Deliverable D2.5 Final Report – Work Package 2 Contractual delivery date: December 2014 Actual delivery date: December 2014 Partner responsible for the Deliverable: University of Liverpool, UoL Author(s): Drs. M. Jump; M.D. White; P. Perfect; L. Lu; Mr. M. Jones, UoL Dissemination level1 PU Public X PP Restricted to other programme participants (including the Commission Services) RE Restricted to a group specified by the consortium (including the Commission Services) CO Confidential, only for members of the consortium (including the Commission Services) 1 Dissemination level using one of the following codes: PU = Public, PP = Restricted to other programme participants (including the Commission Services), RE = Restricted to a group specified by the consortium (including the Commission Services), CO = Confidential, only for members of the consortium (including the Commission Services) Document Information Table Grant agreement no. ACPO-GA-2010-266470 Project full title myCopter – Enabling Technologies for Personal Air Transport Systems Deliverable number D2.5 Deliverable title Final Report Nature2 P Dissemination Level PU Version 1.0 Work package number WP2 Work package leader UoL Partner responsible for Deliverable UoL Reviewer(s) Dr. M. Jump (UoL, December 2014) The research leading to these results has received funding from the European Community's Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) under grant agreement no 266470. The author is solely responsible for its content, it does not represent the opinion of the European Community and the Community is not responsible for any use that might be made of data appearing therein. 2 Nature of the deliverable using one of the following codes: R = Report, P = Prototype, D = Demonstrator, O = Other Project No. 266470 Deliverable D2.5 i Revision Table Version Date Author Comments 1.0 31/12/2014 L. Lu Initial Issue Project No. 266470 Deliverable D2.5 ii Executive Summary This report first describes the development of a methodology to assess the handling qualities requirements for Vertical Take-Off and Landing-capable Personal Aerial Vehicles (PAVs). It is anticipated that such a PAV would be flown by a ‘flight-naïve’ pilot who has received less training than is typically received by today’s general aviation private pilots. The methodology used to determine handling requirements for a PAV cannot therefore be based entirely on existing rotary- wing best practice – the use of highly experienced test pilots in a conventional handling assessment limits the degree to which results apply to the flight-naïve pilot. This report describes alternative methods based on both the subjective and objective analysis of performance and workload of flight- naïve pilots in typical PAV tasks. A highly reconfigurable generic flight dynamics simulation model that has been used to validate the methodology is also described. Results that highlight the efficacy of the various methods are presented and their suitability for use with flight naïve pilots demonstrated. Secondly, this report describes research to develop handling qualities guidelines and criteria for a PAV. The objective has been to identify, for varying levels of flying skill, the response type requirements in order to ensure safe and precise flight. The work has shown that conventional rotorcraft response types such as rate command, attitude hold and attitude command, attitude hold are unsuitable for likely PAV pilots. However, response types such as translational rate command and acceleration command, speed hold permit ‘flight naïve’ pilots to perform demanding tasks with the required precision repeatedly. Thirdly, this report describes research activities into the development of training requirements for pilots of PAVs. The work has included a Training Needs Analysis (TNA) to determine the skills that need to be developed by a PAV pilot and the development of a training programme that covers the development of the skills identified by the TNA. The effectiveness of the training programme has been evaluated using the first three Levels of Kirkpatrick’s method. The evaluation showed that the developed training programme was effective, in terms of engaging the trainees with the subject, and in terms of developing the skills required to fly a series of PAV-mission related tasks in a flight simulator. Fourthly, motivated by simulator test subjects expressing discomfort during taking the current constant-deceleration landing profiles, the report reports on progress made in the design and assessment of a "natural feeling" landing profile to guide PAV occupants from cruising flight, down an approach path, to bring the vehicle to a successful hover. The development of the new profile is motivated from the point of view that ‘natural-feeling’ cues are related to the physiological cues presented during a visual landing. As such, test subjects with little or no prior flight experience flew simulated approaches to a hover following limited instruction in the use of a vehicle model. It was found that the approaches were broadly similar and could be grouped into three distinct phases. Previous work in this field and tau theory phases were used to design an idealized approach profile based upon the simulation results. The report presents the final design and discusses a number of issues that arose from the simulator testing. Finally, this report presents results from a study to investigate the use of novel control systems designed to provide a safe and reliable method for the control of a future PAV. The use of response and control characteristics derived from road vehicles is investigated. Objective and subjective techniques are used to quantify and qualify the applicability of automobile-like response Project No. 266470 Deliverable D2.5 iii characteristics using traditional helicopter control inceptors modified to behave somewhat like automobile controls, using foot pedals to control an Acceleration Command, Speed Hold system, for example. Additionally, the effects of eliminating vehicle pitch and roll dynamics are investigated to determine whether this allows a reduction in workload for non-professional pilots. Results suggest that, particularly for the most inexperienced of pilots, the automobile-like configuration is more suitable for control of a PAV than an augmented set of helicopter-style response types. This is shown through increased performance, and a reduction in subjective NASA Task Load Index (TLX) ratings. Improved Handling Qualities Ratings (HQRs) were also obtained in the automobile-like system for the tasks undertaken. Overall, removal of pitch and roll dynamics was not found to significantly affect task performance in the automobile-like system, but their absence resulted in a decrease in performance for the rotorcraft-style response type configurations tested. Project No. 266470 Deliverable D2.5 iv Table of Contents Document Information Table ................................................................................................................... i Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................. iii Table of Contents ..................................................................................................................................... v Notation and Glossary ........................................................................................................................... viii 1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1 2. Methods to Assess the Handling Qualities Requirements for Personal Aerial Vehicles ................. 2 2.1. Test Environment .................................................................................................................... 3 2.1.1. HELIFLIGHT-R Simulator .................................................................................................. 3 2.1.2. PAV Model Configuration ................................................................................................ 4 2.1.3. Mission Task Elements .................................................................................................... 7 2.1.4. Simulating a Harsh Environment ..................................................................................... 8 2.2. Conventional Handling Qualities Evaluation ......................................................................... 12 2.3. PAV Handling Qualities Assessment Procedure .................................................................... 16 2.3.1. Aptitude ......................................................................................................................... 17 2.3.2. Task Load Index ............................................................................................................. 19 2.3.3. Task Performance Assessment ...................................................................................... 19 2.3.4. Determination of the Suitability of Candidate PAV Configurations .............................. 22 3. Handling Qualities Requirements for Personal Aerial Vehicles .................................................... 22 3.1. Handling Qualities Requirements in a Benign Environment ................................................. 23 3.1.1. Results ........................................................................................................................... 23 3.1.2. Discussion