You are on page 1of 13

Avoiding Controlled Flight into Terrain, Obstacles and Wires

Authored by Sandel Avionics, Inc. Sandel Avionics Inc., the terrain avoidance leader, engineers and manufactures advanced avionics for rotorcraft and fixedwing aircraft as well as provides embedded software for OEM applications. Its compact integrated display systems, for the military and commercial markets, which include 3ATI and 4-ATI retrofit primary displays, fixed-wing TAWS (Class A & B) and HeliTAWS--the helicopter industrys only certified panel-mount HTAWS that alerts against wires, terrain and obstacles. Founded in 1998 by inventor and aviation enthusiast Gerald Block, Sandel is managed by an independent board of directors, with the stated business purpose of enhancing the capabilities of pilots and their aircraft. Vertically integrated, Sandel designs, manufactures, tests and markets its own products at its 16,000 square-foot headquarters in Vista, CA, and provides product support through both the headquarters plant and East Coast Regional Support center in Salisbury, NC.

Abstract
Based on the success of the fixed-wing TAWS, this paper briefly highlights the issues dealt with in fixed-wing CFIT and the correlation of using a TAWS solution to address rotorcraft CFIT. It also discusses the challenges and benefits of Helicopter Terrain Awareness and Warning Systems (HTAWS), and the operational reason and decisions made in the design of the leading HTAWS today. Taken together, the improvements over a conventional HTAWS system shows how a commercial, off-the-shelf HTAWS can successfully be installed in tactical helicopters with minimal modifications and reasonable costs to significantly reduce CFIT.

Avoiding Controlled Flight into Terrain Copyright 2013 by Sandel Avionics, Inc. All rights reserved 1 | P a g e

Introduction
In 2012 there were a total of 133 fatal helicopter accidents worldwide which involved 420 fatalities [Ref 20]. The International Helicopter Safety Team reports: Controlled Flight into Terrain (CFIT) ranks as the 13th most common of helicopter accident types and according to NTSB statistics, 60% of all CFIT accidents are fatal. Despite its frequency, helicopter pilots may find it difficult to relate to the concept of unknowingly flying their aircraft into the ground. Many in-flight emergencies can be detected and require a specific course of corrective action. However, when CFIT occurs, the pilot usually learns of the emergency the same instant the helicopter impacts the terrain. Therefore it is important for pilots to understand what conditions and actions lead to CFIT so that they can recognize and avoid these hazards to prevent the accident [Ref 21].

Fig.2 CFIT to Environmental Conditions [Ref 22]

Fig.2 Relationship of CFIT Fatal vs. Non-fatal Accidents [Ref 22]

Avoiding Controlled Flight into Terrain Copyright 2013 by Sandel Avionics, Inc. All rights reserved 2 | P a g e

How the Fixed-Wing Industry Dealt With CFIT


A Short History of TAWS: Ground Proximity Warning Systems (GPWS) Initial experience with Ground Proximity Warning Systems in fixed-wing airplanes for commercial airline service provides useful indications of the hurdles that must be overcome during the introduction of any new warning system. Discussions about the concept of terrain alerting met with a healthy degree of skepticism and a concern that this would be another noisy device in an already busy cockpit. The details of typical pilot comments varied but the central theme was most competent pilots know where they are and dont really need such a system. Often management was similarly skeptical, preferring additional training and appeals to pilot professionalism in lieu of an expensive new system. Those airlines who became early adopters of fixed-wing GPWS created simulator training scenarios that ensured the terrain alerts were a surprise to the pilot and at the same time realistic. This provided an element of realism that steadily drew converts to the GPWS. Once fixed-wing GPWS installations achieved a reasonable level of fleet penetration, there was a measurable decrease in controlled flight into terrain (CFIT) accidents for equipped airplanes. Over time, the improvement in the accident data was simply too clear to ignore. The original concern about false alerts was not as bad as some had feared but experience showed that more sophistication in the alerting algorithm was desirable. In particular, a forward-looking alert and a further reduction in false alerts were strongly desired. The issue of false alerts has

always been the more difficult aspect of TAWS. The original developers of GPWS recognized that to be effective the warning must command an immediate crew action. This made the alert conditions easier to define and reduced the opportunities for false alerts. The second generation of GPWS was developed in response to these needs, introducing database terrain and more sophisticated computations driving system operation. For equipped airplanes in airline service, CFIT accidents all but disappeared as a safety concern. As the market developed & technology advanced, the leading TAWS providers took an innovative tack on their fixed-wing TAWS by developing a different algorithm for generating a TAWS alert. By using simulation to test that algorithm against ILS (instrument landing system) approaches throughout the United States, Canada, Europe, and Australia, they were able to improve the alerting software. The secret to success was development of an algorithm that answers the question, is it possible to get safely from the current airplane condition to all possible runways? If the answer is yes, there is no alert. But if the answer is no, the terrain or obstacle that blocks a safe path becomes the cause of an alert. TAWS does not know what path the pilot intends or even where the pilot is going. Instead it looks at every runway in light of the continuously changing current airplane position and velocity. The operational performance has been outstanding; by covering all the trajectory options the TAWS appears, to many users, to read the pilots mind. The result is an effective TAWS with a very low false alert rate. Note: Owner, operators, and OEMs that selected a TAWS manufacturer using this logic reaped higher success in implementation, usability and safety.

Avoiding Controlled Flight into Terrain Copyright 2013 by Sandel Avionics, Inc. All rights reserved 3 | P a g e

How the Rotorcraft Industry Can Address CFIT


Helicopter Industry Safety Initiatives and Incidents The International Helicopter Safety Team (IHST) was formed in late 2005 in response to a consensus of government regulators, manufacturers, and helicopter operators that the rate of worldwide helicopter accidents was unacceptably high and must be reduced. The model for IHST was the Commercial Aviation Safety Team (CAST) that was successful in motivating a reduction of the large air carrier (United States Code 14 CFR

rate by 80% in 10 years (by 2016), from 9.4 to 1.9 accidents /100,000 hours. (Ref. 3) The Helicopter Mission Helicopters operate in a more demanding environment (than fixed-wing) where the opportunities for false alerts are significantly greater. The vehicle differences are obvious: a helicopter can hover and change direction without any forward motion; it can climb or descend with or without any ground speed. Helicopters can take off and land from many different locations, including those away from an airport or heliport. They also operate routinely below 500 feet AGL (above ground level) with no intention to

Fig.3 IHST 80% Reduction in Helicopter Accidents Annual Goal Chart

Part 121) fatal accident rate by 80% in 10 years. The IHST accepted this accidentreduction mandate and formed industry and government teams to conduct a similar effort to reduce the worldwide helicopter accident

land. Obstacles and especially power lines are a threat to helicopter operations throughout the mission, not just at takeoff and landing.

Avoiding Controlled Flight into Terrain Copyright 2013 by Sandel Avionics, Inc. All rights reserved 4 | P a g e

The helicopter differences are significant enough to force a major reconsideration of the alerting requirement for helicopters by the DOT/FAA. TSO-C194 Helicopter Terrain Awareness and Warning Systems (HTAWS) and RTCA DO-309 Minimum Operational Performance Standards (MOPS) for HTAWS provide the initial compilation of requirements for an HTAWS mainly during the cruise phase of flight [Ref 2]. While these requirements are helpful they do not address many of the conditions routinely encountered in helicopter operations. In particular, operations below 400 feet above the ground or in the vicinity of wires and other obstacles receive little attention in the MOPS.

distractions from pilot flying tasks. There is abundant exposure to hazards not encountered in fixed-wing flying. Among helicopter operations, medical rescue, law enforcement, utility surveillance, oil rig transportation, and firefighting, are by their nature non-routine and may terminate in landing sites that have not been optimized or even analyzed for terrain, obstacle, and wire clearance considerations. Therefore the utility of on-board TAWS protection is very high for helicopters. For these reasons, qualification for HTAWS MOPS [Ref 2], was created separate and distinct from fixedwing TAWS. Meeting the HTAWS requirements provides

Fig.4 The FAA TSO C194 Minimum MOPS requirement only covers helicopter operations 500 AGL or above.

Why HTAWS Helicopters demand disciplined operations because many missions operate close to challenging terrain, involve off-airport landings and takeoffs, and produce

reasonable protection for helicopter operations during cruise. In 2009, the leading TAWS manufacturer recognized that this is not sufficient for many helicopter operations and set out to create more comprehensive protection that could be used

Avoiding Controlled Flight into Terrain Copyright 2013 by Sandel Avionics, Inc. All rights reserved 5 | P a g e

in all types of helicopter mission without concern for false or nuisance alerts.

The Challenges and Benefits of HTAWS


False Alerts/Nuisance Alerts The FAA defines a False Alert asA warning or caution that occurs when the designed terrain or obstacle warning or caution threshold of the system is not exceeded, and a Nuisance Alert asAn alert that occurs when there is no threat or is unnecessary for the intended operation. [Ref 23] False alerts in any system are a problem, but false alerts in a system that requires immediate pilot action to preserve safety are particularly serious. (As a general rule of thumb a warning system should be at least 10 times more reliable than the condition for which the warning is intended.) For immediate-action alerts, like terrain or wire warnings, the notion of alert reliability covers not just the hardware and software but also the integrity of the basic warning algorithm. Modern integrated circuits and fault tolerant designs have made hardware failures for digital systems rare events. Adherence to strict software design and coding rules can greatly reduce the opportunity for software errors. That leaves the basic concept for the alerting algorithm as the dominant factor in determining the correct alert rate as well as the false alert rate for this type of warning system. Together with the human factors design of the pilot interface, the ideal design will respond to the mission conditions and all pilot actions, provide effective alerts when appropriate, and have a near-zero incidence of false or nuisance warnings.

Fig.5 A safety system that constantly sets off nuisance alerts may be worse than no safety system at all. The experience gained in developing the low nuisance alerting concept for the fixed-wing TAWS was crucial in leading a few manufacturers to conclude that, in a more challenging helicopter environment, a new alerting paradigm would be necessary. The result is a helicopter system with an extremely low false alert rate that works as well for operation near the ground as it does for higher altitude cruise conditions. An high performance HTAWS never makes the pilot prioritize multiple threats. While all threats are shown visually, a warning is presented for the one threat that is most urgent. Because of the consequence of collision with terrain, obstacles or wires, it is particularly important to design an alerting algorithm that adapts quickly to whatever the pilot is doing. For intentional lowaltitude operations near obstacles or wires or for off-airport landings, having the pilot designate their intention by selecting a suitable operating mode the system can tailor the alerting algorithm to better match the intended flight profile. An HTAWS should support pilot mode selection for this purpose. However the system will function whether mode selection is accomplished or not.

Avoiding Controlled Flight into Terrain Copyright 2013 by Sandel Avionics, Inc. All rights reserved 6 | P a g e

For fixed-wing aircraft there are a large, but finite, number of usable runways and operations at low altitude are restricted except near those runways. No such limitations exist for helicopters. No amount of testing can prove that HTAWS recognizes every combination of flight path, terrain, and obstacle a helicopter might encounter everywhere in the world. Instead the alerting algorithm must be made to be as robust as possible and the system must use the best terrain information available [Ref 2]. An high performance HTAWS should do both.

A similar situation exists for obstacles. Obstacles certainly have height but they are typically small in diameter compared to a typical terrain grid. So even the smaller grid is not small enough to allow the use of gridded obstacles. By treating the tower as a precisely located entity, the alert area is not affected by the grid size so alerts will be precisely generated. The need for separate obstacle alerting is even more striking in the case of systems using larger terrain grids. An advanced HTAWS makes allowance for guy wires by assuming that the alert area around an obstacle is proportional to the height of the obstacle. So a 100 tower would have an alerting area about half the size of the already small terrain grid.

Obstacles & Terrain The size of the terrain grid determines how close a terrain feature could be when it triggers an alert. All terrain grid systems assign a height to each grid area. This height is the highest terrain in that grid area. A high point in one portion of the grid applies to the entire grid area. If the grid dimensions are made smaller, the high point would propagate over a smaller area, allowing the smaller grid to provide more accurate terrain alerting. [Ref 19] This means that a helicopter maneuvering at an altitude where the grid high point could cause an alert would get that alert anywhere in the large grid but only in one or two of the smaller grid areas. To most pilots, testing showed that several of the terrain alerts on a large grid system would be considered false alerts since the pilots considered the actual terrain clearance safe. High performance HTAWS use high precision data which can reduce the grid size and thereby eliminate a significant number of false alerts without increasing the CFIT risk.

300

X
600

300

600
Fig 6. The diagram above shows how a superior HTAWS uses a grid 25 times smaller utilizing 3 arc-second data vs. 6 arc-second data. Instead of alerting on the object (X) as soon as it appears within the grid of four (600x600), a superior system will recognize the position of the aircraft relative to the object at a greater degree and only alert on the object when it is truly a threat to the aircraft. [Ref 19]

High precision terrain and separate databases for obstacles and wires are key

Avoiding Controlled Flight into Terrain Copyright 2013 by Sandel Avionics, Inc. All rights reserved 7 | P a g e

factors in reducing the opportunities for false alerts and improving pilot confidence in the utility of the most advanced HTAWS.

Non-Standard Landing Zones An advanced HTAWS will store every published airport. As information become available, systems will also include all public helicopter landing pads. But helicopters often land at undesignated spots. A smart HTAWS supports this capability by recognizing pilot intent when a landing is, or could be, imminent and assessing the safety of the present path to a touchdown.

The OFF AIRPORT mode lets the pilot indicate that an off-airport landing is intentional. A similar assessment is made during takeoff from an undesignated field to ensure that the path ahead is clear of terrain, obstacle, or wire threats.

Fig.7 Since helicopters fly, maneuver, and land in non-designated areas; pilots need a HTAWS that gives them pilot-selectable modes and alerting sensitivity. This allows the system to provide warnings without nuisance alerts.

Avoiding Controlled Flight into Terrain Copyright 2013 by Sandel Avionics, Inc. All rights reserved 8 | P a g e

Transmission Lines There are two fundamentally different technologies for determining where wires are located. One involves sensing the presence of the electric field surrounding operating power lines. [Ref 4] The second involves a database of wire locations. The database option provides a number of advantages, most important of which is that the alerting will operate whether the power line is energized or not. Emergency situations such as fires can result in circuit breakers opening for affected power lines. With no power on the power line there is no field to sense and systems that depend on sensing cannot determine the location of the still risky wires. A database-driven systems work equally well whether line power is on or off.

companies have culminated in identification of a reliable and accurate source for the information needed. As mapping data improves and increases, the system database is constantly being updated as the data becomes available. At this point the database pinpoints major and secondary distribution lines. Lower voltage distribution lines are partially covered. Note: The Sandel HeliTAWS with WireWatch is the only HTAWS with a database and wire alerting option available today. Soon the database will have the capacity to permit operators to incorporate additional wire information directly into the system.

Fig.8 Sandel HeliTAWS with WireWatcha data base driven wire warning systemshown here with terrain and wire alerting on a 3 ATI display.

A concern with a database-driven system is establishing a source for the data and validating the source is sufficiently comprehensive to constitute a positive contribution to safety. This was a difficult problem initially but detailed discussions with power generation and distribution
Avoiding Controlled Flight into Terrain Copyright 2013 by Sandel Avionics, Inc. All rights reserved 9 | P a g e

Conclusion
CFIT is a real and growing threat to helicopters. As the accident rate rises, private and public entities must find a solution to address the issue in an efficient and cost-effective way. Meeting the minimum HTAWS requirements provides reasonable protection for helicopter operations during cruise, but this is not sufficient for many helicopter operations. What is necessary, is a more comprehensive system that can be used in all types of helicopter missions without concern for false or nuisance alerts. In addition, for an HTAWS to be fully effective, it must give the pilot control of modes and sensitivity based on the mission they are flying. The avoidance of controlled flight into terrain, obstacles, or wires is a major

objective for all helicopter operators. For the helicopter pilot the right HTAWS will quickly become a valuable tool. For the fleet operator a high performance HTAWS will provide assurance that their investment is protected as well as mitigate the liability of not providing to most current safety equipment in their helicopters. Helicopter owners and operators must have an HTAWS system designed to overcome the current industry shortcomings and a system specifically for helicopters that addresses all of the challenges associated with the wide variety of modern helicopter operations. HTAWS is not the only safety investment a helicopter operator should make but it may be the single most important safety investment in the next few years.

Avoiding Controlled Flight into Terrain Copyright 2013 by Sandel Avionics, Inc. All rights reserved 10 | P a g e

References
1) Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Aircraft Certification Service, Washington, D.C. TSO-C194 Helicopter Terrain Awareness and Warning System (HTAWS). Effective date: 12/17/08 <http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgTSO.nsf/0/4E324B 446BE11B2D8625752300762A36?OpenDocument> 2) RTCA, Inc. (Radio Technical Commission for Aeronautics) 1828 L Street, NW, Suite 805 Washington, D.C. 20036, USA DO-309 MOPS for HTAWS. Effective Date: 13 March, 2008 Controlled Document http://www.rtca.org/store_product.asp?prodid=585 3) 4) International Helicopter Safety Team (IHST), Calendar Year 2006 Report, prepared by U. S. Joint Helicopter Safety Analysis Team; dated July 2010 <http://www.ihst.org/portals/54/jhsat/safety_reports/CY2006_USJHSAT_Report_091 32010.pdf>

5) DOT/FAA/AR-08/25 Safety Study of Wire Strike Devices Installed on Civil and Military Helicopters September 2008. < http://www.tc.faa.gov/its/worldpac/techrpt/ar0825.pdf> 6) Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, FAA Safety Briefing March/April 2011 Vertically Speaking p.32 < http://www.faa.gov/news/safety_briefing/2011/media/MarApr2011.pdf> 7) Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, FAA Safety Briefing July/August 2011 Vertically Speaking p.32 <http://www.faa.gov/news/safety_briefing/2011/media/JulAug2011.pdf> 8) Federal Aviation Administration, Aircraft Certification Service, Washington, D.C. TSO-C87 Airborne Low-Range Radio Altimeter. Effective date: 2/1/66 <http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgTSO.nsf/0/2C4173 69F3ACFDD886256DC70062A5C1?OpenDocument> 9) Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Aircraft Certification Service, Washington, D.C. TSO-C113 Airborne Multipurpose Electronic Displays. Effective date: 10/27/86 <http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgTSO.nsf/0/7AF1C9 0D16DBDF9786256DAC0061E948?OpenDocument> 10) Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Aircraft Certification Service, Washington, D.C. TSO C-118 Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance System (TCAS) Airborne Equipment, TCAS I. Effective date: 8/5/88
Avoiding Controlled Flight into Terrain Copyright 2013 by Sandel Avionics, Inc. All rights reserved 11 | P a g e

<http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgTSO.nsf/0/AE63D B5C4BFB280D86256DAC0061EA4D?OpenDocument> 11) Sandel Avionics 82046-PG-B1 ST3400H Pilots Guide http://www.sandel.com/ST3400H_sup.php 12) Sandel Avionics 82046-IM-C2 ST3400H Installation Manual http://www.sandel.com/82046-IM-C2_ST3400H_Installation_Manual.pdf 13) Sandel Avionics ST3400H HeliTAWS In-Flight Comparison Video http://www.sandel.com/ST3400H.php 14) Sandel Avionics HeliTAWS In-Flight Demonstration Video http://www.sandel.com/ST3400H.php 15) Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, FAA SAFO 10015 Flying in the Wire Environment http://www.faa.gov/other_visit/aviation_industry/airline_operators/airline_safety/safo/ all_safos/media/2010/SAFO10015.pdf 16) Helicopter Association International 1635 Prince Street, Alexandria, Virginia 223142818 Video Surviving the Wires Environment http://www.rotor.com/Publications/HAIVideosLibrary/SurvivingtheWiresEnvironmen t.aspx> 17) Robinson Helicopter Company 2901 Airport Drive, Torrance, CA 90505 USA Safety Notice: SN-16 Power Lines Are Deadly http://www.robinsonheli.com/srvclib/rchsn16.pdf 18) Robinson Helicopter Company 2901 Airport Drive, Torrance, CA 90505 USA Safety Notice: SN-26 Night Flight plus Bad Weather Can Be Deadly http://www.robinsonheli.com/srvclib/rchsn26.pdf

19) Curt Lewis, P.E., CSP Article: Three in hospital after Air Evac helicopter hits power line Flight Safety Information August 2, 2011 - No. 159 (newsletter) CURT LEWIS & ASSOCIATES, LLC (on file at Sandel) 20) The Sandel high precision grid display is much smaller and therefore more accurate than is typical of fixed-wing TAWS and adaptations of those systems that have been previously marketed for helicopters. 21) HeliHub.com. 2012 Fatal helicopter accident statistics. http://helihub.com/2013/01/03/2012-fatal-helicopter-accident-statistics/ 22) International Helicopter Safety Team. (n.d.) Training fact sheet - Controlled flight into terrain: CFIT-how does it happen? http://www.ihst.org/Portals/54/insights/CFIT.pdf
Avoiding Controlled Flight into Terrain Copyright 2013 by Sandel Avionics, Inc. All rights reserved 12 | P a g e

23) Frazer, R. (1999). Air medical accidents: A 20 year search for information. AirMed Journal, September/October, 34-39. 24) FAA Proposed Changes, AC-27-1A and AC-29-2B. Chapter 3 Airworthiness Standards Normal Category Rotorcraft, Miscellaneous Guide, d. Definitions. 2012

Contact Information Sandel Avionics, Inc. 2401 Dogwood Way, Vista CA 92081 760.727.4900 sandel.com info@sandel.com

Avoiding Controlled Flight into Terrain Copyright 2013 by Sandel Avionics, Inc. All rights reserved 13 | P a g e

You might also like