Document
GENERAL AVIATION TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT Technical Report National Aeronautics and Space Administration Grant No. NGR 47-005-202 Technical Report 403905 Short-Haul Air Transportation Program Submitted by: ' I / Ira D. Jacobson ', .
(NASA-CR-i15979) GENERAL AVIATION N76-14089 I 'TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT (Virginia Univ.-)- 52 p I'' .' L CSC , 01B Unclas ",__ G3/03 07413 __ j
SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING AND
APPLIED SCIENCE
RESEARCH LABORATORIES FOR THE ENGINEERING SCIENCES
TO CHANG
PRICES SUBJECT
UNIVERSITY
OF VIRGINIA
CHARLOTTESVILLE,
VIRGINIA 22901
Report No. ESS-4039-103-75 October 1975 BY REPRaDUCED NATIONAL TECHNICAL SERVICE INFORMATION OFCOMMERCE U.S DEPARTMENT SPRINGFIELD, VA. 22161 RESEARCH LABORATORIES FOR THE ENGINEERING SCIENCES The School of Engineering and Applied Science of the University of Virginia has long believed that strong research capabilities go hand in hand with effective teaching. Early in the development of its graduate training program, the School also recognized that men and women engaged in research should be as free as possible of the administrative chores involved in sponsored research. In 1959, therefore, the Research Laboratories for the Engineering Sciences (RLES) was established and assigned the administrative responsibility for such research within the School.
Currently, approximately 60 members of the faculty, who also teach at the undergraduate and graduate levels, and 30 additional professional engineers and scientists, whose primary responsibility is research, generate and conduct the investigations that make up a vigorous and wide-ranging program.
The Director of RLES, a faculty member and active researcher himself, naintains familiarity with the support requirements of all research under way. He is aided by an RLES Academic Advisory Committee made up of one faculty representative from each academic department -of the Schol.
This Committee serves to inform RLES of the needs and perspectives of thd research community.
In addition to administrative support, RLES is charged with providing technical assistance where it is needed. Because it is not practical for each department of the School to become self-sufficient in all phases of the supporting technology essential to present-day research, RLES makes services available through the following support groups: Machine Shop, Instrumentation, Facilities Services, 'Publications (including photographic facilities), and Computer Terminal Maintenance.
The purpose of RLES, then, is to provide administrative and technical assistance for sponsored research carried out within the School of Engineering and Applied Science of the University of Virginia.
Such research has played an important part in the University's contribution to scientific knowledge and service to the community and continues the successful partnership of University, government, and industry.
For information on current programs and capabilities, write to Director, Research Laboratories for the Engineering Sciences, Thornton Hall, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia 22901.
GENERAL AVIATION TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT Technical Report National Aeronautics and Space Administration Grant No. NGR 47-005-202 Technical Report 403905 Short-Haul Air Transportation Program -Submitted by,: Ira D.
Jacobson Department of Engineering Science and Systems RESEARCH LABORATORIES FOR THE ENGINEERING SCIENCES SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING AND APPLIED SCIENCE UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA Report No. ESS-4039-103-75 October 1975 4/ Copy No.
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS. ........
......... iii LIST OF TABLES ............
....... ... iv INTRODUCTION ...................
.....
OBJECTIVES.......
.... . .
1.........
GOVERNMENT/INDUSTRY OUTLOOK ...............
PILOT OUTLOOK .....................
PASSENGER OUTLOOK. ...................
SAFETY STATISTICS.
PROPOSED ANALYSIS TECHNIQUE. .............
CONCLUSIONS .................
ii LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Page 1 OBJECTIVES TREE ............. . 2 FIGURE FIGURE 2 INTERACTION MATRIX. . .........
. 7 FIGURE 3 PILOT QUESTIONNAIRE ............
FIGURE 4 PASSENGER QUESTIONNAIRE FIGURE 5 MATRIX RANKING METHOD. ..........
iii LIST OF TABLES Page TABLE 1 RESPONSES TO PILOT QUESTIONNAIRE SHOWN IN FIGURE 3, Pilot Experience.
......... II TABLE 2 RESPONSES TO'PILOT QUESTIONNAIRE SHOWN IN FIGURE 3, No. of Years Flying .
i.i...
TABLE 3 RESPONSES TO PILOT QUESTIONNAIRE SHOWN IN FIGURE 3, No. of Hours in' Past Year . ii TABLE 4 RESPONSES TO PILOT QUESTIONNAIRE SHOWN IN FIGURE 3', Aircraft 'T.Ype Normally Flown. 11 TABLE 5 RESPONSES TO PILOT QUESTIONNAIRE SHOWN IN FIGURE 3, Pilot Certificate, Held. . 12 TABLE 6 RESPONSES TO PILOT QUESTIONNAIRE SHOWN IN FIGURE 3, Other Ratings Held.
TABLE 7 RESPONSES TO PILOT QUESTIONNAIRE SHOWN IN FIGURE 3, Emphasis Needed in Future Research ............. .......
TABLE 8 RESPONSES TO PILOT QUESTIONNAIRE SHOWN IN FIGURE 3, Perceived Improvement Achievable in Flight Operations Due to New Technology ............ .. 1-5 TABLE 9 RESPONSES TO PILOT 'QUESTIONNAIRE SHOWN IN FIGURE 3, Importance of Emergency Locator Transmitter to Flight Safety' .
TABLE 10 TEN MOST FREQUENTLY CITED CAUSES/FACTORS TABLE 11 TEN MOST FREQUENTLY CITED CAUSES/FACTORS OF NONFATAL ACCIDENTS. ..........
iv GENERAL AVIATION TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT Introduction The Objective of this study was to investigate the existing problem areas in general aviation in order to identify those which can benefit from technological payoffs. The-emphasis-is - placed on acceptance by the pilot/passenger in areas such as performance, safety, handling qualities, ride quality, etc.
were obtained from three sectors: industry; government; Inputs and user, although the study was slanted toward the user group.
of. this study,presented here, should only be considered The results to the small sample sizes of the data. Trends are preliminary due however and a general methodology for allocating effort in evident future programs is proposed.
Objectives shown in Figure 1. These The objectives of the study are aviation.
cover the entire spectrum of factors related to general first iteration of the problem, these For this study, as a However, in later objectives are sufficiently specific.
would be desirable to create more detailed iterations it the objectives in lower levels of the tree. As can be seen, is a subproblem of the more overall objective of this study general question of investigating existing problem areas in general aviation.
some feeling for the complex relationships In order to give existing between the various segments of the general aviation matrix was developed (see Figure 2).
system, an interaction -Furthermore, it is a graphical tool which can be used to point out any interactions which may have been overlooked in the.
intensities of the interactions are value initial analysis. The judgments based on all available information at the time.
FIGURE 1.
OBJECTIVES TRE I PRo LEM AREAS CAN BENEFIT MOST FROM GENERAL A N GEERLAVATO NASA TECHNOLOGICAL PAYOFFS TO DETERMINE PILOTS' TO DETERMINE OTHER TO ASSESS TO DETERMINE TO DETERMINE TO DETERMINE TO DETERMINE ECONOMIC PROBLEMS AS THE ROLE OF THE THE ROLE OF THE PROBLEMS FOR REGUIREMENTS FOR AIR' NLOTPASSENGER TRADEOFFSN I PERCEIVED By GENERAL AVIATION GOVERNMENT GNERAL AVIATION CRAFT HANDLING RICE OUALIT ERUIRSENIS PILOTS AND NANUFACTURERS N AGENCIES IN IN THE CURRENT DUALITIES ALL PHASES OF CNG Al 1 A ADICIo....
PASSENGERS NERAL A.VIAlTION GENERAL AVIATION TO AS F -THE T DEVE ED OTHER TO DEVELOP TO DETEIRINE OTHER TO DETERMINE OTHER TO DETERMINE TO GETERMNE TO DETE OT MANUFACTURER THE ROLE OF TIE PROBLEMS WITH ACCEPTABLE ACCIPT.LE AGCCtT.A1 TH POBEMSI MOTION/VIRATION NOISE LEVELS TEMPERATURE CAUSEG BY THE TNNAMIES ORIENTE FAA IN EN ERAL THE EXISTING ATC SYSTEM LEVELS LEVELS CONCERN OUESTIONNAIRES AVIATION FUELCRISV CONCERNINGTHEIR AREAS INDUSTRIAL NEEDS PROBLEMS AND TO ASSESS THE TO DEVELOP EFFECT OF A PASEENGER" TO ASSESS TO DETERMINE TO EERMINE A CTtERMINE PROBLEMS WITH ACCEPTAB THE ROLE OF OF THE EFCT CHANGEOVERTO ORIENTED METRIC UNIT .UeSTIONNAIRES LOBBIES ON THE CAB IN TH EXISTING PRCESSURE GROUNO FACIITI LVELS GOVERNMENT GENERAL CONCERNING PROBLEM AREAS AGENCIES AVIATION TO OTERMINE II STANDARDS FOR ACC EfTABLE To ESS TO ASSESS TO S T S TO ASSESS TO ASSESS OTHER SEAT COMFORT THE FFEEFF EE EFFEECT T FFECT TE FFECHT Or PATCO OF ICAO OF ALPA OF ATA TO ASS E SS TO ASSESS TO ASSESS TO ASSESS TO ASSESS THE EFFECT THE EFFECT THE EFFECT THE EFFECT THE EFFECT OF AOPA OF EAA OF PRPA OF SCA OF GAMA - 3- FIGURE 2.
INTERACTION MATRIX Government
Manufacturers
Pilots
Passengers
Non-users
ATC
System General Economic Factors Lobbies Aircraft Characteristics LITTLE OR NO MODERATE HEAVY INTERACTION INTERACTION INTERACTION - 4 Government/Industry Outlook In order to obtain the viewpoint of the government and industry sectors, inquiries were made to the government and many special interest groups. A complete record of this correspondence is given in Appendix I. The following is a list of those responding: AOPA (Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association) GAMA (General Aviation Manufacturers Association) Flight Safety Foundation, Inc.
AIA (Aerospace Industries Association of America, Inc.)
The Ninety-Nines, Inc.
EAA (Experimental Aircraft Association) NPA (National Pilots Association) DOT (Department of Transportation) a. General Aviation Division, Flight Standards Service b. Engineering and Development c. Information Services CAB (Civil Aeronautics Board) U.S. Senators Cannon, H. W. (Aviation Subcommittee) and Space Sciences Goldwater, B. (Aeronautical Committee) Moss, F. E. (Aeronautical and Space Sciences Committee, Chairman) The correspondence with government officials and special interest groups indicates that there is either very little interest in improving present conditions, or that very few of them feel that they are in a position to provide any input to a study such as this one. The U.S. Senators seemed to be the most knowledgeable and able to make concrete suggestions.
In general, the manufacturer's point of view as expressed by the response from GAMA indicates a general dislike for any research that could lead to new regulations.
- 5 - as follows: problem areas these groups identified are The noise 1. Internal 2. External noise automated systems that are not 3. Control have not been designed systems which 4. Aircraft many controls, factors in mind--too with human etc.
not standardized displays, systems and anti-icing 5. De-icing 6. Stall/spin avoidance and collision 7. Proximity warning insufficient systems are 8. Fuel management 9. Maintenance 10. Engine efficiency/emissions 11. Performance metric system changeover to the 12. The possible "crisis" 13. The fuel Weather information 14.
of aircraft High costs 15.
training pilot 16. Insufficient inexpensive pressurization of simple and 17. Lack systems of avionics 18. High cost interface) ATC system (air/ground Complexity of the 19.
20. Crash protection Seat comfort/cabin layout 21.
22. Vibrations 23. Certification procedures Airway of the Airport and non-renewal 24. Possible of 1970 Development Act 25. Rescue and survival or representation of leadership Apparent lack 26.
concerns pilots and their for of regulations.
and weakness 27. Complexity - 6 - These problem areas fall into one or more of several These are: technologies.
1. Stall/spin prevention 2. Weather information 3. Cockpit displays 4. Aircraft stability augmentors 5. Proximity warning indicators 6. Collision avoidance systems 7. Fully automated control systems studies to reduce accident rate, 8. Human factors including aircraft and ATC 9. Systems design standardization and efficiency 10. Powerplant reliability 11. Noise reduction 12. Ride quality improvements 13* Structural design Standardized and improved regulations 14.
15. Performance improvements 16. Improved crashworthiness and component de-icers 17. Airframe 18. Improved avionics 19. Angle-of-attack indicators aircraft construction 20. Use of plastics to lower costs.
Pilot Outlook aviation pilot, a mail To obtain the opinion of the general the survey was undertaken. The pilots were asked to fill out and encouraged to comment freely.
questionnaire shown in Figure 3 Tables 1 through 9. A total of The data has been tabulated in mailed. As can be seen, 140 questionnaires were returned out of 300 were highly experienced (i.e., greater than the majority of pilots of flight time).
2000 hours costs, The items that are perceived to be needed, after lower order of importance, calculated by adding are: (in approximate University of Virginia 4/13/75 -7 FIGURE 3.
PILOT QUESTIONNAIRE This questionnaire is being sent to you as part of a study conducted for NASA by the University of Virginia. The objective of the study is to identify those areas of general aviation where further research is most needed.
Your help in this matter may well have an effect on gaining improvements in general aviation technology. While the questions pertain to the entire scope of general aviation, please answer them from the standpoint of your particular flying operations.
Your response will be greatly appreciated.
Please check the appropriate box or boxes.
1. What is your total piloting experience?
m-200 hours or less m 500-1000 hours over 2000 hours
W-200-500 hours fl 1000-2000 hours
2. How many years have you been a pilot?
5-10 more than 20 r- 2 or less
- 2-5
fl-10-20
3. Approximately how many hours have you flown in the past year?
Iover 1000
m 50 or less fl 100-200
=-s0-100 200-1000 4. What type aircraft do you normally fly?
'-single engine, fixed gear F-multiengine
I--Jsingle engine, retractable gear Ijet
5. What pilot certificate do you hold?
LI Student CIcommercial L-Military
"I Private -Airline Transport 6. What other certificates or ratings do you hold?
Other
EZJ Flight Instructor F-- Seaplane LI
fl
Instrument [--Helicopter
LMultiengine -- Glider 7.
What is your home base?
- 8- On the following pages, many Items are listed concerning general aviation aircraft.
We would like to know where you feel the most emphasis should be placed in future research efforts. For each item, please check one box Indicating how much emphasis that item should receive. The boxes are numbered from 1 to 5, with I meaning very little and 5 meaning very much.
Very Very Little Much 8. Performance Considerations 1 2 3 4 5 Greater speed
E-1 ED EED D
E
Greater rate of climb --
Dl Ml ED El
Higher ceiling El F7
El ED El
Shorter takeoff
distance 0- ED E-1 El
Shorter landing distance
E3 [ED ED
ED
More efficient
power plant E El r-
[I El
More load-carrying ability
E-] El El [I ED
Greater range El El E [ El 9. Safety Considerations
Improved stall/spin characteristics El
E] E- E-I --
Improved handling qualities E- El
El El E
ImprQved
crashworthiness El El El
EL El
Improved
visibility -- El E
E El
More effective procedures to cope with wake turbulence Improved (and more recent) weather information
[l E--lD
ED
Improved air traffic control systems E El E El El -9 - Very Very Little Much 10. Displays and Pilot Aids -1 2 3 4 Improved cockpit layout -l
El
El E-
Standardization of cockpit design
EI
[l E
El El
Improved avionics -- [T] '-- E] - Improved autopilots
El
0") F1"
-l 0--
Improved means of pr1hii'V fc6ntrb1 (other than conventional stick or wheel and rudder pedals) -I E- El -- -- Improved weather rader (including adaptability to single-engi-ne' aircraft)
M-
El l
El El
Improved airframe deicers
[
El El
0] El
Improved component deicers
1]
-l [7-
El -
11. Comfort Quieter
C-. ED r-1
l E
Improved temperature control
] El E
D El- E
Less vibration
0l 0-
El El El
Improved seats
0- El
E --
ED
Spaciousness
ED
0- -
E D
12. Reliability and Economics -- Maintenance (mean time between failures)
-
ED -
El
F
Initial costs
[0IEIT
[I 0]
[I-1
Maintenance costs
E]
E [1 E-
F-i
13.
New Technology
-tO
How Important do you feel the following specific devices would be in improving flight operations?
Very Very Llttle Much 1 2 3 4 5 Direct lift control devices (such as spoilers or other dev.ices which do not require rotation of the airplane by elevators)
-- E-
-- ED Stability augmenters (such as wing levelers or similar devices)
El
El El D-]
[EE
Variable stabili'ty devices (to alter stability to best suit flight condition)
[ED
F-I ED
0 E-]l
Angle-of-attack indicators
l El El
E- El
Traffic proximity warning
devices EI
, El
El El
Ground proximity warning devices
El F-
El El
El
14.
How necessary to flight safety do you feel is the present requirement for carrying an ELT (Emergency Locator Transmitter)?
El F-1 -
ED
If you checked the box for "very much" on any of the above questions,, we would appreciate any further comments or suggestions you have concerning those items.
Also, if you think that this questionnaire omitted any Important items, please tell us what they are.
***Optional* * Name, Address Telephone # SHOWN IN FIGURE TO PILOT QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES
/
Table 1 Experience Pilot or less - 14% 200 hours - 14 - 500 hours 1000 hours - 12 500 - - 8 - 2000 hours over 2000 hours - 52 Table 2 Flying of Years No.
10% less - 2 or - 12 2 - 5 years years - 22 5 - 10 10 - 20 years - 20 20 - 36 more than Table Year Hours in Past No. of 24% - 50 or less - 19 50 - 100 hours - 200 hours - 11 - 46 - 1000 hours over 1000 hours - 0 Table 4 Flown Normally Type Aircraft - 42% fixed gear engine, Single gear - 13 engine, retractable Single - Multi-engine - 26 Jet - Helicopter - 12 - RESPONSES TO PILOT gJESTIQNNAIRE SHOWN IN FIGURE 3 Table 5 Pilot Certificate Held Student - 4% Private - 34, Commercial - 26 Airline Transport - 36 Military - 8 Table 6 Other Ratings Held Flight instructor - 23% Instrument - 49 Multi-engine - 48 Seaplane - 12 Helicopter - 6 Glider - 6 Airframe and powerplant mechanic - 3 Flight engineer - 1 - 13 - IN FIGURE 3 TO PILOT QUESTIONNAIRE SHOWN RESPONSES Table 7 Research Emphasis Needed in Future Very Very Much Little 2 3 4 Performance Considerations 17 36 15 14 18- Greater speed 13 37 23 20 rate of climb 7 Greater 12 13 20 20 35 Higher ceiling 29 31 8 10 22 takeoff distance Shorter 29 29 7 12 23 Shorter landing-distance 19 60 3 5 13 efficient powerplant More 28 33 4 6 29 More load carrying ability 28 39 3 6 24 range Greater Safety Considerations x.
14 17 28 22- stall/spin charact.
Improved 9 19 40 19 qualities Improve' handling 5 11 22 20 Improved crashworthiness 4 11 28 26 31 visibility Improved 12 13 27 19 for wake turbulence Procedures 5 17 27 47 Improved weather information Improved air traffic control 24 25 29 11 11 systems Displays and Pilot Aids c.
22 18 8 13 39 layout.
Improved cockpit 8 23 27 cockpit 6 of Standardization 1 33 33 avionics Improved 15 11 12 15 47 autopilots Improved 31 11 3 30 25 primary controls Improved 13 27 23 weather radar Improved 13 32 26 airframe deicer Improved 14 30 27 component deicer Improved - 14 - SHOWN IN FIGURE 3 RESPONSES TO PILOT QUESTIONNAIRE Table 7 Very Very (Con't.) Little Much 2 3 4 5 d. Comfort 3 2 11 35 49 Quieter Improved Temperature Control 9 12 34 25 20 Less Vibration 6 11 33 27 23 14 37 24 15 Improved Seats 10 21 14 12 18 35 Spaciousness e. Reliability and Economics Maintenance (MTFB) 3 2 23 25 47 5 21 20 53 Initial Costs 1 0 18 27 54 Costs 1 Maintenance - 15 - RESPONSES TO PILOT QUESTIONNAIRE SHOWN IN FIGURE Table 8 Perceived Improvement Achievable in Flight Operations Due to New Technology Very Very Little Much 1 2 3 4 Direct Lift Control Devices 16 19 27 21 17 Stability Augmenters 11 26 27 21 25 Variable Stability Devices 8 13 39 23 Angle-of-attack Indicators 14 15 23 23 25 Traffic Proximity Warning Devices 7 10 24 22 35 Ground Proximity Warninq Devices 13 12 26 19 Table 9 Importance of Emergency Locator Transmitter to Flight Safety Very Little Very much Importance Importance 1 2 3 4 5 39 9 20 12 20 - 16 the percent responses in columns 4 and 5 for each item and rank ordering those -exceeding 50%) 1. Quieter 2.
More efficient power plant 3. Improved weather information 4-.
Greater range 5. Improved crashworthiness 6.
Standardized cockpit design 7. Improved avionics 8. More load carrying:capability 9. Shorter takeoff distance 10. Shorter landing distance 11. Improved visibility 12.
Improved air traffic control systems 13.
Improvedweather radar 14.
Less vibration 25.
Improved wake turbulence procedures.
These match up with several of the technologies already identified, however it is-worth noting that several of the above require improved aerodyanmics, propulsion, and avionics.
In addition to pilots' perceptions of research areas, they were asked to assess some very specific technologies with the view toward improvements in flight operation.
Table 8 shows little variation in the importance they place on each of the items shown- all being somewhat important.
Passenger Outlook A similar study was conducted for passengers of general aviation aircraft through business firms owning this class of craft. The questionnaire used is shown in Figure 4.
Due to the small sample size (N = 42), these results should only be considered trends.
The rank order of importance of items relating to, reasons for flying in general aviation aircraft are: 5/29/75 University of Virginia - 17 - 4.
FIGURE PASSENGER QUESTIONNAIRE as part of This questionnaire is being sent to you study conducted for NASA by the University of Virginia.
a areas of study is to identify those The objective of the needed.
aviation where further 'esearch is most general have an effect on help in this matter may well Your You gaining improvements in general aviation technology.
that offends you. Thank you.
need not answer any question boxes.
check the appropriate box or Please 1. Age
2. Sex -1IM F-1F
3. Occupation 4. Primary purpose of most flights:
[M Other
F-l Business l Personal
5. Are you familiar with the term "general aviation"I Yes rlNo aircraft activities not aviation as defined by the FAA refers to all 6. General air carriers, commercial operators, performed by certificated or supplemental military aircraft. Was this your understanding of the scheduled air taxi, or term?
II No D-Yes do you normally fly?
7. In what category of aircraft airplane M Helicopter r-M Single-engine Other (specify)
airplane L--
propeller r] Multi-engine Jet normally fly?
in what specific make and model of aircraft do you 8. If known, ride in general aviation aircraft?
9. Ho* frequently do you times a year times a week or more I]-several r--Several a year or less
times a month [I Once
lSeveral - 18 with all factors such as time, cost, and convenience being 10. In general, equal, how would you prefer to travel?
r Ground transportation "Air Reasons for Flying 11.
to your reasons for How much does each of the following factors contribute general aviation aircraft?
riding In Very Very Little Much 2 3 4 Time saving (can reach destination and return in a minimal amount of
time) DElD E I
to reach Convenience (easier destination-considering connections, reservations, etc.,
involved in other modes of travel) El [I E] lI [-l
traveling in Safety (feel safer
way) 7 T E l E
this privacy, ability Luxury (more D
rE l E l l E 1
to work during trip)
E E El -El
Cost saving rl
Reliability of service E1 El El El [-
El E] Dr ED
Other (speciffy)_
12. Performance of on the following items do you feel should be placed How much emphasis performance In the design of future aircraft?
El I El Greater speed El El
stopping) El El -- El El
Longer range (without (to Higher altitude capability avoid bad weather) ED D E] ED ED Ability to land at smaller fields (thereby increasing the number of available destinations) 0- El El El El Capacity (relative ease/difficulty
El
a seat) El El El F-
of getting Comfort 13.
improved in the How much do you feel genetal aviation aircraft'should be following areas?
Very Very Much Little 1 2 4 5 Seating comfort (including width, legroom, seat spacing,.
headroom, and seat-contour) I r-[] 1--1 r- Cabin noise and vibration ventilation, Cabin heating, oxygen. systems, and
I--1 -l F-l [] l
pressurization
] r-1 FI l
Smooth riding in turbulent air 14. Safety following: How safe do you consider the Very Safe Unsafe 3 4 5 1 2 Flying in general aviation E- I -1 D E D, aircraft
l El r-- E
Flying on scheduled airlines --
-7] l IZ ED -l
Traveling in an automobile of the following factors cause yot How much concern about safety does each Very Very Much Little 1 2 3 4 5 IDl [7] El [-] [l Crew's (pil6t's) capability structural and Aircraft's ID ED - mechanical reliability control system Traffic
D- -- 1 IE M-
reliability
-7
of bad weather D-- I-l [-D F-1
Effects how do you travel?
15. If you can't travel by airplane,
f--1car M Train F-l BUS
- 20 - Time savings; Convenience; Reliability of service; Luxury; Safety; Cost saving.
Similarly, for future aircraft, the following items were seen to require improvement by'the passenger (in approximate order of importance): Cabin noise and vibration;- Higher altitude capability (to avoid bad weather); Smooth riding in turbulent-air; Greater speed.
In terms of safety, all items on -question.
14 were considered important with over 70% indicating a 4 or a 5 to indicate their concern.
only traveling by automobile was considered unsafe.
Safety Statistics Improved safety is considered -to be a very important area on which to focus future research efforts.
In order to determine the areas which would most affect safety, the NTSB (National Transportation Safety Board) safety statistics were examined.
The ten most frequent causes of fatal accidents and those of non-fatal accidents were taken from the Annual Review of Aircraft Accident Data, U.S.
General Aviation, Calendar Year 1972, which was the latest data compiled.
Those causes which could be identified with a -design characteristic of an aircraft were considered pertinent.
All other causes which were strictly a matter of pilot error in judgment, planning, or decision-making were lumped into one other category.
These statistics are .given in Tables 10 and 11; for fatal and non-fatal accidents, respectively.
As can be seen, many of the same problem areas identified previously appear in this list.
- 21 - Table 1-0 Ten Most Frequently@Cited Causes/Factors of Fatal Accidents All Operations Fatal Accidents - 681 10 Most Frequently Cited Percentage of Causes/Factors Fatal Accidents Related Technology Weather -'low Ceiling 26.87 Weather Pilot - failed to obtain/ maintain flying speed 22.91 Stall/spin Pilot - continued VFR flight into adverse weather conditions 21.73 Weather Weather - fog 18.21 Weather Terrain - high obstructions 16.15 ATC, weather Pilot - spatial disorientation 15.42 Display, stability Pilot - inadequate preflight or planning 14.39 Pilot training preparation Weather - rain 12.19 Weather Pilot - exercised poor judgment 8.37 Proximity warning Miscellaneous - undetermined 7.93 Reference: Annual Review of Aircraft Accident Data, U.S.
General Aviation Calendar Year 1972, p. 13.
Table 11 Ten Most Frequently Cited Causes/Factors of Nonfatal Accidents All Operations Nonfatal Accidents - 3,496 Most Frequently Cited Percentage of Causes/Factors Nonfatal Accidents Related Technology Miscellaneous acts, conditions - overload failure 13.93 Structural design Terrain - high' obstructions 12.50 Pilot training Pilot - inadequate preflight preparation or planning 12.50 Pilot training Pilot - failed to maintain handling directional control 11.27 Stability, Pilot - failed to obtain/ maintain flying speed 9.58 Stall/spin Weather - unfavorable winds conditions 8.92 Weather Terrain - rough/uneven 8.87 Pilot training Pilot - improper level off 8.04 Pilot training Pilot - mismanagement of fuel 7.01 Systems design Pilot - selected unsuitable 6.89 Pilot training terrain Reference: Annual Review of Aircraft Accident Data, U.S. General Aviation Calendar Year 1972, p. 14.
- 23 - Proposed Analysis Technique In order to arrive at a composite ranking of the technologies identified as being important for future research, all of the above data must be integrated. Figure -5 illustrates a matrix method which can be used to arrive at this composite ranking. Here a matrix of -problem areas by technologies is first ranked by each of the groups concerned--government, industryi pilots, and passengers--then weighted according to the relative weight placed on each group's opinions to arrive at a final ranking of tech nologies.
A fifth influence can be added, economics, if desirable, as well as any others deemed important. By placing l's and O's in- Matrix 3,. the rank ordering of each individual group is obtained.
The matrix routine can offer many ways of interpreting the input from correspondence, questionnnaires, etc. The main value of such an analytical tool is that weightings can be varied and matrices expanded as inputs increase. Thus a sensitivity analysis of the results can be done very easily and inexpensively.
Conclusions Although preliminary in nature, the results of this report indicate definite trends in research areas desired by each of the groups involved in general aviation. A method for integrating these results has been developed, however, due to the limited data base, it has not been exercised. Considerable overlap in tech nologies needed as identified by each group is evident.
FIGURE 5.
RANKING METHOD MATRIX (NxM) x CMx4) x (4xI) (NxI)
.. M PROBLEM AREAS ' 4 4 4 RELATIVE
I I jWEIGHT
RANKING OF PROBLEM ASSIGNED = AREAS BY EACH OF TO EACH RANKING OF N TECHNOLOGIES FOUR GROUPS--GOV'T, GROUP N INDUSTRY, PILOTS, TECHNOLOGIES PASSENGERS MATRIX I MATRIX 2 MATRIX 3 MATRIX 4 - 25 - APPENDIX I GENERAL AVIATION CORRESPONDENCE AIRCRAFT OWNERS AND PILOTS ASSOCIATION/WASHINGTON, D.C. 20014/Tel: (301) 654-0500/cable address: AOPA, Washington, D C.
February 14, Mr. I. D. Jacobson Associate Professor University of Virginia Charlottesville, Va. 22901 Dear Professor Jacobson: In response to you letter of February 6th requesting information for a research project concerning general aviation.
I am enclosing a statement prepared for hearings by the Committee on Aeronautical and Space Sciences by Robert E. Monroe of our staff which may be of assistance to you in your project.
C dially, -, J. J a t NOTE -- --.. President Enclosed Statement of Robert E. Monroe, Congressional Liaison, Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) prepared for Enclosure Hearings by the Comittee on Aeronautical and Space Sciences regarding NASA authorization for JBH/mes fiscal year 1974.
- 27 - General Aviation Manufacturers Association Suite 1215 1025 Connecticut Ave, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 296-8848 20 February 1975 Dr. I. D. Jacobson Associate Professor 'Department of Engineering Science and Systems Thornton Hall University of Virginia Charlottesville, Virginia 2290 Dear Professor Jacobson: This is in response to your letter of February 6th concerning your research project to determine major problem areas in general aviation that would benefit most from NASA technological research.
Inasmuch as I serve the General Aviation Manufacturers Association (GAMA) in a consulting capacity, the comments which, follow reflect my personal views and are not necessarily those of GAMA. I am enclosing a copy of the prepared testimony on the NASA budget given today by Mr. Edward W. Stimpson, President of GAMA, before a Congressional Committee in which some GAMA views are reflected.
I suggest you visit Mr. Stimpson to discuss the matter in more detail prior to reaching any conclusions in your study.
In my own view, the entire list of concerns expressed in your letter is inappropriate for NASA research. NASA has excellent, and perhaps unique, capability to perform aerodynamic and propulsion research and the industry sorely needs the use of their capabilities in these areas. NASA does not need to inquire into areas where it has neither the expertise nor capability to make a significant contribution.
The industry needs basic work in areas that will make general aviation aircraft safer and more efficient. Examples are the GAW wing, stall-spin investigations, icing, noise, emissions, and crash protection. Limited activities are now being, or have been, undertaken in all of these areas but more concentration is needed.
On the other hand, NASA seems to be seeking a role in air traffic control which is now assigned to FAA, worrying about economic trade offs which are determined in the marketplace and not by - 28 -2 governmental intervention, and the role of manufacturers which will not be affected by any NASA study of their role.
The study of the role of government agencies appears to be self seeking as those roles are properly determined by Congress.
Research on ride quality requirements and handling quality requirements may or may not be appropriate. If the research is aimed towards producing more basic knowledge in these areas, fine; if the aim is to produce more government regulations, not so good as the FAA has been given that responsibility.
In summary, my view is, since the need for basic aerodynamic and propulsion research is almost limitless and NASA has the responsibility, the facilities and know-how in these areas, NASA should concentrate in these areas rather than seek new responsi bilities that are now carried out elsewhere.
- Sincerely, David D. Thomas Consultant DDT/pd Enclosure NOTE Enclosed Statement of Edward W. Stimpson, President, General Aviation Manufacturers Association before the Subcommittee on Aviation and Transportation Research and Development, Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives, February 20, 1975.
FLIGHr SAFETY FOLNDATION,
INC
March 1975 Mr. Ira D. Jacobson Associate Professor School of Engineering & Applied Science University of Virginia Charlottesville, Va.
22901 Dear Mr.
Jacobson: In the August issue of the Foundation's publication, "Flight Safety Facts & Analysis," a list of the 10 most urgent safety problems was published.
Xerox copy is attached.
Several months later (November 1971) we printed the Dept. of Transportation's recommendations to improve General Aviation safety.
Xerox copy of that also is at tached.
In the opinion of many, the so-called most urgent safety problems remain relatively unchanged.
However, your study may indicate differently.
We'd be interested in your re sults.
Another report that may be of some help would be that of the Special Subcommittee on Investigations of the House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce.
It carries the title "Air Safety: Selected Review of FAA Perfbrmance" and is dated January 1975.
Perhaps a letter to the House Committee on Inter state & Foreign Commerce, House Office Building, Washington, D.C.
20510, would get you-a copy.
Thank you for writing us and please be assured of our desire to be of assistance.
Sincerely, D.
N. AHNSTROM Vice President Publications & Referrals NOTE Enclosed: 1.
DOT's recommendations to improve general aviation safety, September 15, 1971.
2. Flight Safety Facts and Analysis, Flight Safety Foundation,-Inc.; Vol.
1, No. 1, August 1970' 1800 NORTH KENT STREET ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA 22209 - 30 - AEROSPACE INDUSTRIES ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA.
INC.
1725DESALESSTREET- N.W- WASHINGTON D C.2OO36TEL 347-2315 March 12, 1975 Mr. Ira D.
Jacobson Associate Professor University of Virginia School of Engineering and Applied Science Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 Dear Professor Jacobson: Thank you for your recent letter requesting information on various aspects of general aviation. I believe the information can be obtained from: General Aviation Manufacturers Association 1025 Connecticut Avenue, N. W.
Washington, D. C.
20036 The inquiry could be addressed to the attention of Mr. Jerry Boyer, Director of Public Relations for GAMA.
Sincerely, 4erad r.
McAllister Associate Director for Publications GJMcA:elp -31 - Uk Jv t-A m Al.1 INTERNATIONAL HEADQUARTER J - WILL ROGERS WORLD AIRPORT P. 0- BOX S9964 3iii1fakioaiiod ObgQiUqattof o CIJ0oinest PtoLg OK(LAHOMA CITY, OKLA.735 Patricia Z. McEwen 16206 East Central March 25, 1975 Wichit , Kansas 67230 Professor Jacobson, your letter to Ms.
Elizabeth Sewell has been forwarded to me, as her term as president of the Ninety-Nines, Inc. has expired and I am presently serving as president.
The Ninety-Nines, Inc. are not in a position to comment on major problem areas which would benefit most from NASA technological research.
However, we do suggest you contact GAMA (General Avia tion Manufacturers Association), Suite 1215, 1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Washington, D. C., 20036.
Another source would be AOPA (Aircraft Owners and Pilots Assn.), P. 0.
Box 5800, Washington, D. C., 20014.
Am sure the above two can be of help to you. Best wishes for success with your project.
Patricia McEwen, President The Ninety-Nines, Inc.
PZMc/plc Ira D. Jacobson, Associate Professor University of Virginia School of Engineering and Applied Science Charlottesville, Virginia 22901
EXPERIMENTAL AIRCRAFT- ASSOCIATION
Education,'Hom ebuit Aircraft and Sport Aviation An International Non-Profit Organization Dedicated to the Advancement of Avoah6n r W IFOREST kOME AVE., FRANKLIN, WISCONSIN OFFICES & AIR EDUCATION MUSEUM: 11311 S. H. Schmid, Secretary Arthur Kips, Treasurer Paul Poberezny, President Ray Scholler, Vice-President POST OFFICE BOX 229, HALES CORNERS, WISCONSIN £3130 PHONE 414 / 425-4860 April 2, 1975 Mr. Ira D. Jacobson Professor Associate University of Virginia School of Engineering & Applied Science Charlottesville, VA 22901 Dear Ira: Thank you very much for the letter of February 25h.
back to you.
We are sorry to be delayed in getting of problem areas that would Regarding your question The role benefit most from NASA technological research.
of flight agencies regarding the technology of government aircraft all inclusive as they stay with the would be pretty registration, all maintenance from the type certification, they have through its life. My understanding is all the way engineering to do except on new type very little actual certification of various products certification and on type for existing aircraft.
of aircraft are concerned primarily Of course, our category in the experimental category with amateur builts, certificated has to be renewed annually. The and which certification FAA is in the pre-cover our members have with the connection under construction; the final inspection while the aircraft is to insu: and in the annual inspections inspection before flight involved in the technology airworthiness. They do not become to insure reasonable of design or construction other than aircraft standards.
compliance with do not use Control System most of our members The Air Traffic in design; sporting aircraft are usually quite simple as the quite a few for sporting use. We do have aircraft designed are those in metropolitan areas, who members, particularly difficult to get about in the frame finding it increasingly due to requirements for radio, work of the air traffic system transponders, etc.
again it ride-quality requirements, Regarding pilot/passenger comfort that you are to be a question of passenger appears of our-members prefer aircraft of a talking about. Most S. J. WITTMAN HARRY ZEISLOFr DIRECTORS: - ROBERT GYLLENSWAN GUSTAVE LIMBACH ROBERT PURYEAR RON SCOTT VAN WHITE DAVID H. SCOTT, Washington Representative GENE R. CHASE, Business Manager TOM POBEREZNY, Executive Vice President PAUL IT POBEREZNY, Publrsher JACK COX, Editor-rn-Chief SPORT'AVIATION EDITORIAL STAFF - 33 sporting nature. The majority of them prefer open cockpit is not very high on their list.
flying. Comfort Handling qualities of our light aircraft are that some of them we seek, and our are quite sensitive which is a condition aerobatic pilots are proud of theroll rate of aircraft like around one hundred and the Pitts Special with the roll rate eighty degrees a second at cruising speed.
of general aviation manufacturers is generally not The role of much concern to our members. Many of them do own aircraft.
of the At the present time we are happy to see that many manufacturers are playing an active role in restrictive that fuel conservation and, in some cases, demands legislation on general of the airline transport industry are placing aviation.
that I would suggest for additional A source of information be Mr. David H. Scott, Suite information of this type would Washington, D. C. 20036. Mr. Scott 915, 1346 Connecticut Ave., EAA's representative in Washington. He is an independent is as you are interested free-lance aviation authority on matters such participating with you in and possibly would be interested in on solving these problems.
Sincerely, Ben Owen Executive Assistant m
National
Pilots Association
806 15TH STREET, N.W./WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005/TEL: (202) 737-0773 A Member-ControlledNon-Profit Organization For All Pilots PRESIDENT MICI IACI. LOENINO. o tornMso AIR, INC LEN...
A,,.
April 7, 1975 JAMES T. PYLE NEW NOo FORMER FN0.L MT.I AO,. ¢ M R70 SECOND I IC PRESENTC IV. ROBERT A BRYAN, MASOACAIOSgS Prsio 1MEMx/MEIy DcEraox QUrc.DB UOE. MI.SSION N OU . ATION SECRETARY EDWARD G TRIPP, CONNCCEJT TREASURER DONALD I WEBSTER D C Mr. Hubert Smith FORMER PuERscoT NATIONAL ArR... AS.AN Department of Engineering Sciences & Systems DIRETORS Thornton Hal A RUFUS APPLFOARTI, PwT t University of Virginia MARO^N CANKS.T", Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 CNIM.
N. 0050Or DIECOR TIE PO. or.POr, DOEy KAVA IRICK.NEWJRA S, Dear Mr. Smith: FAA CIvizS ADVISORY CON IEC ON AVIATION VIACOWLES, VERMONT It was a pleasure talking with you a couple of weeks EDWARD A DEEDS. VERMONT ago, and it is particularly a pleasure now to send you this A,.NO., NO sample copy of the just-published April issue of National ALLEN EDWARDS.R.MIC .ON Pilots Association NEWS. You will note in the center of TRON GRIFFITH.
CALIFOORI BARO OP DIE..RS this that we have a four Vage tear out brochure, which allows our members to order aeronautical charts through KENNETI It JORDAN. COLOERAD SIEE ........ MSA.R... us from the National Ocean Survey with a minimum of fuss and back page of this four page brochure becomes the E.WAITD MUJIIVLD, Nrw o, bother. The s.,,S I...... outside envelope, acceptable to the Post Office Department.
SB-.EPRT 1S C SON N.
JOHN C NORDT, FLOEDIA RLE I ... IN My suggestion would be that you and your associates plan a similar form, which would permit you to use three full pages ROBERT B PARKE. NEW YoM, E..P.........
for questions and answers (plus, if you needed it, at least final page).
SNOW, EMSAAOEn the top third of the CRSOCKER DIRMEo OFAERONAETICS CO.......WENI OP MAS..A...OSETTS , TILroD. o,,A Should you decide to take advantage of the opportunity FOU..D.. AND PR.E.t1" oo..0 ..... SRI Eto poll our varigated membership of private, sport, and busi Roo ness pilots, we would also offer to you "editorial support" MAJ.E....Q .... ET.. in the form of either a front page or inside page articles.
.AEON UTICASSOT...
(We would work together with you on any such article, obviously, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR WILLIAM H LEY and if you found that you wish to include additional explanatory material - above and beyond that for which there was space on the four page tear out form itself - we would of course be will ing to give you additional space for such additional explanations, if you needed them.)
A CIFMSIN 01 AE11.. ......
By handling your polling process through an insert in our amount .. .......... E . publication, you would of course save a very substantial no addressing costs - all of which ............ no envelopes, no stamps, would be required if you did this "on your own".
The National AFFILIATEID ORGANIflIfONS PLOTS ASSOCAINO LAO CO PaSO PIOS ASOCATTA - 35 - Mr. Hubert Smith March 21, 1975 Page 2 Pilots Association would expect to receive a fee for handling the dis tribution of these questionnaires to our membership, but the amount of this fee would be negotiable between us and would, in any case, inevitably be substantially less than the 20-25¢ cost per unit, should you decide to mail these questionnaires out individually to pilots.
A final reminder: we would like to schedule this, if we decide jointly to go ahead with the project, in such a way that did not conflict with any other insert material. We would get together, as early as possi ble, and reserve a certain month's issue for your material.
I look forward to hearing from you, after you and your associates have had an opportunity to review this offer.
Very truly yours, am H. Ottley Executive Director WHO/dp Enclosure - 36 - DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20591 FEB 2 51975 Mr. I. D. Jacobson Associate Professor University of Virginia School of Engineering and Applied Science Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 Dear Mr. Jacobson: Mr. Butterfield has asked me to reply to your letter of February 6 about your general aviation research project.
Our primary concern is, of course, safety. Along with that are the ongoing objectives of reducing accidents and the rate of fatality risk.
This would seem to match up with at least two of your research interests, the role of government agencies and, economic tradeoffs. Throughout the give and take of the legislative process, we have found that the legislature is quite responsive to our concern for safety.
You may wish to contact the various aviation trade organizations for other possible sources of information. Some are: National Air Transportation Associations 1156 Fifteenth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005 General Aviation Manufacturers Association 1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.Wo - Suite 1215 Washington, D.C. 20036 Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association P. 0. Box 5800 Washington, D.C. 20014 National Business Aircraft Association 401 Pennsylvania Building Washington, D.C. 20004 We wish you success with your project.
Sincerely, BERNARD A. GEIER, Acting Chief General Aviation Division Flight Standards Service - 37 - DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20591 February 28, 1975 Mr. I. D. Jacobson Associate Professor University of Virginia School of Engineering and Applied Science Charlottelville, Virginia 22901 Dear Mr. Jacobson: Your letter of February 6, 1975, addressed to Mr. Rudolph has been referred to this office for reply.
In support of FAA's various responsibilities-and particularly those related to operation, maintenance, and improvement of the Nation's air traffic control system; certification of aircraft; and rule-making and regulatory functions, we look to NASA for technical support in the general field of aeronautical research and development. An FAA/NASA Coordinating Committee provides thd mechanism for, arranging and monitoring mutual support in specific areas of common interest. The enclosed listing of current areas and projects of FAA-NASA coordination and support should provide the basic information which you desire.
If you have a need for further information in any of these areas, the FAA and NASA personnel listed.
I suggest direct contact with Sincerely, J. W. COCHRAN Associate Administrator for Engineering and Development Enclosure - 38 - OF TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT AVIATION ADMINISTRATION FEDERAL D.C. 20591 WASHINGTON, 2 8 FEB Professor I. D. Jacobson Science Applied of Engineering and School of Virginia University 22901 Virginia Charlottesville, Jacobson: Dear Professor the oppbrtunity be given should industry aviation the general Since with get in touch you we suggest to your study, to contribute in for you list whom we shall representatives industry appropriate to the know and talk get to should also You later paragraph.
a in at Byrd.Field, is located GAD0, which nearest at your inspectors Richmond.
relevant among other enclosing we are foregoing, with the In line Summary, System Policy of our National Aviation material, a copy for fiscal Report our Annual Chronology, Historical latest FAA the Report Annual unpublished the as yet copy of 1973, a draft year Aircraft,-our of U.S.
Census the latest 1974, year fiscal for Aviation of General Survey our latest Handbook and latest Statistical Activity.
are as follows: to help be able that may associations Industry Association Industries 1. Aerospace N. W.
Street 1725 DeSalles D.C. 20036 Washington, Pilots Association Commercial Air Taxi and 2.
Box 441 Post Office 20017 D.C.
Washington, of America Association Transport 3. Air Avenue N. W.
New York l709 20006 D.C.
Washington, Association Manufacturers Aviation 4. General Suite N. W.
Avenue 1025 Connecticut 20036 Washington, D.C.
- 39 2.
5. National Aviation Transport Association 1156 15th Street N. W.
Washington, D.C.
20005 6. National Business Aircraft Association 401 Pennsylvania Avenue N. W.
425 Thirteenth Street N. W.
Washington, D.C. 20004 Sincerely, 5 . CHRCEVI 4 cL.
/ Assistant Administrator
Information Services - 40 CIVIL AERONAUTICS BOARD WASHINGTON, D.C. 20428 IN REPLY REFER TO: B-7 February 24, I. D. Jacobson Associate Professor University of Virginia School of Engineering and Applied Science Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 Dear Professor Jacobson: Thank you for your letter to the Civil Aeronautics Board seeking information.
Enclosed you will find a synopsis of the CAB. However, the CAB has no jurisidiction over general aviation.
I hope the enclosed material will be helpful to you.
Sincerel am7es 0 Hge Director Office of Information Enclosure NOTE Enclosed: Synopsis of Purposes and Provisions of the Federal Aviation Act in Relation to the Civil Aeronautics Board, Revised March 31, 1972.
-41- WAHHEN 0. MAGt0SN, WASHCAM^ JOHN 0.
PASTORE. R.I. JAMES U. PEARSON. KANS.
VANCE HARTYC. IND ROBERT P. GRIFFIN. MICH PHILIP A HART. MICH. TED STEVENS, ALASKA HOWARD W CANNON. NXV. J. GLENN DEALL. JR. MO.
RUSSELL B. LONG, LA. LOWELL P. WE CKER. JR CONN F RANK E. MOS. UTA JAMES L. BUCKLEY. N.
ERNEST F. ROLLINGS, SC '.Winifcb .$fafcz 2enatfe DANIEL K. INOUYE. NAWAIi JOHN V. RiNNEy. CALIF. COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE ILL E. ST VENSON.
AOLAI WENDELL IT. FORD. KY.
WASHINGTON.
D.C. 20510 FREDERICK J LORDAN. STAFF DIRECTOR MICH .A pERTSCH-JK-CHIEF" COUN.SEL ARTHUR PANKOPF. JR.. MINORITY COUNSEL February 24, 1975 I. D. Jacobson, -Associate Professor University of Virginia, School of Engineering and Applied Science Thornton Hall Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 Dear Professor Jacobson: In regard to your recent letter expressing your-interest in general - aviation, I would advise you to contact the General Aviation Manufacturers Association here in Washington, which is the leading trade organization representing the industry. - GAMA will be able to provide you factual statistical background concerning the general aviation system. Insofar as my Subcommittee is concerned, the major issue facing us relating to general aviation this year will be renewal. of the Airport and Airway Development Act of 1970.
As you know, this aviation development program has a large impact on general aviation and general aviation is required, through user charges, to help support the developments which are made. Hearings before my Subcommittee will begin sometime this spring; hopefully by June 1, we will have developed another five year-development program. I hope this serves to answer your questions.
Sincerely yours, *VcooNChaian.
Aviati mmittee HWC:rgb BARRY GOLDWATER 42 - COMMITTEES: ARIZONA AERONAUTICAL AND SPACE SCIENCES ARMED SERVICES PREPAREDNESS INVESTIGATING SUBCOMMITTEE t~; p~~ ~R~fTACTICAL AIR POWER StmoOMMIrrsr ' InflI . atfez Zonaeteg NATIONAL STOCKPILE AND NAVAL PETROLEUM RES 4V.S SUBCOMMITrEE WASHINGTON. D.C. 20510 February 27, 1975 Professor I. D. Jacobson Department of Engineering Science and Systems University of Virginia Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 Dear Professor Jacobson: Thank you for your letter concerning general aviation and the role of NASA technology. The items you mentioned in your letter seem worthy of consideration.
If you have not done so, may I suggest you get in touch with the General Aviation Manufacturers Association. It might be helpful to you to get inputs from industry.
It seems to me there are two major issues concerning general aviation:- First, establishing sensible guidelines for engine emissions; Second, proving the fuel efficiency of aircraft.
As you may know, NASA is starting programs to increase the fuel efficiency of aircraft in the commerical fleet.
Perhaps some of that work would be useful to general aviation.
4SinceI Barry Go e - 43 - FRANK E. MOSS, UTAH CHAIRMAN STUART SYMINGTON. MO. BARRY GOLDWATER. ARIZ.
JOHN C. STENNIS, MISS. PETE V. DOMENICI. N. MEX.
HOWARD W. GANNON. NE. PAUL LAXALT, NEV WENDELL H. FORD. JY.
JANE GARN, UTAH DALE BUMPERS.
ARK.
NU ... .T1r S a u T FI ALLNUfT, DIRECO.N~ie zS t COMM ITrEE ON AERONAUTICAL AND SPACE SCIENCES WASHINGTON, D.C. 20510 March 6, 1975 Dr. I. D. Jacobson Associate Professor Department of Engineering Science and Systems School of Engineering and Applied Science University of Virginia Charlottesville, Virginia .22901 Dear Dr. Jacobson: Thank you for your letter of January 22 concerning areas of general aviation which would benefit from NASA technological research.
I am enclosing a copy of ourIFY 1975 authorization hearings.
Starting on page 402 is a description of the NASA general aviation technology program which our Committee supported. As you will note the primary emphasis has been on safety, efficiency, and utility.
It is hard, in many ways, to separate general aviation from the broader subject of aeronautics technology. The responsibilities of our Committee relate to technical research and development rather than to regulation Or government roles and missions.
We are concerned with technological developments which will maintain the role of the United States as a leader in aeronautical science and -its applications. We are looking forward to the results of a study NASA is doing on the probable direction of aviation in the years 1985 to 2000. This will help us to determine problems for aviation in the future.
A specific area of interest to our Committee is aircraft fuel efficiency. For your information I am enclosing a copy of a recent letter from Senator Goldwater and myself to Dr.
Fletcher asking for a NASA program to develop technology for fuel efficient aircraft.
When you ask about "general aviation lobbies", I assume you mean the generic sense of the term. I don't know of any registered "lobbyists" in the strict sense that have "lobbied" the Committee.
- 44 - Dr. I. D.
Jacobson March 6, 1975 Page Two We do have rather infrequent and loose contacts with representatives of GAMA and general aviation manufacturers.
The purpose of the contacts tends to be primarily for the staff to obtain technical information quickly, not to discuss issues.
I think I can confi dently'say that representatives of the general aviation industry have seldom, if ever, sought to initiate or carry through legislation of any kind iA this Committee.
In fact it would appear that the general aviation manufacturers are not anxious to see NASA involve itself at all in general aviation related technology with the possible exception of work on new air foils.
As far as I can tell, NASA's work on quieter engines, fuel efficiency, electronics devices, crash-worthiness, and other innovations that might be the subject of future regulation by the FAA, is not encouraged by the general aviation industry.
On the other hand NASA has not focused on general aviation problems until the last two or three years, And even now only a relatively small portion of the budget is devoted specifically to general aviation affairs.
The Committee's interest in general aviation-for the most part has followed NASA's focus on the subject.
I know of only one instance in which the Committee initiated an investigation of a general aviation problem.
That occurred several years ago when Senator Anderson, then Chairman of the Committee, learned of an air craft accident in which no flight plan was available to aid rescuers.
Senator Anderson's concern 'led the FAA to review the requirements on filing flight plans and to stiffen those regulations.
I have some thoughts on areas you might consider in your study: 1.
Has the FAA-type certification policy had the effect of stifling the adoption of new technology into general aviation designs?
It is my understanding that radical innovations in design require a new type certificate and compliance with all regulations to date, whereas minor improvements can be incorporated into an aircraft under an old type certificate and no new regulations enacted after the date of that certificate will apply.
Thus, air craft manufacturers can avoid many FAR's by avoiding major technological innovations in their desian.
- 45 - Dr. I. D. Jacobson March 6, 1975 Page Three 2. To what extent, if at all, do the general aviation manufacturers oppose NASA's involvement in their affairs for fear that FAA regulatory action (or legislative action) will follow requiring adoption of NASA's innovations?
3. If such a situation exists at all, does it inhibit communication and cooperation between NASA and the general aviation manufacturers?
4.
Should NASA be undertaking research into areas which the industry might avoid for fear of adverse legal and economic consequences, i.e.., crash-worthiness, etc.?
Hearings on NASA aviation research and technology will be held on March llth starting at 9:30 a.m. The hearing is open and you might find it interesting to attend.
Sincerely, Frank E. Moss Chairman FEM:par - 46 - Was lt;- p. :7z C3C r:2i Dr, Flct'cI.,cr: As yoo hnew, t.e - -Ao-c:rm'ical ...
,.
:- f-,eseazrch ,.FA ;d th Tcch.:cL.y !
p'ovarn- in dctafl.
The hitkly cujt lt of M~r.
R-I.ss C.nd hNc utzff in this 7e- V has .."C zcr-c Laa pL-L-d with rnl-ny-.-f C .
pojects niJed at achieving objective he NASA •he of p•rexvi o n i s c i e n c e .nd a- 3. ! cj ic - i a o o". .. -c r c i c o f tK e U n it e d SZ ' t t h c In F'articnlar, r'-- arc "--pressed with thoso teclznolcgy paojects whch could cn.!ablo thne United States industry to provide a now genera ti of .. c ,l-cfficnt cot:--rcj-cin aircraft.
Technclogics have been .....
in Vi a .t"- of savin>gs.
as high as 50 percortt by 1385., 'ohe value of ch ".::olcy o not be undeecthrated since poer'ial -oth - - . perhaps ,. approaching one zm illion ctroleurn -of pe-r day and increased internt,inal tr'-e.
We foo thnt NASA, In cozisut-.tion wih Ln-3RItry, should consider establishing a clearty hefi nd goal of Con onttrating the tcchnoloty nocep!"ary to nake poosible a nov; gcneraton of fuel-efficint aircraft by a stated date.
Such aircraft would ha:ve the same general operating ch ractcristics as at present, mould meet safety and environ mental requirc-.nts, vwoculd be sintilir in cozt, could be flying in the 1900's, and rvoc.ld lave a large improvcn.ent in fuel ,fficitncy.
ORIGINAL PAGE IS OFUAUT - 47 -- Dr,, Jn~as C.
Ilct~c1her J'nur-y 3), 1975 ,tu :C..
tC.Q £7j5 of gor: ;.. h"t.vo il:" v;oi'c cr ,:e thu't you .oth~e jy ,-raan to it QcIe;o in such a, fashion that the (Lc'tquas gy :" "ptoccs is f:.clitacl.
T)e p'Vrogral- \w/hich ,AS d; ccify A l nl7tjor n ilcstoncs, :;rcent of fuel savings to be achicdri, a dcoco of the planned oforts and Ceir cost.
Ti/o tt1:l it NM.:ld be moest anipvonprite that your iuHtal to response this u9gction be included in Elie NASA Pt'escnt.[tion duril tle 3'Y 19'i - thoritation Leari'hs* It is our hope that the oal you esablish will be one that is both feaiteIV d challoging.
Sincerely, Barry Goldwater Frank S. Moss -nking A-nor.ty ,enibor Chairni-na UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA School of Engineering and Applied Science The University of Virginia's School of Engineering and Applied Science has an undergraduate enrollment of approximately 1,000 students with a graduate enrollment of 350. There are approximately 120 faculty members, of whom, about 90% hold a doctorate. Excellence in graduate education is aided and supplemented by a research program approximating $3 million per year. This relatively high level of participation in sponsored research is one factor which helps our faculty consistently to maintain high quality graduate education at all degree levels.
As research is an integral part of the educational program, research interests parallel academic specialities. These interests range from the traditional engineering departments of Chemical, Civil, Electrical and Mechanical to include departments of Biomedical Engineering, Engineering Science & Systems, Materials Science, Nuclear Engineering, and Applied Mathematics & Computer.cienceli addition to these departmental interests, there are interdepartmental groups in the areas of Automatic Controls and Applied Mechanics. All departments are authorized to offer the doctorate while the Biomedical and Materials ,science Departments are graduate degree granting departments only.
The School of Engineering and Applied Science, is an integral part of an outstanding University, which has strong professional Schools of Law, Medicine, and Business Administration. In addition, the College of Arts and Sciences has strong basic science departments in Mathematics, Physics, Chemistry, and other departments relevant to the engineering research program. This not only provides an excellent scholarly climate, but also enhances the school's potential for creating truly interdisciplinary teams in the pursuit of our basic goals of education, research, and public service.
Inside this cover are listed some of the present research activities of the department from which this report originates. For more information on this or other areas, address the department chairman or Dean J. E. Gibson, Commonwealth Professor and Dean, School of Engineering and Applied Science, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia 22901.