Previous Page | Page 88 | Next Page |
78
14 CFR Ch. I (1–1–14 Edition)
Pt. 60, App. A
inoperative landing, and engine failure on
take-off serve to validate lateral-directional
ground effect since portions of these tests
are accomplished as the aircraft is descend-
ing through heights above the runway at
which ground effect is an important factor.
6. M
OTION
S
YSTEM
a. General.
(1) Pilots use continuous information sig-
nals to regulate the state of the airplane. In
concert with the instruments and outside-
world visual information, whole-body motion
feedback is essential in assisting the pilot to
control the airplane dynamics, particularly
in the presence of external disturbances. The
motion system should meet basic objective
performance criteria, and should be subjec-
tively tuned at the pilot’s seat position to
represent the linear and angular accelera-
tions of the airplane during a prescribed
minimum set of maneuvers and conditions.
The response of the motion cueing system
should also be repeatable.
(2) The Motion System tests in Section 3 of
Table A2A are intended to qualify the FFS
motion cueing system from a mechanical
performance standpoint. Additionally, the
list of motion effects provides a representa-
tive sample of dynamic conditions that
should be present in the flight simulator. An
additional list of representative, training-
critical maneuvers, selected from Section 1
(Performance tests), and Section 2 (Handling
Qualities tests), in Table A2A, that should be
recorded during initial qualification (but
without tolerance) to indicate the flight sim-
ulator motion cueing performance signature
have been identified (reference Section 3.e).
These tests are intended to help improve the
overall standard of FFS motion cueing.
b. Motion System Checks. The intent of
test 3a, Frequency Response, test 3b, Leg
Balance, and test 3c, Turn-Around Check, as
described in the Table of Objective Tests, is
to demonstrate the performance of the mo-
tion system hardware, and to check the in-
tegrity of the motion set-up with regard to
calibration and wear. These tests are inde-
pendent of the motion cueing software and
should be considered robotic tests.
c. Motion System Repeatability. The in-
tent of this test is to ensure that the motion
system software and motion system hard-
ware have not degraded or changed over
time. This diagnostic test should be com-
pleted during continuing qualification
checks in lieu of the robotic tests. This will
allow an improved ability to determine
changes in the software or determine deg-
radation in the hardware. The following in-
formation delineates the methodology that
should be used for this test.
(1) Input: The inputs should be such that
rotational accelerations, rotational rates,
and linear accelerations are inserted before
the transfer from airplane center of gravity
to pilot reference point with a minimum am-
plitude of 5 deg/sec/sec, 10 deg/sec and 0.3 g,
respectively, to provide adequate analysis of
the output.
(2) Recommended output:
(a) Actual platform linear accelerations;
the output will comprise accelerations due
to both the linear and rotational motion ac-
celeration;
(b) Motion actuators position.
d. Motion Cueing Performance Signature.
(1) Background. The intent of this test is
to provide quantitative time history records
of motion system response to a selected set
of automated QTG maneuvers during initial
qualification. This is not intended to be a
comparison of the motion platform accelera-
tions against the flight test recorded accel-
erations (i.e., not to be compared against air-
plane cueing). If there is a modification to
the initially qualified motion software or
motion hardware (e.g., motion washout fil-
ter, simulator payload change greater than
10%) then a new baseline may need to be es-
tablished.
(2) Test Selection. The conditions identi-
fied in Section 3.e. in Table A2A are those
maneuvers where motion cueing is the most
discernible. They are general tests applicable
to all types of airplanes and should be com-
pleted for motion cueing performance signa-
ture at any time acceptable to the NSPM
prior to or during the initial qualification
evaluation, and the results included in the
MQTG.
(3) Priority. Motion system should be de-
signed with the intent of placing greater im-
portance on those maneuvers that directly
influence pilot perception and control of the
airplane motions. For the maneuvers identi-
fied in section 3.e. in Table A2A, the flight
simulator motion cueing system should have
a high tilt co-ordination gain, high rota-
tional gain, and high correlation with re-
spect to the airplane simulation model.
(4) Data Recording. The minimum list of
parameters provided should allow for the de-
termination of the flight simulator’s motion
cueing performance signature for the initial
qualification evaluation. The following pa-
rameters are recommended as being accept-
able to perform such a function:
(a) Flight model acceleration and rota-
tional rate commands at the pilot reference
point;
(b) Motion actuators position;
(c) Actual platform position;
(d) Actual platform acceleration at pilot
reference point.
e. Motion Vibrations.
(1) Presentation of results. The char-
acteristic motion vibrations may be used to
verify that the flight simulator can repro-
duce the frequency content of the airplane
when flown in specific conditions. The test
results should be presented as a Power Spec-
tral Density (PSD) plot with frequencies on
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:48 Jan 30, 2014
Jkt 232047
PO 00000
Frm 00088
Fmt 8010
Sfmt 8002
Q:\14\14V2.TXT
ofr150
PsN: PC150
Previous Page | Page 88 | Next Page |