![]() ![]() High false alarm rates hinder pilot acceptance and trust of such systems and can cause valid warnings to go unheeded.Īll those options were looked into. These systems are also subject to high false alarm rates, particularly when landing approaches occur over rugged terrain. That's the same issue with radar-altimeter (RA) GPWS: ➤ Assuming a basic system to avoid export-embargoes, and a low-gain to avoid false-positives, then it will not be better than a database-based system (and will be worse for terrain that surrounds a plane the big turn example). ![]() There are also export restrictions with terrain sensing systems – which for example shelved a synthetic-aperture radar landing system that had interest from civil operators in the mid-90s, because an advanced system that is designed to ignore wrong reflections from buildings and vegetation, could be adapted into an adversary's air force (planes and cruise missiles). That radar can't see what's say 90° to the right when a turn is executed to the right an EGPWS database will already paint the navigation display with such terrain.īoth systems can be blended, but for civil planes, it's an extra cost that is not needed because getting that close to terrain is out of the question. Civil planes don't need such accuracy because they shouldn't get that close to terrain.Īnd while yes line-of-sight is typically a none issue, this only applies to what's ahead. Forward-looking sensors provide better accuracy, but that's only beneficial to military airplanes that rely on terrain-following for deep penetration missions. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |