Issue 2 DEF STAN 00-970

Dec 1999 LEAFLET 1 Part 1 Section 2

GENERAL REQUIREMENTS AND DEFINITIONS
SCOPE AND CLASSIFICATIONS

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 This leaflet was previously issued as Leaflet 600/1 of DEF STAN 00-970 Issue 1 and gives
information related to 2.1.1 to 2.1.27.

1.2 The flying qualities of an aeroplane are intended to embrace those stability and control
characteristics which govern the ease and precision with which a mission may be carried out and
those characteristics which have substantial effects on flight safety. The Contractor should bear in
mind that the ease of control may be affected by such factors as the pilot's seat installation, view, the
form of guidance provided, the instrument display, the weapon aiming system. It is important
therefore that any simulation or flight test assessments should be carried out with an overall
installation that is as representative as possible of production aeroplanes.

1.3 Clearly, as these qualities become progressively degraded by failure (which may occur in the
structural, mechanical or avionics systems) the probability that the mission will fail due to deficient
flying qualities will be increasing, while further degradation may lead to impaired flight safety. The
definition of acceptable rates of mission failure due to deficiencies in flying qualities will be the
responsibility of the Aeroplane Project Director and will be set out afresh in each new case. To offer
the best chance of success for an important mission the Aeroplane Project Director will require a
high standard of flying qualities; thus the definition process will usually involve compromise between
success rate on the one hand and cost or complexity on the other.

1.4 In the present state of knowledge, it is not possible to frame general requirements for flying
qualities based solely on numerical values for the parameters involved. Although such an approach
might be possible within a particular simple class of aeroplane, the large variety of aeroplane
configurations and the diversity of missions to be covered within some classes make it too restrictive
and unreliable for general use. In several instances, therefore, terms such as 'piloting difficulties' or
'undesirable' are used in the requirements. The final interpretation of these and other similar terms
(where there is no associated Acceptable Means of Compliance) will be by agreement with the
Aeroplane Project Director. Where numerical values are attributed to the parameters used in
framing the requirements, compliance with these values will not necessarily lead to the desired levels
of flying qualities being achieved.

1.5 The numerical requirements are generally stated in terms of a linear mathematical description
of the aeroplane. Certain factors, for example flight control system non-linearities and higher order
characteristics or aerodynamic non-linearities, can cause the aeroplane response to differ significantly
from that of the linear model. The contractor shall define equivalent classical systems which have
responses most closely matching those of the actual aeroplane. Then those numerical requirements
which are stated in terms of linear system parameters (such as frequency, damping ratio and time
constant) shall apply to the equivalent system rather than to any particular modes of the actual
system. The Aeroplane Project Director shall be the judge of the adequacy of the response match
between equivalent and actual aeroplane.

1.6 The requirements of Part 6 are intended to apply not only to a particular test aeroplane but
also to all aeroplanes of the type. A number of the components that go to make up a complete
aeroplane are subject to tolerance. The effects of some of these tolerances can be eliminated during
normal production flight testing. However, it may be necessary to change components in Service
and it is unacceptable that there should have to be special selection of components or lengthy
checking procedures. The Contractor should therefore attempt to ensure that aeroplane behaviour is
not significantly affected by the full range of tolerance of particular components of the system. In
Page 1 of 7
DEF STAN 00-970 Issue 2
Part 1 Section 2 LEAFLET 1 Dec 1999
GENERAL REQUIREMENTS AND DEFINITIONS
SCOPE AND CLASSIFICATIONS

appropriate cases, flight tests may be necessary at such limits of tolerance.

1.7 The proper use of flight simulator facilities permits a flexible approach to the optimisation of
the flying qualities of a projected aeroplane in many of its flight phases. The flexibility is reflected in
the requirements and leaflets of Part 6 on the assumption that piloted flight simulator techniques will
be used where appropriate during the design of any aeroplane in which special problems in flying
qualities may occur. It is therefore important that appropriate test pilots nominated by the Aeroplane
Project Director should participate throughout in the use of simulators.

1.8 The requirements and leaflets of Part 6 are based on the US document MIIL-F-8785C dated
5 November 1980 and MEL-F-83300 dated 31 December 1970 (Military Specification: Flying
Qualities of Piloted Airplanes) and the associated explanatory information in Ref 1. Although there
are a few major departures, the requirements of Part 6 are consistent with the US requirements in
most cases and, where applicable, the corresponding paragraphs of Ref 1 are quoted in the leaflets.

1.9 DEMONSTRATION OF COMPLIANCE

1.9.1 As far as possible, Acceptable Means of Compliance are specified using parameters that can
be directly measured in flight tests and in these, cases the Demonstration of Compliance may often be
derived directly.

1.9.2 However, flight testing is expensive and sometimes dangerous. To indicate the likely ease of
meeting the requirements, and the more critical areas of the flight envelope, analysis, calculation,
model or other tests and simulation should be used. Only after these exploratory investigations have
been made for a particular aeroplane can a schedule of minimum flight tests to demonstrate
compliance be made.

1.9.3 Compliance with some requirements cannot readily be determined quantitatively by flight
testing; for example, some dynamic stability requirements, and requirements related to theoretical
turbulence models. In these cases, compliance can be shown by theoretical calculation or simulation,
by agreement with the Aeroplane Project Director, provided that the data used is derived as far as
possible from flight testing and provided that some back-up qualitative flying is done; for example,
some flying must be done in real turbulence.

1.10 SPECIFICATION OF MISSIONS (LEAFLET 600/6)

1.10.1 The Aeroplane Specification should define the entire spectrum of intended operational use
and consideration should be given to the variations of useful load, flight time, speed and altitude, in
the specification of missions. For the purpose of requirements missions are intended to include
operational flights, aborted flights (e.g, flights in which the aeroplane returns with the weapons
unused) and training flights.

1.10.2 In its definition of the training missions to be considered, the Aeroplane Specification will
take account of practical constrains which would not always be relevant to wartime operations. For
instance, in training (and in peacetime flying generally), experience of asymmetric stores
complements is likely to be more frequent and to cover wider combinations because it may more
often be necessary to carry out further attacks or to return to base with partially expended loads; in
such circumstances, however, it is reasonable to be less demanding in respect of the associated flight
envelopes because the performance required will be less than that required for wartime operations.

1.11 STATEMENT OF REQUIREMENTS

Page 2 of 7
Issue 2 DEF STAN 00-970
Dec 1999 LEAFLET 1 Part 1 Section 2
GENERAL REQUIREMENTS AND DEFINITIONS
SCOPE AND CLASSIFICATIONS

1.11.1 Each of the requirements of Part 6, other than those for performance given in Chapter 606, is
stated, where appropriate, in terms of the following:
(i) The type of aeroplane - Class
(ii) The flying task - Flight Phase
(iii) How good the flying qualities
must be - Level

1.11.2 Combination of these groupings would permit 36 different values for each flying qualities
requirement, even after combining the flight phases into 4 categories. Seldom will such a fine
breakdown be required, nor will there be sufficient information available to make such fine
discriminations. Thus, in most cases, the 36 possible values have been combined to some extent, but
not necessarily in the same pattern for all requirements. In other cases, different or additional
breakdowns are required, eg a specific flight phase.

1.11.3 The performance requirements of Chapter 606 are stated in the terms of Groups determined
by levels of safety and in particular by the extent to which the aeroplane is required to survive an
engine failure. For each Group three standards of performance are specified: the Normal Operating
Standard (NOS), with the highest degree of safety, which is the standard normally used; and the
Reduced, and Military Operating Standard (ROS and MOS) which would apply when the urgency of
the mission justified greater risks or penalties (See para 2.3 below).
2 CLASSIFICATION OF AEROPLANES 1

2.1 Flying qualities requirements recognise the need to specify different values of parameters for
aeroplanes of different sizes and different missions. Some aeroplanes are not readily classified, eg
small, light-weight trainers with a high normal acceleration factor, which could be in either Class I or
IV. Classification of these aeroplanes should be based on more detailed information about the
intended use. Alternatively, the specification should detail requirements selected from both classes
as required. Examples of types of aeroplane within each classification are shown in Table 1.

2.2 Performance requirements are derived from BCAR 23 for Groups (1) and (2), and from JAR
25 for Group (3). Group (1), which corresponds to BCAR Performance Group F, includes single-
engined aeroplanes, and twin-engined aeroplanes with a performance level such that a forced landing
may be necessary if an engine fails shortly after take-off or shortly before touchdown. Aeroplanes in
Group (2), corresponding to BCAR Performance Group B, and in Group (3) should be able to
survive an engine failure at any time. Performance margins of Group (3) are greater than those of
Group (2). Small, multi-engined aeroplanes, with a mass of 5700 kg or less would normally be
placed in Group (2), and, for the required overall level of safety to be achieved, some restrictions on
the weather limits to which they are allowed to operate may have to be imposed. When seater
performance margins are needed to enable them to meet their specification, they may be placed in
Group (3).

2.3 When the urgency of the mission justifies operation under conditions in which the NOS
requirements could not be met, ROS or MOS will be applied. These standards involve a lower level
of safety by reducing margins, allowing (where applicable) for the jettisoning of stores following
engine failure, or ignoring the possibility of engine failure. Criteria for these standards will be
introduced later.
3 FLIGHT PHASE CATEGORIES 1 & 2
Page 3 of 7
DEF STAN 00-970 Issue 2
Part 1 Section 2 LEAFLET 1 Dec 1999
GENERAL REQUIREMENTS AND DEFINITIONS
SCOPE AND CLASSIFICATIONS

3.1 Certain flight phases require more straight values of tying qualities parameters than do others
(eg, air-to-air combat requires more dutch roll damping than cruising tight does). However, the
similarity of tasks in many flight phases has led to grouping the phases into 4 categories. The
requirements of Part 6 are generally stated in terms of these 4 flight phase categories, but some of
the requirements are directed as specific tight phases; these requirements apply to the specific tight
phase stated. Examples of tight phases within each category are shown in Table 2.

3.2 Not all the flight phases apply to a given aeroplane, similarly, the list cannot be exhaustive
because new mission requirements continue to be generated. When necessary, the Aeroplane
Specification will add or recategorise flight phases or will delineate requirements for special
situations (eg zoom climbs).

Page 4 of 7
Issue 2 DEF STAN 00-970
Dec 1999 LEAFLET 1 Part 1 Section 2
GENERAL REQUIREMENTS AND DEFINITIONS
SCOPE AND CLASSIFICATIONS

TABLE 1

EXAMPLES OF CLASSIFICATION OF AEROPLANES

Class General Description Examples
Small, light Light utility
aeroplanes
I Primary trainer
Light observation
Medium weight, Heavy utility/search and rescue
low to medium
manoeuvrability Light or medium transport/cargo/
aeroplanes tanker

Early warning/electronic counter-

measures/airborne command,
control or communications relay

II Anti-submarine
Assault transport
Reconnaissance
Tactical bomber
Heavy attack
Trainer for Class II
Large, heavy, Heavy transport/cargo/tanker
low to medium
manoeuvrability Heavy bomber
aeroplanes
III Patrol/early warning/electronic
countermeasures/airborne command,
control, or communications relay

Trainer for Class III

High maneouvrability Fighter/interceptor
aeroplanes
Attack

IV Tactical reconnaissance

Observation

Trainer for Class IV

Page 5 of 7
DEF STAN 00-970 Issue 2
Part 1 Section 2 LEAFLET 1 Dec 1999
GENERAL REQUIREMENTS AND DEFINITIONS
SCOPE AND CLASSIFICATIONS

TABLE 2
EXAMPLES OF FLIGHT PHASES WITHIN CATEGORIES
Flight Phase Examples of Flight Phases within
Category Abbreviation stated Categories
CO Air-to-air combat

GA Ground attack

WD Weapon delivery/launch

RC Reconnaissance

A RR Air-to-air refuelling (receiver)

TF Terrain following

MS Maritime search and support

AB Aerobatics

FF Close formation flying

CL Climb

CR Cruise

B LO Loiter

RT Air-to-air refuelling (tanker)

D Descent

AD Aerial delivery
TO Take off
C PA Approach (includes instrument approaches)
OS Overshoot
L Landing (includes arrested landing)
VTO Vertical take-off
STO Short take-off
D VL Vertical landing
SL Short landing
TT Terminal transition and steady flight between Vcon and Vx

Page 6 of 7
Issue 2 DEF STAN 00-970
Dec 1999 LEAFLET 1 Part 1 Section 2
GENERAL REQUIREMENTS AND DEFINITIONS
SCOPE AND CLASSIFICATIONS

4 LEVELS OF FLYING QUALITIES 1 & 3

4.1 It should be noted that the levels of flying qualities are related to the ability to complete the
missions for which the aeroplane is designed. Therefore the levels are related to the total workload
of the pilot arising from the flying qualities of the aeroplane and from the tasks associated with the
flight phase. For example, during cruising (Category B flight phase) it must be assumed that the
pilot has tasks other than handling the aircraft, such as navigation and safety monitoring of aeroplane
systems in order to reach a destination safely. This is particularly relevant in the case of Level 3
flying qualities where the workload of the pilot is approaching his maximum capacity.

4.2 The reason for restricting Level 3 to Category B and C and the termination of Category A
flight phases is that it can be assumed that Category A flight phases will not be entered or maintained
if flying qualities fall below Level 2.

4.3 As a guide, the relationship between the levels of flying qualities and the Cooper-Harper
Rating Scale is illustrated in Fig 1. The use of a subjective rating scale for acceptance purposes is
difficult; the pilot rating will reflect considerations other than the handling qualities, and in critical
cases will require an extrapolation by the pilot. The main use of the pilot ratings will therefore be in
the design and development stages, or in making deductions from simulator results. See also
Chapter 900, para 7.4.

Cooper-Harper
Rating Scale
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Level of Flying
Qualities 1 2 3 below 3

FIG.1 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LEVELS AND COOPER-HARPER SCALE

REFERENCES

No. Author Title, etc.

1 Chalk,C.R. Background Information and User Guide for

and others MIL-F-8785B(ASG) "Military Specification Flying
Qualities of Piloted Airplanes".
Technical Report AFFDL-TR-69-72, August 1969 (paras
1.3, 1.4, 1.5 and 3.1.1)

2 ISO 1151-7 Flight points and flight envelopes (1985)

3 Cooper, G.E. The use of Pilot Rating in the Evaluation Aircraft

Harper, Jnr.R.P. Handling Qualities: AGARD Report 567 April 1969

Page 7 of 7