g. Certification Requirements. Compliance with RTCA DO-309, along with the following certification guidance material and clarifications, is an acceptable means, but not the only means, to secure FAA approval of HTAWS equipment qualification and installation.
(1) General. For initial approvals, the applicant should provide a detailed systems description and design features that can be verified by certification engineers and flight test pilots. Flight-testing should concentrate on the adequacy of the interface, basic functionality of the system, location and visibility of the display, adequacy of the visual and aural alerts, day and night lighting, ease of use, understanding of the terrain and obstacle display, and potential interference with other installed equipment. In general, each mode of operation of the system should be evaluated in flight. Obstacles are frequently treated as a single point object, but in reality, obstacles (particularly tall obstacles) may have significant length and width due to guy wires. Obstacle alerting functions need to ensure that alerts are provided at sufficient distances and times to prevent flight into guy wires.
(2) System Safety Assessment. The applicant should perform an FHA and system safety assessment to establish t he HTAWS criticality and hazards associated with the proposed installation. The reliability level of the system must be commensurate with the assessed criticality, and compliance with this criticality level must be demonstrated during certification. These assessments should consider the probability of such failures as: unannunciated failures, false caution or warning alerts due to undetected (or latent) failures, failure of the system to provide the required alerting functions due to undetected (or latent) failures, effects of HTAWS failures on other aircraft systems, nuisance alerts, etc.
(3) Installations of Required HTAWS. Rotorcraft that operate under regulations requiring HTAWS must conform to minimum design assurance levels (DAL) to meet operational reliability and functional requirements. The annunciated loss of all HTAWS functions is classified as a failure condition “minor.” Failure of the HTAWS to provide accurate terrain and obstacle aural and visual alerts, on rotorcraft that operate under rules that require HTAWS, is classified as a failure condition “major” by the TSO-C194.
The HTAWS installation must satisfy the following requirements:
(i) The probability of an annunciated failure that would lead to the loss of all HTAWS functions that are described in paragraph e. above must be less than or equal to 10-3 per flight hour.
(ii) The probability of the system to provide HMI to the HTAWS display due to undetected or latent failures must be less than or equal to 10-5 per flight hour.
(A) This may be a false caution or warning alert due to undetected or latent failures.
Page MG 18 - 7
AC 29-2C, Chg 4 2/27/2014 (B) This may be an unannunciated failure of the system to provide the required alerting functions due to undetected or latent failures.
(ii) Failure of the installed HTAWS must not degrade the integrity of any essential or critical system installed in the rotorcraft with which the HTAWS interfaces.
(iv) Installed equipment must meet all requirements of TSO-C194.
(4) Software and Airborne Electronic Hardware (AEH) Qualification. The software for the HTAWS should be developed in accordance with RTCA DO-178, Software Considerations in Airborne Systems and Equipment Certification, or equivalent. Applicants from the European Un ion (EU) applying for FAA letter of design approval (LODA) through European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) may use the European Organization for Civil Aviation Equipment (EUROCAE) document EUROCAE ED-12, Software Considerations in Airborne Systems and Equipment Certification, in lieu of RTCA DO-178. AEH should be developed in accordance with RTCA DO-254, Design Assurance Guidance for Airborne Electronic Hardware. Applicants from the EU applying for FAA LODA through EASA may use EUROCAE ED-80, Design Assurance Guidance for Airborne Electronic Hardware, in lieu of RTCA DO-254. The software and AEH DAL for HTAWS installed in helicopters should be commensurate with the following assigned failure condition classifications:
(i) All rotorcraft using HTAWS, whether or not required by regulation, must conform to the minimum DAL prescribed below to meet operational reliability and functional requirements. The loss of all HTAWS functions is classified as a failure condition “minor” by the TSO-C194. Failure of the HTAWS to provide correct terrain and obstacle aural and visual alerts is classified as a failure condition “major” by the TSO-C194. The minimum DAL are:
(A) The system software and AEH DAL for failures that lead to the loss of all HTAWS functions, described in paragraph e. above, must be level D.
(B) The system software and AEH DAL for failures that lead to HMI to the HTAWS display due to undetected or latent failures must be level C.
(i) This may be a false caution or warning alert due to undetected or latent failures.
(ii) This may be an unannunciated failure of the system to provide the required alerting functions due to undetected or latent failures.
(5) Environmental Qualification. Since a TSO is not an installation approval, the HTAWS installation should be shown to be capable of operating in its expected airborne environment. One method to s how environmental qualification of equipment is set forth in RTCA DO-160. RTCA DO-160 provides a suite of tests from which tests appropriate for the expected environment are chosen. For ex ample, the vibration test should be for Page MG 18 - 8
the rotorcraft environment and anticipated installation location, such as cockpit or avionics bay. Similar decisions must be m ade for other tests, such as temperature and electromagnetic interference (EMI) susceptibility. If the TSO environmental considerations do not adequately represent the actual installation environment, the differences must be considered and evaluated, and a course of action must be taken to correct deficiencies. Procedures provided by AC 29-2, section 29.1309, associated with temperature testing, should be followed to determine whether the equipment design is appropriate for the specific installation environment.
(6) System Performance Validation. The applicant s hould demonstrate that the performance of the HTAWS, with regard to the position of the rotorcraft relative to the terrain or obstacle, is adequate to prevent hazardously misleading information. The integrity of the navigation source has a significant effect on acceptable performance of the system. The applicant should demonstrate that the performance of the HTAWS is suitable for each phase of flight (en route, terminal, approach, and low altitude mode) for which approval is sought. Flight evaluations are normally required to assess reduced protection modes, operation in the vicinity of airfields, operations into and out of unimproved landing zones and off-airfield operations (helipads or other destinations not coded into the HTAWS database as aerodrome or helipad). HTAWS status and mode configuration should be easily seen. Mode selection (e.g., inhibit, reduced protection) should be easily accomplished without undue concentration on the pilot’s part. All visual indications should be readable in all lighting conditions. Refer to RTCA DO-309, paragraph 3.4, Test Procedures for Installed Equipment Performance, for more information.
h. Installation Considerations.
(1) Selecting a display where multiple functions are presented. In these cases, a means to select or de-select the display of terrain and obstacle information should be provided. However, the means to select or deselect the display should not void or alter terrain and obstacle aural alerts. Care shoul d be exercised in selecting a multifunction implementation to ensure that the display sharing is appropriate for the specific functions. The use of the HTAWS display should not unacceptably detract from the usability of required functions that share the display with HTAWS. Since the HTAWS display is not to be used for navigation, the use of the display should not impair the ability of the pilot to perform required navigation functions. An example of such impairment would be an installation that forces the pilot to choose between the HTAWS display and the needed navigation information in situations where both could be effectively used simultaneously and continuously (e.g., instrument approach in the vicinity of hazardous terrain and obstacles). If the timesharing of the display between HTAWS and other functions is deemed acceptable, the design should facilitate simple switching between the functions, with minimal time delays, so both functions are sufficiently accessible in realistic flight scenarios.
(2) Locate visual alerts in the pilot’s primary field of view. HTAWS status and mode selection annunciation (i.e., inhibit, reduced protection mode, or other pilot Page MG 18 - 9
AC 29-2C, Chg 4 2/27/2014 selectable mode) should be as close to the pilot’s primary field of view as possible to enable rapid assessment of HTAWS status and configuration. The terrain and obstacle display should be installed in a location that provides monitoring by the pilot(s) for identification of potential flight path conflicts. The terra in and obstacle display should be in a location similar to other multifunction displays, such as electronic maps and weather radar.
(3) The installation should ensure that aural alerts are distinct and audible in all flight conditions.
(4) The certification plan should include tests and analyses to assure that the visual and aural alerts are consistent with the alerting configuration of the rotorcraft flight deck in which the HTAWS equipment is installed. This is particularly important with retrofit installations, which may use previously installed alerting annunciations. The plan should consider that visual alerts are:
(i) located in pilots’ primary field of view, and
(ii) consistent with their associated voice or aural call out.
i. Ground Test Considerations.
(1) A ground test should be conducted for each HTAWS installation. The level of testing required will be determined by the scope of the installation (i.e., initial installation of a HTAWS model vs. a follow-on installation of a previously installed HTAWS model that was modified). Some items to c onsider for ground test should include:
(i) location of HTAWS controls, displays, and annunciators;
(ii) readability of HTAWS controls, displays, annunciators, and alerts in all lighting conditions;
(iii) evaluation of identified failure modes;
(iv) evaluation of all HTAWS interfaces;
(v) compatibility evaluation of HTAWS equipment lighting with previous night vision imaging system (NVIS) lighting modifications and night vision goggle (NVG) compatibility. Ensure the NVIS STC-approved data for the rotorc raft is updated to reflect the installation of any annunciators or displays related to the HTAWS; and
(vi) EMI and electromagnetic compatibility (EMC) testing, and very high frequency (VHF) harmonic tests for HTAWS with internal or external GPS receivers.
(2) Evaluate on the ground all in-flight display characteristics and interfaces that are available during flight and that can be evaluated on the ground.
Page MG 18 - 10
(3) Determine testing that can not be accomplished on the ground and that must be accomplished in flight.
j. Flight Test Considerations.
(1) The level of flight test required to validate a particular HTAWS installation will be based on the rotorcraft system architecture. Credit may be given for previously certificated installations, simulations, and ground tests. The requirement for a flight test needs to be evaluated for each installation. Initial installations and new sensor inputs will require flight tests. ST C follow-on installations that introduce changes in flight deck configurations may require flight test. The evaluation of new sensor models or rotorcraft models may require flight tests, unless it can be shown through a sensitivity analysis that the new sensor’s dynamic characteristics and the model rotorcraft are compatible with the current sensor parameters and will not affect the performance of the HTAWS.
(2) Flight testing to verify the proper operation of the terrain and obstacle display should be conducted while verifying all the other required HTAWS functions. Terrain databases vary significantly in resolution, quality, and treatment of permanent features, such as forests, which may be significantly different in elevation from the underlying terrain. It is necessary to evaluate the operat ion of HTAWS over a variety of topological conditions to ensure that protection is provided.
(3) Specific flight test points should be flown to assess:
(i) function performance in off-airfield operations;
(ii) performance of alerting displays and audio in all flight and lighting conditions;
(iii) performance of the reduced protection mode flown against obstacles and terrain; and
(iv) evaluation of terrain scale, which:
(A) should be performed during the initial airworthiness certification of the HTAWS system, (B) should not change based on selected mode of operation, and (C) should have the capability of being displayed if selected by the pilot.
Note: Operations into off-airf ield locations should have a minimum of nuisance alerts.
Obstacle alerts should provide sufficient time to allow for pilot scan, identification, decision making, and action. Additionally, flight test experience has shown that Page MG 18 - 11
AC 29-2C, Chg 4 2/27/2014 reducing spatial envelopes around obstacles and the resulting warning times may lead to flight unnecessarily close to obstacles.
(4) The applicant should perform sustained standard rate turns, climbs, and descents to evaluate:
Symbol stability.
Flicker.
Jitter.
Display update rate.
Color cohesiveness.
Readability.
The use of color to depict relative elevation data.
Caution and warning alert area depictions.
o Normal mode.
o Reduced Protection mode if installed.
Map masking.
Overall suitability of the display.
(5) Perform compatibility evaluation of HTAWS equipment lighting with previous NVIS lighting modifications and NVG compatibility that could not be evaluated during ground test.
(6) Perform EMI and EMC testing, and VHF harmonic tests for HTAWS with internal GPS receivers that could not be evaluated during ground test.
k. Rotorcraft Flight Manual (RFM) or RFMS. The applicant should make an evaluation to determine if there are any limitations of the system and, if so, how they will affect rotorcraft operations. Any limitations affecting operations should be included in the RFM or RFMS. As a minimum, the app licant should provide instructions in the Limitations Section of the RFM or RFMS that include the following, as appropriate:
(1) Limitations. The following instruct ions should be included in the Limitations section of the RFM or RFMS:
(i) Navigation must not be predicated upon the use of the HTAWS information.
Note: The terrain and obstacle display is intended to serve as a terrain and obstacle awareness tool only. The display and dat abase may not provide the accuracy or fidelity on which to base routine navigation decisions and plan routes to avoid terrain or obstacles.
(ii) The status of the inclusion of power lines in the obstacle database must be stated.
Page MG 18 - 12
(iii) Reduced protection mode must not be selected when operating under IMC conditions except as required when performing offshore platform IFR approach procedures or other special IFR procedures.
(2) Operational Considerations for Normal and Abnormal Procedures. In addition to the HTAWS operational procedures, consider the following:
(i) Terrain or Obstacle Caution Alert. When this alert occurs, verify the rotorcraft flight path and correct it, if required.
(ii) Terrain or Obstacle Awareness Warning Alert. When this alert occurs, immediately initiate a maneuver that will provide maximum terrain or obstacle clearance, until all warning alerts cease.
(iii) Inhibit. For those installations t hat include the ability to inhibit all or some of the HTAWS audio alerts, the RFM (or RFMS) should address:
(A) When should the audio inhibit function be used?
(B) What alerts are inhibited?
(C) How long the alerts are inhibited?
(D) How to re-establish the alerts?
l. Instructions for Continued Airworthiness. ICAs are required by 14 CFR 29.1529, as appropriate, and in accordance with part 29 Appendix A. In addition to Appendix A requirements, the applicant should indicate when and how the terrain and obstacle databases need to be updated.
Page MG 18 - 13
CHAPTER 3
AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS
TRANSPORT CATEGORY ROTORCRAFT
MISCELLANEOUS GUIDANCE (MG) AC 29 MG 19. GUIDANCE ON ELECTRONIC DISPLAY SYSTEMS (EDS) FOR
ROTORCRAFT INSTALLATIONS
a. Background.
(1) The increased use of microprocessor technology in avionic systems has resulted in the use of computer-generated graphics to replace conventional electromechanical instruments required by 14 CFR 29.1303 to present information to the pilots. Simple systems use electronic displays to replace electromechanical horizontal situation indicators (HSI) and attitude direction indicators (ADI). Other electronic displays combine ADI and HSI displays on one display. These electronic display systems (EDS) normally include a primary flight display (PFD) displaying primary flight information (attitude, airspeed, altitude, vertical speed and basic navigation course deviation indication (CDI) and for precision or precision-like approaches, vertical deviation indications (VDI)). EDS can include multi-function displays and engine indication caution advisory system (EICAS) displays. Additionally, some EDS also incorporate flight management system logic, which increases the level of integration complexity.
(2) The EDS for which approval is sought must meet the minimum performance standards prescribed in the corresponding technical standard order (TSO) for the features the system provides (e.g., airspeed, attitude, flight guidance, color, symbology, operation, and accuracy). Information pertaining to the flight director function performed by the EDS can be found in section 29.1335 of this AC. Information pertaining to the location of the displays is contained in section 29.1321 of this AC. Additional discussion of the recommendations for an EDS is contained in the latest versions of AC 25-11A, Electronic Flight Deck Displays and AC 23.1311-1C, Installation of Electronic Display in Part 23 Airplanes. There should be an evaluation of the integration of EDS into existing cockpits along with previously installed avionics and autoflight systems to ensure the resulting pilot-system interface does not increase pilot workload or reduce system safety margins.
b. Reference Materials.
(1) Regulatory and Guidance material.
Page MG 19 - 1
AC 29-2C, Chg 7 2/4/2016
(i) Relevant 14 CFR part 29 Regulations:
Sections Title § 29.771 Pilot compartment.
§ 29.773 Pilot compartment view.
§ 29.777 Cockpit controls.
§ 29.1301 (Equipment) Function and installation.
§ 29.1303 Flight and navigation instruments.
§ 29.1305 Powerplant instruments.
§ 29.1309 Equipment, systems, and installations.
§ 29.1317 High-intensity Radiated Fields (HIRF) Protection.
§ 29.1321 Arrangement and visibility.
§ 29.1322 Warning, caution, and advisory lights.
§ 29.1323 Airspeed indicating system.
§ 29.1329 Automatic pilot system.
§ 29.1331 Instruments using a power supply.
§ 29.1335 Flight director systems.
§ 29.1337 Powerplant instruments.
§ 29.1351 (Electrical Systems and Equipment) General.
§ 29.1353 Electrical equipment and installations.
§ 29.1357 Circuit protective devices.
§ 29.1359 Electrical system fire and smoke protection.
§ 29.1381 Instrument lights.
§ 29.1431 Electronic equipment.
§ 29.1501 (Operating Limitations and Information) General.
§ 29.1523 Minimum flight crew.
§ 29.1525 Kinds of operations § 29.1529 Instructions for Continued Airworthiness.
§ 29.1541 (Markings and Placards)General.
§ 29.1543 Instrument markings: General.
§ 29.1545 Airspeed indicator.
§ 29.1549 Powerplant instruments.
§ 29.1551 Oil quantity indicator.
§ 29.1553 Fuel quantity indicator.
§ 29.1555 Control markings.
§ 29.1559 Limitations placard.
§ 29.1581 (Rotorcraft Flight Manual) General.
§ 29.1583 Operating limitations.
§ 29.1585 Operating procedures.
Page MG 19 -2
(ii) Other 14 CFR regulations to consider § 91.205 Powered civil aircraft with standard category U.S.
airworthiness certificates: Instrument and equipment requirements.
§ 135.149 Equipment requirements: General.
§ 135.159 Equipment requirements: Carrying passengers under VFR at night or under VFR over-the-top conditions.
§ 135.163 Equipment requirements: Aircraft carrying passengers under IFR.
(iii) Advisory Circulars, TSO’s, Orders, Policy.
Note: The ACs, Order, and policy memorandum are available on the FAA website:
www.faa.gov. Copies of current editions of the following publications may be obtained free of charge from the U.S. Department of Transportation, Subsequent Distribution Office, M-30, Ardmore East Business Center, 3341 Q 75th Avenue, Landover, MD 20785 Document Title AC 20-88A Guidelines on the Marking of Aircraft Powerplant Instruments (Displays) AC 20-115C Airborne Software Assurance AC 20-136B Aircraft Electrical and Electronic System Lightning Protection AC 20-138C Airworthiness Approval of Positioning and Navigation Systems AC20-152 RTCA, Inc., Document RTCA/DO-254, Design Assurance Guidance for Airborne Electronic Hardware AC 20-167 Airworthiness Approval of Enhanced Vision System, Synthetic Vision System, Combined Vision System, and Enhanced Flight Vision System Equipment AC 21-16G RTCA Document DO-160 versions D, E, F, and G, “Environmental Conditions and Test Procedures for Airborne Equipment” AC 29-2, Appendix B Airworthiness Guidance for Rotorcraft Instrument Flight AC 29-2 MG 1 Certification Procedure For Rotorcraft Avionics Equipment.
AC 29-2 MG 13 Systems Certification Considerations AC 29-2 MG 18 Helicopter Terrain Awareness and Warning System (HTAWS) AC 120-64 Operational Use and Modification of Electronic Checklists Page MG 19 - 3
AC 29-2C, Chg 7 2/4/2016 Document Title AC 120-76B Guidelines for the Certification, Airworthiness, and Operational Use of Electronic Flight Bags Order 8110.49 Software Approval Guidelines,
(iv) Industry and Other Technical Documents.
(A) Radio Technical Commission for Aeronautic (RTCA) Documents:
Document Title RTCA/DO-160G Environmental Conditions and Test Procedures for Airborne Equipment RTCA/DO-178B & C Software Considerations in Airborne Systems and Equipment Certification RTCA/DO-187 Minimum Operational Performance Standards for Airborne Area Navigation Equipment using Multi-Sensor Inputs RTCA/DO-200A Standards for Processing Aeronautical Data RTCA/DO-201A Standards for Aeronautical Information RTCA/DO-254 Design Assurance Guidance for Airborne Electronic Hardware RTCA/DO-257A Minimum Operational Performance Standards for the Depiction of Navigation Information on Electronic Maps RTCA/DO-267A Minimum Aviation System Performance Standards (MASPS) for Flight Information Services-Broadcast (FIS-B) Data Link (B) Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE), International. Documents (use the current versions). The following SAE, documents are available from SAE International, 400 Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, PA 15096-0001 or from their website at www.sae.org.
Document Title ARP 926B Fault/Failure Analysis Procedure AIR 1093A Numeral, Letter and Symbol Dimensions for Aircraft Instrument Displays ARP 1782B Photometric and Colorimetric Measurement Procedures for Airborne Direct View CRT Displays ARP 1834A Fault/Failure Analysis for Digital Systems and Equipment ARP 1874 Design Objectives for CRT Displays for Part 25 (Transport) Aircraft Page MG 19 -4
Document Title ARP 4032B Human Engineering Considerations in the Application of Color to Electronic Aircraft Displays ARP 4033 Pilot System Integration ARP 4067 Design Objectives for CRT Displays for Part 23 Aircraft ARP 4101 Flight Deck Layout and Facilities ARP 4102 Flight Deck Panels, Controls, and Displays ARP 4102/7 Electronic Displays ARP 4103 Flight Deck Lighting for Commercial Transport Aircraft ARP 4105C Abbreviations, Acronyms, and Terms for Use on the Flight Deck ARP 4155A Human Interface Design Methodology for Integrated Display Symbology ARP 4256A Design Objectives for Liquid Crystal Displays for Part 25 (Transport) Aircraft ARP 4260A Photometric and Colorimetric Measurement Procedures for Airborne Flat Panel Displays ARP 4754A Guidelines for Development of Civil Aircraft and Systems ARP 4761 Guidelines and Methods for Conducting the Safety Assessment Process on Civil Airborne Systems and Equipment ARP 5289A Electronic Aeronautical Symbols ARP 5364 Human Factor Considerations in the Design of Multifunction Display Systems for Civil Aircraft ARP 5365 Human Interface Criteria for Cockpit Display of Traffic Information AS 8034B Minimum Performance Standard for Airborne Multipurpose Electronic Displays AS 8055 Minimum Performance Standard for Airborne Head Up Display (HUD) ARD 50017 Aeronautical Charting ARD 50062 Human Factors Issues Associated With Terrain Separation Assurance Display Technology (C) Other Documents.
Document Title
DOT/FAA/CT- 03/05 Human Factors Design Standards for Acquisition of Commercial Off-The-Shelf Subsystems, Non- Developmental Items, and Developmental Systems.
DOT/FAA/OA M-TM-03-01 Multi-Function Displays A Guide for Human Factors Evaluations Page MG 19 - 5