Morgan, J.M. In-flight research into the use of integrated side-stick controllers in a variable stability helicopter, RAeS Conference on Helicopter Handling Qualities and Control, London, UK, November 1988.Google Scholar
42. Turner, G.P. A Validation of the HELISIM3 Flight Mechanics Model configured as a Lynx for application to flying qualities predictions at hover, unpublished DERA report, December 1997.Google Scholar
43. Padfield, G.D., et al. The Fidelity of HiFiLynx on the DERA Advanced Flight Simulator using ADS-33 handling qualities metrics, unpublished DERA report, December 1996.Google Scholar
44. DuVal, R.W. A real-time blade clement helicopter simulation for handling qualities analysis, 15th European Rotorcraft Forum, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, September 1989.Google Scholar
45. Fitziohn, D., Turner, G.P. and Padfield, G.D. The use of modelling and simulation in support of first of class flying trials. Proceedings of the 24th European Rotorcraft Forum, Marseilles, France, September 1998.Google Scholar
46. Tate, S. The development and application of novel visual aids to increase operational limits at the helicopter/ship dynamic interface, Proceedings of the 51st Annual Forum of the American Helicopter Society, Fort Worth, Tx, USA, May 1995.Google Scholar
47. Padfield, G.D., et al. An integrated methodology manual for the evaluation of rotorcraft day/night all weather systems, unpublished DERA report, June 1996.Google Scholar
48. Deighton, C.B.D. Towards the development of an integrated human factors and engineering evaluation methodology for rotorcraft day/night all weather systems, unpublished DERA report, December 1997.Google Scholar
49. Gibson, J.J., et al. Parallax and perspective during aircraft landings, American J Psychology, 1955, 68.Google Scholar
50. Gibson, J.J. Perception of the Visual World, The Riverside Press, Houghton Mifflen Company, Boston, Mass, USA, 1950.Google Scholar
51. Gibson, J.J. The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception, LEA Publishers, NJ, USA, 1986.Google Scholar
52. Bruce, V., Green, P.R. and Georgeson, M.A. Visual Perception, Physiology, Psychology and Ecology, 3rd edition, Psychology Press, Hove, UK, 1996.Google Scholar
53. Johnson, W.W and, Awe, C.A. The selective use of functional optical variables in the control of forward speed, NASA TM 108849, September 1994.Google Scholar
54. Johnson, W.W and Kaiser, M.K. (Eds). Visually guided control of movement, NASA CP 3118, 1991.Google Scholar
55. Perrone, J.A. The perception of surface layout during low level flight, NASA CP 3118, 1991.Google Scholar
56. Johnson, W.W., et al. Optical variables useful in the active control of altitude, 23rd Manual Control Conference, Cambridge, MA, USA, June 1988.Google Scholar
57. Johnson, W.W and Phatak, A.V. Optical variables and control strategy used in a visual hover task, IEEE Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, Cambridge MA, USA, November 1989.Google Scholar
58. Johnson, W.W. and Andre, A.D. Visual cueing aids for rotorcraft landings, Piloting Vertical Flight Aircraft: A NASA/AHS Conference on flying qualities and human factors, San Francisco, CA, 1993.Google Scholar
59. Kaiser, M.K., et al. Visual augmentation for night flight over feature-less terrain, 48th Annual Forum of the American Helicopter Society, Washington DC, USA, June 1992.Google Scholar
60. Cutting, J.E. Perception with an Eye for Motion, A Bradford Book, The MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass, USA, 1986.Google Scholar
61. Lee, D.N. The optic flow field: the foundation of vision, Phil Trans RSoc London, 1980, B 290, pp 169–179.Google Scholar
62. Lee, D.N. Visual Information during Locomotion, in ‘Perception — Essays in Honor of James J. Gibson, Cornell University Press, 1974.Google Scholar
63. Lee, D.N. and Young, D.S. Visual Timing of Interceptive Action, in Brain Mechanisms and Spatial Vision, (pp 1–30), Dordretch: Martinus Nijhoff, 1985.Google Scholar
64. Lee, D.N., Young, D.S. and Rewt, D. How do somersaulters land on their feet? J Exp Psychology, Human Perception and Performance, 1992,18, pp 1195–1202.Google Scholar
65. Lee, D.N. A theory of visual control of braking based on information about time to collision, Perception, 1976, 5.Google Scholar
66. Kaiser, M.K. and Mowafy, L. Visual information for judging temporal range, piloting vertical flight aircraft — A Conference on Flying Qualities and Human Factors; NASA/AHS, San Francisco, USA, 1993.Google Scholar
67. Charlton, M.T., et al. The development of a methodology for the prediction of pilot workload and the influence on effectiveness in rotorcraft mission tasks, proceedings of the 24th European Rotorcraft Forum, Marseilles, France, September 1998.Google Scholar
68. Cutting, J.E. Optical flow versus retinal flow as sources of information for flight guidance, NASA CP 3118, 1991.Google Scholar
69. Hoh, R. ACAH augmentation as a means to alleviate spacial disorientation for low speed and hover in helicopters, American Helicopter Society International Conference on Advanced Rotorcraft Technology and Disaster Relief, Heli Japan, Gifu City, Japan, April 1998.Google Scholar
70. Page, M., Gillette, D., , Hodgkinson, J. and Preston, J. Quantifying the pilot's contribution to flight safety, International Air Safety Seminar, Flight Safety Foundation, Long Beach, California, USA, November 1992, MDC Paper 92K0377.Google Scholar
71. Massey, C. and Howitt, J. Advances in helicopter carefree handling and control augmentation, advances in rotorcraft technology, AGARD CP 592, April 1997.Google Scholar
72. Ellin, A.D.S. Lt Cdr Active reduction of aircraft attrition rates — by design, Cockpit: The Royal Navy Flight Safety Magazine, 145, 1993.Google Scholar