Memorandum

U.S. Department
of Transportation
Federal Aviation
Administration

Subject: INFORMATION: Public Statement Number PS- Date: August 29, 2002
ACE100-2001-004 on Guidance for Reviewing
Certification Plans to Address Human Factors for
Certification of Part 23 Small Airplanes

From: Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, ACE-100 Reply to

Attn. of:

To: See Distribution

Summary

The purpose of this memorandum is to clarify Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)

certification policy on human factors. Recent requests for guidance on the content and
structure of human factors certification plans (HFCP) for part 23 airplanes has prompted
this policy statement. This policy statement provides guidance to FAA certification teams
for review of an applicant’s HFCP or the human factors (HF) components of a general
certification plan when one is submitted as part of a type certification (TC), supplemental
type certification (STC), or amended type certification (ATC) project. FAA certification
teams are encouraged to use this policy in reviewing certification plans. The application of
this guidance will ensure that human factors issues are adequately considered and addressed
throughout the certification program. This plan advocates early FAA involvement during
the development process of a new product and the establishment of a cooperative working
relationship between the FAA and the applicant. Early FAA involvement and an effective
working relationship between the FAA and the applicant will greatly aid in the timely
identification and resolution of HF related issues.
 2

Policy

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Background ............................................................................................................... 3
Objective of this Policy ............................................................................................ 4
General Statement of Policy...................................................................................... 5
1. Introduction .............................................................................................. 5
2. System Description................................................................................... 5
3. Concept of Operation Considerations ...................................................... 7
4. Certification Requirements ...................................................................... 8
5. Methods of Compliance ........................................................................... 10
6. System Safety Assessment ....................................................................... 10
7. Certification Documentation .................................................................... 11
8. Certification Schedule .............................................................................. 11
9. Use of Designees and Identification of Individual DER/DAR................. 12

Appendix A Partial List of Part 23 Regulations

Related to Human Factors ................................................................. 14
Appendix B Related Documents ................................................................... 33
Appendix C Example of Methods of Compliance ....................................... 37
Appendix D Sample Human Factors Compliance Matrix .......................... 40
Appendix E Checklist for Reviewing Human Factors Certification Plans ... 41
Appendix F Glossary and Acronyms from RTCA/DO-229C ....................... 42
 3

BACKGROUND

General aviation fatalities (part 91 operations) occur at higher rates than part 121 and part
135 operations. Many of these accidents are attributed to human error. In order to improve
safety, human performance issues need to be addressed by focusing on a human centered
design process.

Recent aviation safety reports (see Figure 1 below and the 1999 Nall Report) (available
from the Airplane Owners and Pilots Association, http://www.aopa.org) that discuss
accidents, incidents, and other safety related events underscore the importance of addressing
issues related to human factors and flight crew error. The most effective time to address
human performance is early in the development phase of the new product.

U.S. Fatal Aviation Accident Rate

(1982-99)

2.5
Accidents/100,000 flight hours

GA
1.5

1
Part 135

0.5
Part 121
0
1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998
1999
1983

1985

1987

1989

1991

1993

1995

1997

Year

FIGURE 1
 4

Some applicants have developed and submitted a “Human Factors Certification Plan”
(HFCP) to establish and formalize the methods that will be used to identify and address
human factors (HF) issues. This approach is effective in that it can provide an early
estimate of the level of human factors engineering effort that will be required for a TC,
STC, or ATC project.

The human factors guidance contained in this policy is consistent with the goals identified
in the FAA Industry Guide to Product Certification (Jan 99) and the FAA Industry Guide to
Avionics Approvals (Apr 01). The applicant and the FAA can use an HFCP based on this
policy to establish an early and formal written agreement on the certification basis, the
methods of compliance, and the schedules for completing the certification project.

An HFCP can also be used informally to establish discussions of HF topics and schedule
meetings to resolve any issues. This approach has helped FAA certification teams address
issues early in the certification process. These early discussions can reduce the applicant’s
time and cost to obtain certification. As an alternative to developing a stand-alone HFCP,
an applicant can address the HF issues as part of their general certification plan. Regardless
of whether it is a stand-alone plan or not, the trend is that applicants have been providing
some specific information about their plans to address HF issues in the certification project.

Increasing numbers of applicants have asked for assistance from the FAA in developing an
HFCP. Given this trend, the Small Airplane Directorate has developed this policy to assist
FAA certification team members (which may include designees and delegated
organizations) in working with applicants who are attempting to develop an HFCP, as well
as in reviewing these plans after they have been submitted.

OBJECTIVE OF THIS POLICY

This policy’s objective is to provide guidance to FAA certification project teams for
reviewing the applicant’s HFCP or the HF components of a general certification plan during
a certification project for small airplanes. The policy is intended for use by all project team
members, who may include the following:

- aircraft evaluation group inspectors,

- avionics engineers,
- project managers,
- flight test pilots and engineers,
- HF specialists,
- propulsion engineers, and
- systems engineers.

While this policy is focused on providing guidance to the FAA project team, the applicant
may also find it useful. If the applicant develops a certification plan, this policy statement
can be used as a basis for the development of the structure and content of an HFCP.
 5
GENERAL STATEMENT OF POLICY

Guidance for Reviewing Certification Plans to Address Human Factors for

Certification of Small Airplanes

The guidance provided in the following sections should help the certification project team
review an applicant’s HFCP. It is organized into nine sections. These sections are
consistent with information described in FAA Advisory Circular (AC) 21-40, “Application
Guide for obtaining a Supplemental Type Certificate.” This information is also consistent
with more recent guidance published in the FAA/Industry guide to product certification. In
addition, the FAA/Industry guide to avionics approvals contains more specific discussion on
how to address human factors design of avionics equipment. Both of these documents can
be found on GAMA web site www.generalaviation.org under the topic of certification and
technical publications.

The six appendices included in this document provide additional information that will be
helpful in the evaluation of an HFCP. Appendix A provides a discussion of human factors
related regulations. Appendix A also includes examples of human factors compliance
criteria that can be used in the HFCP. Appendix B is a listing of related documents that
provide general certification process guidance. It also lists publications that provide
specific guidance applicable to small airplanes. An example of such guidance referenced in
this Appendix is GAMA Publication No.10. (Recommended Practices and Guidelines for
Part 23 Cockpit/Flight Deck Design). This publication is non-regulatory, but may provide
additional information that is useful in the review of an HFCP and methods of compliance.
Appendix C provides examples of methods of compliance. Appendix D contains an
example of a Human Factors Compliance Matrix. Appendix E provides a checklist for
reviewing human factors certification plans. Appendix F contains a glossary of acronyms
from RTCA/DO-229C

The HFCP or the human factors components of a general certification plan should contain
the elements as outlined in the following information.

1. Introduction

This section of the Certification Plan should provide a short overview of the certification
project, the certification program in general, and the purpose of the HFCP.

2. System Description

This section of the Certification Plan should contain a comprehensive description of the
cockpit or flight deck system, or component being presented as part of a certification
project. The applicant can use this section to ensure that the project certification team and
the applicant have a common understanding of the design, function, and operation of the
system.

The HFCP should describe any new or unique features or functions and discuss how the
flight crew is expected to use them. Specifically, the following topic areas may be included:
 6
2.a. Intended Function.

This section should describe the intended functions of the major flight crew
interfaces. For each, the HFCP should identify the following items, as appropriate, focusing
on new or unique features that affect the crew interface or the allocation of tasks between
the pilot(s) and the airplane systems:

- The intended function of the system from the pilots’ perspective.

- The role of the pilot relative to the system.
- The degree of integration or independence with other flight deck equipment.
- The novelty of the system.
- The assumed airplane capabilities (for example, communication, navigation, and
surveillance).
- The criticality of the system and alerting mechanism.

2.b. Cockpit or Flight Deck Layout.

Drawings of the cockpit or flight deck layout, even if they are only preliminary, can
be beneficial for providing an understanding of the intended overall cockpit or flight deck
arrangement (controls, displays, sample display screens, seating, stowage, and so forth).
Encourage the applicant to provide scheduled updates to the drawings. These updates will
help the Certification Team stay current as the design matures. Special attention should be
given to any of the following that are novel or unique.

- Arrangements of the controls, displays or other cockpit or flight deck features or

equipment.
- Controls, such as cursor control devices, or new applications of existing control
technology.
- Content and format of the pilot interface on the display as generated by the systems
software.
- Display hardware technology.
- Screen usage, alerting mechanisms, and mode annunciation.

For the items listed above, sketches of the crew interfaces for the specific systems can be
helpful in providing an early understanding of the features that may have certification
issues.

2.c Underlying Principles for Automation Logic.

The design of the system’s automated functions should be defined early in the
process. The automation features should follow a design philosophy that supports the
intended operational use regarding the system behavior; modes of operation; and pilot
interface with controls, displays and alerts. For designs that involve significant automation,
the way automation operates and communicates that operation to the pilot can have
significant effects on the crew interface. The HFCP should identify any human factors
issues related to the following:
 7
- Principles underlying mode transition.
- Mode annunciation scheme.
- Automation engagement or disengagement principles.
- Level of automation.
- Preliminary logic diagrams, complexity of the logic, if available.

3. Concept of Operation Considerations

This section of the Certification Plan should describe the general characteristics of the
intended user population, operating environment, system operating procedures, and any
proposed training that may be required. An FAA airplane evaluation group (AEG)
inspector should be involved in the review of this section of the HFCP.

3a. Pilot Characteristics.

The HFCP should contain a description of the characteristics of the pilot group the
manufacturer expects will be using the cockpit or flight deck. This description should
include assumptions about the following:

- Part 91 pilots (including those who participate in personnel flying and flying as
part of corporate and fractional ownership. Also consider their flying experience,
ratings, flight hours in terms of minimums and average.)
- Part 135 pilots (air taxi and commuter operations)
- Experience with similar equipment (other equipment that is typically used by
GA pilots)
-
3.b. Operational Considerations.

The HFCP should describe the type of flight operations and expected operating
regulations in which the product was designed to support and operate. As a minimum, the
following should be considered and discussed if applicable:

1. Parts 91, and 135

2. VFR or IFR, or both
3. Types of Approaches (Cat I, II, III)
4. Day or Night
5. Flight into Known Icing Conditions
6. High Altitude Operations
7. Airport Types and Conditions (unimproved runways, runway length, snow or ice,
etc.)

3.c. System Operation Procedures.

(Also see 14 CFR part 23, § 23.1585.) The HFCP should include a summary of any
expected additions or changes to equipment operation procedures, emergency procedures
and flight operations (that is, setting up the GPS for an IFR approach). It is useful to
describe changes to the procedures as the design of the system and use of procedures are
 8
interrelated. The HFCP should also discuss potential failure modes and alternate or backup
procedures. This section may include the following:

- Quick Reference Card or Handbook, or both

- Equipment Operation Manual
- Checklist (including automated, if applicable)
- Emergency or Abnormal procedures
- Methods to reduce the occurrence and consequences of crew error.
- Methods to preclude inadvertent installation of field loadable software that is not
compatible with the existing system configuration
- Methods to preclude the activation of maintenance diagnostic functions during
flight

3.d. Training requirements.

The HFCP should describe training that may be required to properly operate the new
system. The HFCP should also discuss the training assumptions that were made during
system development (for example, user will self train using owners manual, user will attend
a company sponsored training class, and so forth). The applicant should include a
discussion of the methods that will be used to provide this training, the estimated time it
will require, and whether the user will have to demonstrate a level of proficiency. In
addition, the HFCP should discuss any currency requirements. Currency considerations
could take the form of the following:

1. Periodic operations (i.e., operate the system every 30 days)

2. Recurring training (i.e., ground or flight training, manual review every 6 months)
3. Periodic Demonstrations of Proficiency (i.e., practical test every 6 months)

4. Certification Requirements

In this section of the HFCP, the HFCP should identify all HF related regulations that apply
to the installation of the system or component being certified. The applicant may choose to
incorporate this information in the overall certification plan. However, regardless of how
the regulations are identified, the HFCP should indicate how compliance to those
regulations will be accomplished. As part of this section, the applicant may include the
compliance checklist.

Many of the regulations that have HF implications are also within the purview of other
engineering disciplines; therefore, demonstration of compliance with 14 CFR parts may
include more than one engineering discipline. For regulations with HF implications, the
HFCP should identify which discipline or individual will be responsible for demonstrating
compliance to these regulations.

The following is a partial listing of 14 CFR parts and sections that are related to HF
certification. The HFCP should identify all the applicable HF related regulations, including
the applicable regulations from this list, and address them in the HFCP or the appropriate
section of the overall certification plan.
 9

We have chosen not to address all of these documents for the following reasons:

1. The requirements are clearly stated in the rule and no additional information is needed.
2. There is an AC or other recognized guidance that already addresses this issue and there
is no reason to repeat the information in this document.
3. Some rules are system specific, e.g., fuel, electrical, or oxygen, etc., and are typically
addressed by other disciplines within the FAA (i.e., propulsion, electrical, etc.)
4. Some regulations fall under the sole purview of the flight test pilot community and have
not been problematic from a human factors perspective.

SUBPART B—FLIGHT
MISCELLANEOUS FLIGHT REQUIREMENTS

23.251 Vibration and buffeting

SUBPART D—DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION

CONTROL SYSTEMS

23.671(a), and (b) General

23.672(a), and (b) Stability augmentation and automatic and power-operated systems
23.677(a) Trim systems
23.679(a) Control system locks

PERSONNEL AND CARGO ACCOMMODATIONS

23.771(a) Pilot compartment

23.773(a)(1), and (a)(2) Pilot compartment view
23.777(a), (b), and (e) Cockpit controls
23.785(e) Seats, berths, litters, safety belts, and shoulder harnesses

SUBPART F—EQUIPMENT
GENERAL

23.1301(a) Function and installation

23.1309 (b)(3) Equipment, systems and installations

INSTRUMENTS: INSTALLATION

23.1311 Electronic display instrument systems

23.1321(a), and (e) Arrangement and visibility
23.1322(a), (b), (c), (d), and (e) Warning, caution, and advisory lights

ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS AND EQUIPMENT

23.1357(d) Circuit protective devices

 10
23.1367(c), and (d) Switches

LIGHTS

23.1381 (a), (b) Instrument lights

MISCELLANEOUS EQUIPMENT

23.1431(c) Electronic equipment

SUBPART G—OPERATING LIMITATIONS AND INFORMATION

23.1523(a), (b), and (c) Minimum flight crew

MARKINGS AND PLACARDS

23.1555 Control markings

Appendix A lists these regulations and discusses the relevant human factors issues that may
affect the chosen methods of compliance.

5. Methods of Compliance

The HFCP should contain the applicant’s plan for showing compliance. An applicant
should explain the methods that will be used to demonstrate compliance with relevant
regulations. The HFCP should describe these methods in sufficient detail to allow the FAA
certification team to evaluate the appropriateness and adequacy of the proposed methods of
compliance. It is important that the proposed methods of compliance contain enough
fidelity to identify HF issues early in the program to avoid certification schedule delays.
The FAA and applicant should review and discuss the proposed methods of compliance
early in the certification program to identify any potential HF certification issues.

It would be beneficial for the applicant and certification team to have several coordination
meetings during the certification program to review the compliance checklist and the
associated test plans as they are developed. This will help all parties reach an understanding
on how the tests, demonstrations, and other data-gathering efforts are adequate to find
compliance.

Appendix D includes examples of compliance methods and related discussion. Appendix E

contains a checklist for reviewing the HFCP.

6. System Safety Assessments

Typically, applicants prepare system safety assessments in accordance with AC 23.1309.

These may include a Functional Hazard Assessment (FHA), Failure Modes and Effects
Analysis (FMEA), Fault Tree Analysis, and so forth. For each assessment planned, the
HFCP should describe how they will address any HF elements (such as crew responses to
 11
failure conditions) and their assumptions about crew behavior. All certification team
members should review these assumptions to ensure the flightcrew can compensate for all
expected failures. These HF considerations can be documented in the individual system
safety assessments, or the applicant may elect to describe them in the HFCP, with references
to the associated system safety assessments.

7. Certification Documentation

The HFCP should identify the types of documentation that will be submitted to show
compliance or otherwise record the certification program progress. This section may list the
specific document (test report number, analysis report number, and so forth) that will be
used to support compliance with the subject regulation. The document may also be listed in
the compliance matrix (See Appendix D example).

8. Certification Schedule

This section of an HFCP should include the human factors certification activities that relate
to the major milestones of the certification program. If this information is provided in the
overall certification plan, it need not be repeated in the HFCP. The following are some
suggested topics that may be addressed in this section:

8a. HFCP Certification Plan Submittals:

The Certification Team should expect periodic HFCP updates as the certification
program progresses. The applicant should be encouraged to send the first HFCP as soon as
possible after the start of the program. The FAA certification team should review the
preliminary draft and inform the applicant that the draft preliminary information is adequate
and appropriate. This information should be updated and finalized in a timely manner as
documented in the schedule and agreed to jointly by the FAA and the applicant.

8.b. Cockpit or Flight Deck Reviews, Early Prototype Reviews, Simulator

Reviews, and Flight Test Demonstrations:

The HFCP may include planned design reviews. Even in cases where the reviews
are not directly associated with finding compliance, they can be very helpful in the
following ways:

- Providing the Certification Team with an accurate and early understanding of the
crew interface tradeoffs and design proposals.
- Allow the certification team to provide the applicant early feedback on any
potential certification issues.
- Support cooperative teaming between the applicant and the certification team, in a
manner consistent with the Certification Process Improvement initiative.
 12
8c. Coordination Meetings:

Coordination meetings with other certification authorities, or meetings with other

FAA Aircraft Certification Offices on components of the same certification project or
related projects, should be documented in the schedule.

The Certification Team can use the information in the schedule to determine if sufficient
coordination and resources adequately address the HF issues for the certification program.

9. Use of Designees and Identification of Individual Designated Engineering

Representative (DER)

Currently, compliance to the HF related regulations cited in this policy are under the
purview of disciplines other than human factors engineers. For many of these regulations,
flight test Designated Engineering Representatives (DER's) are responsible for showing and
finding compliance with these regulations. As such, the HFCP should identify whoever is
responsible for finding compliance with these regulations.

Effect of Policy

The general policy stated in this document does not constitute a new regulation and the
FAA would not apply or rely upon it as a regulation. The FAA Aircraft Certification
Offices (ACO) that certificate normal, utility, acrobatic, and commuter category airplanes
should attempt to follow this policy when applicable to the specific project. Whenever an
applicant’s proposed method of compliance is outside this established policy, it must be
coordinated with the policy issuing office as a standard practice.

Applicants should expect that the certificating officials will consider this information when
making findings of compliance relevant to new certificate actions. Also, as with all
advisory material, this policy statement identifies one means, but not the only means, of
compliance.
 13
The general policy that is stated in this document is intended to provide internal guidance to
FAA certification teams. The purpose of the guidance is to enable them to conduct an
effective review of the applicant’s HFCP (or HF components of a general certification plan)
when one is submitted as part of a TC, STC, or ATC project. The general policy stated in
this document is not intended to establish a binding norm; it does not constitute a new
regulation, and the FAA would neither apply nor rely upon it as a regulation. The FAA
Aircraft Certification Offices, and authorized designees, who approve the design of small
airplanes and systems installed in the cockpit should attempt to follow this policy. Also,
information contained in this policy may also be useful to those offices and individuals
responsible for field approvals via form 337. Although the application of this policy is not
mandatory, FAA offices should utilize the guidance in this document to ensure that human
factors are adequately and consistently addressed during certification. This policy was not
written to determine who should be responsible for certification compliance findings for any
particular project or program. In determining compliance, each FAA certification office has
the discretion to apply part or all of these guidelines as deemed appropriate.

s/ James E. Jackson
for

Michael Gallagher
Manager, Small Airplane Directorate
Aircraft Certification Service
 14

APPENDIX A
Partial List of Part 23 Regulations Related to Human Factors

For the purposes of brevity, some of the regulations have not been restated in their entirety.
However, the regulation part associated with HF issues has been reproduced. For all
compliance-related documents, the HFCP should use the exact wording of the regulation.

This list of regulations contained in this Appendix is not intended to include all regulations
associated with HF and flightcrew interfaces. Also, several of the regulations are written in
general terms, in these cases subjective data are often utilized to establish compliance. The
intent of the information in this section is to assist in understanding the human factors
implications of the more frequently referenced regulations. It is also provides examples of
how to demonstrate compliance to these regulations. This information should help the
reviewer determine if the applicant has adequately addressed the HF related requirements
for the more commonly referenced regulations.

Due to the subjective nature of many of the HF aspects of the regulations, the FAA
encourages the applicant to carefully consider and thoroughly describe the means that will
be used to demonstrate compliance with each regulation. The applicant may choose to
provide the detailed description of the means of compliance in subsequent submitted test
plans. The information contained in the Discussion paragraph for each regulation contained
in this Appendix should be used to assess the appropriateness and adequacy of the
applicant's chosen methods. The FAA and the applicant should meet to discuss and reach
agreement as to the acceptability of the proposed techniques prior to the beginning of
collection of compliance demonstration data. Compliance may be demonstrated through
similarity and minimal testing for simple and straightforward applications that have little
impact on pilot workload, situation awareness, tasking or performance.

More complex, integrated designs may require pilot evaluation under actual anticipated
flight conditions. For these tests, use a representative pilot population to ensure that future
system users can safely and effectively operate the system in the intended operational
environment. The test program should include sufficient simulation (see Appendix C) and
flight testing to ensure:

1. Reasonable training times and learning curves.

2. Acceptable interpretation and operation error rates equivalent to or less than previously
certified comparable systems.

3. The intended user (pilot) of the system does not require any exceptional skill or strength
to operate the system.

4. Proper integration and compatibility with other controls or displays, or both, and other
equipment in the cockpit.

5. Typically all airplane systems are designed to minimize failures. However, if a system
failure occurs, the pilot should be able to safely continue to operate the airplane. It is not
 15
acceptable for the pilot to be given misleading information in the event of a malfunction.
The FAA should also encourage the applicant to conduct early analyses and evaluations of
new systems to facilitate timely identification and resolution of HF related certification
issues.

The following is a partial listing of the HF related regulations and associated Discussion of
each of those regulations along with considerations for demonstration of compliance.

§ 23.251 Vibration and buffeting

There must be no buffeting in any normal flight condition severe enough to interfere
with the satisfactory control of the airplane or cause excessive fatigue to the flight
crew.

Discussion: A major HF consideration for this regulation is the vibration induced fatigue
that may result from the high level of concentration needed to read the instruments and
operate controls. When determining compliance, careful consideration should be given to
the frequencies and magnitudes of the vibration, and the duration of exposure to these
circumstances under normal conditions. Tasks that may be particularly affected by
vibration include the capability to read displayed information and access or operate controls.
Evaluations should be conducted to verify that any potential buffeting that could occur
during normal flight conditions does not interfere with the pilot's capability to perform these
tasks and satisfactorily control the airplane. If it is possible for the pilot to be exposed to
the vibrations for extended periods, then evaluations should be made under worst case
duration conditions to determine the effect on pilot fatigue. Consideration should be also
given to a related regulation – 14 CFR part 23, § 23.771(a). This rule addresses
unreasonable concentration and fatigue from a pilot compartment and equipment design and
layout perspective.

§ 23.671 Controls Systems, General

(a) Each control must operate easily, smoothly, and positively enough to allow proper
performance of its functions.

(b) Controls must be arranged and identified to provide for convenience in operation and to
prevent the possibility of confusion and subsequent inadvertent operation.

Discussion: This is a general rule for controls that can be applied to any system with a
control function, including flight controls and avionics equipment. The physical
characteristics of a control, such as size, shape, and method of operation can affect its ease
of use. These characteristics can also impact the adequacy of control feedback and can aid
in preventing inadvertent control operation. Also, control arrangement, that is its relative
location in the cockpit, functional association to nearby controls (functional grouping), and
its distance (spacing) from nearby controls, can affect the identification and usability of a
control. These factors should be considered when evaluating compliance to these
regulations.

Consideration should be given to the potential for errors associated with control
identification and arrangement, and the possible consequences of such errors. The applicant
 16
may choose to conduct an error analysis to determine the consequences of inadvertent
operation errors on system operation and safety. The results of such analysis can greatly aid
in the identification and understanding of potential operation errors. This data should be
supported by evaluations.

As a minimum, evaluations should be conducted in a representative cockpit that accurately

portrays the geometry and layout of the airplane or system. The applicant may choose to
use physical mock-ups for preliminary evaluations. Simulators, if available, create a more
powerful evaluation environment. The use of simulators allows evaluations to be conducted
using representative flight scenarios that provide more realistic control use and operation
sequences. Simulator evaluations may reduce flight test time through early identification
and resolution of any problems that may occur prior to actual flight test.

Each control should be examined and operated to evaluate the ease of identification and use.
The control should also be evaluated for the potential for inadvertent activation. Attention
should also be given to potential interference from adjacent controls. If there is a potential
for inadvertent activation, the consequences of those errors need to be examined in terms of
the effect on system operation and safety.

Training has often been used to mitigate the potential for inadvertent operation of controls.
Caution should be exercised whenever training is proposed to address a potential
inadvertent operation error concern. The use of training to address potential inadvertent
operation issues has not been shown to be consistently successful.

In the past, failure to properly address inadvertent operation has resulted in design induced
pilot errors. There have been accidents and incidents associated with inadvertent operation
of controls. These mistakes can become dangerous if the error is made during the more
critical phases of flight. For example, if a pilot is unaware that he has activated the
autopilot during approach, it could result in an accident.

The certification team and the applicant should refer to the design-related reference
materials contained in Appendix B. Appendix B also contains useful guidance material that
describes how to avoid these potential problems.

§ 23.672(a) Stability augmentation and automatic and power operated systems

A warning, which is clearly distinguishable to the pilot, without requiring the pilot’s
attention, must be provided for any failure in automatic or power-operated systems that
could result in an unsafe condition if the pilot was not aware of the failure.

Discussion: An important human factors issue is to provide a warning signal that cannot be
confused with other cockpit alerts. If an audio signal is used, the pilot must be able to
discriminate it from all other cockpit audio alerts. If several tones are used in the cockpit, it
can complicate the pilot’s tasks. It is important that auditory alerts be used judiciously. The
number of auditory alarms should be kept to the minimum necessary to provide the desired
result. Too many alerts can become annoying, increasing pilot workload and detract from a
pilot’s primary flight responsibilities. Spoken alerts can have advantages over other forms
of auditory warnings since they convey specific information without the pilot having to
 17
interpret a tone or revert to a visual display to determine the exact failure. Regardless of the
method chosen to present auditory alerts, they should be evaluated to determine that they
are readily detectable, easily heard under all ambient noise conditions and quickly and
correctly interpreted.

Since the general aviation pilot population includes many individuals who have hearing
deficiencies, special consideration needs to be given to this situation when conducting
evaluations of auditory warning systems. Ensure that the alerting tone or voice message is
of sufficient intensity (loudness) that it clearly stands out against all normal background
noise.

Evaluations should be conducted in the aircraft during both ground and flight operations
with varying levels of background noise. Applications that employ voice technology should
meet these same criteria. Analysis, simulation or flight test should be conducted to show
that the system will not produce nuisance alerts when the airplane is conducting normal
flight operations.

§ 23.672(b)

The design of the system must permit initial counteraction of failures without requiring
exceptional pilot skill or strength.

Discussion. Determination of exceptional pilot skill or strength is subjective. When

evaluating for "exceptional pilot skill," evaluators should consider the complexity of the
task in terms of the performance requirement (level of accuracy or precision), the number of
steps, training requirements, memory load, checklist use, and time-to-perform. These
evaluations are normally done by the test pilots involved in the program. For any new or
novel designs, the guidance provided in the beginning of this appendix concerning multiple
pilot evaluations should be followed. For "exceptional pilot strength," it is also important
that evaluations be conducted considering the minimum strength capabilities of the pilot.
Guidance that may be useful to applicants to aid in determining strength considerations is
found in the strength study in item 9 of Appendix B. This study provides several examples
of maximum force exertion from various locations of controls in the cockpit; however, there
are always unique situations that can arise during the design of a new or modified cockpit.
When new or unique situations arise, evaluations should be conducted early on to ensure
that the strength required to activate the control does not fall outside the limitations of the
pilot population. The FAA will make the final determination of compliance for this
requirement.

§ 23.677(a) Trim systems

There must be a means to indicate to the pilot the position of the trim device with respect to
both range of adjustment and, in the case of lateral and directional trim, the neutral position.
This means must be visible to the pilot and must be located and designed to prevent
confusion. The pitch trim indicator must be clearly marked with a position or range within
which has been demonstrated that takeoff is safe for all center of gravity positions and each
flap position approved for takeoff.
 18
Discussion. Human factors issues have been associated with the airplane trim wheel
location. In some instances, trim wheels have been placed in positions that are difficult to
see and require the pilot to assume an awkward body position to read and operate. The
inability to see the trim wheel position can create the potential for an accident. Assuming
an awkward body position to see or operate the trim wheel can result in inadvertent flight
control inputs. It can also result in additional time spent heads down and cause the pilot to
not see traffic or other situations occurring outside of the cockpit. The HFCP should
indicate that the applicant performed early analysis to determine if visual and physical
access to the trim wheel is adequate. Evaluations should then be conducted to ensure the
proposed design accommodates various size pilots, as defined by the applicant, in order to
determine if they can readily see and adequately operate the trim mechanism without
confusion or undue concentration.

§ 23.679 Control system locks

If there is a device to lock the control system

(a) There must be a means to—

(1) Give unmistakable warning to the pilot when the lock is engaged; or

(2) Automatically disengage the device when the pilot operates the primary flight controls
in a normal manner.

(b) The device must be installed to limit the operation of the airplane so that, when the
device is engaged, the pilot receives unmistakable warning at the start of the takeoff.

(c) The device must have a means to preclude the possibility of it becoming inadvertently
engaged in flight.

Discussion. A number of accidents have occurred because pilots have tried to take off with
either the manufacturers control lock or a substitute device in place. Although normal
preflight procedures should prevent this situation from happening, accidents continue to
happen. There are a couple of issues that can cause this problem. One has to do with the
obviousness of the "unmistakable" warning and the second is the use of unapproved devices
to secure the control (for example, a common bolt inserted through the control column
hole). Various approaches and devices have been developed to make it "very" apparent that
the control is locked. When evaluating a control lock system several factors should be
considered in finding compliance with the regulation.

a. The warning should be easily discernable during both day and night operations. Color,
location, shape, and accessibility of the device, ease of removal by a seated pilot, and
legibility of any placards, etc., should be considered.

b. The system operation should be obvious. It should only be possible to install the lock
such that the warning placard is properly displayed.
 19
c. When engaged, the lock should, by design, limit the operation of the airplane so that the
pilot receives unmistakable warning in the cockpit before or at the start of takeoff by an
effective means such as:

(1) preventing the application of sufficient engine power to attempt takeoff;

(2) displacement of primary pilot controls, such as the control wheel full forward; or

(3) an aural warning device that cannot be disengaged.

(4) Preventing the engine (s) from being started by blocking key insertion or by
covering the starter switch.

d. For airplanes with separate locks for throttle and control column, where one lock (e.g.,
throttle) can be removed independently of the other, each lock should independently meet
the criteria in item c above.

§ 23.771(a) Pilot compartment

Each pilot compartment and its equipment must allow the minimum flightcrew to
perform their duties without unreasonable concentration or fatigue.

Discussion: The HFCP should identify the aspects of the flightcrew interface that might
require significant or sustained mental or physical effort that may lead to fatigue. There are
many factors that can affect fatigue, such as noise, vibration, seat comfort, poorly designed
controls or displays and excessive control forces. Methods of compliance should focus on
evaluation procedures that examine potential concentration demands and sources of fatigue
for the flightcrew. Comparisons to previously certified designs may be used to determine
the acceptability of a system. Some issues that can contribute to pilot fatigue are as follows:

The ease of identification, accessibility, and usability of cockpit controls can affect the level
of pilot concentration. Evaluations should be conducted to ensure all cockpit controls are
easy to identify, access, and operate as required in flight.

There are a number of factors associated with display design that can ultimately impact
concentration and fatigue. Displays that are difficult to read or contain poorly organized
information, or lack necessary information, result in greater demands on pilot attention and
concentration. Evaluations should be conducted under operationally representative
scenarios to assess the effectiveness and usability of the displays.

Noise may also affect crew performance, concentration and fatigue. Evaluations should be
conducted to ensure that excessive noise levels are not present, and if noise does exist, to
ensure that it does not interfere with crew performance, concentration or cause unacceptable
fatigue.

Poorly designed seats have the potential to create fatigue. Seats should be evaluated to
determine if they contribute a significant amount of fatigue. These assessments can be
conducted using test participants and gathering subjective data. Assessments should be
 20
conducted based upon the average length of flight time that the pilot is expected to remain
in the seat for a typical flight for the airplane under evaluation. Subjective comments
should be solicited from test participants concerning muscle tension, “hotspots” (areas
where harder body contact is experienced), and body soreness or discomfort. Lateral
support in the seat pan, and lumbar support in the seat back, have been used to increase seat
comfort.

§ 23.773(a)(1) Pilot compartment view (visibility, glare and reflections)

Each pilot compartment must be-

(1) Arranged with sufficiently extensive, clear, and undistorted view to enable the
pilot to safely taxi, takeoff, approach, land and perform any maneuvers within the
operating limitations of the airplane.

(2) Free from glare and reflections that could interfere with the pilot’s vision.

Discussion: § 23.773(a)(1)

1. Sufficient external vision must be provided to enable the pilot to safely

fly and control the airplane. The design must provide a level of safety that ensures
adequate external vision to “see and avoid” traffic and other obstacles in the
environment. In addition, consideration should be given to any optical distortions in
the windshield or canopy, especially in the prime viewing areas, which may degrade
external viewing.

The HFCP should define a design eye reference point that will account for the range of
expected pilot physical dimensions. The capability to provide an adequate view of the
external environment is essential for safe operation. Evaluations should be conducted with
individuals that represent a range of different human physical dimensions. Consideration
should be given to seat adjustment capability as it accommodates the range of expected pilot
physical dimensions. Particular attention should be given to the size and location of aircraft
structures that may obstruct the external view. Refer the applicant to documents listed in
Appendix B of this policy for additional assistance in addressing this area.

Discussion: § 23.773(a)(2)

2. Glare and reflections.

Vision outside the cockpit must not be compromised by glare or reflections from
either internal or external lighting sources. Glare and reflections can significantly degrade
display readability and usability, and the capability to see outside the airplane. Unwanted
glare and reflections can be produced from sources both inside and outside the cockpit.
Mock-ups can be especially useful for early assessments. These preliminary assessments
can reduce program risk by identifying potential problem areas early.

High fidelity devices that accurately represent the geometry, layout, and system design
characteristics of the actual airplane need to be used to obtain certification credit.
 21
Evaluations should be conducted under all potential lighting conditions to include dawn or
dusk conditions with the sun near the horizon, higher sun angles (both in front, behind, and
directly overhead the airplane), and during night conditions (both dark night and moonlit
conditions). Also evaluate the affect various internal lighting selections and levels have on
readability and usability of airplane equipment and systems and the ability to see outside the
cockpit.

§ 23.777 Cockpit controls

(a) Each cockpit control must be located and (except where its function is obvious)
identified to provide convenient operation and to prevent confusion and inadvertent
operation.

Discussion: This regulation is related to § 23.671(b), the important difference is that it

addresses the usability of a control from a location and identification perspective. The
location of a control can significantly affect:

(1) the pilot’s ability to easily identify the control;

(2) the ease and convenience of operation of the control;

(3) confusion as to the control's operation; and

(4) inadvertent operation of that control.

Several techniques have been used to aid in control identification and use. The size, shape,
color, configuration and method of operation have been used to discriminate between
controls and aid in control identification. Consideration should be given to these other
design related characteristics, relative to the control's location, when evaluating control
identification and use. Unless its function and method of operation are obvious, a control
must be labeled in accordance with § 23.1555. The suggested analyses and evaluation
procedures described for showing compliance with § 23.671 are also applicable and
recommended for this regulation.

§ 23.777(b)

The controls must be located and arranged so that the pilot, when seated, has full
and unrestricted movement of each control without interference from either his
clothing or the cockpit structure.

Discussion: This regulation addresses the capability to operate a control through its
full range of motion, considering potential interference from clothing and cockpit
structures. It is important that evaluations be conducted using individuals
representing a range of potential user physical dimensions and includes tests with
users wearing different apparel, such as long sleeved shirts, jackets and gloves. The
applicant may use analytical methods, such as computer modeling of the cockpit or
flight deck and the pilots, for early problem identification and risk reduction.
Regardless of the analytical models used, compliance must be demonstrated in either
 22
a high fidelity mockup that accurately represents the actual airplane or performed in
the actual airplane.

§ 23.777(e)

Identical powerplant controls for each engine must be located to prevent confusion as to the
engines they control.

Discussion: This topic is also related to the discussion for § 23.671(b). In multi-engine
airplanes, there have been accidents caused by instances where the pilot thought he had
taken the appropriate corrective action for an engine malfunction, but inadvertently shut
down a properly functioning engine. The inability to determine which engine to shut down
can be caused by several factors including the lack of association as to which control
operates which engine. Other causes include situations where it was difficult to diagnose
which engine had the problem, either due to the nature of the malfunction, the adequacy of
the warning/alert or adequacy of the engine display system. The evaluation of these
controls should include a thorough examination of the control location and mechanization.
The physical arrangement of the controls on multi-engine should be consistent with the
physical location of the engines on the airplane as far as left to right sequence. They should
also be examined in conjunction with their associated displays and warning indications
when failures occur. Every effort should be made to provide clear unmistakable indications
to prevent these situations from occurring. Also, marking and lighting of the engine
controls needs to be clear and distinct to prevent any confusion to the pilot. Compliance
testing identified in the HFCP should begin with analysis of initial engineering studies and
continue through mock-up, simulator and aircraft ground/flight test evaluations.
§ 23.785(e) Seats, berths, litters, safety belts, and shoulder harnesses

The restraint system for each crewmember must allow the crewmember, when
seated with the safety belt and shoulder harness fastened, to perform all functions
necessary for flight operations.

Discussion: This regulation is related to § 23.777(b); the key differences are that the
crewmember must be restrained by the safety belt and shoulder harness, and it only applies
to those, "functions necessary for flight operations." The discussion and suggested
evaluation procedures for § 23.777(b) are applicable and should be used for finding
compliance with this regulation with the exception that evaluations must be conducted with
crewmembers seated with safety belts and shoulder harnesses fastened. Additionally,
evaluators should only assess the capability to perform functions necessary for flight
operations. The HFCP should provide a list of those cockpit functions necessary for flight
operations, under normal and abnormal conditions.

§ 23.1301(a) Function and installation (intended function)

Each item of installed equipment must—

(a) Be of a kind and design appropriate to its intended function.

 23
(b) Be labeled according to its identification, function, or operating limitations, or
any applicable combination of these factors.

Discussion: This regulation has broad implications and has been used to address a wide
range of design and operational considerations. An important aspect of this regulation that
can significantly affect the evaluation and finding of compliance is the interpretation of the
"intended function" of a system. The interpretation of the systems intended function is
typically done by assessing the design, functional capability, and operational use of the
system. The applicant will generally provide this information for certification purposes.
This information is based upon the applicant’s viewpoint of how the system should be
operated; however, the system may go beyond what the applicant has envisioned for its use.
The FAA should work cooperatively with the applicant so that the “intended function” of a
system is accurate, reliable, realistic, and acceptable. Therefore, it is important that the
FAA certification team assess the design, functional capability, and use of the system and
compare that with the applicant's description of the intended function.

The determination that a system is of a kind and design appropriate to its intended function
should be based on performance-based criteria. The ACO should consider the complexity
of the system in determining the test requirements. For concerns pertaining to the pilot-
vehicle interface, the evaluation should investigate the capability of the pilot to adequately
perform related tasks. Performance measures such as time-to-perform, number of inputs,
accuracy, comprehension, situational awareness, and perceived workload may be collected
to assess compliance. Evaluations should be conducted using operationally representative
scenarios. Simulation may be used to verify that properly trained pilots can adequately
perform all tasks using the system. Finally, flight tests can be used to investigate specific
normal and abnormal operational scenarios.

Item (b) of this rule pertains to proper labeling of cockpit equipment for identification,
functionality, and operating limitations. This is usually accomplished by placing a tag or
label on the outside of the equipment. For labeling of any associated controls, reference
should be made to § 23.1555. This rule specifically addresses control labels and requires
that controls be plainly marked as to their functions and methods of operation.

§ 23.1309 Equipment, systems and installations

(b)(3) Warning information must be provided to alert the crew to unsafe system
operating conditions and to enable them to take appropriate corrective action. Systems,
controls, and associated monitoring and warning means must be designed to minimize crew
errors that could create additional hazards.

(b)(4) Compliance with the requirements of this rule may be shown by analysis and,
where necessary, by ground, flight, or simulator tests. The analysis must consider—

(iv) The crew warning cues, corrective action required, and the crew’s capability of
determining results.

Discussion: Section 23.1309 requires that a warning be provided to the crew for any unsafe
condition. It also requires that the system be designed to prevent any unwanted actions or
operator errors. The applicant may wish to perform analyses of crew procedures in response
 24
to system faults. This can be especially important in cases where the applicant wishes to
take certification credit (for example, in a Fault Tree Analysis) for correct pilot response to
a system failure. Designs should mitigate the potential for crew error that could contribute
to any additional hazards. The applicant should assess the consequences of inappropriate
crew response to alerting conditions. Any likely misinterpretations of an alert should be
examined to assess its potential for creating additional hazards. Evaluations should also
include an assessment of the adequacy of the feedback given to the crew should they make
an inappropriate response to a failure. Qualitative evaluations should also be used to
supplement and verify analyses of pilot responses. These evaluations should include
sufficient testing using a representative population of pilots to ensure acceptable
interpretation of responses. Simulation testing, including the use of pilots untrained or
unfamiliar with the new design can be especially helpful in demonstrating that the design is
not prone to crew interpretation and response errors.

It is important to provide a warning, caution or alert signal that cannot be confused with
either other cockpit visual or auditory displays, or both. It is also important that it aids the
crew in determining the root cause of the problem and assists them in taking the appropriate
corrective action. In addition, there must be immediate and effective feedback of the
result(s) of that action. If an audio alert is used, the pilot must be able to discriminate it
from all other audio signals. If multiple similar tones are used in the cockpit, it can
complicate the pilot’s task and increase workload. Thus, it is important that auditory alerts
be used judiciously. The use of many alerts can be a nuisance to the pilot, increasing
workload and detracting from the pilot’s primary responsibilities. The number of auditory
alarms should be kept to the minimum necessary to provide the desired result. Voice alerts
can have advantages over other forms of auditory warnings in that they can convey specific
information without requiring the pilot to interpret a tone or revert to a visual display to
determine the cause of the alert. Regardless of the method chosen to present auditory alerts,
they should be easily detected and quickly understood in all ambient noise conditions.

§ 23.1311 Electronic display instrument systems

(a)(1) Electronic display indicators must meet the arrangement and visibility of § 23.1321.

(a)(2) Be easily legible under all lighting conditions encountered in the cockpit, including
direct sunlight, considering the expected electronic display brightness level at the end of its
expected useful life.

(b) The electronic display indicators must be designed so that one display of information
essential for continued safe flight and landing will remain available to the crew without
need for immediate action by any pilot for continued safe operation, after any single failure
or combination of failures.

Discussion: Electronic displays are required to have adequate contrast and brightness to be
legible in all ambient lighting environments from bright sunlight to total darkness. The
lighting controls must also have an adequate range of adjustment to accommodate these
conditions. This requirement is intended to provide readable displays without increasing
pilot workload (for example, trying to shield the display to read it).
 25
Evaluations should be conducted under all potential lighting conditions to include dawn or
dusk with the sun near the horizon, higher sun angles both in front, behind and directly
overhead the airplane, and at night (both dark night and moonlit). One should also evaluate
the affect various internal lighting selections and levels have on readability and usability of
electronic displays.

The color-coding scheme employed for the airplane display should be evaluated for
consistency with those recommended in AC 23.1311-1A. The effective use of color can
greatly aid in pilot recognition and interpretation of displayed information. It is important
that the use of color in all cockpit applications be consistent across all cockpit displays. The
chosen colors should be evaluated to determine if they do in fact enhance the understanding
of displayed information. Colors should minimize display interpretation errors. Although
the FAA does not mandate color coding conventions for the display of general information
on MFD’s, there are recommended color-coding guidelines that have worked well in the
past that are described in Paragraph 9 of AC 23.1311-1A. It should also be noted that there
might be specific color-coding requirements associated with a particular display function
based on the type of information presented. For example, if the multifunction display
presents terrain information, the color coding requirements associated with AC 23-18
(Installation Terrain Awareness and Warning System) would apply.

This regulation also addresses the need to ensure essential information will be available to
the pilot during critical phases of flight without requiring pilot action. For additional
information concerning this regulation and methods of showing compliance, see AC
23.1311-1A.

§ 23.1321(a) Arrangement and visibility

Each flight, navigation, and powerplant instrument for use by any required pilot
during takeoff, initial climb, final approach, and landing must be located so that the
pilot seated at the controls can monitor the airplane’s flight path and these
instruments with minimum head and eye movement.

Discussion: This regulation requires that primary flight displays be located in the pilot’s
primary field of view (reference AC 23.1311-1A) and maintain a basic T configuration
(reference AC 23-17). Other instruments may be placed outside the pilot's primary field of
view. In older part 23 airplanes, powerplant instruments were often located on the right
hand side of the cockpit, which often made the instruments difficult to read and caused
excessive head or eye movement for the pilot. Today, integrated display technology allows
this information to be monitored by the computer and, when needed, integrated onto a
display in front of the pilot without the loss of critical flight display parameters. Analysis of
the angular offset of a display from the pilot’s centerline of vision may be necessary to
determine how accessible that display is in a visual scan. Additionally, the visual angle
subtended by the display may be used to determine how readable the display will be
(apparent display size). Final assessment of the acceptability of the visibility of the
instruments will require a geometrically correct mockup or the actual airplane.
 26
§ 23.1321(e)

If a visual indicator is provided to indicate malfunction of an instrument, it must be

effective under all probable cockpit lighting conditions.

Discussion: This regulation is closely related to §§ 23.1309(b)(3) and 23.1311(a)(2). The

evaluation considerations discussed under those sections are applicable to this regulation as
well. Demonstrations and tests intended to show compliance should use production quality
hardware and be conducted in a variety of lighting conditions (for example, dark, bright
forward field, shafting sunlight). Due to the effect other aircraft electrical systems have on
individual systems, compliance tests should be conducted in the airplane, although
supporting data from laboratory testing may be submitted to supplement airplane testing.

§ 23.1322 Warning, caution, and advisory lights

If warning, caution, or advisory lights are installed in the cockpit, they must, unless
otherwise approved by the Administrator, be—

(a) Red, for warning lights (lights indicating a hazard which may require immediate
corrective action);

(b) Amber, for caution lights (lights indicating the possible need for future corrective
action);

(c) Green for safe operation lights; and

(d) Any other color, including white, for lights not described in paragraphs (a) through (c)
of this section, provided the color differs sufficiently from the colors prescribed in
paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section to avoid possible confusion.

(e) Effective under all probable cockpit lighting conditions.

Discussion: Originally this regulation was written to specifically apply to lights. With the
advent of the integrated electronic multifunction display systems, many manufacturers are
presenting warnings, cautions and alerts on these MFD’s instead of separate annunciation
panels. As a consequence, this regulation is being routinely applied to these integrated
electronic displays. The use of red and amber for encoding purposes other than warnings
and cautions can create confusion on these displays. Red should only be used as a warning
annunciation for emergency operational conditions when immediate flight crew recognition
and action is required. Amber should only be used for cautionary alerting and when
immediate crew awareness is required and subsequent action may be required. White or
another unique color should be used for advisory annunciation’s of operational conditions
that require flight crew awareness and may not require any action. Green should be used for
indication of safe operating conditions. See AC 23.1311 for more information.

The HFCP should describe each warning, caution, and advisory light, including the
expected pilot response. Consideration should be given to establishing a well-defined color
coding philosophy that is consistently applied across the cockpit. A well-defined and
 27
consistent color philosophy can greatly reduce the likelihood of confusion and interpretation
errors.

Evaluations should be conducted in the airplane using actual hardware. Testing should
include a variety of lighting conditions. It is important that the selected colors maintain
integrity (for example, red looks red, amber looks amber) and discriminability (that is,
colors can be distinguished reliably from each other) from all potential viewing angles and
under all expected lighting levels.

§ 23.1357(d) Circuit protective devices

If the ability to reset a circuit breaker or replace a fuse is essential to safety during
flight, that circuit breaker or fuse must be located and identified so that it can be
readily reset or replaced in flight.

Discussion: The applicant may choose to use methods similar to those employed for
§ 23.777 to demonstrate the ability of the pilot to reach the specific circuit protective
device(s). The HFCP should describe how to evaluate the ability of the pilot to readily
identify the device(s), whether they are installed on a circuit breaker panel or controlled
using an electronic device (that is, display screen on which the circuit breaker status can be
displayed and controlled).

§ 23.1367 Switches

(c) Each switch must be accessible to the appropriate crewmember

(d) Each switch must be labeled as to operation and the circuit controlled

Discussion: This regulation is similar to § 23.777(a) and (b), the primary difference is that
it applies to electrical switches. The discussion and methods of compliance discussed under
that section are applicable to this regulation. The location of cockpit switches should be
based upon the criticality of their use (that is, importance, frequency of use, and so forth).
Evaluations should be conducted with a wide range of individuals who are representative of
the general aviation pilot group, which includes the average flying pilot and not just the
highly trained or highly skilled.

§ 23.1381 Instrument lights

The instrument lights must—

(a) Make each instrument and control easily readable and discernible;

(b) Be installed so that their direct rays, and rays reflected from the windshield or other
surface, are shielded from the pilot’s eyes.

Discussion: The primary purpose of cockpit lighting is to allow the crew to quickly see,
accurately locate and identify and, if appropriate, interact with displays or controls under
both low and high ambient lighting conditions. It is especially important to be able to easily
 28
read all of the illuminated information that appears on the warning/caution/advisories
displays. All illuminated information must be easily identifiable, readable and controllable
by the pilot under all ambient lighting environments (direct sunlight to total darkness).
Cockpit lighting evaluations should ensure that:

(a) Enough lighting is provided to make the performance of all related tasks easy to
accomplish with a high level of speed and accuracy.

(b) Allow the pilot to be able to recognize and see any hazardous condition or potential
hazards quickly, and

(b) Provide visual comfort.

Glare and flicker can both create visual discomfort. Each lighted component should be
individually evaluated for uniform lighting and balance. Each component should also be
evaluated for uniformity and balance with all other illuminated instruments. This includes
other displays, controls, alerting systems and secondary lighting, all of which should be
compatible with each other. Dimming controls should be examined for uniform operation
from full bright to off. The dimming ranges should be sufficient to obtain adequate
readability throughout the entire operational lighting environment. Consideration should be
given to the number of dimming controls in the cockpit. The more dimming controls the
pilot must operate the greater the workload and the increased likelihood of confusion and
operator error; therefore, dimming controls should be kept to the minimum required. All
control markings should be evaluated to ensure they are visible and evenly illuminated
during both night and day operations. It should also be noted that font size (variations, e.g.,
character stroke size, width and height) of the illuminated displays can affect readability and
perceived brightness. Variations in font size may create perceived lighting imbalances in
the cockpit. (Reference ARP 4103 for recommendations.) Lighting of one control should
not interfere with viewing and identification of adjacent controls. Alerting lights must also
be evaluated for adequate attention getting value for both day and night operations.

Inspection of the cockpit for glare and reflections should always be considered as part of the
evaluation procedure. Evaluations should ensure that glare and reflections do not cause
visual discomfort or impair out the window viewing or interfere with other visual tasks.
Lighting tests may be conducted in a mockup if available. Aircraft ground and flight tests
should also be conducted for both day and night operations.

§ 23.1431 Electronic equipment

(c) For airplanes required to have more than one flightcrew member, the cockpit must be
evaluated to determine if the flightcrew members, when seated at their duty station, can
converse without difficulty under the actual cockpit noise conditions when the airplane is
being operated.

(e) If provisions for the use of communication headsets are provided, it must be
demonstrated that the flightcrew members will receive all aural warnings under the
actual cockpit noise conditions when the airplane is being operated when any headset is
being used.
 29

Discussion: These evaluations need to be conducted to determine that communications

between crew members can be adequately accomplished. Evaluations to determine
compliance with this regulation are normally conducted during ground and flight tests under
the highest expected noise conditions (e.g., high speed and full throttle). Crew members
should be able to effectively communicate without excessive effort, e.g. shouting to be
heard. It would be useful to analyze and identify potential noise sources early in the
program.

All aural alerts need to be evaluated with and without headsets to assess their effectiveness
and acceptability under all ambient noise conditions that may be encountered in the
operational environment. There have been problems created by using active noise reduction
headsets in older cockpits that have an alert sounded only in the cabin and not in the
cockpit. The aircraft evaluations should also include the examination of an active noise
reduction (ANR) system if it is going to be used on the airplane.

§ 23.1523 Minimum flight crew

The minimum flight crew must be established so that it is sufficient for safe operation,
considering:

(a) Workload on individual crewmembers; in addition for commuter category

airplanes, each crewmember workload determination must consider the following:

(1) Flight path control;

(2) Collision avoidance;

(3) Navigation;

(4) Communications;

(5) Operation and monitoring of all essential airplane systems;

(6) Command decisions; and

(7) The accessibility and ease of operation of necessary controls by the

appropriate crewmember during normal and emergency operations when at the
crewmember flight station.

(b) Accessibility and ease of operation of necessary controls by the appropriate

crewmember; and

(c) Kinds of operation authorized under § 23.1525.

Discussion: The above rule addresses the minimum crew determination through the
evaluation of individual workload. The rule differentiates the types of activities and areas
that must be considered for commuter category airplanes (e.g., Navigation, Communication,
 30
etc.), with no mention of the types of activities and areas that should be considered for other
part 23 airplanes. Generally, these same types of activities and areas are applicable to
normal operations for non-commuter category airplanes. Consequently, in practice, the
areas and tasks listed under (a) have been applied to evaluations of non-commuter airplanes.
In many cases, the minimum crew may be well established early in the project, before any
evaluations of workload have been conducted. The minimum crew may be set by the design
from the outset. This is not unusual as the airplane performance characteristics and cockpit
configuration may well resemble other models that have been previously certified by the
manufacturer. The process and level of evaluation for determining minimum crew
determination for these situations will depend on the differences between already certified
models and configurations, and the model or configuration seeking certification. A much
more thorough evaluation will be needed for a new model than for a follow-on model or one
that has minor modifications made to the cockpit. Regardless of the level of difference or
modification, all new or modified systems or procedures, or both, should be evaluated for
impact on crew complement and the pilot/system interface. For airplanes with an
established crew complement, the purpose of this testing will be to corroborate by
demonstration the predicted crew workload submitted by the applicant in order to
substantiate compliance with § 23.1523. Testing is also to provide an independent and
comprehensive assessment of individual crewmember workload in a realistic operating
environment. It is recognized that any problems or issues identified with the system would
most likely be resolved through design or procedural changes.

Workload should be assessed through a logical process of analysis, measurement and

demonstration. One acceptable analytical approach assesses workload as a percentage of
time available to perform tasks (time-line analysis). A frequently used basis for evaluating
a new design is to compare performance and workload against a previously certified design
that has been proven in operational service. However, if the new design represents a
significant departure from the previous design, a comparative evaluation may not be
appropriate. In this case, a stand-alone evaluation that collects objective and subjective data
from subject pilots should be used. The FAA and U.S Air Force developed a report for
certification use to assist in evaluation of pilot workload. This report, “Assessment of Crew
Workload Measurement Methods, Techniques, and Procedures,” Volume II (Report No.
WRDC-TR-89-7006) provides guidance for selecting and using a number of subjective,
physiological, and performance based workload measurement techniques.

An evaluation team is usually assembled when certified systems and the proposed system
are significantly different. Such a team includes FAA test pilots, applicant test pilots and, if
possible, “line pilots” who routinely fly similar airplanes. The testing should be conducted
using scenarios representative of the type of operations for which the airplane will be used.
Testing should include various types of routes, navigational aids, environmental conditions
and traffic densities. Particular attention should be given to tasks that involve planning and
execution of emergency and non-normal procedures. When appropriate, dispatch under the
Master Minimum Equipment List (MMEL) should also be considered in combination with
other failures that are likely to result in significantly increased pilot/crew workload. Since
display format and media also influence workload, the number, size, location, type of
display, and presentation format should also be part of the overall evaluation.
 31
Discussion of crew complement and the associated crew workload between the involved
FAA Aircraft Certification Office and the manufacturer should take place early in the
development cycle. These discussions should focus on identification of design features that
are likely to impact crew workload. These design features need to be evaluated to ensure
that they do not place excessive workload demands on any crewmember. The applicant
should submit a test plan describing the details of the evaluation approach. The Flight Test
Guide for the Certification of Part 23 Airplanes (AC 23-8A) provides some excellent
information for the conduct of the testing. Also, although developed for Transport Category
airplanes AC 25.1523 contains useful information that may be used to address this rule.

§ 23.1555 Control markings

(a) Each cockpit control, other than primary flight controls and simple push button type
switches, must be plainly marked as to its function and method of operation.

Discussion: The intent of this regulation is to ensure that pilots can quickly and
unambiguously identify the function and understand the method of control operation. In
conventional designs, the marking or labeling of controls was normally accomplished using
text that describes the function of that control. With the advent of multifunction displays
(mfd’s) and integrated systems, there has now been an emerging trend to integrate control
functions into these displays. Many of the traditional systems (e.g., fuel, power, electrical,
warning/caution, etc.) are now being integrated into a single display along with their
associated control function and corresponding labels. The operation of these systems is
being accomplished via interaction with mfd controls (bezel switches, touch screens, etc.)
and software control labels or icons that appear on the display screen. The design of these
labels and their associated meanings need to be carefully evaluated to determine that they
adequately convey and completely define the control function and system operation. Often,
a single text message or acronym may not be sufficient to completely describe the function
and operation of that control.

There has also been a growing trend to use icons rather than text on some of these displays.
The symbol used can often be difficult to interpret or require training for the pilot to
remember what it means or it may require the pilot to revert to a manual for interpretation;
therefore, care must be taken to ensure that pilots will be able to identify control functions
with an acceptable level of accuracy and consistency and in a timely manner. If icons are
used, the level of pilot performance should not be reduced when compared with
performance obtained using text labeling, and as measured using time to interpret and
accuracy of interpretation of that control function.

There has also been a trend to use more multifunction controls (soft-keys) in airplanes.
Pilots must be able to quickly and reliably identify the function being controlled by these
software labels. The standard that should be applied is that pilots must be capable of
performing control-related tasks to the same performance standards as would result from the
use of conventional controls unless the decrement is inconsequential and the design enables
other significant performance gains or design simplifications.

Control markings should be evaluated to ensure that a logical and consistent labeling
convention has been applied throughout the cockpit. The evaluation should also consider
 32
electronic control labeling, particularly as applied across all display pages. It is important
that the terminology chosen for that control function is immediately and clearly understood
by the expected pilot population. The evaluation should verify that the terms chosen
conform to standardized aviation conventions. A list of standard terms and acronyms
accepted by the FAA can be found in Appendix O of RTCA/DO-229C, November 28,
2001, “Minimum Operational Performance Standard for Global Positioning System/Wide
Area Augmentation System Airborne Equipment.” This list has been included in Appendix
F of this publication.

It is also important to have consistent function labels; a function should have the same name
regardless of the display page on which it appears. Evaluations should be performed to
determine that labels are consistently placed on the same key on the display when pages are
changed. The evaluator should ensure that all identical functions that are available across
multiple screens or pages are consistently mapped to the same control to the maximum
extent possible. Failure to consistently position soft-key functions can increase the time
required to search and find a given function and increase the likelihood of entry error. One
must also assess whether frequently used functions are readily accessible. In most cases, it
has been found that frequently used functions require a dedicated control to provide
adequate accessibility.

All of the assessments should be conducted as early in the program as possible. In addition,
these assessments should also include a sample of test pilots that are unfamiliar with the
system. This can aid in the determination of the intuitiveness of labels and potential for
misinterpretation.
 33
APPENDIX B
Related Documents

1. GAMA PUBLICATION NO. 10, Recommended Practices and Guidelines for

Part 23 Cockpit/Flight Deck Design.

This document was published September 2000 and is available for free download from
GAMA (www.generalaviation.org). This document was developed cooperatively by
industry and the FAA. The purpose of this document is to provide manufacturers of small
aircraft and systems with current human factors recommendations for the design of cockpit
or flight decks and their associated equipment to enhance overall aircraft safety.

This document should be useful to manufacturers in understanding human factors issues as

they proceed through the design, development, and evaluation of their product.

2. Society of Aeronautical Engineers (SAE) Aerospace Recommended Practice

4033, “Pilot-System Integration,” August 1995.

This document provides a concept development guide to the human engineering specialist
and the aircraft systems designer for pilot-system integration that will enhance safety,
productivity, reduce certification risk, and improve cost effectiveness. It addresses the
resulting processes of system development including aspects of interface design and
automation philosophy. (SAE publications are available from SAE, 400 Commonwealth
Drive, Warrendale, PA 15096-0001; telephone (412) 776-4970; or e-mail at
publications@sae.org.)

3. The FAA and Industry Guide to Avionics Approvals, April 2001.

This document describes how to plan, manage, and document an effective, efficient
avionics approval process and working relationship between the FAA and the applicant.
This guide should be used by the FAA and applicants to obtain design, production, and
installation approvals of avionics equipment.

The basic structure and premise of the processes described may be applied to non-avionics
appliances as well. It should be noted, however, that depending on the type of product, the
applicability will vary.

Appendix III of this document also provides human factors guidance as part of the product
approval process.

4. The FAA and Industry Guide to Product Certification.

This purpose of this document is to provide a description of an improved certification

process referred to as the Certification Process Improvement (CPI). This Guide describes
how to plan, manage, and document an effective, efficient product certification process and
working relationship between the FAA and applicants.
 34
5. FAA Booklet, “The FAA Type Certification Process,” Aircraft Certification
Service, May 1996.

The FAA’s Aircraft Certification Service issued this document for both internal use and
industry guidance. It describes the important steps in the process leading to issuance of a
type certificate. Discussion includes descriptions of roles, responsibilities, and job
functions of participants in the process, and it provides a listing of the “best practices” that
the FAA can follow to do its job well. It also describes the use of a Certification Plan as a
key communication tool during the certification process.

6. FAA Order 8110.4A, “Type Certification Process,” March 2, 1995;

and

7. FAA Order 8110.5, “Aircraft Certification Directorate Procedures,” October 1,

1982.

These Orders prescribe the responsibilities and procedures for FAA aircraft certification
engineering and manufacturing personnel when accomplishing the evaluation and approval
of aircraft type design data and changes to approved type design data. These Orders contain
descriptions of Certification Plans and how FAA personnel can use them during the
certification process. These documents can be found on the Internet at:

http://www.mmac.jccbi.gov
and
http://av-info.faa.gov

8. Advisory Circular (AC) 21-40, “Application Guide for Obtaining a Supplemental

Type Certificate,” May 6, 1998.

This advisory circular contains guidance for preparing a Certification Plan for a
supplemental type certification project. Figure 2-4 of the AC suggests that applicants use a
specific format for the plan and provides a sample of it, which includes the following
sections:

1. Introduction

2. System description

3. Certification requirements

(a) Regulations

(b) Special requirements, unique or novel design aspects

(c) Compliance checklist

4. Methods of compliance
 35
5. Functional hazard assessment summary

6. Operational considerations

7. Certification documentation

8. Certification schedule

9. Use of designees and identification of individual Designated Engineering

Representatives (DER)/Designated Airworthiness Representatives (DAR)

These sections, and the material they contain, are appropriate for any applicant’s
Certification Plan. They also could be applied to the development of an HFCP. This
document can be found on the Internet at http://www.faa.gov.

9. Human Force Exertions in Aircraft Control Locations, AMRL TR 71 119, Feb

1972.

This study was conducted to determine strength requirements to operate controls located in
various positions in the cockpit from the pilot’s seat. The study can be used to assist in
determining strength considerations for control operations from various control positions in
the cockpit.

10. ANM Policy Memos (1) Reviewing Human Factors Certification Plans. ANM 99-2,
published 10/99 and (2) Human Factors Methods of Compliance, ANM01-03
published 5/01

These documents contain human factors guidance for the submittal of part 25 Certification
Plans and Methods of Compliance. The information contained in these policy memos is
similar to the content of the part 23 policy contained herein.

11. AC 23.1309-1C Equipment, Systems, and Installations in Part 23 Airplanes

This advisory circular provides guidance on equipment installations in part 23 airplanes in

accordance with the requirements of 14 CFR part 23, § 23.1309.

12. AC 23.1311-1A Installation of Electronic Displays in Part 23 Airplanes

This advisory circular provides guidance on the installation of electronic displays for part 23
airplanes in accordance with the requirements of 14 CFR part 23, § 23.1311

13. SAE ARP 4102/7 Electronic Displays

This SAE document was primarily developed for Transport Category airplanes and older
CRT technology; however, it still contains applicable guidance for display considerations
including symbology considerations for flight displays, engine displays, alerting systems,
etc. This information is contained in the Appendices A, B, and C of this document.
 36
14. TSO C129 CLASS A, FAA Aircraft Certification Human Factors and Operations
Checklist for Standalone GPS Receivers

This document contains human factors guidance in the form of a checklist to assist
certification personnel to conduct evaluations of GPS systems.
 37
APPENDIX C
Examples of Methods of Compliance

After the applicable regulations have been identified, the HFCP needs to describe
the method that will be used to show compliance with each regulation. There are a variety
of means that may be used by the applicant to show compliance. The table below lists 11
different methods that have been used by applicants.

Means of Compliance Type of Compliance Associated Compliance

Documents
MC-1: Compliance Statement Engineering Evaluation Type Design Documents
- Reference to Type Design Recorded Statements
Documents
- Election of Methods and
Factors
MC-2: Design Review Descriptions, Drawings
MC-3: Calculation/Analysis Substantiation Reports
MC-4: Safety Assessment Safety Analysis
MC-5: Laboratory Tests Tests Test Program
MC-6: Ground Tests on aircraft Test Schedules
MC-7: Flight Tests Test Reports
MC-8: Simulation Test Interpretation
MC-9: Inspection Inspection Inspection Records
9.1 Design Inspection
9.2 Conformity Inspection
MC-10: Conformity Inspection
MC-11: Equipment Equipment Equipment Qualification is a
Qualification Qualification process which may include all
previous means of compliance

Following is some supplemental information about the various types of compliance

methods:

1. ENGINEERING EVALUATION

a. Drawings: Layout drawings or engineering drawings, or both, that show the

geometric arrangement of hardware or display graphics.
 38
b. Configuration Description: A description of the layout, arrangement, direction of
movement, and so forth, or a reference to similar documentation.

c. Statement of Similarity: A description of the system to be approved and a

previously approved system, which details their physical, logical, and operational
similarities, with respect to compliance with the regulations. If the system is unchanged
from a previously approved configuration as it relates to a specific 14 CFR section, that can
be stated and previously approved documents can be cited.

d. Evaluations, Assessments, Analyses: Evaluations conducted by the applicant or

others (not the FAA or a designee), who provides a report to the FAA. These include:

- Engineering Analyses: These assessments can involve a number of techniques,

including such things as procedure evaluations (complexity, number of steps, nomenclature,
and so forth); reach analysis via computer modeling; time-line analysis for assessing task
demands and workload; or other methods, depending on the issue being considered.

- Mock-up Evaluations: These types of evaluations use physical mock-ups of the

flight deck or components, or both. They are typically used for assessment of reach and
clearance; thus, they demand a high degree of geometric accuracy.

- Part-Task Evaluations: These types of evaluations use devices that emulate (using
flight hardware, simulated systems, or combinations) the crew interfaces for a single system
or a related group of systems. Typically, these evaluations are limited by the extent to
which acceptability may be affected by other flight deck tasks.

- Simulator Evaluations: These types of evaluations use devices that represent an

integrated cockpit (using actual hardware, simulated systems, or combinations) and the
operational environment. They also can be “flown,” with response characteristics that
replicate, to some extent, the responses of the airplane. Typically, these evaluations are
limited by the extent to which the simulation is a realistic, high fidelity representation of the
airplane, the cockpit, the external environment, and crew operations.

In-Flight Evaluations: These evaluations use the actual airplane. Typically, these
evaluations are limited by the extent to which the flight conditions of particular interest (for
example, weather, failures, unusual attitudes) can be located or generated, or both, and then
safely evaluated in flight.

e. Demonstrations: Similar to evaluations (described above), but conducted by the

applicant with participation by the FAA or its designee. The applicant provides a report and
requests FAA concurrence on the findings. Examples of demonstrations include:

- Mock-up Demonstration

- Part-Task Demonstration

- Simulator Demonstration
 39
2. TESTS

f. Tests: Evaluations conducted by the FAA or a designee, which may encompass:

- Bench Tests: These are tests of components in a laboratory environment. This

type of testing is usually confined to showing that the components perform as designed.
Typical bench testing may include measuring physical characteristics (for example, forces,
luminance, format) or logical or dynamic responses to inputs, either from the user or from
other systems (real or simulated).

- Ground Tests: These are tests conducted in the actual airplane, while it is
stationary on the ground. In some cases, specialized test equipment may be employed to
allow the airplane systems to behave as though the airplane was airborne.

- Simulator Tests: (See simulator evaluations above.)

- Flight Tests: These are tests conducted in the actual airplane. The on-ground
portions of the test (for example, preflight, engine start, taxi) are typically considered flight
test rather than ground test.

The methods identified above cover a wide spectrum from documents that simply
describe the product to partial approximations, and methods that replicate the actual
airplane and its operation with great accuracy. Features of the product being certified and
the types of human factors issues to be evaluated are key considerations when selecting
which method is to be used. The characteristics described below can be used to help in
coming to agreement regarding what constitutes the minimum acceptable method(s) of
compliance for any individual requirement.

When a product needs to meet multiple requirements, some requirements may

demand more complex testing while others can be handled using simple descriptive
measures. It is important to note that the characteristics are only general principles. They
are intended to form the basis for discussions regarding acceptable methods of compliance
for a specific product with respect to a requirement.

3. Inspection

g. Inspection: A review by the FAA or its designee, who will be making the
compliance finding.
 40

APPENDIX D

Sample Human Factors Compliance Matrix

Regulatory Requirement Compliance

Documenta-
tion
§ 23.771(a) – Each pilot compartment and its equipment Report No.
√ √
must allow the minimum flightcrew to perform their duties G60-002
without unreasonable concentration or fatigue.
§ 23.777(b) – The controls must be located and arranged so Report No.
√ √
that the pilot, when seated, has full and unrestricted G60-004
movement of each control without interference from either
pilot’s clothing or the cockpit structure.
§ 23.777(e) – Identical powerplant controls for each engine Report No.
√ √ √
must be located to prevent confusion as to the engines they G60-004
control.
§ 23.1309(b)(3) – Warning information must be provided to Report No.
√ √ √ √
alert the crew to unsafe systems operating conditions and to G60-012
enable to them to take appropriate corrective action.
Systems, controls, and associated monitoring and warning
means must be designed to minimize crew errors that could
create additional hazards.
§ 23.1381(a)-The instrument lights must…Make each Report
√ √
instrument and control easily readable and discernible. No.G60-010
§ 23.1381(b)-The instrument lights must…Be installed so Report No
√ √
that their direct rays, and rays reflected from the windshield G60-010
or other surface, are shielded from the pilot’s eyes.
 41
APPENDIX E
Checklist for Reviewing Human Factors Certification Plans

YES NO NA
1. Introduction
2. System Description
a. Intended Function
b. Cockpit or Flight Deck Layout
c. Underlying principles for crew procedures
3. Concept of Operation considerations
a. Pilot characteristics
b. Operational considerations System
Operation Procedures
c. Training requirements
4. Certification requirements
a. HF related Regulations
5. Methods of compliance
6. System Safety Assessment
7. Certification Documentation
8. Certification Schedule
a. HFCP Certification Plan Submittals
b. Cockpit or Flight Deck Reviews, Early
Prototype Reviews, Simulator Reviews, Flight
Deck Demonstrations
c. Coordination Meetings
9.Use of Designees and Identification of
Individual DER’S
 42
APPENDIX F - GLOSSARY AND ACRONYMS

AC – Advisory Circular

ACARS -Aircraft Communications Addressing and Reporting System

Active Waypoint -A waypoint to or from which navigational guidance is being provided.

For a parallel offset, the active waypoint may or may not be at the same geographical
position as the parent waypoint. When not in the parallel offset mode (operating on the
parent route), the active and parent waypoints are at the same geographical position.

ADS -Automatic Dependent Surveillance

ADS-B -Automatic Dependant Surveillance-Broadcast

Advisory -An annunciation that is generated when crew awareness is required and
subsequent crew action may be required; the associated color is unique but not red or
amber/yellow- (Source: Advisory Circular AC 25-11).

AGL -Above Ground Level

AIP -Aviation Information Publications

Along-Track Distance -The distance along the desired track from the waypoint to the
perpendicular line from the desired track to the aircraft.

Applications -Specific use of systems that address particular user requirements. For the
case of GNSS, applications are defined in terms of specific operational scenarios.

APV -Approach operations with Vertical guidance (The terminology CAT -I PA, APV -
II, and APV -I has been introduced to describe the three levels of SBAS precision
approach service and is consistent with the ICAO GNSS ANNEX 10 SARPs. The FAA
plans to label CAT-I PA as "GNSS Landing System (GLS)" and APV-I as
"LNAV/VNAV". The naming convention for APV-II has not been proposed.)

Area Navigation (RNAV) -Application of the navigation process providing the

capability to establish and maintain a flight path on any arbitrary chosen course that
remains within the coverage area of navigation sources being used. RNAV utilizing
capabilities in the horizontal plane only is called 2D RNAV, while RNAV that also
incorporates vertical guidance is called 3D RNAV. Time navigation (TNAV) may be
added to either 2D or 3D systems. TNAV added to a 3D system is called 4D.

ARINC -Aeronautical Radio

ASIC -Application Specific Integrated Circuit

 43
ATC -Air Traffic Control

Availability -The availability of a navigation system is the ability of the system to

provide the required function and performance at the initiation of the intended operation.
Availability is an indication of the ability of the system to provide usable service within
the specified coverage area. Signal availability is the percentage of time that navigational
signals transmitted from external sources are available for use. Availability is a function
of both the physical characteristics of the environment and the technical capabilities of
the transmitter facilities.

Barometric Altitude -Geopotential altitude in the earth's atmosphere above mean

standard sea level pressure datum surface, measured by a pressure (barometric) altimeter.

BCD -Binary Coded Decimal

BER - Bit Error Rate

BNR – Binary Numbers

BPSK -Binary Phase Shift Keying

BW -Bandwidth

C/A -Coarse Acquisition

CAT-I PA -Category I Precision Approach

Caution -An annunciation that is generated when immediate crew awareness is required
and subsequent crew action will be required; the associated color is amber/yellow.
(Source: Advisory Circular AC25 -11)

CC -Clock Correction

CDI -Course Deviation Indicator

Center of Navigation -The mathematical point, referenced to the aircraft coordinate

frame, associated with the GNSS navigation solution. This point would typically be the
phase center of the GNSS antenna, but could also be an offset or translated point (e.g.,
might be translated vertically to the level of the wheels of a large aircraft).

CF -Course-to-Fix

CFIT -Controlled Flight Into Terrain

Continuity -The continuity of a system is the ability of the total system (comprising all
elements necessary to maintain aircraft position within the defined airspace) to perform
its function without interruption during the intended operation. More specifically,
 44
continuity is the probability that the specified system performance will be maintained for
the duration of a phase of operation, presuming that the system was available at the
beginning of that phase of operation, and predicted to exist throughout the operation.

Coverage -The coverage provided by a radio navigation system is that surface area or
space volume in which the signals are adequate to permit the user to determine position to
a specified level of accuracy. Coverage is influenced by system geometry, signal power
levels, receiver sensitivity, atmospheric noise conditions and other factors that affect
signal availability.

CRC -Cyclic Redundancy Check

CW -Continuous Wave

CWI -Continuous Wave Interference

DCH -Datum Crossing Height

DD -Double Delta

DDL -Delay Lock Loop

DESIRED COURSE

a. True -A predetermined desired course direction to be followed (measured in degrees

from true north).

b. Magnetic -A predetermined desired course direction to be followed (measured in

degrees from local magnetic north).

Desired Track -The planned or intended track between two waypoints. It is measured in
degrees from either magnetic or true north. The instantaneous angle may change from
point to point along the great circle track between waypoints.

DME -Distance Measuring Equipment

DOD -U.S. Department of Defense

DOP - Dilution of Precision

DP -Datum Point

D.R.- Dead Reckoning

EC – Ephemeris CORRECTION

ECEF -Earth Centered Earth Fixed

 45

EFIS -Electronic Flight Instruments System

EGNOS -European Geostationary Navigation Overlay Service

EL – Glide Path Angle (approach path elevation angle)

E-L – Early minus Late (correlator)

ELT -Emergency Locating Transmitter

En Route -A phase of navigation covering operations between departure and termination

phases. En route phase of navigation has two subcategories: en route domestic/continental
and en route oceanic.

FAA -Federal Aviation Administration

FAF -Final Approach Fix

FAS -Final Approach Segment

FAWP -Final Approach Waypoint

FD -Fault Detection

FDE -Fault Detection and Exclusion

FEC -Forward Error Correction

Final Approach Fix (FAF) -A point in space used to indicate the position at which an
aircraft on a standard approach should be stabilized with appropriate guidance being
supplied for the Final Approach Segment. (Source: FAA)

Final Approach Segment (FAS) -The straight-line segment which prescribes the three-
dimensional geometric path in space that an aircraft is supposed to fly on final approach.
This segment is defined by two points in space, the Glide Path Intercept Waypoint
(GPIWP) and the Threshold Crossing Waypoint (TCWP).

Flight Technical Error (FTE) -The accuracy with which the aircraft is controlled as
measured by the indicated aircraft position with respect to the indicated command or
desired position. It does not include blunder errors.

FMS – Flight Management System

FPAP – Flight Path Alignment Point

 46
FSD- Full Scale Deflection

FTE -Flight Technical Error

GARP -GNSS Azimuth Reference Point

GDOP -Geometric Dilution of Precision

GEO -Geostationary

Geocentric -Relative to the earth as a center, measured from the center of the earth.

Geodesy -The science related to the determination of the size and shape of the earth
(geoid) by such direct measurements as triangulation, leveling and gravimetric
observations; which determines the external gravitational field of the earth and, to a
limited degree, the internal structure.

Geometric Dilution of Position (GDOP) -The ratio of position error of a multilateration

system. More precisely, it is the ratio of the standard deviation of the position error to the
standard deviation of the measurement errors, assuming all measurement errors are
statistically independent and have a zero mean and the same standard distribution. GDOP
is the measure of the "goodness" of the geometry of the multilateration sources as seen by
the observer; a low GDOP is desirable, a high GDOP undesirable. (See also PDOP.
HDOP and VDOP.)

Geostationary -An equatorial satellite orbit that results in a constant fixed position of the
satellite over a particular earth surface reference point. (GPS and GLONASS satellites are
not geostationary)

GIVE -Grid Ionospheric Vertical Error

GIVEI -Grid Ionospheric Vertical Error Indicator

GL -Ground Level

GLS -GNSS Landing System

Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) -GNSS is a world-wide position, velocity,

and time determination system, that includes one or more satellite constellations,
receivers, and system integrity monitoring, augmented as necessary to support the
required navigation performance for the actual phase of operation.

GPIP -Glide Path Intercept Point

Global Positioning System (GPS) -A space-based positioning, velocity and time system
composed of space, control and user segments. The space segment, when fully
operational, will be composed of 24 satellites in six orbital planes. The control segment
 47
consists of five monitor stations, three ground antennas and a master control station. The
user segment consists of antennas and receiver-processors that provide positioning,
velocity, and precise timing to the user.

GLONASS -Global Orbiting Navigation Satellite System

GNSS -Global Navigation Satellite System

GNSSU -GNSS (Landing) Unit

GPS -Global Positioning System

HAL -Horizontal Alert Limit

HAT -Height Above Touchdown

HDOP – Horizontal Dilution of Position

Height Above Touchdown (HAT) – Specifically, the height above the Runway Intercept
Waypoint. In using this term for airborne equipment specifications, care should be taken
to define the point on the aircraft (GPS antenna, wheel height, center of mass) that
applies.

HF – High Frequency

HIRF – High Intensity Radiation Fields

Horizontal Dilution of Precision (HDOP) – The ratio of user-referenced horizontal

position error to measurement error of a multilateration system. (See GDOP for a more
detailed description.)

HOW – Hand Over Word

HPL – Horizontal Protection Level

HSI – Horizontal Situation Indicator

HUL – Horizontal Uncertainty Level

Hz -Hertz (cycles per second)

IAWP -Initial Approach Waypoint

I C -Ionospheric Correction

ICAO -International Civil Aviation Organization

 48

ID -Identification

IFR -Instrument Flight Rules

IGP -Ionospheric Grid Point

ILS -Instrument Landing System

IMC -Instrument Meteorological Conditions

INS -Inertial Navigation System

IOD -Issue of Data

IODC -Issue of Data Clock

IODE -Issue of Data Ephemeris

IODF -Issue of Data Fast Correction

IODI -Issue of Data Ionospheric

IODP -Issue of Data PRN mask

IODS -Service Issue of Data

IPP -Ionospheric Pierce Point

IPV -Instrument Procedures with Vertical guidance

I/S -interference-to-signal ratio

IWP -Intermediate Waypoint

Ll-1575.42 MHz

LAAS -Local Area Augmentation System

LNAV -Lateral Navigation

LORAN -Long Range Navigation

LSB -Least Significant Bit

LSR -Least Squares Residual

 49

LTP/FTP -Landing Threshold Point/Fictitious Threshold Point

m -Meters

MAHWP -Missed Approach Holding Waypoint

Mask Angle -A fixed elevation angle referenced to the user's horizon below which
satellites are ignored by the receiver software. Mask angles are used primarily in the
analysis of GNSS performance, and are employed in some receiver designs. The mask
angle is driven by the receiver antenna characteristics, the strength of the transmitted
signal at low elevations, receiver sensitivity and acceptable low elevation errors.

MASPS -Minimum Aviation System Performance Standards

MDA -Minimum Descent Altitude

MAWP –Missed Approach Waypoint

Mcps -Mega-chips/second

Misleading Information -Within this standard misleading information is defined to be

any data which is output to other equipment or displayed to the pilot that has an error
larger than the current protection level (HPL/VPL). This includes all output data, such as
position, non-numeric cross-track, numeric cross- track, and distance-to-waypoint as
applicable.

MLS -Microwave Landing System

MOPS -Minimum Operational Performance Standards

MSAS -MTSAT Satellite-based Augmentation System

MSL -Mean Sea Level

MT -Message Type

MTBF -Mean Time Between Failure

MTSAT -Multifunction Transport Satellite

NAD-83 -North American Datum 1983

NAS -U.S. National Airspace System

NAV -Navigation
 50
NAVAID -Navigation Aid

Navigation Mode -The navigation mode refers to the equipment operating to meet the
requirements for a specific phase of flight. The navigation modes are: oceanic/remote, en
route, terminal, non-precision approach, and precision approach. The oceanic/remote
mode is optional; if it is not provided, the en route mode can be substituted for the
oceanic mode.

NDB -Non-Directional Beacon

NIS -Number of Independent Samples

NM -Nautical Mile

Non Precision Approach -A standard instrument approach procedure in which no glide

slope/glide path is provided. (Source: FAA document 711O.65G)

NPA- Non Precision Approach

NSE -Navigation System Error

OBS -Omni Bearing Selector

PA -Precision Approach

PDOP -Position Dilution of precision

Planned Primary Means of Navigation -Planned primary means of navigation refers to

the capability of planning an operation around scheduled outages so that the system is
available for a particular flight and the operational continuity, integrity and accuracy
requirements are met.

Position Dilution of Precision (PDOP) -The ratio of user-referenced three-dimensional

position error to measurement error of a multilateration system, PDOP is the root-gum-
square of HDOP and VDOP.

Position Fix -A derived location of an entity' in a common coordinate system.

Position Fixing Error – The accuracy with which a navigation sensor in combination
with a navigation computer can calculate and provide an output of actual location in
relation to desired location in an operational environment.

PPOS -Present Position

PR -Pseudo Range

PRC -Pseudo Range Correction

 51

Precision Approach (PA) -A standard instrument approach procedure in which a glide

slope/glide path is provided. (Source: FAA document 7110.65G)

PRN -Pseudo Random Noise

Pseudorange -The distance from the user to a satellite plus an unknown user clock offset
distance. With four satellite signals it is possible to compute position and offset distance.
If the user clock offset is known, three satellite signals would suffice to compute a
position.

Radio navigation -The determination of position, or the obtaining of information relating

to position, for the purposes of navigation by means of the propagation properties of radio
waves.

RAIM -Receiver Autonomous Integrity Monitoring

RDP -Runway Datum Point

Receiver Autonomous Integrity Monitoring (RAIM) – A technique whereby a civil

GNSS receiver/processor determines the integrity of the GNSS navigation signals without
reference to sensors or non-DOD integrity systems other than the receive itself. This
determination is achieved by a consistency check among redundant pseudorange
measurements.

Reliability – The probability of performing a specified function without failure under

given conditions for a specified period of time.

Required Navigation Performance (RNP) – A measure of the navigation system

performance within a defined airspace, route, or procedure, including the operating
parameters of the navigation systems used within that airspace. (Source: Adapted from
the ICAO Separation Panel).

RF -Radio Frequency

RF -Radius-turn-to-Fix

RGCSP -Review of General Concepts of Separation Panel

RMI -Radio Magnetic Indicator

RNAV -Area Navigation

RNP -Required Navigation Performance

RRC -Range Rate Correction

 52
rss -Root-Sum-Square

RTCA – RTCA, Inc. (publishes documents with the RTCA designator)

s – Second

SA – Selective Availability (also written as S/A)

SAE – Standard Aerospace Equipment

SATCOM – Satellite Communications

SBAS -Satellite Based Augmentation System (SBAS) -International name used in the
Global Navigation Satellite System Panel (GNSSP) Standards and Recommended
Practices (SARPs) for a set of pro- grams that use satellites to transmit GPS and
GLONASS integrity and correction data. The U.S. program is the WAAS that currently is
planned to provide integrity and corrections to GPS and SBAS satellites only.

Selective Availability (S/A) -A set of techniques for denying the full accuracy and
selecting the level of positioning, velocity, and time accuracy of GPS available to users of
the Standard Positioning Service (L 1 frequency) signal.

SC -Special Committee (RTCA Special Committees)

SNR -Signal to Noise Ratio

SPS -Standard Positioning Service

sps -symbols per second

Standard Positioning Service (SPS) -The standard specified level of positioning,

velocity and timing accuracy that is available, without qualifications or restrictions, to any
user on a continuous worldwide basis.

STAR -Standard Terminal Arrival Routes

SV -Satellite Vehicle

TC -Trophosperic Correction

TCAS -Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance System

TCH -Threshold Crossing Height

TCP -Threshold Crossing Point

 53
Terminal Area -A general term used to describe airspace in which approach control
service or airport traffic control service is provided.

TERPS -Terminal Instrument Procedures

TF -To-From

Threshold Crossing Height (TCH) -The height of the straight-line extension of the
glide path above the runway at the threshold.

TOD -Time of Day: Top of Descent

Total System Error (TSE) – Generic: The root-sum-square of the navigation source
error, airborne component error, display, and flight technical error. Specific: The root-
sum-square of the position fixing error, display error, course selection error and flight
technical error.

TOW – Time of Week

Track Angle – Instantaneous angle measured from either true or magnetic north to the
aircraft’s track.

TSE – Total System Error

TSO – Technical Standards Order

TTS – Time to Alert

TTFF – Time to First valid position Fix

UDRE – User Differential Range Error

UDREI – User Differential Range Error Indicator

UERE – User Equivalent Range Error

UIVE -User Ionospheric Vertical Error

URA -User Range Accuracy

User Range Accuracy (URA) -The one-sigma estimate of user range errors in the
navigation data for each individual satellite. It includes all errors for which the space or
control segment is responsible. It does not include any errors introduced at the user set.

UTC -Universal Time Coordinated

 54
VAL -Vertical Alert Limit

VDOP -Vertical Dilution of Position

Vertical Dilution of Precision (VDOP) -The ratio of user-referenced vertical position

error to measurement error of a multilateration system (see GDOP for a more detailed
description).

Vertical Navigation (VNAV) -A function of RNAV equipment which calculates,

displays and provides guidance to a vertical profile or path.

Vertical Profile -A line or curve, or series of connected lines and/or curves in the vertical
plane, defining an ascending or descending flight path either emanating from or
terminating at a specified waypoint and altitude, or connecting two or more specified
waypoints and altitudes. In this sense, a curve may be defined by performance of the
airplane relative to the airmass.

VFR -Visual Flight Rules

VHF -Very High Frequency

VNAV – Vertical Navigation

VOR -VHF Omni Range

VORTAC -VHF Omni Range / Tactical Air Navigation

VPL -Vertical Protection Level

VTF -Vector-to-Final (Approach)

VUL -Vertical Uncertainty Level

WAAS -Wide Area Augmentation System

Warning -An annunciation that is generated when immediate recognition and corrective
or compensatory action is required; the associated color is red. (Source: Advisory
Circular AC25 -11)

WGS- 72 -World Geodetic System 1972

WGS-84 -World Geodetic System 1984

WMS -Wide-area Master Stations (WAAS)

WN -Week Number
 55

WNT -WAAS Network Time

World Geodetic Survey (WGS) -A consistent set of parameters describing the size and
shape of the earth, the positions of a network of points with respect to the center of mass
of the earth, transformations from major geodetic datums, and the potential of the earth
(usually in terms of harmonic coefficients).

WPT -Waypoint

WRS -Wide-area Reference Stations (WAAS)

 56
Distribution:

Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-100

Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, ASW-100
Manager, Engine and Propeller Directorate, ANE-100
Manager, Wichita Aircraft Certification Office, ACE-115W
Manager, Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office, ACE-115A
Manager, Alaska Aircraft Certification Office, ACE-115N
Manager, Chicago Aircraft Certification Office, ACE-115C
Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, ANM-100L
Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, ANM-100S
Manager, Boston Aircraft Certification Office, ANE-150
Manager, New York Aircraft Certification Office, ANE-170