Autonomous Aircraft Control Switching for Safe Flight Envelopes

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative Solutions
Generate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Current methods for controlling autonomous aircraft lack guaranteed safety mechanisms, relying on human supervision or unproven artificial intelligence, which poses risks to human life in case of accidents or system failures.

Innovation Solution

A fully autonomous control system for robot aircraft utilizing a simplex architecture with a high-performance controller (HPC) and a high-safety controller (HAC) to maintain the aircraft within a safe state envelope, switching between modes to ensure safety and execute emergency procedures as needed, leveraging sensors like lidar, radar, and GPS for real-time decision-making.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Extent of automation

If human supervision is used to control autonomous aircraft, then safety can be monitored, but the system cannot operate fully autonomously and requires human intervention

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveautonomous control capabilityVSAvoidflight safety guarantee
Core Design Contradiction:
Extent of automationVSReliability

Solution Approach 1:

The control system is segmented into three independent modules: HPC for high-performance control, HAC for high-safety monitoring, and DM for decision-making. Each module operates autonomously with specific responsibilities, allowing the system to achieve full automation while maintaining safety through modular independence and specialized functions.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #1Segmentation

Solution Approach 2:

The decision module (DM) acts as an intermediary between HPC and HAC, receiving commands from both controllers and autonomously selecting which command to execute. This mediator resolves conflicts between performance-oriented and safety-oriented commands without requiring human intervention, enabling full autonomy while guaranteeing safety through structured arbitration.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #24Intermediary (Mediator)

2Extent of automation

If artificial intelligence and machine learning are used for control, then autonomous operation is achieved, but safety mechanisms are not currently guaranteed or recognized

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveautonomous control capabilityVSAvoidsafety certification
Core Design Contradiction:
Extent of automationVSReliability

Solution Approach 1:

The system employs a backup controller (HAC) that can take over immediately when the primary controller (HPC) fails or produces unsafe commands. This redundant, fail-safe approach provides guaranteed safety mechanisms that can be certified, while the primary AI-based HPC maintains autonomous operation capabilities.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #27Cheap short-living objects (Disposable)

Solution Approach 2:

The system changes the operational parameters of different controllers based on their strengths: HPC operates with high autonomy and AI-based decision-making, while HAC operates with conservative, safety-certified parameters. The DM dynamically switches between these parameter sets based on situational assessment, achieving both autonomy and safety certification.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #35Parameter changes

3Reliability

If a simplex control structure is used, then safety monitoring is improved, but the system complexity increases with multiple controllers and decision modules

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveflight safety guaranteeVSAvoidcontrol system architecture
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The control system dynamically adapts its structure through the DM, which continuously assesses flight conditions and adjusts which controller (HPC or HAC) has authority. This dynamic arbitration simplifies the operational complexity by providing clear, situation-dependent control pathways while maintaining the safety benefits of multiple controllers.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #15Dynamics

Solution Approach 2:

Instead of having a single complex controller that tries to do everything, the system inverts the approach by having simple, specialized controllers (HPC for performance, HAC for safety) and a simple arbitration rule set in the DM. This inversion reduces overall system complexity while achieving superior safety monitoring through the simplex structure.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #13The other way round (Inversion)

Data Source

PatentEP4147106B1Method for controlling a robot-aircraft and corresponding control system
Publication Date: 2024.09.04 THALES SA
  • EP4147106B1 patent drawingFigure 1
  • EP4147106B1 patent drawingFigure 2
  • EP4147106B1 patent drawingFigure 3

AI summary

The invention relates to a method for controlling a robot-aircraft piloted by a fully autonomous control system (20) comprising a first decision module (51) and a simplex piloting control module (2) comprising a high-performance controller (21), a high-safety controller (31) and a second decision module (41), the high-performance (21) and high-safety (31) controllers determining piloting commands for the robot-aircraft (1), wherein: - as long as a set of conditions is verified, implementation by the first decision module (51) of a nominal piloting mode with supply at the output of the automatic control system (20) of the piloting commands delivered at the output of the simplex piloting control module (2); - otherwise, switching to an emergency piloting mode, an emergency piloting command is supplied at the output of the automatic control system (20) for execution by the robot-aircraft, the first decision module (51) preventing the supply at the output of the automatic control system (20) of the piloting commands supplied at the output of the simplex module (2).