Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Aural Glideslope High/Low Indication  
User currently offlinefaro From Egypt, joined Aug 2007, 1534 posts, RR: 0
Posted (3 years 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 3893 times:

For the most sensitive parameter of the most sensitive phase of flight, glidescope tracking on approach, how about an aural indication of high/low position via the gizmo demonstrated in gliders in the first 30 seconds of the following video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jRSPj4WkTp0

In the glider video the aural indication (high/low tone) indicates positive or negative rate of climb; conceivably, it may also be wired to indicate vertical deviation (in distance or angle) above/below glidescope.

Advantages include freeing the pilot from frequent eyeballing of the PFD for this critical information and an intuitive "feel" for where he sits on the glidescope no matter what his eyes are doing on approach. In a nutshell, a tighter, crisper, more sensitive feedback loop between pilot action and instrument (aural) indication.

Faro

[Edited 2011-07-21 04:06:11]


The chalice not my son
17 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineGoldenshield From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 5970 posts, RR: 14
Reply 1, posted (3 years 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 3872 times:

Quoting faro (Thread starter):
In the glider video the aural indication (high/low tone) indicates positive or negative rate of climb; conceivably, it may also be wired to indicate vertical deviation (in distance or angle) above/below glidescope.

The variometer is there to keep the pilot's eyes out the window, and used to indicate rising air. In sink, there is no sound.

All in all, an interesting idea, but then again, not practical in that form. However, an aural glideslope already exists---in the GS portion of the ILS, except that we can't hear it. Both the localizer and glideslope are based on old technology use for naviation: The Low Frequency Radio Range. And in action: www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-VqtNY8vpw .

edit:

Interestingly, the Silverlake LFR mentioned in the Wiki article, while not in commission, still exists partially where two of the original towers are still standing to this day, I'm thinking due to their proximity to the high-tension power lines that run right through the land, taking the towers down would be risky business.

[Edited 2011-07-21 04:50:12]


Two all beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles, onions on a sesame seed bun.
User currently offlinewilco737 From Greenland, joined Jun 2004, 8968 posts, RR: 76
Reply 2, posted (3 years 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 3867 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD MODERATOR

Quoting faro (Thread starter):

If you are too low on the glideslope you get an aural warning "GLIDESLOPE". That gives you an idea that you are well too low. For too high there is no aural warning.

I don't know if I want such a feature. If you are established with gear and flaps on the glideslope and you are flying manual, you have a pitch and power value which will keep you on the glideslope in calm conditions. You have to crosscheck all the instruments anyway. So you look inside for speed, V/S, altitude; G/S, LOC, then you look outside to the runway, inside again etc etc. So if you have that aural warning then it shows you only if you are descending or climbing. But I need a whole lot more information during the approach. A simple town telling me that I am descending is not enough. I need to know how much I am descending (the rate)... So I have to crosscheck the instruments very often.

My instructor always said: "Dude, keep your eyes moving!" 

wilco737
  



It it's not Boeing, I am not going.
User currently offline26point2 From United States of America, joined Mar 2010, 813 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (3 years 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 3838 times:

What's wrong with "glideslope, glideslope", "GLIDESLOPE, GLIDESLOPE"?

EGPWS has a "Disable" to cancel the warning if the intent is to fly below GS....in types I have flown at least.

[Edited 2011-07-21 05:46:53]

[Edited 2011-07-21 05:49:55]

User currently offlinefaro From Egypt, joined Aug 2007, 1534 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (3 years 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 3804 times:

Quoting 26point2 (Reply 3):
What's wrong with "glideslope, glideslope", "GLIDESLOPE, GLIDESLOPE"?

EGPWS has a "Disable" to cancel the warning if the intent is to fly below GS....in types I have flown at least.

Nothing really but it doesn't mean it can't be improved upon, and you don't presumably get "glidescope,glidescope" if you are above the slope, which is not desirable either. Wouldn't it be better to have:

- On glidescope: No tone at all;
- Above glidescope: low-pitch tone getting lower;
- Below glidescope: high-pitch tone getting higher; and
- Rate of change of tone also gives aural V/S trend.

What I like about it is that it is i) continuously perceivable, ii) uses the aural faculty which is pretty under-utilised in this phase of flight and iii) gives you a good indication about your most critical flight parameter in the approach -along with airspeed- as well as a V/S trend.

Faro



The chalice not my son
User currently offlinewilco737 From Greenland, joined Jun 2004, 8968 posts, RR: 76
Reply 5, posted (3 years 1 week 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 3792 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD MODERATOR

Quoting faro (Reply 4):

Did you read anything from what I posted above at all?

I have to do checks on ALL flight parameters, not only if I am on glideslope (not glidescope) or not... A tone for them all?!   

wilco737
  



It it's not Boeing, I am not going.
User currently offlinewilco737 From Greenland, joined Jun 2004, 8968 posts, RR: 76
Reply 6, posted (3 years 1 week 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 3791 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD MODERATOR

Quoting faro (Reply 4):

Did you read anything from what I posted above at all?

I have to do checks on ALL flight parameters, not only if I am on glideslope (not glidescope) or not... A tone for them all?!   

wilco737
  



It it's not Boeing, I am not going.
User currently offlinefaro From Egypt, joined Aug 2007, 1534 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (3 years 1 week 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 3761 times:

Quoting wilco737 (Reply 6):
Quoting faro (Reply 4):
Did you read anything from what I posted above at all?

I have to do checks on ALL flight parameters, not only if I am on glideslope (not glidescope) or not... A tone for them all?!   

wilco737

I did indeed Wilco   and am not suggesting that they *all* be toned indications, just the glidescope indication, otherwise the flightdeck would be a zoo. I understand that an instrument scan includes all flight parameters and not just G/S; my suggestion is simply to lighten up the eyeballing a bit via continuous resonance of high/low tone for one flight parameter only. In the end it's the end-user who decides of course on whether this is adding to or detracting from an efficient flight path control. Just another a.nut idea...

Faro



The chalice not my son
User currently offlinepilotpip From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 3149 posts, RR: 11
Reply 8, posted (3 years 1 week 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 3741 times:

There are already a ton of aural warnings. The 170 also puts a visual warning on the PFD in addition to the aural warning.

We're pretty alert on landing. On the 170 we have the Glideslope indication on the PFD, the aural warning, the Vertical profile on the MFD, and outside at most airport we have a VASI/PAPI.

How much more do you need? The last thing I want/need is a tone that makes it more difficult to keep situational awarenes by drowning out ATC and my captain. Not to mention the fatigue that the noise would cause.



DMI
User currently offlineThirtyEcho From United States of America, joined Dec 2001, 1644 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (3 years 1 week 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 3741 times:

Why complicate things unnecessarily? An aural indication for the glideslope is not at all needed and is potentially confusing at a time when instrument cross check is at its peak.

If we take the simple example of a sturdy old 172, very few things are needed to "nail" the glideslope all the way down. If the intercept is made at 90kts with 1900RPM, dropping to about a 700fpm descent is going to put you right on the sucker. Adjusting for updrafts and downdrafts is needed but, in normal conditions, if you stay on profile tracking the glideslope isn't very difficult. Excursions from this profile lead to chasing the needle which leads to wider excursions, etc., etc..

With more complex aircraft, gear and flaps are going to change the profile but this is easily learned with a few hours in type.

I can say that, having flown a few 4-course ranges in my time, making a mental picture of any aural guidance system (except for caution/emergency warnings) is a difficult art that can lead to far larger deviations than visual guidance.

[Edited 2011-07-21 10:23:41]

User currently offlinerwessel From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 2314 posts, RR: 2
Reply 10, posted (3 years 1 week 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 3641 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Goldenshield (Reply 1):
The variometer is there to keep the pilot's eyes out the window, and used to indicate rising air. In sink, there is no sound.

Every audio variometer I've ever flown with has done tones on both the uphill (high pitched and increasing) and downhill (low pitch and decreasing) side of things. Often it's more a continuous tone on the plus side, and a buzzing on the minus side. Often there's a silent band around the zero-lift sink rate.

Given the number of options* on many of these things, it's perhaps possible to turn off the audio on the sink side, although I'm not sure why you'd want to do that - while I like knowing when I hit lift, I *really* like knowing when I hit sink.


*A friend of mine was going on the other day about a vario (+GPS) he's considering that apparently will give you centering hints by using stereo speakers, and sending the sound one way or the other... Makes me wonder. I remember many happy hours beating around in a 1-26 whose only semi-reliable instrument was the compass (the static system was trashed**, and you could significantly vary your airspeed and altitude by slipping the thing or fiddling with the vents - we left the audio on the vario off most of the time - at least when the battery wasn't dead). And the compass was no great shakes either, unless you were straight and level. IOW: Kids these days!   

**Ultimately we pulled all the tubing for the pitot/static system (we didn't really care all that much***, but we were pretty board one day) - the tube to the static port on one side had a slug of water in it, and the tube to the other side had a cut and was partially open to the cabin.

***After all, it was a 1-26, it's not like hyper-accurate instruments are going to make much a difference on a 23:1**** ship.

****Now there’s a bit of optimism for ya!


User currently onlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21529 posts, RR: 55
Reply 11, posted (3 years 1 week 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 3620 times:

Quoting faro (Thread starter):
Advantages include freeing the pilot from frequent eyeballing of the PFD for this critical information

Remember that an ILS is an instrument maneuver - if you're in the clouds, the pilot's eyes should be on the PFD anyway, as that's the only way he can fly the airplane. And if you're not in the clouds and the pilot can see the runway, they shouldn't need to be looking at the PFD all that much to maintain a constant glidepath with reasonable accuracy - eyes should be mostly outside, with glances down to check the instruments every so often.

Basically, you seem to be trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist. Also, this would be a big nuisance on approaches where the pilot can see the runway - it's better to fly a glidepath that is consistently a bit off rather than trying to get the glideslope exactly right, and as a result undershooting and overshooting (and thus triggering the tones).

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 12, posted (3 years 1 week 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 3620 times:

Quoting faro (Reply 4):

What I like about it is that it is i) continuously perceivable,

So's the glideslope indication...if you're shooting an ILS and you actually need that precision, you're heads-down and you're watching the indications anyway. If you're using the ILS in VFR, you should be heads up anyway and flying visual. Glideslope indications when you're not actually flying the ILS would just be distracting.

Quoting faro (Reply 4):
ii) uses the aural faculty which is pretty under-utilised in this phase of flight

That's intentional...you suppress aurals in critical phases of flight to only those that require immediate pilot action to avoid distraction.

Quoting faro (Reply 4):
iii) gives you a good indication about your most critical flight parameter in the approach -along with airspeed- as well as a V/S trend.

Glideslope tracking isn't your most critical flight parameter...not sure why you'd fix on that as the one to put the aural tone on.

Tom.


User currently offlineGoldenshield From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 5970 posts, RR: 14
Reply 13, posted (3 years 1 week 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 3577 times:

Quoting rwessel (Reply 10):
Every audio variometer I've ever flown with has done tones on both the uphill (high pitched and increasing) and downhill (low pitch and decreasing) side of things. Often it's more a continuous tone on the plus side, and a buzzing on the minus side. Often there's a silent band around the zero-lift sink rate.

The ones I've flown with only have an up band. They do have a low side, but they only sound when the vario hits greater than zero. Perhaps these are just older models, though, or perhaps they are just set up this way. I've only flown one ship that is not a club ship, and since they are club ships, it's not like I can mess with how they are set up. However, that said, looking at WingandWheels really quick, there are at least 7 different manufacturers of varios, and each will most likely have "their own way of doing it."

I've got an audio vario in my private ship with zero documentation, and googling has turned up no answers, so, I just leave it as is. Granted, this model hasn't been made since like 1979, so I would expect support and documentation to be lacking.



Two all beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles, onions on a sesame seed bun.
User currently offlinewoodreau From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 1025 posts, RR: 6
Reply 14, posted (3 years 1 week 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 3577 times:

One instrument if I was required to have an audible indication of would be the AOA indicator. Granted I haven't been in a lot of aircraft that had one but I think that is probably more useful than the airspeed indicator on approach.


Bonus animus sit, ab experientia. Quod salvatum fuerit de malis usu venit judicium.
User currently offlinepilotpip From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 3149 posts, RR: 11
Reply 15, posted (3 years 1 week 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 3520 times:

Quoting woodreau (Reply 14):
One instrument if I was required to have an audible indication of would be the AOA indicator. Granted I haven't been in a lot of aircraft that had one but I think that is probably more useful than the airspeed indicator on approach.

They have that, it's called a stall warning system.

If AOA was so important (beyond critical), I would have an AOA indication. Oddly enough, I don't. I do, however, have an airspeed indicator.



DMI
User currently offlineFredT From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2002, 2185 posts, RR: 26
Reply 16, posted (3 years 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 3284 times:

Quoting pilotpip (Reply 15):
If AOA was so important (beyond critical), I would have an AOA indication. Oddly enough, I don't. I do, however, have an airspeed indicator.

But you have a speedbook, right?

And what is that, exactly? Yes, a rather oblique way of making sure you are at roughly the right AoA on the approach...

I find it amazing that AoA indicators are not mandated in airliners. The sensor is there, and AoA is one of the most interesting parameters if you know what to do with it, but yet the indicators are typically not installed in civilian aircraft.

If someone tells me it is not interesting, I'll bring up AF447 and throw a stack of speedbooks at you. You've been warned.

Cheers,
Fred



I thought I was doing good trying to avoid those airport hotels... and look at me now.
User currently onlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21529 posts, RR: 55
Reply 17, posted (3 years 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 3255 times:

Quoting FredT (Reply 16):
If someone tells me it is not interesting, I'll bring up AF447

I doubt that AF447 would have been prevented by having an AoA indicator. The problem with AF447 is that they didn't trust their instrumentation - all the information they needed was there, but they weren't able to use it (or didn't think it was useful). I suspect that an AoA indicator would have just been one more thing that they either unintentionally or intentionally ignored. We already know they ignored the stall warning, which is a form of AoA indicator.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Aural Glideslope High/Low Indication
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Tech/Ops related posts only!
  • Not Tech/Ops related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
High Wing Vs. Low Wing posted Fri May 23 2008 09:23:20 by Flexo
NW Flies Low, WN Flies High Altitude AIR/SIGMETS posted Mon Nov 19 2007 20:39:02 by Havaloc
High By-pass Core Use For Low By-pass Engines posted Sun Apr 22 2007 01:22:15 by 747400sp
Nose High Vs. Nose Low Approaches posted Wed Mar 22 2006 03:57:47 by FlyingNanook
High Bypass Engines In Low Atmos Pressure? posted Thu Jan 27 2005 20:14:18 by Kaitak
High Wing Vs. Low Wing Aircraft posted Thu Dec 4 2003 23:19:26 by RockyRacoon
ERJ-- Low Speed Flap Indication posted Tue Dec 31 2002 06:23:52 by AA777-200
Low Vs High Wing Aircraft posted Sat Jul 6 2002 07:53:47 by Trent_800
Which Is It, High Or Low Pressure? posted Wed Mar 7 2001 00:52:13 by Max Power
High On Some Days Low On Others posted Fri Aug 4 2000 00:37:39 by I_4Got_My_Name
Nose High Vs. Nose Low Approaches posted Wed Mar 22 2006 03:57:47 by FlyingNanook
High Bypass Engines In Low Atmos Pressure? posted Thu Jan 27 2005 20:14:18 by Kaitak
High Wing Vs. Low Wing Aircraft posted Thu Dec 4 2003 23:19:26 by RockyRacoon

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format