Using vision system technologies to enable operational improvements for low visibility approach and landing operations

Influence of Offset Approach • No adverse affects on touchdown performance ▹ All touchdowns were within ‘autoland’ touchdown criteria regardless of approach offset angle (0, 3, 15 deg) or HUD Concept (Conventional, EFVS, SVS) flown • Need to go-around appears to be affected by visibility level (7% in 1400 RVR vs 0% in 4000 RVR) and not HUD SEVS concept or offset approach type being flown • No workload penalty Influence Of Edge Line Positioning Source and Guidance Cue Variation for 3-deg Offset Approach • No adverse effects on touchdown lateral position from centerline ▹ All landings within autoland lateral criteria (≤ 57 ft from centerline) • When edge lines were aligned with the navaid, guidance cue variation significantly impacted T/D Longitudinal Position, with ‘latch to flare cue’ runs landing closer to aim point than ‘remove at DH’ run • When edge lines were aligned with runway, there were no T/D Longitudinal Position differences due to guidance cue variation • Pilots stated that geo-referenced positioned edge lines were preferred during an offset approach and that navaid positioned edge lines should never be used • Guidance cue variation appears to affect missed approach rate while flying an offset approach ▹ Removed at DH: 0% missed approach rate ▹ Latched to flare cue: 8% missed approach rate • No workload penalty