Airplane automatic landing flight quality evaluation method

Abstract

The invention belongs to the field of aircraft landing, and particularly relates to an aircraft automatic landing flight quality evaluation method, which divides a landing process and analyzes the influence of different landing stages on arresting landing, determines evaluation indexes of each stage, a decision point and a touch plate point, and then establishes a comprehensive evaluation system of the landing process. The method comprises the following steps of: firstly, obtaining a weight factor of an evaluation index system by utilizing an expert scoring method, and introducing different membership functions to score an evaluation index; and finally, obtaining a comprehensive evaluation score of the automatic landing process of the aircraft by combining the evaluation score of the index in each stage and the weight factor of each level. By evaluating the automatic landing process and constructing a comprehensive evaluation system, the systematicness and logicality of the evaluation method are improved; a weight factor is obtained by utilizing an expert scoring method, so that the trueness of an evaluation result is improved; and engineering realization is easy.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] This application belongs to the field of aircraft landing, and particularly relates to a method for evaluating the flight quality of automatic aircraft landing. Background Art

[0002] After an aircraft completes its mission, it needs to return to a moving offshore platform on the vast sea without any reference objects and safely land on the flight deck. Since the recovery of the aircraft takes place on the sea with a complex environment, during the recovery process, it not only has to overcome the control system errors and environmental interference effects that ordinary aircraft face during landing, but also has to overcome the influence of deck movement on the ideal landing point and the interference of stern airflow disturbance on the flight trajectory. Therefore, it is relatively difficult to complete the recovery of the aircraft.

[0003] With the development and application of the automatic aircraft landing system, this system can significantly reduce the landing difficulty by precisely controlling the approach landing track of the aircraft. Compared with the previous manual approach landing method, in terms of reducing landing risks, reducing the pilot's operation load, reducing landing training costs, and ensuring the maneuverability of the offshore platform, the development of the automatic aircraft landing system has achieved very obvious benefits, but there is little research on how to evaluate the automatic aircraft landing process.

[0004] Currently, there is little research on the method for evaluating the flight quality of automatic aircraft landing. The pilot's landing evaluation is scored by the pilot based on the comprehensive satisfaction during the process of completing the approach landing task, but mostly uses the manual evaluation method.

[0005] Therefore, how to effectively evaluate the flight quality of automatic aircraft landing is a problem that needs to be solved. Summary of the Invention

[0006] The purpose of this application is to provide a method for evaluating the flight quality of automatic aircraft landing to solve the problem of low evaluation accuracy in the prior art when using the manual evaluation method to evaluate the flight quality of automatic aircraft landing.

[0007] The technical solution of this application is: A method for evaluating the flight quality of automatic aircraft landing, including: Determine the evaluation indicators for each stage according to the influence of different landing stages on arrested landing, and establish a comprehensive evaluation system for the aircraft landing process; Use the method of expert scoring to establish weight factors for the comprehensive evaluation system of the aircraft landing process, set different weight factors for different evaluation indicators, and obtain the weight factors corresponding to different evaluation indicators; Obtain the reference values of different evaluation indicators, set different membership functions, and select different membership functions respectively according to the reference values and the characteristics of different evaluation indicators; Collect flight landing data, and respectively obtain each evaluation index data in the landing data; then respectively obtain the weight factors and membership functions of different evaluation indexes to comprehensively evaluate the evaluation indexes, and obtain the comprehensive evaluation results of different evaluation indexes.

[0008] Preferably, the evaluation indexes include: longitudinal landing point error, lateral landing point error, maximum pitch angle, landing speed, touch-down plate sinking speed, maximum roll angle, decision point net height, decision point sinking speed, decision point roll angle, decision point pitch angle, and glide path deviation, speed deviation, track angle deviation, sinking speed, alignment deviation, and lateral speed deviation at each stage.

[0009] Preferably, the comprehensive evaluation system for the aircraft landing process includes four levels: The first level includes approach glide data, decision point data, and touch-down plate data; The second level includes glide path adjustment, alignment adjustment, decision point net height, decision point sinking speed, decision point roll angle, decision point pitch angle, landing point situation, maximum pitch angle, landing speed, touch-down plate sinking speed, and maximum roll angle; The third level includes longitudinal landing point error, lateral landing point error, final segment glide path adjustment, middle segment glide path adjustment, glide segment glide path adjustment, level flight segment glide path adjustment, final segment alignment adjustment, middle segment alignment adjustment, glide segment alignment adjustment, and level flight segment alignment adjustment; The fourth level includes glide path deviation, speed deviation, track angle deviation, sinking speed, alignment deviation, and lateral speed deviation.

[0010] Preferably, the specific method for establishing the weight factor is: Divide the experts into top-level experts, first-level experts, and second-level experts; then conduct a questionnaire survey for the experts. The questionnaire requires the experts to give scores from 1 to 9 respectively according to the importance of the evaluation indexes, with the most important getting 9 points and the least important getting 1 point; finally, according to the proportion of the scoring weight of top-level experts being 0.9, first-level experts being 0.8, and second-level experts being 0.7, conduct a weighted average of the scores of all experts, and finally obtain the weight factor of each evaluation index.

[0011] Preferably, the membership functions include triangular membership function, normal membership function, and S-shaped membership function. The triangular membership function is: ; The normal membership function is: ; The S-shaped membership function is: ; In the formula, is the left shoulder of the membership degree, which is the point where the membership degree starts to rise; is the peak value of the membership degree, that is, the position where the membership degree is 1; is the right shoulder of the membership degree, which is the point where the membership degree starts to decline; is the standard deviation, is the input quantity.

[0012] Preferably, the specific method for comprehensive evaluation is as follows: First, use , , and to represent the weight factors of the evaluation indexes of the first layer, the second layer, the third layer and the fourth layer, where the subscript represents the first layer, the second layer, the third layer and the fourth layer of the comprehensive evaluation system respectively; , , and represent the membership degree evaluation scores of the evaluation indexes of the first layer, the second layer, the third layer and the fourth layer; The comprehensive evaluation result of the said evaluation index is: ; Among them, in the first-level hierarchy, the scores of each factor are: ; In the second-level hierarchy, the scores of each factor are: ; In the third-level hierarchy, the scores of each factor are: ; ; The first-level hierarchy is obtained by combining the first layer and the second layer, the second-level hierarchy is obtained by combining the second layer and the third layer, and the third-level hierarchy is obtained by combining the third layer and the fourth layer.

[0013] The method for evaluating the flight quality of automatic landing of the present application evaluates the automatic landing process and constructs a comprehensive evaluation system, which improves the systematicness and logic of the evaluation method; obtains the weight factor by using the method of expert scoring, increases the authenticity of the evaluation result; and is easy to be implemented in engineering. Brief Description of the Drawings

[0014] In order to more clearly illustrate the technical solutions provided by the present application, the drawings will be briefly introduced below. Obviously, the drawings described below are only some embodiments of the present application.

[0015] Figure 1 is the overall process schematic diagram of the present application; Figure 2 This is the process division diagram for the automatic landing of the aircraft in this application. Specific implementation manners

[0016] Next, the technical solutions in the embodiments of the present invention will be clearly and completely described in conjunction with the accompanying drawings in the embodiments of the present invention. Obviously, the described embodiments are only a part of the embodiments of the present invention, rather than all the embodiments. All other embodiments obtained by those of ordinary skill in the art based on the embodiments of the present invention without making creative efforts shall fall within the protection scope of the present invention.

[0017] An aircraft automatic landing flight quality evaluation method, as Figure 1 follows, includes the following steps: Step S100, according to the influence of different landing stages on arrested landing, determine the evaluation indexes for each stage, and establish a comprehensive evaluation system for the aircraft landing process; The different landing stages include the level flight stage, the glide stage, the intermediate stage, and the final stage.

[0018] As Figure 2 , in the level flight stage, it is from when the aircraft radar intercepts the aircraft to the glide command of the aircraft. In this stage, it is far from the ideal landing point, and there is sufficient time to adjust the flight path at about 1394 - 5559m. Therefore, the influence of this stage on the final arrested landing is very small.

[0019] In the glide stage, it is from when the aircraft starts to glide to 1394m from the ideal landing point. This stage is mainly the transition from level flight to the glide stage, and the aircraft flight path needs to track the ideal glide path. Since this stage has a long distance and generally has a long time to adjust the flight path, the influence of this stage on the final arrested landing is relatively small.

[0020] In the intermediate stage, it includes the range from 1394m to 463m from the ideal landing point. Compared with the previous two stages, this stage has a shorter distance and is a stage for slightly correcting the flight state. Since the aircraft does not have enough time to adjust in the subsequent stage, its adjustment effect directly determines the landing accuracy of the aircraft. Therefore, the intermediate stage has a greater influence on the final arrested landing.

[0021] In the final stage, it refers to the range from 463m to the ship's stern from the ideal landing point. This stage is affected by the ship's stern airflow and needs to track the deck movement. Its flight performance is related to the safety of arrested landing and is a key stage in the arrested landing process. At the same time, this stage is the key decision-making stage for go-around. If there is a large flight state deviation at this time, there is not enough time to complete the adjustment process, and the pilot can only pull the control stick to make the aircraft go around, otherwise the aircraft may crash. Therefore, the final stage has the greatest influence on the final arrested landing.

[0022] The evaluation indexes for each stage are specifically as follows: The leveling-off segment, the glide segment, and the intermediate segment are all in the process of glide path adjustment, which have similar effects on the landing performance, and the difference lies in the magnitude of the impact on the landing effect. Therefore, the evaluation indicators for the leveling-off segment, the glide segment, and the intermediate segment include: glide path deviation, speed deviation, track angle deviation, sink rate, alignment deviation, and lateral speed deviation.

[0023] Since the final segment also includes the glide path adjustment process, the evaluation indicators for the final segment are the same as those for the first three stages. In addition, since the go-around decision point is generally located 286 m from the ideal landing point, the performance at this stage can also be evaluated by the aircraft state at the decision point. Therefore, the evaluation indicators for the final segment include: net height at the decision point, sink rate at the decision point, roll angle at the decision point, pitch angle at the decision point, glide path deviation, speed deviation, track angle deviation, sink rate, alignment deviation, and lateral speed deviation.

[0024] The evaluation indicators at the touchdown point, i.e., the moment when the aircraft's tail hook lands, specifically include: lateral landing point deviation at the moment when the tail hook lands, longitudinal landing point deviation at the moment when the tail hook lands, sink rate of the aircraft at the moment when the tail hook lands, and roll angle of the aircraft at the moment when the tail hook lands.

[0025] Preferably, the comprehensive evaluation system for the aircraft landing process includes four levels: The first level includes approach glide data, decision point data, and touchdown data; The second level further decomposes the first level. The approach glide data is divided into glide path adjustment and alignment adjustment. The decision point data is divided into net height at the decision point, sink rate at the decision point, roll angle at the decision point, and pitch angle at the decision point. The touchdown data is divided into landing point situation, maximum pitch angle, landing speed, touchdown sink rate, and maximum roll angle; The third level decomposes the landing point situation, glide path adjustment, and alignment adjustment in the second level. The landing point situation is divided into longitudinal landing point error and lateral landing point error. The glide path adjustment is divided into final segment glide path adjustment, intermediate segment glide path adjustment, glide segment glide path adjustment, and leveling-off segment glide path adjustment. The alignment adjustment is divided into final segment alignment adjustment, intermediate segment alignment adjustment, glide segment alignment adjustment, and leveling-off segment alignment adjustment; The fourth level decomposes each stage in the third level. The indicators for decomposing the glide path adjustment and alignment adjustment in each stage are the same. The indicators for glide path adjustment in each stage are glide path deviation, speed deviation, track angle deviation, and sink rate. The indicators for alignment adjustment in each stage are alignment deviation and lateral speed deviation.

[0026] Step S200, use the method of expert scoring to establish weight factors for the comprehensive evaluation system of the aircraft landing process, set different weight factors for different evaluation indicators, and obtain the weight factors corresponding to different evaluation indicators.

[0027] Preferably, the specific method for establishing weight factors is: Experts are divided into top - level experts, first - level experts and second - level experts. Then, a questionnaire survey is conducted on the experts. The questionnaire requires the experts to give scores from 1 to 9 according to the importance of the evaluation indicators, with the most important getting 9 points and the least important getting 1 point. Finally, according to the weight ratios of 0.9 for top - level experts, 0.8 for first - level experts, and 0.7 for second - level experts, the scores of all experts are weighted and averaged to finally obtain the weight factors of each evaluation indicator.

[0028] Step S300: Obtain the reference values of different evaluation indicators, set different membership functions, and select different membership functions respectively according to the reference values and the characteristics of different evaluation indicators. The selectable membership functions include triangular membership function, normal membership function and S - shaped membership function.

[0029] The evaluation indicators include: longitudinal landing point error, lateral landing point error, maximum pitch angle, landing speed, touch - down plate sinking speed, maximum roll angle, decision - making point net height, decision - making point sinking speed, decision - making point roll angle, decision - making point pitch angle, and the glide path deviation, speed deviation, track angle deviation, sinking speed, alignment deviation and lateral speed deviation at each stage.

[0030] The selection criteria for the membership function are: when the reference value of the evaluation indicator is a fixed value, select the triangular membership function; when the reference value of the evaluation indicator is a range value, select the normal membership function; when the evaluation indicator has boundary conditions, select the S - shaped membership function.

[0031] Preferably, the triangular membership function is:

[0032] The normal membership function is:

[0033] The S - shaped membership function is:

[0034] In the formula, is the left shoulder of the membership degree, the point where the membership degree starts to rise; is the peak value of the membership degree, that is, the position where the membership degree is 1; is the right shoulder of the membership degree, the point where the membership degree starts to decline; is the standard deviation, is the input quantity.

[0035] Step S400: Collect flight landing data, and respectively obtain the data of each evaluation index in the landing data; then respectively obtain the weight factors and membership functions of different evaluation indexes to conduct a comprehensive evaluation of the evaluation indexes, and obtain the comprehensive evaluation results of different evaluation indexes.

[0036] Preferably, the specific method for conducting the comprehensive evaluation is as follows: First, use , , and to represent the weight factors of the evaluation indexes of the first layer, the second layer, the third layer, and the fourth layer, where the subscript respectively represents the first layer, the second layer, the third layer, and the fourth layer of the comprehensive evaluation system. , , and represent the membership evaluation scores of the evaluation indexes of the first layer, the second layer, the third layer, and the fourth layer.

[0037] The evaluation score of each factor in each level is obtained by multiplying the weight factor vector composed of the weight factors of all its corresponding next-level factors by the evaluation score column vector composed of their evaluation scores. Calculate layer by layer in the same way, and the finally obtained score is the score obtained after the comprehensive evaluation of the entire evaluation model. Then the comprehensive evaluation result of the evaluation index is:

[0038] Among them, in the first-level hierarchy, the scores of each factor are: ; In the second-level hierarchy, the scores of each factor are: ; In the third-level hierarchy, the scores of each factor are: ; ; The first-level hierarchy is composed of the first layer and the second layer, the second-level hierarchy is composed of the second layer and the third layer, and the third-level hierarchy is composed of the third layer and the fourth layer.

[0039] Through the above design, after obtaining a set of landing data, the final evaluation score of this landing can be calculated, so as to evaluate the landing process.

[0040] To sum up, this application evaluates the automatic landing process and constructs a comprehensive evaluation system, which improves the systematicness and logic of the evaluation method; uses the method of expert scoring to obtain weight factors, increases the authenticity of the evaluation results; and is easy to implement in engineering.

[0041] Finally, it should be noted that in the accompanying drawings of the disclosed embodiments of the present invention, only the structures related to the disclosed embodiments are involved. For other structures, reference can be made to the general design. Without conflict, the same embodiment and different embodiments of the present invention can be combined with each other; Finally: The above are only the preferred embodiments of the present invention and are not intended to limit the present invention. Any modifications, equivalent replacements, improvements, etc. made within the spirit and principle of the present invention shall be included within the protection scope of the present invention.

Claims

1. A method for evaluating the flight quality of an aircraft automatic landing, characterized in that: include: According to the impact of different landing stages on arrested landing, the evaluation indicators of each stage are determined, and a comprehensive evaluation system for the aircraft landing process is established; The expert scoring method is used to establish weight factors for the comprehensive evaluation system of the aircraft landing process, and different weight factors are set for different evaluation indicators to obtain weight factors corresponding to different evaluation indicators; Obtain reference values ​​of different evaluation indicators, set different membership functions, and select different membership functions according to the characteristics of the reference values ​​and different evaluation indicators; The flight landing data is collected, and the evaluation index data in the landing data are obtained respectively; then the weight factors and membership functions of different evaluation indicators are obtained respectively to conduct a comprehensive evaluation on the evaluation indicators, and the comprehensive evaluation results of different evaluation indicators are obtained.

2. The method for evaluating the flight quality of an aircraft automatic landing according to claim 1, wherein: The evaluation indicators include: longitudinal landing point error, lateral landing point error, maximum pitch angle, landing speed, touch pad sinking speed, maximum roll angle, decision point clear height, decision point sinking speed, decision point roll angle, decision point pitch angle, as well as glide path deviation, speed deviation, track angle deviation, sinking speed, centering deviation and lateral speed deviation at each stage.

3. The method for evaluating the flight quality of an aircraft automatic landing according to claim 1, wherein: The comprehensive evaluation system for the aircraft landing process includes four levels: The first layer includes approach glide path data, decision point data, and touch panel data; The second layer includes glide path adjustment, centering adjustment, decision point clear height, decision point sinking speed, decision point roll angle, decision point pitch angle, landing point situation, maximum pitch angle, landing speed, touch pad sinking speed and maximum roll angle; The third layer includes longitudinal landing point error, lateral landing point error, terminal glide slope adjustment, middle glide slope adjustment, glide slope adjustment, level flight glide slope adjustment, terminal segment centering adjustment, middle segment centering adjustment, glide slope centering adjustment and level flight segment centering adjustment; The fourth layer includes glide path deviation, speed deviation, track angle deviation, sinking speed, centering deviation and lateral speed deviation.

4. The method for evaluating the flight quality of an aircraft automatic landing according to claim 3, wherein: The specific method of establishing the weight factor is: The experts were divided into special experts, first-level experts and second-level experts. Then, a questionnaire survey was conducted on the experts, which required them to give scores of 1 to 9 according to the importance of the evaluation indicators, with the most important one getting 9 points and the least important one getting 1 point. Finally, the scores of all experts were weighted averaged, with the weight of 0.9 for special experts, 0.8 for first-level experts and 0.7 for second-level experts, to finally obtain the weight factor for each evaluation indicator.

5. The method for evaluating the flight quality of an aircraft automatic landing according to claim 1, wherein: The membership function includes a triangular membership function, a normal membership function and an S-shaped membership function, and the triangular membership function is: ； The normal membership function is: ； The S-shaped membership function is: ； In the formula, is the left shoulder of the membership, which is the point where the membership starts to rise; is the peak value of the membership, that is, the position where the membership is 1; is the right shoulder of the membership, which is the point where the membership starts to decrease; is the standard deviation, Is the input quantity.

6. The method for evaluating the flight quality of an aircraft automatic landing according to claim 2, wherein: The specific methods for conducting comprehensive assessment are: First, use , , and Represents the weight factors of the evaluation indicators of the first layer, the second layer, the third layer, and the fourth layer, where the subscript They represent the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th levels of the comprehensive evaluation system respectively; , , and Represents the membership evaluation scores of the evaluation indicators at level 1, level 2, level 3, and level 4; Comprehensive evaluation results of the evaluation indicators for: ； Among them, at the first level, the scores of each factor are: ； At the secondary level, the scores of each factor are: ； At the three-level level, the scores of each factor are: ； ； The first level is obtained by combining the first and second levels, the second level is obtained by combining the second and third levels, and the third level is obtained by combining the third and fourth levels.

Images