Aircraft Descent Anomaly Detection via Prohibited Flight Envelope
Find Innovative SolutionsGenerate Solutions
Solution Overview
Problem
Current aircraft collision risk warning systems face challenges in accurately detecting descent anomalies, particularly in emergency situations where crew spatial disorientation may lead to erroneous actions, and existing systems may not provide sufficient time for corrective measures.
Innovation Solution
A method that utilizes a prohibited flight envelope, dynamically characterized based on aircraft flight circumstances, to detect descent anomalies by monitoring thrust control lever positions, thrust parameter variations, and comparing aircraft speed with minimum thresholds, allowing for flexible and early detection of ground or sea approaches, and generating protection orders to control control surfaces.
Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles
Engineering Contradiction Analysis
1Loss of time
If existing collision risk warning systems are used, then collision alerts are generated based on reactive or predictive algorithms, but the systems do not provide sufficient early detection capability and may trigger alerts too late for effective crew response
Solution Approach 1:
The system performs preliminary detection by monitoring flight parameters (altitude, vertical speed, thrust lever position) against prohibited flight envelopes before a dangerous situation fully develops. This early warning approach allows the crew to take corrective action before the aircraft enters a critical descent state, resolving the contradiction between early detection and accurate anomaly identification.
Solution Approach 2:
The prohibited flight envelope is dynamically adjusted based on aircraft phase of flight, characterized by multiple conditions including thrust control lever position, thrust parameter variation, aircraft speed comparison with minimum thresholds, and absence of landing strip detection. This dynamic characterization allows precise detection adapted to current flight circumstances, improving both timing and accuracy of alerts.
2Reliability
If the crew responds to collision risk alerts, then corrective actions are taken to straighten the nose and correct vertical speed, but spatial disorientation may cause the crew to disregard alerts or persevere in erroneous actions
Solution Approach 1:
The system introduces an intermediary automated protection system that acts between the alert generation and crew action. When a descent anomaly is detected, the system automatically generates and applies protection orders to control surfaces (ailerons, elevators, rudder) to correct the abnormal descent, bypassing the need for crew decision-making during spatial disorientation while maintaining system manageability through automated execution.
Solution Approach 2:
The protection system operates autonomously by self-monitoring flight parameters, self-diagnosing descent anomalies by comparing actual flight state against the prohibited envelope, and self-correcting the situation through automatic application of protection orders to control surfaces, reducing reliance on crew cognitive function during emergency situations.
3Measurement precision
If a prohibited flight envelope is used for detection, then precise detection of descent anomalies is achieved, but the system requires multiple condition checks including thrust lever position and thrust parameter variation
Solution Approach 1:
The system merges multiple detection conditions (thrust control lever position, thrust parameter variation, aircraft speed comparison, absence of landing strip) into a unified prohibited flight envelope characterization. By combining these conditions into a single integrated envelope definition, the system achieves precise anomaly detection while managing complexity through unified processing logic rather than separate independent checks.
Solution Approach 2:
The prohibited flight envelope serves multiple functions simultaneously: it defines the prohibited region for anomaly detection, characterizes the phase of flight through multiple conditions, and provides the basis for generating protection orders. This multi-functionality reduces overall system complexity by using a single conceptual framework for detection, characterization, and correction.
Data Source
Figure 1A~1B
Figure 2~4
Figure 5~6
AI summary
The method involves characterizing a flight phase of an aircraft. A determination is made whether the aircraft is authorized to lose altitude (S113). A prohibited flight envelope is determined (S114). A set of prohibited vertical speeds of the aircraft for given altitudes is defined according to the characterized flight phase of the aircraft. A descent anomaly of the aircraft is detected (S115) according to current vertical speed and altitude of the aircraft in relation to the determined prohibited flight envelope. An independent claim is also included for a system for detecting descent anomaly of an aircraft.