Slashdot Mirror
NASA Helps Clearing The Fog
Roland Piquepaille writes "NASA's Aviation Safety and Security Program wants to cut fatal accident rates by 80 percent over the next ten years. To reach this goal, NASA researchers used "tunnel-in-the-sky" synthetic vision systems (SVS) in recent flights on a Gulfstream V over Reno, Nevada. A guest pilot for Aviation Week & Space Technology (AWST) went onboard and writes that 'NASA Team Brings Synthetic Vision to Maturity.' He was able to see that SVS concepts, such as voice-controlled synthetic vision displays, a runway incursion protection system, database integrity monitoring technology, and enhanced vision sensors meshed with SVS images, were really effective in eliminating low-visibility-induced accidents. However, NASA doesn't say anything about the availability of SVS for commercial airlines. This summary contains more details and illustrations about key SVS concepts."
from radar?
Bush claims prior art on synthetic vision.
CLEARING THE FOG
."--Charles A. Lindbergh.
"What I really need is a pair of spectacles to see through the fog. . .
Almost eight decades and a host of hard-won technological advances later, NASA's Langley Research Center and its government, industry and university partners are delivering the equivalent of Lindbergh's fog-penetrating spectacles.
Recent flights here on a Gulfstream V (GV) testbed demonstrated that NASA's consortium of researchers has brought "tunnel-in-the-sky" synthetic vision systems (SVS) to an impressive level of functionality. Tweaking of some features is still warranted, and a suite of enhanced-vision sensors (EVS) is yet to be fully incorporated, but a transition from research to commercial products is clearly in the offing.
The research and demo flights at Reno/Tahoe International Airport last month marked the latest phase of NASA's Aviation Safety and Security Program, which aims to cut fatal accident rates by 80% over 10 years. In 2001, similar evaluation flights on a NASA-Langley Boeing 757 were flown at Eagle County Regional Airport near Vail, Colo. Those highlighted individual elements of SVS, and garnered valuable inputs from NASA, airline, FAA and Boeing pilots (AW&ST Oct. 29, 2001, p. 78).
This summer's Reno deployment focused on integrating several SVS elements to give pilots not only excellent airborne situational awareness, but also runway incursion protection on the ground, and a means of ensuring computer-generated displays are accurate depictions of the environment. I was one of several guest pilots given the opportunity to fly in the GV's left seat and see a number of NASA and Rockwell Collins SVS concepts. Specifically, new integrated concepts included:
* Synthetic vision displays.
* A runway incursion protection system (Rips).
* Enhanced-vision sensors, such as forward-looking infrared (Flir) and advanced weather radar systems, mated with SVS images.
* Database integrity monitoring equipment.
By most pilots' accounts, NASA's team has done an excellent job of meeting the goal of its Synthetic Vision Systems Project: finding ways to eliminate low-visibility-induced accidents. Specifically, the project sought to develop technologies and procedures to avoid CFIT--controlled flight into terrain--during poor weather and at night.
Researchers aimed to "make every flight the equivalent of clear-day operations--what we call 'virtual VMC' [visual meteorological conditions]," said Daniel G. Baize, NASA-Langley's SVS project manager. "SVS is another layer of protection on top of enhanced ground proximity [warning systems]--a great tool in itself--but synthetic vision will give a more intuitive and more advanced warning of a potential terrain [encounter]."
Although definitions vary, NASA's team decided "enhanced vision" refers to sensor-based means of giving pilots information about terrain and man-made features when visibility is obscured. "Synthetic vision" is an artificial, computer-generated view based on a detailed terrain database. Combining the two can either be done via "fusion"--creating one image by melding sensor and database elements--or "integration," which overlays sensor and terrain data.
The latter "provides the flight crew with a synthetic view of the environment, regardless of the weather or time of day," Baize says. "We always start with the database, which includes terrain [and] obstacles. Then we position you within that database to the highest degree of accuracy possible . . . using a differential GPS system [at Reno]. We then confirm your position in the database with a variety of sensors."
During the Reno demonstration-flight phase, the GV's standard Kollsman Inc. "All-Weather Window" infrared-based system provided thermal imagery to both head-up and head-down displays, when selected. A recipient of Frost & Sullivan's 2004 Technology Innovation Award, the Kollsman EVS operates in the 1-5-micron region, which allows b
as in more visual. Most ground-based beacons and VORs and the like can provide "tunnels" to airplanes, and autopilots can bridge the gap in between places with beacons, but until now it was rather conceptual. That new technology allows pilots to visualize directly the virtual route.
Commercial airplanes could benefit from this today, which is what's great.
Have you heard of the tall poppy syndrome?
The ILS (instrument landing system) allows very low visibility (zero-zero) approaches using a glidesope indicator for height and localizer for direction, however, often flights are cancelled because fog prevents safe manouvering on the ground. What is really needed is a way to see static and moving objects through the fog. The visualization technology is cute and would be especially useful for training.
A runway incursion protection system (Rips).
Guess they really had to add "system". Too bad, this screwed up an interesting acronym.
my balls....
NOW BITCH!!!
It's been three decades since the average number of incident per million movement has stagnated, how do this project's managers think they'll be effective where nothing was in all this time ?
Adding information to the pilot's input is probably not a good idea. Risk management experts such as René Amalberti have explained in great length that sensory overload exhausts cognitive resources, leaving little for actual piloting. The only few occasions where some new information technology would probably prove useful are situations where lack of information leads to a dangerous difference between what the pilot THINKS is happening, and what is REALLY happening. These sorts of difference is what leads to catastrophe (Sharm el Cheik being only one). I think there are a number of occasions where the SVS would help, but how many new loopholes, how many false assumptions ("The system does not show THAT so the situation is safe") will it introduce ?
I'll keep my doubt until I see the system's limitations.
Maybe we deserve this world ?
This guy is a troll!
Wonder when we'll get to see this same technology on production automobiles. I remember hearing about multiple-car pileups in larger cities due only to foggy or otherwise low-visibility conditions. Think of the number of lives this could save.
Don't blame me -- I voted for Roslin.
From the statistics on this web site it becomes clear that low-visibility landings account for far less than 80% of the crashes. So other measures are necessary as well if plane crashes are to be reduced by that factor.
As I get it, the point is not that the position information is more accurate,as it still comes from the same mix of radio beacons, inertial navigation systems an GPS datas. It is just that the data is more readable for the pilot.
;-)
Yet i'm not sure it's more useful: Commercial airliners are _all_ equiped with "Flight directors", with seems to be the best info a pilot could get. It is displayed as two bars on the artificial horizon, and tells the pilot which way he should move the commands to follow in the best possible way the planned route, heading, vertical speed, ILS, speed, whatever the pilot chose to follow.
It uses derivates to the second degree of the raw position data to compute intercept path and anticipations, and following it is a breeze : just keep the cross centered, and you'll get a smooth, perfect trajectory. Cross up, you pull until it's centered. Cross left, bank left until centered. No brain required.
I'm not sure fancy graphics would be quite as reliable or useful: have you ever tried following a tunnel thing in some flight simulator ? It's much harder than stupidly keeping a cross centered, especially after a long trancoceanic flight
By the way, here's some sort of a photo of Roland. Now, that's the only picture of RP I could find anywhere on the net, and it's been doctored. Clearly the guy is trying hard to not show his face, I wonder why...
the whole point of this system is to remedy sensory underload. when you've got good visibility, if the synthetic displays get in the way, you just turn them off.
A lot of accidents could be avoided if private pilots were encouraged more to acquire instrument ratings
Can't speak for the FAA, but here in the UK our equivalent, the CAA; does little to encourage private pilots to take up instrument training. It could be argued that the requirements are even obstructive, much of the training is overly complex, unnecessary and much will only ever apply to airline pilots. This of course adds to the cost, and flying is expensive over here as it is.
GA pilots here frequently bend the rules and often fly VFR in IMC. Most of the time they get away with it but some will inevitably find themselves in the shit when the unpredictable British weather closes in. If basic and affordable instrument training was available then many of these situations wouldn't happen.
For all intensive porpoises your a bunch of rediculous loosers
How expesive is it going to be ??????
HSI's are expensive enough that not every one has them...!!!
80%.... I dont think so.
More over, this is so unrealistic, that it really makes me think this is being done by scientists with 0 flight hours, not pilots.
I love flying, and I think the situation is so sad.
The FAA presumes every year of declining accident rates, yes, sure, what they dont tell you is that their pretty charts dont show the also declining number of total pilots every year.
I can see it, by 2020, new mandatory equipment for all IFR flight!!! Great 100 less accidents on its first year....... beacuse 100 less pilots who could nor afford it....
We dont need new fancy computer equipment, we need
to make more efficient what we already have.
We need for airplanes, what Robinson just did for helicopters
Instead of adding fancy equipement NASA should invest
in making current equipment more efficient and cheap!
Most GA airplanes are over 20 years old!!!
The radios are around 5-15 years old on average in a GA airplane, the VOR navigation dates from the second world war!.......
We dont need to add toys to this, we need to fix what we already have.
... I'm surprised no one has noted the acronym for Tunnel In The Sky.
:-)
I'm so immature (though probably older than 95% of Slashdot posters).
- S
here.
Okay, it's not quite the same thing as described in TFA, but...
About 10 years back I did some (non-sensitive) work on a test platform for the Tiger helicopter project. One of the experimental bits was an AR (augmented reality) feature; a laser scanner in the nose detected power lines up ahead and traced over them in REALLY BRIGHT COLOURS on the helmet visor.
You can see how something like that could be a lifesaver. Those things flew very low, and pretty fast. Not sure whether the feature made it into the final production model, though.
See? Prior art! How dare they try to patent... oh, wait. Sorry, wrong story.
Ever have it all go black as pitch in a heartbeat, with you fumbling for your flashlight, and half an antiquated partial panel, a stopwatch, a wad of Jepp charts and a merrily bouncing mag compass between you and destiny?
What saved you then, brave airman, as your synthetic vision system "tunnel in the sky" caressed you with its blank black silence?
Roland is a link-whoring blog spammer.
why do we have to ahve these posts to this blog that just reposts other stories?? its useless - all we need are links to the original stories for christ's sake!
SURELY NOT!!!!!
79 stories posted (with obligatory, self-promoting links) this year. That's about one every three days. What does this blog offer besides copy and paste links to the original articles? Advertising!
This is pathetic, and it's obvious there is some kind of monetary link between Roll 'Em and the /. editors.
Way back in 1999, this was funny. Now, it's just sadly true:
http://humorix.org/articles/1999/02/slashdot-bait/
Subject: MAKE MONEY FAST FROM SLASHDOT!!!!!!
Date: February 2, 1999
From: friend@public.com
To: humorix@i-want-a-website.com
Dear Friend,
You can earn $50,000 or more in next the 90 days. Seem impossible? Read on for details.
This message has been targeted to webmasters of Linux-related sites. You are probably familiar with the Slashdot.org "News for Nerds" site. You've probably heard about the "Slashdot Effect". Now, we want to introduce a new term that could change your life: "Slashdot Baiting".
As shown by the investigation of the Slashdot Effect by Stephen Adler, this force can be a significant source of traffic. Lots of traffic. Thousands of visitors within hours. Thousands of eyeballs looking and clicking at YOUR banner advertisements. In short, the Slashdot Effect, if properly utilized, can produce a significant amount of advertising revenue.
That's where we at MoneyDot Lucrative Marketing International Group, Inc. come in. We know how to exploit the Slashdot Effect. We call our strategy "Slashdot Baiting".
The process is simple:
Move your site (if you haven't already) to a host that offers unlimited bandwidth. Put lots of advertisements and other marketing fluff on your website. "Bait" one of the Slashdot posters to link to your site. Receive thousands of visitors within hours; show lots of banners. Cash the checks from your sponsors. Repeat the process.
Step #3 is the tough part -- if you don't have our help. We here at MoneyDot Lucrative Marketing (MLM) have studied the process by which Rob Malda, Sengan, Hemos, and the other Slashdot contributors decide which links to feature. We know what they will, and won't publish. We know exactly what to do to get them to hit your site with the Slashdot Effect.
It's quite painless. We have formulated 101 easy ways to get your site mentioned on Slashdot
Let's take an example, Bait Tactic #65: "If you write for a mainstream media source, mention Slashdot in one of your articles. One of your readers is bound to be a Slashdot regular, and is likely to tell one of the Slashdot contributors about your article." This worked for the New York Times. They mentioned the uproar on Slashdot in response to a patent on real-time gaming. Soon thereafter, the Times article was mentioned on Slashdot, resulting in thousands of visitors. If Slashdot Baiting works for the New York Times, it can work for you.
Interested in pursuing Slashdot Baiting and obtaining financial independence? Want to make $50,000 (or more!) within 90 days?
Then purchase MLM's "Slashdot Baiting Kit", which will contain everything you need to know to put this powerful marketing force to work for YOU! This Kit contains all 101 Bait Tactics, information on how to attract lucrative sponsors, pointers to website hosting services known to handle the stress of the Slashdot Effect, along with other important information you need to get started! We also throw in a warranty: if your site isn't mentioned on Slashdot within 90 days of using this Kit, we'll give you your money back [minus processing fees], guaranteed!
Purchase the SLASHDOT BAITING KIT today for only $49.95! Don't delay! Call 1-877-SLSH-DOT toll-free now! Serious inquiries only; please have your credit card handy when calling.
Thank you for your time.
It also depends on the usefulness of informations supplied. If it provides a false sense of security to a pilot, the risks of incidents are increased.
Maybe we deserve this world ?
Following a tunnel in a flight simulator is hard. That much is true, especially if the tunnel doesn't follow a smooth curve and have obstructions jutting out randomly. But I believe much of the trouble there is that flight simulators lack a fundamental sensory input to the pilot - acceleration. I believe the human brain relies heavily on inertial "feedback" from the body, mostly the inner ear, to "right" itself in a fall. You never really hear about deaf gymnasts. As for the "No brain required" part, it isn't necessarily easier to align a cross in some display. Ask any fighter pilot how difficult it is to acquire a target lock on a Mig-29 in a dogfight. Aligning elements in a display is generally easy in smooth, mostly level flight, but in a critical situation (ie, tunnel flight, stalling, or dynamic instability) it can be easy to lose control and watch the cross woosh off-screen. Of course, at that point, you've already soiled yourself and become nauseous from the vibration.
Commerical and military: http://www.syntheticvision.com/ General Aviation: http://avsp.larc.nasa.gov/pdfs/SVS_GA_FAA-WS/SVS-G A_Overview.pdf
University Research: http://opl.ecn.uiowa.edu/
The Synthetic Vision that NASA has been working on is already available for both the experimental and certified market from Chelton (formerly Sierra) Flight Systems. http://www.sierraflightsystems.com/default.htm
When it was being developed, it was only $10k for the single display. (It's more now, especially for the certified version). But it can replace your six-pack and engine instruments.
What it does, far from confusing the pilot with more abstraction, is to put a virtual VFR display in its window. You see the terrain. You see obstructions like antennae. You see traffic, and the horizon. A flight path (such as an ILS, a STAR or SID, a hold or procedure turn) is displayed on the screen as a series of rectangles. Fly through the boxes, which most people find very instinctive, and you arrive where you expect to be.
As far as the guy who posits screens going black, engineers prevent this the same way they keep bridges from falling over, or systems from tanking: they engineer redundancy into the system. To begin with, the single AHRS unit and displays of the system are each much, much more reliable than any one of the steam-gages they replace. (Ever lose a vacuum pump? It powers the single artificial horizon in most single-engine aircraft, and it has an MTBF of about 700 hours). Means of redundancy include:
- dual electrical systems
- dual display units
- backup steam gages (limited set: AH, DG, airspeed).
- Usually multiple means of redundancy are fitted (belt and suspenders approach).
Glass panels are coming to general aviation. Every significant maker at Oshkosh this year was touting his Avidyne or Garmin glass panel. Blue Mountain and Chelton are other options (the Chelton is the only one with terrain or synthetic vision).There's really nothing you can do to a panel-mount VOR receiver, for instance, to make it less costly. Most of the cost is in the required certification, the TSO. And the unit volume is too low for the maker to be able to spread that cost out a lot. That is why the design of these navigational devices has been frozen for so many years. We're lucky the FAA wasn't created before they decommissioned the A-N Radio ranges or we'd still be flying those beastly things.
Oh wait, you mean we still don't get those? Damn...
You know, this is wonderful technology, but we've been reading about it for the last 10 years in Popular Science. Reminds me of the Moeller aircar. Either put this crap into production, or shut the fuck up. I'm tired of reading about how cool it is, and flying day in and day out on the same old steam guages I've used for the last 20 years. ...Sort of like being permanantly stuck on the "house of the future" ride at Disneyland.
There is something like this on the market for experimental aircraft http://www.sierraflightsystems.com/symbology.htm/
"Written on the pages is the answer to the never ending story..."
Reno very rarely has fog so it seems an odd choice.
I've jumped in with this some time ago in response to an earlier Slashdot HUD-in-the-motorcycle-helmet article, but I'll say this again:
It has been shown that this task is a divided attention one (obviously). Hence, when a "highway in the sky" or runway overlay is added, this tends to draw attention to it - and away, in the study (Ames Lab, I think it was) from the sample Cessna that pulled out in front of the sim during landing.
Pilots on the sim landed "through" the small plane without reporting seeing it. 2 pilots, upon hearing the result and seeing the tapes, felt that they ought not fly anymore.
Point being: it is a dangerous thing to try to augment reality when a mission-critical, divided-attention task is being carried out. Disagree if you will, but there are some tasks that are better left as ACTIVE, IMO.
N
I haven't RTFA (I'm not too interested), but I did see there was VOICE CONTROLLED vision, blah blah blah. Are they insane? I wouldn't want anything to be voice controlled in a plane. What if the pilot starts getting a cold? Something causes his voice to change. I don't see why anything needs to be voice controlled anyway, especially something that helps the pilot see!
I would hope that the GPWS has something to say about that mountian.
Robert A. Heinlein's book.