Flight Plan Update Validation Against Terrain and SUA Hazards
Find Innovative SolutionsGenerate Solutions
Solution Overview
Problem
Current flight plan updates are not automatically validated for safety relative to terrain, obstacles, Special Use Airspace (SUA), NOTAMs, SIGMETs, and PIREPs, which can lead to unsafe flight conditions.
Innovation Solution
An avionics device, such as a Flight Management System (FMS), automatically validates updates to a flight plan by comparing new flight parameters with terrain, SUA, NOTAM, SIGMET, and PIREP data to ensure safe flight, providing visual and auditory feedback to pilots.
Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles
Engineering Contradiction Analysis
1Reliability
If flight plan updates are manually processed without automatic validation, then operational flexibility is maintained, but safety risks increase due to potential hazards from terrain, obstacles, SUA, NOTAMs, SIGMETs, and PIREPs
Solution Approach 1:
The system performs preliminary validation of flight plan updates by comparing proposed parameters against terrain data, obstacle databases, SUA boundaries, NOTAMs, SIGMETs, and PIREPs before the flight executes the updated plan. This advance checking prevents unsafe conditions from being implemented, resolving the contradiction by ensuring safety through pre-validation rather than reactive measures.
Solution Approach 2:
The validation system acts as an intermediary between flight plan updates and flight execution. It mediates by automatically comparing update parameters against multiple hazard databases (terrain, obstacles, SUA, NOTAMs, SIGMETs, PIREPs) and either approving or rejecting updates based on safety criteria, thus ensuring reliability without requiring complex manual review processes.
2Reliability
If automatic validation of flight plan updates is implemented, then safety is improved by identifying hazards before execution, but system complexity and processing time increase
Solution Approach 1:
The system performs preliminary validation of flight plan updates by comparing proposed parameters against terrain data, obstacle databases, SUA boundaries, NOTAMs, SIGMETs, and PIREPs before the flight executes the updated plan. This advance checking prevents unsafe conditions from being implemented, resolving the contradiction by ensuring safety through pre-validation rather than reactive measures.
Solution Approach 2:
The patent replaces manual validation processes with an automated computer-based system that electronically compares flight plan parameters against databases. This substitution of mechanical/manual verification with automated electronic validation reduces processing time while maintaining comprehensive safety checks across multiple hazard categories.
3Reliability
If comprehensive validation against multiple data sources (terrain, obstacles, SUA, NOTAMs, SIGMETs, PIREPs) is performed, then safety coverage is improved, but computational complexity increases
Solution Approach 1:
The validation system is designed as a multi-functional platform that simultaneously checks flight plan parameters against multiple hazard types (terrain, obstacles, SUA, NOTAMs, SIGMETs, PIREPs) using a unified processing architecture. This universal approach provides comprehensive safety coverage across all hazard categories without requiring separate complex validation systems for each data source.
Solution Approach 2:
The validation process is segmented into distinct comparison stages, each handling specific data types (terrain validation, obstacle checking, SUA boundary verification, NOTAM/SIGMET/PIREP cross-referencing). This segmentation allows the complex multi-source validation to be processed in manageable modules, reducing overall computational complexity while maintaining comprehensive safety coverage.
Data Source
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
AI summary
A method for updating, for an aircraft (10), a first flight plan (15) having a first set of flight parameters (11), includes receiving, via an avionics device (8), a change to the first flight plan (11), determining a second set of flight parameters (25) based on the change to the first flight plan (11), receiving, by the avionics device (8), at least one of terrain data (55) and special use airspace (SUA) (57) data. The method includes performing, with the avionics device (8), a safety validation of the second set of flight parameters (25), wherein the safety validation comprises: comparing the second set of flight parameters (25) with the received at least one of terrain data (55) and SUA data (57), and determining, based on the comparison, whether the second set of flight parameters (25) presents a risk to safe flight.