Ejection Assembly Sequencer Voting for Reliable Timing Control
Find Innovative SolutionsGenerate Solutions
Solution Overview
Problem
Current ejection assembly sequencer systems lack the necessary accuracy and reliability in determining and controlling the timing sequences for deploying ejection seat subsystems, which can lead to increased risks of pilot injury due to variability in ejection conditions and subsystem configurations.
Innovation Solution
A sequencer system with multiple controllers (A-side and B-side) that determine initial and verified ejection sequences through comparison, employing a two-out-of-three voting scheme to ensure consistency and redundancy, thereby reducing the likelihood of unintentional firing and enhancing operational reliability.
Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles
Engineering Contradiction Analysis
1Reliability
If a single controller is used to determine ejection sequence, then the system is simple, but the accuracy and reliability of timing sequence control is insufficient
Solution Approach 1:
The controller system is segmented into multiple independent controllers (first A-side controller, second A-side controller, first B-side controller, second B-side controller), each capable of independently determining an initial ejection sequence. This segmentation allows the system to achieve higher reliability through redundancy while maintaining manageable complexity by distributing the control function across multiple units.
Solution Approach 2:
Each controller preliminarily determines an initial ejection sequence independently before the final verified sequence is established. This preliminary action allows for comparison and verification against other controllers' sequences, ensuring accuracy before actual ejection execution, thereby resolving the contradiction between reliability and complexity.
2Measurement precision
If multiple controllers determine ejection sequences independently, then reliability improves, but the complexity of sequence verification increases
Solution Approach 1:
The system implements feedback by having each controller compare its determined initial ejection sequence against the sequences determined by other controllers. The verified ejection sequence is established based on this feedback comparison, ensuring that the final sequence is accurate and consistent across all controllers, thereby improving precision without excessive complexity.
Solution Approach 2:
The initial ejection sequences from multiple controllers are merged through comparison to establish a single verified ejection sequence. This merging process combines the strengths of multiple independent determinations while resolving discrepancies, achieving high precision through collective verification rather than individual controller complexity.
3Reliability
If a voting scheme is implemented to verify sequences, then unintentional firing risk reduces, but the system complexity increases
Solution Approach 1:
The voting mechanism serves multiple functions: it verifies sequence accuracy, prevents unintentional firing, and ensures consistency across controllers. By making the verification process multi-functional, the system achieves high safety standards without proportionally increasing complexity, as the same voting structure handles multiple safety-critical tasks simultaneously.
Data Source
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
AI summary
A sequencer system for an ejection assembly may comprise a first A-side controller (160) and a second A-side controller (162) in operable communication with the first A-side controller. A first B-side controller (164) may be in operable communication with the first A-side controller. A second B-side controller (166) may be in operable communication with the first B-side controller and the second A-side controller. The controllers may be configured to each make an initial ejection sequence determination and a verified ejection sequence determination. The controllers may make the verified ejection seat determination based on a two of three voting scheme.