For instance, if one were
`cockpits.
`evaluating pilot response to aircraft roll
`rates or analyzing training effectiveness, full
`motion—based simulation is often necessitated.
`But, control and display research may not
`necessarily be so task intensive.
`New ideas
`and seeds of new ideas can be screened at a
`more basic level in order to advance these
`technologies. when this basic research is
`conducted in a mission context with an
`out-the-window-view,
`the simulation is indeed
`enhanced;
`however,
`there is some doubt whether
`it makes sense to tie up high fidelity
`simulators at this stage of development. Not
`only are costs tremendous, but
`the resource
`flexibility needed at this level does not exist
`when using large simulation facilities.
`
`The Flight Dynamics Laboratory has taken advan-
`tage of the micro—boom to design and develop a
`fixed-based, dynamic cockpit which provides the
`capability and flexibility to conduct control
`and display research over a broad range of
`experimentation. This cockpit is known as
`MAGIC, which stands for Microcomputer Applica-
`tions of Graphics and Interactive Communica-
`tions, and is shown in Fig 1.
`
`
`
`Figure 1. MAGIC Cockpit
`
`MAGIC Configuration
`
`The MAGIC cockpit is designed around four
`CompuPro 8086/8087 microcomputers using the
`IEEE-696 (S-100) bus.
`The workload for each
`microcomputer is distributed according to the
`specific function it performs.
`The value of
`this system configuration is directly related
`to flexibility and expandability; it can easily
`be reconfigured or expanded to satisfy require-
`ments.
`In addition because of its modular
`design,
`the tremendous costs associated with
`total system replacement are avoided;
`instead
`the new requirements can be fulfilled by
`upgrading the system.
`For example, if more
`memory is needed, a board with additional
`memory can be purchased and plugged into one of
`
`________________—----IIlIl||l.
`
`the slots in the micro chassis. However, if
`additional speed and number crunching power is
`required, another microcomputer can be added to
`this system that works in parallel with others.
`
`Before functionally breaking down the tasks to
`be performed by each of the microcomputers,
`the
`network had to be selected. when designing our
`microcomputer network,
`the two factors which
`received our greatest attention were each of
`the micro's workload and the I/O communications
`between the micros. Considering I/O,
`the
`question of which communication link would be
`used between the micros had to be answered.
`Was high speed (parallel) communication neces-
`sary or would the lower rate of data transfer
`(serial RS—232C) be sufficient?
`Two factors
`which affected the decision were quantity of
`data sent and the update rate needed for this
`data. RS-232C communication links at l9.2K
`baud were selected for interprocessor communic-
`ations, because the input was from a slow
`source,
`the human. However,
`the Electronic
`Attitude Director Indicator (EADI) used by the
`pilot for flight direction feedback requires
`instantaneous updates. Therefore,
`the stick
`and throttle information to the aeromodel had
`to be along a high—speed parallel link.
`
`For an overview of the cockpit and system
`configuration refer to Fig 2.
`The major hard-
`ware modules comprising the MAGIC simulator
`are:
`
`Four Compupro 8086/8087 microcomputers.
`1.
`Votan V5500A Speech Recognizer.
`2.
`3. MicroAngelo Scion 5020 Color Graphics
`System.
`4.
`Gaertner Graphics System.
`5.
`Four Pioneer PR—782O Model 3 random access
`Video Players.
`6.
`Five color cathode ray tubes (CRT's).
`7.
`Twelve Microswitch Programmable Display
`Pushbuttons (PDP's).
`8.
`Bowmar programmable Multifunction Control
`(NFC).
`
`9.
`
`Elographics touch sensitive overlays.
`
`The great majority of functional software is
`written in Pascal, with the remainder being
`written in FORTRAN. The hardware-specific I/O
`drivers are written in Assembly language.
`The
`system operates under CP/M—86.
`
`the
`After completion of the system analysis,
`tasks selected for each of the four microcom-
`puters are as follows:
`
`1
`Microcomputer
`Micro #1 is the overall system executive,
`responsible for coordinating the start and stop
`of the simulation.
`As Fig.
`2 indicates,
`this
`micro handles the interface and feedback to the
`pilot.
`The Test Operator's Console (not shown
`in Fig. 2) is also controlled through Micro #1.
`Furthermore, all data generated for later
`analysis, such as the sequence of switch hits
`and the task duration times are collected by
`Micro #1.
`
`436
`
`BOHNG
`
`Ex.1031,p.501
`
`BOEING
`Ex. 1031, p. 501
`
`

`
`.5! fl
`
`UAL 8"ELDPPY
`
`DUAL 8"ELOPPY
`
`menu 4
`AEROMODEL
`
`PRINTER
`
`
`
`PARALLEL
`
`
`
`
`
`ENCODER
`
`
`
`FUEL
`SYSTEM
`
`PREVIEW
`/MAP
`
`
`HITIICHII NITIICIIIZ HITAOHI3
`
`STORES
`
`FUEL
`
`PREVIEW
`
`
`
`GAERTNER
`GRAPHICS
`SYSTEM
`
`
`
`RGB
`
`
`
`MICRO 3
`
`MOVING MAP
`
`MICRO 2
`DIIIS LOGIC
`TAILORED
`
` STICK
`THROTTLE
`MAP VIDEODISII
`g—» TEKTRONIX2
`TEKTRONIX 1
`
`BOWMAR MICROSWITCH
`KEYPAD
`1
`2
`3
`
`
`
`
`IEI
`DUAL 8"FLOPPY
`
`10Mb
`HARD DISK
`
`PRINTER
`
`TOUCH SENSITIVE SCREEN
`
`Figure # 2 MAGIC Configuration
`
`
`
`C’
`
`Microcomputer 2
`Micro #2 contains the logic trees that tailor
`the programmable microswitches and Bowmar
`keypad output, based on the pilot's input.
`This micro also controls three of the four
`videodiscs showing:
`systems status, stores
`status, and a three—dimensional preview of a
`target.
`
`_ Microcomputer 3
`-Micro #3 controls the graphical moving map
`'. display that is controlled by the pilot's
`I
`latitude and longitude. This display is used
`bY the pilot as a look—down view of his track,
`the surrounding terrain, and his true aircraft
`JPosition relative to the track and terrain.
`.Micro #3 also controls one videodisc which
`“shows a map of any waypoint he selects,
`fol—
`‘lowed by a photo of either a 180 degree or 270
`degree View of that waypoint. Last of all,
`
`this micro controls cursor movements to ident-
`ify a pop—up target using a touch sensitive
`screen overlay, a manual switch, or voice
`control.
`
`Microcomputer 4
`Micro #4 contains the aeromodel and flight
`director, as well as the routines for data
`gathering and post—processing of the primary
`flight data.
`The EADI display previously
`mentioned is driven by Micro #4, and is gener-
`ated by the Gaertner Graphics System.
`
`Example Studies
`
`The MAGIC cockpit can be used to conduct
`studies of various levels of sophistication.
`Two examples will be provided, one illustrating
`a relatively high level of sophistication and
`the other a less sophisticated effort.
`
`437
`
`BOEING
`
`Ex. 1031, p. 502
`
`BOEING
`Ex. 1031, p. 502
`
`

`
`Example 1: Applied Tailored Logic and
`Speech (ATLAS)
`
`One critical consideration for designers of
`current and future aircraft cockpits is the
`placement of the myriad of controls and dis-
`plays necessary to operate a modern weapon
`system.
`Simply finding panel space to accommo-
`date new equipment is becoming a major problem.
`Two of the more widely accepted methods of
`addressing this situation are through the use
`of multifunction controls (MFC's) and voice
`recognition systems.
`The use of voice control
`reduces the need for manual controls to be
`located within a pilot's immediate visual and
`physical reach envelopes; only the activation
`switch has to be within fast access range.
`An
`MFC addresses the problem of cockpit space by
`allowing several systems to be operated from
`the same control device, simply by changing the
`legends on the various switches to those
`necessary for a particular system. This red-
`uces panel space by controlling most systems
`from the single MFC panel. Fig.
`3 shows the
`MFC installed on the lower left panel of the
`MAGIC cockpit.
`
`The study discussed in this paper was designed
`to compare voice recognition versus the MFC for
`controlling aircraft subsystems.
`In addition
`two types of system control logic were used --
`Branching Logic and Tailored Logic.
`The
`Branching Logic menu tree structure starts with
`the highest
`level function (e.g., communica-
`tion) then proceeds to the next level (radio
`types) then goes to the submodes of the radio
`(frequency change). Tailored Logic, on the
`other hand,
`is not organized along system
`functional lines, but rather according to
`aircraft flight phases.
`For example,
`in the
`cruise phase the most likely used subfunctions,
`be they navigation, communication or avionics,
`are all available at the highest level in the
`tree. This eliminates the time consuming step
`of proceeding through several levels of system
`logic to access a commonly used function.
`The
`ATLAS study was performed to compare the per-
`formance of this Tailored Logic to the stand-
`ard Branching Logic, using both the MFC and
`voice controlled systems.
`
`
`
`Figure 3. MAGIC cockpit front panel with a
`multifunction control on the lower left hand
`side.
`
`438
`
`How the Study was Conducted
`
`the
`In order to increase their workload,
`subjects were required to "fly" a video game in
`addition to using voice or the MFC to control
`aircraft subsystems.
`The subjects used in this
`study were 18 Air Force personnel, all having
`had considerable prior video gaming experience.
`Potential subjects were give one—half hour to
`practice on the video game and then were
`required to play a test game against the system
`in which they had to keep five ships alive for
`at least an average of 30 second survival time
`per ship.
`If the subjects could not meet this
`minimum criterion,
`they were dropped from the
`study.
`
`To illustrate the flexibility of our micro-
`network, let's look at the equipment used in
`this experiment.
`The ATLAS study was conducted
`using two of the four (#2 and #4) microcomput-
`ers available. All CRT's displaying the
`computer generated graphics or the videodisc
`pictures were used,
`in addition to the voice
`recognition system,
`to accomplish this study.
`
`The two types of control logic discussed
`earlier were displayed on the programmable
`display pushbuttons (PDP's), manufactured by
`Microswitch and the Bowmar MFC. The PDP's are
`matrix—addressable, each with 560 pixel,
`light—emitting diodes (LED's) which can be
`programmed for both alphanumeric and pictorial
`legends. Only alphanumeric characters were
`used.
`The color of the LED elements in the
`switches is green, with a dominant wavelength
`of 568 nanometers;
`the nonilluminated pixels
`appear black. Referring to Fig. 3, you can see
`the three sets of four PDP's underneath three
`of the CRT's.
`The Bowmar MFC located on the
`bottom left panel of the cockpit is also an LED
`programmable device. Data entry for new radio
`frequencies or the weapons configuration can be
`made dynamically from the Bowmar.
`Its layout
`is a 3 X 5 addressable area, with the scratch
`pad area on the top used for current tasking
`feedback.
`
`Discussion
`
`The voice and MFC modes, both using Tailored
`Logic involved fewer inputs than the Branching
`Logic to accomplish a given control operation,
`and this difference manifested itself as a
`reduction in overall control operation time.
`The two control modes under Tailored Logic also
`required fewer glances at the face of the MFC
`to either ascertain switch positions or confirm
`correct control operation, resulting in greater
`ability to focus subject attention on the video
`game loading task. This is evidenced by the
`significant reduction in subject ships dest-
`royed during control operations. Because the
`subject's hands could remain constantly on
`system controls,
`task initiation time with the
`speech system was significantly shorter than
`with the manually operated systems. Error rate
`was predictably higher in the branching mode,
`primarily because the more complex series of
`switch selections allowed the subject both more
`opportunity to become lost in the control
`logic
`
`BOHNG
`
`Ex.1031,p.503
`
`BOEING
`Ex. 1031, p. 503
`
`

`
`Only one microcomputer (#2) was needed thus
`allowing software development for the
`follow-on study to continue in parallel with
`little interruption on the remaining three
`micros. None of the CRT's in the cockpit was
`used, and only one of the twelve programmable
`switches was needed. Furthermore,
`the voice
`control capability and Bowmar MFC were not
`included.
`
`time
`In the past when a minicomputer was used,
`had to be scheduled for its use. Either the
`programmers would be sitting idle, with no
`system available during an experiment, or the
`experiment would be extended so the programmers
`could make real-time fixes or continue with
`another effort.
`Now the programmer and
`experimenter are both satisfied with this
`flexible system.
`
`Before seeing the experimental symbols for the
`first time, each subject was given a total of
`four familiarzation examples of a symbol which
`was displayed on the switch in the same manner
`and for the same duration as during the experi-
`mental trials.
`The training symbol, a house,
`was not one of the twelve symbols included in
`the experimental set. After each subject was
`comfortably seated in the cockpit, a small
`square was presented in the center of the
`switch to serve as an attention focus point.
`This alerting stimulus lasted for 500 milli-
`seconds (msec). Then the switch blanked out
`for 500 msec and the target stimulus appeared.
`The duration of the target stimulus was 43 msec
`and there was a 7 msec delay between the end of
`the target stimulus and the onset of a masking
`stimulus which lasted for 300 msec.
`The
`instrument panel of the cockpit was masked with
`flat—black foamcore,
`leaving a single program-
`mable switch in the center of the panel visible
`to the subject.
`The approximate distance from
`the switch surface to the subject's viewpoint
`was 29 inches.
`
`Discussion
`
`The criterion set for the intuitiveness of a
`symbol was a 90% recognition rate.
`The 90%
`recognition criterion took into account the
`very short exposure duration of 50 msec.
`In an
`actual aircraft environment,
`the viewing time
`would more likely be a few seconds, with
`recognition accuracy correspondingly increas-
`ing.
`If a symbol achieved this 90% recognition
`rate on the first exposure, it was placed into
`the intuitive without training category.
`If it
`did not achieve it on the first exposure but
`did after the subject had been thoroughly
`trained as to its meaning, it was placed in the
`intuitive after training category. And if it
`never achieved the 90% recognition rate, it was
`placed in the non-intuitive after training
`category.
`
`In the intuitive without training catego-
`ry, only one symbol qualified (troops with a
`96% recognition rate).
`In the intuitive with
`training category, all of the symbols but the
`tunnel qualified, with recognition rates
`ranging from 92% to l0OZ. The tunnel had only
`a recognition rate of only 62% even after
`training. This means the tunnel fell into the
`
`439
`
`BOHNG
`
`Ex.1031,p.504
`
`and a greater probability of making simple
`control selection errors.
`
`Results of this study indicate that multifunc-
`tion controls, with properly designed tailored
`switching logic can be as effective as voice
`for the control of cockpit systems.
`In this
`case, performance for both systems was essen-
`tially equal; however, it should be pointed out
`that voice control still has some distinct
`advantages over MFC's for some tasks not
`examined in this study.
`For example, voice
`allows the pilot to scan a 360° View outside
`the cockpit and still maintain control of
`aircraft systems;
`this is not possible with the
`MEG.
`In the current study, only one parameter
`(task initiation time) differed significantly
`between the voice-operated and tailored-manual
`modes.
`
`i HOT the Study was Conducted.
`
`“bjects were paid student volunteers who
`-5 %5P0nded to solicitation in the campus
`4eW5P3Per.
`The total number of subjects
`_—HP_10yed was 24, with half being male and
`_e other half female.
`
`
`
`to ignore the very
`It is important however, not
`real improvement produced in the operation of
`the MFC by the implementation of the Tailored
`Logic.
`The new logic significantly improved
`performance over branching control logic in
`three of the six metrics used in the study
`(kills within tasks,
`task time, and error rate)
`while performing equally well in the other
`three. Clearly the Tailored Logic is much more
`efficient than the Branching for those tasks
`imediately available on the MFC, as well as
`being more acceptable to the user.
`
`Example 2:
`
`Programmable Switch Study
`
`This second example used only a portion of the
`MAGIC cockpit but still provided valuable data
`on the use of new cockpit technology -- the
`programmable display pushbuttons (PDP's)
`discussed in the last example. Although the
`pictorial capability of the switches was not
`utilized in the ATLAS study, it is this aspect
`which is of special interest in this study
`since it can provide an additional means of
`information transfer between the operator and
`the machine. However, as is the case with any
`newly available technology, research is needed
`to determine how to effectively employ the
`A
`pictorial display aspects of the switches.
`review of the research conducted indicated that
`there may be three general classes of pictorial
`_ symbols:
`those which are intuitive at first
`glance by the untrained subject;
`those which
`are not intuitive at first glance but become so
`after training; and those which are never
`-intuitive regardless of the extent of training.
`T"lThe purpose of the study was to test the
`r Tfintuitiveness of the following twelve pictorial
`1~§Ymbols:
`tank, dam,
`tunnel, water, bridge,
`rain, surface-to-air missile (SAM),
`apti-aircraft artillery (AAA), petroleum-
`_:il—lubricants (POL), convoy, armored personnel
`‘:°arTier (APC), and troops.
`The intuitiveness
`.Was measured by comparing the glance comprehen-
`flon of the twelve symbols.
`
`BOEING
`Ex. 1031, p. 504
`
`

`
`last category of non-intuitive even after
`training and must be redesigned.
`
`Conclusion
`
`Microcomputers have dramatically affected the
`cockpit designers‘ research.
`No longer are
`they bound by the cost constraints associated
`with mainframe facilities.
`The flexibility
`offered by the relatively inexpensive, distrib-
`uted microcomputer system provides researchers
`with a means of conducting cockpit studies at
`varying levels of fidelity. As shown in the
`switch study, this micro-network flexibility
`allowed software development
`to continue during
`an experiment since the full system was not
`being utilized, unlike a mini or main—frame
`computer.
`The MAGIC facility discussed in this
`paper illustrates a low fidelity system. As
`hardware costs decrease and the power of micros
`continues to increase with very high speed
`integrated circuit
`(VHSIC)
`technology, before
`too long they may be as powerful as a CRAY
`computer,
`thus limiting researchers only by
`their imagination.
`
`References
`
`(1) Canon, J. Toward a Totally Integrated
`Aircraft. Airforce Magazine, December
`1983. 34-41.
`
`(2) Amico, V. and Clymer, A. B. Simulator
`Technology — Forty Years of Progress.
`Simulation Series, 14(1) La Jolla,
`Calif., 1984.
`
`The Use
`(3) Gravely, M. L. and Hitchcock, L.
`of Dynamic Mockups in the Design of
`Advanced Systems. Proceedings of the
`Human Factors Society, 1980.
`
`(4) Lizza, G. D., Howard, B. and Islam, C.
`MAGIC — Riding the Crest of Technology or
`Do You Believe in MAGIC? Proceedings of
`the Human Factors Society, 1983.
`
`440
`
`BOHNG
`
`Ex.1031,p.505
`
`BOEING
`Ex. 1031, p. 505
`
`

`
`(‘ERTIFICATION OF A HOLOGRAPHIC HEAD~UP DISPLAY SYSTEM Fl JR LOW VISIBILITY LANDINGS
`
`84-2689
`
`John P. Desmond
`
`Douglas W. Ford
`
`Vice President, Engineering
`
`Principal Control Systems Engineer
`
`Flight Dynamics, Inc.
`
`Hillsboro, Oregon
`
`Abstract
`
`
`
`to summarize the
`is
`this paper
`The purpose of
`certification
`for
`to
`achieve
`approach
`taken
`operations in CAT Ill weather minimums (down to
`700 ft
`runway
`visual
`range)
`through
`guidance
`information presented on a single Head-Up Display.
`The paper discusses the original strategy designed to
`meet FAA requirements,
`the
`effect
`of
`these
`requirements on the system design, and additional
`requirements imposed by the man-in-the-loop and the
`target aircraft.
`System architecture and aircraft
`sensor requirements are outlined. The simulation and
`flight
`test program are described, and some test
`results are provided.
`
`Summary
`
`Since this was the first pilot-in-the-loop CAT 111
`system, no guidelines or specific requirements for
`certification existed
`at
`the
`beginning
`of
`this
`program. Guidelines did, however,
`exist
`for
`the
`approval of CAT 111
`landing weather minimum, AC
`l20-28C (1) and for the approval of automatic landing
`systems, AC 20-57A (2). AC 120—28C addressed the
`possibility of certifying CAT Illa operations with "the
`pilot-in-the-loop active-control
`if Proof-of-Concept
`testing demonstrates that these systems provide an
`equivalent
`level of safety".
`Limited information
`existed on the definition or
`scope of Proof-of-
`Concept testing. From AC l20—28C:
`
`"Proof of Concept Testing. Proof of concept
`testing is defined as a generic demonstration
`in a full operational environment of facilities,
`weather, crew compliment, aircraft systems,
`environmental systems, and any other relevant
`parameters necessary to show concept validity
`in terms of performance, system reliability,
`repeatability, and typical pilot
`response to
`failures. Proof of concept may be established
`by a combination of anaysis, simulation and/or
`flight
`demonstrations
`in
`an
`operational
`environment."
`
`the entire certification
`Initially we expected that
`program would demonstrate Proof-of-Concept and no
`special test program would be required. After the
`experience gained in acquiring CAT 1 and CAT ll
`STCs we
`realized the importance of a Proof—of-
`Concept program to resolve
`the
`issue
`of
`the
`acceptability of a single HUD for CAT lll operations,
`and to resolve any crew system interface problems in
`the simulated environment.
`This program proved
`most useful
`in
`resolving these
`issues prior
`to
`beginning the expensive certification simulation and
`flight test verification programs. Additionally the
`Proof—of-Concept
`tests demonstrated the systems
`ability to perform to CAT Ill requirements without
`the installation of an autothrottle.
`
`We also received upon application for STC a list of
`highlighted Federal Aviation Regulations
`(FARS),
`Advisory Circulars and Approval Criteria from the
`FAA which assisted in further defining the problem.
`
`This program was the first attempt to meet CAT 111
`performance
`requirements without
`the
`direct
`involvement of
`the airframe manufacturer.
`This
`presented additional problems including: establish-
`ing compliance to structural
`requirements for
`the
`installation of the overhead and combiner units; 2)
`the availability of a complete and verified simulation
`of
`the
`aircraft;
`3)
`establishing
`the
`aircraft
`installation operation, and maintenance procedures;
`and 4)
`the performance of aircraft
`installation,
`operation and maintenance.
`
`In summary the problem encompassed:
`
`1. Development of a pilot-in-the-loop control system
`and display that would meet
`the performance
`criteria for automatic landing systems while
`maintaining an acceptable level of pilot workload.
`
`2. Design of a HUD system that could execute this
`control program and provide it
`the necessary
`sensor
`information while meeting the
`safety
`requirements
`imposed on CAT lll operations.
`These requirements drove system architecture,
`software and hardware design criteria.
`
`the system/crew interface and
`3. Development of
`crew procedures compatible with CAT 111 weather
`minima and the HUD system.
`
`1+. Design of an aircraft installation drawing package
`which would ensure consistency of installation on
`multiple aircraft. This included development of
`aircraft wire separation guidelines for aircraft
`not originally equipped for CAT Ill operations.
`The target aircraft was a Boeing 727-100.
`
`5. Preparation of safety and failure mode and effect
`analyses to ensure the system would meet CAT III
`safety requirements.
`
`6. Preparation of simulation and flight test plans for
`system development, evaluation and verification.
`
`7. Selection of a flight test crew for simulator and
`aircraft programs.
`
`8. Development and installation of the flight data
`acquisition and touchdown verification equipment.
`
`
`
`-"‘
`
`Released to AIAA lo publish in all forms.
`
`Copyright
`
`9. Aircraft acquisition, installation of equipment and
`operation of the flight test aircraft. Two Boeing
`727's were involved.
`c‘ 1984 by Flight Dynamics, Inc.
`
`441
`
`BOEING
`
`Ex. 1031, p. 506
`
`BOEING
`Ex. 1031, p. 506
`
`

`
`lO.Preparation of
`demonstration
`performance.
`
`final
`of
`
`reports and analysis and
`aircraft
`and
`simulation
`
`it was decided to develop a system which
`Early,
`would meet the requirements with a single HUD and
`to put this HUD on the Captain's side. A dual HUD
`system only made sense with both pilots head-up
`during the approach and landing,
`requiring that all
`the panel
`information,
`including engine, navigation,
`and warning be integrated into the HUD symbologY-
`Providing all the panel information head-up presented
`the difficulty of establishing display formats for a
`vast
`amount
`of
`information while maintaining
`approach and landing symbology conformal with the
`outside world. Also, a head-down right seat pilot has
`access to aircraft system information and is able to
`monitor conventional instruments providing dissimilar
`redundancy in evaluating approach progress.
`
`
`
`Operational
`Status mssaqe _\
`
`Sel
`
`ec
`
`t‘.edCo
`
`senark
`
`—x
`
`u:
`-
`“eadmg scale ‘C
`
`FIGURE 1
`HUD SYMBOLOGY
`
`2. HUD System
`
`The pilot looks through the
`System Configuration
`holographic combiner, Figure 3, to acquire guidance
`and situation information focused at infinity.
`The
`overhead optical assembly in conjunction with the
`combiner present
`symbolic
`images
`to the pilot
`projected from a cathode ray tube at the rear of the
`overhead assembly. A drive electronics unit provides
`CRT drive functions. Mode selection and data entry
`are accomplished through a HUD control panel. The
`HUD
`Computer
`performs
`symbol
`generation,
`executes
`the
`guidance
`algorithms, provides
`the
`monitoring functions, establishes the interface with
`the aircraft sensors and evaluates input data.
`A
`system functional diagram is presented in Figure 14.
`
`Roll Scale
`
`Pitch Reference Scale
`
`Approach Warn Message
`
`.—o
`.
`‘
`- A
`3.8
`
`V
`\ A‘!
`
`V
`APCII WARN
`
`E
`
`r
`
`:5‘ Ref”
`H
`ea mq
`eicnce
`
`Mak
`2:
`
`.
`Artificial Horizon
`
`
`
`'3
`Speed Error Tape H‘ __i ._ __.L_. .1. "LA" 4_.._ .4 _iii
`G1 ideslope
`Reference
`
`
` X Radio Altitude
`
`
`F1 ight Pad:
`Acceleration
`
`Digital Airspeed
`
`
`
`- Flight Path
`
`midame me
`a G1 ideslope
`
`L Bum Altitude
`
`Vertical Spauzl
`
`1. Development Of The Pilot—In-The-Loop Control
`System
`
`to the acceptance and success of this
`Fundamental
`system, was the ability of its display to provide the
`pilot with information sufficient to accomplish hand
`flown landings meeting the touchdown criteria for
`CAT III operation. This capability was provided the
`pilot via presentation of an advanced flight director
`display.
`The
`director
`provides
`the
`pilot
`compensatory aileron and elevator commands
`for
`flight
`from localizer capture to touchdown.
`The
`pilot's primary task on approach is nulling the flight
`director, and secondarily nulling the airspeed error.
`The pilot's workload, his opinion of the system, and
`his performance are largely determined by the flight
`director control
`law. Extensive use was made of
`prior
`investigations (3) of pilot behavior and the
`theory of manual control (4) in the design of the FDI
`flight d'rector. The insight provided in the crossover
`model
`5) and related describing function analysis of
`pilot-vehicle-display
`characteristics was
`proven
`invaluable in modeling and analysis of
`the HUD
`5)’5'iem-
`"K/5 like" dynamics
`in
`the
`region of
`crossover was designed into the director system with
`excellent results as predicted by the theory.
`The
`Director system has proven to be easy to fly and to
`meet accuracy requirements for CAT Ill operation.
`The symbol set provided the pilot
`is illustrated in
`Figure 1, and shown in the photograph taken in flight
`in Figure 2.
`
`
`
`FIGURE 2
`
`APPROACH SYMBOLOGY
`
`442
`
`BOEING
`
`Ex. 1031, p. 507
`
`BOEING
`Ex. 1031, p. 507
`
`

`
`
`
`FIGURE 3
`
`AIRCRAFT INSTALLATION.
`COMBINER AND OVERHEAD UNIT
`
`the
`The HUD Guidance System (HGS) consists of
`HHUD units and the aircraft sensors and systems
`shown in Figure 5. An inertial reference unit (IRU)
`provides the precise attitude and heading information
`necessary
`to ensure
`symbology and
`real world
`conformality, and in addition, ground speed, inertial
`vertical speed, and track angle necessary to display
`accurate flight path information. The IRU installed
`in the test aircraft is a Honeywell
`laser gyro unit.
`Vertical and directional gyro inputs are used as
`comparator inputs along with IRU data to catch any
`unflagged IRU errors.
`Inputs from two central air
`data computers provide comparison monitoring for
`airspeed and barometric altitude. Dual
`inputs are
`also provided from radio altitude and the localizer
`and glideslope signals of
`the Instrument Landing
`System (ILS).
`
`nun cmlrmu
`
`.
`J
`’ __L
`i- swim.
`I.
`
`
`
`r-"I
`
`-1I/III I
`:---—-\Irxmmu. um
`
`
`I
`I
`, crzuruml ._
`
`
`
`wmm___ _J
`I
`I uucnsson I
`l
`i____J
`v._____l
`I___
`claur I
`___r--"1
`""""I
`
`
`masons
`’
`.
`.
`vmm
`"'°'
`.
`4 '/° 1 ‘C A
`"5""
`: sum:
`rum:
`3
`I
`I muuon I
`
`I._-__.I
`
`urnnnn
`
`A1.lL§.'.I_u.Vi
`AlunuLmu
`LI.uI.u_|.r.u1_nnL:nnuun
`
`
`FIGURE 4
`HUD GUIDANCE SYSTEM CAT IIIA
`
`
`
`The HHUD optical
`system which
`includes
`combiner and overhead relay lens‘ provides a ?O°
`horizontal by 214° vertical overlapping field-of-view
`for symbology display.
`This wide field-of-View is
`necessary to accommodate symbology 'SI.1lftS fI‘0m
`boresight due to flights in crosswind conditions.
`
`the
`
`To ensure that no undetected
`System Monitor
`failure will cause significant deviations from the
`approach path or touchdown footprint an independent
`system monitor has been implemented in the HUD
`computer.
`The monitor provides
`two functions.
`First,
`it verifies placement of
`symbology on the
`display to detect any misrepresentation of critical
`situation or guidance information. The purpose here
`is to identify and blank any information which could
`cause incorrect control movements by the pilot. The
`System Monitor verifies operation of the Control Law
`Processor, Display Generator, Drive Electronics Unit
`
`IIOLL
`
`
`
`""‘5""
`""""“’
`ALTITUDE
`ALTITUDE
`
`gnno,
`MIIMEVER I I
`anno.
`
`
`
`mm! :1:-MMAND
`
`ADI
`
`LYIMEIEN Is:
`LDC DEV
` SELECTED COURSE
`was
`to/rnoM
`""" “'
`GLIDESLDPE uzv
`LUL DEV
`VHF
`10/FROM
`NM’ " 2
`c.uoas_Lo=: nsv
`ALI I1 UDE
`mxouo
`ALVIMEIEM I
`9'‘ TRIP
`RADIO
`ALTI1 UDE
`nuwsrenn 2
`ruam
`so MIOUND
`cowmuts
`RIRSP
`n:rs_n_5NcE usnomr.
`&
`
`
`—I«nmsEtegtvoa __a_..__"E"E"E*‘I'«E"‘“5°EE“__
`BEACON AUDIO
`Munxen
`uEM.uN ncun.
`
`AYIIVUDE I\(.cELEru\7Iou
`T °""‘"“
`ELEVA‘IIDll. GLIDESLDP-E
`‘ "‘“""'
`"W mumal Mom: 1. smrus
`.
`STAVUS
`
`MNEL
`
`
`
`FIGURE 5
`HUD SYSTEM
`
`BOEING
`
`Ex. 1031, p. 508
`
`
`
`Flu r/mgr
`l|G|-H5
`
`AFPRUHCII WARN
`arr-nonm 51 M U!
`vrnncm ruouv
`
`Four independent microprocessors
`HUD Computer
`execute HUD System functions.
`All
`four are
`programmed in high level
`language to facilitate
`documentation and provide visibility of
`software
`functions. This is especially important in reaching
`the fail-safe criticality levels dictated by the system
`application.
`Software
`has
`been
`developed
`in
`accordance with
`the
`requirements
`of RTCA
`document DO-178. Two independent microprocessors
`perform data
`acquisition
`and
`provide
`channel
`separation of input data. A 16 bit micro processor,
`the Control Law Processor, performs
`the data
`comparisons from the two input channels, executes
`the guidance algorithms
`and drives
`the
`symbol
`generator.
`A second 16 bit micro,
`the System
`Monitor, also accesses dual input data and performs
`the monitor functions. This monitor micro can cause
`the display of warning messages, deletion of suspect
`data or blanking of the entire display.
`
`The pilot views system
`Holographic Combiner
`5Ymbology and the outside or real world through the
`h0l0graphic combiner. Two pieces of optical glass
`form the plano-plano combiner with the holographic
`element sandwiched between. The combiner is the
`Primary collimating element of the optical system.
`
`[
`
`443
`
`BOEING
`Ex. 1031, p. 508
`
`

`
`and Overhead Unit. To eliminate the possibility of a
`similar latent software error in the System Monitor
`and the Control Law Processor, a dissimilar set of
`algorithms are
`implemented in System Monitor
`software.
`
`the System Monitor assesses
`As a second function,
`the approach progress and annunciates a caution to
`the crew if the approach exceeds limits which could
`cause
`a
`landing outside
`the desired touchdown
`footprint.
`
`3. System/Crew Interface and Crew Procedures
`
`The ability of the pilot not flying (PNF) to monitor
`the progress of the approach through the initiation of
`flare while remaining head down was a primary
`consideration during system design.
`The following
`information provided to the PF on the HUD is also
`provided on the PNF instrument panel
`to ensure
`awareness of system status and approach progress.
`
`1. An annunciator indicating system readiness to
`execute a CAT III approach (AIII status).
`