METHOD FOR MANAGING THE CONTINUOUS CALMINATION OF AN AIRCRAFT OR DRONE

Description

Scope of the invention

[0001] This document describes methods and systems in the technical field of flight management systems (FMS), and more generally, avionics or non-avionics navigation systems embedded on tablet-type or EFB aircraft, or remotely located on the ground. More specifically, the invention addresses methods and systems for trajectory calculation. State of the Art

[0002] An aircraft trajectory (or "profile") consists of a succession of constrained segments of climbs and / or descents and / or level flights in order to comply with the altitude and speed constraints specified in the departure procedures.

[0003] According to the state of the art, the assumptions generally used to construct a climb profile are an integration in "energy sharing" mode (or " energy sharing » In English), this means that the excess energy supplied by the engines (in addition to that required to maintain the aircraft at its current altitude and speed) is used to reach the target setpoints. Part of this energy is used to accelerate to a target speed (speed constraint or optimized speed), and the other part to climb to a target altitude (altitude constraint or cruising level). In this mode, during a climb segment, the energy distribution is fixed, and the thrust supplied by the engines is the maximum climb thrust. The rate of climb, referred to as the slope of the climb segment in the rest of this description, is the result of this calculation and not an input parameter.

[0004] If it is high, this may lead to a leveling off to meet a future altitude constraint.

[0005] US patent application 2018 / 067500 A1 presents a solution for adjusting an aircraft's rate of climb only during the cruise phase and applies a well-known technique of rising levels or "cruise climb".

[0006] The flight of a level flight is, on the one hand, incompatible with the CCO concept ( « Continuous Climb Operation » (in English), aiming to optimize the climb phases, on the other hand this succession of leveling / climbing is undesirable from a passenger comfort and / or engine maintenance point of view (because of the strong thrust variations at the beginning and end of leveling).

[0007] If it is low, this can either lead to non-compliance with altitude constraints, with a potential impact on safety, or induce the lengthening of the lateral trajectory to be at the desired altitude at a given point (e.g., flight segment or HA leg), with an impact on fuel consumption.

[0008] Currently, the climb profile is calculated by taking into account target speeds and target altitudes. Generally speaking, current solutions are either unsatisfactory or have limitations.

[0009] There is a need for advanced processes and systems for calculating profiles, especially uphill profiles. Summary of the invention

[0010] This document concerns methods and devices for optimizing the climb of an aircraft or drone. After determining an optimal continuous climb strategy, a lateral trajectory is determined, including speeds and turn radii, based on predictions calculated in the previous step. Subsequently, calculation results are displayed in one or more human-machine interfaces, and the climb strategy is actually flown. Developments describe the use of pseudo-constraints for altitude, speed, and / or leveling off, and the iterative adjustment of parameters to align the current trajectory profile with the constrained profile in real time according to the selected flight dynamics (e.g., energy sharing, climb gradient constraint, vertical climb rate constraint). System (e.g., FMS) and software aspects are described.

[0011] The invention consists in particular of determining a "smoothed" ascent profile satisfying all the constraints of the procedure by minimizing or eliminating altitude plateaus and minimizing slope variations, and of proposing a dedicated interface specifying the adjustment parameters during the ascent.

[0012] When constructing the climb profile, it is necessary to respect the altitude and speed constraints associated with the departure procedure while avoiding constant altitude stops, which are conservative and not optimum.

[0013] The invention enables the calculation of a trajectory with an optimized climb profile by refining the calculation to optimally reach the constrained points, neither too early nor too late. It smooths the profile by avoiding its reduction to a few speed values ​​and a single thrust value. The solution can be a simple parameter adjustment (or a new geometric profile construction strategy) to converge to the target altitude at the targeted location along the flight path.

[0014] Compared to existing systems, the solution provides comfort, better compliance with flight point constraints, for equivalent or even slightly lower fuel consumption. Description of figures

[0015] Other features and advantages of the invention will become apparent from the following description and the figures in the accompanying drawings, in which: There [ FIG. 1 ] shows a flowchart illustrating the general steps of the invention's process; The [ FIG. 2 ] shows an example of steps corresponding to the step of calculating the optimal climbing strategy of the figure 1 ; There [ FIG. 3 ] illustrates a situation where the appropriate parameter is the target speed; The [ FIG. 4 ] illustrates an example where an altitude plateau is not corrected; The [ FIG. 5 ] illustrates the management of surplus available energy; The [ FIG. 6 ] illustrates the lack of an immediate relationship between the "direction" of change in the ratio and the impact on the average slope during integration; The [ FIG. 7 [ ] shows a flowchart that illustrates a variant of the step of calculating the optimal climbing strategy of the figure 1 ; There [ FIG. 8 ] illustrates an example of determining a constraining altitude constraint; The [ FIG. 9 ] illustrates an example of display according to one embodiment of the invention. Detailed description of the invention

[0016] The embodiments of the invention can be adapted to various means of transport, including in particular a drone, a commercial aircraft, a cargo plane, or a helicopter, whether or not it carries passengers. More generally, the invention relates to any type of vehicle, car, truck, bus, train, motorcycle, boat, robot, submarine, etc., or any element capable of being remotely piloted (by radio link, satellite, or other means), at least partially (intermittently, periodically, or even opportunistically over time).

[0017] The invention consists of determining a flyable trajectory satisfying all the constraints of the departure procedure on constrained portions or constrained segments.

[0018] A method for optimizing the climb of an aircraft or drone is described, comprising the steps of: - determining an optimal continuous climb strategy; - determining a lateral trajectory, including turn radii and / or roll angles, based on speed and altitude predictions calculated in the previous step. The choice of the speed profile is part of the strategy, as are the choice of thrust, roll angle, and altitude constraints (including tolerances or margins of compliance).

[0019] It should be noted that, due to the interplay between vertical and lateral calculations, the predictions are initially calculated from a pseudo-trajectory based on direct distances between points, and then recalculated once the lateral trajectory with transitions has been established. This mechanism is represented on the overall process flowchart by the looping between the two steps.

[0020] In a development, the optimal continuous climb trajectory is determined according to predefined flight profile parameters, said parameters including altitude and / or speed constraints, and / or speed and / or thrust and / or level avoidance and / or slope variation minimization instructions.

[0021] In a development, the predefined strategy includes one or more of the parameters selected from: a setpoint on the energy sharing ratio; a setpoint on the climb gradient; a setpoint on the vertical climb speed; a setpoint on the longitudinal speed during the climb; and / or a setpoint on the climb thrust; and / or a setpoint on the roll angle.

[0022] In a development, the process includes an iterative parameter adjustment step to make the current trajectory profile coincide with the constrained profile in real time according to the selected flight dynamics or strategy.

[0023] In a development, flight dynamics includes manipulations performed on engine thrust and speed.

[0024] In a development, flight dynamics includes manipulations performed on the energy sharing ratio.

[0025] In a development, the flight dynamics include a command on the climb gradient.

[0026] In a development, the flight dynamics include a command on the vertical climb speed.

[0027] In a development, flight dynamics includes a setpoint on the roll angle.

[0028] In a development, one or more of the intermediate calculation results, information relating to the root causes and / or the calculation context of the process steps are displayed in a human-machine interface.

[0029] The display steps can be adapted to the user. The method according to the invention may include one or more feedback loops (e.g., downstream feedback on upstream, feedforward, etc.). A feedback loop can be "closed," meaning inaccessible to human control (it is executed by the machine). It can also be "open" (e.g., a display step in a human-machine interface, validation, or any other system requiring human confirmation). Different embodiments can lead to different implementations by closing, or opening, one or more open, or closed, loops. For example, the method according to the invention may invoke only open feedback loops (i.e., the operator intervenes at all stages), or only closed feedback loops (e.g., full automation), or a combination of both (with human involvement being variable or configurable).In this way, the process (which may involve "artificial intelligence") can be interpreted as "transparent," in the sense of being controllable. The display may concern intermediate calculation results, information relating to root causes, and / or the calculation context. Thus, the process can be considered "explainable."

[0030] In a development, the process further includes the step of applying the optimal continuous climb strategy, for example by sending all or part of the information calculated for their effective use by avionics systems in order to implement the optimal climb strategy obtained.

[0031] For example, the computer can communicate target values ​​(such as speed / thrust) to the control system for automatic adaptation of the new settings. Transmission of all or part of the adjusted parameters so that they can be taken into account by other systems, for example, aircraft control systems such as an autopilot.

[0032] A system is described comprising one or more avionics navigation computers, of the FMS flight management system type, or non-avionics computers, of the onboard tablet type or remote ground navigation computer type, to implement one or more of the steps of the process.

[0033] A computer program product is described; said computer program includes code instructions to perform one or more steps of the process when said program is executed on a computer.

[0034] There [ FIG. 1 ] shows a flowchart that illustrates steps in the process of the invention.

[0035] After calculating the optimal climb strategy (110), a lateral trajectory (120) is determined, then a cockpit display (130) and finally an application of the optimal climb strategy (140).

[0036] In particular, step 120 may include a step to calculate the lateral trajectory based on predictions calculated in step 110, specifically based on predicted speeds, which are necessary to determine the required turn radii. During this step, an adjustment to the "roll angle used to calculate the turn radii" setting may be implemented to obtain a trajectory length suitable for meeting the flight plan's constraints. This step may allow, as needed, for shortening or lengthening the trajectory, respectively in cases where the goal is to avoid level flight or to meet a constraint that the optimal climb strategy did not allow.

[0037] System display step 130 may consist of displaying all or part of the calculated information to enable the pilot to understand the assumptions made by the system.

[0038] Step 140 involves implementing the calculated optimal climb strategy. This step may include sending all or part of the calculated information to external systems for use in implementing the resulting optimal climb strategy. For example, target values ​​(such as speed / thrust) could be sent to the control system for automatic adaptation to the new setpoints.

[0039] There [ FIG. 2 ] shows an example of steps corresponding to the calculation of the optimal ascent strategy of step 110 of the figure 1 . There figure 2 shows different parameters which are: Cn denotes the nth constraint encountered during integration that poses a problem with respect to the established success criteria, which include: no constraint is missed; no altitude step or change in glide slope is necessary to satisfy the altitude constraint; and no change in speed setpoint is necessary to satisfy the speed constraint. Pn denotes the parameter adapted to make Cn compatible with the established success criteria. PS denotes the integration save point. At this point, the context (predicted aircraft state) is stored, thus avoiding recalculating from the very first initialization point, which would be detrimental from a performance standpoint.

[0040] The process can be initialized within the existing calculation of vertical climb predictions performed by a flight management system, Flight Management System "(acronym FMS), or any other equivalent system. This profile is calculated from the aircraft (or failing that, the runway if the aircraft is on the ground) up to the cruising level, reached at a point called "Top of Climb" (ToC).

[0041] Step 110 involves calculating the optimal climb strategy and providing vertical predictions. To achieve this, within the calculation of the climb profile, which takes into account current parameters (such as mass, wind, temperature, etc.), the next altitude constraint that is missed, induces leveling off, or changes in gradient, or the next speed constraint that necessitates a change in the speed command, is determined from a given integration point (step 1.1). If such a constraint is found, i.e., it is a limiting constraint, certain flight parameters are adjusted (steps 1.2 to 1.4) to ensure compliance with these constraints, based on the aircraft's performance and the system's known weather conditions.

[0042] The appropriate flight parameters should allow the climb profile to be flown: respecting altitude constraints; avoiding the use of altitude constraint adjustments unless they allow speed constraints to be met or are imposed by two altitude constraints of the same value; respecting speed constraints.

[0043] It should be noted that in certain configurations, simultaneously respecting speed and altitude constraints is not possible depending on the aircraft's performance. In this case, priority is given to respecting the altitude constraint for safety reasons, while ensuring compliance with the aircraft's flight envelope.

[0044] Returning to the figure 1 , a next step 120 is the calculation of the lateral trajectory supported by the previous calculation of vertical predictions necessary to know the speeds and turning radii to be expected.

[0045] It should be noted that, due to the interplay between vertical and lateral calculations, the predictions are initially calculated from a pseudo-trajectory based on direct distances between points, and then recalculated once the lateral trajectory with transitions has been established. This mechanism is represented on the overall process flowchart by the looping between steps 110 and 120.

[0046] The iteration between steps 110 and 120 will consist of an incremental process for resolving a constraining constraint (Cn) for a constrained segment from a save point derived from the previous constrained segment (Cn-1). The save point can be re-estimated to resolve the constraining constraint (Cn). The segment-by-segment adjustment may lead to a reconsideration of the i previous segments impacted by the resolution of constraint n, with the selected setpoint parameters being applicable to all constrained segments on the rise between Cn-1 and Cn.

[0047] A further step is to display 130 in the cockpit all or part of the calculated data in a way that facilitates understanding on board.

[0048] A subsequent step involves the implementation 140 of the optimal climb strategy through the transmission of all or part of the adjusted parameters so that they are taken into account by other systems, for example aircraft control systems such as an autopilot for example.

[0049] Returning to the figure 2 Step 110 of the calculation of the optimal climbing strategy is detailed.

[0050] The goal is to calculate the optimal climb strategy in the form of vertical climb predictions, which will be the concatenation of unitary predictions (in the sense of a single integration assumption between two given safeguard points). The context (predicted aircraft state) at the safeguard point is stored. Step 1.1: Calculation of integration on the segment

[0051] The process calculates vertical climb predictions from a pre-established initialization point Pinit. An integration calculation is performed from this point to the cruising altitude using standard climb assumptions, i.e., in "energy sharing" mode between potential and kinetic energy, with the following parameters: The target speed, which is the optimized speed from a performance standpoint, limited to the various speed constraints with an upper limit (of type AT OR BELOW or AT or WINDOW). The engine thrust, which is the nominal climbing thrust (by default, the maximum climbing thrust). The energy sharing ratio, which is the default target ratio, given, for example, by a performance table.

[0052] For managing altitude constraints, three scenarios are possible (the reasoning is similar for speed constraints): (1) No altitude constraints were missed and no altitude plateau exists before reaching cruising altitude; the process stops calculating climb predictions and proceeds to step 120. (2) An altitude plateau exists but is due to two altitude constraints with the same value (for example, two "AT" constraints have the same altitude); the process returns to step 1.1, considering the end-of-platform constraint as the new save point for the process and as the new integration initialization point (Pinit = PS = Constraint at the end of the plateau). (3) In all other cases, the process proceeds to step 1.2.

[0053] The Pinit initialization point and the PS savepoint are initialized at the beginning of the calculation of the so-called "phase predictions" climb » (in English), generally equivalent to reaching the characteristic altitude known as "acceleration altitude" or of the aircraft if it is above this altitude.

[0054] Step 1.2: Selection of parameters to adjust.

[0055] This step involves selecting the integration parameters to correct in order to satisfy the various speed and altitude constraints while avoiding altitude plateaus. The parameters to be adjusted depend on the chosen strategy. One possibility (others will be presented as variations below) is to maintain an integration in "energy sharing" mode between potential and kinetic energy with the default energy sharing ratio. However, the speed or engine thrust parameters are adjusted as much as possible between the save point PS and the problematic or limiting constraint (Cn) (where n is incremented with each iteration of this step).

[0056] Two scenarios are possible (to be addressed in this order of priority): (1) The altitude constraint Cn with a lower bound (of type AT OR ABOVE or AT or WINDOW) is missed, meaning that the overall system lacks the energy to increase its potential energy. In this case, the adjusted parameter (Pn) is the target speed. In the specific case where the engine thrust used during climb is not the maximum climb thrust but a reduced thrust due to noise issues, for example, the thrust will first be increased to the maximum thrust before adjusting the speed parameter. (2) A plateau exists at the altitude of an altitude constraint with an upper bound (of type AT OR BELOW or AT or WINDOW) (not due to two altitude constraints with the same value): in this case, the adjusted parameter (Pn) is the target thrust.

[0057] P n is therefore the integration parameter to be adapted from the last save point (PS) to correct the problem associated with the constraining constraint C n .

[0058] The PS savepoint is also updated and set to C n-1 when it involves an "AT" type constraint or when the correction parameter changes to C n-1 (i.e., P n-1 and P n are different). PS can only be updated when it is certain that the integration up to that point is the best possible; that is, no upstream looping will be necessary to correct a future problem. Step 1.3: Calculation of parameters to be adapted

[0059] This step involves calculating and correcting the integration parameter chosen in the previous step.

[0060] When the adapted parameter Pn is the target speed, three scenarios must be considered (to be addressed in this order of priority): (1) Case 1: A level flight exists at the altitude of an altitude constraint between PS and Cn inclusive (not due to two altitude constraints of the same value) (possibly with a tolerance, for example 1 NM): this case occurs when the target speed had previously been lowered to maintain the altitude constraint Cn. After integration, a level flight exists at an intermediate constraint (necessarily of type "AT or BELOW" or "WINDOW") or at Cn. In this case, the target speed is increased to achieve a lower rate of climb. It must be between the previous target speed and the upper limit of the previous range. The objective here is to maximize speed to minimize flight time, while respecting all altitude and speed constraints to avoid altitude level flight. The process then proceeds to the next integration step 1.4.(2) Case 2: The altitude constraint Cn is missed (possibly with a tolerance, for example 100 ft): in this case, the target speed is lowered to obtain a better rate of climb. It must be between the speed reached at the initialization of the integration (i.e., reached at the process save point) (or, in a variant, the minimum speed of the flight envelope) during the first correction (otherwise, the lower bound of the previous range) and the speed reached at the missed constraint. This situation is illustrated in [. FIG. 3 [] In the case where the previous target speed was already the lower bound of the range, the process proceeds directly to the next step 1.1, considering Cn as the new integration starting point (Pinit = Cn) without further correction. In other cases, the process then proceeds to the next integration step 1.4. (3) Case 3: The altitude at the constraint Cn is strictly greater than the lower bound of the constraint (possibly with a tolerance, for example, 100 ft). This case occurs when the target speed had previously been lowered to meet the altitude constraint. After integration, the altitude at the constraint is significantly higher (necessarily of the AT, ABOVE, or WINDOW type). In this case, even if the target speed allows the various constraints to be met, it is restrictive and therefore unnecessary. Consequently, the target speed is increased to obtain a lower rate of climb.It must be between the previous target speed and the upper bound of the previous range. The process then proceeds to the next integration step 1.4.

[0061] In all the preceding cases, the new target velocity can be determined using various methods (dichotomy within the possible range, brute force, secant method, estimator, etc.). This target velocity will be considered as a "pseudo-constraint" of the "AT or BELOW" type applied to C n.

[0062] In other cases (e.g., missed speed constraint), the process proceeds to step 1.1 of the [ FIG. 2 ] by considering C n as the new initialization point of integration (Pinit = Cn).

[0063] When the adapted parameter Pn is the target thrust (initially due to an unwanted plateau at an altitude constraint), four scenarios must be considered (to be addressed in this order of priority): (1) Case 1: An altitude constraint is missed between PS and Cn inclusive (possibly with a tolerance, for example, 100 ft): This case occurs when the target thrust was previously lowered to avoid level flight. After integration, a constraint is missed. In this case, the target thrust is increased to achieve a higher rate of climb. It must be between the previous target thrust and the upper limit of the previous range. The process then proceeds to the next integration step, 1.4. (2) Case 2: A speed constraint is missed (possibly with a tolerance, for example, 5 knots): This case occurs when the target thrust was previously lowered to avoid level flight. After integration, a speed constraint is missed. The target thrust is then increased to achieve better acceleration. It must be between the previous target thrust and the upper limit of the previous range.In this case, respecting speed constraints takes priority over avoiding altitude stops.

[0064] In the case where the previous target thrust was already the maximum ascent thrust, the process proceeds directly to step 1.1 of the [ FIG. 2 ] by considering Cn as the new integration initialization point (Pinit = Cn); otherwise, the process proceeds to the next integration step 1.4. (3) Case 3: an altitude plateau exists (not due to two altitude constraints of the same value) (possibly with a tolerance, for example, 1 NM): in this case, the target thrust is lowered to obtain a lower rate of climb. It must be between the minimum permissible engine thrust (classically called "IDLE") during the first correction for this constraint (otherwise, the lower bound of the previous range) and the previous target thrust.

[0065] In the case where the previous target thrust was already the lower limit of the range or allowed for juste respecting the lower bound of an "AT OR ABOVE" or "AT or WINDOW" type velocity constraint (i.e., the lower bound velocity is not reached laterally before the constraint), the process proceeds to step 1.1 of the [ FIG. 2 ] by considering C n as the new initialization point of the integration (Pinit = Cn) otherwise the process proceeds to the next step 1.4. The [ FIG. 4 [ ] illustrates an example where the altitude plateau will not be corrected. (4) Case 4: The altitude at the constraint C n is strictly lower than the upper limit of the constraint (possibly with a tolerance, for example 100 ft): This case occurs when the target thrust had previously been lowered to avoid the altitude plateau at the constraint C n. After integration, the altitude at the constraint is significantly lower (necessarily of type AT or BELOW or WINDOW). In this case, even if the target thrust allows the various constraints to be met, it is unnecessarily underestimated. Therefore, the target thrust is increased to obtain a higher rate of climb. It must be between the previous target thrust and the upper limit of the previous range. The process then proceeds to integration step 1.4.

[0066] In all previous cases, the new target thrust can be retained by different methods (dichotomy in the possible range, brute force, estimation...).

[0067] In other cases, the process proceeds to step 1.1 of the [ FIG. 2 ] by considering C n as the new initialization point of integration (Pinit = Cn) without additional correction. Step 1.4: Calculation of integration between PS and C n

[0068] This step involves integrating the adjusted parameters defined in the previous step. This calculation is performed between the process save point (PS) and the next initially problematic constraint (C n).

[0069] If none of the correction scenarios mentioned in the previous step exist (three cases for velocity correction and four cases for thrust correction), the process then proceeds to step 1.1, considering Cn as the new integration starting point (Pinit = Cn). The previous integration then continues from Cn based on a nominal strategy, that is, with parameters as conventionally used in the state of the art.

[0070] In other cases, the process returns to the previous step 1.3.

[0071] Several implementation variations are described below. Première variante

[0072] One alternative involves changing the parameters to be adapted in step 1.2 of the [ FIG. 2 ] while maintaining an integration in "energy sharing" mode between potential energy and kinetic energy with: i. Target speed is the optimized speed from a performance standpoint, limited to the various speed constraints with an upper limit (of type AT OR BELOW or AT or WINDOW). ii. Motor thrust is the nominal upward thrust (by default, maximum upward thrust). iii. Conversely, the surplus energy sharing ratio parameter is adjusted as much as possible.

[0073] In this case, the following steps (A), (B), (C) are to be replaced as described below. (A) Selection of parameters to adapt (step 1.2): The surplus energy sharing ratio parameter is adapted as far as possible between the save point and the problematic constraint (C n ) (n being incremented at each pass through this step) in the following two cases: (1) The altitude constraint C n with a lower bound (of type AT OR ABOVE or AT or WINDOW) is missed, (2) A plateau exists at the altitude of an altitude constraint with an upper bound (of type AT OR BELOW or AT or WINDOW) (not due to 2 altitude constraints with the same value). The save point PS is also updated and positioned at C n-1 when C n-1 and C n were initially problematic for different reasons. For example, if C n-1 was missed then the save point PS is positioned at C n-1 only if a plateau exists at C n (and vice versa) otherwise PS remains unchanged. (B) Calculation of the parameter to adapt (step 1.3): To clarify what follows, we will consider a surplus energy sharing ratio in a range from 0 to 100. 0 (respectively 100) indicates that all the surplus energy is used to increase potential (respectively kinetic) energy. The value 0 will be replaced by a value of . Ratio_min slightly higher if leveling off to maintain a speed constraint is to be avoided. This ratio only makes sense and has an impact when neither of the target altitude and speed values ​​is reached, because once one of the targets is reached, all the available surplus energy will naturally be allocated to reaching the last target, regardless of the value of this ratio. This situation is illustrated in [ FIG.5 This characteristic makes modifying the ratio all the more effective in resolving the initial glide slope problem when the aircraft has little constant-speed phase over the integrated portion. The most unfavorable case is integration over a constant-speed portion, since modifying the ratio has no impact on the glide slope. Consequently, the target speed is of great importance with regard to the impact of the ratio change on the glide slope. Moreover, except in the case with no constant-speed sections, unlike method 1 (with thrust or speed correction), there is no immediate relationship between the "direction" of the ratio change and the impact on the average glide slope during integration. The case of the [ FIG. 6 ] provides an illustration. In A (no constant speed on the integration), the lower the ratio, the steeper the slope, whereas in B and C this is no longer the case.

[0074] The term ratio refers to the theoretical ratio. Five scenarios must be considered (to be addressed in this order of priority), and the new ratio can be determined using different methods (brute force, estimator, etc.): (1) Case 1: An altitude constraint is missed (possibly with a tolerance, for example, 100 ft): In this case, the ratio is modified to obtain a higher average rate of climb. The goal is to adhere to the constraint as closely as possible. (2) Case 2: A speed constraint is missed (possibly with a tolerance, for example, 5 knots): In this case, the ratio is increased to obtain a higher rate of acceleration. (3) Case 3: In step 1.2, the constraint Cn was retained because it was missed, and the altitude at Cn is now strictly above the lower limit of the constraint (possibly with a tolerance, for example, 100 ft): This case occurs when the target ratio had previously been modified to meet the altitude constraint. After integration, the altitude at the constraint is significantly higher (necessarily of the "AT or ABOVE" or "WINDOW" type).In this case, even if the target ratio allows the various constraints to be met, it is unnecessarily overcorrected. Therefore, the target ratio is modified again to obtain a lower rate of climb. The goal is to adhere to the constraint as closely as possible. (4) Case 4: In step 1.2, the constraint Cn was selected because it induced a level flight, and the altitude at the constraint Cn is strictly below the upper limit of the constraint (possibly with a tolerance, for example, 100 ft): This case occurs when the target ratio had previously been modified to avoid the level flight at the altitude constraint Cn. After integration, the altitude at the constraint is significantly lower (necessarily of the AT or BELOW or WINDOW type). In this case, even if the target ratio allows the various constraints to be met, it is unnecessarily overcorrected. Therefore, the target ratio is modified again to obtain a higher rate of climb.The goal is to adhere to the constraint as closely as possible. (5) Case 5: a plateau exists (not due to two altitude constraints of the same value) (possibly with a tolerance, for example 1 NM): In this case, the ratio is modified to have a lower average rate of climb. The goal is to adhere to the constraint as closely as possible.

[0075] In all the previous cases, if the ratio modification algorithm has "exhausted" all possible cases (e.g., in the case of brute force, all values ​​in the range have been tested), the selected ratio must meet the following conditions in order of priority: No altitude constraint is missed between PS and Cn (possibly with a tolerance, for example 100 ft) (or the error is minimized if necessary). No speed constraint is missed between PS and en (possibly with a tolerance, for example 5 kts) (or the error is minimized if necessary). No altitude plateau exists between PS and Cn (or its size is minimized if necessary). The altitude at constraint Cn is strictly equal to the upper (respectively lower) bound of the constraint if, in step 1.2, Cn had been retained because it was missed (respectively because it induced a plateau) (or the error is minimized if necessary).

[0076] (C) Calculation of integration between PS and C n (step 1.4): This step involves performing an integration with the adjusted parameters defined in the previous step. This calculation is carried out between the process save point (PS) and the next initially problematic constraint (Cn). If none of the correction scenarios mentioned in step 1.3 exist, or if no further ratio correction is possible, the process then proceeds to step 1.1, considering Cn as the new integration start point (Pinit = Cn). The previous integration (step 1.1) continues from Cn based on a nominal strategy, that is, with parameters as typically used in the state of the art.

[0077] In other cases, the process returns to step 1.3. Seconde variante

[0078] A second variant involves changing the parameters to be adapted by using a different integration method that imposes a slope rather than an energy sharing. In this case, the flowchart of step 110 (step 1 of the figure 1 ) is modified as illustrated in the [ Fig. 7 ] : Step 1.1 becomes step 7.1: Calculation of the constraining stress

[0079] The first step in the process is to search for the next constraining altitude constraint based on an algorithm that aims to minimize the number of slope breaks in the profile calculation.

[0080] The search is done from the integration point at which the process was initialized, and allows the next constraint of type "AT" or "AT OR ABOVE" or "AT OR BELOW" or "WINDOW" to be determined through which the profile will pass.

[0081] The first initialization point is positioned at the beginning of the calculation of the so-called "phase predictions" climb ", equivalent to reaching the characteristic altitude known as "altitude acceleration" or of the aircraft if it is above this altitude.

[0082] From the process's starting point: A geometric calculation is performed up to the next AT constraint, if one exists. If this calculation satisfies all intermediate constraints, the next AT constraint becomes the next limiting constraint, and the process proceeds to the next step. Otherwise, the calculation is reset to the process's starting point and targets the missed intermediate constraint (of type AT OR BELOW, AT OR ABOVE, or WINDOW). This step is repeated until the resulting geometric slope satisfies all constraints between the target and the process's starting point. The target constraint then becomes the next limiting constraint, and the process proceeds to the next step.Alternatively, an integration calculation is performed from the process's initialization point to the cruising level, using the usual climb assumptions, i.e., in "energy sharing" mode between potential and kinetic energy, with the following parameters: The target speed, which is the optimized speed from a performance standpoint, limited to the various speed constraints with an upper bound (of the type AT OR BELOW or AT or WINDOW); The nominal engine climb thrust (by default, the maximum climb thrust); The energy sharing ratio, which is the default target ratio, given, for example, by a performance table.

[0083] If this assembly allows all altitude constraints to be met without making a plateau, there is no longer a constraining altitude constraint, the process goes directly to step 120 of calculating the lateral trajectory.

[0084] Otherwise, the calculation is reset to the process start point, and a geometric calculation is performed until the next intermediate constraint that was missed or that induced a plateau (an AT OR BELOW, AT OR ABOVE, or WINDOW type constraint). This step is repeated until the resulting geometric slope satisfies all the constraints between the target and the process start point. The target constraint then becomes the next limiting constraint, and the process proceeds to the next step. This situation is illustrated in [ FIG. 8 ] Step 1.2 becomes step 7.2: Calculation of integration on the segment

[0085] This step involves performing a ramp-up integration in "energy sharing" mode between potential energy and kinetic energy with the following parameters: The target speed, which is the optimized speed from a performance standpoint, limited to the various speed constraints with an upper limit (of type AT OR BELOW or AT or WINDOW). The engine thrust, which is the nominal climbing thrust (by default, the maximum climbing thrust). The energy sharing ratio, which is the default target ratio, given, for example, by a performance table.

[0086] This calculation is performed between the process start point and the next limiting constraint. Two scenarios are possible: (1) If no altitude constraint is missed and no altitude plateau exists (or it is due to two altitude constraints with the same value), the process proceeds to step 7.1, considering the next constraining constraint as the new process start point. (2) The process returns to step 7.3 in all other cases. Step 1.3 becomes step 7.3: Integration adaptation

[0087] The parameter to be adapted is the integration mode. In this variant, it will be carried out along a given geometric slope with a target speed parameter which is the optimized speed from a performance point of view limited to the different speed constraints with an upper bound (of the type "AT OR BELOW" or "AT" or "WINDOW").

[0088] In this integration mode, the engine thrust during ascent is the result of the calculation thus made for a given speed profile and slope.

[0089] The target slope will be chosen based on the following two scenarios: (1) Case 1: The altitude constraint is missed (possibly with a tolerance, for example 100 ft): in this case, the target slope is directly that connecting the process start point to the lower bound of the next constraint (of type "AT" or "AT or ABOVE" or "WINDOW"). This slope must nevertheless be limited to a maximum slope called pente_max (for example, the one allowing the speed to be maintained at the beginning of integration with maximum engine thrust during climb (to avoid deceleration during the climb phase) or the one allowing the speed to be maintained Vmin (previously defined in the document)). (2) Case 2: A plateau exists at the altitude of the constraining constraint (not due to 2 altitude constraints of the same value) (possibly with a tolerance, for example 1NM): In this case, the target slope is directly that connecting the process start-up point to the upper bound of the next constraining constraint (of type "AT" or "AT or BELOW" or "WINDOW").

[0090] Finally, a slope-following integration calculation is performed between the initialization point and the constraining constraint with the following parameters: The target speed, which is the optimized speed from a performance point of view limited to the different speed constraints with an upper bound (of the type "AT OR BELOW" or "AT" or "WINDOW"), The target slope, which is the one previously calculated.

[0091] Then the process proceeds to step 7.1 by considering the next constraining constraint as the new initialization point of the process (since by construction, no constraint or plateau exists between the initialization point and the constraining constraint) Troisième variante

[0092] A third variant, similar to the second variant, exists. It consists solely of changing the parameters to be adapted in step 7.3 by using an integration mode that imposes a vertical ascent speed (called "VIS") and no longer a slope.

[0093] Step 7.3 described in the second variant is replaced by the one described below: Step 7.3 - third variant: Adaptation of the integration

[0094] The parameter to be adapted is the integration mode. In this variant, it will be carried out at a fixed vertical ascent speed (called "VIS") with a target speed parameter which is the optimized speed from a performance point of view limited to the different speed constraints with an upper bound (of the type "AT OR BELOW" or "AT or WINDOW").

[0095] In this integration mode, the motor thrust for ascent is the result of the calculation thus made for a given velocity profile and VIS.

[0096] The target VIS will be selected based on the following two scenarios (to be addressed in this order of priority): (1) Case 1: The constraining altitude is missed (possibly with a tolerance, for example 100 ft): in this case, the target VIS is increased to obtain a better rate of climb. It must be between a minimum vertical speed known as VS min (300ft / min for example so that a controller who has requested an aircraft to climb actually sees it climb) and the maximum vertical speed known as VS_max (calculated according to the aircraft's performance, for example, the speed at the start of integration and maximum engine thrust during climb) during the first correction for this constraint (otherwise, between the previous target SIV and the upper bound of the previous range). If the previous target SIV was already the upper bound of the range, the process proceeds directly to step 7.1, considering the next constraining constraint as the new process initiation point; otherwise, the process continues in this step. (2) Case 2: A plateau exists at the altitude of the constraining constraint (not due to two altitude constraints of the same value) (possibly with a tolerance, for example, 1 NM): In this case, the target SIV is decreased to obtain a lower rate of climb. It must be between VS_min And VS_max during the first correction for this constraint (otherwise between the lower bound of the previous range and the previous target VIS). In the case where the previous target VIS was already the lower bound of the range, the process goes directly to step 7.1, considering the next constraining constraint as the new process initialization point; otherwise, the process continues in this step.

[0097] In all the previous cases, the new VIS can be retained by different methods (dichotomy in the possible range, brute force, ...).

[0098] Finally, a VIS-tracking integration calculation is performed between the initialization point and the constraining constraint with the following parameters: The target speed is the optimized speed from a performance point of view limited to the different speed constraints with an upper bound (of type AT OR BELOW or AT or WINDOW), The target screw is the one previously calculated.

[0099] Two scenarios are possible: (1) If no altitude constraint and no altitude plateau exist (or if there are two altitude constraints with the same value), the process proceeds to step 7.1, considering the next constraint as the new process start point. (2) The process loops back to the beginning of the current step.

[0100] There [ FIG. 9 ] illustrates an example of display according to one embodiment of the invention.

[0101] A dedicated page within the system could, for example, summarize the assumptions between each constraint, allowing the crew to override or ignore the data calculated by the system. Furthermore, this interface could offer the crew the option to select their preferred correction strategy from among the different variants (SPEED / THRUST, ENERGY SHARE RATIO, VERTICAL SPEED, or FLIGHT PATH ANGLE).

[0102] If a target speed is used at a given point, it could be displayed conventionally as an "AT OR BELOW" speed constraint positioned in the designated field on the flight plan page. Specific symbology would allow the pilot to distinguish it from procedural constraints, indicating that it is a "pseudo-constraint" positioned by the system.

[0103] We can also imagine displaying the target value to the crew (such as speed / thrust) for informational purposes only, allowing the pilot to understand the assumptions made by the system and / or for manual monitoring of this new setting. If it is modified due to a system adjustment, it could be displayed in a specific way (symbol or color) in the designated fields.

[0104] The present invention can be implemented using hardware and / or software. It can be available as a computer program product on a computer-readable medium. The medium can be electronic, magnetic, optical, or electromagnetic.

[0105] Depending on the embodiment of the invention, the location of the calculations can vary: to date, both local (embedded) and remotely accessed (Cloud) resources can be used. It is also reasonable to assume that very significant computing resources can—or will eventually—be embedded (rack servers, PCs, tablets, smartphones, VR headsets, etc.).

[0106] In terms of hardware, the embodiments of the invention can be implemented using a computer. The computer can be a rack, a tablet, an EFB, or a software component integrated into the FMS, etc. The architecture can be distributed, for example, of the "cloud computing" type. Peer-to-peer servers, fully or partially distributed (with the existence of data centers), can interact. There may be one or more privileged nodes, as in the case of a private cloud or private blockchain. Access can be multi-platform (e.g., from an EFB, WebApp, ground access, etc.). One or more EFBs can interact with one or more FMSs for managing calculations.

Claims

1. A method for optimising the climb of an aircraft or drone, the method being computer-implemented in a flight management system FMS and comprising the steps of: - determining (110) an optimal continuous climb strategy, the optimal continuous climb strategy being determined depending on flight-profile parameters, said flight-profile parameters comprising altitude and / or speed constraints, and / or setpoints in respect of speed and / or thrust and / or level-flight avoidance and / or gradient-variation minimisation, and allowing vertical climb predictions to be computed; - determining (120) a lateral path, depending on lateral-path parameters comprising setpoints in respect of turn radius as a function of roll-angle setpoints, and depending on the vertical predictions computed for the flight-profile parameters; - iterating the previous two steps on each constrained segment of the aircraft or drone path, a constrained segment being a segment containing a binding constraint; then iterating the two previous steps over the entire climb, while fitting, during each iteration, said flight-profile parameters and said lateral-path parameters, until all the binding constraints have been met one by one according to a predefined strategy.

2. The method according to claim 1, wherein the iterating step is carried out using an iterative fitting method for fitting parameters, chosen from: - a dichotomous fitting type; - a brute-force attack fitting type; - a fitting based on the so-called secant-method; - a fitting based on the estimator method; the choice of the method possibly being dictated by a criterion of better performance in respect of response time.

3. The method according to claim 1 or 2, wherein the predefined strategy is adjustable by a user and comprises one or more parameters selected from: - a setpoint in respect of the energy-sharing ratio between potential energy and kinetic energy; - a setpoint in respect of the climb gradient; - a setpoint in respect of the vertical climb rate; - a setpoint in respect of the longitudinal speed during the climb; - a setpoint in respect of the climb thrust; and / or - a setpoint in respect of the roll angle.

4. The method according to any one of the preceding claims, wherein one or more target setpoint(s) is (are) converted into pseudo-constraints taken into account in the computation of the vertical predictions.

5. The method according to any one of the preceding claims, wherein the iterating step consists of an incremental method for solving a binding constraint (Cn) for a constrained segment from a save point issued from the previous constrained segment (Cn-1), which save point may be re-estimated in order to solve the binding constraint (Cn), the segment-by-segment fit possibly leading to reconsideration of the i previous segments impacted by the solving of constraint n, the setpoint parameters selected being applicable to all of the constrained climb segments between Cn-i and Cn.

6. The method according to any one of the preceding claims, wherein one or more of the intermediate computation results, the information relating to the root causes and / or the computation context of the steps of the method are displayed (130) on a human-machine interface offering options for modifications by a user.

7. The method according to any one of the preceding claims, further comprising a step of applying (140) the optimal continuous climb strategy, by transmitting all or some of the computed information to be actually exploited by avionic systems in order to apply the obtained optimal climb strategy.

8. A system comprising one or more flight management system FMS computers for implementing the steps of the method according to any one of claims 1 to 7.

9. A computer program product, said computer program comprising code instructions that allow the steps of the method according to any one of claims 1 to 7 to be performed, when said program is executed on a computer.