Aircraft Flight Controller for Loss-of-Control Prevention and Recovery
Find Innovative SolutionsGenerate Solutions
Solution Overview
Problem
Current flight control systems are inadequate in preventing and recovering from loss-of-control (LOC) situations in aircraft, as they rely on simplifications and assumptions that fail to account for complex adverse scenarios, leading to instability and limited effectiveness in severe weather conditions and pilot errors.
Innovation Solution
An integrated automatic control system with multiple modes, including nominal flight, loss-of-control prevention, arrest, and restoration, utilizing a supervisory control system to monitor flight states and activate appropriate modes, employing bandwidth adaptation and time-varying parallel differential eigenvalues to enhance stability and tracking performance.
Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles
Engineering Contradiction Analysis
1Reliability
If a pilot manually recovers from LOC situations, then the pilot can respond to adverse conditions, but the response time and human errors may lead to inappropriate operations and reduced safety
Solution Approach 1:
The flight control system automatically detects LOC conditions and executes recovery maneuvers without pilot intervention. The system monitors flight parameters, identifies upset conditions, and autonomously commands control surfaces to arrest and recover from LOC, eliminating human response time delays and errors.
Solution Approach 2:
The system continuously monitors flight states including angle of attack, sideslip angle, and bank angle, compares them against safe operating boundaries, and automatically activates recovery control when LOC conditions are detected. This closed-loop feedback ensures rapid response to adverse conditions.
2Device complexity
If the flight control system uses simplifications and assumptions for aerodynamic forces, then the control system is easier to implement, but it fails to account for complex adverse scenarios leading to limited effectiveness
Solution Approach 1:
The system dynamically adjusts control parameters and recovery strategies based on real-time flight conditions. Instead of using fixed simplifications, the control authority and recovery maneuvers are adapted according to the specific adverse scenario detected, improving effectiveness across diverse severe conditions.
Solution Approach 2:
The flight control system transitions from static control parameters to dynamic adaptation. The system continuously updates its control strategy based on changing flight states, allowing it to handle complex adverse scenarios that require evolving control responses rather than fixed assumptions.
3Stability of the object's composition
If the system sacrifices tracking performance for increased stability, then the system achieves better tolerance in severe conditions, but the tracking precision deteriorates
Solution Approach 1:
The control system segments its operation into distinct modes: nominal flight control for normal operations where tracking performance is prioritized, and LOC prevention/arrest control for severe conditions where stability is prioritized. This segmentation allows each mode to optimize for its specific function without compromising overall system performance.
Data Source
AI summary
A loss-of-control prevention and recovery automatic control system of an aircraft is provided having a plurality of flight control mode, including a nominal flight control mode, a loss-of-control prevention control mode, a loss-of-control arrest control mode, and a nominal flight restoration control mode, as well as a supervisory control system capable of monitoring the flight states and flight events of the aircraft and determining which flight control mode to activate.