Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T02:36:13.223Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A history of visual approach guidance indicator systems in Australia

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 October 2009

B. A. J. Clark  and
P. Antonenko
B. A. J. Clark
Affiliation:
(Air Operations Division, Defence Science and Technology Organisation, Aeronautical Research Laboratory, Melbourne)
P. Antonenko
Affiliation:
(Air Operations Division, Defence Science and Technology Organisation, Aeronautical Research Laboratory, Melbourne)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Approach and landing are the phases of flight most associated with accidents and near accidents, especially when external visual cues are sparse. At what is now Australia's DSTO Aeronautical Research Laboratory, research on ways of reducing the hazard incidence resulted in the development and testing of several ground-based visual approach slope indicators. The T-VASIS landing aid was an outcome of this work, T-VASIS, which has been in international use for over twenty years, is now under potential threat of displacement by PAPI which is a more recent UK development. The research which led to the implementation of T-VASIS is described here, along with subsequent events leading to the introduction of PAPI to Australia. A glossary of abbreviations is included at the end of the paper.

Keywords

Airfield lighting.Safety.Approach and Landing.Human factors.
Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Navigation , Volume 46 , Issue 1 , January 1993 , pp. 49 - 62
Copyright
Copyright © The Royal Institute of Navigation 1993

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Aerodrome Ground Aids (AGA) (1981). Agenda Item 5: Precision Approach Path Indicator (PAPI). Working Paper 60, presented by the United Kingdom to Aerodromes, Air Routes and Ground Aids Divisional Meeting, International Civil Aviation Organization, Montreal, Canada.Google Scholar
AGS (1989). Letter from the Australian Government Solicitor to the Civil Aviation Authority, 2 May 1989.Google Scholar
Alexander, R. A. (1962). An RAAF Evaluation of Two Visual Glidepath Systems. Human Engineering Note 12, Aeronautical Research Laboratories, Melbourne, Australia.Google Scholar
Baxter, J. R. (1989). Personal communication to Clark, B. A. J., 30 December 1989.Google Scholar
Baxter, J. R. (1991). Personal communication to Clark, B. A. J., 26 September 1991.Google Scholar
Baxter, J. R., Cumming, R. W., Day, R. H. and Lane, J. C. (1960). A Comparison of Three Visual Glidepath Systems. Human Engineering Note 8, Aeronautical Research Laboratories, Melbourne, Australia.Google Scholar
Baxter, J. R. and Lane, J. C. (1960). The ‘Tee’ Visual Glidepath (TVG). An Alternative Type of Visual Approach Aid. Human Engineering Note 7, Aeronautical Research Laboratories, Melbourne, Australia.Google Scholar
CAARC (1955). Proceedings of the Fourth Meeting of the Commonwealth Advisory Aeronautical Research Council, Melbourne, Australia.Google Scholar
Calvert, E. S. (1947). Visual Approach and Landing Aids Jor Aircraft. Fundamental Problems Analysed by Means of Perspective Diagrams. Report (No. EL1414), Royal Aeronautical Establishment, Farnborough, UK.Google Scholar
Calvert, E. S. (1954). Visual judgements in motion. This Journal, 12, 233.Google Scholar
Clark, B. A. J. (1989). Aircraft Landing Research at ARL and the Development of the ‘Tee’ Visual Approach Slope Indicator (T-VASIS). 50th Anniversary Monograph Series, Aeronautical Research Laboratory, Melbourne, Australia.Google Scholar
Clark, B. A. J. and Gordon, J. E. (1981). Hazards of Colour Coding in Visual Approach Slope Indicators. Systems Report 25, Aeronautical Research Laboratories, Melbourne, Australia.Google Scholar
Cumming, R. W. (1962). Interim Report on the Operational Evaluation of Two Visual Glidepath Systems. Human Engineering Technical Memorandum 5, Aeronautical Research Laboratories, Melbourne, Australia.Google Scholar
Cumming, R. W. and Lane, J. C. (1957). Progress Report on Australian Research on Visual Problems of Approach and Landing. Australian Aeronautical Research Committee (AARC). Appendix to report of the Third Meeting of the Jet Operations Requirements Panel, International Civil Aviation Organization, Montreal, Canada.Google Scholar
Cummin, R. W., Lane, J. C. and Baxter, J. R. (1959). Installation Notes on the Precision Visual Glidepath (PVG). Human Engineering Note 3, Aeronautical Research Laboratories, Melbourne, Australia.Google Scholar
Day, R. H. and Baxter, J. R. (1959). A Comparison of Two Types of Visual Approach Aid. Human Engineering Technical Memorandum 4, Aeronautical Research Laboratories, Melbourne, Australia.Google Scholar
Day, R. H., Baxter, J. R. and Lane, J. (1960). The psychophysical testing of an aircraft visual approach aid. Human Factors, 2, 203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fraser, D. B. (1990). Personal communication to Clark, B. A. J., 24 April 1990.Google Scholar
Gibson, J. J. (1950). The Perception of the Visual World. The Riverside Press, Massachusetts, USA.Google Scholar
Gregson, R. E. (1978). Evaluation of Reduced T System. Report VA-110, Department of Transport, Melbourne, Australia.Google Scholar
Hunt, D. P. (1961). The effect of the precision of information of feedback on human tracking performance. Human Factors, 3, 77–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyman, M. L. (1963). Comparative Evaluation of Australian TVG and United States Standard Visual Approach Slope Indicators. FAA Project (No. 421-2V), Federal Aviation Agency, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
ICAO (1971). Visual Aidsfor Navigation, Annex 14. International Civil Aviation Organization, Montreal, Canada.Google Scholar
ICAO (1990). Visual Aids for Navigation, Annex 14. International Civil Aviation Organization, Montreal, Canada.Google Scholar
Johnston, I. R., White, G. R. and Cumming, R. W. (1973). The role of optical expansion patterns in locomotor control. American Journal of Psychology, 86(2), 311–324.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jones, P. M. (1977). VASI Improvement: T-VASI Evaluation. NAFEC Technical Letter Report (NA-77-4J-LR), National Aviation Facilities Experimental Center, Federal Aviation Admin istration, Atlantic City, Atlanta, USA.Google Scholar
Lane, J. C. and Cumming, R. W. (1959). Pilot Opinions and Practices on the Approach to Landing: A Questionary Survey among Australian Civil and Military Pilots. Human Engineering Report 1, Aeronautical Research Laboratories, Melbourne, Australia.Google Scholar
Lewis, M. F. and Mertens, H. W. (1979). Pilot Performance during Simulated Approaches and Landings Made with Various Computer-Generated Visual Glidepath Indicators. (FAA-AM-79-4), Federal Aviation Agency, Washington, DC, USA.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Millar, J. (1984a). Guidelines for the Evaluation of Visual Approach Slope Indicators. Systems Report 32, Aeronautical Research Laboratories, Melbourne, Australia.Google Scholar
Millar, J. (1984b). An Analytical Comparison of Three Visual Approach Slope Indicators: VASIS, T-VASIS and PAPI. Systems Report 33, Aeronautical Research Laboratories, Melbourne, Australia.Google Scholar
Millar, J. and Selway, R. E. (1981). Information Content of Visual Approach Slope Indicators (VASIS). Proceedings of the 18th Annual Conference of the Ergonomics Society of Australia and New Zealand: Canberra, Australia.Google Scholar
Paprocki, T. H. (1978). Abbreviated ‘T-VASI’ Interim Report. NAFEC Technical Letter Report (NA-78-33-LR), National Aviation Facilities Experimental Center, Federal Aviation Admin istration, Atlantic City, Atlanta, USA.Google Scholar
Pitts, D. G. (1967). Visual Illusions and Aircraft Accidents. US Air Force Directorate of Aerospace Safety, Brooks Air Force Base, Texas, USA.Google ScholarPubMed
Roscoe, S. N. (1980). Aviation Psychology. Iowa State University Press, Ames, Iowa, USA.Google Scholar
Smith, A. J. and Johnson, D. (1976). The Precision Approach Path Indicator – PAPI. RAE Technical Report (No. 76123), Royal Aeronautical Establishment, Farnborough, UK.Google Scholar