Method and system for assisting operation decision making of aircraft

Abstract

Methods and systems are presented for assisting the making of operational decisions for an aircraft, the method being performed by three computers during a current task. The first computer (C1) automatically determines a technical state of the aircraft, a minimum equipment list, one or more affected MEL items, and one or more applicable scheduling conditions for each item from the fault information. The second computer (C2) automatically determines the proposed scheme (including selection of scheduling conditions for each affected MEL item in the case of scheduling according to one or more MEL items) from previous items provided by the first computer and a set of future tasks to be allocated in the aircraft fleet. A third computer (C3) receives a decision from the pilot to accept or reject the proposed scheme and, in the event of acceptance, triggers the completion of some tasks in the aircraft and updates the log.

Description

TECHNICAL FIELD

[0001] The field of the present invention is that of managing the operation of an aircraft, in particular when the aircraft experiences a technical malfunction during a current mission that can impact future missions.

[0002] More specifically, the present invention relates to a method and a system for assisting in the formulation of operational decisions for an aircraft, as well as to a computer program product for implementing such a method. BACKGROUND

[0003] During the daily operation of an aircraft, technical malfunctions can occur that can impact the ability of the aircraft to complete a mission (i.e. a flight). Indeed, for safety reasons, before an aircraft takes off to complete a new mission, the pilot (the captain) must ensure that the various devices of this aircraft are working properly, before deciding whether to authorize the “dispatch” of this aircraft to perform this new mission.

[0004] Sensors and control means are used to assist the pilot in completing the diagnosis of the aircraft. Thus, when a technical malfunction (or fault) is detected, the pilot is notified. This can be a new fault, or even a fault that has already been detected during a previous mission, but which could not be corrected during maintenance, for example due to lack of time or resources. A technical malfunction is understood to mean the fact that an item of equipment or a function of the aircraft is not functioning satisfactorily, i.e. does not perform one or more of the functions for which it was designed, does not function consistently within the operating limits or tolerances for which it was designed, is not available due to a major malfunction, etc., regardless of the cause.

[0005] In order to prevent each fault from resulting in costly aircraft downtime, the pilot has a document (paper or electronic form) known as the MEL (Minimum Equipment List). The content of the MEL identifies the conditions under which the aircraft can still be operated despite one or more faults, while ensuring that the safety of the aircraft is not compromised. Thus, the MEL concept allows the aircraft to continue to use certain instruments, equipment or functions that are inoperative or missing for a limited period of time (the duration varies depending on the severity of the consequences) until repairs can be made.

[0006] For a new mission, the MEL must be applied before the flight begins (before the taxi phase of the aircraft or before the takeoff phase, depending on the current regulations) and must be accepted by the pilot.

[0007] The MEL lists all the equipment or functions that can be inoperative for a new task (new flight) to be performed. Each item on the list (also called "MEL item") includes an identifier and a technical failure description (regarding the inoperative equipment item or function of the aircraft), and defines the maximum allowed duration of the failure state, the number of occurrences of the equipment or function being the subject of the failure, the minimum number of occurrences required for the exemption flight, and, if applicable, one or more scheduling conditions for the aircraft to perform the new task. Each MEL item can also define specific procedures that the crew must apply when the associated failure is present.

[0008] The scheduling conditions can include the state of one or more equipment items or functions, such as the operational state (operational or out of service), the functional position (open, closed, on, off, etc.) or its control selection state (on, off, open, closed, etc.). The scheduling conditions can also include a logical combination of the states of several equipment items or functions. The scheduling conditions can also refer to operational use limitations, such as limit altitude or flight altitude or a detrimental effect on the aircraft performance.

[0009] In the usual use of the MEL, before the aircraft departs to perform a new task, the maintenance operator must implement the following steps during the Turnaround Time (TAT) of the aircraft to ensure that the aircraft can depart in a state of airworthiness:

[0010] - detecting a failure (for example, by ECAM (Electronic Centralized Aircraft Monitoring) alert, observation (by the crew or maintenance personnel), etc.);

[0011] - reporting the failure: the crew or maintenance personnel must report any inoperative equipment or function of the aircraft in the aircraft log;

[0012] - identifying the MEL item associated with the detected failure by matching the detected failure with the various entries in the MEL;

[0013] - reviewing the scheduling conditions defined in the identified MEL item;

[0014] - deciding to repair or schedule the aircraft based on the identified MEL item and the technical state of the aircraft, including technical data related to the operation of the equipment and functions of the aircraft; and

[0015] - in the case of scheduling according to the identified MEL item, recording in the log the identified MEL item and one (or more) of the selected scheduling conditions.

[0016] The MEL item can correspond to one of the following three types of scheduling states:

[0017] - a scheduling state called "GO (perform)", which corresponds to a scheduling without conditions, but with a time limit;

[0018] - a scheduling status called "GO IF" in which one or more scheduling conditions correspond to one or more conditions that must be satisfied to allow the scheduling of the aircraft; and

[0019] - a scheduling status called "NO GO" which corresponds to the case where the aircraft must be repaired and cannot be scheduled according to the MEL.

[0020] The communication with the air operations personnel (flight dispatchers) or agents at the operator's maintenance control center (MCC) can help the pilot to evaluate the MEL items and decide whether to continue the flight. However, the pilot is responsible for making the final decision on the new mission (scheduling status decision: "NO GO", "GO" or "GO IF") and, for example, accepting the scheduling of the aircraft according to the identified MEL items (for the case of "GO" or "GO IF").

[0021] In the "GO IF" case, for the first scheduling of the aircraft (first mission) according to the identified MEL items, all scheduling conditions and associated limitations must be considered and all relevant maintenance (m) procedures and operating (o) procedures must be applied to maintain an acceptable level of safety for the operation of the aircraft.

[0022] Also in the "GO IF" case, for subsequent missions of the aircraft according to the same identified MEL items, the crew must check that any MEL items opened in the log are within the repair interval window and will not exceed that window during the next mission. For each subsequent mission, all necessary operating procedures must also be applied when the pilot accepts the scheduling conditions.

[0023] It should be noted that the MEL is intended to be applied before the aircraft departs to perform a new mission. Therefore, it is not intended to be applied in the event of a malfunction during the flight.

[0024] According to the current solution, when a technical fault is detected during a flight (i.e. during the current mission), a detailed description of the detected fault is recorded in a log and the flight dispatcher and / or the operator's Maintenance Control Center (MCC) are notified, so that a mechanic can intervene upon arrival of the aircraft. More specifically, the ground mechanic must wait for the arrival of the aircraft in order to analyze and evaluate the technical status of the aircraft during the Turn Around Time (TAT) of the aircraft and consult the MEL related to the fault detected during the flight (which has just ended) in order to evaluate, on the one hand, the possibility of scheduling a subsequent mission according to the MEL items and, on the other hand, to perform the maintenance tasks (m) defined in the Aircraft Maintenance Manual (AMM) in order to configure the aircraft for the next mission. In the case of scheduling according to the MEL items, the pilots of the subsequent mission should perform, in addition to the standard operating procedures (SOP), operating procedures (o) in certain flight phases.

[0025] The above current solution for evaluating the possibility of scheduling a subsequent mission according to the MEL items seems satisfactory in the case of a technical fault detected during the last mission, but it needs to be further improved.

[0026] It is worth noting that, in the case of a technical fault detected during a flight (i.e. during the current mission), it is necessary to provide a solution that offers at least one of the following advantages over the above current solution:

[0027] - overcomes the need for a mechanic and avoids affecting the Turn Around Time (TAT) of the aircraft when evaluating the possibility of scheduling a subsequent mission of the aircraft according to the MEL items;

[0028] - allows the evaluation of the possibility of scheduling according to the MEL items to be predicted;

[0029] - allows the operator (airline) to predict the maintenance or adjustment of the flight schedule (missions) of its fleet of aircraft;

[0030] - overcomes (partially or totally) the need for a mechanic to reconfigure the aircraft in the case of scheduling a subsequent mission of the aircraft according to the MEL items; and

[0031] - facilitates the analysis by the pilots of the situation of the subsequent flight of the aircraft when they are preparing it. SUMMARY

[0032] A method for assisting in the formulation of operational decisions for an aircraft is proposed, which is executed during a current mission of the aircraft and comprises:

[0033] • The first computer is implemented in an aircraft, in an electronic flight bag, or on the ground and includes an electronic circuit system:

[0034] - Receive fault information recording at least one technical malfunction of the aircraft;

[0035] - For each recorded technical failure, one or more items, referred to as MEL items, affected by the technical failure are determined by consulting a database including a minimum equipment list. Each affected MEL item is associated with a failed equipment item or function of the aircraft, and one or more items are defined for possible future missions for the aircraft.

[0036] More scheduling conditions;

[0037] - Receive the technical status of the aircraft, including its operational status related to the aircraft's equipment or functions.

[0038] Relevant technical data; and

[0039] - For each affected MEL item, based on the technical status of the aircraft, determine one or more applicable scheduling conditions from one or more scheduling conditions defined in the affected MEL item;

[0040] • In the second computer, which is installed on the ground and includes an electronic circuit system:

[0041] - Receive one or more MEL items for each affected item from the first computer.

[0042] Applicable scheduling conditions; and

[0043] - On the one hand, the proposed scheme is determined based on one or more scheduling conditions applicable to each affected MEL item, and on the other hand, based on a set of future tasks to be allocated to the aircraft fleet including the aircraft. The proposed scheme includes: a decision to repair or schedule the aircraft based on one or more affected MEL items, and in the case of a decision to schedule based on one or more affected MEL items: one or more future tasks to be allocated to the aircraft; for each affected MEL item, one or more scheduling conditions to be selected from one or more applicable scheduling conditions; and one or more possible tasks to be performed in the aircraft, which belong to the group including: one or more system reconfigurations to be performed, one or more operational constraints to be observed, and one or more inspections or checks to be performed.

[0044] • The third computer is implemented in the aircraft or in the electronic flight bag and includes electronic circuitry systems:

[0045] - receiving from the second computer a proposed solution;

[0046] - receiving from the aircraft pilot a decision to accept or reject the proposed solution; and

[0047] - in case of an acceptance decision, triggering the completion of one or more possible tasks to be performed in the aircraft, and recording in a log the following: the at least one technical malfunction of the aircraft; a new current operating status of the aircraft indicating a decision to schedule for one or more future tasks assigned to the aircraft according to one or more affected MEL items; for each affected MEL item, one or more scheduling conditions selected from one or more applicable scheduling conditions; and a status of performance of the one or more possible tasks to be performed in the aircraft.

[0048] The proposed method is thus performed by a first computer, a second computer and a third computer during a current task of an aircraft in which a technical malfunction is detected. The first computer automatically determines from the malfunction information the technical status and the minimum equipment list of the aircraft, one or more affected MEL items and one or more applicable scheduling conditions for each item. The second computer automatically determines from the previous items (affected MEL items and applicable scheduling conditions) provided by the first computer and a set of future tasks to be assigned in the fleet of aircrafts a proposed solution (including the selection of scheduling conditions for each affected MEL item in case a scheduling according to one or more MEL items is proposed for one or more tasks). The third computer receives from the pilot a decision to accept or reject the proposed solution and, in case of acceptance, triggers the completion of some tasks in the aircraft (optionally automatically, as discussed hereinafter) and updates a log.

[0049] The proposed solution provides several advantages, in particular those described hereinafter.

[0050] It is highly automated since the method is performed by three computers interacting with each other. The proposed solution thus provides a high level of anticipation since the method is performed during a current task of the aircraft, i.e. before the aircraft lands and the turn-around time (TAT) of the aircraft starts. The proposed solution thus:

[0051] - overcomes the need for a ground mechanic and avoids impacting the turn-around time (TAT) of the aircraft when evaluating the possibility to schedule subsequent tasks of the aircraft according to MEL items;

[0052] - anticipates the evaluation of the possibility to schedule according to MEL items; and

[0053] - This allows operators (airlines) to forecast maintenance or adjustments to the flight schedules (missions) of their aircraft fleet; specifically, for each aircraft that experiences a failure during a mission, the operator can optimally allocate a set of future missions across its aircraft fleet, taking into account one or more affected MEL items and one or more applicable scheduling conditions. This also reduces the operator's workload.

[0054] It (partially or completely) eliminates the need for ground mechanics to reconfigure aircraft when scheduling subsequent missions for the aircraft according to the MEL item.

[0055] It also helps pilots analyze the aircraft's subsequent flight conditions when preparing for the next flight.

[0056] According to a particular implementation, in the case of a scheduling decision based on one or more affected MEL items, for each affected MEL item, the proposed scheme includes at least one scheduling condition selected from a set of at least two applicable scheduling conditions that are mutually exclusive.

[0057] According to a particular implementation, the second computer is implemented in a maintenance control center and / or an operations control center.

[0058] According to a particular implementation, if the pilot accepts the decision of the proposed plan, a third computer triggers the automatic execution of at least one of one or more possible tasks to be performed in the aircraft.

[0059] According to a particular implementation, its automatic execution of at least one task triggered by a third computer corresponds to one or more system reconfigurations to be performed.

[0060] According to a particular implementation, the method further includes: in a third computer: transmitting the aircraft pilot's decision to a second computer, and, upon receiving the decision, transmitting the execution status of one or more possible tasks to be performed in the aircraft.

[0061] According to a specific implementation, the database including the minimum device list is a contextualized database, the contents of which are:

[0062] • This is the result of filtering a complete minimum equipment list shared by multiple aircraft, including the aforementioned aircraft; and

[0063] • Limited to the information necessary to implement the method in the first, second, and third computers.

[0064] According to a particular implementation, the method further includes: in a first computer:

[0065] • If the aircraft is already in a current operational state indicative of a previous decision to schedule based on at least one MEL item, then:

[0066] - Detect any type 1 conflict between the following two:

[0067] ○ An aircraft is considered to have failed due to one or more equipment items or one or more functions being affected by one or more MEL items from which a prior decision was made to schedule the aircraft; and

[0068] ○ One or more of the following equipment items or one or more functions of the aircraft:

[0069] It must be non-invalid so that one or more scheduling conditions defined in one or more affected MEL entries already identified by the first computer apply; and - if a conflict of the first type is detected, the given new scheduling condition is declared inapplicable for device entries or functions that should be non-invalid so that the given new scheduling condition applies but have been deemed invalid.

[0070] According to a particular implementation, the method further includes: in a first computer:

[0071] • If the aircraft is already in a current operational state indicative of a previous decision to schedule based on at least one MEL item, then:

[0072] - Detect any second type of conflict between the following two:

[0073] ○ One or more of the following equipment items or one or more functions of the aircraft:

[0074] It must be non-invalid so that one or more scheduling conditions previously selected during previous iterations of the method and defined in one or more MEL entries upon which a previous decision to schedule was made remain applicable; and

[0075] The aircraft is now considered to have one or more device items or one or more functions that are disabled for the following reasons: it is affected by one or more affected MEL items that have been identified by a first computer; and

[0076] - If a second type of conflict is detected, the given previous scheduling conditions are declared inapplicable for device items or functions that should not be invalid in order to keep the given previous scheduling conditions applicable but are now considered invalid.

[0077] A system for assisting in the operational decision-making of aircraft was also proposed, which includes:

[0078] • A first computer, which is implemented in an aircraft, in an electronic flight bag, or on the ground and includes an electronic circuit system, wherein in any embodiment of the foregoing method, the first computer is configured to perform the operations assigned to the first computer in the foregoing method;

[0079] • A second computer, which is installed on the ground and includes an electronic circuit system, wherein in any embodiment of the foregoing method, the second computer is configured to perform the operations assigned to the second computer in the foregoing method;

[0080] • A third computer, implemented in an aircraft or in an electronic flight bag and including an electronic circuit system, wherein in any embodiment of the foregoing method, the third computer is configured to perform the operations assigned to the third computer in the foregoing method.

[0081] A computer program product including instructions is also proposed, wherein, in any embodiment of the foregoing method, the instructions, when executed by a processor included in a first computer, a second computer, and a third computer, cause the processor to perform the foregoing method.

[0082] They also proposed a storage medium for storing such instructions. Attached Figure Description

[0083] The features and other characteristics of the foregoing invention will become clearer and more apparent after reading the following description of at least one embodiment, wherein the description is provided with reference to the accompanying drawings, in which:

[0084] [ Figure 1 The diagram schematically illustrates a system for assisting in the formulation of operational decisions for an aircraft, according to a particular embodiment. The system includes a first computer and a third computer implemented in the aircraft, and a second computer implemented on the ground.

[0085] [ Figure 2 This schematically illustrates an example of a general-purpose computer hardware architecture, which can correspond to... Figure 1 Each of the computers in the system;

[0086] [ Figure 3 This schematically illustrates an example of an algorithm for assisting in the formulation of operational decisions for an aircraft, according to a specific implementation; and

[0087] [ Figure 4 The example shown is a schematic illustration of a MEL item. Detailed Implementation

[0088] Figure 1A system for assisting in the formulation of operational decisions for an aircraft, according to a particular embodiment, is schematically shown. The system includes a first computer and a third computer (reference numerals C1 and C3, respectively) implemented in the aircraft 100 and a second computer (reference numeral C2) implemented in a control center 101 on the ground.

[0089] Computer C1 and / or computer C3 are implemented, for example, in the flight warning system (FWS) of aircraft 100, or in another system (or application) capable of exchanging data with the FWS.

[0090] The control center 101 (on the ground) that implements the computer C2 is, for example, a maintenance control center (MCC) or an operation control center (OCC).

[0091] In one variant, computer C1 and / or computer C3 are implemented in an Electronic Flight Bag (EFB). In another variant, computer C1 and computer C3 are combined in the same computer, implemented in the aircraft or in the EFB. In yet another variant, computer C1 is implemented on the ground, just like computer C2. In yet another variant, computer C1 and computer C2 are combined in the same computer implemented on the ground.

[0092] Each of the C1, C2, and C3 computers includes an electronic circuit system, as detailed below. Figure 2 Describe its implementation method.

[0093] The following text refers to Figure 3 This describes the exchange between computers, as shown by arrows 102, 103, and 104.

[0094] Figure 2 An example of the hardware architecture of a general-purpose computer 200 is schematically shown, which can correspond to Figure 1 Each of the computers C1, C2, and C3 in the system. Computer 200 includes, connected via a communication bus 210: a processor or CPU (Central Processing Unit) 201; RAM (Random Access Memory) 202; ROM (Read-Only Memory) 203, such as flash memory; a data storage device, such as a hard disk drive (HDD), or a storage media reader such as a Secure Digital (SD) card reader 204; and at least one communication interface 205.

[0095] Processor 201 is capable of executing instructions loaded into RAM 202 from ROM 203, external memory (not shown), storage media such as an SD card, or a communication network (not shown). When computer 200 is powered on, processor 201 is capable of reading instructions from RAM 202 and executing those instructions. These instructions form a computer program that causes processor 201 to implement the behaviors, steps, and algorithms described herein. Each of computers C1, C2, and C3 executes a different computer program, which is defined, for example, according to reference below. Figure 3 The operations assigned to the computer in the method (algorithm) for assisting in the formulation of operational decisions for an aircraft, as described in the implementation of the method.

[0096] Therefore, all or some of the behaviors, steps, and algorithms described herein can be implemented in software by executing a set of instructions using a programmable machine (e.g., a DSP (“Digital Signal Processor”) or a microcontroller), or in hardware by a dedicated machine or component (“chip”) or a set of dedicated components (“chipset”) (e.g., an FPGA (“Field Programmable Gate Array”) or an ASIC (“Application-Specific Integrated Circuit”)). Typically, computer 200 includes an electronic circuit system arranged and configured to implement the behaviors, steps, and algorithms described herein (which are different for each of computers C1, C2, and C3).

[0097] Figure 3 An example of an algorithm for assisting in the formulation of operational decisions for an aircraft, according to a specific implementation, is illustrated schematically.

[0098] This algorithm (method) is based on the above reference. Figure 1 and Figure 2 Computers C1, C2, and C3 are described to implement this. Computer C1 executes steps 301 to 305. Computer C2 executes steps 306 to 308, 313, and 314. Computer C3 executes steps 309 to 312.

[0099] It was performed during the current mission of aircraft 100. The remainder of the instruction manual assumes that a technical malfunction occurred during this current mission.

[0100] In step 301, computer C1 receives fault information indicating at least one technical malfunction of the aircraft.

[0101] In step 302, for each recorded technical fault, computer C1 determines one or more items from the MEL affected by the technical fault (referred to as MEL items) by querying the MEL database (i.e., a database containing a minimal equipment list (MEL)). Each affected MEL item relates to a failed equipment item or function of the aircraft, and one or more scheduling conditions are defined for the aircraft for possible future missions.

[0102] In the initial implementation, one or more MEL entries affected by a technical fault were simply determined based on the reception of dispatch messages (DMs) issued by the FWS, excluding ECAM alerts. In practice, to determine DMs, the FWS receives fault data from the system and analyzes that data. DMs allow direct reference to a single MEL entry. In this case, ECAM alerts are used for implementation of the current flight, and DMs are used to influence subsequent flights.

[0103] In the second implementation, one or more MEL items affected by technical failures are identified based on ECAM alarms.

[0104] Figure 4 An example of MEL item 400 is illustrated schematically. This example of MEL item 400 relates to an air conditioning assembly and includes an identifier (“21-50-01”), reference numeral 401, description (“Air conditioning assembly”), reference numeral 402, validity information (“Applicable to all”), reference numeral 403, and two scheduling conditions, reference numerals 404a and 404b.

[0105] The first scheduling condition 404a itself includes:

[0106] - Identifiers and descriptions ("21-50-01A" and "Associated component valve closed as indicated on the BLEED SD page");

[0107] Table 405a includes:

[0108] ○ Type of repair interval (in this case, "C");

[0109] ○ The number of times the equipment or function failed (in this case, "2"), specifically for the air conditioning unit ("Nbr installed");

[0110] ○ The minimum number of occurrences required for exemption from flight (in this case, "1") ("Nbr required"); and

[0111] ○ Indicator requiring a label (“signboard”) (in this case, “Yes”);

[0112] - A list 406a of conditions (“additional conditions”) for applying the first scheduling condition includes:

[0113] ○ The first condition of the operation restriction type (406a-1) (in this case: "Do not perform ETOPS for more than 180 minutes");

[0114] ○ The second condition of the reconfiguration type (406a-2) (in this case: "the associated component pb-sw is set to off");

[0115] ○ Check the third condition of the type (406a-3) (in this case: "The associated component valve indication is closed when checked on the BLEED SD page");

[0116] ○ The fourth condition of the technical condition type described by the expression "is effective" (406a-4) (in this case: "the opposite air conditioning unit is effective"); and

[0117] - Procedure reference 407a (in this case, operating procedure reference (o)).

[0118] The second scheduling condition 404b itself includes:

[0119] - Identifiers and descriptions ("21-50-01B" and "Associated component valve closed due to being deactivated").

[0120] - Table 405b (same as Table 405a described above for the first scheduling condition 404a);

[0121] - List 406b of conditions (“additional conditions”) for applying the second scheduling condition includes:

[0122] ○ The first condition (406b-1) of the operation restriction type and the second condition (406b-2) of the reconfiguration type (which are the same as the first condition 406a-1 and the second condition 406a-2 of the list 406a described for the first scheduling condition 404a, respectively);

[0123] ○ Third condition for reconfiguration type (406b-3) (in this case: "both associated component valves are deactivated and fixed in the closed position");

[0124] ○ The fourth condition (406b-4) of the technical condition type described by the expression "is valid" (is the same as the fourth condition 406a-4 of list 406a described for the first scheduling condition 404a); and

[0125] - Two procedure references 407b (in this case, the operating procedure reference (o) and the maintenance procedure reference (m)).

[0126] Prior to the method described in this paper, the MEL database was stored on aircraft 100. It could be shared by all aircraft of the same type operated by the airline. It was updated regularly.

[0127] In a particular implementation, to enable faster information retrieval by the computer, the MEL database is a contextualized database (represented as cMEL). The content of the cMEL is the result of filtering a complete MEL common to multiple aircraft including aircraft 100 based on aircraft 100 (i.e., according to its MSN or manufacturer serial number). To perform this filtering, validity is sought in the "Applicability" field of the MEL. Furthermore, the content of the cMEL is limited to the information necessary for implementing the method on the first, second, and third computers. For example, a new contextualized MEL database is created each time the MEL database is updated.

[0128] Now we will refer to further Figure 3 The description.

[0129] In step 303, computer C1 receives the technical status of the aircraft, including technical data related to equipment malfunctions or functional failures of the aircraft.

[0130] In step 304, for each affected MEL item, computer C1 determines one or more applicable scheduling conditions from one or more scheduling conditions defined in the affected MEL item based on the technical status of the aircraft.

[0131] As shown above (refer to the reference) Figure 4 As already stated, each MEL item includes one or more scheduling conditions, and each scheduling condition itself includes a list of conditions (accompanying conditions) for applying that scheduling condition.

[0132] In one implementation, the list of conditions (attached conditions) is encoded in a contextualized MEL database cMEL, such that the MEL data is encoded in computer form and can be computed. Each condition in the list of conditions (attached conditions)—which is a technical condition type described by the expression "is valid" (i.e., related to the system (equipment or function) that must be functioning properly (not malfunctioning) in order to apply the scheduling condition)—is represented in cMEL as a MEL entry of type "NOGO_IF". If the aircraft under consideration has already been subject to this "NOGO_IF" type MEL entry, then the scheduling condition is not applicable. All MEL entries of the aircraft under consideration, along with the NOGO_IF type MEL entries of the applicable scheduling conditions, are stored in non-volatile memory in a table of active MEL entries (e.g., referred to as the "active DM file").

[0133] In a particular embodiment of step 304, if the aircraft is already in normal operating condition according to one or more MEL items, i.e., if the aircraft is already in normal operating condition indicating a prior decision to schedule according to at least one MEL item (wherein the prior decision to schedule has been accepted by the aircraft's pilot prior to takeoff for the current mission), then computer C1 performs (a first type and / or a second type) automatic conflict analysis.

[0134] The first type of conflict is a conflict between the following two:

[0135] - An aircraft has been deemed to have failed one or more equipment items or one or more functions for the following reasons: it has been affected by one or more MEL items that made prior decisions to schedule it; and

[0136] - One or more of the following equipment items or functions of the aircraft must be disabled so that one or more scheduling conditions defined in one or more affected MEL items as determined by computer C1 apply.

[0137] If computer C1 detects a first-type conflict, then for a device item or function that should be valid to make the given new scheduling condition applicable but has been deemed invalid, the given new scheduling condition is declared inapplicable.

[0138] The second type of conflict is a conflict between the following two:

[0139] - One or more of the following equipment items or functions of the aircraft must be non-invalid to ensure that one or more scheduling conditions, pre-selected during previous iterations of the method (executed during previous missions of the aircraft) and defined in one or more MEL items according to which a previous decision to schedule was made, remain applicable; and

[0140] - An aircraft is now considered to have one or more device items or one or more functions that are disabled for the following reasons: it is affected by one or more affected MEL items that have been identified by computer C1.

[0141] If computer C1 detects a second type of conflict, then for a device item or function that should not be invalid in order to keep the given previous scheduling conditions applicable but is now considered invalid, the given previous scheduling conditions are declared inapplicable.

[0142] In step 305, computer C1 transfers the item determined in step 304 to computer C2. This exchange from computer C1 to computer C2... Figure 1 It is shown by arrow 102.

[0143] Therefore, computer C1 performing steps 301 to 305 is equivalent to performing a technical scheduling assessment (TDA).

[0144] In step 306, computer C2 receives from computer C1 one or more applicable scheduling conditions for each affected MEL item.

[0145] In step 307, computer C2 determines the proposed scheme based on one or more scheduling conditions applicable to each affected MEL item, and on another set of future tasks to be allocated in the fleet of aircraft including aircraft 100 (the aircraft performing the current task).

[0146] The proposed solutions include:

[0147] - Decisions regarding aircraft repair (e.g., following an upstream analysis of the operational impact of scheduling based on one or more MEL items) or decisions regarding scheduling for one or more affected MEL items; and

[0148] - In cases where scheduling decisions are made based on one or more affected MEL items:

[0149] ○ One or more future missions assigned to the aircraft;

[0150] ○ For each affected MEL item, one or more scheduling conditions selected from one or more applicable scheduling conditions; and

[0151] ○ One or more possible tasks to be performed in the aircraft, belonging to the following groups:

[0152] • Reconfiguration of one or more systems (automatically or by the pilot);

[0153] • One or more operating restrictions must be met (e.g., no ETOPS (Extended-range Twin-engine Operating Performance Standards), no icing conditions, increased fuel consumption, etc.);

[0154] as well as

[0155] • One or more inspections or checks to be performed.

[0156] In a particular implementation, for each affected MEL item, the proposed scheme includes at least one scheduling condition selected from a set of at least two applicable scheduling conditions that are mutually exclusive.

[0157] In step 308, computer C2 transfers the item determined in step 307 to computer C3. This exchange from computer C2 to computer C3...Figure 1 It is shown by arrow 103.

[0158] Therefore, computer C2 performing steps 306 to 308 is equivalent to performing Operation Scheduling Assessment (ODA) and decision making.

[0159] In step 309, computer C3 receives the proposed solution from computer C2.

[0160] In step 310, computer C3 (via human-machine interface) receives a decision from the aircraft pilot to accept or reject the proposed solution.

[0161] In step 311, if the decision is to accept, computer C3 triggers the execution of a task or any task to be performed in the aircraft. At the end of the flight, the following items (either manually or automatically by the pilot) are recorded in the aircraft log:

[0162] - At least one technical malfunction of the aircraft;

[0163] - The new current operational status of the aircraft, which indicates the decision to schedule one or more future tasks assigned to the aircraft based on one or more affected MEL entries;

[0164] - For each affected MEL item, one or more scheduling conditions selected from one or more applicable scheduling conditions; and

[0165] - The execution status of a task or any task to be performed in the aircraft (for example, it may be assumed to be one of the following values: "completed and correct", "not started", "failed" and "pending").

[0166] Therefore, pilots on subsequent flights (follow-up missions) will review the logs and check the aircraft's status, operational limitations, and recalculate performance capability requirements, and will record the manual operating procedures (o) to be performed. In certain implementations, some operating procedures (o) will be automatically initiated in addition to the standard operating procedures (SOPs) through reminders.

[0167] In a specific embodiment of step 311, computer C3 triggers the automatic execution (during the current flight) of at least one task (from one or more possible tasks to be performed in the aircraft for scheduling the next task according to one or more MEL items), such as one or more system reconfigurations to be performed (e.g., closing a valve or opening an electronic circuit breaker (eC / B)). One or more operating procedures (o) will be executed during subsequent flights.

[0168] In step 312, computer C3 transmits the pilot's decision to computer C2, and if the decision is accepted, transmits the execution status of a task or any task to be performed in the aircraft. This exchange from computer C3 to computer C2... Figure 1 It is shown by arrow 104.

[0169] In step 313, computer C2 receives the item transmitted by computer C3 in step 312 from computer C3.

[0170] In step 314, computer C2 (and therefore control center 101 (e.g., MCC or OCC)) records, for example, in a table the fact that the aircraft has been dispatched or has been left on the ground for repairs; and if the aircraft has been dispatched, it also records that this dispatch is based on one or more MEL entries, specifying one or more dispatch conditions (optionally with operational effects) that have been selected. Manual tasks still to be performed are also recorded. Once these tasks have been performed, the implementation of the MEL can be considered valid. Therefore, control center 101 can then schedule repairs before the end of the authorized interval.

Claims

1. A method for assisting in the formulation of operational decisions of an aircraft (100), said method being performed during a current mission of said aircraft and comprising: • in a first computer (CI), said first computer (CI) being implemented in said aircraft or in an electronic flight bag or on the ground and comprising electronic circuitry: - receiving (301) failure information recording at least one technical failure of said aircraft; - for each recorded technical failure, determining (302), by consulting a database comprising a minimum equipment list, one or more items from said minimum equipment list called MEL items (400) that are affected by said technical failure, wherein each affected MEL item is related to an item or a function of said aircraft that is inoperative, and defining, for said aircraft, one or more scheduling conditions (404a, 404b) for possible future missions; - receiving (303) a technical status of said aircraft comprising technical data related to the operation of devices or functions of said aircraft; and - for each affected MEL item, determining (304), based on the technical status of said aircraft, one or more applicable scheduling conditions among said one or more scheduling conditions defined from said affected MEL item; • in a second computer (C2), said second computer (C2) being installed on the ground and comprising electronic circuitry: - receiving (306), from said first computer (CI), said one or more applicable scheduling conditions for each affected MEL item; - and determining (307), on the one hand, based on said one or more scheduling conditions applicable to each affected MEL item, and on the other hand, based on a set of future missions to be allocated in a fleet of aircraft comprising said aircraft, a proposed scheme comprising: a decision to repair said aircraft or to schedule said aircraft according to said one or more affected MEL items, and in the case of a decision to schedule according to said one or more affected MEL items: one or more future missions allocated to said aircraft; for each affected MEL item, a selection of one or more scheduling conditions among said one or more applicable scheduling conditions; and one or more possible missions to be performed in said aircraft, which belong to the group comprising: one or more system reconfigurations to be performed, one or more operating restrictions to be observed, and one or more verifications or checks to be performed; • in a third computer (C3), said third computer (C3) being implemented in said aircraft or in an electronic flight bag and comprising electronic circuitry: - receiving (309), from said second computer (C2), the proposed scheme; - receiving (310) a decision from a pilot of said aircraft to accept or reject the proposed scheme; and - in the case of a decision to accept the proposed scheme, performing (311) the proposed scheme. ​ - in case of acceptance of the decision, triggering (311) the completion of one or more possible tasks to be performed in the aircraft, and recording in a log the following: the at least one technical malfunction of the aircraft; a new current operating status of the aircraft, the new current operating status being indicative of a decision to schedule according to the one or more affected MEL items for the one or more future tasks assigned to the aircraft; for each affected MEL item, the one or more scheduling conditions selected from the one or more applicable scheduling conditions; and a status of execution of the one or more possible tasks to be performed in the aircraft.

2. The method of claim 1, wherein, In case of decision to schedule according to the one or more affected MEL items, for each affected MEL item, the proposed solution comprises at least one scheduling condition selected from a group of at least two mutually exclusive applicable scheduling conditions.

3. The method of any one of claims 1 and 2, wherein, The second computer (C2) is implemented in a maintenance control center (101) and / or in an operations control center (101).

4. The method of any one of claims 1 to 3, wherein, In case of acceptance of the proposed solution by the pilot, the third computer (C3) triggers the automatic execution (311) of at least one of the one or more possible tasks to be performed in the aircraft.

5. The method of claim 4, wherein, The at least one task whose automatic execution is triggered by the third computer (C3) corresponds to the one or more system reconfigurations to be performed.

6. The method of any one of claims 1 to 5, further comprising: In the third computer (C3): • sending (312) to the second computer (C2) the decision of the aircraft pilot and, in case of acceptance of the decision, the status of execution of the one or more possible tasks to be performed in the aircraft.

7. The method of any one of claims 1 to 6, wherein, The database comprising the minimum equipment list is a contextualized database, the content of which: • is the result of a filtering of a complete minimum equipment list common to a plurality of aircraft including the aircraft by the aircraft; and • is limited to the information necessary to implement the method in the first computer, the second computer and the third computer.

8. The method of any one of claims 1 to 7, further comprising: In the first computer (C1): • if the aircraft (100) is already in a current operating status indicative of a previous decision to schedule according to at least one MEL item, then: - detecting (304) any first type of conflict between: o one or more equipment items or one or more functions of the aircraft that have been considered as inoperative because they are affected by the one or more MEL items according to which the previous decision to schedule was made; and o one or more equipment items or one or more functions of the aircraft that must be inoperative in order to make applicable the one or more scheduling conditions defined in the one or more affected MEL items that the first computer has determined; and • in case of detection of a first type of conflict, triggering (305) the determination of one or more affected MEL items. - if a first type of conflict is detected, the given new scheduling condition is declared not applicable (304) for the equipment item or function that should not be inoperative in order to make it applicable but that has been considered inoperative.

9. The method of any one of claims 1 to 8, further comprising: In said first computer: • if the aircraft (100) is already in a current operating state that indicates a previous decision to schedule according to at least one MEL item, then: - detecting (304) any second type of conflict between: o one or more equipment items or one or more functions of the aircraft that must not be inoperative in order to make one or more scheduling conditions previously selected during a previous iteration of the method and defined in one or more MEL items according to which a previous decision to schedule has been made remain applicable; and o one or more equipment items or one or more functions of the aircraft that are now considered inoperative because they are affected by one or more affected MEL items that the first computer has determined; and - if a second type of conflict is detected, the given previous scheduling condition is declared not applicable (304) for the equipment item or function that should not be inoperative in order to keep it applicable but that is now considered inoperative.

10. A system for assisting in the formulation of operating decisions for an aircraft (100), said system comprising: • a first computer (Cl) implemented in the aircraft or in an electronic flight bag or on the ground and comprising electronic circuitry, said first computer (Cl) being configured to perform the operations allocated to the first computer (Cl) in the method according to any one of claims 1 to 9; • a second computer (C2) installed on the ground and comprising electronic circuitry, said second computer (C2) being configured to perform the operations allocated to the second computer (C2) in the method according to any one of claims 1 to 9; and • a third computer (C3) implemented in the aircraft or in an electronic flight bag and comprising electronic circuitry, said third computer (C3) being configured to perform the operations allocated to the third computer (C3) in the method according to any one of claims 1 to 9.

11. A computer program product comprising instructions which, when executed by a processor (201) comprised in a first computer, a second computer and a third computer (Cl, C2, C3), cause the processor to perform the method according to any one of claims 1 to 9.

Images