Aircraft Control Panel Architecture for Actuator Failure Response

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative Solutions
Generate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Controlling multiple actuators in an aircraft, especially in emergency situations, poses a challenge for human-machine interface (HMI) development due to the complexity of managing individual propulsion units safely without impairing overall aircraft safety, which is crucial for certification processes.

Innovation Solution

A method and control panel architecture that monitor the operational state of multiple actuators, automatically or manually, to display a limited choice of operating measures to the pilot, and program control elements to perform these measures, preventing single-point failures by excluding certain operations and allowing selective actuator control.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Adaptability or versatility

If multiple actuators are controlled individually with full operational freedom, then the aircraft has high adaptability and versatility for different operating conditions, but the device complexity and difficulty of detecting and measuring system state increase significantly

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveoperational flexibilityVSAvoidcontrol system complexity
Core Design Contradiction:
Adaptability or versatilityVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The control system is segmented into independent actuator control units, each with its own monitoring and control elements. This allows individual actuator management while maintaining overall system simplicity through modular architecture.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #1Segmentation

Solution Approach 2:

The control system dynamically adapts its complexity based on operational mode. In normal operation, full control freedom is available; in emergency modes, the system automatically restricts control options to simplify decision-making and reduce pilot workload.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #15Dynamics

2Ease of operation

If full control options are available to the pilot for all actuators, then the ease of operation is improved for normal conditions, but the reliability decreases in emergency situations due to increased error potential

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvepilot control capabilityVSAvoidsafety in emergency
Core Design Contradiction:
Ease of operationVSReliability

Solution Approach 1:

The system preemptively restricts control options when failures are detected, preventing potentially harmful actions before they can occur. Control elements are automatically deactivated or limited based on the failure mode to guide the pilot toward safe actions only.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #9Preliminary anti-action

Solution Approach 2:

The monitoring system continuously provides feedback on actuator status and system health, enabling the control system to automatically adjust available control options based on real-time conditions, thereby maintaining safety while preserving necessary operational flexibility.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #23Feedback

3Reliability

If the system automatically detects and responds to actuator failures, then the reliability is improved, but the extent of automation increases which may complicate the ease of operation

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvefailure detection capabilityVSAvoidautomatic control intervention
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSExtent of automation

Solution Approach 1:

The monitoring system operates autonomously to detect failures and trigger appropriate responses without requiring pilot initiation. The system self-manages the detection, assessment, and control restriction processes, reducing pilot workload while maintaining high reliability.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #25Self-service

4Ease of operation

If individual control elements are provided for each actuator, then the ease of operation is improved for precise control, but the device complexity increases making certification more difficult

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveprecise actuator controlVSAvoidnumber of control elements
Core Design Contradiction:
Ease of operationVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

Control elements are designed to serve multiple functions: they can individually control specific actuators, collectively manage groups of actuators, and automatically adapt their behavior based on system state. This multi-functionality reduces the total number of control elements needed while maintaining precise control capability.

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

Data Source

PatentEP4001123B1Aircraft operating method, aircraft control panel architecture, and aircraft
Publication Date: 2024.03.06 VOLOCOPTER GMBH
  • EP4001123B1 patent drawingFigure 1
  • EP4001123B1 patent drawingFigure 2
  • EP4001123B1 patent drawingFigure 3

AI summary

We disclose a method of operating an aircraft with multiple actuators, such as propulsion units, preferably electrically powered propulsion units, comprising: i) monitoring an operational state of said multiple actuators; ii) when detecting a malfunctioning or failure of any one of said actuators, indicating said malfunctioning or failure to a pilot in command (2b) of the aircraft; iii) controlling a human machine interface (2ab) of the aircraft to display and enable a limited choice of possible operating measures in connection with said malfunctioning or failure to the pilot in command (2b); and iv) programming at least one control element (2ae) in association with said one actuator to perform said measures when actuated by the pilot in command (2b).