FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
2002
2002 - 2655.PDF
Cockpits both systems is to provide a large format display for navigation information. They are each capable of displaying FMS-gener- ated waypoints in either a map or plan mode. The map mode places the aircraft at the bottom of the display, in a God's-eye view, with range scale varying from 9- 1,110km (5-600nm) for the Continuum and 9-1,850km for the Epic. The display is oriented with aircraft heading up and the active flight plan depicted. Ground-based navigation aids as well as airports along the route of flight can also be shown. In the Continuum, this same information can be displayed on the HSI portion of the PFD. The plan mode displays flight route in a north-up format, allowing the pilot to review the flight plan with ease. In general, both displays are equally use ful, with one exception. While not a func tion of the display itself, the Continuum's FMS software makes changing a flight plan much easier. The Continuum displays both the current and proposed route on the MFD, allowing the pilot to assess it easily, before executing. Epic's FMS software does not show the proposed flight plan until it has been executed. In map mode, TCAS, EGPWS and weather radar information can also be seen Both suites on the MFD. While the map display takes lay the up the majority of the MFD's screen, a foundation good portion of the display is available for for other functions. Both systems offer elec- compliance tronic checklists: the Continuum's above with future the map display, and the Epic's below. regulatory While these are useful, the major benefit of require- a large-format MFD is the flexibility it gives ments for future growth. With appropriate data bases, both systems can display en route charts and terminal approach plates, a huge step towards the paperless cockpit. Moving maps and airport diagrams are also a near-term prospect. The MFDs may also be used for datalink functions. It is this growth potential that makes these retrofit systems so viable. The Continuum and Epic retrofit avion ics suites both feature LCDs of impressive size and clarity. Brightness levels are more than adequate for even sun-lit conditions. Both PFDs are logically arranged, with crit ical flight information easily interpreted. The MFD map displays are also logically presented and easy to use. Selection of one suite over the other for retrofit on to a business jet will probably hinge on regulatory agency approval for the modification, rather than any opera tional characteristic of the system. While eminently suited for operations in today's airspace system, both suites lay the foun dation for compliance with future regula tory requirements and continued opera tions in the 21st century. • UAfTPAlOMA* J22-L CAO.SBAD, CAllf ST 1 -TG3 1 JIM'/rr, 749. U4. ltm : Flying RNAV approach and VNAV descent is as easy as flying an ILS gation (VNAV) glidepath to descend on a non-precision approach greatly enhances the simplicity and safety of the procedure. VNAV allowed us to use a DA of 740ft (230m) above mean sea level (414ft above ground level), signifi cantly lower than the M DA of 1,660ft had a conventional step-down approach been flown. Ceiling and visibility minima for the LNAVA/NAV approach were also much lower, an obvious benefit in poor weather conditions. How the final-approach phase was flown gave an even greater advan tage. The autoflight system followed the LNAVA/NAV guidance, as it would have an instrument landing system (ILS). Workload during the final approach phase was low, as there was no need to descend to and level off at the MDA before the VDP The aircraft smoothly tracked runaway centreline and glidepath throughout the approach. As we were in visual conditions, I let the autopilot continue the descent past the DA. Just before disengaging the autopilot at 80ft, it appeared the aircraft would squarely hit the run way's touchdown markers. Rather than continue to a landing, I manually executed a go-around and followed the FMS's LNAV guidance for the missed-approach procedure. The VNAV glidepath capability demon strated on the approach to Carlsbad was impressive. The vast majority of airports do not have a precision-approach procedure. An RNAV non-precision straight-in approach flown to VNAV minima can allow operations into those fields in near-precision approach weather conditions. Flight safety is thus greatly enhanced, as pilots no longer have to fly a complicated step-down descent profile. Flying an RNAV approach using a VNAV descent profile is as easy as flying an ILS. As the number of aircraft capable of making these approaches increases, there should be a corre sponding fall in the number of CFIT accidents during the landing phase. www.flightinternational.com FLIGHT INTERNATIONAL 3-9 SEPTEMBER 2002 55
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
