Neil Armstrong 1930-2012 July - December 2012 1 the SOCIETY of EXPERIMENTAL TEST PILOTS BOARD of DIRECTORS President

July - December 2012 July - December

Neil Armstrong 1930-2012 July - December 2012 1 THE SOCIETY OF EXPERIMENTAL TEST PILOTS BOARD OF DIRECTORS President...... Douglas Benjamin, Boeing Vice President...... Mark Stucky, Scaled Composites Secretary...... Brett Vance, FAA Treasurer...... Michael Wallace, Boeing Legal Officer...... Gary Plumb, DCS Corporation Executive Advisor...... Steve Rainey, Boeing President-Elect...... Kevin Prosser, Calspan Technical Advisor...... Greg Lewis, NTPS Technical Advisor...... Kenneth Weir, Maj Gen, USMC (Ret) Canadian Section Representative...... Maurice Girard, Bombardier Aerospace Central Section Representative...... Stuart Rogerson, Cessna Aircraft East Coast Section Representative...... John Tougas, Boeing European Section Representative...... Jeremy Tracy, AgustaWestland Great Lakes Section Representative...... Robbie Robinson, Textron Northwest Section Representative...... Ed Kolano, FAA Southeast Section Representative...... Darren Wees, Maj, USAF Southwest Section Representative...... Robert Moreau, FedEx West Coast Section Representative...... Todd Ericson, Col, USAF Paula S. Smith...... Executive Director

CANADIAN SECTION CENTRAL SECTION Chairman...... Andy Litavniks Chairman...... Stuart Rogerson Vice Chairman...... Jeff Peer Vice Chairman...... Dan Hinson Secretary...... Chuck Ellis Secretary...... Jeff Karnes Treasurer...... Maurice Girard Treasurer...... Aaron Tobias

EAST COAST SECTION EUROPEAN SECTION Chairman...... Ignacio Lombo Chairman...... Eric Mitchell Vice Chairman...... Bill Berryman Treasurer...... Mark Johnson NORTHWEST SECTION Chairman...... Ed Kolano Vice Chairman...... Jennifer Henderson GREAT LAKES SECTION Secretary...... Gerry Whites Chairman...... Robbie Robinson Treasurer...... Leon Robert Vice Chairman...... David Glade Secretary...... Eric Fitz SOUTHWEST SECTION Treasurer...... Sam Ryals Chairman...... Norm Driscoll Vice Chairman...... Eric Kinney Secretary...... Jim Acree SOUTHEAST SECTION Treasurer...... Jeff Trang Chairman...... Darren Wees WEST COAST SECTION Vice Chairman...... Varun Puri Secretary...... David Wright Chairman...... Todd Ericson Treasurer...... Travis Burton Vice Chairman...... Andrew McFarland Treasurer...... Jason Dotter SETP COMMITTEES

Flight Test Safety Committee Chairman...... Maurice Girard Membership Committee Chairman...... Eric Hansen 2013 Fellows Coordinating Committee Chairman...... Chuck Killberg Publications Committee Chairman...... Allen Peterson 2 July - December 2012 SETP 2013 CALENDAR

6th Southeast Symposium 43rd West Coast Symposium 21-22 February 2013 22-23 March 2013 Ramada Plaza Beach Resort, Catamaran Resort, San Diego, CA Ft. Walton Beach, FL

28th East Coast Symposium Flight Test Safety Workshop 12 April 2013 23-25 April 2013 Patuxent River, MD DoubleTree Hotel, New Orleans, LA

3rd Northwest Symposium Great Lakes Symposium 3 May 2013 16 May 2013 The Museum of Flight Wright-Patterson AFB - Banquet Center Seattle, WA Dayton, OH

45th European Symposium 57th Symposium & Banquet 22-25 May 2013 25-28 September 2013 Hotel Husa Princesa, Madrid, Spain Grand Californian Hotel & Spa Anaheim, CA

COCKPIT is published by The Society of Experimental Test Pilots Address all correspondence to SETP Publications Chairman, Post Office Box 986, Lancaster, California 93584-0986 661-942-9574 Statements and opinions advanced in technical papers and letters-to-the-editor are those of the authors and do not necessarily coincide with the tenets of The Society of Experimental Test Pilots. Letters to-the-editor are encouraged whenever there are dissenting opinions. Table of Contents: President’s Memo...... 4 Technical Articles ...... 6 Editor’s Memo...... 32 Letter to the Editor...... 66 2013 Symposium Information...... 67 Membership News...... 70 New Members and Upgrades...... 71 Who...What...Where...... 77 Know The Corporate Member...... 79 Section News...... 81 Scholarship Foundation News...... 85 56th Annual Symposium and Banquet Report...... 86 Request for Nominations...... 107 Book News...... 110 Etched in Stone - Remembering Our Friends on Flight 153...... 112 Last Flights...... 114

July - December 2012 3 PRESIDENT’S MEMO It’s about 2 months into my tenure as your President. The newness hasn’t worn out; I’m still very humbled, honored and excited for this opportunity to serve.

I’d like to thank Steve “Hooter” Rainey and his Board of Directors for giving me the stick with our Society so well-trimmed and running smoothly. I hope to continue the vector our Society is on: excellent, relevant and engaged. We have exactly 2400 members, and conducted 11 symposia this past year. I attended almost all of them in person, and found the passion of the attendees for flight test and quality of the papers that were presented to be simply exceptional. It’s different out beyond Anaheim – I felt very connected to where flight test is actually happening. Douglas Benjamin (F) We have already started a great year of symposia. The The Boeing Company Southwest Section Flight Test Historical Symposium in SETP President Dallas was illuminating to see from where we’ve come, and a very broad spectrum of papers were presented, ranging from the story of Frederick “TRAP” Trapnell, for whom the airfield at NAS Patuxent River is named; to Walter Cunningham telling us about the longest first flight in history with the launch of Apollo 7. Our next event was the European Flight Test Safety Workshop in Salzburg, Austria, where the focus was “Loss of Control”. Dr. Dieter Reisinger put together some excellent sessions that challenged manufacturers and operators on areas to improve to solve the leading cause of transport aircraft fatalities. This directly supports our primary goal to improve flight test safety. We have a full plate of symposia next year, starting off with the Southeast Section symposium in Fort Walton Beach February 22, and followed by: The West Coast symposium in San Diego March 22-23, the East Coast symposium at NAS Patuxent River April 12, the North America Flight Test Safety Workshop April 23-25 in New Orleans, the Northwest Section symposium May 3 in Seattle, and the Great Lakes symposium May 16 in Dayton. Our first-ever European Section symposium in Madrid is May 22-25 and promises to be spectacular. My year as your president will close out with the 57th International Symposium and Banquet at the Disney Grand Californian in Anaheim September 25-28. My General Chairman, Rod “Trash” Cregier and his Symposium chairman Bill “Evil Bill” Gray and their teams are already up and running, getting the details ironed out that will make this event a success. The long-awaited improvements to the SETP website are just around the corner. We have selected the provider, and are negotiating the contract. Standby for great things in the New Year. We have done a great thing by establishing a permanent Critical Incident Response Committee to provide guidance to survivors, friends and co-workers in the event a tragedy strikes in our flight test family. Past president Billie Flynn has taken the lead on this committee as one of his passions. In addition, the SETP Partners’ Handbook is available free on the SETP website to help you ensure that your family’s tragedy is not compounded with unpreparedness.

4 July - December 2012 As we go into next year, let’s continue to show value to our services, our employers and our co-workers by providing excellent interchange of information to help each other safely perform challenging flight test. We may be fierce competitors in business – but it’s in all of our interests to share the lessons we’ve learned in order to plan and execute flight test safely. Fair skies and following winds (unless you’re looking for limit crosswinds…) Sincerely,

Doug Benjamin President, SETP

July - December 2012 5 TECHNICAL ARTICLES

Testing the relationship between stick force gradient, workload, and loss of control in light aeroplanes.

Michael A. Bromfield1 and Guy B. Gratton2

Abstract

In-flight, low-speed Loss of Control (LoC) in Visual Meteorological Conditions is the most common fatal accident causal category involving light aircraft in the UK and beyond. Using a 13-month flight test programme involving 2 apparently similar aircraft model groups and 8 separate airframes, significant differences in performance, handling qualities and stall characteristics were found together with differences in cockpit ergonomics and pilot workload. Having identified possible contributory factors, a series of flight simulation tests were conducted over a 3 month period, in a safe, controlled environment with 26 volunteer pilots (from PPL student to ATPL) representing the UK general aviation sector. Tests focussed on airspeed management and stall avoidance during safety-critical phases of flight and manoeuvres. This paper presents the results, lessons learned and recommendations – hopefully enabling a better understanding of LoC and possible future avoidance within the general aviation community and beyond?

Nomenclature

EOS enhanced operator station stick force gradient (daN/kt*)

h altitude above mean sea level (m) P elevator stick force s elevator stick displacement (in)

VC calibrated airspeed (ft/s)

VE equivalent airspeed (ft/s)

VG ground speed (ft/s)

VS stall speed (kts)

VSO stall speed in the landing configuration (kts)

VT true airspeed (ft/s)

VTrim trimmed airspeed (kts)

VW wind speed (kts)

VY best climb speed (kts) w wing loading (lbf/ft2) α angle of attack (deg) ρ air density at ISA sea level conditions (slug/ft3)

φAC angle of the aircraft nose relative to arbitrary reference in the X-Y plane

φW angle of the wind relative to arbitrary reference in the X-Y plane

1 Aerospace Engineering, Coventry University,Priory Street, Coventry, CV1 5FB, United Kingdom. MSFTE 2 Brunel Flight Safety Laboratory, School of Engineering & Design, Brunel University, Uxbridge, Middlesex, UB8 3PH, United Kingdom MSETP, MSFTE. 6 July - December 2012 1 Introduction The combination of pilot, aeroplane and environment form a complex man-machine interaction system within the context of a defined task, manoeuvre or operation [1]; McInally [2] proposed a model of the major factors in such a system, which has been adapted by the authors for the aviation environment, Fig. 1. The sensory, physical and mechanical interfaces are continuously changing, requiring the pilot to make appropriate control inputs and configuration changes based upon all available information. The importance of the ‘feel’ of the aeroplane has long been appreciated, but a lack of ‘feel’ requires the pilot to rely more heavily upon cockpit instrumentation to manage airspeed and to avoid the stall. This implies more frequent instrument scanning and potentially higher workload. A perceptible stick force gradient provides the necessary cues to the pilot for small adjustments to airspeed (i.e. pull to go slower and push to go faster) in relation to the trimmed airspeed and is a basic aeroplane certification requirement for European civilian light aeroplanes less than 5,700 kgs maximum take-off weight [3, 4], although specific values are not dictated. However, both CS-25 and FAR-25 which apply to larger, commercial aircraft, suggest a minimum stick force gradient of 0.074 daN/kt (1 lbf per 6 kts) [5]. In flight, the stick force can provide cues to anticipate the stall assuming the aeroplane has not been re-trimmed [6].

Operation / Task

Vision Hearing Circuits Touch/Feel Training Pilot Smell Cross‐country Balance Aerial Photo. Stress Aerobatics Workload Control Inputs Visual/Aural Cues Visual /Aural Cues Radio Comms Tactile/Propriocep. Balance/Force Interaction Aeroplane System Environment Performance Weather Handing Qualities Runway Conditions Stability & Control Wind Gusts Air Traffic Control Systems/Equip Wind Shear Terrain Icing Cockpit Design Obstacles

Fig. 1 Pilot/Aircraft/Environment Interaction System (Adapted from [2]) The light aeroplane pilot, who will normally fly without the aid of an auto-pilot or any other form of artificial feel or stability augmentation system, is continually sampling visual, aural, acceleration,

July - December 2012 7 stick force and stick position cues and using these cues to assist in decision making, the management of airspeed as well as the avoidance of the stall. These intuitive and precise control inputs are essential to the ‘aviate’ function of piloting. ‘Pilot in the loop’ control of the aeroplane, relies upon good quality cues to enable safe operation of the aeroplane during all phases of flight but especially during safety-critical phases such as the take-off and climb-out and the approach and landing when the aircraft must be manoeuvred relatively close to the stall. Stick and rudder skills and the variation of pitch control force with airspeed is a key characteristic of the handling qualities or ‘feel’ of a light aeroplane. Pitch control force cues are subconsciously used to maintain airspeed and also avoid the stall. Young [7] showed that pilot performance was affected by sensitivity of the control device when conducting the approach and landing task in a light aeroplane. Gray [8], has developed point tracking and boundary avoidance theory to better understand the problem of pilot-induced oscillation (PIO), but the theory can also be applied to the simple task of maintaining a steady climb in a light aircraft, as illustrated in Fig. 2 and Fig. 3.

Pilot Gain Environ. Modifier Aircraft Config.

Pilot Aircraft

CUES •Visual & Aural •Control force & position Aircraft Flying •Acceleration Qualities •Smell

Fig. 2 Pilot in the Loop ‘BFSL Safety Model’

The pilot’s target airspeed (or tracking point) is Vy (best climb) and the pilot utilises direct cues such as indicated airspeed as condition cues to make small adjustments to airspeed via control inputs (in this case pitch control) to maintain the target airspeed within an acceptable tolerance band (e.g. +/- 5 kts). The control system, aeroplane dynamics and external environmental factors such as wind gusts, ultimately determine the condition output cues. This combination of control system, aeroplane dynamics and configuration state, determine the overall aeroplane flying qualities in any given environmental situation. An aeroplane configuration change, such as deployment of flaps for the approach and landing, can have a significant effect on the aeroplane handling qualities. In addition to the direct visual cues utilised by the pilot, such as indicated airspeed, indirect cues are also used to perform the ‘aviate’ function. These indirect cues may be the external visual horizon, engine and airframe noise, pitch control force, pitch control position, acceleration or any combination of the above. If the pilot significantly deviates below the target airspeed on climb-out and approaches the

8 July - December 2012 stall, then both direct and indirect cues are used within a second closed-loop process to assess the safety margin (the difference between unsafe boundary condition and actual condition). This loop provides a ‘safety cue’ to the pilot and is typically accompanied by a gain increase (pilot gain modifier), characterised by larger control inputs in an attempt to avoid the critical boundary condition, in this case the stall condition. The human pilot model consists of pilot gain, pilot reaction time delay and the pilot equalisation characteristic, a form of adaptive control strategy where the pilot critically reviews feedback and consciously decides whether or not to lead or lag an aeroplane with control inputs during selected flight conditions [9].

Fig. 3 Example: Application of Cooper-Harper / Point Tracking & Boundary Avoidance to the Climb-out Task at V= 1.3Vstall

An alternative view of the climb-out task is given in Fig. 3, which shows the application of both Cooper-Harper and Point Tracking/Boundary Avoidance Theory. The pilot attempts to maintain the climb-out airspeed Vy, but as airspeed deviates from this target due to weak longitudinal static stability or external disturbance, the task-specific pilot workload increases, resulting in a higher Cooper-Harper Rating (HQR). The frequency of pilot corrective actions is also characteristic of the increased pilot workload and reflected in the increased HQR. Airspeed eventually deviates to the point of loss of control (HQR =10) when the pilot inputs high gain, boundary avoidance control inputs actions with little reference to target airspeed.

July - December 2012 9 2 Flight testing

2.1 Introduction To better understand the effects of stick force gradients on aircraft handling qualities and pilot performance, a series of flight tests were devised to gather additional experimental data in order to assess apparent stick-free longitudinal static stability (a measure of the aeroplanes tendency to return to the trim condition in flight, when the airspeed is changed and the elevator is free to float, hands- off). Pilot workload was also measured using established test pilot school methods. Cessna C150 and C152 aeroplanes were selected as these were readily available and are widely used in the UK training environment (Fig. 4).

Fig. 4 Cessna C150M (library photograph)

In phase 1 of the test programme (Table 1 & Table 2), examples of Cessna aeroplane models C150L, C150M and C152 were selected from a number of flying schools throughout the UK to gather experimental data at a range of CG positions (Phase 1), expressed as a percentage of mean aerodynamic chord (MAC). After an initial assessment of one example of each model, it was decided to repeat the same tests on at least two additional examples of each of the Cessna C150M and C152 to explore fleet-wide attributes (Phase 2 & 3). All aeroplanes used in the flight test programme were standard and un-modified. Table 1, Flight Test Programme

Phase 1 – Aircraft 1 Phase 2 – Aircraft 2 Phase 2 – Aircraft 3 CG1 CG2 CG3 CG1 CG1 1637 lbs 1491 lbs 1670 lbs 1655 lbs C152 @23.81% @25.28% C152 @23.39% F152 @23.78% 1599 lbs F150L @25.28% 1600 lbs 1425 lbs 1598 lbs 1580 lbs 1599 lbs F150M @25.68% @27.22% @27.90% C150M @27.00% F150M @25.87%

Crew: 2 1 2 Crew: 2 Crew: 2

10 July - December 2012 2.2 Flight Test Resources

Test equipment was selected for portability and to avoid changing the aeroplane certification state or interfere with safe aeroplane operation. All electronic devices were required to operate from their own internal power supply with no interference to standard cockpit instrumentation, radio/navigation aids or intercom. Traditional handheld flight test equipment such as ruler, stopwatch, spring balance force gauge and kneeboard mounted test cards were used. The physical location of flight tests was determined by aeroplane availability, with five different airfields used over a period of thirteen months.

A portable GPS system with current database was used to improve situational awareness in unfamiliar airspace, freeing up pilot capacity to concentrate upon the testing task. A compact, portable and lightweight wide-angle lens video camera was used to capture cockpit video for subsequent de-brief. This provided a useable view of cockpit instruments and the pilot and flight test engineer’s actions within the cockpit. A self-contained Appareo GAU 1000A [10] flight data recorder (FDR) was used for all sorties and this was used in conjunction with AS Flight analysis software for post-sortie briefings, and subsequent analysis. Data was exported from AS Flight Analysis and converted to Microsoft Excel or Google Earth files for further review. This useful and inexpensive facility provided adequate quality inertial and positional data at approximately 4Hz when signals were filtered for noise. A cross-calibration exercise for the flight data recorder was conducted against the embedded flight test instrumentation on Cranfield University’s National Flying Laboratory Centre (NFLC) British Aerospace (BAe) Jetstream 31 aeroplane. The results showed acceptable correlation for quasi-static flight conditions. A digital voice recorder, connected to a tie-clip microphone in one of the crew’s headsets provided adequate cockpit voice recording capability, and this could then be readily synchronized with both data from the flight data recorder, and from the cockpit camera. Appareo’s AS Flight Evaluator Software Version 1.05 was used for post-flight analysis, this enable real-time playback of the test flights together with time series plots of major parameters of interest (e.g. altitude, latitude/longitude, airspeed etc.).

2.3 Flight Test Method

An initial ‘shakedown’ flight test was conducted in a Cessna C152 for all equipment as well as refinement of the test programme and procedures required to be repeated on all models. Flight tests for longitudinal static stability were conducted as part of a broader research programme [11,12]. Tests relevant to apparent longitudinal stick free static stability are shown in Table 2 below:- Table 2, Initial Scope of Flight Tests

Test Description of Tests Power Flap (deg) No. 1 Apparent LSS Climb Power Full 0

2 Apparent LSS Cruise Configuration Power for 0 Level Flight 3 Apparent LSS Landing Configuration 30 Flap Power for 30 Level Flight 4 Climb and Point Track, Climb Power Full 0 - Continuous climb through 1500’ with Handling Qualities Assessment

July - December 2012 11 Although the principle areas of interest for the flight tests were low-speed handling and stall characteristics, it was necessary to consider the aeroplane performance and handling as well since this might influence low speed handling. The test plan covered the apparent longitudinal stick-free static stability (LSS), all dynamic modes, climb and cruise performance, and stalling at the range of conditions permitted by the aeroplanes’ operating manuals. All testing was to be carried out within those conditions, and without going outside the conditions of each aeroplane’s Certificate of Airworthiness (CofA).

Prior to commencing the test programme, the nominated Test Pilot had accumulated 57 hours on Cessna C150/C152 types with the Flight Test Engineer (also a qualified pilot) having 90 hours on C150/C152. In total 12 test sorties were flown with 3 checkouts for the test pilot in 8 airframes, resulting in a total of 25 hours 35 minutes flying time for the 13-month programme.

2.4 Flight Test Results

2.4.1 Stick Force Gradient Variations with Phase of Flight The flight test results for apparent longitudinal stick-free static stability in the climb, cruise, and landing configuration for a Cessna C150M (aircraft no. 2) are shown in Fig. 5 (a) & (b). These results have been adjusted for the effects of break-out force and friction, with the former being measured during the flight tests and the latter estimated by inspection of the experimental data. Applying a MATLAB [13] curve fitting tool (‘cftool’), the results show apparent differences in stick

force gradients with phases of flight. Stick force gradients about VTrim for all three phases of flight are shown in Table 3.

Experimental Data - Cessna 150M Experimental Data - Cessna 150M Apparent Longitudinal Stick-Free Static Stabilty in the Stick Force Gradient in the Climb, Cruise & Landing Climb, Cruise & Landing Configuration Configuration 0.00 8.0 7.0 C150M Aircraft: 2 Cruise C150M Aircraft:2 Climb 6.0 C150M Aircraft: 2 Landing 5.0 -0.10 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 C150M Aircraft: 2 Cruise -0.20 C150M Aircraft:2 Climb 0.0 C150M Aircraft:2 Landing -1.0

Stick Force Pull-2.0 (daN) >>> -3.0 Stick Force Gradient (daN/kt) >>> -4.0 -0.30 -5.0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 Speed VE (kts) >>>

Speed VE (kts) >>> (a) (b) Fig. 5 Apparent Stick-Free LSS (a) and Stick Force Gradient (b) for Cessna C150M Model in the Climb, Cruise & Landing Configuration

12 July - December 2012 Table 3, The Comparison of Stick Force Gradients for Cessna 150M Airframes about VTrim in the Climb, Cruise & Landing Configuration

Phase of Flight Description of Tests Climb Cruise Landing

VTrim (kts) 67 89 68 Apparent LSS: -0.060 -0.066 -0.020

Stick Force Gradient (daN/kt) at VTrim

The results show that the stick force and stick gradient vary with the airspeed and phase of flight. The cruising phase of flight yields the highest overall forces, reducing slightly in the climbing phase, followed by a considerable reduction in the landing phase. The pitch control force change with speed as sensed by the pilot therefore also varies with phase of flight and in the case of the Cessna 150M (aircraft 2) reduces to 30~33% of the cruise/climb value whilst in the landing phase.

2.4.2 Stick Force Gradient Variations across the Aircraft Fleet in the Cruise Configuration

In order, to evaluate the fleet-wide characteristics of the Cessna C150M, experimental flights tests were repeated for three different airframes (aircraft 1, 2 & 3). Longitudinal stick-free static stability in the cruise configuration for three Cessna 150M airframes (2 x F150M and 1 x C150M) are presented in Fig. 6. Applying curve fit, the results show similarity in stick force gradients at the trim speed, but also indicate variation within the fleet. Stick force gradients at VTrim for all three airframes are shown in Table 4.

Experimental Data, Cessna 3 x F150M/C150M Apparent Longitudinal Stick-Free Static Stabilty - Cruise Experimental Data, 3 x Cessna C150M/F150M Configuration Stick Force Gradient in the Cruise Configuration 8.0 0.00 7.0 F150M Aircraft:1 Exp 6.0 C150M Aircraft:2 Exp 5.0 F150M Aircraft:3 Exp 4.0 3.0 -0.10 2.0 1.0 0.0 -1.0 -0.20 -2.0 F150M Aircraf t: 1 Exp -3.0 C150M Aircraft:2 Exp Stick Force Pull (daN)-4.0 >>> F150M Aircraf t:3 Exp StickForce Gradient (daN/kt) >>> -5.0 -0.30 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 Speed VE (kts) >>>

Speed VE (kts) >>>

(a) (b) Fig. 6 Apparent Stick-Free LSS (a) and Stick Force Gradient (b) for three Cessna F150M/C150M Models in the Cruise Configuration

July - December 2012 13 Table 4, The Comparison of Stick Force Gradients for 3 x Cessna F150M/C150M Airframes in

the Cruise at VTrim

Stick Force Gradient (daN/kt) at VTrim Description of Tests Aircraft 1: Aircraft 2: Aircraft 3: Cessna Cessna Cessna F150M C150M F150M Apparent LSS Cruise Configuration -0.070 -0.065 -0.040

The results indicate that fleet-wide variations in stick force gradient exist for the same aircraft model and suggest that pilot perceptibility may differ between individual airframes.

2.4.3 Climb and Point Tracking with Handling Qualities Assessment

The pilot’s ability to maintain airspeed (point tracking) in the climb was assessed using the portable flight data recorder. This was achieved by developing a pseudo Equivalent Airspeed (EAS) term (Appendix A) by adjusting ground speed as measured by the FDR GPS for wind, air density and compressibility effects, as shown in Appendix A. This was subsequently used on a time-trace Y-axis as shown in Fig. 7 (a) & (b). In addition to this quantitative assessment, a qualitative assessment of pilot workload was conducted using the Cooper-Harper Handling Qualities Ratings (HQR) assessment (Appendix B, Fig. 18), as shown in Fig. 8 (a) & (b) [14]. The Cooper-Harper Handling Qualities rating scale enables a test pilot to perform by disciplined means, an accurate assessment of the handling qualities (control) of an aircraft in flight. The rating is measured on a scale of 1~10, ‘1’ being satisfactory without improvement / excellent aircraft characteristics to ‘10’ being uncontrollable / with major deficiencies. It was found that in general, aircraft and configurations with lower stick force gradients resulted in higher recorded workloads by the pilot. The pilot was forced to make continuous corrections to airspeed and in doing so, frequently referred to the airspeed indicator, therefore increasing workload. The data plot of pseudo-EAS versus time was particularly useful in comparing with pilot-generated HQR scores. With well defined desirable and adequate airspeed tolerance limits (+/- 2 kts and +/- 5 kts respectively), it was possible to identify whether the aircraft remained within those limits, and thus cross-validate with HQR scores within the 1-3, 4-6, 7-9 or 10 bands.

14 July - December 2012 Climb & Point Track, Cessna F152 Aircraft: 3 (Sortie No. 10) Climb & Point Track Cessna F150M Aircraft: 3 (Sortie No. 12) @Mid CG (23.78% MAC) Mid-aft CG (25.87% MAC) 4000 80 4000 80.00

3500 Geopotential Alt. 3500 (Feet) 75 75.00 Pseudo EAS (kts) 3000 3000 Geopotential Alt. (Feet) Pseudo EAS (kts) 70 70.00 2500 Pseduo EAS Trendline >>> 2500 ) kts ( 2000 65 2000 65.00

1500 1500 60 Pseudo EAS (kts) >>> Pseudo(kts) EAS

Pseudo EAS 60.00 Geopotential Alt. (ft) (ft) Alt. >>> Geopotential Geopotential Alt.(ft) >>> 1000 1000 55 55.00 500 500

0 50 0 50.00 12:16:20 12:16:30 12:16:40 12:16:50 12:17:00 12:17:10 12:17:20 12:17:30 12:17:40 12:17:50 12:18:00 12:18:10 12:18:20 12:18:30 12:18:40 14:49:10 14:49:20 14:49:30 14:49:40 14:49:50 14:50:00 14:50:10 14:50:20 14:50:30 14:50:40 14:50:50 14:51:00 14:51:10 14:51:20 14:51:30 14:51:40 14:51:50 14:52:00 14:52:10 14:52:20 14:52:30 14:52:40 14:52:50 Time (s) >>> Time (s) >>>

(a) (b) Fig. 7 Climb and Point Tracking Task for the Cessna F152 (a) and Cessna F150M (b).

Pilot Handing Qualities Ratings for the Climb & Pilot Handing Qualities Ratings for the Climb & Point Track Task: Cessna F152 Aircraft: 3 @Mid Point Track Task: Cessna F150M Aircraft: 1 @ CG (23.78% MAC) Sortie No. 10 Mid-aft CG (27.22 %MAC) Sortie No. 12

1 Start Climb 9 Vtrim = 69 kts 9 Vtrim = 69 kts Cooper-Harper Task: Cooper-Harper Task: Maintain climb speed 6 Maintain climb speed within: 6 within: +/- 2 kts (Desirable) +/- 2 kts (Desirable) +/-5 kts (Adequate) +/-5 kts (Adequate) 3 3

0 0

End Mid Climb Climb 3 2

(a) (b) Fig. 8 Cooper-Harper Handling Quality Ratings, Climb & Point Tracking, Cessna F152 (a) and Cessna F150M (b)

During one of the planned sorties involving the climb and point tracking and a Cessna F150M with mid-aft CG, the pilot recorded higher than usual HQRs for the task. Fig. 9 shows the time history for the task (a) and the associated HQRs recorded (b). Subsequent analysis of the cockpit voice recorder and cockpit video, showed that at the commencement and completion of the climb, the pilot had to make radio calls and radio frequency changes. These apparently minor aircraft management tasks resulted in significant deviations from the target airspeed and significantly higher overall HQRs. The pilot rated the task as HQR 7, reflecting the high workload experienced in maintaining the desired airspeed tolerance of +/2 kts. It can be seen that the airspeed tolerance deviates considerably at the commencement and completion of the task (in both cases > +5 kts) exceeding the adequate airspeed

July - December 2012 15 tolerance limits of +/- 5 kts. This contributed to the overall pilot HQR rating of 7. This was also indicative of the marginal speed stability of the aeroplane tested as evidenced in later tests.

Climb & Point Track Climb & Point Tracking Hadling Qualities Cessna F150M Aircraft:1 mid-aft CG (27% MAC) Task, Cessna F150M Aircraf t: 1 @ Mid-af t 4000 80 CG (27.22%), Sortie No. 8 78 3500 Geopotential Alt. (Feet) Pseudo EAS 76 Start 3000 Vtrim = 69 kts Pseudo EAS Trendline 74 Climb

2500 Cooper-Harper Task:- 72 9 Maintain climb speed within:- +/- 2 kts (Desirable) 2000 Geopotential Alt. 70 6 +/-5 kts (Adequate) 68 1500 PseudoEAS (kts) >>> (kts) PseudoEAS Geopotential Alt. (ft) (ft) >>> Alt. Geopotential 66 3 1000 64

500 62 0

0 60 End Mid 12:33:16 12:33:26 12:33:36 12:33:46 12:33:56 12:34:06 12:34:16 12:34:26 12:34:36 12:34:46 12:34:56 12:35:06 12:35:16 12:35:26 12:35:36 12:35:46 12:35:56 12:36:06 12:36:16 12:36:26 12:36:36 12:36:46 12:36:56 12:37:06 12:37:16 12:37:26 12:37:36 12:37:46 Climb Climb

Time (hh:mm:ss) >>>

(a) (b) Fig. 9 Time history for Climb & Point Tracking Task with Distraction, Cessna F150M at Mid-aft CG

2.5 Summary of Flight Test Results

The flight tests demonstrate the variation of stick force gradient with the aircraft configuration and phase of flight and that pilot perceptibility of stick force changes with airspeed considerably diminish in the landing phase with flaps deployed for the aeroplanes tested. Variations of stick force gradient across the aeroplane fleet were also detected, although individual models were reasonable consistent. Handling qualities assessments indicated an increase in workload with light stick force gradients and increased marginal speed stability. A further increase in workload was also apparent when additional aeroplane management tasks were introduced.

3 Flight Simulation Testing

Building upon the experimental flight tests carried out with an experienced test pilot, a series of flight simulation tests were devised to assess point tracking and boundary avoidance capabilities with different stick force gradients and also to assess pilot workload and decision making during a selection of safety critical manoeuvres. The simulation tests were carried out with a representative cross section of UK general aviation pilots to allow for variation in piloting capabilities. A national call for pilot volunteers was made via general aviation pilot press [15] and flying clubs. Over fifty respondents completed an on-line questionnaire providing demographic data and eventually twenty six general aviation pilots attended the programme of simulation tests. Pilot experience ranged from 35 to 12,000+ pilot in command (PiC) hours (median 222 hours) and all pilots held a current medical and flew light aeroplanes or 3-axis micro lights. Licenses and ratings varied from private pilots holding a National Private Pilots License (NPPL) to an Airline Transport Pilots License (ATPL) and currently employed as flying instructors (FI), see statistical summary in Appendix C. Analysis of pilot demographics data was completed noting total flying hours, pilot in command hours, recency, training, highest license type, ratings/endorsements, age, sex etc. Simulation tests were conducted

16 July - December 2012 over a three month period from May to July 2010. A detailed task analysis was completed and all tests were designed within the capabilities of the respective simulation devices considering the limitations of visual, aural and tactile systems.

Pilot workload was assessed immediately after completion of each task using a basic, un-weighted NASA-TLX workload rating assessment (Appendix D, [16]) via the simulator intercom system. Pilots were asked to rate the task on a scale of 1 to 10 their mental, physical and temporal load, as well as frustration, effort and own performance (Table 5). The assessment was completed in less than 2 minutes and scores recorded manually by the test administrator; in addition cockpit voice recordings were used for subsequent playback to confirm scores. A reversed scale was used to rate ‘own performance’, since this is more intuitive and helped to reduce errors. The scale was reversed in subsequent analysis to enable valid assessments of total workload for all tasks. A summary of all simulation tests conducted is given in Table 6 with detailed descriptions sections that follow.

Table 5, Modified, Un-weighted NASA-TLX Task Load Rating System

No. Category Rating Scale 1 Mental Demand 1 (Low) to 10 (High) 2 Physical Demand 1 (Low) to 10 (High) 3 Temporal/Time Pressure Demand 1 (Low) to 10 (High) 4 Own Performance* (reversed scale) 1 (Poor to 10 (Good) 5 Effort 1 (Low) to 10 (High) 6 Frustration 1 (Low) to 10 (High)

Table 6, Summary of Simulation Test Objectives and Equipment

Test Objectives Test Equipment Stick Force Gradien Approx Cert. daN/kt EAS Standard Guideline Assess point  Fixed-base engineering flight Gradient 1 = n/a tracking & simulator with precision 0.0071 boundary control loading avoidance and pilot  Wide-screen, 150 degree workload during HFOV & 40 degree VFOV simulated visuals with basic instrument Gradient 2 = CS-22 potential, LoC panel 0.0376 (Sailplanes) scenarios using a  Control stick & pedals with selection of stick software configurable force gradients (electronic) variable control loading Gradient 3 = CS-25  Brakes, flaps & elevator trim 0.0698 (Large Commercial)

July - December 2012 17 3.1 Flight Simulation Test Resources and Method

Flight Simulation Test was devised to gather additional research data to assess point tracking & boundary avoidance and pilot workload, but in this instance with a high precision, programmable control loading. The fixed-base engineering flight simulator based at Sheffield University, offers precision control loading in a wide-screen (150 degrees horizontal field of view by 40 degrees vertical field of view) environment and suitable for circuit-based scenarios where external visual cues are essential. The simulator uses an approximate replica of a Pilatus PC7 cockpit with basic head down instrument panel, control stick, pedals, throttle, brakes, flaps and elevator trim (Fig. 10). The system allows stick force gradients to be software configured and dynamically calculated based upon flight simulator parameter outputs such as airspeed and control deflection. For this series of tests, the control loading software was configured to emulate a basic, linear stick force variation with elevator stick displacement, independent of airspeed. Simulator data output was logged at a frequency of 5 Hz for subsequent analysis. A generic high-wing aircraft model (denoted BFSL-161-3) was selected from a library of available aircraft for use in the tests and minor modifications were made to the basic instrument panel to further enhance realism.

Fig. 10 PC7 Engineering Flight Simulator with Precision Control Loading in Roll, Pitch & Yaw

Each pilot conducted 5 different tasks using 3 pre-programmed, calibrated stick force gradients, 1,2, and 3 [Table 7]. The sequence of stick force gradients was varied to minimise experimental bias. After completing a practice circuit (take-off and landing on the same runway following a rectangular

18 July - December 2012 pattern around the airfield at fixed height, pilots conducted a second circuit, go-around (or balked landing), base to finals turn, take-off and climb-out and finally an engine failure after take-off for the last task in their sequence (final stick force gradient). After completion of each task sequence with a selected stick force gradient, a NASA-TLX workload assessment [16] was completed as with previous experiments. On completion of the assessment, the stick force configuration was changed (controlled by software) and the tasks repeated. The pilot was not informed of the nature of changes. Simulated air-ground radio communications were used for all scenarios with all pilots required to make the radio calls as necessary for flight in the pattern/circuit. In addition to the use of NASA- TLX workload assessment, a cockpit voice recorder, video recorder and intercom for simulated radio communications was used to gather additional research data. Table 7, Flight Simulation Test Scenarios

Task Task Description Performance Targets Trim Condition / Phase of No. / Pilot Decisions Configuration Flight 1 PRACTICE Fly the aircraft in the Practice only Circuit Circuit Circuit circuit, executing BRS Rwy 27 turns, maintaining R/H, 1000’ AGL airspeed, heading and altitude as required. 2 Circuit Fly the aircraft in the Pilot to fly within Circuit Circuit circuit, executing ‘usual’ flying BRS Rwy 27 turns, maintaining tolerances. R/H, 1000’ AGL airspeed, heading and altitude as required.. 3 Normal Fly the aircraft in the Pilot to fly within Approach & Approach, Approach take-off and climb ‘usual’ flying FULL Flap Take-off with out, maintaining tolerances. Pilot Landing @65 requested airspeed, heading and response time? Loss of kts, Rwy 27 Go-around rate of descent. height?. 2nm Execute go-around on Procedural sequence 700' AGL request. used? (with Go-around @ 50’ AGL) 4 Base to finals Fly the aircraft in the Pilot to fly within Base to Finals Approach turn with take-off and climb ‘usual’ flying Turn w/landing & Landing sufficient fuel out, maintaining tolerances. BRS Rwy 27 R/H for 1 landing airspeed, heading and Overshoot? Mid-base only (no go- rate of descent. 750' AGL arounds) 5 Normal Fly the aircraft in the Pilot to fly within Take-off & Take-off & Take-off take-off and climb ‘usual’ flying Climb-out @ 67 Climb-out out, maintaining tolerances. kts to 1500’ AGL airspeed, heading and rate of climb. 6 Normal Fly the aircraft in the Pilot to fly within Take-off & Take-off, Take-off with take-off and climb ‘usual’ flying Climb-out @ 67 Climb-out, Simulated out, maintaining tolerances. kts to 1500’ AGL EFATO airspeed & heading. (w/ EFATO & Forced Eng. failure to be Does pilot proceed @900’ AGL) Landing introduced by test forward or turn back?. admin. via EOS. Height lost in the turn?.

July - December 2012 19 Table 8, Flight Simulation Test- Sequence of Tests

Pilot No: 1 2 3 etc.. Stick Force 1 2 3 3 1 2 2 3 1 Gradient.: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Task Scenario 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Sequence: 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 6

3.2 Flight Simulation Test Results

The results obtained are presented in this section together with a brief summary. All pilot surveys and simulator tests were conducted in accordance with Brunel Univeristy’s ethics and safety procedures. Twenty of the original twenty six participants successfully completed Flight Simulation Test at Sheffield University using the fixed-base engineering flight simulator with precision control loading. The results for mean total, mental and physical workload for three different stick force gradients are presented in Fig. 11, Fig. 12 & Fig. 13 with standard error bars shown on all graphs.

Experiment 3: Mean Total Workload vs Stick Force Gradient 80%

70% Stick Force Gradient 3 (0.0698 daN/kt)

Stick Force Gradient 2 (0.0376 daN/kt)

Rating Stick Force Gradient 1 (0.0071 daN/kt)

60%

50% Worklload

Total 40% Mean 30%

20% TASK 1 TASK 2 TASK 3 TASK 4 TASK 5 Practice Circuit Circuit Approach & FULL Base to Finals Turn Take‐off & Climb‐ BRS Rwy 27 BRS Rwy 27 Flap Landing @65 w/landing out @ 67 kts to kts, Rwy 27 BRS Rwy 27 R/H 1500’ AGL 2nm Mid‐base 700' AGL 750' AGL (with Go‐around)

Fig. 11 Flight Simulation Test: Mean Total Workload by Task and Stick Force Gradient

20 July - December 2012

Experiment 3: Mean Mental Workload vs Stick Force Gradient

80% Stick Force Gradient 3 (0.0698 daN/kt) 70% Stick Force Gradient 2 (0.0376 daN/kt) >>>

Stick Force Gradient 1 (0.0071 daN/kt) 60% Rating

50% Workload

40% Mental

Mean 30%

Fig. 12 Flight Simulation Test: Mean Mental Workload by Task and Stick Force Gradient

Experiment 3: Mean Physical Workload vs Stick Force Gradient

80%

70% Stick Force Gradient 3 (0.0698 daN/kt) >>>

Stick Force Gradient 2 (0.0376 daN/kt)

Rating 60% Stick Force Gradient 1 (0.0071 daN/kt)

50% Workload

40% Physical

30% Mean

Fig. 13 Flight Simulation Test: Mean Physical Workload by Task and Stick Force Gradient

July - December 2012 21 Fig. 11 indicates that for all tasks, the mean total workload for both the high (0.027 daN/kt) and medium (0.014 daN/kt) stick force gradients are lower than the low stick force gradient (0.0002 daN/kt). At a detailed level, the corresponding recorded mental workload (Fig. 12) is consistently lower for high stick force gradient than both medium and low by 5~8%. Conversely the recorded physical workload (Fig. 13) for the high stick force gradient is greater than both medium and low stick force gradients, for all tasks with the exception of the base to finals turn.

Analysis of the flight simulator data output for the climb-out (Task 5) by two volunteer pilots is

presented in Fig. 15 and Fig. 15. The results for Non-dimensionalised alpha (alpha / alphacrit) versus

Non-dimensionalised elevator deflection (delta / deltamax) consistently show that high stick force gradients have a smaller ‘footprint’ than both medium and low stick force gradients for a representative sample of GA pilots. Elevator deflection was initially in the ‘pull’ sense for high stick forces, moving to almost neutral and then to a ‘push’ sense for low stick force measurement. High stick forces exhibited less alpha and airspeed variation in all cases. All results highlight that increased elevator stick movement is required for the medium and low stick force gradients, with the medium stick force gradient apparently performing worst of all. The results also indicate differences between a typical medium hour private pilot (Pilot ‘B’) and a high hours professional pilot (Pilot ‘A’). For identical tasks the high hours professional pilot consistently applied much smaller control inputs and achieved a more precise result, however, even the high hours pilot experienced a degradation in precision as the stick forces were reduced. Pilots were observed to make less use of the elevator trim with low and medum stick force gradents. Variability in piloting technique was also observed during the tests.

Experiment 3: Non‐dimensionalised AoA versus Elevator Position for High Experience Pilot Executing the Climb‐out

0.7

0.6 Gradient 3 (0.0698 daN/kt) Gradient 2 (0.0376 daN/kt) >>>

0.5 Gradient 1 (0.0071 daN/kt) AoA

0.4

0.3 dimensionalised ‐ 0.2 Non

0.1

0 1.00 0.80 0.60 0.40 0.20 0.00 ‐0.20 ‐0.40 ‐0.60 ‐0.80 ‐1.00 Non‐dimensionalised Elevator Position (‐ve UP) >>>

Fig. 14 Non-dimensionalised AoA versus elevator position for High Experience Pilot executing the climb- out (Task 5) [Gradients 1, 2 3 left to right]

22 July - December 2012 Experiment 3: Non‐dimensionalised AoA vs Elevator Position for Medium Experience Pilot Executing the Climb‐out

0.7

0.6 >>>

Gradient 3 (0.0698 daN/kt) 0.5 Gradient 2 (0.0376 daN/kt) AoA

Gradient 1 (0.0071 daN/kt) 0.4

0.3 dimensionalised 0.2 ‐ Non

0.1

0 1.00 0.80 0.60 0.40 0.20 0.00 ‐0.20 ‐0.40 ‐0.60 ‐0.80 ‐1.00 Non‐dimensionalised Elevator Deflection (‐ve UP) >>>

Fig. 15 Non-dimensionalised AoA versus elevator position for Medium Experience Pilot executing the climb-out (Task 5) [Gradients 1, 2 3 left to right]

Differences in piloting techniques were evident in the analysis of the results. Some pilots made continual and abrupt controls inputs (‘heavy handed’) with little use of the trim facility whereas other pilots handled the aircraft in a more sedate manner. This indicates wide differences in piloting techniques and pilot models when considering pilot gain, pilot response time and pilot control strategy [17].

Experiment 3: Non‐dimensionalised AoA versus Elevator Position for High Experience Pilot Executing the Go‐around

0.7

0.6 Gradient 3 (0.0698 daN/kt) >>> 0.5 Gradient 2 (0.0376 daN/kt) AoA Gradient 1 (0.0071 daN/kt) 0.4

0.3 dimensioalised ‐

0.2 Non

0.1

0 1.00 0.80 0.60 0.40 0.20 0.00 ‐0.20 ‐0.40 ‐0.60 ‐0.80 ‐1.00 Non‐dimensionalised Elevator Position (‐ve UP) >>>

Fig. 16 Non-dimensionalised AoA versus elevator position for High Experience Pilot executing the go- around (Task 3) [Gradients 1, 2 3 left to right]

July - December 2012 23 Experiment 3: Non‐dimensionalised AoA versus Elevator Position for Medium Experience Pilot Executing the Go‐around

0.7

0.6 Gradient 3 (0.0698 daN/kt) >>> 0.5 Gradient 2 (0.0376 daN/kt) AoA Gradient 1 (0.0071 daN/kt)

0.4

0.3 dimensionalised ‐ 0.2 Non

0.1

0 1.00 0.80 0.60 0.40 0.20 0.00 ‐0.20 ‐0.40 ‐0.60 ‐0.80 ‐1.00 Non‐dimensionalised Elevator Position (‐ve UP) >>>

Fig. 17 Non-dimensionalised AoA versus elevator position for Medium Experience Pilot executing the go- around (Task 3) [Gradients 1, 2 3 left to right]

Fig. 17 and Fig. 17 illustrate Non-dimensionalised alpha versus elevator deflection for the safety- critical go-around manoeuvre (Task 3) for two pilots of different experience levels: Pilot ‘A’ - high hours ATPL(A) and Pilot ‘B’ - medium hours PPL (A) for all three stick force gradients. The ‘footprints’ clearly indicate variation in piloting techniques for each pilot. Pilot ‘A’ used small, incremental, smooth and precise control inputs during the manoeuvre and utilised elevator trim to stabilize the aircraft and reduce workload. The alpha/elevator footprints are similar in shape for all three stick force gradients with the smallest alpha/elevator footprint being achieved with the low stick force gradient where the range of alpha changes were also the least. In contrast, Pilot ‘B’ made abrupt, continuous control inputs with little or no use of the elevator trim. The alpha/elevator footprints are more random in shape and generally much larger, indicating a larger range of elevator inputs and hence alpha variations. Workload for this pilot was consequently higher for both tasks performed. The examples presented are indicative of an overall relationship between flying experience and piloting technique.

4 Conclusions

In the primary control task, this research has shown that variations in elevator stick force gradients can significantly increase mental workload leading to degraded performance for pilots of lesser experience. This has important implications since as pilot workload increases safety margin correspondingly decreases (assuming nominal pilot capacity is unchanged). A general increase in workload coupled with task complexity has also been demonstrated when faced with variations with aircraft type and/or model and by phase of flight are evident. The introduction of emergency procedures showed that even higher workloads were experienced by most pilots.

Variations in elevator stick force gradients for a specific aeroplane, can occur due to configuration changes (as demanded by different phases of flight), different loading situations (CG) and/or improper

24 July - December 2012 use of the elevator trim, resulting in corresponding variations in aeroplane handling qualities (or aircraft ‘feel’ to the pilot). It is also possible that different aircraft types and even different models of the same type, possess variable handling qualities and care should be taken for example, in aircraft type or model conversion to fully appreciate these differences and their potential impact on pilot workload and safety margins. Poor cockpit design and layout can also contribute to this by also increasing workload. These factors, in combination with low elevator stick force gradients, can further reduce the safety margin.

During the flight test programme, the use of proven techniques such as Cooper-Harper for conducting qualitative assessment of pilot workload in the cockpit environment has been invaluable. Quantitative flight data provided by a portable flight data recorder does not always convey the complete picture with regard to task performance. Initial flight testing in real aeroplanes with a qualified test pilot proved extremely useful in highlighting possible tasks/scenarios for subsequent simulator experimentation with a cross-section of UK-based general aviation pilots.

For the simulation trials, the use of a basic NASA-TLX method for expediency in the pilot workload assessments also proved useful and non-obtrusive. Indeed, the workload results for simulator experimentation show larger differences for mental workload versus physical workload. It is recognised that the use of flight simulators and flight training devices is only a representation of reality and that similar tasks performed in the real aircraft will induce higher workload. However safety implications make the use of real aircraft and real pilots in a real-world weather environment impractical. Simulation exercises must accurately emulate the real aeroplane to provide usable data. Even small differences in control position or operational procedures can have a significant impact on results. Simulator experiments also highlighted differences in piloting technique and that more experienced and highly skilled pilots, tend to be able to better accommodate different stick force gradients without compromising performance or safety.

5 Lessons Learned

The following lesson were learned through the course of the flight test and flight simulation programme:-  The application of Cooper-Harper Ratings and Point Tracking/Boundary Avoidance theory to loss of control has considerable merit;  The use of Cooper-Harper Ratings by test pilots to initially identify potential pilot workload issues followed by the use of NASA-TLX by representative pilots subjects in simulation tests correlate well;  Absolute attention to detail is required in any use of flight simulation to emulate real-world piloting tasks and this must consider all cues within the context of the task being assessed e.g. aural, visual, acceleration, touch and feel;  Quantitative data alone may not provide the complete picture with regard to the piloting task being assessed.  The application of Matlab to the modelling of stick force gradients enables useful first- estimates and tendencies towards neutral or ‘cliff edge’ longitudinal static stability to be identified in advance of flight tests being conducted.  For future flight testing, the use of digital load cells is recommended for improved data collection accuracy and speed for measurements of apparent longitudinal stick-free static

July - December 2012 25 stability. The method developed for calibration of the flight simulator devices is transferrable to the real aircraft with minimum intrusion on piloting tasks.

6 Further work

Further work should be conducted with higher stick force gradients greater than 0.074 daN/kt (CS- 25/FAR Part 25 guideline), representing a wider variety of aircraft types in order to determine potential ‘optimum’ stick force gradients, balancing mental and physical workload. This should then be considered for future inclusion in certification standards for non-aerobatic general aviation and light sport aeroplanes.

7 Acknowledgements

Sincere thanks to the 26 pilot volunteers without which this study would not have been possible. They gave the time freely and travelled at their own expense across the country to participate in this study in the interests of improving flight safety in general aviation. Thanks also to Dr. Cristinel Mares and Mr. Kevin Robinson at Brunel University for their invaluable support and encouragement throughout this research. We also gratefully acknowledge the financial support of the Thomas Gerald Gray Charitable Trust Research Scholarship Scheme and are indebted to Prof. David Allerton and Dr. Graham Spence of Sheffield University for provision of the PC7 fixed-base simulator and support during the simulation testing at Sheffield.

26 July - December 2012 Appendix A

Pseudo EAS

During the flight test programme, quantitative data obtained from the portable flight data recorder was used to determine the airspeed point tracking qualities of the aircraft during the climb. The flight data recorder used for flight testing, records groundspeed in knots using the built-in GPS and this includes effects due to wind. It was necessary to convert this into a ‘pseudo EAS’ airspeed for valid analysis.

Gratton [18], showed that the true airspeed can be derived from the aircraft groundspeed, wind and relative angles:-

    VT VG VW COS( AC W ) (1)

Correcting for relative air density, the ‘pseudo’ equivalent airspeed is therefore:-

VE  VT  (2)

Substituting for VT from equation (1), in equation (2) gives:-

VE  VG VW COS(AC W )  (3)

Where the relative air density may be obtained from tables or by using McCormick [19]:-

4.2561    (4)

And,

   1 0.02256h (5)

Where h is altitude in kilometres.

July - December 2012 27 Appendix B

Fig. 18 Cooper Harper Handling Qualities Rating Scale [14]

28 July - December 2012 Appendix C

Table 9, Volunteer Pilots - Statistical Summary using SPSS [20]

Characteristic Results (n=26)

Sex: Male 96%, Female 4 %

Age: 52 yrs (mean)

Highest License: PPL 88%, CPL 8%, ATPL 4%

Notable Ratings: Night 35%, IMC 35%, FI 12%, Micro light 12%, Gliding 12%

Years since 1st license: 15 yrs (mean)

Hours: - Total 328 hrs (median) - PIC 222 hrs (median)

Recency: last -28 days 4.5 hrs (median) - 90 days 11.0 hrs (median) - 1yr 26.3 hrs (median) - 5 yrs 99.5 hrs (median)

Most common aircraft type Single Engine Piston 96% flown: Micro light/Sport Light Aircraft 4%

Maximum 12,450

Inter-quartile Median 222 Range 791.75

Minimum 25

Fig. 19 Pilot in Command (PIC) Hours, Box and Whisker Plot using SPSS

July - December 2012 29 Appendix D

Fig. 20 Modified Task Rating Sheet (based on NASA-TLX)

30 July - December 2012 Appendix E

Table 10 Flight Simulator Model Aircraft Characteristics

Exp. Simulator Type: MTOW Wingspan Length VCR VAPP VY VS0

Model (lb): (ft): (ft): (kts): (kts): (kts): (kts): 1 BFSL-161- 4 seat, 2,646 36’0” 27’0” 95 65 67 38 3 single engine piston, high wing, touring aircraft

References

[1] Hawkins, F.H., Human Factors in Flight, Second Edition, Ashgate Publishing Limited, Aldershot, UK, 2002. [2] McInally, S., “R3 – A Riding Strategy Formulation Model for the Risk Adverse Motorcyclist”, Contemporary Ergonomics, 2003. [3] European Aviation Safety Agency, Certification Specifications for Normal, Utility, Aerobatic and Commuter Aeroplanes, CS-23, Amendment 2, 2010. [4] European Aviation Safety Administration, Airworthiness Requirements for Very Light Category Airplanes, CS-VLA, 2010. [5] Federal Aviation Administration, Airworthiness Standards: Transport Category Airplanes, Part 25, e-CFR version as at January 11 , 2011. [6] Robson, D., Aerobatics, Principles & Practice, Airlife Publishing Ltd., 2001, Shrewsbury, United Kingdom. [7] Young, A., “An Investigation into the Effect of Control Design and Sensitivity on the Performance of a Simulated Approach and Landing Task”, M.Sc. Thesis, Applied Psychology Unit, Cranfield College of Aeronautics, 1993. [8] Gray, W., “Boundary Escape Tracking: A New Conception of Hazardous PIO”, USAF Test Pilot School. [9] Roskam., J., Airplane Flight Dynamics and Automatic Flight Controls Part II, DARcorporation, Kansas, USA, 2003. [10] Appareo Systems, GAU 1000 General Specifications, Appareo Systems LLC, Fargo, ND, USA, June, 2008. [11] Bromfield, M.A., & Gratton, G.B., “Supporting the investigation of factors affecting loss of control of light aeroplane”, Proceedings of the 40th Annual International Symposium - Society of Flight Test Engineers, Sweden, September 2009.

July - December 2012 31

[12] Bromfield, M.A., and Gratton, G.B., “Investigation of Factors Affecting Loss of Control of General Aviation Aircraft”, Society of Experimental Test Pilots Meeting Papers, La Jolla, San Diego, USA, March 20~21, 2009. [13] MATLAB, R2007a User Manual, The Mathworks Inc., Natick, MA, USA, 2007. [14] Cooper, G.E. & Harper R.P., “The Use of Pilot Rating in the Evaluation of Aircraft Handling Qualities”. AGARD-R-567, 1969 & NASA, Report TN-D-5153, 1969. [15] Bloom, N., “Notes/Briefs”, Pilot Magazine, Archant Specialist, Wokingham, UK, October, 2009. [16] NASA, “NASA-TLX – Task Load Index V2.0”, NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field CA 94035, December 19, 2003. [17] Mayer, J., & Cox, T.H., “Evaluation of Two Unique Side Stick Controllers in a Fixed-Base Flight Simulator”, NASA/TM-2003-212042, December 2003. [18] Gratton, G.B., “Use of Global Positioning System velocity outputs for determining airspeed measurement error”, Aeronautical Journal Vol. 111 No.1120 pp381-388, June 2007. [19] McCormick, B.W., Aerodynamics, Aeronautics and Fight Mechanics, John Wiley & Sons, 1979. [20] SPSS, Statistical Processing for Social Sciences Software, Version 15.01.1, IBM Corporation, Somers, New York, USA, 3rd July, 2007.

Editor’s Memo: A Little Help Please!

Greetings SETP Members and associates. I’m AL Peterson the SETP Publications Chairman and I have a favor to ask of all of you. I need your help in finding, soliciting, and sending in good technical articles, RefleXtions style articles, photos, and general member news for publication in Cockpit. Our society members are doing great and fantastic work out there in the world, but you would never know it based on the lack of technical articles and other information that get submitted to Cockpit for consideration for publication. Quite honestly, we struggle every issue to find good technical and RefleXtions articles to publish, and I know we don’t receive a fraction of the news about the great things our members are doing. If you know someone who has written a technical or historical flight test article please encourage them to submit it. If you know someone who has done some interesting flight test work (past or present) but hasn’t written an article, encourage them to hit the keyboard and then send it in. Likewise for sending in news about the great things our members are doing, if you know something interesting that has happened in the flight test world please send it in. Good quality and interesting photos should also be sent in for inclusion in the news section and also for consideration for the cover of Cockpit. Cockpit is sent to and belongs to everyone in the Society and in order to keep it useful and relevant technically, journalistically, and socially we need everyone to actively seek out and send in articles, news, and photos. Thanks in advance for your support. Cheers, AL

32 July - December 2012 –

Jeff Trang (AF), Chief, Experimental Flight Test Denis Hamel, Senior Experimental Flight Test Engineer American Eurocopter, Grand Prairie, Texas

Abstract

In June 2010, American Eurocopter (AE) established a new flight test department, mirroring the same skill sets, personnel qualification requirements, and technical capabilities prescribed by the Eurocopter Group in Marignane and Donauwörth. The department has been charged with conducting all flight test activities needed to support Eurocopter’s civil and military programs in the United States, in addition to augmenting the flight test activities in Europe.

Since that time, AE has been working in close cooperation with ECD in a major risk reduction effort to establish the EC145 platform for the U.S. Army’s Armed Aerial Scout (AAS) program. Leveraging on the success of the Army’s Light Utility Helicopter (LUH) program, the AAS effort seeks to integrate a variety of mission equipment needed to perform the armed reconnaissance mission. A major part of this effort was dedicated to establishing a safe flight envelope with an extensively modified aircraft. Consequently, handling qualities, performance, flight loads, and pitot-static tests were conducted for a significant number of new aircraft configurations, including:

Doors-Off – all combinations of pilot doors, sliding doors and clam-shell doors open/removed; Nose-mounted turret – FLIR and TV video; Multi-Purpose Pylons – capable of mounting any combination of external stores, such as fuel tanks, Hellfire launchers, 2.75 rocket launchers, etc.

A new test methodology for conducting pitot-static tests, using the “trailing bomb” technique, was developed during this flight test campaign. This new flight test technique provides the ability to quickly gather data for several CG configurations, without need for re-ballast, in a single sortie. Consequently, the methodology provides great potential in efficiently conducting such flight tests. Safety is likewise enhanced, as fewer configuration changes are required, particularly in re-ballasting the aircraft for extreme forward or aft cg locations.

July - December 2012 33 a combat zone, this unique acquisition strategy was deemed sufficient in meeting the Army’s Introduction operational requirements, without need for In June 2010, American Eurocopter (AE) additional development costs and the associated formally established a Flight Test department in time to gain certification. Grand Prairie that was chartered to conduct With the Army’s announcement to establish developmental, certification, and qualification the AAS program, Eurocopter decided to offer a flight testing in the United States. While the Lakota variant, the AAS-72X, as a viable, low-risk initial emphasis focused on supporting large solution to meet the requirements for the armed Governmental contracts, particularly for the U.S. scout mission. This approach would allow Army, the long-term vision included supporting Eurocopter to leverage the success of the LUH American Eurocopter’s civil certification efforts into the AAS, while offering a common platform and complementing the flight test capabilities in for training, logistics, and maintenance. However, Marignane and Donauwörth. Consequently, the because the basic UH-72 was certified under civil Flight Test department was structured to meet the requirements for operating in a non-hostile technical requirements of the FAA, the U.S. environment, Eurocopter recognized that an military, and the Eurocopter Group, in terms of extensive requirements analysis would be personnel, qualifications and training, and flight necessary to evaluate the “gaps” between the civil test instrumentation. standards and any potential military specifications. When the U.S. Army announced its intent to This engineering “gap analysis” was conducted as establish the Armed Aerial Scout (AAS) program a major risk-mitigation effort, since the Army has as a replacement of the OH-58D Kiowa Warrior, yet to publish any performance specifications; AE accelerated its efforts to stand-up its Flight requirements from the Army’s earlier ARH Test department. Established entirely through program were therefore used as a baseline internal R&D funding, the Flight Test group was assumption. tasked with the AAS program as its initial focus Two examples help illustrate this topic. On area. the one hand, Eurocopter recognized that while the In 2006, the Army selected Eurocopter and the EC-145 has a fuel system designed to be crash EC145 to replace its aging UH-1H Huey and OH- resistant (§29.952), it was clearly not designed to 58A/C Kiowa aircraft. The so-called Light Utility have the ballistic tolerance of many current Helicopter (LUH) program included a production combat aircraft; a system redesign will likely be contract of 345 aircraft, of which more than 215 necessary. On the other hand, the EC145 has an have been delivered – on time and within budget – extremely robust autopilot that has been certified to the Army and National Guard. Designated by to meet the requirements for single-pilot IFR the Army as the UH-72 Lakota, the aircraft was operations (Appendix B to Part 29); in this case employed to conduct administrative, logistics, the system architecture is likely acceptable. Homeland Security, and medical evacuation operations. The acquisition strategy reflected this EC-145 Basic Platform operational requirement for the LUH, as the Army needed to minimize its developmental risk by The EC145 is a twin-engine, four-bladed procuring a commercial, off-the-shelf (COTS) helicopter designed as a light, multipurpose product already approved in accordance with civil aircraft with a maximum gross weight of 3,585 kg certification standards of 14 CFR 29. By (7,903 lb). The aircraft can accommodate two recognizing that the LUH would not be exposed in pilots and up to 10 passengers. The aircraft was 2

34 July - December 2012 certified to meet the FAA/EASA transport AAS Project background category (Part 29) certification requirements for day, night, single-pilot IFR, and Category-A. The AAS program was recently initiated by The aircraft is based on the BK117 family of the Army to evaluate potential cost-effective aircraft, utilizing flex cables with conventional solutions to replace the aging OH-58D Kiowa engine and flight controls in order to maximize the Warrior fleet. It is the Army’s most recent effort aircraft’s cabin space and useful payload. The at modernizing its armed reconnaissance aircraft is configured with six doors: two hinged capability. While not yet launched as a formal doors for the cockpit; two sliding doors for the program, the Army released a Request for forward cabin; and two “clam-shell” doors for the Information (RFI), soliciting Industry participation aft cabin. in a Voluntary Flight Demonstration (VFD) in in mid- to late-2012. The results of the VFD will be The cockpit is configured with several multi- used to assess the current rotorcraft state-of-the- function glass displays – one primary flight art, to evaluate their potential for modification and display, one navigation display, two vehicle and use in the AAS role, and to provide costing data engine management displays, and one caution for submission in future procurement budgets. annunciator display. These displays have been optimized for man-machine interface, utilizing As previously noted, while the Army has not color coding, suppression of non-essential defined any specific technical or performance information, and a First Limit Indicator (FLI) to requirements, Eurocopter used those developed for simplify management of aircraft crticial system the ARH program as a baseline, then and flight parameters. The aircraft is equipped “extrapolating” those based on the information with a VARTOMS system, designed to provided in the recent RFI. To this end, the AE automatically control rotor speed as a function of Flight Test department has been executing a wide density altitude and airspeed, while matching variety of handling qualities, performance, and torque between the two Turbomeca Ariel 1E2 flight loads tests to provide risk reduction in engines. supporting the VFD and the potential release of a formal Request for Proposal for the AAS program. Single-pilot IFR operation is made possible by The remainder of this paper highlights the AE incorporation of a three-axis automatic flight flight test activities, culminating in the “Doors control system (AFCS), comprised of dual Off” testing and a new flight test technique (FTT) electronic autopilot modules, series smart electro- used in to conduct position-error correction (PEC) mechanical actuators (SEMA), parallel force-trim tests with the “trailing bomb.” actuators, and a back-up stability augmentation system (SAS) having three independent fiber-optic gyros. The AFCS interfaces with dual, New EC145 Configurations independent attitude and heading reference An analysis was conducted to consider any systems, two air data computers, and a single potential aircraft configurations, based on navigation management system to provide for operational estimates from earlier ARH coupling of the AFCS upper modes. This AFCS requirements, Army feedback from the LUH utilizes a system architecture that is common to program, and customer input regarding external the Eurocopter family of helicopters that are load and Public Use (police, firefighting, and air certified for IFR operations. medical) operations. This analysis revealed the need to consider the following three fundamental

July - December 2012 35 configurations, including a variety of combinations for each: Nose-mounted turret (video/FLIR) Multi-Purpose Pylons (MPP) – capable of carrying any combination of wing stores (gun, rocket, fuel pod, etc.) Doors Open/Removed – cockpit (hinged), cabin (sliding), and clamshell These configurations provided the baseline used in developing the handling qualities, flight loads, performance, and PEC test matrix to be Figure 1: Flight Test Instrumentation Rack accomplished. Since this test effort was intended to provide a risk-reduction for any potential A complete verification of safe flight military or civil needs, the MPP testing included a parameters during “Doors Off” tests requires variety of dummy stores using “worst case” installation of a combination of accelerometers, weights and drag profiles. strain gages, and pressure sensors, each sensor The fundamental goal of the flight tests was to type complementing the others. establish a safe operating envelope without High frequency, light weight tri-axial reduction in the existing VNE. To this end flight piezoelectric accelerometers were used for their testing initially concentrated on clearing a flight dynamic range to sense, in addition to normal envelope for various “Doors Off” configurations, vibration motion, impact events characterized by with the turret and MPP installed. high G peaks that could otherwise go undetected. As will be seen below, clearing the flight A metallic tape is placed on the helicopter envelope for the many doors configurations surface. Accelerometers are screwed onto a included a variety of considerations, including mounting base which is then bonded to the tape. position-error calibration, door vibrations, This installation provides a solid contact of aerodynamic loads, and airflow within the cockpit transmitting the true motion of the surface and and cabin. ease of removal without damaging the sensor.

AEC Flight Testing Campaign Defining FTI Requirements

Ground and Airborne FTI equipment, tools and software are identical to those used by the Eurocopter Group, ensuring commonality and data interchange. The FTI is based on the ACRA signal

conditioning equipment and a Zodiak HEIM D120 recorder (Figure 1). Figure 2: Sliding Door Accelerometer Installation

36 July - December 2012 Sliding door hinges were equipped with strain gages and calibrated for force measurement:

Figure 5 : Clamshell Door Pressure FTI

Figure 3 : Door Hinge Load FTI

High speed Piezoresistive pressure sensors, each rated at 15 psia, were used for door pressure measurements for their static accuracy and dynamic response (Figure 4). The sensors were mounted on the inside and corresponding outside position of the Clamshell doors (Figure 5) and sliding doors (Figure 6). Pre- and post-flight calibrations yielded the necessary zero-offsets against the known ambient pressure; corrections of up to 3 hPa were required.

Figure 6: Sliding Door Pressure and Accelerometer FTI

Wool tufts were taped along the door frames to indicate the airflow direction and qualitative level of turbulent flow within the cockpit and cabin (Figure 7):

Figure 4 : Piezoresistive Pressure sensor 5

July - December 2012 37 Flight Tests Doors Testing

A flight envelope expansion for opened or removed doors was performed for improving comfort in hot weather environment, providing enhanced cockpit field-of-view, expanding the flight operating speeds, and allowing for weight reduction. Several configurations were considered as shown in Table 1, starting from all doors

installed and concluding with a “no doors” Figure 7: Wool tufts along door frames configuration: Static and dynamic pressures for the PEC Table 1 : Doors Configurations flights are routed to a 16-channel electronic pressure scanner with temperature compensation # Hinged Sliding Clamshell (Figure 8). All pressures are referenced to a 1 Closed Closed common pressure, was chosen to be the trailing 2 Closed bomb reference static pressure. 3 Open Removed Helicopter PEC takes place in the lower 4 Removed airspeed spectrum of low static and dynamic 5 Closed/Open/Removed Removed pressures. Using a common differential reference minimizes the effects of sensor error and non- optimal stabilization of airspeed/altitude. To this large number of configurations were added asymmetrical operations (one door open, one closed) were considered, as well as an investigation of CG effect.

Door Pressures and Loads

Airflow characteristics and loads were evaluated by observing the wool tufts in correlation with pressure sensors. Loads were evaluated by frequency analysis of hinge loads and high frequency accelerometers data. Scanner Position Error Correction

The PEC principle is shown in Figure 9. The

grey block represents the physical connections to Figure 8: Pressure Scanner for PEC Measurements the measurement chambers. All pressures are differential, referenced to the trailing bomb static pressure.

38 July - December 2012 Referencing all pressures relative to trailing The measurement chain errors are considered to bomb static pressure cancels out sensor errors and be well within the scatter resulting from non- provides a continuous measurement of the perfect stabilizations. installation errors – measurements can therefore PEC pressure error is converted to altitude and be performed in any combination of airspeed and airspeed error using only two equations: vertical speed. The yellow block represents the steps required (1) to derive the installation errors. The reference pressures from the trailing bomb are assumed to have no errors, measuring free air static and pitot (2) pressure perfectly. Also, the errors from the pressure sensor are within 0.15 mb and are verified using pre- and post-flight calibrations.

Figure 9: Pressure Measurements and Data Processing 7

July - December 2012 39 Trailing Bomb installation

The trailing bomb provides static and pitot reference pressures. Lines are routed along a steel cable up to the pressure scanner in the helicopter. The original trailing bomb was suspended on a 10 m cable and was limited to 100 KIAS due to clearance problems. This was solved by increasing the cable length to 19 m and the addition of two stabilizing weights. Two weights were attached to the cable. The first weight was mounted 3 m below the hook attachment to provide skid and tail rotor clearance. The second weight was attached 3 m above the trailing bomb to ensure sufficient separation from the rotor wake and pressure field. The optimal trailing bomb configuration of cable length and weights is one that provides maximum vertical separation and stability at all speeds. Starting with the original configuration, the cable length was increased from 10 to 19 m and the two weights were set at 10 kg. The second Figure 10: Trailing Bomb Deployment & Recovery configuration suffered from non-damped oscillations at low speeds, while providing Table 2 : Trailing Bomb Installation Parameters excellent stability at high speeds. The lower Cable Top Bottom Result weight appeared to induce the oscillations, so it Length Weight Weight (Low airspeed) was removed for the third configuration. This [m] [kg] [kg] (High Airspeed) configuration change restored stability at low No oscillation speeds but suffered from oscillations and 10 0 0 insufficient separation at high speeds. With the Insufficient separation, 100 KIAS max. fourth configuration, the lower weight was Sustained oscillations reinstalled with half the mass removed. As 10 10 expected, this final configuration produced the Damped oscillations, best stability and separation compromise for all good separation airspeed ranges. This final configuration was Damped oscillations retained as the best compromise for the PEC Damped oscillations, 10 0 evaluation tests. insufficient separation 19 airspeed limitation in descent Lightly damped oscillations 10 5 Lightly damped oscillations, adequate separation

40 July - December 2012

Level Flight Hover Pich Angle [deg]

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 IAS [kts] Figure 12 : Pitch Attitude vs Airspeed in level flight

Figure 11: Trailing Bomb: Final Configuration, The Pitch Attitude vs Indicated Airspeed (IAS) Descent 100 kts, 1500fpm line was shifted 2 at extreme aft and forward All flights were performed with a chase CG from the mid CG line depicted in the figure. aircraft monitoring the trailing bomb, monitoring In a single flight, with the aircraft configured communications with ATC, and managing at mid CG, the Quasi-static FTT is used to airspace. The additional costs are offset by the investigate the effect of mid, forward and aft CG: safety benefits and the efficiency of the test crew Perform steady state measurements (mid CG); in focusing on the test. Decelerate from VH back to hover following PEC Flight Test Technique (FTT) the aft CG curve; then Accelerate from hover to V following the A simple Quasi-Static test method was H forward CG curve. considered to minimize the flight time and enhance safety. While the traditional method is Low speed data below 30 KIAS is based on steady-state measurements, the Quasi- collected with ground references, after trailing Static FTT consists of performing a slow airspeed bomb deployment, from a slow level flight sweep (~1 kt/sec) and continuously recording acceleration and on static bomb recovery, during pitot-static data. In the data reduction phase, a the deceleration to hover. stability criteria is applied, locating stable time periods in which the averaged data is calculated. By sweeping the airspeed in both directions, any 3 Deceleration on AFT CG line hysteresis effect is brought to evidence or 1 Steady State attributed to a secondary parameter (for example, aircraft pitch attitude). Accele For helicopters, the effect of airspeed and CG ration on FWD CG line P i t c h a u d e on pitch attitude is approximated by a linear 2 function, as shown in the following figure: Airspeed

Figure 13: Quasi-Static Technique for PEC

July - December 2012 41 An onboard dyamic display, providing a real- time depiction of the last 10 seconds of Pitch Attitude vs. IAS, was prepared for the pilot to execute in flight. A depiction of this dyamic display is shown in Figure 14.

Figure 14: On-Board Dynamic Pilot Display Test Execution and Results

“Doors Off” Flight Envelope Clearance

Handling qualities remained unchanged for all configuration tested. Airflow and cabin noise remained acceptable up to cruise speeds; only the configuration with opened sliding doors produced significant turbulent airflow felt throughout the aircraft. Doors differential pressures remained low; static pressure inboard and outboard of the clamshell doors remained positive (Figure 15),

verifying that these doors pushed inward against the frame seals. The highest pressure differential Figure 15: Clamshell door static pressure (top: inboard, bottom: outboard) (8 mb) was found at high speed with only the cockpit hinged doors removed. For reference, the In the opened sliding door configuration, black circles depict the basic aircraft with all doors moderate 4/rev vibrations were apparent, but installed and closed. hinge dynamic load increased significantly from Sliding door pressures also remained low, with 50 KIAS: small pressure differentials.

42 July - December 2012

Figure 16: Sliding Door Lateral Load

The departure occurs where the dynamic component exceeded the static component; a small amount of free play created a floating surface suspected to cause local, high impact type G loads. High G impacts were found in the vibration Figure 17 : Sliding Door Vibrations (top: 4/rev, measurements: while 4/rev vibrations, visible to bottom: mean amplitude) the crew, were qualitatively and numerically acceptable, absolute amplitudes exceeding 20 g Position Error Correction were measured and deemed unacceptable at these Steady state measurements were conducted higher speeds (Figure 17). Until free-play is with 10 to 20 seconds of stabilized data. For the eliminated, a speed limitation to prevent wear Quasi-Static FTT, the airspeed change rate would be necessary. required to fly the attitude line was 1 to 2 knots Generally, when comparing configurations to a per second. The time needed to complete each known baseline, any deviation stands out to be sweep required approximately 2 minutes. analysed for its significance. Signal analysis and The PEC test results are shown in Figure 18 data correlation using different sensors plays an and Figure 19 for the altitude and airspeed errors essential role in this work. respectively. The red test points depict steady state measurements, with triangles and stars showing quasi-static test points for acceleration and deceleration, respectively. Deceleration data is identical with the steady state data, indicating no change in PEC from mid to forward CG range. Acceleration data is significantly different in the low airspeed range and is traced to the static

July - December 2012 43 port installation being affected by a shift of the Clamshell doors removed – the neutral static pressure boundary from 20 to 60 local airflow separated from the KIAS. This characteristic was not revealed by structure, shifting the neutral static steady-state measurements. point forward of the static ports, Another benefit of the Quasi-Static FTT and method is the large amount of data produced in Multi-purpose pylon installation – very short test time. Resulting graphs are very inducing a higher local turbulent densely populated with a wealth of information, airflow upstream of the static ports.

including the stability of the measurements and 10

possible local phenomena. 8

50 > -- 45 4 40 Conf1 FAR 29 limit 35 Conf2 2 30 Conf3a

> lowtoo 25

-- 0 Conf3b 20 15 Conf3c -2 10 Conf4 5 -4 Conf5

0 Indication [kts]tohigh low to

-- Conf6

-5 Steps <

Error [ft] -6 Conf7 -10 ACCEL -15

Altimeter Indication Indication Altimeter DECEL -8 -20 -- -25 -10 -30 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 -35 CAS [kts] FAR 29 limit -40 too too high < -45 -50 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 CAS [kts] Figure 20: PEC Altimeter Error for All Door Configurations Tested Figure 18: Altitude PEC Here again, high data accuracy is essential 10 in identifying differences between the door 9 8 configurations. As a general rule, the measurement 7

> 6 -- 5 error must be less than 10% of the range. In the 4 3 PEC case this means 3 ft and 1 kt. 2 1 0 -1 Steps -2 ACCEL -3 DECEL -4 to low Indication [kts] high to -5 -- < -6 -7 -8 -9 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 CAS [kts]

Figure 19: Airspeed PEC

Seven door configurations (and their asymmetrical variants) were tested. The PEC results showed that all remained within the FAR limits. The accuracy of the PEC method revealed two configurations that departed slightly from the baseline (higher indicated altitude, Figure 20)

44 July - December 2012 fewer test sorties and few configuration changes are required (with no need to Conclusions & Lessons reballast the aircraft), the impact on safety is equally significant. Learned The Quasi-Static FTT meets the accuracy The flight test activities with the EC-145 taken requirements for PEC testing during level to date have yielded excellent results, largely flight. Further evaluation and analysis is meeting our exceeding all predictions going into needed to extend the technique to climbing the flight test campaign. With the exception of and descending flight. flying with the sliding doors open, the flight test The use of Chase aircraft was essential to team was able to clear the flight envelope for all the development of an acceptable trailing bomb configuration. Since “acceptable” configurations to a maximum speed of VNE. The results from the “Doors Off” and corresponding behavior of the trailing bomb was essential PEC flight test have proven successful in terms of throughout an airspeed range from hover to risk reduction for any future military configuration 1.1*VNE, experienced flight test currently envisioned. crewmembers were required to man the In reviewing the test data and conducting its Chase aircraft. This provided for accurate analysis from this test campaign, a number of characterization of the trailing bomb flight lessons learned became apparent: behavior, in addition to allowing for ATC The “Doors Off” flight test campaign communications, airspace management, demonstrated the need for building a and efficient test sequencing. robust flight test instrumentation plan. The

use of complementary sensors (strain gauges, high-bandwidth accelerometers, and pressure sensors) yielded key test results that would not have been possible with traditional use of one or two different sensor types. Special attention is therefore required to ensure the critical test parameters are identified for measurement. Special attention with the FTI calibration was necessary to ensure that the required accuracies were achieved. In particular, pressure sensors (used for both “Doors Off” and PEC tests) were extremely sensitive to temperature variations. The FTI calibration had to account for this variable, so that additional errors were not introduced into the test results. The Quasi-static FTT for conducting PEC flights provides an extremely efficient means of gathering position-error data for three CG extremes in a single sortie. The benefits to flight test are profound: since

July - December 2012 45 The increasing role of simulators in flight test

LCDR Joshua Filbey, USN (M) NAVAIR Fleet Readiness Center, SE

ABSTRACT

The use of simulators in flight testing is fast becoming a hot topic among flight test organizations and professionals. Unfortunately, there are camps out there who mistakenly believe that a simulator can do everything an airplane can do and there is no need for flight test. Despite this dangerous thinking by a select few, most everyone agrees that simulators do have an important place in flight test and should be incorporated into every test effort. Now, more than ever, they can be used to increase the safety and efficiency of flight test. Flight testing has become extremely expensive in recent days and the days of taking two and three attempts to hit difficult test points are drawing to a close. No one is willing or able to pay for the increasingly costly flight hours. So what is the answer? Do you just start accepting data that is “close enough” or do we discover new ways to attempt to guarantee success on the first pass? Weapon integration testing is one of those cases where it can be extremely costly if the point is not hit exactly. The details are important in the final clearance decision of the store and if a bomb is separated at the wrong conditions, it might take up to a year to get another replacement store to try again- not to mention how much it would cost. The same is true for all types of flight testing. To that end, the simulator has become an important tool in helping to predict flight characteristics and train the pilot/test team to be able to go out and execute the maneuver correctly the first time, every time. Whether it is to predict responses of the aircraft, or to discover the best technique to conquer a challenging point, simulators have become an invaluable tool- not to replace flight test, but to help in accomplishing flight test in the most cost efficient and safe manner. However, with all the benefits that simulators can bring to the testing environment, they also bring with them many limitations and pitfalls that cannot be ignored or risk inaccurate results and compromises to flight safety. It is important to realize that this paper is not an all encompassing description of the usefulness or limitations of simulators, but rather it is designed to give the reader a taste of how simulators can be used in different ways to help improve the efficiency and safety of flight test.

NAVAIR Public Release, SPR-2012-787 Distribution Statement A – Approved for public release, distribution is unlimited.

46 July - December 2012 SIMULATOR BENEFITS

As mentioned, many benefits can be derived from using the simulator throughout flight testing. Some of the more common benefits include the following:

- Test technique development (how best to accomplish a test point) - Test pilot/engineer maneuver training/proficiency (learning and becoming proficient as a team) - Energy management techniques (achieving a test point; transitioning from one test point to the next) - Trends for goodness/badness (does not give the final answer, but shows a trend) - Trends of effect of variation of parameters (GW, CG, lateral asymmetry, temp, etc.) which assist in determining which points to flight test and how best to build up (worst case, best case, etc.) - Test team preparation for high workload events/failure mode/emergency contingencies (prepare for the unknown) - First flight rehearsal - Mishap analysis/reconstruction - Comparison of a new configuration to a known configuration (which may allow determination of whether flight testing should be done or not) - Refining development of flight control software gains (many more gains can be tested in the simulator and narrow down what is worthy of flight test)

Specific Positive Examples

Now let us look at some recent examples of flight testing where some of these above benefits played an important role. One of the most obvious benefits to flight test efficiency from simulators is test technique development and test pilot/ test engineer maneuver training/proficiency. The more time a pilot spends in the simulator practicing his stick and rudder skills, the more likely he is to achieve better results the day of the test. The same goes for engineers and the rest of the test team. Time spent in the simulator with the test pilot helps the entire team know what to watch and when, and how best to assist the pilot and gather the appropriate data in completing the maneuvers safely and efficiently.

Captive carriage testing is one area where these practice simulator sessions beforehand pay great dividends in improving the efficiency of flight test. Most captive carriage flights entail a variety of maneuvers designed to put a store through worst case flight conditions. These flights are typically done using the weapon separation aircraft, where each maneuver is recorded using the onboard digital camera system. There are a finite number of captures per flight and after each capture, there is a significant 4-6 minute download time before another maneuver can be conducted. Thus, it behooves the pilot to perform the maneuver correctly within tolerances the first time, every time. Although most of the maneuvers are what are considered “standard” flight test maneuvers (i.e. WU/WDT, RPO, etc.), some of them are done at flight conditions that are difficult to achieve/maintain or are done with loadouts that are widely varied and unknown resulting in unknown flying characteristics. To July - December 2012 47 that end, written into every captive carriage test plan is a simulator requirement that states that the pilot must have done a dedicated captive carriage simulator practice session within the previous 30 days. This at least gets the pilot familiar with the maneuvers, and how to rack and stack them into the most efficient way possible. Besides just familiarizing the pilots with the maneuver techniques, there are also cases where the loadout dictates points be done in a specific order with specific timing. During a recent test for BRU-55 dual carriage JDAM, a WU/WDT was desired to an actual Nz load of 7.5 g. Due to the heavy loadout, the aircraft was incapable of safely reaching 7.5g until the fuel state was less than 3.0K lbs (the RTB fuel state for local working areas allowing for minimum fuel state on deck). This fact, combined with the extremely high fuel flow rates used during the maneuver (the maneuver was predicted to take between 1 and 1.5K of fuel to complete), made it appear to be impossible to complete the point safely and still achieve the desired test conditions. In this case, the simulator was used extensively to determine at which fuel state to begin the maneuver, such that the Nz available would cross the 7.5g boundary at the precise moment in the WUT that it was needed, so that the maneuver could be completed within desired tolerances but leave enough fuel remaining to RTB and land with minimum allowable fuel state on deck. Due to this simulator practice beforehand, on test day the maneuver was completed within tolerance the first time at the exact right moment allowing the aircraft to achieve the 7.5 Nz at the proper moment and return for landing at the minimum fuel on deck state. Now although this specific example was for captive carriage testing, similar benefits to the efficiency of test can be gained from the simulator for all other types of testing including flutter, loads, flying qualities, high AOA, etc

Figure 1: F/A-18 E/F Loaded With Quickstrike Mines

48 July - December 2012 Simulators can also be used in the early stage of flight test planning and development to help scope the test effort and therefore increase the efficiency of the entire test program greatly reducing costs. Recently, a test effort was undergone on the F/A-18A-D Hornet to determine the next critical flight control failure for the aircraft and help prevent that failure from leading to a mishap. Due to safety and cost concerns, this test effort began solely as a flight simulator event. Hundreds of hours were spent in the simulator with various pilots evaluating all the possible failures of the flight control system. Each major flight control surface was failed to its limit in both the positive and negative direction, and then removed from the aircraft simulating a catastrophic failure. These failure modes were introduced to the pilots who then determined the initial response of the aircraft following the failure during various modes of flight. The pilots then performed controllability checks for each condition and determined whether or not the failure mode would be controllable, and if the aircraft could be successfully recovered (both on land as well as on the ship). The data gathered was then analyzed to determine the most critical flight control surfaces, and which failure modes of those surfaces were most likely to lead to a mishap. From these results, the program office would then be able to determine which flight control surfaces needed to be investigated further. The limited funds available could then be used to further research and come up with pre-emptive fixes for these critical scenarios. If some of these lead to fixes that require flight testing, limited flight testing can then be done to prove out those scenarios. With the amount of surfaces and failure modes (along with the dangers involved in this type of testing) that this includes, the flight test effort would have been far too large, too risky, and too costly. Instead, flight simulators were used to scope the effort down to just those scenarios that were deemed the most critical to flight safety.

One other useful but not widely utilized tool of simulators is predicting how the aircraft will handle between test points. Many times with new loadouts on the aircraft, test teams are concerned with the unique, difficult to reach test points, forgetting that the new configurations will affect all aspects of flight, not just those uniquely chosen test points. While in the simulator, it is tempting to initialize the simulator to the perfect condition just prior to initiating the difficult test point you want to practice. And once the test point is complete, it is tempting for efficiency sake to “zap” the airplane right back to the initial conditions to either practice again or move on to another test point. However, time in the simulator is much less expensive than time in flight and it behooves the pilot to occasionally fly the transitions from one test point to another. This actually helps to discover some of the unknowns so the test team is not surprised the day of the test. Numerous times the test team has been surprised that the aircraft behaves a certain way between test points or that the pilot is struggling to achieve a desired initial condition due to the new configuration and extreme flight condition. Rather than be surprised with everything on the line, it is much better to have looked for some of these possible surprises ahead of time in the simulator so the test team can better deal with and evaluate the system and prevent the “What it is going on?” question from the cockpit.

July - December 2012 49 LIMITATIONS OF SIMULATORS

The simulator is indeed a useful tool for predicting flight characteristics and training a test team. However, it is important to realize that there are many limitations and pitfalls when dealing with simulations; the simulator is what you make of it- garbage in equals garbage out. If you input something improperly or forget to account for some unknown condition, the result of your simulation may be unknowingly less than accurate. Some of the more common pitfalls or problems that can occur when using the simulator during testing include the following:

- Inaccurate or limited aerodynamic model database - Inaccurate or limited performance model database - Improperly managed or haphazard “patches” to tweak aerodynamic or performance model problems - Lack of understanding what the configuration of the simulator was during a given evaluation (atmospheric model (hot/std/cold day), wrong aerodynamic database for presumed loading of aircraft, improper lateral asymmetry/CG, software in the loop, hardware in the loop, emulators, etc.) - Poor visuals, delays in simulation, poor resolution - Poor mechanical characteristics when compared to the actual aircraft - Lack of motion/acceleration, inaccurate motion cues, effect of acceleration/motion or lack thereof on pilot inputs - Misinterpretation of response with fix base sims (over/underestimating body rates)

Specific Examples of Limitations

Now let us look at some recent examples of how some of these pitfalls affected flight test efforts. One recent instance of this dealt with atmospheric models. Most flight test simulators are designed to operate at standard day conditions. The models tend to vary more the further away from standard day one reaches. Recently, this fact became a significant issue on a mine integration captive carriage test point.

The point in question was a VL dive with a full complement of Quickstrike Mines. The pilot went to the simulator, refined his technique, and came away with the impression that there was little chance of overspeeding the Mach and airspeed limit given in the clearance based on how much drag the loadout created. It was possible, but by watching technique, it would not be an issue. The flight was flown in the middle of the summer, and the data matched pretty close, if not more conservative, and the pilot actually had trouble reaching the minimum desired tolerances due to the heavy drag. Armed with this knowledge, when the point had to be re-flown again for other programmatic reasons, the pilot returned to the simulator, refreshed his technique, and reviewed the flight report from the previous attempt. On the day of the test (now in early Spring), the pilot ended up overspeeding the Mach limit, with the aircraft accelerating so rapidly that no one caught the impending overspeed. What happened? Well, obviously, the colder, thicker air of the spring allowed the aircraft to have enough excess power to reach and exceed its Mach limit, even 50 July - December 2012 though being flown by the same pilot using the same exact technique. The pilot was lulled into a false sense of security after the simulator (and previous flight) showed no chance of the aircraft approaching or crossing the Mach limit. Had the simulator been run again with the actual environmental conditions, the pilot would have seen something a little closer to what reality was- not the exact solution, but hints of impending issues. This is not meant to say that had the simulator been run with a different atmospheric model, this overspeed would have been definitively avoided, but it goes to show that the simulator is limited to what you program in and the results cannot always be blindly believed.

Another pitfall of simulators is relying too heavily on the data it outputs. If the performance model that was input into the simulator is not accurate, then the results that are achieved from the simulator will be misleading. And when the simulator is being used to scope an upcoming flight test effort, the results of that inaccurate performance model could end up costing thousands of dollars of wasted flight test without achieving the initial test objectives. This exact scenario happened on a recent flight test effort involving the F/A-18 A-D single engine BINGO evaluation. The test team was tasked with taking another look at the current single engine minimum fuel procedures and developing/evaluating new procedures to alleviate some of the confusion and workload for pilots that was currently in the flight manual. The simulator was used extensively in test planning to investigate different possible techniques and determine a few points throughout the envelope to model. Those few points would then be flight tested to verify the model and flying quality technique which would then result in a flight manual change. This whole effort was designed to take no more than 2 separate test flights to validate the new procedures and profiles. Unfortunately, the performance model that the simulator used was found to be inaccurate and did not take into account all the variables when dealing with a single engine condition, resulting in an extremely optimistic view of the performance of the aircraft on one engine. Thus, on the first day of flight testing, the test team discovered that the aircraft could not achieve most of the climb profiles, taking hundreds of pounds more fuel and tens of miles longer than predicted in the simulator. In some cases, the pilots could not even achieve the initial starting conditions that the simulator profiles had begun with. After a few more flights of data gathering and ground engine runs, it was determined there was a problem with the performance model used in the simulator, and the test team had to go back to square one with their efforts.

In this case, however, this whole issue turned out to be a good thing in that it was found that some of the performance charts in the current flight manual were based on the inaccurate performance model as well and needed to be fixed. So although the inaccurate simulator turned out to have a benefit in the end in this example, it still points out how important it is to realize the limitations of simulators and everything they are based on. Regardless of the outcome in this situation, the test effort took many more flights than originally planned and cost thousands more than originally scoped all due to the inaccurate performance model of the simulator. In fact, the effort is still ongoing years later.

July - December 2012 51 CONCLUSION

Although there are many limitations and pitfalls associated with the use of simulators, there are far more benefits that can be derived from intelligently integrating them into a flight test effort. Simulators are fast becoming an invaluable tool in conducting safe and efficient flight test and should be considered for use in every test effort. It is important to realize that simulators should never be used in place of, or replace the need for, actual flight testing. However, as long as their limitations are understood at the outset, they can be used to prepare the pilots and test teams for the test points ahead and how best to conduct those expensive points safely and correctly the first time, every time.

Figure 2: First Launch of AIM-120 AMRAAM from Midboard Station of F/A-18E/F

52 July - December 2012 Observations of a new fighter test pilot: The possible dangers of short-term feedback loss

MAJ Casey “Fletch” Richardson, USAF (PAM)

Recently I found myself in the cockpit of an F-16 Viper two miles aft of another Viper on my first 9K offensive BFM engagement with my “fangs out.” Having flown BFM for years in the F-15E, I thought I was moderately prepared for what I was about to experience. I had about 30 hours in the Viper thanks to USAF TPS and had thought a lot about the significant differences between the F-15E’s and F-16’s flight control design. I knew that the F-15E, like all other aircraft I had flown before it, used alpha control and that no matter my airspeed, for the most part, I had manual control of my flight control surfaces. In alpha control, I could reasonably expect that a certain amount of stick deflection resulted in a corresponding, prescheduled amount of flight control deflection and thus, flight control power. It was up to me to interpret my aircraft’s energy state through all five of my own senses and provide the required negative feedback for effective flight. In the F-16, however, the fly-by-wire flight control system was designed to work a bit harder for me. I knew that regardless of my airspeed, the Viper’s stick would measure the amount of force I applied and do everything with the limits of its actuators and flight control deflection limits to give me exactly what I had commanded in terms of g loading. I was anticipating the benefits of being relieved of the burden of providing negative feedback inputs to the flight controls when I inevitably over or undershot my desired condition. This was going to be great.

As I delayed my break turn in order to follow the defensive bandit into his break turn on or near his own turn “circle,” I anticipated the stick forces I would need to apply and made my best guess at the correct open-loop inputs that would roll my lift vector onto the bandit and then transition my aircraft to a symmetric break turn at 9 g with full aft stick force. I pulled on the stick as hard as I could and started concentrating on my anti-g straining maneuver (AGSM). Immediately, I became aware that this was not what I had remembered from my F-15E flying before. As much as I was consciously aware of the differences between the two aircraft and struggled to remember my new cross check, I became overwhelmed by a flood of unplanned, ambient feedback sensations through all of my senses. This break turn sounded “wrong”, felt “wrong”, looked “wrong”, and even smelled a bit off. My cross-check fell apart. All I could concentrate on was the bandit. My hands-on-throttle-and-stick (HOTAS) actuations were grossly misapplied for the impending weapons engagement zone I was approaching. My airspeed control was essentially “managed” with my left hand firmly ensuring nothing less than full afterburner. I could only hear faint grumblings from my instructor pilot (IP) in the rear cockpit, because I was incapable of the high-level brain function required to listen and interpret human speech. In short, I was overwhelmed and in trouble.

July - December 2012 53 While not in any real life-threatening danger, because I was still managing to react to the bandits flight path, I completely failed to recognize the rapid closure problem that was developing. The bandit, being a seasoned Viper pilot, quickly recognized my situation, reversed his turn and used idle, speed brakes, and g loading to rapidly slow down while I quickly shot out in front. In under six seconds I had given up all the advantage I started with. The bandit managed two snapshots with his gun (in training mode) and achieved a “kill” on me. We knocked off the fight and began maneuvering to repeat the setup again.

Between engagements, my rear cockpit IP began giving me advice on lift vector placement, HOTAS use, throttle management, and closure recognition. He kept repeating the words “you gotta pull” to describe possible fixes for my errors. This was extremely confusing, however, because from what I could remember, I had basically pulled as hard as I could for the entire six to nine seconds the engagement lasted. In fact, I could not remember ever releasing the back pressure at all.

Over the course of seven more of these dogfight setups, I kept hearing the same advice from my IP and I continued to pull as hard as I could on the stick during most of each engagement. By the time we reached our bingo fuel, I found myself extremely frustrated with his suggested improvement. I had even tried during one fight to use both hands! Yes, I reached all the way over to the right side of the cockpit and pulled on the Viper’s sidestick with both hands, because I was unconvinced that I was reaching the full aft force available. This, of course, was stupid. Full aft stick in the F-16 requires much less force than any average person could reasonably exert with only one hand.

During the subsequent debrief, my IP talked for a long time about how I need to “pull more here” and “pull more there”, but I did not find much of it helpful. Then, I thought about the problem over the weekend, because I had another air- to-air ride on Monday. This time it would be advanced combat maneuvers (ACM), which would again involve a great deal of BFM as well. And, I did not want to embarrass myself with another mediocre performance. I started replaying the BFM flight again and again in my mind, trying to understand it from a different point of view. I tried to think of the problem from the test pilot point-of-view, and I found myself centering on two significant engineering problems in the F-16.

First, I started thinking about how frustrating I found it that no matter how hard I pulled on the stick, I felt I had lost command of my lift vector. Once the aircraft’s energy state was below the range where the g is the limiting variable, I had a very difficult time perceiving that the aircraft’s flight control system had begun limiting my angle of attack (AOA). In the Viper, this AOA limiting is a good thing from the point of view of stability and control. Even at only moderate AOA and slow airspeed, the F-16 is unstable. Without AOA limiting, I likely would have departed from controlled flight during every BFM engagement. So, essentially I had lost control of the magnitude of my lift vector. Without increasing airspeed, no amount of pulling on the stick was going to generate any more AOA or lift. Unlike 54 July - December 2012 the F-15E and other AOA-control aircraft, I had no ability to temporarily sacrifice aerodynamic performance in order to improve my nose position or adjust my flight path.

As I replayed the flight in my mind, I did remember that my performance improved despite my loss of command of the magnitude of my lift vector. In hind- sight, I realized that I had made a transition from magnitude control to direction control. In order to reposition my nose or make a flight path adjustment in an F-16, I had begun controlling the direction of my lift vector alone. Armed with this small revelation, I actually performed fairly well on the ACM flight. I ended up in six one-versus-one engagements with the bandit on the sortie and either won all six or stayed alive long enough for my wingman to achieve a kill when I began defensive. As a result, in the debrief, I received the best praise most fighter pilots are able to muster: “I have nothing for you.”

After my training at Luke AFB was over, and I was making the six hour drive back to Edwards, I began digesting the implications of some of the differences between the F-16 and the F-15E. Both were fourth-generation fighters and the flight control systems of these aircraft had been around for decades. The odds of changing either aircraft’s flight control system were slim to non-existent. So, I started thinking about what this meant for my possible future work with fifth- generation fighters. What was it that was so fundamentally different about the two aircraft that might also be applicable to other aircraft? I decided the best answer was feedback.

Feedback was the second, and more important, engineering problem in the F-16. I am not the first to discover that feedback, especially in terms of kinesthetic feedback, was shortcoming in the Viper, but I think there is something to be expanded that might be useful to future development of systems. And, I have a theory about the value of short-term and long-term feedback variables: pilots need short-term feedback to their ambient senses in order to build effective rapid-reaction habit patterns during highly dynamic scenarios. These scenarios include BFM and ACM , of course, but they also include emergencies and other unplanned airborne events. In fact, in any flight event where the system’s external input variables are changing very rapidly, pilots will only be able to achieve effectiveness if the variables can be measured and responded to in an equally rapid time period. In the Viper, a pilot’s short-term feedback cues are limited by the flight control design, especially for a new pilot that has “grown-up” within our current training system.

Like many modern aircraft, the Viper affords the pilot multiple and redundant opportunities to assess the aircraft’s state. The heads-up-display (HUD) and helmet-mounted-cueing-system (HMCS) go a long way to aiding pilots in their tactical employment of the aircraft, including BFM. However, the nature of the primarily g-commanded flight control system robs the pilot of many short-term, ambient kinesthetic cues that most USAF pilots learn to rely on in all their previous flight training. Before flying the Viper, many pilots fly the Cessna-172 or 182, the July - December 2012 55 T-6 Texan II, and the T-38 Talon. All of these aircraft are alpha-command aircraft, like the F-15E. All the pilots that fly them create habits that rely on secondary, short- term kinesthetic cues, such as aircraft buffeting, stick force changes, and large amplitude sound changes, to assess an aircraft’s energy state and aerodynamic performance without reference to displayed feedback variables such as airspeed and alpha. In a sense, new Viper pilots are set up for failure before they even start BFM training. Simulator training may even better prepare a new F-16 wingman for the reality of flying the Viper at low speed and moderate AOA initially than transitioning straight into an airborne dogfight. Flying a simulator, especially one that does not move and/or has a limited field of view display, trains a pilot to rely on long-term feedback cues that are deliberately provided via cockpit and helmet displays. One of my Luke instructors stated this concept a little differently when he said “if you treat the Viper like it’s a video game, it’s much easier to learn.” (He will remain intentionally anonymous)

As we march into the development of increasingly more automated systems, which add layers upon layers of additional processing of feedback variables before alerting the pilot to a change in an aircraft or aircraft sensor’s state, I wonder if there will not be an increased loss in useful short-term cues. For example, the Air France accident in June 2009 that killed 228 people is a possible grim warning of the danger of short-term feedback loss and might be an opportunity for us to learn the dangers of automation and the subsequent erosion of piloting skills. In this accident, an unrecognized stall spurred on by a complicated flight control system and poor feedback cues of flight control surface deflections prevented recognition of a stall. There are also already several examples of unmanned aircraft losses which involved a lack of feedback to the remote pilot about the true status of the aircraft’s flight control deflections and energy state. In fact, one of the latest systems, the Global Hawk, does not even have a throttle and stick for the pilot interface. Even using the term “pilot” is probably a questionable nomenclature with the Global Hawk, since the operator “commands” the aircraft by entering data into a GUI on a computer screen. If the operator needs to change the Global Hawk’s altitude, he/she need only type the altitude into a small on-screen box using a computer mouse and keyboard. I really do not see how a pilot can get any more removed from Cooper and Harper’s vision of “being in command” of an aircraft.

Now, I am not advocating that abandoning automation is the right thing to do. The potential increased military capabilities provided by additional layers of feedback processing have historically been important to maintain a combat edge for the U.S. However, I do worry about the implications of the seemingly non-linear increased reliance on automation that limits a pilot’s actions and their fundamental awareness of an aircraft’s near-real-time state. I wonder about how the role of a pilot is going to evolve in the near future. Will being a pilot no longer mean to be “in command” of an aircraft, but rather, will pilots simply become managers of systems of systems? Will a future “pilot” one day experience the same type of frustration I felt when pulling on the Viper’s sidestick in vain with two hands, but, instead, find themselves repeatedly clicking a button on a computer screen as their

56 July - December 2012 UAV is buried in an unrecognized deep stall on short final? How are we going to design highly automated systems that are able to synthesize and create solutions for unplanned events while “eating up” all the short-term feedback variables and only providing operators with long-term cues of system performance? I hope someone wiser has already started thinking of a plan.

July - December 2012 57 REFLECTIONS

The Men who made the Spitfire Legend

By Jennie Sherborne

George Pickering standing by an early Spitfire donated by the people of Bahrain

March 12 2012 marked the 76th anniversary of the birth of a legend: The Spitfire. The heartache and joy experienced by those close to the famous designer, R J Mitchell, cannot be forgotten. His life lay in the balance as he wrote in his diary: ‘There were dreams, and then there was reality. I had hope, hope to make a difference, hope to make myself part of history. Today, I have been given that chance and all my deepest thanks go to one woman. Her name is Lady Houston . . .’

This extract portrays a time of frustration. His years of dedication designing an aircraft superior to any other in the world faced Government inertia. Funds were not available, and the entry of the S.6 in the 1931 Schneider Trophy Race was in jeopardy.

58 July - December 2012 All seemed lost until a donation for £100,000 ($400,000) came just in the nick of time.. .and if it weren’t for her I would die as a nothing, non-existent.’ Mitchell told his diary.

To say that Fanny Lucy Houston was ‘way out’ for her time would be an understatement. She was a philanthropist, adventuress and patriot. The second youngest of ten children, Lucy was born in London. As a young woman she became a chorus girl known as “Poppy”. At 16 she eloped to Paris with a married man, Frederick Gretton, a member of the fabulously wealthy Bass Brewery family with whom she had a tumultuous affair. He died nine years’ later leaving her £6,000 ($25,000) a year for life.

The following year she married Sir Theodore Francis Brinckman, divorcing him two years later.

Lucy then chose George Byron, 9th Baron of Rochdale, for her next husband. This lasted until his death 16 years later. During this time she became an active suffragette, and for her support for a home for nurses who had served in the First World War she was appointed a Dame Commander of the British Empire.

A hard, unpleasant bachelor was her choice for her third and last husband. Fortunately, he died aboard his yacht ‘Liberty’ less than two years later leaving his widow, now Lady Houston, £5.5 million. ($22million).

It had taken Britain’s government a long time to realise that, although Germany was forbidden by the Treaty of Versailles to have an air force, they had a secret base near Moscow producing military aircraft and training pilots, intelligence the government ignored.

The Chairman of Vickers, Sir Robert Maclean and R.J. Mitchell knew about the German threat as did Air Marshal Sir Hugh Dowding who tried to convince the Government that Britain should have a modern fighter.

The government responded with a specification for the F.7/30 aircraft.

Sir Robert wanted Supermarine to win the contract and asked Mitchell to develop the fighter. After teething problems the F.7/30, unofficially called the Spitfire, was launched. It was a near disaster, with a top speed of only 230 mph, July - December 2012 59 and a performance short of its specification.

Mitchell, who had not been happy with the F7/30 was already back at the drawing board. This time McLean and A.F. Sidgreaves, Chairman of Rolls Royce, decided that the two companies would together finance the production.

The Air Ministry was told that no technical member of the Air Ministry would be allowed to interfere with the designer. Then disaster struck. R.J. was diagnosed with cancer and in August 1933 underwent a major operation. After a short convalescence he was back at work.

‘Now I think I have a winner. I have laboured over her for months, probably years and all the stages of her life have been put into you, my diary. My death is drawing nearer and my cancer is spreading... I am spending a few days with my beloved companions George and Gladys Pickering. George is to be one of the first test pilots of my new design

Another pilot and friend of mine, Jeffrey Quill, will be there as well, and I am also asking him to be one of my pilots. I know he is very skilled.’

Pickering, an excellent marine aircraft pilot was a total extrovert. He was the first man to loop the loop in a seaplane, and had already been awarded an Air Force Cross for daring rescue exploits in Malta. He had tested many flying boats.

George Pickering after receiving the Air Force Cross for a dramatic rescue in a flying boat while serving in Malta in 1927

60 July - December 2012 R.J would accompany him on some of these flights and he so admired Pickering’s ability as a pilot he asked him to join Supermarine after leaving the RAF. Their two families became firm friends.

George joined Supermarine in 1934 where he continued to test flying boats, in particular the single engined Walrus, later to have a distinguished wartime career for the Fleet Air Arm.

After a test flight Pickering would roar over the flight shed at 300feet, and if the Walrus passed the test, he would loop the loop indicating there were no problems. But if he merely landed and returned up the slipway, the engineers knew there was more work to be done.

There was panic one day as George failed to return. There was red alert. The Walrus was found ‘ditched’ in the Solent, a fishing rod sticking out from the cockpit, the pilot fast asleep.

Jeffrey Quill joined Supermarine two years later, completing a great team which from all accounts, probably due to RJ’s character, worked together as a close-knit family. In contrast to Pickering, Quill was a fighter pilot, not only by training but by temperament, and had no experience of flying boats.

George taught him the ropes and they became great friends.

Jeffrey Quill, George Pickering, King George VI and Alex Dunbar, Managing Director of Vickers- Armstrong

July - December 2012 61 On March 5 1936, RJ’s feisty little ‘baby’ was wheeled out of its hangar for its maiden flight. Quill had flown Mutt Summers the Chief Test Pilot of Vickers Aviation to Eastleigh to perform this historic duty. As Jeffrey recalled:-

“There was a light wind blowing across the aerodrome which meant that Mutt had to take the short run and he taxied towards one of the large Chance lights which in those days were situated round the perimeter, turned into the wind and opened up the throttle. The plane was airborne after a very short run and climbed away comfortably. Mutt did not retract the undercarriage on that first flight – deliberately, of course – but cruised around for some minutes, checked the lowering of the flaps and the slow flying and stalling characteristics, and then brought K5054 in to land.”

Still fighting against all odds, the day that Mitchell had been living for had arrived.

Mutt flew the K5054, shortly to be known as the Spitfire, a few more times before handing it over to George and Jeffrey to complete performance trials and the schedule of contractor’s trials. Both pilots found it exciting to fly but its maximum speed was only 335mph. They had already heard that the Hurricane was showing 325mph. Mitchell was determined that the Spitfire should not be sent for final trials until reaching 350mph.

With a new propeller the aircraft reached 348mph. There were other teething problems and a year later Mutt Summers flew the Spitfire to Martlesham Heath for its final trials. It was flown by Flight Lieutenant Humphrey Edwardes-Jones, of the RAF. No sooner had he emerged from the cockpit than he was asked to phone the Air Ministry.

Did he consider the Spitfire capable of being flown by the ordinary service- trained pilot, and in particular the newly-trained pilots being set up to meet the expansion programme. He replied with an unequivocal ‘yes’ and ‘a delight to fly’ . Mitchell’s ambition had come to fruition but his health was deteriorating fast. He entered hospital in the February of 1937 with a remote hope that a second operation might be effective. After numerous tests he was told there was no hope and he only had four or five months to live.

62 July - December 2012 Even after five weeks’ of intensive treatment and with the sad news that nothing more could be done he returned to his Southampton home. It was a lovely English summer and he spent most of those last days sitting in the sun dreaming of a bomber, the 316, he had designed and would never see fly.

Gladys, George Pickering’s wife was one of his most frequent visitors. As she recollected ‘Sometimes it was difficult to know what to talk about. He didn’t want sympathy, he just wanted to forget.’

Mitchell gave up his fight against cancer on the 11th June 1937 aged 42, never knowing the vital role that he and his little Spitfire were to make in saving Britain.

In 1938 Quill delivered the first RAF Spitfire to Number19 Fighter Squadron at Duxford. A state of emergency existed and the Spitfire moved into full production. A major ‘Shadow Factory’ at Castle Bromwich, near Birmingham came into operation.

George and Jeffrey were joined by an exceptionally talented pilot, Alex Henshaw, and the three of them worked relentlessly testing the increasing output of aircraft production. Once Castle Bromwich was fully operational Alex Henshaw became its chief test pilot.

At the outbreak of war there were some 400 Spitfires in service with the RAF. An urgent directive was received from Lord Beaverbrooke pleading for an increase in production. The entire workforce loyally rallied to this demand, sometimes whole families worked tirelessly and cheerfully in the factory.

George and Jeffrey were sometimes testing up to forty Spitfires EACH in a month. After their last flight of the day they would make for the Hampshire Aeroplane Club, where pints of beer were downed among the jokes and talk about aircraft.

In 1940 Jeffrey and George were chatting on the tarmac outside the hangars at Eastleigh when they heard aircraft. As there had been no warning siren they took no notice. Suddenly they realised they were German Heinkels and as they ran for shelter they could hear the bombs whistling down.

Fortunately, the assembly shops which were full of Spitfires were untouched. But then shortly after this a daylight raid by the Luftwaffe on the Supermarine July - December 2012 63 Works at Woolston killed 90 people who were in an air raid shelter and injured a further 40. Two days later the bombers returned killing a further 30 workers and 50 more nearby. This brought Spitfire production to a temporary halt.

Fortunately there had been a dispersal of Spitfires around neighbouring counties thus preventing a mega setback in the war effort.

It was inevitable that sooner or later a major accident would occur to one of the test pilots. This happened to George Pickering in 1941. Coming out of a dive at 520 mph his Spitfire disintegrated. His parachute did not open properly and he landed in a tree breaking his arm and losing two fingers on his left hand. At this time he had tested more than 1,100 Spitfires apart from other aircraft.

After a lengthy recuperation he was back in the pilot’s seat. Nearly two years after his accident he passed a medical and was given the ‘all clear’ to resume testing Spitfires.

Overjoyed he spent that night in Bedfordshire with his sister where they met a kindred spirit, an Irish Guards Officer, Captain Desmond Kingsford. By the end of the evening it was decided that Desmond, would take George for a ride in a Bren gun carrier the following morning.

Attempting to climb the sheer face of Ivinghoe Beacon the Bren gun carrier turned over. George Pickering, still only 38, was killed instantly, Desmond escaped unharmed.

Quill was bereft at the death of his friend. “I well remember the acute sense of loss that I experienced – a sort of loneliness – not to mention missing the fun of George’s pungent comments on the passing scene from day to day.” Quill continued to live a very successful life dying in 1996 aged 82.

So passed a group of brave men whose lives became interwoven, three of whom were snatched away in their prime.

They lived the lives they loved and loved the lives they lived.

64 July - December 2012 Author Jennie Sherborne grew up hearing about the exploits of her test pilot father George Pickering. Among numerous accomplishments, Jennie Sherborne is a mother, a historian, a charitable fundraiser, a published novelist, and an appointed Member of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire (MBE).

July - December 2012 65 Letter to the Editor

Dear Editor: In the January - June 2012 issue of COCKPIT, the article by Captain Eric Brown concerning the ME262 was very interesting. In the article it would have been appropriate to mention the other man recognized as the Co-inventor of the jet engine, Dr. Hans Von Ohain, as noted below: Dr. Hans Von Ohain and Sir Frank Whittle were honored as co-inventors of the jet engine, both were awarded the Charles Stark Draper Prize of the National Academy of Engineering in 1991 at a dinner/ceremony held at the state department in Washington, DC. Due to the graciousness of Dr. George Bennet, Raspet Flight Research Laboratory, Mississippi State University, it was my distinct pleasure to attend that award ceremony and to meet both of the distinguished gentlemen. It was Dr. Von Ohain’s engine design that first flew in an aircraft, the Heinkel He 178, with Flight Captain Erich Warsitz at the controls on August 27, 1939. Respectively, Frank Ingels, SETP Member 3391 N. Oceanshore Blv. Flagler Beach, FL 32136

66 July - December 2012 2013 SYMPOSIUM INFORMATION AND CALL FOR PAPERS

6th Annual SETP Southeast Symposium

Ramada Plaza Beach Resort ~ Ft. Walton Beach , Florida 21-22 February 2013 The Society of Experimental Test Pilots’ 6th Southeast Symposium will be held on 21-22 February 2013 in Fort Walton Beach, Florida. Adam MacDonald (AF) is the Chairman of this event. A reception will be held on Thursday evening followed by paper presentations on Friday. This is an official call for papers. Presentations should be limited to 30 minutes, including the discussion period. No proceedings are published for this Symposium therefore formal written papers are not required. Those interested in presenting should submit an abstract by 7 January 2013 to: Adam MacDonald, Symposium Chairman C/O SETP Headquarters Post Office Box 986 Lancaster , California 93584-0986 Email: [email protected] ******************************************************* 43rd Annual West Coast Symposium ~ San Diego, California 22-23 March 2013 The 43rd Annual West Coast Symposium will be held 22-23 March 2013 at The Catamaran Resort Hotel & Spa, 3999 Mission Boulevard, San Diego, California. This is an official call for papers. Presentations should be limited to 30 minutes, including the discussion period. No proceedings are published for this Symposium therefore formal written papers are not required. Those interested in presenting should submit an abstract by 21 January 2013 to: [email protected]. ******************************************************* 28th East Coast Symposium 12 April 2013 The 28th East Coast Symposium will be held 12 April 2013 in Patuxent River, MD. This is an official call for papers. Presentations should be limited to 30 minutes, including the discussion period. No proceedings are published for this Symposium therefore formal written papers are not required. Those interested in presenting should submit an abstract by 1 February 2013 to: CDR Robert Bibeau, USN, Symposium Chairman C/O SETP Headquarters Post Office Box 986 Lancaster , California 93584-0986 Email: [email protected]

July - December 2012 67 Flight Test Safety Workshop 23 ~ 25 April 2013 DoubleTree by Hilton Hotel 300 Canal Street New Orleans, LA 70130 The theme of the workshop is “Flight Test: A History Full of Firsts”. The flight test community has a long, distinguished and exciting history of firsts, from new aircraft first flights to “first of its kind” installations, new test techniques, new data capabilities and new safety procedures and equipment. We are constantly changing business models, processes and methods but we need to remember to progress safety in lock step with each new program development. Presentations should be limited to 25 minutes. Please send paper/presentation proposals to the 2013 Flight Test Safety Workshop Chairman, Mr. Jim Richmond via laurie@setp. org. If you should have any questions regarding submitting an abstract please contact Jim Richmond at [email protected]. The deadline for abstracts is 1 February 2013 to allow time for appropriate consideration and inclusion in the program. To book your hotel reservation, please call 1-800-222-TREE or visit www.neworleans. doubletree.com Be sure to enter the Group Code FTS to ensure you receive the group rate of $135/night. Deadline to book your room is Monday, 1 April 2013

******************************************************* The Great Lakes Symposium will be held 16 May 2013 at the Wright-Patterson AFB Banquet Center in Ohio (formerly known as the Officer’s Club). This is an official call for papers. Presentations should be limited to 30 minutes, including the discussion period. No proceedings are published for this Symposium therefore formal written papers are not required. Those interested in presenting should submit an abstract by 25 February 2013 to:

Robbie Robinson, Symposium Chairman C/O SETP Headquarters - Email: [email protected] Post Office Box 986 Lancaster, California 93584-0986

68 July - December 2012 The Society of Experimental Test Pilots European Symposium The European Symposium will be held on 22 to 25 May 2013 at the Husa Princesa Hotel in Madrid, Spain. This is an official call for papers. Presentations should be limited to 30 minutes, including the discussion period. If you accept your paper to be published in the proceedings, formal written papers are required to be submitted by the time of the symposium. The deadline to submit an abstract has been set to 1st February 2013. Please submit your abstract to: Ignacio Lombo, Symposium Chairman [email protected] Airbus Military Chief Pilot Flight Operations EADS-CASA Av John Lennon S/N 289906 Getafe SPAIN ******************************************************* The Society of Experimental Test Pilots 57th Symposium & Banquet Anaheim, California 25-28 September 2013 CALL FOR PAPERS The 2013 Symposium and Banquet will be held 25-28 September 2013 at The Grand Californian Hotel, California. Papers will be selected on the basis of their potential to educate and/or enlighten symposium attendees. Technical content is paramount. Papers that describe your solutions to new problems or new solutions to old problems are especially welcome. Abstracts should provide in no more than 150 words, 1) the one or two ideas or lessons you hope your audience will remember, 2) how these will be explained or defended in the presentation, and 3) additional information that will be provided in the written report. Specific guidance on abstract submission will be available in 2013, but don’t let that stop you from submitting now. The deadline for abstracts is 31 May 2012. Please feel free to contact Mr. Gray directly via email should you have any questions regarding content, themes, or process. Ask before you self-eliminate! PLEASE NOTE: PAPERS MUST BE TECHNICALLY-ORIENTED RATHER THAN SALES-ORIENTED. AVOID DIRECT REFERENCE TO COMPETING SYSTEMS. The Ray E. Tenhoff Award and cash honorarium will be awarded during the banquet program to the person presenting the best all-around technical presentation. Email or mail all abstracts to: Attn: Mr. Bill Gray Symposium Chairman C/O SETP Headquarters P.O. Box 986 Lancaster, California 93584-0986 Email: [email protected] July - December 2012 69 MEMBERSHIP NEWS AND UPDATES

Due to the increased cost of printing and mailing, each member will receive a DVD of the 2012 Symposium Proceedings in the mail shortly.

******************************************************** The SETP Breitling watches have arrived at Headquarters. We ordered a few extra so if you really wanted one and didn’t pre-order, now is your last chance. Cost is $2457.00 USD plus shipping. Contact Becki @ 661-942- 9574 or [email protected] ******************************************************** The IT Committee has selected a new provider for the SETP website and Membership database. We will be making the transition to the new provider over the next few months. We are excited to be adding new features to our paper search, member search, event registration, payment history, online store, and more! Additional information will be provided as we make this transition.

70 July - December 2012 NEW MEMBERS AND UPGRADES

The Society would like to welcome the following new Members:

Cosme, Jesus (PAM) Crouch, Collier (PAM) Maj, USAF LT, USN Joined 8-Aug-12 Joined 8-Aug-12

Dellert, Todd (M) Ervin, Seth (PAM) Department of Defense LT, USN Joined 12-Sept-12 Joined 8-Aug-12

Fortescue, Anthony (M) Goodpasture, Adam (PAM) CDR, USN Maj, USAF Joined 14-Nov-12 Joined 12-Sept-12

Jespersen, Allan (PAM) Kowalski, David (AM) LT, USN Maj, USMC Joined 14-Nov-12 Joined 12-Sept-12

July - December 2012 71

Leveron, Troy (PAM) Palmer, Ryan (M) LT, USN LtCol, RAF Joined 8-Aug-12 Joined 8-Aug-12

Riches, Alistair (M) van Kralinger, Rogier (PAM) Sqdn Ldr, RAF LT, Royal Netherlands Navy Joined 14-Nov-12 Joined 8-Aug-12

Wilson, Peter (M) Zhang, Hui zhong (M) BAE Systems CAAC Joined 12-Sept-12 Joined 12-Sept-12

Zhang, Fang (AM) Zhao, Zhiqiang (M) CAAC CAAC Joined 14-Nov-12 Joined 12-Sept-12

72 July - December 2012 PHOTOS NOT AVAILABLE FOR THE FOLLOWING NEW MEMBERS: Allen, Daniel (PAM) Beckey, Carl (PAM) LT, USN Maj, USAF Joined 8-Aug-12 Joined 8-Aug-12 Brown, Joel (AM) Edgell, Andrew (PAM) Boeing Flt LT, RAF Joined 8-Aug-12 Joined 8-Aug-12 Hathaway, Jack (PAM) Koselke, Anthony (PAM) LT, USN CW3, USA Joined 8-Aug-12 Joined 12-Sept-12 Osmon, Michael (PAM) Pabon, Jose (PAM) Maj, USA LT, USN Joined 8-Aug-12 Joined 14-Nov-12 Ropp, Daniel (PAM) Sherrier, Mark (AM) LT, USN Edwards AFB Test Ops Joined 8-Aug-12 Joined 12-Sept-12 Spencer, Alec (PAM) Watts, Andrew (PAM) Maj, USAF LT, RAF Joined 12-Sept-12 Joined 8-Aug-12 Wolfard, Alex (PAM) Capt, USAF Joined 12-Sept-12

July - December 2012 73 Congratulations to those members who have upgraded their membership!

Arnold, Eugene (AF) Berggren, Matthew (M) FAA LtCol, USAF Upgraded 8-Aug-12 Upgraded 8-Aug-12

Burton, Travis (M) De Michele, Fabio (M) Maj, USAF Capt, Italian AF Upgraded 12-Sept-12 Upgraded 14-Nov-12

Dertien, Evan (AF) Di Loreto, Gianmaro (M) Col, USAF Capt, IAF Upgraded 12-Sept-12 Upgraded 12-Sept-12

Drechsler, Thomas (AF) Hawkins, Carl (AF) GE Northrop Grumman Upgraded 8-Aug-12 Upgraded 8-Aug-12

74 July - December 2012

Lombo, Ignacio (AF) Mai, Karl-Heinz (AF) Airbus Airbus Upgraded 14-Nov-12 Upgraded 12-Sept-12

Makepeace, Nat (AF) McFarland, Andrew (AF) RAF CDR, USN Upgraded 14-Mar-12 Upgraded 8-Aug-12

Pecile, Nicola (AF) Pesek, Timothy (M) NTPS Maj, USAF Upgraded 12-Sept-12 Upgraded 12-Sept-12

Pugsley, Brett (M) Rasmussen, Spencer (M) LCDR, USN Maj, USAF Upgraded 8-Aug-12 Upgraded 8-Aug-12

Rivers, Robert (AF) Rohrsheim, Andrew (M) NASA Lt Commander, RAN Upgraded 8-Aug-12 Upgraded 12-Sept-12 July - December 2012 75

Schaffer, Zachary (M) Soundy, Andrew (AF) Capt, USAF Hawker Beechcraft Upgraded 12-Sept-12 Upgraded 8-Aug-12

Young, Stephen (AF) Grp Capt, RAF Upgraded 14-Nov-12 PHOTOS NOT AVAILABLE FOR THE FOLLOWING MEMBERS WHO HAVE UPGRADED THEIR MEMBERSHIP: De Miguel, Alfonso (AF) Kennedy, Jeffrey (M) CASA Maj, USAF Upgraded 14-Nov-12 Upgraded 14-Nov-12 Kim, Donggon (M) Shimp, Gregory (AF) Korean Aerospace Industries Bell Helicopters Upgraded 14-Nov-12 Upgraded 8-Aug-12

76 July - December 2012 WHO...WHAT...WHERE

*******************************************

July 2nd, 2012. Test Pilot School graduates deployed aboard the USS George Washington by class and SETP Member status. CVN-73 CO CAPT Lausman USNTPS Class 94 (M), CVN-73 PCO CAPT Fenton USNTPS Class 107 (M), CTF-70 N3 CAPT Moore USNTPS Class 111 (M), CVN-73 Air Boss CDR Henry USNTPS Class 115, VFA-115 XO CDR Kern USAFTPS 04A (M), VFA-195 OPS O LCDR Glover USAFTPS Class 06B (M), VAQ-141 MO LCDR Lisa USNTPS Class 131 (M), VAW-115 ADH LCDR Alemar USNTPS Class 131, VFA-102 MO LCDR Wilson USNTPS Class 132, VAQ-141 OPS O LCDR Akacem USNTPS Class 132, VAW-115 MO LCDR Tharp USNTPS Class 132, VFA-102 AO LCDR Klein USNTPS Class 133 (M), CVW-5 AOPS LCDR Kitts USNTPS Class 133 (M), CVW-5 AOPS LT Allen USNTPS Class 134, VFA-195 SO LCDR Radocaj USNTPS Class 135 (M), CVW-5 AOPS LT Slager USNTPS Class 136 (M), CTF-70 N391 LT Bischoff USNTPS Class 136.

From The Edge Of The Envelope To The Tip Of The Spear By LCDR Victor Glover (M) and LCDR Adam Klein (M) The USS George Washington (CVN 73) Carrier Strike Group (GWCSG) departed its forward-operating location of Fleet Activities Yokosuka on May 26 for its 2012 patrol in the 7th Fleet area of operations. The GWCSG provides a combat-ready force that protects and defends the collective maritime interests of the U.S. and its allies and partners in the Asia-Pacific region. A group of U.S. Navy Test Pilot School (USNTPS) and U.S. Air Force Test Pilot School (USAFTPS) graduates aboard George Washington are leading the fight at every level. From the Captain of the ship, to flag and air wing staff, to squadron leadership, test pilots are making the GWCSG and its embarked air wing, Carrier Air Wing (CVW 5), the most technologically advanced and operationally ready air wing in the U.S. Navy. “The manner in which we rigorously examine problems and develop solutions and courses

July - December 2012 77 of action based upon sound engineering solutions is the same whether we engage in RDT&E projects, operational strike planning and execution, or operating the world’s state of the art weapon system – the combined air wing/ship team,” said CAPT Davis A. Lausman, George Washington’s commanding officer. “We have all passionately cut our teeth on these principles at USNTPS that continue to serve us well throughout our careers.” The Navy’s only all F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and EA-18G Growler air wing, known as Team Badman, is ensuring that America’s allies in the Western Pacific have no greater partner.

The test pilots aboard George Washington have tested all variants of the F/A-18, EA-18G, H-60, E-2; air-to-air & air-to-surface weapons; aircraft and weapon systems hardware and software; and been involved in many other acquisition programs. Now these test and evaluation experts are back in the fleet putting these very systems to use in the operational world. “The Navy is unique among the Armed Services in that many test pilots return to the operational fleet. In addition to bringing special expertise on the latest combat systems to the front lines, these testers also keep the Navy’s test and acquisitions communities informed on current threats, tactics, and operational requirements. This feedback loop helps to ensure that there isn’t a capabilities gap when new acquisitions like the F-35C Joint Strike Fighter reach the fleet,” said CDR Shawn Kern, the Executive Officer of Strike Fighter Squadron ONE ONE FIVE and a graduate of USAFTPS. The reason for the uncanny number of USNTPS graduates aboard the Nimitz-class aircraft carrier may be attributed to the high operational tempo and flight hours associated with the Forward Deployed Naval Forces, or it may be due to the new airframes that make up the air wing, or it may be the immediacy and complexity of the strike group’s mission. While we cannot be sure of the reason, we are sure that their presence will continue as this number is being bolstered with the recent addition of one flag staff member, the new CVW 5 deputy commander and the slating of three new squadron department heads for fiscal year 2013 that are also test pilot school grads.

Julian Nott (M) took the United States Oath of Allegiance to become a US Citizen on 31 August 2012.

WANTED: MEMBER and CORPORATE MEMBER INFO AND PHOTOS! Keep the members up to date on your Individual and Corporate news, events, and happenings!! The Society is soliciting flight test related news about SETP members and Corporate members for publication in the WHO...WHAT...WHERE section of COCKPIT Magazine. If you know of some interesting information about an SETP Member(s) or Corporate Member, please send it in. If you have some photos to accompany the news, all the better! All information and photos submitted will be given serious consideration for publication in COCKPIT Magazine. Flight Test events, awards, promotions, gatherings, etc. should be reported and shared.

To submit news and photos please contact Becki Hoffman at: [email protected] SETP Headquarters P.O. Box 986 Lancaster, CA 93584 78 July - December 2012 KNOW THE CORPORATE MEMBER

Mojave Air & Space Port

Mojave Air & Space Port has become a destination for aviation and space enthusiasts from across the country and around the world, having amassed more first flights and significant newsworthy flight activity than any other airport in the world over the past ten years. Mojave Air & Space Port emerged as the leading aerospace test center for commercial operations in North America and is home to more than 75 companies engaged in flight development, flight test and research, highly advanced aerospace design, light industrial and even heavy rail industrial manufacturing. We are home to the National Test Pilot School, where more flight test professionals are trained than at any other site in the world. Scaled Composites, Northrop Grumman, BAE Systems and XCOR Aerospace are among the aerospace companies developing next-generation aircraft and spacecraft in Mojave. Flight research activities include endo- and exo-atmospheric craft supporting private sector and government-funded projects.

One of the most attractive features of the airport is our 12,500 foot runway, which is capable of landing any aircraft in the world. Aerospace and aviation companies are flocking to the Mojave Air & Space Port to design, July - December 2012 79 test and produce tomorrow’s leading edge products. The aviation industry relies heavily on composite fabrication utilizing carbon fiber and fiberglass technology, both of which are resident at Mojave Air & Space Port through a network of design, fabrication and testing firms. Many specialty firms at the airport focus specifically on engine development, noise reduction technology, advanced cockpit display development and major airframe design modifications. The commercial aircraft industry relies heavily on firms located at the airport to perform aircraft inspections, storage and part- out. Whatever the initiative, Mojave Air & Space Port has the infrastructure, land, airspace and staff to accommodate many companies in the aviation and aerospace industries.

80 July - December 2012 CANADA

Canadian Chapter SETP 2012-13 Take-off Thursday Evening 25 October marked a new beginning for the SETP Canadian Section for the 2012-13 year. The appropriately named TAKE-OFF took place in the Cottage Room at Mckibbon’s Irish Pub on the West Island in Montreal. The Cottage Room provided an atmosphere and the ambience characteristic of an Old English Pub. I guess you could say it was a venue with great character for the great characters of Canadian flight test gathered therein. The first order of official business of the evening began with inaugural Canadian Section Chairman Rob Erdos (M) on hand to provide the official handover of the Canadian Section Charter to incoming Section Chairman Andy “skin” Litavniks (AF). Following the handover, the incoming Chairman took the floor and took the opportunity to remind those gathered of the vision, mission and core values of SETP. This was followed by details on the genesis of the Canadian Section and a reminder that the Section was ours to mold our activities to best suit our section members within keeping of the aforementioned vision and values of the greater SETP. From there the other incoming members of the Section board were introduced and given the opportunity to provide a self biography and their views on the year to come. Those board members known to many within the section and within SETP as a whole are: Vice Chairman Jeff Peer (F) Treasurer Moe Girard (F) Secretary Chuck Ellis (AF) Following the introduction the section goals for the year including but not limited to the following were briefed: 1. Stabilize the Section’s operations for years to come. Utilize the Board’s collective experience to create standard procedures and templates allowing for continual function and seamless transition as the section’s board members change and the section evolves. 2. Increase number of Canadian Members in SETP 3. Introduce the monthly beer call with a speakers corner to promote flight test dialogue while enjoying a “work break”. Location will vary (Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto, etc) in order to try to accommodate more members given consideration to the Section’s geographical size. 4. A formal dinner meeting. With the formalities complete the meeting continued with food, drinks and camaraderie of the gathered SETP members, SFTE members and other invited guests/potential members. Also singled out during the evening were the informal winners of the following attendee awards: Long Distance: Geoff Connolly (M) visiting from the U.K. Grey Beard: Went to B… , well apparently he wasn’t too happy with that one so we’ll keep that one in house. July - December 2012 81 Overall, the Take-off was informative, enjoyable and provided the launch towards the goal of getting the Canadian Section of SETP established in Long Range Cruise for years to come.

Left to Right: Andy Litavniks (AF) and Rob Erdos (M) Left to Right: Barry Hubbard (AF) and Moe Girard (F)

Left to Right: Eric Emblin, Geoff Connolly (M), Muzz Colquhoun (M) Left to Right: John Maris (AF), Rob Erdos (M), Dick Walker (AM)

SOUTHWEST

The Southwest section held its second symposium dedicated to historic flight test on October 27th. This year’s event was held at the C.R. Smith Museum at the American Airlines Training Center near the DFW Airport.

The program included the following presentations:

“First Manned Flight Test of the Apollo Program” – Walter Cunningham “December 32 – The Day the LearFan Flew” – Dennis Newton “Lightweight Figher Program, YF16 vs YF17” – Jim Rider “”Frederick “TRAP” Trapnell – Pioneering Navy Test Pilot” – Fritz Trapnell “V-22 Osprey Climatic Testing” – Kenneth Katz “NASA Langley General Aviation Stall/Spin Research Program” – James Patton, Phil Brown, Paul Stough “Free Lance Flight Testing – Some Lessons Learned” – George Hillman “Flight Testing the DC-3” – Bob Moreau

The banquet keynote presentation:

“Test Pilots Don’t Wear Pearls” – Suzanna Darcy-Hennemann

82 July - December 2012 Although it was a long day, with lunch, a social hour, and dinner provided, our guest were treated to some fascinating flight test history, much of which was heard for the first time. Our thanks, once again, go to the speakers who volunteered their time and effort to bring this great material to our guests.

Apollo 7 Astronaut Walt Cunningham Fritz Trapnell giving a fascinating describing flight testing the first manned presentation on his father’s naval test Apollo vehicle pilot career

Boeing test pilot Suzanna Darcy- Kevin Prosser and son Zak enjoying a tour Hennemann describing why test pilots of the DC-3 don’t wear pearls as our dinner speaker

Guests start to file in for dinner under the Incoming southwest section chairman watchful eye of the beautifully restored Norm Driscoll talking with Dale Ford 1937 DC-3 “City of Knoxville” during the social hour

July - December 2012 83 Ann Moreau as Paula, Becki, and Laurie rolled into one as greeter and registrar

SETP SECTION CHAIRMEN CANADA CENTRAL Andy Litavniks Stuart Rogerson [email protected] [email protected] EAST COAST EUROPEAN Eric Mitchell Ignacio Lombo [email protected] [email protected] GREAT LAKES NORTHWEST Robbie Robinson Ed Kolano [email protected] [email protected] SOUTHEAST SOUTHWEST Darren Wees Norm Driscoll [email protected] [email protected] WEST COAST Todd Ericson [email protected]

84 July - December 2012 SCHOLARSHIP FOUNDATION NEWS

The following notes were received from Scholarship recipients:

Dear Ms. Schell,

Thank you very much for your kind words and interest in my education. In some ways I can not believe that this semester is almost over!!

I am so thankful for the support that you have offered in the past, and for your continued desire to help me achieve my Nursing degree. I know that without all of your assistance, I would not be where I am today.

Thank you again,

Faith Brown

As always, thank you so much for your generous financial assistance. It means so much to me and my family and we truly appreciate it. This semester and next semester I am writing an undergraduate honors thesis. This is going very well and I am truly excited about my topic! It has even prompted me to write an article which is being published in the January edition of Grief Digest. I’m also the president of our Anthropology Club this year, which has been a blast. Last semester I became a volunteer at the Denver Zoo, so as you can tell, I’m staying pretty busy!

Robin R. Fiore

July - December 2012 85 56th ANNUAL SYMPOSIUM & BANQUET REPORT 26-29 September 2012 Grand California Hotel, Anaheim, California The Society’s 56th annual Symposium and Banquet (S&B) was held at Disney’s Grand Californian Hotel from September 26-29, 2012. Despite the threat of no participation from the United States Department of Defense, a last minute waiver was approved and 550 registrants were in attendance making the entire event a great success and financially viable. The Technical Tour organized by Nigel Speedy traveled to the Mojave Air and Space Port. There tours of National Test Pilot School, Masten Aerospace, The Space Ship Company and Scaled Composites were conducted. The ever popular and delicious Domingo’s catered lunch was hosted in NTPS’s hangar. For the ride home, the bus riders enjoyed a viewing of The Right Stuff where, once again, we were reminded: “Test pilots….. you can’t deal with test pilots!” The technical program was produced by Symposium Chairman Pat Duffy and his team of Session Chairmen with the theme of Extending Into Flight Test…….Efficiency and Effectiveness. Twenty two high-quality technical papers were presented to the Society. Saturday’s RefleXions session was as entertaining and thought provoking as ever covering the breadth of topics from dinosaurs to forward swept wing technology and back to the use of carousel slides. The Proceedings CD will be published shortly. It will include the technical papers, presentation podcasts and a complimentary copy of the book “Breaking the Mishap Chain, Human Factors Lessons Learned from Aerospace Accidents and Incidents in Research, Flight Test, and Development” thanks to NASA. Podcasts of the presentations are also available on the SETP web site. The luncheon, organized by Jim Less and Frank Batteas, provided a speaker to be remembered. Captain Chelsey B. Sullenberger, US Airways presented an inspirational talk not only about the miraculous flameout landing of an Airbus A-320 on the Hudson River (0 fatalities!), but also about leadership and a journey through life which prepares one to step up when necessary. Our student outreach program run by Ed Cabrera continued with representatives from three high schools and one university in attendance. The students were afforded an opportunity not only to attend the Technical Sessions and Luncheon, but were able to attend a private reception and meet Captain Sullenberger. As was accomplished last year, the SETP partner’s group under the auspices of the SETP Foundation conducted another seminar: “When an Accident Happens - Are You Prepared?” Katherine Benjamin again provided useful and salient casualty planning information to a packed house. All were enlightened and provided an updated copy of the SETP Partner’s Handbook. This year we again enjoyed a full house of corporate displays organized by Dan Vanderhorst. Besides providing the ever popular SWAG, this gave an opportunity for our corporate sponsors and others to demonstrate some of their newest gadgets and to provide insight to assets available to flight test professionals. The week culminated in the gala Awards Banquet with Hosts Carrie and Brent Reinhardt along with Master of Ceremonies Ed Schneider. A full house of members and guests enjoyed a gourmet meal and were entertained by a pianist, artists and magicians. 86 July - December 2012 The critiques have been analyzed and by and large the S&B was a great success. We have some areas of interest that were highlighted for improvement. Those along with a stack of notes and lessons learned have been forwarded for incorporation to next year’s General Chairman Col Rod Cregier, good luck! As always, the Disney Corporation worked hard with us in the execution of the S&B events. Hospitality is their business and they absolutely excel at it. We look forward to working with them again and hope to see everyone back at the Grand Californian from September 25-28, 2013. James E. Brown III General Chairman 56th Annual Symposium and Banquet Technical Tour The 2012 Gerry T. Morton Technical Tour was conducted at Mojave Air and Space Port. Approximately 60 members and their spouses made the long trip up from LA. The tour covered a range of the activities conducted at Mojave. First off was a visit to Masten where a small group of dedicated young engineers has successfully constructed several hovering rockets. To date they had well over 200 launches and we rapidly making progress with their testing to provide an economical method of delivering scientific payloads to space. This was followed by a tour of the National Test Pilot School facilities. Most folks had heard of the school but not visited previously and were quite surprised by the size of the operation, the number of aircraft and students. The last tour of the morning was with The Space Ship Company who provided a great view into the construction facility and planned operations for White Knight Two and Space Ship Two. Lunch was catered for by Domingo’s in the NTPS hanger. After lunch guest were taken by Al and Kathy Hanson in their tram up the flight line to Scaled Composites where Doug Shane had organized a very nice static display with several of Scaled’s aircraft. There were some very enthusiastic Scaled employee’s to answer everyone’s questions. This was topped off by some flying by White Knight Two and ARES. A rare treat for visitors to see these aircraft up close and flying. Despite the long trip visitors gained a good understanding for the variety of flight test activities conducted at Mojave and had an enjoyable day.

Welcome Reception Photos

July - December 2012 87 New Member Luncheon This year the annual New Member Reception took on a slightly different format from that of previous years. Moved from its previous time slot to Thursday at lunchtime, this already popular event gained even more momentum. Meeting at the SETP Suite, each of the eighteen new members present was assigned to a “Flight Lead” chosen from amongst the Society’s Fellows and Board of Directors. Those Flight Leads, in turn, introduced their new members around the room during an informal luncheon. The new members each got a wonderful opportunity to rub shoulders with some of our Society’s more noted members and the Flight Leads got brought up to date with current flight test events. Following a (mercifully short!) welcoming speech by SETP President Steve Rainey (F), each new member was presented an autographed bottle of George Cooper’s (F) wonderful “Test Pilot Red” wine by George himself and his equally famous partner in crime, Bob Harper (F). Everyone, both new and old, enjoyed themselves greatly.

Tom Morgenfeld

88 July - December 2012 July - December 2012 89 90 July - December 2012 President’s Dinner

July - December 2012 91 Friday Luncheon

The Friday Luncheon was packed with over 700 attendees, spouses, and guests enjoying an outstanding meal. The highlight of the Luncheon was an inspiring talk by our Guest Speaker, Captain “Sully” Sullenberger. Captain Sullenberger spoke about lifelong preparation, commitment to excellence, and, of course, his world-famous water landing in the Hudson River. Jim Less and Frank Batteas

Luncheon Speaker Luncheon Chairman, Jim Less and Captain Chesley “Sully” Sullenberger Speaker Sully Sullenberger US Airways

92 July - December 2012 Students from local high schools attended the Friday sessions and Luncheon.

July - December 2012 93 Friday Night Reception

The Friday Night Reception in Dinseyland park allowed members and guests to gather for dinner and socializing. Mickey and Minnie Mouse stopped by to say hi and pose for pictures as well.

94 July - December 2012 July - December 2012 95 Banquet

The 56th Annual Awards Banquet was Chaired by Maj’s Brent (M) & Carrie (M)Reinhardt, with Ed Schneider (F) as the Master of Ceremonies.

The 56th Annual Awards Banquet was a well attended successful event where we continued some long standing traditions and experienced the magic of some local talent. Once again, the induction of our new Fellows and the awards ceremony was led by our Master of Ceremonies, Mr. Ed Schneider. Charter Member George Cooper donated some of his famous Test Pilot Red wine for an auction that raised $4533.00 for the Scholarship Foundation. A special (and sneaky) highlight of the evening was the well-deserved naming of Ms. Paula Smith as a “Friend of the Society” for her 38 years of dedication and service. This event required extraordinary effort by the SETP staff, Disney, and Claude Pasquis’ AV team. Special thanks to Maj Jade Lemery (USAF) for tickling the ivorys, the Anaheim High School drumline for getting us started with a bang, and Mr. Dana Daniels for bringing magic to the meal! Card complete – Good Maneuver!

Brent “Gunner” Reinhardt & Carrie “HARB” Reinhardt

96 July - December 2012 Charlie Precourt (F) wins the (L to R) President Steve Rainey magnum of wine from the and Paula Smith auction to benefit the SETP Scholorship Foundation. The Friend of the Society Award Test Pilot wine was donated by SETP Charter Member George Cooper (F).

July - December 2012 97 (L to R) President Steve Rainey (F) (L to R) Award winners - Aaron Tobias (M), and award winners Cessna Aircraft and Lt Col Raffaele Di Caprio, Maurice Girard (F), Cessna Aircraft Italian Air Force and Nicola Pecile (AF), “Envelope Expansion Dives; Refining Buildup National Test Pilot School Techniques”

“Flight Test for H-V Diagram Ray E. Tenhoff Award Determination of a TH-500 (Sponsored by Aerospace Services International) HelicopterEquipped with New Main Rotor Blades”

Herman R. Salmon Technical Publications Award (Sponsored by Symbolic Displays)

Award Winner - Dr. Andreas Giez, (L to R) Award Winners -The Boeing German Aerospace Center Company 787 Flight Test Team - Randall Neville (F), Jennifer-Ellen Gessler, and “Effective Test and Calibration Michael Carriker (F) and of a Trailing Cone System on the (Not Pictured) FAA 787 Flight Test Team Atmospheric Research Aircaft Halo” - Eugene Arnold (AF) and John Hed ETA Award Tony LeVier Flight Test Safety Award (Sponsored by Lockheed Martin) (Sponsored by Gentex Corporation)

98 July - December 2012 2012 SETP Fellows

Daniel C. Dugan Maurice J. Girard

W.D. “Doug” Pearson Charles Precourt

Steven M. Rainey Derek Reeh

Gideon Singer James W. Smolka

July - December 2012 99 Joseph E. Sobczak Pietro Venanzi

Andrew Warner

2012 SETP Fellow Class

100 July - December 2012 JAMES H. DOOLITTLE AWARD

(L to R) Award winner - Doug Shane (F), Scaled Composites. Presented by VADM Jeffery Wieringa, USN (Ret.), Boeing, Jonna Doolittle Hoppes and Jimmy Doolittle III (F) James H. Doolittle Award (Sponsored by The Boeing Company) Burt Rutan hired Doug Shane as Scaled Composites’ first engineer in 1982. Since then Doug has held positions of increased responsibility within the company. He has served as a project engineer, the director of flight operations, vice president for business development, and executive vice president. As an officer of the company since 1989, he has played a significant role in Scaled’s 15 fold growth in sales over the last 23 years. When Northrop Grumman acquired Scaled Composites in 2007, it expressed the highest confidence in Doug’s leadership ability by naming him as President. Doug still leads Scaled Composites as it continues to work on its most ambitious project to date - commercial suborbital space travel with it’s White Knight II and Spaceship II aircraft. Doug has had an outstanding flight test career that includes the first flights of eight new prototypes including the White Knight, ADAM 309, Visionaire Vantage and Williams International V-Jet II. He has been a very active member of SETP, serving on the Board of Directors in ten different positions in ten succeeding years. Doug is a Fellow and was the 2004 President of SETP. The Society awarded Doug the Iven C. Kincheloe award in 1997. In addition, in 2005 he received the Robert J. Collier Trophy and the Aviation Week Aerospace Laureate Award. Doug’s record as both a superb test pilot, and outstanding leader of one of the world’s cutting edge aerospace companies speaks for itself. He is a class act who is truly deserving of this honor.

July - December 2012 101 IVEN C. KINCHELOE AWARD

(L to R) Award winner - Markus Scherdel (M), Solar Impulse. Presented by Jeannine Kincheloe and Iven Kincheloe III Iven C. Kincheloe Award (Sponsored by Lockheed Martin Corporation)

The Solar Impulse Aircraft is a solar powered, long range technology demonstrator built in Switzerland. This aircraft was designed to demonstrate the capability to build and fly an electrically powered aircraft that would fly 24 hours through the night using batteries and solar generators to capture the sun’s energy. Markus flew the first flight of the aircraft in July of 2010, and continued as the solar impulse’s only test pilot throughout the program, which he completed in July 2012. He has been intimately involved with all phases of the program from its beginning in 2007 to the present. His efforts included test team organization, flight test planning, as well as pilot training for himself and subsequent mission pilots. He had strong involvement in the development of the aircraft’s systems and cockpit design, and he conducted numerous ground tests on the aircraft and it’s systems prior to flight. Markus carried out a flight test campaign which accumulated over 46 hours of testing, and covered all aspects of performance, stability and control, speed and altitude envelope expansion, flutter testing up to 28,000 feet, and systems testing. Markus also demonstrated the aircraft at the 2012 Paris Air Show. He completed this rigorous test program on an aircraft which is limited to ten degrees angle of bank in flight, has very low frequency dynamics in all axes, a tendency for lateral directional control system induced oscillations, near neutral static longitudinal stability and roll axis control reversals! In summary, the Solar Impulse (with no autopilot) is a very demanding aircraft! The success of the Solar Impulse program is directly attributed to the superb flying skills, structured approach to problem solving, and professional dedication of Markus Scherdel. His outstanding accomplishments as the test pilot of the Solar Impulse program have earned him the 2012 Iven C. Kincheloe Award.

102 July - December 2012 2012/2013 SETP PRESIDENT

2012/2013 SETP President Doug Benjamin (F) accepts the “Symbol of Control” from 2011/2012 SETP President Steve Rainey (F)

July - December 2012 103 104 July - December 2012 July - December 2012 105 106 July - December 2012 REQUEST FOR NOMINEES FOR KINCHELOE AND DOOLITTLE AWARDS

The Board of Directors of The Society of Experimental Test Pilots has issued a call for nominations for the Iven C. Kincheloe Award and the J. H. Doolittle Award. Any member or person who has knowledge of a candidate’s accomplishments may submit a nomination(s) for either or both of these awards. To help in determining appropriate nominees, information about each award is given below. NOMINATIONS FOR KINCHELOE AND DOOLITTLE AWARDS MUST: ¨ Be presented in writing not later than 13 August 2013 ¨ Contain pertinent information concerning the candidate’s work. ¨ Be submitted to the SETP Board of Directors, P.O. Box 986, Lancaster, CA 93584.

Selection will be announced at the 57th Awards Banquet on 28 September 2013 at The Grand Californian Hotel, Anaheim, California. The presentations of these Awards are highlights of the Banquet. Each recipient will receive a small replica of the respective award, while the perpetual trophies remain on display at SETP Headquarters. THE IVEN C. KINCHELOE AWARD (Sponsored by Lockheed Martin) - In 1958, The Society of Experimental Test Pilots established the Iven C. Kincheloe Award in memory of the late Captain Iven C. Kincheloe, USAF. The purpose of the Kincheloe Award is to recognize outstanding professional accomplishment in the conduct of flight-testing. KINCHELOE SELECTION CRITERIA

1. Recipient must be a living member of the Society. 2. The accomplishment or at least a significant phase must have occurred during the past year (1 July to 1 July). 3. The accomplishment must involve actual flight-testing conducted by the individual and represent outstanding contribution to an aerospace flight program while acting as a test pilot thereon. THE J. H. DOOLITTLE AWARD (Sponsored by Boeing) - was established to honor outstanding accomplishment in technical management or engineering aspects of aerospace technology. It was presented for the first time in 1966. DOOLITTLE SELECTION CRITERIA 1. Recipient must be a living member of the Society. 2. A significant phase of his accomplishment must have occurred while a member of the Society. 3. The accomplishment clearly must be in technical management or engineering aspects of aerospace technology.

July - December 2012 107 Please submit the nominations in the following format, typed individually for each candidate submitted not later than 13 August 2013: Name of Award: Name and Address of Nominee: NOTABLE FOR: (NOTE- A minimum of 50 words describing why the nominee should be considered is requested. WITHOUT THIS SUBSTANTIATING DATA, the Committee will not be able to consider the nomination.) Submitted by: PLEASE SUBMIT TO: The Society of Experimental Test Pilots Post Office Box 986 Lancaster, California 93584-0986 Email: [email protected]

CALL FOR HONORARY FELLOW NOMINATIONS

Nominations of appropriate individuals for consideration as Honorary Fellows in The Society of Experimental Test Pilots will be reviewed by the Fellows Coordinating Committee at its annual meeting. The recommendations will be presented to the SETP Board of Directors for final approval. We feel your contribution will assist in obtaining the most select group of candidates from which to elect these former test pilots qualified to receive one of the highest honors extended by the Society. In order for the members of the Committee to give proper consideration to all the details pertaining to choosing this individual, please keep in mind that they might be unaware of the impressive background experience of the nominee. This information should be submitted in the appropriate format (below) to reach SETP Headquarters not later than 15 March 2013. Please be prepared to support your nominee by collecting pictures, films, etc. for the presentation of the award in September. Current stipulations established by the SETP Constitution in making these selections are listed below.

* * * * SETP CONSTITUTION * * * * ARTICLE III

SECTION 3. HONORARY FELLOW

An Honorary Fellow shall have achieved particular distinction in the aerospace field and shall have been engaged as an experimental test pilot at some time during his career. Nomination of an eligible candidate for Honorary Fellow may be volunteered in writing to the Fellows Coordinating Committee by any member of the Society. Such a nomination shall be accompanied by the appropriate information and documentation that will enable the Chairman of the Coordinating Committee to verify the candidate’s history and eligibility for the distinction of Honorary Fellow prior to the annual meeting of the Committee.

108 July - December 2012 Selection of a candidate to the grade of Honorary Fellow shall be by three-fourths or more affirmative votes of those Fellows present at the annual meeting of the Fellows Coordinating Committee. Selection(s) of nominee(s) shall be presented to the Board of Directors for final approval.

* * * * HONORARY FELLOW NOMINATIONS * * * *

Please provide the name, address and contact information of nominee. Also include what the nominee is notable for: (Substantiating background, particularly flight test work, of 50 words or more must be submitted. If you feel that articles, clippings, and photographs will enhance your nomination, please feel free to include them) PLEASE SUBMIT TO: The Society of Experimental Test Pilots Post Office Box 986 Lancaster, California 93584-0986 Email: [email protected]

July - December 2012 109 BOOK NEWS

As indicated by the subtitle, “The Real Story of the First MiGs in America”, this is a collection of stories that offer, for the first time, a concise depiction of many first-hand accounts of how these jets were acquired. In addition to historical facts and figures dating to the inception of the Russian Mikoyan-Gurevich design bureau, substantial effort has been taken to expose myths and bring to light facts that are significant and important regarding how, where, when and why the MiG aircraft were obtained and who obtained them. While a peek into the history of the MiG jet’s genesis is fascinating, the modern day stories of the people in America that acquired them are no less intriguing. As a bonus, you’ll learn of the experiences of the first person to own and operate a MiG in the United States and the free world including a peek into the arena of airshow flying. Currently available on www.BN.com for $19.99 REVIEWS FOR Mr. MiG “The story is a fascinating tour along “memory lane” and conveys the sights, the experiences, even the unmistakable smells of this classic Russian fighter. The names of iconic aviators such as Paul Poberezny, Bob Hoover, Chuck Yeager and Viktor Belenko adorn the pages along the way as “Mr. MiG” reveals the ups and downs, the triumphs, and sadly as well, the tragedies and bitter losses of friends and fellow aviators we all enjoyed the company of.” - Robert “Hoot” Gibson, Astronaut and MiG pilot “Amid the endless flood of aviation books by writers whose understanding of flying is, at best, second hand, it’s always a revelation to read the memories of a true high-performance aviator such as Paul Entrekin. None of us will ever have a relationship with a MiG-15 as personal and meaningful as was his, but Entrekin does a masterful job of at least letting us ride along with him. And he’s frank and honest not only about the pilots with whom he flew – some of them superb, some flat-out dangerous – but about himself.” - Stephan Wilkinson, author of The Gold-Plated Porsche “. . . A quick, fascinating read that, once started, I was compelled to finish in one sitting. Among the last of the “69” American military pilots so privileged to fly aircraft with direct lineage to our chief Cold War adversary’s once-upon-a-time front line order of battle, it was incredible to me that Entrekin as an individual (or any civilian enterprise) could achieve results so near what our military pulled together over a period of years with its essentially unlimited budget and other resources simply not available to him at any price. Sure, the scale was much smaller in bringing only one aircraft to operational condition, but the challenges he faced, more or less alone, had to seem at least as daunting as it must have looked for my Red Eagle forerunners to bring the storied CONSTANT PEG project to life. To now read some of his inside stories detailing the hows and whys of getting his jet off the ground is quite a treat. Bravo!” - Brian McCoy, Red Eagle Bandit #53, MiG pilot “Great book! Informative and resurrected human spirit!” - Viktor Belenko, Soviet MiG pilot “ . . . A wonderful story about obtaining (a MiG), the challenges of getting it certificated, flying and maintaining it – especially for training and for participation in airshows. It’s a one-of-a-kind story; an unusual one, particularly as a civilian flying one of the world’s most famous aircraft. Very good reading for a historian who loves military aviation.” - Paul H. Poberezny, Founder, Experimental Aircraft Association “Paul Entrekin has dispelled myths about MiG-15 fighter jet. This book can be must reading for anyone who wants to understand the background, development and the flight performance of the plane deployed in the Korean War.”- Kenneth Rowe, Korean War MiG-15 pilot 110 July - December 2012 A Bucket of Sunshine, a term used for the use of a nuclear bomb, is a firsthand insight into life in the mid-1960s on a Royal Air Force Canberra nuclear- armed squadron in West Germany on the frontline in the Cold War. Mike Brooke describes not only the technical aspect of the aircraft and its nuclear and conventional roles and weapons, but also the low-level flying that went with the job of being ready to go to war at less than three minutes notice. Brooke uses many amusing overtones to tell his story of what was an extremely serious business when the world was standing on the brink of nuclear conflict. The English-Electric Canberra was a first generation, jet-powered light bomber manufactured in large numbers in the 1950s. The Canberra could fly at a higher altitude than any other bomber through the 1950s and due to its ability to evade early interceptors was a popular export product and served with many nations.

Currently available on www.Amazon.com for $18.96

July - December 2012 111 Etched in Stone - Remembering Our Friends on Flight 153 Everyone remembers a day that changes their life –whether it is good, like the birth of a child, or devastating like 9/11. For me, April 2, 2011 has changed me forever. That day, four friends – Kent Crenshaw, Vivan Ragusa, Reece Ollenburg, and Dave McCollum – were killed conducting development takeoff field performance testing on a Gulfstream G650 in Roswell, NM. As I had just left Roswell with another crew the day before, I asked myself - Why them? Why not me? I’m sure everyone involved in flying those tests did. Accidents in Flight Testing will happen; it is an unfortunate fact. My problem was trying to decide how to best remember the victims of this accident. Nothing we could do will ever be enough to compensate for the devastation to their families. But remembering the sacrifice of these men, and reminding current and future flight testers of the risks of their chosen field is important. This was something that was contemplated for a long time. When we decided to continue field performance testing in Roswell NM, the process of creating a permanent memorial on the airfield also began. After obtaining the authorization from the Roswell Airport Manager, I discussed options with a master stone mason located in Roswell, Mr. David Sadler CM, AICA. The design concept began to take shape. Because the lives of the family and friends of the crew would be irreparably affected, we wanted to insure that they were appropriately memorialized. The decision was made to purchase a large rock ledger of black granite, something bold and masculine to symbolize these men who were “larger than life” to the people who knew them. The granite slab used weighed over five tons, and measured 9 ft x 4.5 ft. The edges were hammered and chiseled to a rock-shell finish, which allowed the face of the stone design work to be lifted up. To make this memorial more personal, a painting of the flight crew, done by Gulfstream pilot Ahmed Ragheb, was used as the centerpiece. A high-resolution image of the original painting was diamond etched onto a 30” x 23” piece of granite, litho-chromed to match the vibrant colors of original artwork, and installed on the face of the granite slab. The memorial was put in place at the approximate final resting place of the accident aircraft, which was near the base of the ATC tower. It was especially poignant that this occurred immediately following the completion of the certification field performance testing while the Gulfstream test team was on-site. We all hope that this will be a lasting tribute to our friends and family, from those of us who were lucky enough to have both known them and spent time with these great men. The tragedy of that day will never leave those who have experienced it. We will all miss the companionship and camaraderie enjoyed with these talented professionals. And now, the challenge for the rest of us is to continue moving forward. And so we shall, but we will always remember the crew lost on April 2, 2011. “In God We Trust – Everything Else, We Test.” Paul Donovan

112 July - December 2012 July - December 2012 113 LAST FLIGHTS Neil A. Armstrong (F), was born on 5 August 1930 in Wapakoneta, Ohio and passed away on 26 August 2012. Neil was a Charter Member of SETP and in SETP’s early days, he served as chairman of the Publications, Legal and Scholarship Committees, as Symposium Chairman and as Chairman of the Texas Section. He honored the Society on its 50th Anniversary with his speech at the 49th Symposium and Banquet luncheon in September 2005. He was an aerospace engineer, naval aviator, test pilot, and university professor. Before becoming an astronaut, Neil was an officer in the U.S. Navy and served in the Korean War. He flew 78 missions over Korea for a total of 121 hours in the air. He received the Air Medal for 20 combat missions, a Gold Star for the next 20, and the Korean Service Medal and Engagement Star. As a Naval Aviator, he flew 78 combat missions from an aircraft carrier. After the war, he earned his B.S. degree in Aeronautical Engineering at Purdue University and served as a test pilot at the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics High-Speed Flight Station (now Dryden Flight Research Center) where he logged over 900 flights. He later completed graduate studies at the University of Southern California. At NASA’s Flight Research Center at Edwards, CA, he was a project pilot on many pioneering high speed aircraft, including most of the early supersonic jets, the rocket powered X-1, the variable sweep wing X-5, the vertical take off and landing X-14, and the X-15. He was actively engaged in both piloting and engineering aspects of the X-15 program since its inception. He completed the first flight in the aircraft equipped with a new flow-direction sensor and the initial flight in an X-15 equipped with a self-adaptive flight control system. He had worked closely with designers and engineers in developing the adaptive system. During X-15 flights he reached speeds over 3,960 mph, Mach 5.82 and altitudes of over 207,000 feet. Later, as a research pilot, Neil served as project pilot on the F-100 Super Sabre A and C variants, F-101 Voodoo, and the Lockheed F-104A Starfighter. He also flew the Bell X-1B, Bell X-5, North American X-15, F-105 Thunderchief, F-106 Delta Dart, B-47 Stratojet, KC-135 Stratotanker, and was one of eight elite pilots involved in the paraglider research vehicle program (Paresev). He transferred to astronaut status in 1962. He served as command pilot for Gemini 8 flight in 1966 and performed the first successful docking of two vehicles in space. He also served as backup commander for the Gemini 11 and Apollo 8 missions. As spacecraft commander of Apollo 11, Neil Armstrong, on July 20, 1969 was the first man to walk upon the moon. He later held teaching position in the Department of Aerospace Engineering at the University of Cincinnati. Neil was the retired Chairman of the EDO Corporation, an electronics and aerospace manufacturer. Neil was the holder of 13 world records in aviation and space. Neil is survived by his wife Carol, sons Eric and Mark, brother Dean and sister June.

114 July - December 2012 CAPT Frank H. Austin, Jr. (AM), was born on 18 October 1924 in Kerrville, Texas and passed away on 22 June 2010. Frank received his M.D. degree from Southwestern Medical College, TX in 1948. His residency was served in Naval hospitals and in 1951 he began a tour of duty as Flight Surgeon, Marine Air Wing, Korea. Next, he did additional duty to NASA as a Project Mercury Medical Monitor. He graduated in Class 17 from the U.S. Naval Test Pilot School in 1957, becoming one of the few Navy flight surgeons to graduate from the Test Pilot School. In 1963, Dr. Austin was assigned as Senior Medical Officer on the USS Enterprise. Following this, he served in Vietnam as part of a combat team to evaluate combat stress in fliers. He was awarded the Air Medal with two-strike flight emblems. In 1984 Dr. Austin was designated as the F.A.A. Federal Air Surgeon, responsible for the medical certification of the nation’s pilots and air traffic controllers as well as for the direction of FAA’s safety-oriented medical research activities. He resigned in 1987 and returned to NASA helping to develop medical and bioengineering plans for astronauts on space stations, retiring in 1994. He was the founding President of an association for Naval flight surgeon pilots and was a member of many professional groups. His testing experience included not only general service test and some carrier suitability flight test, but extensive work in the evaluation of numerous models of the full and partial pressure suits and various other safety and survival equipment. Frank joined SETP in 1962. He flew more than 25 models of aircraft with the Navy and made more than 50 landings on aircraft carriers, and left the Navy with the rank of Captain in 1978. Survivors include a son, Stephen H. Austin, three stepsons and seven grandchildren. Jean J. Brunner (M), passed away on 11 August 2012 in Stans, Switzerland, near his home after an aggressive lung disease, which weakened him within five months. Jean was born in Bex, Switzerland on 9 November 1932 and grew up in Bülach, near Zürich airport. He completed his apprenticeship as a mechanic in the civilian maintenance branch of the Swiss Air Force at Dübendorf. In the military, he started his basic training in 1952, was selected for pilot training and got his wings in 1954. He was accepted in the surveillance squadron, the professional part of Swiss Air Force, and became an officer and flight instructor in 1955 on DH-112, Venom. His skills qualified him to join the team of test pilots at Emmen in April 1957, where he made production tests and bomb delivery investigations on DH-112, Venom. In August 1957 he flew the second prototype of the P-16, Swiss ground attack plane developed by FFA Altenrhein. He did performance, handling qualities, spins and flutter tests until 25 March 1958, when he had to eject due to a hydraulic failure and was injured at his back. The procurement of 100 P-16’s was politically ended. Jean then was engaged in reception and ferry flights from England to Switzerland of the 100 Swiss Hawker Hunter, when his friendship with Bill Bedford started. July - December 2012 115 His military career continued in a militia function as Squadron Leader, as an officer in General Staff, as Wing Commander, then Commander of an aviation regiment and Chief of Staff of the aviation brigade. He made an outstanding combination of his professional knowledge of technical possibilities and his knowledge of the operational needs of the Air Force. In 1964 he was a member of the Swiss-French team at Holloman AFB to integrate the Hughes TARAN system in the Mirage III S, mainly responsible for the air to ground part. He later made the first live firing of an AS-30 missile from a Mirage and integrated the AS-11 missile on the DH-115 for training purposes. From 1967 to 1975 he was leader of the pilot team for the evaluation of a new Fighter Attack aircraft for the Swiss Air Force, which led, after a change of the green book to the procurement of the F-5E. Jean was then head of the Swiss OT&E program at Edwards AFB in 1978. As Chief Test Pilot of the Swiss Armament Procurement Group he was responsible for the production and reception flights in Switzerland. He participated in the integration of Maverick on the Swiss Hawker Hunter and did the first separation and the first live firing. During his whole active time he stayed current on helicopters, namely Alouette II and III and Superpuma. He soon recognized the effectiveness of UAV’s for reconnaissance missions and fought successfully for a procurement of the Ranger. With his extraordinary talent in drawing, he was able to make complicated developments and situations easily understandable, also for non-professionals. Jean became a member of the Society in August 1965 and was active in the organization of all European Section Symposia held in Switzerland and created all the logos for these symposia. He also was the author of all the new-year cards for “the Test Pilots from Emmen” until his retirement in 1992. At his retirement he totalled 7,190 hours and 19,500 landings on 88 different types of aircraft; 4 gliders, 31 props, 20 helicopters and 31 jets. Jean was an outstanding test pilot and an outstanding, efficient leader, who will be missed by those who knew him. Jean is survived by his wife Romy, his daughter Maya, his sons Hans and Mathias and four great-grandchildren.

Lt. Col Paul Laurance Chell, USAF (Ret), (M), passed away on 11 August 2012 at his home in Indian Harbour Beach, Florida. He was born 23 January 1922 in Minneapolis, Minnesota to the late William B. Chell and Laura Sorkness Chell. Paul attended the University of Minnesota to study mechanical engineering and business administration. World War II intervened. He became an aircraft inspector and subsequently joined the Army Air Corps in 1942. He received his pilot’s license in 1943 and spent 19 months as a pilot and flight test maintenance officer in the Asiatic-Pacific Theater. During this time he flew 19 combat missions. After the war, Paul left the Army Air Corps to return to the University of Minnesota where he met his wife of 65 years, Lois Krogh (Gretchen) Chell. He rejoined the Air Force to become a test pilot at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base and joined SETP in 1963. He was a project manager for the F-88 and F-101. During his flying career, he flew 64 different types of aircraft and 93 different models of airplanes, some of which were the amphibious C-47, P-51, P-80, F-80, B-17, B-24, B-25, P-38, F-5, F-6, F-7 and F-9.

116 July - December 2012 Paul was involved early on in the U.S. space project. In 1948 while a test pilot, Paul flew a team of Air Force project personnel to what was then the Banana River Naval Air Station to survey the area as a possible site for a rocket launch site. This was the start of what is now the John F. Kennedy Space Center. A 1975 Today newspaper column quoted him as saying, “They went back to Wright Field and made a recommendation that this be the rocket site.” Paul later directed the Air Force Space Study Program in the middle and late 1950’s while stationed at Andrews AFB and the Pentagon. His involvement with research and development in the space program led to his last military assignment at the Air Force Eastern Test Range at Patrick Air Force Base in 1965. He was a financial planner following his retirement from the Air Force in 1967. Paul became a Rotary Club member in Severna Park, MD and joined the Indiatlantic Rotary Club in 1969. At that time he started the Rotary Tree Project which provided seedlings to be planted by churches and civic groups at churches, schools and other public property. In the past 41 years, the Tree Project has planted more than 58,000 trees in Brevard County, including 5,000 mangroves by the Indian River Lagoon. In 1988 Paul started the Indiatlantic Rotary Book Program which shipped medical and technical books and professional journals around the world. More than 225,000 books and about 154,000 journals have been delivered to Rotary Clubs for distribution in 14 countries. A third project he started was to supply donated FPL telephone poles to provide osprey nesting sites. Paul was a Rotary Paul Harris Fellow and was awarded the Rotary International “Service Above Self” award. In 2008, he was awarded the Indiatlantic Rotary Club “Rotarian of the Half Century” award. Paul was a life member of SETP and a member of Institute of the Aerospace Sciences. Paul enjoyed golf at Suntree Country Club, where he and his wife, Gretchen, were early members. He was a talented musician who played the piano and organ. Paul also was a sailor, fisherman and crabber. He is survived by his wife, Lois Krogh (Gretchen) Chell; three children, James Allan Chell, Tracy Chell and Gretchen Chell Cover; and three grandsons, Paul A. Khoury, Justin Khoury and Nelson Cover III. He has one brother, Pearce B. Chell, two nephews and a niece. The family asks that donations be given to The Indialantic Rotary Club, PO Box 033134, Indialantic, FL 32903.

Col Alan B. Hale, USAF (Ret) (M), beloved husband, father and brother, passed away 2 July in his home, surrounded by his family. A decorated fighter pilot, businessman and professor emeritus, he will leave a gap in the hearts of those who knew and loved him. Born in Providence, UT in 1937, Alan was the eldest of seven children. At the age of 16, Alan began his lifelong passion for flying. While serving in the Air Force, he met and married his other lifelong passion, Kaye, and they shared the next 55 years together. While serving in Vietnam rescuing downed pilots, Alan earned the Silver Star, Distinguished Flying Cross, and Air Medal for aerial gallantry. During his Air Force career, he served with aerospace luminaries July - December 2012 117 Buzz Aldrin and Dick Scoby, and attained the rank of Colonel before he retired in 1978. Alan joined SETP in 1973 while serving as Operations Officer, Fighter Operations Branch with the 6512 Test Squadron at Edwards AFB. CA. Some of the aircraft he tested over his career were C-130, C-141A, HC-130H, EC-47, NF-106B and 737. Alan was a lifelong learner who held Master’s degrees in Electronic Engineering and Business Administration. Following his retirement from the Air Force, he started a successful computer business, which was soon purchased by a major corporation. Subsequently he was hired in 1981 as one of Eastern Washington University’s first computer science professors and spent the next 15 years teaching computer programming and microprocessor design. While working at EWU, Alan and his students won a NASA contract to create an onboard processing unit for the Space Shuttle program. This project spawned the creation of his Cheney, WA company, XN Technologies, Inc. (XN). He later sold XN Technologies, Inc. to concentrate on his new company, XN Air, which he operated at the Spokane International Airport until 2011. Alan was a decorated war hero, test pilot, entrepreneur, and educator. Cancer brought down this man that enemy bullets could not. Alan is survived by his wife Mary Kaye of Cheney; son John Hale and wife Laurie Hale of Cheney; son Mark Hale and wife Jodie Hale of Cheney; son Phil Hale and wife Kathy Hale of Cheney; son Chris Hale and wife Cindy Hale of Anchorage; son Brian Hale; grandchildren Thomas and Justin Hale of Spokane; Jason Hale of Idaho Falls; Alex and Patrick Hale of Ripen, CA; Ashley, Madeline, and Jenna Hale of Colorado Springs; Codi and Gage Onda of Cheney; great grand-daughter Mia DeMaderios of Ripen, CA; and many nieces, nephews, cousins and friends. Alan is preceded in death by his son Steve Hale, daughter Brenda Hale, and parents Seymour and Velda Hale of Payette, ID.

Frederic A. Madenwald (F), passed away 5 August 2012 at his home in Tehachapi, CA. Fred was born on 13 April 1951 in Beaumont, Texas. He received a BS from Lamar University in 1973 and was awarded a Masters degree from the University of West Florida in 1975. After graduating from college in 1973, Fred joined the US Marine Corps and completed 22 years total service on active duty and with the Reserves. Fred flew A-4M, F-4S and F/A-18A aircraft in several tactical squadrons. He graduated the US Naval Test Pilot School at Patuxent River, MD in 1981 and was assigned to the Strike Aircraft Test Directorate as a military test pilot from 1981-83. In 1983 to 1985, he was assigned as the Chief Fixed Wing Instructor at the Naval Test Pilot School. At the conclusion of his military service in 1985, Fred joined McDonnell Douglas as an Experimental Test Pilot in 1985. While there he participated in the following significant events: Production testing of all models of the F-15 and F/A-18 aircraft; completed the Full Scale Development of the F-15E (Strike Eagle) at Edwards AFB; Fred was the Chief Pilot on the F/A-18E/F (Super Hornet), completed the first sim, flew the first flight and led the integrated Test Pilot Team during EMD at NAS Pax River, MD. Fred finished his Test Pilot career with over 5500 hours in 58 different aircraft and fortunately, zero accidents. In 1999, Fred was promoted out of the cockpit to become the Contractor Test Director for Follow-On Test & Evaluation for the Super Hornet. As the Site Director, his span of 118 July - December 2012 control included all the TACAIR Flight Test Organizations for Boeing. In 2002, Fred was selected to become the V-22 Flight Test Director and lead the troubled program back to flight and completed the EMD testing. Fred traveled back to St. Louis and became the core Flight Director for Flight Laboratory and Operations for all TACAIR Programs. He was responsible for the people, tools, and processes for flight certification, flight test and production, test data, and safety. In 2006, Fred was temporarily assigned as Flight Test Director of the 767 Tanker (Japan & Italy). In June 2006, Lockheed Martin selected Fred to be the F-35 Test Director for the Integrated Test Force at Edwards AFB to complete the Lightning II SDD Program. He retired as Lockheed Martin Aeronautics F-35 Site and Flight Director in 2011. Honors Selected as a Fellow in the Society of Experimental Test Pilots - 2004 American Helicopter Society, received the Grover Bell Flight Test Organization Award - 2004 Lockheed Martin Leadership Association Manager of the Year – 2009 (Southern California Branch) Commander of Naval Air Systems, received the “Commander Award for Special Achievement” Fred was married with three sons, ages 30, 24, and 19. He enjoyed family camping trips to the Rockies, snow skiing, white water rafting, reading, and made a mean bowl of chili.

In lieu of flowers, the Madenwald family has requested donations to the SETP Scholarship Foundation http://www.setp.org/scholarship-foundation/scholarship.html in memory of Fred. Capt. William A. Meeley, Jr., USN (Ret), (M), was born on 9 February 1950 in Philadelphia, PA and passed away peacefully on 26 October 2012 surrounded by family after a six-year fight with melanoma. Bill had a distinguished 25-year career as a Navy helicopter pilot, test pilot, and consummate leader. He deployed in support of mine warfare and logistic operations to England, the Suez Canal, and Italy. He was one of the first Navy pilots to qualify for helicopter aerial (in-flight) refueling operations and flew the first coast-to- coast, non-stop demonstration of an RH-53D helicopter using in-flight refueling. He flew helicopters in Antarctica in support of the National Science Foundation and Operation Deep Freeze and was honored to have a weather station named for him. Bill qualified as a Naval Test Pilot in 1983, serving multiple tours of duty at NAS Patuxent River, MD, the Center of Excellence for Navy and Marine Corps flight test programs and commanded VT-27, a Naval Aviation training squadron at NAS Corpus Christie, TX. He joined SETP in 1986. Bill’s passion for flying continued after his retirement from the Navy in his role as a flight test pilot with United Airlines for 15 years, retiring in September 2012. Bill is survived by his wife of 40 years, Joanne, and their daughters Tricia, Kate, and Elizabeth (Max Wilson), as well as his cherished “Puddin,” granddaughter Charlotte. He was predeceased by his father, William A. Meeley, Sr. and his sister, Ellen Ann (Lepper). He July - December 2012 119 also is survived by his mother, Mary Ellen (McElwee) and his siblings, Mary (companion Greg Koch), Carolyn (Chuck Rose), Stephen (Stacye), John (Donna), Robert (Liz) and Brian (Sybil), and a multitude of nieces, nephews, in-laws, out-laws, cousins, and friends. Inurnment with full military honors will take place at Arlington National Cemetery on a future date. Contributions in Bill’s name may be made to the Melanoma Research Foundation, Washington, DC or www.melanoma.org.

LtCol Anthony D. Miller, USMC (Ret), (M), was born on 7 September 1934 in Marion, North Carolina and passed away on 19 June 2012. Anthony attended the U.S. Naval Academy and received a B.S. degree in Engineering Science in 1958. He later received an M.S. degree in Aeronautical Engineering from the U.S. Naval Postgraduate School in 1968. He attended flight training in 1959-60 at both Pensacola, FL and Kingsville, TX. Tony graduated from the U.S. Naval Test Pilot School in 1970 and joined SETP in 1972 while serving as Head, Attack Aircraft Section at the Naval Air Test Center, Patuxent River, MD. During his career, Tony was involved in experimental and developmental flight testing on the A-4C, A-7C, A-4M, A-7, TA-4J and A4-F aircraft. He is survived by his wife of almost 54 years, Bonnie; their four children, Jeffrey, Monica, Michael, and Steven; Jeffrey’s wife, Deborah; and Steve’s wife, Michelle; nine grandchildren, Kristofor, Jacquelyn, Amanda, Matthew, Marissa, Alexandra, Jordan, Tyler, and Daryn; and Tony’s sister, Shirley Schwartz.

Lt Col William G. Reschke, USAF (RET) (M), was born on 9 January 1925 in Verdon, Nebraska and passed away on 20 June 2012 in Folsom, California at the age of 87. He was the eldest son of eight children. William was a distinguished military veteran. He enlisted in the U.S. Army during World War II and fought in the Pacific where he made six beachheads. He was awarded two silver stars for extraordinary heroism and valor during combat. After the war, William obtained a B.S. in Aeronautical Engineering from the University of Kansas, and joined the U.S. Air Force in 1951. He flew missions in the Korean and Vietnam wars. In 1961, William became a test pilot. He attained the rank of Lieutenant Colonel when he retired from the Air Force and received numerous medals and citations for distinguished service and outstanding bravery. He served his country for over 23 years. He joined SETP in 1965 while serving as Deputy for Flight Test, Bomber Operations Division at Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio. He was involved with the B-47, KC-135, B-52 and C-141 programs while at Wright-Patterson. After his military service, William worked as a commercial airline pilot. He flew the routes from Tokyo to San Francisco, frequently stopping in Hawaii, one of his favorite places. 120 July - December 2012 William married the late Valerie Audroue in 1960. They were married 51 years and raised three children together. They lived in Ohio and Japan and finally settled in California in 1975. William was a beloved husband, father and grandfather. He enjoyed talking about his childhood on the farm. He loved to tell stories about having his teeth knocked crooked when the family horse kicked him, and getting into trouble when he flipped over his dad’s new tractor in a ditch. He also loved to share stories about his war experiences. His patriotism and discipline are well known by all. He enjoyed family gatherings and spending time with his grandchildren. William is survived by two daughters: Julie Unruh and husband Carter of El Dorado Hills, California, Michele Kourey and husband Michael of Danville, California, one son William Reschke of Bolinas, California, four grandchildren, Rachel, Grant, Austin and Lauren. He also leaves behind two sisters, Mary Cashman of Merriam, Kansas, Joan Jurgensmeier of Hiawatha, Kansas, and one brother, Ralph Reschke of Lawrence, Kansas. William is preceded in death by his wife Valerie, three brothers, Henry, Bob and John, and one sister, Ruth Ann, who died in infancy.

CDR Merton Deering Short, USN (Ret) (M), was born in Cross Timbers MO on 14 October 1923 and passed away on August 21, 2011 succumbing to a fatal subdural hematoma he incurred on the tarmac at Lincoln, California airport two days prior while attending a Quite Birdmen luncheon. M.D. was vital and active at 87 years young and loved flying with his EAA comrades in Chapters 1112 (Oroville, CA) and 735 (Paradise, CA) more than anything else in life. He enjoyed giving biannual reviews and check rides, and remained current in his qualifications as a certified check ride instructor. M.D. started his career in aviation as a teenager, receiving a college scholarship to Wichita State University in 1941, which included courses in aeronautical engineering and a part-time job at Boeing Wichita Aircraft Company. In 1942, he applied to the Naval Aviation Cadet Program but his enrollment was delayed due to the influx of candidates during WWII. As a result, he was hired full time at Boeing as an engineer draftsman. This job enabled him the experiences of climbing aboard the first production model B 29 Super Fortress and witnessing its first flight. After graduating from the cadet program and receiving his Wings of Gold in Pensacola, FL, he stayed at the school and instructed future jet pilots. M.D. was then given orders for a cruise on the U.S.S. Princeton out of Alameda, CA. In 1953 he entered U.S. Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, CA. There he met his future wife Judy Adams who was living in Carmel. After graduating, he was stationed in Oceana, VA with squadron VA 163. After a shakedown cruise on the U.S.S. Forestall, the squadron was sent on a Pacific cruise on the U.S.S Enterprise. His dream of becoming a test pilot was realized when he was sent to PAX River, MD. Short and Don Engen joined SETP in 1959 when they were together in Flight Test. Air Force flight test pilots from Edwards AFB joined PAX River hosts for a FJ4-B Fury project. PAX River Test Pilots were CDR D. D. Engen, USN, LCDR M.D. Short, USN, LT R. F. Gordon, USN. Air Force Flight Test Pilots were Capt. Robert White, USAF, Capt. Robert Rushworth, USAF, Capt. L.G. Cooper, USAF. July - December 2012 121 In 1963, M.D. became Commanding Officer of A4 Skyhawk Squadron at Lemoore Naval Air Station, CA. The squadron deployed on the U.S. S. Carrier Oriskany (CVA 34). The “Saints” Squadron (VA 163) entered the early Vietnam conflict. While Strike Officer on the USS Bon Homme Richard (CVA 31), his younger daughter, Carolyn, was christened aboard the ship. His last duty before retirement was Director Joint Task Force at Sandia Base, Albuquerque, NM. Upon retirement, M.D. accepted a position with General Dynamics/Fort Worth as Deputy Director of the Navy’s F-111 B program concluding with carrier qualification of the aircraft. He moved his family to Friday Harbor, Washington in 1971. He studied international space relations through the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, which included a trip to the Soviet Union in 1973.

In 1974, Short joined Mitsubishi Aircraft Inc. in San Angelo, TX flying the MU 2 aircraft, promoting sales in Mexico and South America. Two years later he transferred to California. While making his home in Butte County, he flew as corporate pilot out of Oroville, CA. He also instructed at Beale AFB Aero Club and EAA in Paradise and Oroville. M.D. was a member of the Civil Air Patrol, Senior Member of Daedalians, Beale AFB Aero Club, EAA 1112 Oroville, EAA 735 Paradise, Tailhook Assoc. ANA, AIAA, United Flying Octogenarians, Quiet Birdmen, American Legion: Commander Post 673 Durham, District 4 Chaplain, and Department of California Area 1 Disaster & Emergency Services Commissioner. M.D. lived a full life and was loved by everyone who knew him. He rests in the Veterans Court of Honor at Glen Oaks Memorial Park in Chico, CA. Short is survived by his wife of 57 years, Juel Rae Short; daughter, COL Suzanne D. Adkinson, Texas National Guard, Austin TX; son-in-law, COL Jeff Adkinson, DEA, San Antonio, TX; daughter, Carolyn Rae Short, Chico, CA; sister, Marjorie Fetterhoff, Tempe, AZ; MO; four grandchildren and several nieces and nephews. His brother, Kelsey D. Short is deceased.

William F. Smith, Jr. (AF), was born on 12 February 1921 to William Smith and Gabrielle Pherrin Smith in Erie, PA and passed away on 27 August 2011. Bill began flying in 1936. He was a Naval aviator in World War II and was employed by Douglas Aircraft Company in 1950 as a production and delivery pilot. In 1952 he became an engineering pilot and in 1961 an airline engineering pilot. During his employment with Douglas Aircraft, Bill performed stall investigations on the DC6B and various investigations on the handling characteristics of the C124, SR38, R4D8 and R6D aircraft. He flew test flights for the development of autopilot evasive maneuvers on the QB17 and performance takeoffs and testing of autopilot development, airloads and stability and control of the DC7. He also performed certification testing of the initial Class D category aircraft (DC8). Bill joined Lockheed in 1969 as a staff pilot on the L-1011program and in 1971 became an engineering pilot performing certification testing on the L-1011 Category IIIB auto flight system and the L1011-500 digital auto flight system. His presentations include:

122 July - December 2012 Orient Airlines Association, “A discussion of Threshold Crossing Heights and Landing Techniques as Applied to the L-1011.” L-1011 Category III Auto Flight System to FAA and L-1011 systems and auto flight to B.A.L.P.A. He co-authored flight modes of the publication “Lockheed L-1011 Avionic Flight Control. Bill also served on the SAE F-7 Committee. He performed flight crew training and technical assistance which included the presentation of a paper at the International Aeronautical Symposium in Tokyo, entitled “Programmed Arrival (4D) and Future Cockpit Displays.” He conducted courses on Category IIIB for Air Portugal at Lisbon and the Governmental Licensing Authority for Air Transportation and the Local Pilot’s Union. Bill retired in February of 1984. Post retirement, Bill was hired by Delta Airlines as Technical Advisor to their Legal Department for the investigation into the cause of the L-1011 crash at Dallas-Fort Worth on 2 August 1985. This assignment included testifying at the hearings held by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and working at the University of Chicago. Bill received and award from the Pilots of Delta Airlines and Airlines Pilot Association Council 44 “for many years of dedicated service to commercial aviation” and from the Japan Aircraft Pilot’s Association “for having greatly contributed to the success of the international aeronautical symposium and for assisting in the development of civil aviation as a guest lecturer.” Bill is survived by his niece, Charleen Fitz.

Thomas E. Twiggs (F) peacefully took his last flight on 12 September 2012 after a lengthy illness. Tom received his flight training with the U.S. Navy, and served on active and reserve duty for 23 years. Tom began his flight test career with The Boeing Company. He flew a 727 modified with fixed leading edge slats investigating stalls and high angle of attack flying qualities. On a 737 with wing leading edge simulated icing, Tom performed stall testing at forward and aft CG’s. Tom developed and certified the FMs and advanced displays on the 757/767. In addition, he followed this work with the future air navigation system on the 747-400, enabling Pacific Ocean navigation using GPS. Tom also was a test pilot on two joint Boeing/NASA programs. The TCV 737 tested advanced avionics to improve terminal area operations. The QSRA, a highly modified De Havilland Buffalo, explored wing coanda effect during STOL operations. Tom’s QSRA work included envelope definition, flutter, engine operating and yaw stability testing. Tom joined SETP in 1976 and was upgraded to Fellow in 2010. He presented papers at three SETP conferences and served as a Flight Test Safety Workshop chair, and as SETP Northwest Section chair. He was also very involved in the SETP Educational Outreach program, working with both Aviation High School and the University of Washington. Tom was instrumental in the now annual Northwest Symposium. His enthusiasm for the Society was contagious, and his activities for the benefit of the Society continued for as long as his illness allowed. He will be missed by all. Tom is survived by his wife, Jean, son David, daughter Margaret Twiggs-Nelson, two grandsons, Ryan and Jesse, and two brothers, Robert Twiggs, and Nathan Lehman.

July - December 2012 123 The Society of Experimental Test Pilots PRSRT STD P.O. Box 986 U.S. POSTAGE Lancaster, CA 93584-0986 PAID SUNDANCE PRESS 85719

SETP CORPORATE MEMBERS Advanced Training Systems Honda Aircraft Company International Honeywell Aerospace Flight Aerospace Services International Test Operations AeroTEC International Test Pilot School Air Force Test Pilot School (India) Canada Ltd. Airbus SAS JT3, LLC ALCAT, Inc. Krings Corporation Alenia Aermacchi S.p.A. Lockheed Martin Corporation Aviation Partners, Inc. Martin-Baker Aircraft Company, Ltd Bell Helicopter - A Textron Company MIT Lincoln Laboratory Butler Parachute Systems, Inc. Modern Technology Solutions, Inc. Calspan Corporation Mojave Air and Space Port Carter Aviation Technologies National Aerospace Laboratory NLR Cessna Aircraft Company National Test Pilot School Clay Lacy Aviation Northrop Grumman Corporation CMC Electronics- Aurora Raisbeck Engineering, Inc. David Clark Company Incorporated Saab Aeronautics DCS Corporation Safe Flight Instrument Corporation EADS Deutschland GmbH Scaled Composites, LLC ETPS Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation eXAQT Consultant Group Software Engineering Institute Flight Test Associates Inc. Sunshine Aero Industries, Inc. Flight Test Centre of Excellence, Inc. Symbolic Displays, Incorporated ForeFeathers Enterprises Test Flying Academy of South Africa GE Aviation The Boeing Company General Atomics Aeronautical The Johns Hopkins Univ./APL Systems Thornton Corporation Gentex Corporation Tiger Century Aircraft, Inc. Gladstone Aerospace Consulting Universal Avionics Systems Corp. Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation Wyle HDT Airborne Systems XCOR Aerospace