How a Glass Cockpit is Born

[vikingBerserker]

Ain't that the truth!

 

[Matt308]

.

The cockpit is totally compliant for GATM out to 2030, the only thing lacking is the HUD but the aircraft are configured for retrofit. A HUD system is over $1M per cockpit and it was decided to invest into the Hamilton-Electronic Propeller Control System.
.

How in the hell can use of an EFB used as primary or secondary instruments for regulatory credit be GATM compliant? The USAF SPOs have never in the past wanted to deviate from civil regulations for anything other than mission equipment. I have to assume you are using the term GATM in a very generic sense of upgrading any military aircraft to civil standards and not referring to the actual US GATM program.

 

[krieghund]

How in the hell can use of an EFB used as primary or secondary instruments for regulatory credit be GATM compliant? The USAF SPOs have never in the past wanted to deviate from civil regulations for anything other than mission equipment. I have to assume you are using the term GATM in a very generic sense of upgrading any military aircraft to civil standards and not referring to the actual US GATM program.

Ok lets just keep to the L-100 for the time being as ours is civil certified. For normal L-100 flight ops the navigator position is not used however the customer elects from time to time to utilize the nav station so it is populated with the intercomm control panel, oxygen control, an UTC clock, the CPDLC printer and the EFB.

The STC amendment to the primary EFIS/EFB STC is pending government bureaucracy being the same the world over.

The customer opted not to install a third FMS MCDU at the Nav station but requested a capability for the Navigator to use FMS functions and be able to enter tactical data on the TacView EFB MCDU repeater.

The TacView is a Class II EFB. CMC Electronics proposes the use of the "Tandem" solution to avoid safety and civil certification issue with GACA Saudi Arabia airworthiness.

FMS tandem capability was implemented in 2005 for the Switzerland Air Force trainer.

The tandem allows for both co-pilot and navigator to share a same and unique display generated by a single FMS. The trainer can dynamically review the navigator action and monitor safety.

The important feature is the Navigator can do his flight planning but must have the consent of the co-pilot prior the data being input into the FMS.

I'll come back later about Global Air Traffic Management (GATM)

 

[Matt308]

Okay, understand. Navigator can sees what copilot sees, can enter data into the scratchpad, but co-pilot must verify before accepting. Fine. What happens when co-pilot is entering data in scratchpad concurrent with navigator position? I also must assume that copilot position has priority/precendence and locks out navigator entry?

If you are going to tell me that they are only going to use the Class II EFB for monitoring primary flight displays and it has a placard/AFM limitation on its use, then don't bother with a long winded response. I note also that you mention CPDLC. Is that FMS based FANS-1/A? And please don't tell me that is on the Class II EFB. That's a definite no no.

 

[davparlr]

Okay guys, you are very knowledgeable on cockpit operations but I think you should identify your terms so we could all appreciate and participate. I am very interested in this issue and are somewhat knowledgeable, but it has been quite a few years since I was in cockpit design and terminology changes with time and with subcontractor.

EFIS - Electronic Flight Instrument System (?)
Cat II - Landing below 200' ceiling but above 100'. Visibility 300 ft.
Cat III - Ultimately zero-zero.
FMS - Flight Management System (?)

Then I am lost.

What is a navigator doing on the modern aircraft?? Is it because foreign operators cannot depend on GPS?

On the B-2, last data entered on separate panels was accepted. Crew is still required work together. But then there was no navigator to argue with. However, there is provisions to add a third station just never required. I am not sure of the status of Cat landings for the B-2, but it has no Head Up Display, something I fought against because of design impact to the crew station and huge cost, basically because the B-2 is a heads down aircraft. The original WAG for upgrading the B-2 to GATM was over a billion dollars.

In my day, waivers were often given on military aircraft for civilian requirements.

 

[Matt308]

It was the Saudi L-1000 (C-130) that Mr. Hund was referring to, Davparlr.

In today's world military operators want to have civil approvals for type design to ensure that they are not denied regional airspace operations and given commensurate airspace clearances to civil operators. This is especially true in Europe where failure to be civil compliant can relegate you to operations below FL280. And that is a REALLY inefficient altitude for most turbojet airplanes.

 

[krieghund]

Okay guys, you are very knowledgeable on cockpit operations but I think you should identify your terms so we could all appreciate and participate. I am very interested in this issue and are somewhat knowledgeable, but it has been quite a few years since I was in cockpit design and terminology changes with time and with subcontractor.

EFIS - Electronic Flight Instrument System (?)
Cat II - Landing below 200' ceiling but above 100'. Visibility 300 ft.
Cat III - Ultimately zero-zero.
FMS - Flight Management System (?)

Then I am lost.

What is a navigator doing on the modern aircraft?? Is it because foreign operators cannot depend on GPS?

On the B-2, last data entered on separate panels was accepted. Crew is still required work together. But then there was no navigator to argue with. However, there is provisions to add a third station just never required. I am not sure of the status of Cat landings for the B-2, but it has no Head Up Display, something I fought against because of design impact to the crew station and huge cost, basically because the B-2 is a heads down aircraft. The original WAG for upgrading the B-2 to GATM was over a billion dollars.

In my day, waivers were often given on military aircraft for civilian requirements.

Sorry I tend to get carried away but yes those are correct.

Their CONOPS calls for a Nav in certain situations and GPS outage was not the concern anyway dual LaserV Inertial Reference Units (IRU) provide for accurate navigation should GPS be switched off.

I imagine the cost driver for CNS/ATM equipment into the B-2 was the engineering of commercial equipment into the stealth design. TCAS would be a big headache for them.

And lastly the reluctance or lack of waivers for European airspace areas was the primary driver to upgrade the fleet. Imagine a VIP wanting to go to Zurich for a vacation only to arrive on his BBJ to discover his C130 with his car and guys are stuck in the Czech republic for another 12 hours until a window is opened for them to transit to Zurich. This happened NOT A HAPPY CAMPER!!

 

[davparlr]

I imagine the cost driver for CNS/ATM equipment into the B-2 was the engineering of commercial equipment into the stealth design. TCAS would be a big headache for them.

Equipment wasn't too much of a problem if it had a 1553 interface. Antennas! Putting antennas on the B-2 was horrendous. RCS requirements and load alleviation due to the stressed skin made each antenna installation a special development, and if the antenna was in the Boeing section, oh, my, gosh.

 

[Matt308]

Yeah, I've always wondered how they installed the star gazer to navigation without compromizing upper RCS. That plane must have been an engineering nightmare.

 

[davparlr]

Yeah, I've always wondered how they installed the star gazer to navigation without compromizing upper RCS. That plane must have been an engineering nightmare.

I don't think the star tracker installation was too bad since it was design in at the start as far as loads were concerned and the RCS was probably handled the same way the windshield was. Developing Rf antennas with low RCS, and also worked, was a big deal.

 

[HealzDevo]

Looks very complex. No wonder they wanted a simulator as until you got used to it, that thing looks very easy to make a mistake on.