Collective And Cyclic Stick Detent Monitoring for Sensor Fault Detection
Find Innovative SolutionsGenerate Solutions
Solution Overview
Problem
As rotorcraft become larger and more complex, the differences between flying rotorcraft and fixed-wing aircraft become more pronounced, requiring sophisticated flight control systems to manage tightly coupled flight parameters, and existing fly-by-wire systems must provide stable flight characteristics while allowing pilot override and maintaining intuitive control, but they face challenges in detecting defective sensors and ensuring accurate pilot control inputs.
Innovation Solution
A fly-by-wire system with flight control computers that include error monitors and detent sensors to determine when a pilot is controlling a particular control stick, allowing for different flight profiles and automated functions based on detent states, and providing tactile feedback through trim motors and sensors to ensure accurate positioning and override capabilities.
Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles
Engineering Contradiction Analysis
1Measurement precision
If detent sensors are used to detect pilot control inputs, then control accuracy is improved, but sensor failure risk increases
Solution Approach 1:
The system performs preliminary validation of detent sensor readings by comparing them with trim motor position commands before trusting the sensor data for flight control decisions. This preliminary check prevents faulty sensor readings from causing incorrect control actions
Solution Approach 2:
The system continuously monitors the relationship between detent sensor inputs and trim motor positions, using feedback loops to detect inconsistencies. When a mismatch is detected, the system can alert the pilot or switch to alternative control modes, preventing sensor failures from compromising flight safety
2Ease of operation
If automated flight control functions are added, then pilot workload is reduced, but system complexity increases
Solution Approach 1:
The flight control system is designed to perform multiple functions through integrated software modules that can operate in different modes (fully automated, assisted, or manual). This multi-functionality allows the system to adapt to various flight situations and pilot preferences without requiring separate hardware systems for each function
Solution Approach 2:
The automated flight control system is divided into separate functional modules (detent sensor processing, trim motor control, flight envelope protection, etc.) that can be independently developed, tested, and maintained. This segmentation reduces overall system complexity by making each component manageable and fault-isolatable
3Measurement precision
If trim motors are used to provide tactile feedback, then control precision is improved, but mechanical complexity increases
Solution Approach 1:
The system replaces complex mechanical feedback linkages with electronically controlled trim motors that receive commands from the flight control computer. This substitution eliminates the need for sophisticated mechanical spring systems or hydraulic feedback mechanisms, reducing mechanical complexity while maintaining precise control positioning through electronic actuation
Data Source
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
AI summary
In an embodiment, a rotorcraft (101) includes a control element; a first control sensor connected to the control element, the first control sensor operable to generate position data indicating an actual position of the control element; and a flight control computer (FCC) (205) in signal communication with the first control sensor, the FCC (205) being operable to determine a suggested position for the control element, the FCC (205) including an error monitor (403, 405, 407), the error monitor (403, 405, 407) being operable to compare the suggested position of the control element with the actual position of the control element and determine whether the first control sensor is functional or defective, the FCC (205) being further operable to provide a first flight management function when the first control sensor is determined to be functional, and the FCC (205) being further operable to provide a second flight management function when the first control sensor is determined to be defective.