Mr. David M. Murphy Profile

David M. Murphy

at General Dynamics Mission Systems

SPIE Involvement:

Author

Publications (2)

This will count as one of your downloads.

You will have access to both the presentation and article (if available).

DOWNLOAD NOW

This content is available for download via your institution's subscription. To access this item, please sign in to your personal account.

Email or Username Forgot your username?

Password Forgot your password?

Show

Keep me signed in

No SPIE account? Create an account

Proceedings Article | 27 April 2007 Paper

Making a land/go-around decision with runway incursions in near zero-zero weather

David Murphy, Douglas Zimmer, Guy French

Proceedings Volume 6559, 655907 (2007) https://doi.org/10.1117/12.720012

KEYWORDS: Heads up displays, Radar, Visibility, Extremely high frequency, Visualization, Environmental sensing, Synthetic aperture radar, Head, Image enhancement, Safety

Read Abstract +

Preventing runway incursions is considered a top safety priority for the National Transportation Safety Board and is a growing problem among commercial air traffic at controlled airfields. This problem only increases in difficulty when the weather and airfield conditions become severely degraded. Such is the case in this Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) work, which focused on the decision making process of aircrew landing under near zero-zero weather at an unimproved airfield. This research is a part of a larger demonstration effort using sensor technology to land in near zero-zero weather at airfields that offer no or unreliable approach guidance. Using various head-up (HUD) and head-down (HDD) display combinations that included the sensor technology, pilot participants worked through the decision of whether the airfield was safe to land on or required a go-around. The runway was considered unsafe only if the boundary of the runway was broken by an obstacle causing an incursion. A correct decision is one that allowed the aircrew to land on a safe runway and to go-around when an incursion was present. While going around is usually considered a safe decision, in this case a false positive could have a negative mission impact by preventing subsequent landing attempts. In this study we found a combination of display formats that provided the greatest performance without making significant changes to an existing avionics suite.

Proceedings Article | 20 May 2006 Paper

Flare cue symbology and EVS for zero-zero weather landing

Guy French, David Murphy, William Ercoline

Proceedings Volume 6226, 62260L (2006) https://doi.org/10.1117/12.666601

KEYWORDS: Heads up displays, Visualization, Visibility, Fourier transforms, Environmental sensing, Sensors, Extremely high frequency, Error analysis, Navigation systems, Image sensors

Read Abstract +

When flying an airplane, landing is arguably the most difficult task a pilot can do. This applies to pilots of all skill levels particularly as the level of complexity in both the aircraft and environment increase. Current navigational aids, such as an instrument landing system (ILS), do a good job of providing safe guidance for an approach to an airfield. These aids provide data to primary flight reference (PFR) displays on-board the aircraft depicting through symbology what the pilot's eyes should be seeing. Piloting an approach under visual meteorological conditions (VMC) is relatively easy compared to the various complex instrument approaches under instrument meteorological conditions (IMC) which may include flying in zero-zero weather. Perhaps the most critical point in the approach is the transition to landing where the rate of closure between the wheels and the runway is critical to a smooth, accurate landing. Very few PFR's provide this flare cue information. In this study we will evaluate examples of flare cueing symbology for use in landing an aircraft in the most difficult conditions. This research is a part of a larger demonstration effort using sensor technology to land in zero-zero weather at airfields that offer no or unreliable approach guidance. Several problems exist when landing without visual reference to the outside world. One is landing with a force greater than desired at touchdown and another is landing on a point of the runway other than desired. We compare different flare cueing systems to one another and against a baseline for completing this complex approach task.

My Library

You currently do not have any folders to save your paper to! Create a new folder below.

Folder Name

Folder Description

View contact details

UPDATE YOUR PROFILE

Is this your profile? Update it now.

Sign into your SPIE.org account

Don’t have a profile and want one?

Create an account on SPIE.org

Access to the requested content is limited to institutions that have purchased or subscribe to SPIE eBooks. You are receiving this notice because your organization may not have SPIE eBooks access.*

*Shibboleth/Open Athens users─please sign in to access your institution's subscriptions.

To obtain this item, you may purchase the complete book in print or electronic format on SPIE.org.

ORGANIZATIONAL
Sign in with credentials provided by your organization.

Organizational Username

Organizational Password

Show/Hide Password

INSTITUTIONAL
Select your institution to access the SPIE Digital Library.

SELECT YOUR INSTITUTION

PERSONAL
Sign in with your SPIE account to access your personal subscriptions or to use specific features such as save to my library, sign up for alerts, save searches, etc.

PERSONAL SIGN IN

No SPIE Account? Create one

PURCHASE THIS CONTENT

SUBSCRIBE TO DIGITAL LIBRARY

50 downloads per 1-year subscription

Members: $195

Non-members: $335 ADD TO CART

25 downloads per 1 - year subscription

Members: $145

Non-members: $250 ADD TO CART

PURCHASE SINGLE ARTICLE

Includes PDF, HTML & Video, when available

Members:

Non-members: ADD TO CART

Keywords/Phrases

Search In:

Publication Years