and spacing. Distances to nearby buildings and runways are
brought to scale by a circular range marker centered on the
aircraft. The integration of maps and charts, zoom level and
map detail with Honeywell’s integrated navigation system is
far superior to the fl ight decks that are limited to electronic
versions of FAA or Jeppesen airport diagrams displayed as
separate charts.
Next, Suddreth put my primary fl ight display (PFD) into
taxi mode, causing the forward synthetic view to back up
and climb for an exocentric view above and behind a 2-D
representation of our aircraft, centered on a compass rose for
directional awareness. Honeywell engineers continue to opti-
mize the display to provide just enough data to perform vari-
ous checklists while not cluttering the screen. The tool—with
ramp, taxiway and dynamic runway labeling—was extremely
useful in taxiing at Deer Valley and more so at Tucson, where
the layout was more complex. Boosting safety are 3-D cues
for danger zones, including a “wall” or roadblock that pops
up when the aircraft is approaching a runway intersection
from a taxiway. Honeywell has also developed a taxi helper
(notionally called “taxi wizard”) that will compute the best
path to a runway end, including constraints, and image the
path on the airport map. A future enhancement will bring
the taxi route onto the PFD.
Motion in the exocentric synthetic scene was smooth as we
lined the Falcon up for takeof on Runway 7R at Deer Valley.
When preparing for takeof , the pilot can switch back to the
normal 3-D view on the PFD, or the system will automatically
switch when power is applied. On landing, the PFD smoothly
transitions from normal view to exocentric at 50-kt. airspeed.
Eventually, 3-D AMMs will be coupled with infrared or ra-
dar sensors to become an onboard surface movement guid-
ance and control system for low-visibility ground operations
following a landing carried out with SVGS and CVS. SVGS
creates a 3-D synthetic day visual-fl ight-rules reconstruc-
tion of the approach and airport environment on the PFD
from terrain, obstacle and airport databases, validated by
fi ve monitors running in the background. The goal is to re-
duce the Category 1 instrument approach airborne segment
to 150 ft. above the runway from 200 ft., with an associated
decrease in the normal Cat. 1 runway visual range (RVR)
from 1,800 ft. down to 1,400 ft. At an altitude of 150 ft., the
pilots will have to see the runway environment to continue
a landing. The CVS fuses infrared or radar data with the
synthetic data, bringing the airborne segment progressively
lower.
The company is taking part in ongoing industry ef orts to
develop the performance specifi cations for onboard landing
aids that could be used down to 300 ft. RVR, essentially zero
visibility, complemented by taxi aids to get to the ramp.
A challenge for Honeywell is that only systems with a
head-up guidance system (which includes a head-up display,
or HUD) have been approved for “credit” in lower landing
minimums using onboard sensors in lieu of the naked eye.
The company is pursuing landing guidance systems based
on head-down displays only, contrasting with competitor
Rockwell Collins, whose head-up guidance system division
gives it an edge in China, where all commercial aircraft must
have HUDs by 2025. Honeywell argues that its head-down
display is equivalent or superior to a head-up guidance sys-
tem, in part because it has a large display area and virtually
unlimited colors with which to work. “It’s not too late to get
China to consider head-down displays,” Wyatt says.
While recognizing HUDs’ safety contributions—fi rst with
fl ight-path vector, energy cueing and lower landing mini-
mums—Wyatt says Honeywell has anecdotal evidence that
many airline pilots with captain-side HUDs are leaving the
devices stowed, “even though they have standard operating
procedures to use them for takeof and landing.” He notes
that this may be because of “contact switch,” the dif culty
some pilots experience in making the mental switch be-
tween a HUD, focused at infi nity, and the outside world. “Put
the same information on a head-down display with a full
color-rich background, and people don’t have that issue,”Wyatt says. Honeywell is taking an incremental approach
to proving head-down equivalence, starting with SVGS ini-
tially and evolving to CVS.
Wyatt had me hand-fly SVGS and CVS approaches to
Runway 11L at Tucson in the Falcon. The task of getting the
heavy jet to the runway was easy and intuitive on the PFD
without any reference to the outside world.
SVGS features a graphical precision approach path in-
dicator (PAPI) that fades in on the left side of the virtual
runway, emulating an actual PAPI and making for a very
natural assessment of glide path. There is also a cyan box
drawn around the runway, with the closest edge marking the
touchdown zone; put the fl ight path vector on that line and
that is where the aircraft will go. Honeywell uses a track-
centered synthetic vision view versus the heading-centered
view a pilot would see over the nose of the aircraft. A “crab-
by” aircraft symbol near the center of the screen shows the
relationship between heading and track, giving the pilot a
cue where to look for the runway in the transition to visual
when there is a crosswind.
At approximately 5 nm, the 3-D AMM environment
around the runways, including taxiways and buildings,
starts fading in. I did not notice, but Wyatt assured me my
visual cortex did. “It’s part of the situational awareness,”
he says. “It’s a seamless switching from air mode to ground
mode. We gradually fade it in so that when you get on the
ground, it’s there.” cAviationWeek.com/awst AVIATION WEEK & SPACE TECHNOLOGY/NOVEMBER 3/10, 2014 47
The situational awareness dif erence between legacy
(right primary fl ight display) and future taxi guidance
(left primary fl ight display) is signifi cant.HONEYWELL/GEORGE TENNEY圀漀爀氀搀䴀愀最猀⸀渀攀琀圀漀爀氀搀䴀愀最猀⸀渀攀琀
圀漀爀氀搀䴀愀最猀⸀渀攀琀