Pilot landing quality evaluation method

Abstract

The invention discloses a pilot landing quality evaluation method, which comprises the following steps of: respectively evaluating pilot manipulation behaviors of a plurality of flights according to a preset landing manipulation behavior evaluation monitoring index standard range to obtain pilot manipulation behavior evaluation results of the plurality of flights; according to the pilot manipulation behavior evaluation results of the multiple flights, obtaining an overall pilot manipulation behavior evaluation result; according to a preset monitoring index event warning standard for landing state evaluation, evaluating the landing state evaluation of the pilot of the plurality of flights to obtain landing state evaluation results of the pilot of the plurality of flights; obtaining an overall landing state evaluation result of the pilot according to the landing state evaluation results of the pilot of the multiple flights; and rating the landing quality of the pilot according to the pilot overall manipulation behavior capability evaluation result and the pilot overall landing state evaluation result to obtain a pilot landing quality rating result. According to the invention, comprehensive and scientific pilot landing quality evaluation is realized.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] The invention relates to the field of pilot landing quality assessment, and in particular to a pilot landing quality assessment method. Background Art

[0002] Currently, airlines' assessment of pilots' landing ability depends only on the subjective conclusions of inspectors during route inspections. Such assessments are too dependent on individual decisions and lack fairness. Some airlines also judge pilots based on the number of unsafe incidents they have experienced and the number of over-limit events triggered in flight quality monitoring data, but this method is result-oriented and lacks comprehensiveness. During the flight, a large amount of control data is left idle, and airlines have not analyzed or studied this data.

[0003] The Chinese invention with application number 202011277855.0: "A simple evaluation method for flight control ability" has the following technical solutions: determine the flight action to be evaluated; determine the evaluation index corresponding to the flight action; determine the weight percentage of each evaluation index in the flight action; set the evaluation standard, set the evaluation standard for the evaluation index corresponding to each flight action; evaluate and score, and score the evaluation index of the flight action according to the evaluation standard through the error time of the evaluation index and the total time of the corresponding flight action. Its technical solution only scores the flight action, and does not provide a specific evaluation method for the landing of the aircraft. Summary of the invention

[0004] In order to solve the technical problems in the prior art of pilot landing quality assessment that the control data is not fully utilized and the assessment lacks comprehensiveness, the present invention provides a pilot landing quality assessment method. The technical solution adopted by the present invention is:

[0005] A method for evaluating landing quality by a pilot, the method comprising:

[0006] According to the preset monitoring index standard range of landing control behavior evaluation, the control behaviors of pilots of several flights are evaluated respectively to obtain the evaluation results of the control behaviors of pilots of several flights;

[0007] According to the pilot control behavior evaluation results of the several flights, an overall pilot control behavior evaluation result is obtained;

[0008] Evaluate the landing status of pilots of several flights according to the preset monitoring indicator event warning standard of the landing status evaluation, and obtain the landing status evaluation results of pilots of several flights;

[0009] Obtaining an overall landing status assessment result of the pilot according to the landing status assessment results of the pilots of the several flights;

[0010] The pilot's landing quality is rated according to the pilot's overall control behavior ability evaluation result and the pilot's overall landing status evaluation result to obtain the pilot's landing quality rating result.

[0011] As a preferred embodiment, the method further comprises:

[0012] Determine the monitoring indicators for landing control behavior assessment and landing status assessment;

[0013] Determine the standard range of monitoring indicators for landing control behavior assessment, and determine the event warning standards for monitoring indicators for landing status assessment.

[0014] As a preferred solution, the monitoring indicators for the landing control behavior evaluation include:

[0015] Core monitoring indicators and common monitoring indicators;

[0016] The core monitoring indicators include at least one of the following:

[0017] Maximum descent rate, maximum bank angle, whether the throttle lever is retracted before touchdown, touchdown attitude change rate, touchdown airspeed change rate, touchdown vertical speed change rate, course deviation, difference between indicated airspeed and target speed, and bank angle change;

[0018] The common monitoring indicators include at least one of the following:

[0019] Maximum deviation from the glide path, maximum deviation from the landing roll heading and the course, change in slope after rudder input, change in pitch after rudder input, average difference in N1 thrust asymmetry of left and right engines for more than 5 seconds, ground speed at the start of runway departure, maximum difference in N1 asymmetry of left and right engines, duration of thrust asymmetry in manual flight below the first preset altitude RA, maximum deceleration rate from touchdown to ground speed before the preset speed, lateral overload, time from main wheel touchdown to nose wheel touchdown, whether there is forward thrust stick amount from the second preset altitude RA to touchdown, distance from touchdown to ground speed before the preset speed, and timing of reverse thrust unlocking;

[0020] The monitoring indicators of the landing status assessment include at least one of the following:

[0021] Pitch attitude, bank angle, vertical speed at touchdown, landing distance, and landing bounce.

[0022] As a preferred solution, the method of evaluating the pilot control behaviors of several flights respectively according to the preset monitoring index standard range of the landing control behavior evaluation, and obtaining the evaluation results of the pilot control behaviors of several flights includes:

[0023] For the pilot control behavior assessment of a single flight, based on the preset monitoring indicator standard range of the landing control behavior assessment, the number of times the core monitoring indicators and common monitoring indicators exceed the corresponding standard range shall be recorded respectively;

[0024] When the number of times the core monitoring indicator exceeds the corresponding standard range is greater than a first preset value, the pilot's control behavior evaluation result is "poor" regardless of the number of times the common monitoring indicator exceeds the corresponding standard range;

[0025] When the number of times the core monitoring indicator exceeds the corresponding standard range is equal to the first preset value, and the number of times the common monitoring indicator exceeds the corresponding standard range is greater than or equal to the second preset value, the pilot control behavior evaluation result is "poor";

[0026] When the number of times the core monitoring indicator exceeds the corresponding standard range is equal to the first preset value, and the number of times the common monitoring indicator exceeds the corresponding standard range is less than the second preset value, the pilot control behavior evaluation result is "good".

[0027] As a preferred solution, the method for obtaining the overall pilot control behavior evaluation result of the pilot according to the pilot control behavior evaluation results of the several flights includes:

[0028] When the proportion of "good" in the pilot control behavior evaluation results of the several flights is greater than or equal to a first preset proportion, the overall pilot control behavior evaluation result is "good", otherwise the overall pilot control behavior evaluation result is "poor".

[0029] As a preferred solution, the value range of the first preset ratio is 80% to 90%.

[0030] As a preferred solution, the method of evaluating the landing status evaluation results of pilots of several flights according to the preset monitoring indicator event warning standard of the landing status evaluation includes:

[0031] For the pilot landing status assessment of a single flight, when any monitoring indicator in the landing status assessment exceeds the corresponding event warning standard, the pilot landing status assessment result is "poor";

[0032] When all monitoring indicators in the landing status assessment do not exceed the corresponding event warning standards, the pilot's landing status assessment result is "good".

[0033] As a preferred solution, the method for obtaining the pilot's overall landing status evaluation result according to the pilot's landing status evaluation results of the several flights includes:

[0034] When the proportion of "good" in the pilot landing status evaluation results of the several flights is greater than or equal to a second preset proportion, the pilot's overall landing status evaluation result is "good", otherwise the pilot's overall landing status evaluation result is "poor".

[0035] As a preferred solution, the second preset ratio has a value range of 80% to 90%.

[0036] As a preferred solution, the method for rating the pilot's landing quality according to the pilot's overall control behavior ability evaluation result and the pilot's overall landing state evaluation result, and obtaining the pilot's landing quality rating result includes:

[0037] When the pilot's overall control behavior ability assessment results and the pilot's overall landing status assessment results are both "good", the pilot's landing quality rating result is "A";

[0038] When the pilot's overall control behavior ability assessment result is "poor" and the pilot's overall landing status assessment result is "good", the pilot's landing quality rating result is "B";

[0039] When the pilot's overall control behavior ability assessment results and the pilot's overall landing status assessment results are both "poor", the pilot's landing quality rating result is "C";

[0040] When the pilot's overall control behavior ability assessment result is "good" and the pilot's overall landing status assessment result is "poor", no assessment will be conducted.

[0041] Compared with the prior art, the present invention has the following beneficial effects:

[0042] The present invention evaluates the pilot's landing quality by simultaneously considering the landing control behavior and the landing status, and combines qualitative data with quantitative data based on flight data records, enriching the dimensions of pilot landing quality evaluation from both subjective and objective perspectives, making up for the shortcomings of questionnaire surveys and subjective evaluations by inspectors, constructing a pilot landing quality evaluation system from an objective perspective, and realizing a pilot landing quality evaluation with strong generalization and scientific evaluation results. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

[0043] Figure 1 A flow chart of a pilot landing quality assessment method provided in this embodiment. DETAILED DESCRIPTION

[0044] The accompanying drawings are only used for illustrative purposes and are not to be construed as limiting the present invention;

[0045] It should be clear that the described embodiments are only part of the embodiments of the present application, not all of the embodiments. Based on the embodiments in the present application, all other embodiments obtained by ordinary technicians in this field without creative work are within the scope of protection of the embodiments of the present application.

[0046] The terms used in the embodiments of the present application are only for the purpose of describing specific embodiments, and are not intended to limit the embodiments of the present application. The singular forms of "a", "said" and "the" used in the embodiments of the present application and the appended claims are also intended to include plural forms, unless the context clearly indicates other meanings. It should also be understood that the term "and / or" used herein refers to and includes any or all possible combinations of one or more associated listed items.

[0047] When the following description refers to the drawings, unless otherwise indicated, the same numbers in different drawings represent the same or similar elements. The embodiments described in the following exemplary embodiments do not represent all embodiments consistent with the present application. On the contrary, they are merely examples of devices and methods consistent with some aspects of the present application as detailed in the attached claims. In the description of the present application, it should be understood that the terms "first", "second", "third", etc. are only used to distinguish similar objects, and do not have to be used to describe a specific order or sequence, nor can they be understood as indicating or implying relative importance. For those of ordinary skill in the art, the specific meanings of the above terms in the present application can be understood according to the specific circumstances.

[0048] In addition, in the description of this application, unless otherwise specified, "multiple" means two or more. "And / or" describes the association relationship of associated objects, indicating that three relationships may exist. For example, A and / or B can represent: A exists alone, A and B exist at the same time, and B exists alone. The character " / " generally indicates that the previous and next associated objects are in an "or" relationship. The present invention is further described below in conjunction with the accompanying drawings and embodiments.

[0049] The present invention is further described below in conjunction with the accompanying drawings and embodiments.

[0050] Example 1

[0051] Please refer to Figure 1 This embodiment provides a pilot landing quality assessment method, the method comprising:

[0052] S1: evaluating the pilot control behaviors of several flights respectively according to the preset monitoring index standard range of the landing control behavior evaluation, and obtaining the pilot control behavior evaluation results of several flights;

[0053] In a specific embodiment, before step S1, the method further includes:

[0054] Determine the monitoring indicators for landing control behavior assessment and landing status assessment;

[0055] Determine the standard range of monitoring indicators for landing control behavior assessment, and determine the event warning standards for monitoring indicators for landing status assessment.

[0056] In a specific embodiment, the monitoring indicators of the landing control behavior evaluation include:

[0057] Core monitoring indicators and common monitoring indicators;

[0058] The core monitoring indicators include at least one of the following:

[0059] Maximum descent rate, maximum bank angle, whether the throttle lever is retracted before touchdown, touchdown attitude change rate, touchdown airspeed change rate, touchdown vertical speed change rate, course deviation, difference between indicated airspeed and target speed, and bank angle change;

[0060] The common monitoring indicators include at least one of the following:

[0061] Maximum deviation from the glide path, maximum deviation from the landing roll heading and the course, change in slope after rudder input, change in pitch after rudder input, average difference in N1 thrust asymmetry of left and right engines for more than 5 seconds, ground speed at the start of runway departure, maximum difference in N1 asymmetry of left and right engines, duration of thrust asymmetry in manual flight below the first preset altitude RA, maximum deceleration rate from touchdown to ground speed before the preset speed, lateral overload, time from main wheel touchdown to nose wheel touchdown, whether there is forward thrust stick amount from the second preset altitude RA to touchdown, distance from touchdown to ground speed before the preset speed, and timing of reverse thrust unlocking;

[0062] The monitoring indicators of the landing status assessment include at least one of the following:

[0063] Pitch attitude, bank angle, vertical speed at touchdown, landing distance, and landing bounce.

[0064] In a specific embodiment, the method of evaluating the pilot control behaviors of several flights respectively according to the preset monitoring index standard range of the landing control behavior evaluation and obtaining the evaluation results of the pilot control behaviors of several flights includes:

[0065] For the pilot control behavior assessment of a single flight, based on the preset monitoring indicator standard range of the landing control behavior assessment, the number of times the core monitoring indicators and common monitoring indicators exceed the corresponding standard range shall be recorded respectively;

[0066] When the number of times the core monitoring indicator exceeds the corresponding standard range is greater than a first preset value, the pilot's control behavior evaluation result is "poor" regardless of the number of times the common monitoring indicator exceeds the corresponding standard range;

[0067] When the number of times the core monitoring indicator exceeds the corresponding standard range is equal to the first preset value, and the number of times the common monitoring indicator exceeds the corresponding standard range is greater than or equal to the second preset value, the pilot control behavior evaluation result is "poor";

[0068] When the number of times the core monitoring indicator exceeds the corresponding standard range is equal to the first preset value, and the number of times the common monitoring indicator exceeds the corresponding standard range is less than the second preset value, the pilot control behavior evaluation result is "good".

[0069] S2: obtaining an overall pilot control behavior evaluation result according to the pilot control behavior evaluation results of the plurality of flights;

[0070] In a specific embodiment, the method for obtaining the overall pilot control behavior evaluation result according to the pilot control behavior evaluation results of the several flights includes:

[0071] When the proportion of "good" in the pilot control behavior evaluation results of the several flights is greater than or equal to a first preset proportion, the overall pilot control behavior evaluation result is "good", otherwise the overall pilot control behavior evaluation result is "poor".

[0072] In a specific embodiment, the value range of the first preset ratio is 80% to 90%.

[0073] S3: evaluating the landing status evaluation of pilots of several flights according to the preset monitoring indicator event warning standard of the landing status evaluation, and obtaining the landing status evaluation results of pilots of several flights;

[0074] In a specific embodiment, the method of evaluating the landing status evaluation results of pilots of several flights according to the preset monitoring indicator event warning standard of the landing status evaluation to obtain the landing status evaluation results of pilots of several flights includes:

[0075] For the pilot landing status assessment of a single flight, when any monitoring indicator in the landing status assessment exceeds the corresponding event warning standard, the pilot landing status assessment result is "poor";

[0076] When all monitoring indicators in the landing status assessment do not exceed the corresponding event warning standards, the pilot's landing status assessment result is "good".

[0077] S4: obtaining an overall landing status assessment result of the pilot according to the landing status assessment results of the pilots of the plurality of flights;

[0078] In a specific embodiment, the method for obtaining the pilot's overall landing status evaluation result according to the pilot's landing status evaluation results of the several flights includes:

[0079] When the proportion of "good" in the pilot landing status evaluation results of the several flights is greater than or equal to a second preset proportion, the pilot's overall landing status evaluation result is "good", otherwise the pilot's overall landing status evaluation result is "poor".

[0080] In a specific embodiment, the second preset ratio has a value range of 80% to 90%.

[0081] S5: rating the pilot's landing quality according to the pilot's overall control behavior ability evaluation result and the pilot's overall landing status evaluation result to obtain the pilot's landing quality rating result;

[0082] In a specific embodiment, the method for rating the pilot's landing quality according to the pilot's overall control behavior ability evaluation result and the pilot's overall landing state evaluation result to obtain the pilot's landing quality rating result includes:

[0083] When the pilot's overall control behavior ability assessment results and the pilot's overall landing status assessment results are both "good", the pilot's landing quality rating result is "A";

[0084] When the pilot's overall control behavior ability assessment result is "poor" and the pilot's overall landing status assessment result is "good", the pilot's landing quality rating result is "B";

[0085] When the pilot's overall control behavior ability assessment results and the pilot's overall landing status assessment results are both "poor", the pilot's landing quality rating result is "C";

[0086] When the pilot's overall control behavior ability assessment result is "good" and the pilot's overall landing status assessment result is "poor", no assessment will be conducted.

[0087] Example 2

[0088] Please refer to Figure 1 This embodiment can be regarded as an improved or extended embodiment based on Embodiment 1, specifically:

[0089] A method for evaluating landing quality by a pilot, the method comprising:

[0090] S1: evaluating the pilot control behaviors of several flights respectively according to the preset monitoring index standard range of the landing control behavior evaluation, and obtaining the pilot control behavior evaluation results of several flights;

[0091] In a specific embodiment, before step S1, the method further includes:

[0092] Determine the monitoring indicators for landing control behavior assessment and landing status assessment;

[0093] Determine the standard range of monitoring indicators for landing control behavior assessment, and determine the event warning standards for monitoring indicators for landing status assessment.

[0094] Specifically, the selection of monitoring indicators for landing maneuver behavior assessment was determined by expert interviews. A total of 7 experts were interviewed, including 5 flight experts, who have flown B737, B777, and A330 aircraft, with a total flight time of more than 50,000 hours. They have served as flight instructors and inspectors on their respective aircraft models, and have served in flight quality analysis positions, with rich experience in data analysis and supervision and inspection. Two ground data processing personnel are responsible for the company's flight data decoding and processing, data standard formulation, and have more than ten years of safety management experience.

[0095] In a specific embodiment, the monitoring indicators of the landing control behavior evaluation include:

[0096] Core monitoring indicators and common monitoring indicators;

[0097] The core monitoring indicators include at least one of the following:

[0098] Maximum descent rate, maximum bank angle, whether the throttle lever is retracted before touchdown, touchdown attitude change rate, touchdown airspeed change rate, touchdown vertical speed change rate, course deviation, difference between indicated airspeed and target speed, and bank angle change;

[0099] The common monitoring indicators include at least one of the following:

[0100] Maximum deviation from the glide path, maximum deviation from the landing roll heading and the course, change in slope after rudder input, change in pitch after rudder input, average difference in N1 thrust asymmetry of left and right engines for more than 5 seconds, ground speed at the start of runway departure, maximum difference in N1 asymmetry of left and right engines, duration of thrust asymmetry in manual flight below the first preset altitude RA, maximum deceleration rate from touchdown to ground speed before the preset speed, lateral overload, time from main wheel touchdown to nose wheel touchdown, whether there is forward thrust stick amount from the second preset altitude RA to touchdown, distance from touchdown to ground speed before the preset speed, and timing of reverse thrust unlocking;

[0101] Specifically, the first preset altitude is 100 feet, the preset speed is 40 knots, and the second preset altitude is 20 feet.

[0102] The monitoring indicators of the landing status assessment include at least one of the following:

[0103] Pitch attitude, bank angle, vertical speed at touchdown, landing distance, and landing bounce;

[0104] Specifically, the pitch attitude is: the pitch angle between the aircraft and the ground when the aircraft touches down; the slope is: the roll angle between the aircraft and the ground when the aircraft touches down; the touchdown vertical speed is: the descent rate of the aircraft when landing; the landing distance is: the horizontal distance from the aircraft entering the runway to the touchdown; the landing bounce is: whether the aircraft jumps when landing.

[0105] Specifically, the standard range of core monitoring indicators is shown in Table 1:

[0106] Table 1 Core monitoring indicators and standards

[0107]

[0108] Specifically, the standard range of common monitoring indicators is shown in Table 2:

[0109] Table 2 General monitoring indicators and standards

[0110]

[0111]

[0112] Specifically, the event warning standards of the monitoring indicators for landing status assessment are shown in Table 3:

[0113] Table 3 Evaluation criteria for pilot landing status in a single flight

[0114]

[0115] It can be seen from Table 1 that the standard range of the maximum descent rate is: less than 900 feet / minute; the standard range of the maximum bank is: less than 2 degrees; the standard range of whether the throttle lever is retracted before touchdown is: yes; the standard range of the touchdown attitude change rate is: less than 3 degrees / second; the standard range of the touchdown airspeed change rate is: less than 5 knots; the standard range of the touchdown vertical speed change rate is: less than 500 feet / minute; the standard range of the course deviation is: within 0.5 course deviation; the standard range of the difference between the indicated airspeed (IAS) and the target speed (VAPP) is: within -5 knots to 10 knots; the standard range of the bank change is less than 10 degrees within 3 seconds.

[0116] As shown in Table 2, the standard range of the maximum deviation of the glide path is: within 0.5 of the glide path; the standard range of the maximum deviation of the landing roll heading from the course is: within 0 to 5 degrees; the standard range of the slope change value after the rudder input is: within 0 to 5 degrees; the standard range of the pitch change value after the rudder input is: within 0 to 2 degrees; the standard range of the average difference of the left and right engine N1 thrust asymmetry for more than 5 seconds is: within 0% to 5%; the standard range of the ground speed when starting to leave the runway is: less than 40 knots; the standard range of the maximum difference of the left and right N1 asymmetry is: no more than 5%; The standard range for the duration of thrust asymmetry in manual flight below 100 feet RA is: no more than 5%; the standard range for the maximum deceleration rate before touchdown to 40 knots on the ground is: 3.5 feet / second-7.5 feet / second; the standard range for lateral overload is: less than 0.15G; the standard range for the time from main wheel touchdown to nose wheel touchdown is: within 1.5 seconds; the standard range for whether there is forward thrust after 20 feet RA to touchdown is: no thrust; the standard range for the distance from touchdown to 40 knots on the ground is: landing distance less than 2,300 feet; the standard range for the timing of reverse thrust unlocking is: within 5 seconds after touchdown.

[0117] As shown in Table 3, the three-level event warning standard for pitch attitude is: greater than 9 degrees; the three-level event warning standard for slope is: greater than 7 degrees; the three-level event warning standard for touchdown vertical speed is: greater than 1000 feet / minute; the three-level event warning standard for landing distance is: greater than 1100 meters;

[0118] It should be noted that the event level is based on the deviation between the recorded value of the monitoring indicator and the monitoring standard. For the set event level, generally speaking, airlines divide events into three levels, among which level 1 events are more common and level 3 events are relatively rare.

[0119] In a specific embodiment, the method of evaluating the pilot control behaviors of several flights respectively according to the preset monitoring index standard range of the landing control behavior evaluation and obtaining the evaluation results of the pilot control behaviors of several flights includes:

[0120] For the pilot control behavior assessment of a single flight, according to the preset monitoring indicator standard range of the landing control behavior assessment, the number of times the core monitoring indicators and the common monitoring indicators exceed the corresponding standard range is recorded respectively, as shown in Table 4:

[0121] Table 4 Evaluation of pilot control behavior on a single flight

[0122]

[0123] When the number of times the core monitoring indicator exceeds the corresponding standard range is greater than a first preset value, the pilot's control behavior evaluation result is "poor" regardless of the number of times the common monitoring indicator exceeds the corresponding standard range; wherein the first preset value is 0;

[0124] When the number of times the core monitoring indicator exceeds the corresponding standard range is equal to the first preset value, and the number of times the common monitoring indicator exceeds the corresponding standard range is greater than or equal to the second preset value, the pilot's control behavior evaluation result is "poor"; wherein the second preset value is 3.

[0125] When the number of times the core monitoring indicator exceeds the corresponding standard range is equal to the first preset value, and the number of times the common monitoring indicator exceeds the corresponding standard range is less than the second preset value, the pilot control behavior evaluation result is "good".

[0126] S2: According to the pilot control behavior evaluation results of the several flights, the overall pilot control behavior evaluation results are obtained, as shown in Table 5:

[0127] Table 5 Evaluation of pilot's overall control behavior ability

[0128]

[0129] In a specific embodiment, the method for obtaining the overall pilot control behavior evaluation result according to the pilot control behavior evaluation results of the several flights includes:

[0130] When the proportion of "good" in the pilot control behavior evaluation results of the several flights is greater than or equal to a first preset proportion, the overall pilot control behavior evaluation result is "good", otherwise the overall pilot control behavior evaluation result is "poor".

[0131] In a specific embodiment, the first preset ratio is 80%.

[0132] S3: evaluating the landing status evaluation of pilots of several flights according to the preset monitoring indicator event warning standard of the landing status evaluation, and obtaining the landing status evaluation results of pilots of several flights;

[0133] In a specific embodiment, the method of evaluating the landing status evaluation results of pilots of several flights according to the preset monitoring indicator event warning standard of the landing status evaluation to obtain the landing status evaluation results of pilots of several flights includes:

[0134] For the pilot landing status assessment of a single flight, when any monitoring indicator in the landing status assessment exceeds the corresponding event warning standard, the pilot landing status assessment result is "poor";

[0135] When all monitoring indicators in the landing status assessment do not exceed the corresponding event warning standards, the pilot's landing status assessment result is "good".

[0136] S4: According to the pilot landing status evaluation results of the several flights, the pilot overall landing status evaluation result is obtained, as shown in Table 6:

[0137] Table 6 Pilot's overall landing status assessment

[0138]

[0139] In a specific embodiment, the method for obtaining the pilot's overall landing status evaluation result according to the pilot's landing status evaluation results of the several flights includes:

[0140] When the proportion of "good" in the pilot landing status evaluation results of the several flights is greater than or equal to a second preset proportion, the pilot's overall landing status evaluation result is "good", otherwise the pilot's overall landing status evaluation result is "poor".

[0141] In a specific embodiment, the second preset ratio is 80%.

[0142] S5: rating the pilot's landing quality according to the pilot's overall control behavior ability evaluation result and the pilot's overall landing status evaluation result to obtain the pilot's landing quality rating result;

[0143] Specifically, the pilot landing quality rating standards are shown in Table 7:

[0144] Table 7 Pilot Landing Quality Rating Criteria

[0145]

[0146] In a specific embodiment, the method for rating the pilot's landing quality according to the pilot's overall control behavior ability evaluation result and the pilot's overall landing state evaluation result to obtain the pilot's landing quality rating result includes:

[0147] When the pilot's overall control behavior ability assessment results and the pilot's overall landing status assessment results are both "good", the pilot's landing quality rating result is "A";

[0148] When the pilot's overall control behavior ability assessment result is "poor" and the pilot's overall landing status assessment result is "good", the pilot's landing quality rating result is "B";

[0149] When the pilot's overall control behavior ability assessment results and the pilot's overall landing status assessment results are both "poor", the pilot's landing quality rating result is "C";

[0150] When the pilot's overall control behavior ability assessment result is "good" and the pilot's overall landing status assessment result is "poor", no assessment will be conducted.

[0151] Example 3

[0152] This embodiment provides a pilot landing quality assessment method, the method comprising:

[0153] According to the preset monitoring index standard range of landing control behavior evaluation, the control behaviors of pilots of several flights are evaluated respectively to obtain the evaluation results of the control behaviors of pilots of several flights;

[0154] According to the pilot control behavior evaluation results of the several flights, an overall pilot control behavior evaluation result is obtained;

[0155] Evaluate the landing status of pilots of several flights according to the preset monitoring indicator event warning standard of the landing status evaluation, and obtain the landing status evaluation results of pilots of several flights;

[0156] Obtaining an overall landing status assessment result of the pilot according to the landing status assessment results of the pilots of the several flights;

[0157] The pilot's landing quality is rated according to the pilot's overall control behavior ability evaluation result and the pilot's overall landing status evaluation result to obtain the pilot's landing quality rating result.

[0158] In a specific embodiment, the flight quality monitoring data of a certain airline's Boeing 737 fleet for one month was selected, including 2,617 valid flights, 404 pilots, and flight data from 25 airports. The control behavior (below 200 feet in altitude) and landing status of each landing were evaluated, and the landing quality was rated. Based on Table 7, the evaluation results are divided into three categories, including 180 Class A pilots, 151 Class B pilots, and 73 Class C pilots. Below, each type of pilot is analyzed in detail. (1) Class A pilots (excellent landing quality)

[0159] Category A pilots are of excellent landing quality, and their control behavior and landing status meet all the competency assessment requirements, as shown in Table 8. The total number of this group is 180, accounting for 44.55% of the total group, including 79 instructors, 70 captains, and 31 co-pilots.

[0160] Table 8 Statistics of characteristics of Category A pilots

[0161]

[0162] The notable technical features of this group are:

[0163] First, the mature captain group (with more than one year of captain experience). This group of captains is between 30 and 40 years old, with a mature and stable mentality. They have flown about 10,000 hours since joining the company and have rich experience. In addition, the captain's duty is to personally operate the aircraft for takeoff and landing. At this stage, mature captains have been trained in takeoff and landing operations for a long time, have sufficient flying experience, and have formed a set of stable behavioral habits in their operating techniques. Therefore, mature captains are the most stable and reliable group in the operation process of airlines.

[0164] Second, the mature co-pilot group (more than three years of co-pilot experience). This group of co-pilots are between 20 and 30 years old, and some are over 30 years old. They have flown for about 3,000 to 5,000 hours since joining the company. They have rich flying experience and are skilled and stable in operating the co-pilot seat. In addition, mature co-pilots who have been flying for more than three years are about to enter the captain assessment stage. Generally, airlines will arrange for special people to fly for mature co-pilots to ensure the stability and continuity of knowledge and skills learning. At the same time, the technical standards are strict, so mature co-pilots with more than three years of experience are also a relatively stable group.

[0165] Third, the mature instructor group. The vast majority of mature instructors are over 40 years old, with more than 10,000 hours of flight time since they joined the company. They have extensive flight experience. Although the main task of a flight instructor in actual flight is teaching rather than operating the aircraft, mature flight instructors can detect deviation trends that will occur during flight control earlier, and through communication, prompt the co-pilot to stabilize the flight or take over the aircraft and return to normal. In the monitoring of flights operated by instructors themselves, the technical status of the mature instructor group is also relatively stable. (2) Class B pilots (good landing quality)

[0166] Class B pilots belong to the type with good landing quality. Although some of their control behaviors are poor, the final landing state of the aircraft is good. As shown in Table 9, the total number of this group is 151, accounting for 37.38% of the total group, including 49 instructors, 79 captains, and 23 co-pilots.

[0167] Table 9 Characteristics statistics of Class B pilots

[0168]

[0169]

[0170] The notable characteristics of this group are:

[0171] First, some new captains (with less than one year of experience as captain). Most of these captains are around 30 years old. Due to the role change on the aircraft (from an auxiliary manager of an aircraft to a leader), they are nervous to a certain extent. Most new captains have about 5,000 hours of flying time. This group has just experienced the change of sight angle and procedures from the right seat to the left seat in the cockpit, and the main control hand has also changed from the right hand to the left hand. It is difficult to correct previous habits quickly, and some deviations often occur during the flight. However, due to their own mature flight experience and flying ability, they can often correct deviations quickly after deviations occur, and finally maintain a good landing state.

[0172] Second, some new instructors (with less than one year of experience as an instructor). Most of these instructors are between 35 and 40 years old, and have about 5,000 to 10,000 hours of flight time. Like new captains, new instructors are facing a transition in their technical level and lack experience in teaching co-pilots in real flights. When they discover that the co-pilot’s flight control has deviated, the instructors fail to communicate in a timely manner, resulting in deviations in the co-pilot’s control behavior. Therefore, instructors often take over the aircraft at low altitudes during the flight and then land normally. Similarly, some instructors may experience control deviations when personally operating the aircraft for landing, as they have operated fewer landings and their skills are relatively unfamiliar. However, due to their rich flying experience, the final landing is normal.

[0173] Third, there is a small group of co-pilots. These co-pilots are between 20 and 30 years old and have less than 5,000 hours of flight time. Since the co-pilot is under the supervision of the instructor during the flight phase, the instructor will remind or even take over the control when there is a deviation in the control behavior. It is rare that the co-pilot's control behavior deviates and the landing state is normal after self-correction, so this type of co-pilot will not be discussed for the time being.

[0174] (3) Category C pilots (inadequate landing quality)

[0175] Category C pilots belong to the landing quality inadequacy type. Both the control behavior and landing status are poor. As shown in Table 10, the total number of this group is 73, accounting for 18.07% of the total group, including 3 instructors, 18 captains, and 52 co-pilots.

[0176] Table 10 Characteristics statistics of Class C pilots

[0177]

[0178]

[0179] The notable characteristics of this group are:

[0180] First, some new captains (with less than one year of captain experience). Most of these captains are around 30 years old. The main reason is that they did not adapt to the new environment in time after changing seats. As they were used to controlling the aircraft with their right hand during their co-pilot period, they often experienced unstable landing conditions after switching to left-hand control. In addition, the correction action was slow after the aircraft deviated, causing the landing condition to also exceed the normal range. During the training of new captains, the failure rate of Class C captains in the inspection was significantly higher than that of Class A and B captains, and the training took longer.

[0181] Second, the group of new co-pilots. Due to their lack of flying experience, nervous mentality and unskilled skills during landing often lead to rough control, so the control behavior deviates a lot from the landing status. Historically, there have been serious unsafe incidents during flight training where the new co-pilot did not hear the instructor's instructions and continued to pull the joystick during the operation, resulting in the aircraft scraping the tail and the fuselage being damaged. The deviation in the control of the new co-pilot is an important process in the training of pilots. Continuous training helps the co-pilot to clarify the boundaries of deviant behavior and the decision-making ability on how to respond correctly after the deviation occurs. With the increase of flying experience, their technical ability will continue to improve and tend to be mature and stable.

[0182] Further analysis for pilots with insufficient landing quality (Category C):

[0183] After analyzing the pilot characteristics statistics, as shown in Table 11, the focus is on classifying the five types of landing conditions for pilots with landing quality Class C, and analyzing the pilots' control behavior deviations and mitigation directions.

[0184] Table 11 Classification of pilots with insufficient landing quality

[0185]

[0186]

[0187] There are five points to manage the five types of landing conditions and related control behaviors of pilots with insufficient landing quality in actual flight:

[0188] First, the touchdown slope. Among the behaviors that lead to the deviation of the touchdown slope state, the top five are slope change, slope change after rudder input, maximum deviation between the landing roll heading and the runway track, course deviation and maximum airspeed change rate. Among them, the first four are caused by the pilot's subjective control factors, and the last one is the maximum airspeed change rate caused by the rapid change of the ground wind direction and speed. Therefore, the main management direction for determining the deviation of the touchdown slope state is to alleviate the pilot's left and right input and input frequency of the joystick.

[0189] Second, landing bounce. Among the behaviors that lead to deviation from the landing bounce state, the top five are the maximum attitude change rate, lateral overload, maximum deceleration rate, the distance from touchdown to 40 knots, and the absolute value of slope change. Among them, the maximum attitude change rate is the most direct factor leading to the landing bounce. The lateral overload and the absolute value of the slope change are redundant actions of the pilot in the operation before and after the touchdown bounce. This action indicates that the pilot's control of the joystick is unstable during the landing process. The maximum deceleration rate and the distance from touchdown to 40 knots are the second touchdown after the landing bounce. Due to the loss of a large deceleration distance, the aircraft needs to increase the deceleration rate, resulting in a relatively short distance from touchdown to 40 knots. Based on the behavioral analysis, it can be determined that the management direction of landing bounce is to alleviate the stability of the pilot's control of the joystick input frequency and the descent rate.

[0190] Third, landing attitude. Among the behaviors that lead to deviations in the landing attitude state, the top five are whether there is a forward push rod amount, the maximum rate of change of airspeed, whether the throttle is reduced, the maximum absolute value of the slope, and the maximum rate of change of the descent rate. Among them, whether there is a forward push rod amount and the maximum rate of change of descent are the most direct factors of the landing attitude. The forward push rod amount will cause a direct change in attitude. The maximum rate of change of descent is caused by the forward push rod amount. The maximum rate of change of airspeed and whether the throttle is reduced represent the increase or decrease of the aircraft engine. Too small engine thrust cannot ensure that the aircraft has enough lift to maintain, so the pitch attitude needs to be increased. The maximum absolute value of the slope is the same as above, which is an unnecessary action when the pilot is manipulating. Based on the behavioral analysis, it can be determined that the management direction of the landing attitude is to alleviate the excessive thrust of the aircraft engine and the existence of forward push rod manipulation during the landing stage.

[0191] Fourth, landing distance. Among the behaviors that lead to landing distance state deviation, the top five are ground speed before leaving the runway, whether the throttle is reduced, the maximum rate of change of airspeed, whether the throttle lever is fully retracted, and the maximum rate of change of descent rate. Among them, whether the throttle is reduced and whether the throttle lever is fully retracted are the direct causes of the landing distance. Since the throttle is not reduced before landing, the aircraft will not be able to touch the ground smoothly due to excessive thrust during landing, resulting in a long landing distance after entering the runway. The maximum rate of change of airspeed and the maximum rate of change of descent rate are derivative behaviors of the throttle not being fully retracted. The ground speed before leaving the runway is also due to the high speed of the aircraft before touching down, which leads to excessive speed during departure. Based on the behavioral analysis, it can be determined that the management direction of the landing distance is to alleviate the problem of pilots not retracting the throttle during landing.

[0192] Fifth, touchdown vertical speed. Among the behaviors that lead to deviations in the touchdown vertical speed state, the top five are whether the throttle lever is fully retracted before touchdown, the maximum rate of change of airspeed, the maximum rate of change of attitude, the maximum airspeed, and the throttle is still reduced when the descent rate is greater than the normal value. This state is exactly the opposite of the landing distance. It is caused by the throttle being fully retracted too early and the aircraft engine thrust being too small during landing. The premature retraction of the throttle lever before touchdown is the fundamental problem of the touchdown vertical speed state. The maximum rate of change of airspeed, the maximum rate of change of attitude, and the maximum airspeed are all derivative problems of the premature retraction of the throttle lever. The throttle is still reduced when the descent rate is greater than the normal value, which means that the pilot did not notice that the descent rate before landing was greater than the normal range. Based on the behavioral analysis, it can be determined that the management direction of the touchdown vertical speed is to alleviate the problem of pilots retracting the throttle too early during landing.

[0193] Obviously, the above embodiments of the present invention are merely examples for clearly illustrating the present invention, and are not intended to limit the embodiments of the present invention. For those skilled in the art, other different forms of changes or modifications can be made based on the above description. It is not necessary and impossible to list all the embodiments here. Any modifications, equivalent substitutions and improvements made within the spirit and principles of the present invention should be included in the protection scope of the claims of the present invention.

Claims

1. A method for evaluating the landing quality of a pilot, characterized in that: The method comprises: According to the preset monitoring index standard range of landing control behavior evaluation, the control behaviors of pilots of several flights are evaluated respectively to obtain the evaluation results of the control behaviors of pilots of several flights; According to the pilot control behavior evaluation results of the several flights, an overall pilot control behavior evaluation result is obtained; Evaluate the landing status of pilots of several flights according to the preset monitoring indicator event warning standard of the landing status evaluation, and obtain the landing status evaluation results of pilots of several flights; Obtaining an overall landing status assessment result of the pilot according to the landing status assessment results of the pilots of the several flights; The pilot's landing quality is rated according to the pilot's overall control behavior ability evaluation result and the pilot's overall landing status evaluation result to obtain the pilot's landing quality rating result.

2. A pilot landing quality assessment method according to claim 1, characterized in that: The method further comprises: Determine the monitoring indicators for landing control behavior assessment and landing status assessment; Determine the standard range of monitoring indicators for landing control behavior assessment, and determine the event warning standards for monitoring indicators for landing status assessment.

3. A pilot landing quality assessment method according to claim 2, characterized in that: The monitoring indicators of the landing control behavior evaluation include: Core monitoring indicators and common monitoring indicators; The core monitoring indicators include at least one of the following: Maximum descent rate, maximum bank angle, whether the throttle lever is retracted before touchdown, touchdown attitude change rate, touchdown airspeed change rate, touchdown vertical speed change rate, course deviation, difference between indicated airspeed and target speed, and bank angle change; The common monitoring indicators include at least one of the following: Maximum deviation from the glide path, maximum deviation from the landing roll heading and the course, change in slope after rudder input, change in pitch after rudder input, average difference in N1 thrust asymmetry of left and right engines for more than 5 seconds, ground speed at the start of runway departure, maximum difference in N1 asymmetry of left and right engines, duration of thrust asymmetry in manual flight below the first preset altitude RA, maximum deceleration rate from touchdown to ground speed before the preset speed, lateral overload, time from main wheel touchdown to nose wheel touchdown, whether there is forward thrust stick amount from the second preset altitude RA to touchdown, distance from touchdown to ground speed before the preset speed, and timing of reverse thrust unlocking; The monitoring indicators of the landing status assessment include at least one of the following: Pitch attitude, bank angle, vertical speed at touchdown, landing distance, and landing bounce.

4. A pilot landing quality assessment method according to claim 3, characterized in that: The method of evaluating the pilot control behaviors of several flights respectively according to the preset monitoring index standard range of the landing control behavior evaluation, and obtaining the evaluation results of the pilot control behaviors of several flights includes: For the pilot control behavior assessment of a single flight, based on the preset monitoring indicator standard range of the landing control behavior assessment, the number of times the core monitoring indicators and common monitoring indicators exceed the corresponding standard range shall be recorded respectively; When the number of times that the core monitoring indicator exceeds the corresponding standard range is greater than the first preset value, the pilot's control behavior evaluation result is "poor" regardless of the number of times that the common monitoring indicator exceeds the corresponding standard range; When the number of times the core monitoring indicator exceeds the corresponding standard range is equal to the first preset value, and the number of times the common monitoring indicator exceeds the corresponding standard range is greater than or equal to the second preset value, the pilot control behavior evaluation result is "poor"; When the number of times the core monitoring indicator exceeds the corresponding standard range is equal to the first preset value, and the number of times the common monitoring indicator exceeds the corresponding standard range is less than the second preset value, the pilot control behavior evaluation result is "good".

5. A pilot landing quality assessment method according to claim 4, characterized in that: The method for obtaining the overall pilot control behavior evaluation result according to the pilot control behavior evaluation results of the several flights includes: When the proportion of "good" in the pilot control behavior evaluation results of the several flights is greater than or equal to a first preset proportion, the overall pilot control behavior evaluation result is "good", otherwise the overall pilot control behavior evaluation result is "poor".

6. A pilot landing quality assessment method according to claim 5, characterized in that: The first preset ratio has a value range of 80% to 90%.

7. A pilot landing quality assessment method according to claim 3, characterized in that: The method of evaluating the landing status evaluation results of pilots of several flights according to the preset monitoring indicator event warning standard of the landing status evaluation includes: For the pilot landing status assessment of a single flight, when any monitoring indicator in the landing status assessment exceeds the corresponding event warning standard, the pilot landing status assessment result is "poor"; When all monitoring indicators in the landing status assessment do not exceed the corresponding event warning standards, the pilot's landing status assessment result is "good".

8. A pilot landing quality assessment method according to claim 7, characterized in that: The method for obtaining the pilot's overall landing status evaluation result according to the pilot's landing status evaluation results of the several flights includes: When the proportion of "good" in the pilot landing status evaluation results of the several flights is greater than or equal to a second preset proportion, the pilot's overall landing status evaluation result is "good", otherwise the pilot's overall landing status evaluation result is "poor".

9. A pilot landing quality assessment method according to claim 8, characterized in that: The second preset ratio has a value range of 80% to 90%.

10. A pilot landing quality assessment method according to claim 1, characterized in that: The method of rating the pilot's landing quality according to the pilot's overall control behavior ability evaluation result and the pilot's overall landing state evaluation result, and obtaining the pilot's landing quality rating result includes: When the pilot's overall control behavior ability assessment results and the pilot's overall landing status assessment results are both "good", the pilot's landing quality rating result is "A"; When the pilot's overall control behavior ability assessment result is "poor" and the pilot's overall landing status assessment result is "good", the pilot's landing quality rating result is "B"; When the pilot's overall control behavior ability assessment results and the pilot's overall landing status assessment results are both "poor", the pilot's landing quality rating result is "C"; When the pilot's overall control behavior ability assessment result is "good" and the pilot's overall landing status assessment result is "poor", no assessment will be conducted.

Images