Passenger aircraft landing risk assessment method and implementation system thereof

Abstract

The invention belongs to the field of aviation aircraft flight performance calculation, and particularly relates to a passenger aircraft landing risk assessment method and an implementation system thereof, and the assessment method comprises the following steps: obtaining a landing reference distance without adverse factors; acquiring landing distance correction caused by adverse factors and mutual influence factors; taking the landing distance as a target function, constructing a decision variable, constructing a constraint equation, and constructing a 01 planning model; solving the 01 planning model, and comparing the landing distance result with the available field length of the airport to obtain the airport landing safety degree; and repeating the steps on the airports in the standby landing radius and the target airport, sorting according to the landing safety level, and providing reference for dispatchers and controllers. The application scene of the method includes but is not limited to an airline company ground operation control center, the landing risk of a target airport and a standby airport can be effectively evaluated, and a dispatcher and a controller are assisted to dispatch and release a flight plan.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] The present application belongs to the field of aviation aircraft flight performance calculation, and in particular relates to a passenger aircraft landing risk assessment method and an implementation system thereof. Background Art

[0002] According to the Compilation of Aircraft Accident Investigation Reports published by the International Civil Aviation Transport Association in 2007, the probability of accidents occurring during takeoff, climb, approach and landing is higher, and accidents occurring during landing account for as high as 46%. Therefore, when making a flight plan, the dispatcher will evaluate the landing performance based on the data provided by the manufacturer and communicate with the controller. Only when the requirements are met can the flight plan be released. However, even if the landing distance is less than the available length of the airport, accidents may still occur due to failure to consider sudden weather conditions at the landing airport, aircraft failures, and crew operating errors (hereinafter collectively referred to as unfavorable factors).

[0003] According to CCAR25 and CCAR121, the existing required landing distance (RLD) assessment is based on the certified landing distance (DLD) multiplied by a coefficient to ensure safety margin. It only considers the landing performance of the aircraft under the current state and weather conditions when the flight plan is formulated, and does not consider the landing safety margin when unexpected adverse factors occur during the landing phase (such as sudden weather conditions, sudden aircraft failures, crew operating errors). At the same time, if there are multiple optional airports when the aircraft executes the alternate landing procedure, the nearest airport is generally selected, and it is not considered whether the available runway length of the nearest airport is sufficient when unexpected adverse factors occur. For this reason, it is necessary to study the safety assessment method during landing, provide a reference for the selection of alternate airports, and assist dispatchers and controllers in dispatching and releasing flight plans. Summary of the invention

[0004] In order to solve the above problems, the present application provides a passenger aircraft landing risk assessment method, which is characterized by comprising the following steps:

[0005] S1: Obtaining a landing reference distance of a passenger aircraft without adverse factors, wherein the adverse factors are factors that may affect the landing distance;

[0006] S2: Obtain the correction amount caused by each unfavorable factor relative to the landing reference distance;

[0007] S3: establishing an objective function for the longest landing distance based on multiple unfavorable factors, the correction amount of each unfavorable factor relative to the landing reference distance, the influencing factors of the coupling between the unfavorable factors, and the landing reference distance;

[0008] S4: Calculate the objective function, compare the longest landing distance when the number of unfavorable factors is M with the available length of the destination or alternate airport. If the available length of the airport is greater than the longest landing distance, it means that M unfavorable factors can be tolerated when landing at the airport, and it can be considered that the landing safety degree at the airport is M;

[0009] S5: Conduct safety assessment on the airports within the alternate radius and the destination airport according to steps S1-S4, rank them by landing safety level and provide reference for dispatchers and controllers.

[0010] Preferably, the unfavorable factors include: aircraft sideslip, failure of certain aircraft components, unfavorable landing airport conditions, and unfavorable weather factors.

[0011] Preferably, the failure of a certain component of the aircraft includes failure of multiple spoilers, failure of SEC computer, rudder jamming, and reverse thrust failure.

[0012] Preferably, the objective function is:

[0013] max L=L0+x a ΔL a +x b ΔL b +...+x i ΔL i +x ab ΔL ab +...+x ij ΔL ij ;

[0014] The decision variables are expressed as:

[0015]

[0016]

[0017] Where maxL represents the longest landing distance, L0 represents the landing reference distance when the aircraft has no adverse factors, and x i It represents the control variable when the i-th adverse factor occurs, 1 means it occurs, 0 means it does not occur, ΔL i is the impact of the landing distance caused by the i-th unfavorable factor, x ij It represents the coupling influence factor between the i-th and j-th unfavorable factors, 1 is activated, 0 is not activated, ΔL ij It is the correction amount caused by the coupling between the i-th and j-th unfavorable factors.

[0018] Preferably, the coupling of multiple unfavorable factors is characterized by constraint equations.

[0019] Preferably, S4 specifically includes: increasing the number of unfavorable factors of the objective function from 1 to 2, 3, ..., M+1, until the result of the corresponding objective function is greater than the available length of the airport, then the tolerable number of unfavorable factors is M+1, and the airport landing safety is M.

[0020] Preferably, S5 specifically includes: when an aircraft needs to make an alternate landing, the position, pressure altitude and speed of the passenger aircraft are obtained through the aircraft position real-time acquisition module, and the maximum radius that the aircraft can reach when executing the alternate landing procedure is calculated according to the data provided in the flight manual to obtain all alternate airports. The airports within the alternate landing range are traversed, and the steps S1 to S4 are implemented to calculate the safety of the destination airport and all alternate airports, and they are displayed in order to provide reference for dispatchers and controllers. In case of emergency alternate landing, airports with high safety are given priority for alternate landing.

[0021] Preferably, the decision variables specifically include:

[0022] First, second, third spoiler failure: x a 、x b 、x c ;

[0023] SEC1,SEC3 computer failure: x d 、x f ;

[0024] SEC2 computer failure: x e ;

[0025] Rudder jam: x g ;

[0026] Reverse thrust (single engine failure): x h ;

[0027] Plateau Airport: x i ;

[0028] Any two spoiler failure impact factor: x aa ;

[0029] Any three spoiler failure impact factor: x abc ;

[0030] The first spoiler failure and SEC1 computer failure influence factor: x ad ;

[0031] The second spoiler failure and SEC2 computer failure influence factor: x be ;

[0032] The third spoiler failure and SEC3 computer failure affect the factor: x cf ;

[0033] SEC2 and SEC3 computer failure impact factor: x ef ;

[0034] SEC1 and SEC3 computer failure impact factor: x df ;

[0035] SEC1 and SEC2 computer failure impact factor: x de .

[0036] Preferably, the constraint equations for which at most M items of the 9 adverse conditions occur include:

[0037] x a +x b +x c +x d +x e +x f +x g +x h +x i ≤M;

[0038] The constraint equations for a spoiler failure and SEC1 failure include:

[0039] 0≤x a +x d -x ad ≤1,x a +x ad -x d ≤1;x d +x ad -x a ≤1; Constraint equations of the second spoiler and SEC2:

[0040] 0≤x b +x e -x be ≤1,x b +x be -x e ≤1,x e +x be -x b ≤1; Constraint equations of three spoilers and SEC3:

[0041] 0≤x c +x f -x cf ≤1,x c +x cf -x f ≤1,x f +x cf -x c ≤1; Constraint equations when one and two spoilers fail at the same time:

[0042] 0≤x a +x b -x aa ≤1,x a +x aa -x b ≤1,x b +x aa -x a ≤1; 1. Constraint equations when three spoilers fail at the same time:

[0043] 0≤x a +x c -x aa ≤1,x a +x aa -x c ≤1,x c +x aa -x a ≤1; Constraint equations when two or three bypass plates fail at the same time:

[0044] 0≤x b +x c -x aa ≤1,x b +x aa -x c ≤1,x c +x aa -x b ≤1;

[0045] Constraint equations when three spoilers fail at the same time:

[0046] x aa +x abc ≤1,0≤x a +x b +x c -x aa ≤2,x a +x abc -x b -x c ≤1,

[0047] x b +x abc -x a -x c ≤1,x c +x abc -x a -x b ≤1;

[0048] Constraint equations when SEC1 and SEC2 computers fail at the same time:

[0049] 0≤xd +x e -x de ≤1,x d +x de -x e ≤1,x e +x de -x d ≤1;

[0050] Constraint equations when SEC1 and SEC3 computers fail at the same time:

[0051] 0≤x d +x f -x df ≤1,x d +x df -x f ≤1,x f +x df -x d ≤1,

[0052] Constraint equations when SEC2 and SEC3 computers fail at the same time:

[0053] 0≤x e +x f -x ef ≤1,x e +x ef -x f ≤1,x f +x ef -x e ≤1;

[0054] Constraint equations where at most two of the three SEC computers will fail:

[0055] x d +x e +x f ≤2,

[0056] x de +x df +x ef ≤1 is the constraint that only one of the three influencing factors can be effective at the same time.

[0057] A system for implementing a passenger aircraft landing risk assessment method, an aircraft landing performance database, including the landing reference distance without adverse factors and the impact of adverse factors on the landing distance;

[0058] Weather server, to obtain real-time weather data of all airports within the diversion range and the destination airport;

[0059] Airport information database, including the latest airport information such as airport elevation and runway length, which is publicly available in real time;

[0060] The aircraft position real-time acquisition module is used to obtain the aircraft position and provide available airports within the alternate landing range;

[0061] The model and calculation module includes a landing distance assessment 01 planning model constructed by the passenger aircraft landing risk assessment method according to any one of claims 1 to 6, and includes a solver for solving the landing distance assessment 01 planning model.

[0062] The output end is used to output the landing safety of the alternate airport and the destination airport in the form of a list for reference by the dispatcher and controller.

[0063] The real-time meteorological data includes airport wind speed and direction, temperature, and road surface water and snow conditions; the meteorological server transmits the data to the landing performance database to obtain the braking effect under the corresponding weather conditions and the corresponding landing distance impact.

[0064] The application scenarios of this application include but are not limited to the airline ground operation control center, which can effectively assess the landing risks of the destination airport and alternate airport, and assist dispatchers and controllers in dispatching and releasing flight plans. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

[0065] Figure 1 This is a flow chart of a passenger aircraft landing risk assessment method according to a preferred embodiment of the present application;

[0066] Figure 2 This is a schematic diagram of the control relationship between the flight control computer and the control surface in a preferred embodiment of the present application.

[0067] Figure 3 It is a schematic diagram of the system structure of a preferred implementation method of the present application. DETAILED DESCRIPTION

[0068] In order to make the technical solution and advantages of the present application clearer, the technical solution of the present application will be further described in detail in detail and in detail in conjunction with the accompanying drawings. It can be understood that the specific embodiments described here are only partial embodiments of the present application, which are only used to explain the present application, not to limit the present application. It should be noted that, for the convenience of description, only the parts related to the present application are shown in the accompanying drawings, and other related parts can refer to the general design. In the absence of conflict, the embodiments in the present application and the technical features in the embodiments can be combined with each other to obtain new embodiments.

[0069] Embodiment 1: The present invention discloses a passenger aircraft landing risk assessment method. The risk assessment method is mainly based on the performance data provided in the manufacturer's flight manual. Based on a certain aircraft model, the influence of adverse factors on the landing distance is converted into an 01 planning mathematical model, and the constraint equation is adjusted according to the coupling between the adverse factors. The landing distance is calculated, and the safety degree is obtained by comparing it with the available length of the airport. The specific implementation steps of the method are as follows:

[0070] S1: Obtain the landing reference distance for a passenger aircraft flight manual when the aircraft lands without sideslip, failure or adverse conditions. Taking a passenger aircraft manual as an example, the landing reference distance for a passenger aircraft flight manual when the braking effect is good, the aircraft lands without sideslip, failure or adverse conditions is L0 = 1410m;

[0071] S2: As shown in Table 1, these are the unfavorable factors that may affect the landing distance in the flight manual of a certain passenger aircraft, including weather factors, landing airport conditions, failure of aircraft spoilers or spoiler elevator computers (hereinafter referred to as SEC computers), etc. The bold numbers in the figure are the landing distances when a certain failure occurs. For example, when a spoiler failure occurs as an unfavorable factor, the landing distance is 1560m. The impact of this unfavorable factor on the landing distance is ΔL=1560-1410=150m.

[0072] It should be noted that when three spoilers fail at the same time, the impact on landing distance is ΔL = 177-0 14 = 10, which is 90m less than the simple superposition of three single spoiler failures, indicating that the impact after coupling needs to be considered. Similarly, the failure of the spoiler and the failure of the SEC computer that controls it will also affect each other, such as Figure 2 The control relationship between the three SEC computers and the three spoilers is relatively complex, which needs to be reflected when setting the mathematical model.

[0073] Table 1 Impact of a single spoiler failure on a passenger aircraft

[0074]

[0075] S3: According to S2, the coupling between multiple unfavorable factors needs to be considered when setting the mathematical model. This embodiment considers multiple unfavorable conditions such as failure of multiple spoilers, failure of SEC computer, rudder jamming, reverse thrust failure, etc., and the objective function is:

[0076] max L=1410+x a 150+x b 150+x c 150-x aa 40-x abc 90-x ad 150-x be100-x cf 150+x d 170+x e 100+x f 170-x ef 60-x df 70-x de ·30+x g 270+x h 60+x i ·120

[0077] In the above formula, maxL is the maximum landing distance, x i Single superscript and x ij The multiple-superscript items are all decision variables. The coefficient multiplied by each decision variable is the impact of the corresponding landing distance, in meters.

[0078]

[0079] The meaning of decision variables is shown in Table 2. i Indicates whether a certain adverse condition occurs, x ij It represents the influence factor between the adverse conditions. That is, when two adverse conditions occur at the same time, their impact on the landing distance cannot be simply added together, and an additional value needs to be added or subtracted. In this case, the influence factor x ij activation.

[0080] Table 2 Comparison table of decision variables meaning

[0081]

[0082]

[0083] In the constraint equation, it is also necessary to consider the influence of adverse conditions on each other, so there is a constraint equation:

[0084] S301, x a +x b +x c +x d +x e +x f +x g +x h +x i ≤M, which means that at most M of the 9 unfavorable conditions will occur. The number on the right side of the inequality is only used to control the number of unfavorable conditions that may occur, and is used to determine the safety level in step S4. In this embodiment, 4 is taken, x a +x b +x c +x d +x e +x f +xg +x h +x i ≤4, that is, if the available length of the airport in step S4 is greater than the objective function maxL, it means that the airport safety level is at least 4. In actual use, it needs to start from 1 and increase by 1 each time.

[0085] S302, 0≤x a +x d -x ad ≤1, indicating that a spoiler failure and SEC1 failure can occur simultaneously, and the impact of the two on the landing distance only retains the maximum value; x a +x ad -x d ≤1,x d +x ad -x a ≤1 The two formulas ensure that there will be no spoiler and SEC1. Only one failure occurs, affecting the factor x ad But it is activated; Similarly, the constraint equations of the second spoiler and SEC2 are established, 0≤x b +x e -x be ≤1,x b +x be -x e ≤1,x e +x be -x b ≤1; constraint equations of three spoilers and SEC3, 0≤x c +x f -x cf ≤1,x c +x cf -x f ≤1,x f +x cf -x c ≤1.

[0086] S303, 0≤x a +x b -x aa ≤1,x a +x aa -x b ≤1,x b +x aa -x a ≤1 is the constraint equation when one and two spoilers fail at the same time. In this case, to ensure the influence factor x aa Only in x a With x b When both are 1, they are activated. Therefore, the constraint equation is established in this way. Similarly, if there are one or three spoilers, 0≤x a +x c -x aa≤1,x a +x aa -x c ≤1,x c +x aa -x a ≤1, second and third spoilers 0≤x b +x c -x aa ≤1,x b +x aa -x c ≤1,x c +x aa -x b ≤1.

[0087] S304,x aa +x abc ≤1,0≤x a +x b +x c -x aa ≤2,x a +x abc -x b -x c ≤1,x b +x abc -x a -x c ≤1,x c +x abc -x a -x b ≤1 is the constraint equation when the three spoilers fail at the same time. At this time, it is necessary to ensure that the influence factor x of the three spoilers abc Only in x a x b x c When both are 1, they are activated, and the two spoilers affect the factor x aa Cannot be activated;

[0088] S305, 0≤x d +x e -x de ≤1,x d +x de -x e ≤1,x e +x de -x d ≤1 is the constraint equation when SEC1 and SEC2 computers fail at the same time. In this case, to ensure the influence factor x de Only in x d With x e At the same time, it is activated when it is 1, so the constraint equation is established in this way. Similarly, there are SEC1,3 computers 0≤x d +x f -xdf ≤1,x d +x df -x f ≤1,x f +x df -x d ≤1,SEC2,3computer0≤x e +x f -x ef ≤1,x e +x ef -x f ≤1,x f +x ef -x e ≤1.

[0089] S306, x de +x df +x ef ≤1 means that only one of the three influencing factors can be effective at the same time, x d +x e +x f ≤2 means that at most two of the three SEC computers will fail. This embodiment does not consider the simultaneous failure of the three SEC computers.

[0090] S307. All the above constraint equations have been established. Using the integer programming solver, it can be calculated that when a maximum of four adverse conditions occur, the longest landing distance is 2220m. The most dangerous combination of adverse conditions is failure of the first or third spoiler, failure of the SEC1 computer or SEC3 computer, rudder jam, and plateau airport.

[0091] S4: The above step S3 has calculated that the longest landing distance for the combination of four adverse conditions is 2220m. If the runway length of the alternate airport or the destination airport is greater than 2220m, the safety factor is at least 4. At this time, the number of possible adverse conditions on the right side of the S301 inequality can be increased by 1, and step S3 is repeated until the calculated longest landing distance exceeds the available length of the alternate airport. At this time, if the number of possible adverse conditions is M+1, the airport landing safety factor is M.

[0092] S5: Conduct safety assessment on the airports within the alternate radius and the destination airport according to steps S1-S4, rank them by landing safety level and provide reference for dispatchers and controllers.

[0093] Embodiment 2: This embodiment provides a system for implementing the above landing risk assessment method, and the application scenarios include but are not limited to the ground operation control center of an airline. The implementation system includes:

[0094] Aircraft landing performance database, including the landing reference distance without sideslip landing, any failure or adverse conditions, and the impact of adverse factors on landing distance under various braking effects;

[0095] Weather servers and airport information databases that can obtain aviation intelligence services (including domestic static intelligence MAIP and dynamic intelligence NOTAM), including:

[0096] The weather server can obtain real-time weather data of all airports and destination airports within the diversion range;

[0097] Airport information database, including the latest airport information published by the Civil Aviation Administration of China, such as airport elevation, runway length, etc.;

[0098] The real-time aircraft position acquisition module can obtain the aircraft position and provide available airports within the alternate landing range;

[0099] The model and calculation module includes the landing risk assessment model described in claim 1, and contains a commercial solver that can perform fast solution of 01 planning and has basic calculation functions.

[0100] At the output end, the landing safety of the alternate airport and the destination airport can be output in the form of a list for reference by dispatchers and controllers.

[0101] The specific implementation method of the system is to establish a landing performance database based on the flight manual provided by the passenger aircraft manufacturer, which includes the landing reference distance when the aircraft lands without sideslip and without any failure or adverse conditions, as well as the impact of adverse factors on the landing distance under various braking effects.

[0102] A program can be written according to the mathematical model established in step S3 of Example 1. At the same time, in order to obtain the impact of weather factors on the landing distance, the specific implementation method of the system is to provide a data interface, establish a meteorological network or server, and obtain real-time meteorological data of all airports and destination airports within the alternate landing range, mainly including airport wind speed and direction, temperature, and braking effect conditions corresponding to water and snow on the road surface. At this time, the program automatically reads the airport weather conditions, and uses an interpolation algorithm to obtain the impact of adverse factors on the landing distance under the corresponding weather conditions based on the landing performance database.

[0103] The mathematical model can be solved by mature commercial solvers. Currently, commercial solvers use heuristic intelligent algorithms and can solve 01 planning problems in a short time. The system can reserve a control interface to select and exclude unfavorable conditions to obtain more accurate results.

[0104] According to step S4 in embodiment 1, the specific implementation method of the system is to establish an airport information database, provide the available length of the destination and alternate airports according to aviation information, compare the calculated objective function with the available length of the airport, and increase the number of unfavorable factors from 1 to 2, 3, ..., M+1, until the corresponding objective function is greater than the available length of the airport. At this time, the number of unfavorable factors that can be tolerated is M+1, and the airport landing safety is M.

[0105] According to step S5 in Example 1, the specific implementation method of the system is that when an aircraft needs to make an alternate landing, the real-time aircraft position acquisition module is used to obtain the position of the passenger aircraft and flight data such as pressure altitude and speed, and the maximum radius that the aircraft can reach when executing the alternate landing procedure is calculated according to the data provided in the flight manual to obtain all alternate airports. The airports within the alternate landing range are traversed, and the implementation is carried out according to claims 3 to 6, and the safety of the destination airport and all alternate airports is calculated, and they are displayed in order to provide reference for dispatchers and controllers, especially in case of emergency alternate landing, airports with high safety can be given priority for alternate landing.

[0106] The above is only a specific implementation of the present application, but the protection scope of the present application is not limited thereto. Any changes or substitutions that can be easily thought of by a person skilled in the art within the technical scope disclosed in the present application should be included in the protection scope of the present application. Therefore, the protection scope of the present application shall be based on the protection scope of the claims.

Claims

1. A passenger aircraft landing risk assessment method, characterized in that: The following steps are involved: S1: Obtaining a landing reference distance of a passenger aircraft without adverse factors, wherein the adverse factors are factors that may affect the landing distance; S2: Obtain the correction amount caused by each unfavorable factor relative to the landing reference distance; S3: establishing an objective function for the longest landing distance based on multiple unfavorable factors, the correction amount of each unfavorable factor relative to the landing reference distance, the influencing factors of the coupling between the unfavorable factors, and the landing reference distance; S4: Calculate the objective function, compare the longest landing distance when the number of unfavorable factors is M with the available length of the destination or alternate airport. If the available length of the airport is greater than the longest landing distance, it means that M unfavorable factors can be tolerated when landing at the airport, and it can be considered that the landing safety degree at the airport is M; S5: Conduct safety assessment on the airports within the alternate radius and the destination airport according to steps S1-S4, rank them by landing safety level and provide reference for dispatchers and controllers.

2. The passenger aircraft landing risk assessment method according to claim 1, characterized in that: The adverse factors include: aircraft sideslip, failure of certain aircraft components, unfavorable landing airport conditions, and unfavorable weather factors.

3. The passenger aircraft landing risk assessment method according to claim 1, characterized in that: The failure of certain aircraft components included failure of multiple spoilers, failure of SEC computer, rudder jamming, and reverse thrust failure.

4. The passenger aircraft landing risk assessment method according to claim 1, characterized in that: The objective function is: max L=L0+x a ·ΔL a +x b ·ΔL b +...+x i ·ΔL i +x ab ·ΔL ab +...+x ij ·ΔL ij ; The decision variables are expressed as: Where maxL represents the longest landing distance, L0 represents the landing reference distance when the aircraft has no adverse factors, and x i It represents the control variable when the i-th adverse factor occurs, 1 means it occurs, 0 means it does not occur, ΔL i is the impact of the landing distance caused by the i-th unfavorable factor, x ij It represents the coupling influence factor between the i-th and j-th unfavorable factors, 1 is activated, 0 is not activated, ΔL ij It is the correction amount caused by the coupling between the i-th and j-th unfavorable factors.

5. The passenger aircraft landing risk assessment method according to claim 4, characterized in that: The coupling of various unfavorable factors is characterized by constraint equations.

6. The passenger aircraft landing risk assessment method according to claim 4, characterized in that: S4 specifically includes: increasing the number of unfavorable factors of the objective function from 1 to 2, 3, ..., M+1, until the result of the corresponding objective function is greater than the available length of the airport. At this time, the number of unfavorable factors that can be tolerated is M+1, and the airport landing safety is M.

7. The passenger aircraft landing risk assessment method according to claim 1, characterized in that: S5 specifically includes: when an aircraft needs to make an alternate landing, the real-time aircraft position acquisition module is used to obtain the position, pressure altitude, and speed of the passenger aircraft, and the maximum radius that the aircraft can reach when executing the alternate landing procedure is calculated according to the data provided in the flight manual to obtain all alternate airports. The airports within the alternate landing range are traversed and implemented according to steps S1 to S4, and the safety of the destination airport and all alternate airports is calculated, and displayed in order to provide reference for dispatchers and controllers. In case of emergency alternate landing, airports with high safety are given priority for alternate landing.

8. The passenger aircraft landing risk assessment method according to claim 6, characterized in that: The decision variables include: First, second, third spoiler failure: x a 、x b 、x c ; SEC1,SEC3 computer failure: x d 、x f ; SEC2 computer failure: x e ; Rudder jam: x g ; Reverse thrust (single engine failure): x h ; Plateau Airport: x i ; Any two spoiler failure impact factor: x aa ; Any three spoiler failure impact factor: x abc ; The first spoiler failure and SEC1 computer failure influence factor: x ad ; The second spoiler failure and SEC2 computer failure influence factor: x be ; The third spoiler failure and SEC3 computer failure affect the factor: x cf ; SEC2 and SEC3 computer failure impact factor: x ef ; SEC1 and SEC3 computer failure impact factor: x df ; SEC1 and SEC2 computer failure impact factor: x de .

9. The passenger aircraft landing risk assessment method according to claim 8, characterized in that: The landing safety M, that is, the 9 unfavorable conditions will only occur M items at most, and the constraint equation is expressed as: x a +x b +x c +x d +x e +x f +x g +x h +x i ≤M; The constraint equations for a spoiler failure and SEC1 failure include: 0≤x a +x d -x ad ≤1,x a +x ad -x d ≤1;x d +x ad -x a ≤1; Constraint equations of the two spoilers and SEC2: 0≤x b +x e -x be ≤1,x b +x be -x e ≤1,x e +x be -x b ≤1; Constraint equations of three spoilers and SEC3: 0≤x c +x f -x cf ≤1,x c +x cf -x f ≤1,x f +x cf -x c ≤1; Constraint equations when one or two spoilers fail at the same time: 0≤x a +x b -x aa ≤1,x a +x aa -x b ≤1,x b +x aa -x a ≤1; 1. Constraint equations when three spoilers fail at the same time: 0≤x a +x c -x aa ≤1,x a +x aa -x c ≤1,x c +x aa -x a ≤1; 2. Constraint equations when three bypass plates fail simultaneously: 0≤x b +x c -x aa ≤1,x b +x aa -x c ≤1,x c +x aa -x b ≤1; Constraint equations when three spoilers fail at the same time: x aa +x abc ≤1,0≤x a +x b +x c -x aa ≤2,x a +x abc -x b -x c ≤1, x b +x abc -x a -x c ≤1,x c +x abc -x a -x b ≤1; Constraint equations when SEC1 and SEC2 computers fail at the same time: 0≤x d +x e -x de ≤1,x d +x de -x e ≤1,x e +x de -x d ≤1; Constraint equations when SEC1 and SEC3 computers fail at the same time: 0≤x d +x f -x df ≤1,x d +x df -x f ≤1,x f +x df -x d ≤1, Constraint equations when SEC2 and SEC3 computers fail at the same time: 0≤x e +x f -x ef ≤1,x e +x ef -x f ≤1,x f +x ef -x e ≤1; Constraint equations where at most two of the three SEC computers will fail: x d +x e +x f ≤2, x de +x df +x ef ≤1 is the constraint that only one of the three influencing factors can be effective at the same time.

10. A system for implementing a passenger aircraft landing risk assessment method, characterized in that: Aircraft landing performance database, including the landing reference distance without adverse factors and the impact of adverse factors on landing distance; Weather server, to obtain real-time weather data of all airports within the diversion range and the destination airport; Airport information database, including the latest airport information such as airport elevation and runway length, which is publicly available in real time; The aircraft position real-time acquisition module is used to obtain the aircraft position and provide available airports within the alternate landing range; The model and calculation module includes a landing distance assessment 01 planning model constructed by the passenger aircraft landing risk assessment method according to any one of claims 1 to 6, and includes a solver for solving the landing distance assessment 01 planning model. The output end is used to output the landing safety of the alternate airport and the destination airport in the form of a list for reference by the dispatcher and controller.

11. The system for implementing the passenger aircraft landing risk assessment method according to claim 10, characterized in that: The real-time meteorological data includes airport wind speed and direction, temperature, and road surface water and snow conditions; the meteorological server transmits the data to the landing performance database to obtain the braking effect under the corresponding weather conditions and the corresponding landing distance impact.

Images