Pilot Incapacitation Detection Using Flight Parameter Thresholds

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative Solutions
Generate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Existing systems for monitoring pilots in reduced-crew aircraft are expensive, inaccurate, and difficult to install, making it challenging to effectively detect pilot incapacitation.

Innovation Solution

A pilot incapacitation detection system that uses a controller to analyze flight parameters and initiate emergency protocols based on thresholds, including inactivity milestones and flight milestones, to ensure pilot engagement and safety.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Reliability

If existing monitoring systems are implemented in reduced-crew aircraft, then pilot incapacitation detection capability is improved, but system cost and complexity increase

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvepilot incapacitation detection capabilityVSAvoidsystem cost and complexity
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The system uses the aircraft's existing flight control computer and flight parameters to monitor pilot status, rather than requiring separate monitoring hardware. The pilot's own control interactions with the aircraft systems serve as the detection mechanism, eliminating the need for external monitoring equipment.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #25Self-service

Solution Approach 2:

The flight control computer performs its primary function of controlling aircraft systems while simultaneously monitoring pilot interaction patterns to detect incapacitation. This multi-functionality allows the same system to serve both operational control and safety monitoring purposes.

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

2Reliability

If existing monitoring systems are installed, then pilot status monitoring is improved, but installation difficulty increases

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvepilot status monitoringVSAvoidinstallation difficulty
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSEase of manufacture

Solution Approach 1:

The system leverages existing aircraft systems and data infrastructure, requiring no additional installation of sensors or monitoring equipment. The flight control computer already collects the necessary data during normal operations, making the system readily deployable without complex installation procedures.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #25Self-service

3Reliability

If traditional co-pilot checks are used, then pilot incapacitation detection is improved, but crew requirements increase

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvepilot incapacitation detectionVSAvoidreduced-crew operation capability
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSAdaptability or versatility

Solution Approach 1:

The system enables single-pilot operations by making the pilot self-monitoring through automated analysis of their own interaction patterns with aircraft systems. The pilot's control inputs, timing, and patterns serve as the monitoring data source, eliminating the need for a second crew member.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #25Self-service

Solution Approach 2:

The system continuously monitors pilot interactions with flight controls and provides automated feedback about pilot status. When abnormal patterns indicating incapacitation are detected, the system generates alerts and can trigger emergency protocols, creating a closed-loop monitoring system.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #23Feedback

Data Source

PatentUS20230144801A1Incapacitated pilot detection system
Publication Date: 2023.05.11 LOCKHEED MARTIN CORP
  • US20230144801A1 patent drawing
  • US20230144801A1 patent drawing
  • US20230144801A1 patent drawing

AI summary

An aircraft pilot incapacitation detection system includes a controller configured to determine, based on an input received from a flight control computer, a current flight parameter. The controller compares the current flight parameter to a corresponding predetermined flight metric associated with at least one of a predetermined flight plan or a benchmark for a predetermined flight stage. The controller determines, responsive to the comparison, that the aircraft is in an abnormal state and causes a first prompt by a user interface in communication with the controller, the first prompt being associated with a first time threshold. The controller determines whether the first time threshold is satisfied and, if so, subsequently initiates an emergency protocol and causes a second prompt associated with a second time threshold. Upon determining that the second time threshold has been satisfied, the controller carries out the emergency protocol.