Aircraft Ground Maneuver Control With Risk-Based Demand Prioritization

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative Solutions
Generate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Current aircraft ground maneuvering systems are inadequate for autonomous landing and single-pilot operations, particularly in scenarios involving high-speed operations and ideal conditions, as they fail to effectively integrate lateral and longitudinal control demands, leading to potential runway excursions and increased pilot workload.

Innovation Solution

An aircraft ground maneuver control unit that prioritizes lateral and longitudinal input demands based on risk calculations for lateral and longitudinal runway excursions, using a combination of heading control, deceleration control, and differential braking to minimize excursion risks, and can modify or block input demands to ensure safe operation.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Ease of operation

If automated systems use nose wheel steering and rudder control for lateral control, then lateral control capability is improved, but the system cannot cope with scenarios where full braking is required simultaneously

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvelateral control capabilityVSAvoidadaptability to full braking scenarios
Core Design Contradiction:
Ease of operationVSAdaptability or versatility

Solution Approach 1:

The patent merges lateral control functions (nose wheel steering, rudder control, differential braking) into a unified control system that can simultaneously manage both lateral direction and braking demands. The control unit integrates multiple control mechanisms that previously operated independently, allowing the system to handle scenarios where full braking is required while maintaining lateral control capability.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #5Merging (Combining)

Solution Approach 2:

The control unit is designed to perform multiple functions: it manages nose wheel steering for lateral control, rudder control for directional stability, and differential braking for both lateral positioning and deceleration. This multi-functional design allows the same control system to handle diverse scenarios including high-speed operations, full braking requirements, and lateral runway excursion prevention.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #6Universality (Multi-functionality)

2Ease of operation

If flight crew use manual differential braking to control lateral motion, then lateral control is achieved in specific circumstances, but full braking cannot be applied when maximum deceleration is required

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvemanual lateral controlVSAvoiddeceleration capability
Core Design Contradiction:
Ease of operationVSSpeed

Solution Approach 1:

The control unit acts as an intermediary that intelligently coordinates differential braking with other control mechanisms. When lateral control is needed through differential braking, the system can modulate the braking force and combine it with nose wheel steering or rudder input, allowing partial differential braking to achieve lateral control while maintaining sufficient braking force for deceleration. The control unit mediates between the competing demands of lateral positioning and speed reduction.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #24Intermediary (Mediator)

3Ease of operation

If autopilot and auto-land systems are implemented for single pilot operation, then pilot workload is reduced, but safety concerns arise from pilot incapacitation scenarios

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvepilot workloadVSAvoidsafety in pilot incapacitation
Core Design Contradiction:
Ease of operationVSReliability

Solution Approach 1:

The control unit is designed with inherent safety features that provide cushioning against failure modes. The system continuously monitors the status of control mechanisms and can detect failures in nose wheel steering, rudder control, or braking systems. When a failure is detected, the control unit automatically reconfigures to use alternative control mechanisms, preventing complete loss of control. This prior cushioning approach ensures that even in pilot incapacitation scenarios, the aircraft maintains controlled operation through automated fail-safe mechanisms.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #11Beforehand cushioning (Prior cushioning)

Data Source

PatentUS20240062665A1Method and apparatus for controlling aircraft ground manoeuvres
Publication Date: 2024.02.22 AIRBUS OPERATIONS LTD
  • US20240062665A1 patent drawing
  • US20240062665A1 patent drawing
  • US20240062665A1 patent drawing

AI summary

An aircraft is disclosed including a ground manoeuvre control unit for automatically controlling ground manoeuvres. The aircraft has control mechanisms such as a rudder, nose wheel steering, spoilers, wheel brakes and the like for controlling motion of the aircraft. The control unit is configured to receive lateral input demands concerning lateral motion of the aircraft (e.g. heading control) and longitudinal input demands concerning longitudinal motion of the aircraft (e.g. deceleration). The control unit passes on the input demands as output demands to the relevant control mechanisms of the aircraft with, if so required, a modification which prioritises one of the lateral input demand and longitudinal input demand based on the risk of a lateral runway excursion and the risk of a longitudinal runway excursion.