Aerial Vehicle Input Protection via Operator Behavior Assessment
Find Innovative SolutionsGenerate Solutions
Solution Overview
Problem
Aerial vehicles often crash due to pilot errors resulting from inputs that deviate significantly from expected norms, particularly in critical situations like engine failures or approaching obstacles, where abnormal landing locations may be necessary for safety.
Innovation Solution
A system and method that assesses the state of an aerial vehicle and operator behavior by comparing expected and actual inputs, determining abnormal behavior, and implementing control actions to protect the vehicle by entering an automatic or limited-response mode, tightening the operating envelope when abnormal inputs are detected.
Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles
Engineering Contradiction Analysis
1Reliability
If the system implements strict protection against abnormal pilot inputs, then aircraft safety is improved, but pilot flexibility and ability to handle unexpected situations deteriorate
Solution Approach 1:
The protection system dynamically adjusts its response based on the assessed severity and context of pilot inputs. The system transitions between different protection modes (warning, caution, alert, emergency) depending on the situation, allowing flexibility while maintaining safety. This resolves the contradiction by making the protection level adaptive rather than static.
Solution Approach 2:
The system changes operational parameters based on the state of the aircraft and pilot behavior assessment. When abnormal inputs are detected, the system modifies flight envelope limits, control response characteristics, and automation engagement thresholds. This allows the system to maintain safety while adapting to different operational contexts.
2Reliability
If the system automatically manages vehicle state and behavior, then protection from harmful inputs is improved, but pilot control and decision-making authority deteriorate
Solution Approach 1:
The system continuously monitors pilot inputs, aircraft state, and system responses, providing feedback to adjust protection levels. When pilot inputs are assessed as intentional and correct, the system disengages protection modes and restores full pilot authority. This feedback mechanism ensures automatic protection when needed while preserving pilot control during normal operations.
Solution Approach 2:
The protection system operates autonomously by self-assessing pilot behavior and aircraft state without requiring pilot initiation. The system automatically determines when protection is needed and implements appropriate measures, then self-dissengages when the situation normalizes, restoring pilot authority without manual intervention.
3Reliability
If the system tightens the operating envelope during abnormal behavior, then aircraft safety is improved, but operational flexibility and response time to critical situations deteriorate
Solution Approach 1:
The system performs preliminary assessment of pilot inputs against expected behavior patterns before implementing protection measures. By pre-defining abnormal input patterns and their associated risks, the system can quickly determine when protection is needed without time-consuming analysis during critical moments, thus maintaining both safety and rapid response.
Solution Approach 2:
The operating envelope tightening is dynamic and context-dependent. The system adjusts the degree of envelope restriction based on the specific abnormal condition detected and the current flight state. This allows maximum protection when needed while minimizing interference with legitimate emergency maneuvers, preserving operational flexibility within safety boundaries.
Data Source
AI summary
One example aspect of the present disclosure relates to a method for assessing input. The method can include determining a state of the aerial vehicle. The method can include obtaining data indicative of an expected operator input based on the determined state. The method can include obtaining data indicative of an actual operator input. The method can include determining a state of operator behavior based on the expected operator input and the actual operator input. The method can include determining a control action for the aerial vehicle based on the determined state of the aerial vehicle and the determined state of the operator behavior. The method can include implementing the control action.