Traffic Advisory System Evaluation

1. Traffic Advisory SystemEvaluation Goodrich SkyWatch SKY 497Cirrus SR - 22 Morten Andersen Massimo Salciccia

2. Objective - Purpose • General • Execute a Limited Evaluation of SKY 497 • Not an approved TCAS-II system • However similar displays / alerts • Is it a viable system?? • Specific (AC 20– 131a) • Basic GND test (Para. 3.f.1.i-ix) • Basic FLT test (Para. 3.f.2.i-iv, vii-viii) • Encounter test (Para. 3.f.3.i-v) Introduction Method Test Results Conclusion Recommend. 2

3. Test Team • Test Team • Safety Pilot: ED • Pilot: Morten • FTE: Massimo • Mission Representative Operators • Like most GA operators – unfamiliar with TCAS • Yes - representative Introduction Method Test Results Conclusion Recommend. 3

4. Mission • Expected Mission of the Aircraft • General Aviation • SGL pilot concept – possible inexperienced • Fully IFR certified • Ceiling: 13000ft MSL • Normal cruise speed: 120 – 150 KIAS Introduction Method Test Results Conclusion Recommend. 4

5. Test Item Description • Cirrus SR 22 (Experimental) • TAS SKY 497 • Production representative – YES! Introduction Method Test Results Conclusion Recommend. 5

6. SKY497 • operation • Track 32 AC • Display 8 AC • Eff. range: 8 NM • Aural + vis.Alerts • No RA! Introduction Method Test Results Conclusion Recommend. 6

7. Instrumentation • Intruder aircraftB-76 w. GPS • Garmin 92 • Aircraft Radios Introduction Method Test Results Conclusion Recommend. 7

8. Test Condition • Aircraft • Both aircraft CG and weight - STD • Minor electrical problem w. Cirrus on start up • Considered no factor • Weather • Wind / Velocity • 240° / 13Kts • Visibility > 50 Km Introduction Method Test Results Conclusion Recommend. 8

9. Assumptions - Limitations • Assumptions • SR-22 production representative • Garmin 92 provides truth Data • Limitations • Only 1.5 Hrs Flight Evaluation • Extensive test points req. to show compliance on a standard percentile confidence level • Not possible – striving for a sound estimate • Only Day light evaluation Introduction Method Test Results Conclusion Recommend. 9

10. Test Chronology • Test assignment 16th February 2005 • Data Card Review 21st February 2005 • Flight Test TAS 24th February 2005 • Oral Report 25th February 2005 Introduction Method Test Results Conclusion Recommend. 10

11. Test Method Ground Test • Self Test • Bearing Accuracy Test: +/- 15 deg • Observe wingman squawk on GND • Sensor Failure • Pull CB’s • Electromagnetic Interference (EMI) • Observe all instruments • Evaluate Controls & Display • General impression Introduction Method Test Results Conclusion Recommend. 11

12. Test Method Basic Flight Test • Interference with other Aircraft Systems • Observe VOR/GPS/Radios • Aural Messages • Present / non-present • Acceptable Volume and Intelligibility • With and without headset • Confirm Valid & Usable traffic info during maneuver • ± 15° of pitch & ± 30° of Bank • Surveillance Range • Traffic info out to 11NM Introduction Method Test Results Conclusion Recommend. 12

13. Test Method Planned Encounter Flight Test • 2 x Head-on Test • Low & High Speed • 2 x Crossing Test (90 deg) • 2 x Converging Test (45 – 60 deg) • 1 x Overtaking Traffic Method: Cirrus calls “Mark” • Lat/Long/Baro/Track/GSrecorded Introduction Method Test Results Conclusion Recommend. 13

14. 3 1 2 4 5 6 Agree Strongly Disagree Moderately Disagree Disagree Moderately Agree Strongly Agree Test Method Subjective Rating Scale • TAS improve your S.A with respect to other traffic? • TAS display is easily read and easily distinguished? • TAS controls are easy to use? Introduction Method Test Results Conclusion Recommend. 14

15. Test Results

16. Ground Test Self Test • Very satisfactory – expeditious test! Bearing Accuracy Test: req. +/- 15 deg • High confidence in accuracy • Short range… • Satisfactory Sensor Failure – Pull CB’s • System CB pulled – immediately “Fail” • Satisfactory Electromagnetic Interference (EMI) • None observed • Satisfactory Introduction Method Test Results Conclusion Recommend. 16

17. Ground Test Evaluate Controls & Display Dual Controls / Displays Garmin 430: • Too small a display • Cumbersome controls Avidyne: • Good overview • Easy to see display • Full control Overall: Very Satisfactory Introduction Method Test Results Conclusion Recommend. 17

18. Flight Test Basic Flight Test • Interference with other Aircraft Systems • Possible interference observed on Storm Scope • Frequent Lightning Alert (RNG 200NM!) • Unknown cause [R-2] • Aural Messages • Only “Traffic, Traffic” in system • Apparently worked per intention • Satisfactory • Acceptable Volume and Intelligibility • Easy to hear, with and without Headphones. • Satisfactory Introduction Method Test Results Conclusion Recommend. 18

19. Flight Test Basic Flight Test • Valid & Usable traffic info during maneuvers • ± 15° of pitch & ± 30° of Bank w. intruder • Accuracy assessed accurate to within 15 deg • Track only observed lost twice during entire test • Reacquired within ~5 seconds • Satisfactory • Surveillance Range • System spec: Traffic info out to 11NM • Intruder and other traffic displayed at 11 NM • Satisfactory Introduction Method Test Results Conclusion Recommend. 19

20. Flight Test – Planned Encounter • Head On Encounter • 8 seconds too late – non compliance? • Maybe… maybe not! • Only one datapoint [R-1] Introduction Method Test Results Conclusion Recommend. TRK X-ING ANGLE 165° / 195° 20

21. TRK X-INGANGLE100° Flight Test – Planned Encounter • Crossing Encounter • Satisfactory! Introduction Method Test Results Conclusion Recommend. 21

22. Flight Test – Planned Encounter TRK X-INGANGLE63° • Converting Encounter • Satisfactory! Introduction Method Test Results Conclusion Recommend. 22

23. Flight Test – Planned Encounter • Overtaking Encounter • Satisfactory! Introduction Method Test Results Conclusion Recommend. TRK X-ING ANGLE 016° 23

24. 3 1 2 4 5 6 Agree Strongly Disagree Moderately Disagree Disagree Moderately Agree Strongly Agree Test Method Subjective Rating Scale • TAS improve your S.A with respect to other traffic? • TAS display is easily read and easily distinguished? • TAS controls are easy to use? Introduction Method Test Results Conclusion Recommend. 24

25. Conclusions • Displays / Functionality / Usability • System is very easy to use • System gives good and instant SA on factor traffic • System seems consistent • Acceptable use of visual and auditory alerts • Possible interference with StormScope – should be investigated [R-2] Introduction Method Test Results Conclusion Recommend. 25

26. Conclusions • Specifications • All but one test run showed compliant values • High speed Head On Encounter failed. • Too many uncertainties to fail the system on one test point. [R-1] • Generally – high confidence in system Introduction Method Test Results Conclusion Recommend. 26

27. Overall Conclusions • The SKY 497 is estimated to be aViable and UsableTraffic Alerting System • in the role ofGeneral Aviation Introduction Method Test Results Conclusion Recommend. 27

28. Recommendations • [R-1]The High Speed Head On Encounter alerting function of the SKY 497 should be evaluated under further flight test. • [R-2] The SKY 497 should be investigated for possible interference with the Storm Scope system. Introduction Method Test Results Conclusion Recommend. 28

29. Questions 29

30. Error Budgets • GDOP of 4: 60ft • 2 seconds time delay in Mark • Gives error budget along angular closure vector • For two aircraft! • 1 second update rate for GPS • Gives error budget along angular closure vector • For two aircraft 30

31. Assignment 31