Loss-of-Control Mitigation via Predictive Cuing

Stepanyan, Vahram; Krishnakumar, Kalmanje; Dorais, Greg; Reardon, Scott; Barlow, Jonathan; Lampton, Amanda; Hardy, Gordon H.

doi:10.2514/1.g001731

Cited by 21 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…[7,8] Additionally it can be used to show a set of predicted controllability limits, which was shown to be used by pilots in an experiment. [9] Furthermore, our previous research showed that haptic feedback can be used to show the pilot information on the Flight Envelope Protection (FEP) system which can limit the input of the pilot to ensure that aircraft is flying within acceptable limits. [10] The evaluation of this feedback system showed a potential benefit, yet lacked conclusive data.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Using Asymmetric Vibrations for Feedback on Flight Envelope Protection

Baelen

Ellerbroek

Paassen

et al. 2020

AIAA Scitech 2020 Forum

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Modern aircraft use a variety of fly-by-wire control devices and combine these with a flight envelope protection system to limit pilot control inputs when approaching the aircraft limits. The current research project aims to increase pilot awareness of such a protection system through the use of force feedback on the control device, i.e., haptics. This paper describes a new iteration of a design with the specific aim to warn the pilot when approaching a limit and provide a clear direction of suggested control input. This is achieved by using vibrations asymmetric in both amplitude, i.e. the mean of the signal is non-zero, and time, i.e. a cue which has a rise time different from the fall time. An evaluation is performed where 24 active PPL/LAPL pilots flew a challenging vertical profile and encountered a windshear. The pilots are divided in two groups: one group performing four flights with haptic feedback, followed by four without, the other groups has a reversed order. Although acceptance ratings slightly improved when providing haptic feedback, the other metrics are unchanged when switching between haptic feedback conditions, due to a large training effect during the first four runs. The results do show that enabling the haptic feedback does seem to improve the learning rate over the first runs, and no after effects are present when feedback is removed. As such, next to the fact that most pilots indicated that they expect an improved safety, this experiment shows a potential training benefit of haptic feedback. Nomenclature Symbols b Damping, Nms/rad I Amplitude of the discrete tick, Nm k Spring, N/rad m Mass, kg n Load factor, g q Pitch rate (θ), rad/s V Velocity, m/s α Angle of attack, rad δ Control device deflection, rad θ Pitch angle, rad φ Bank angle, rad

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Using Asymmetric Vibrations for Feedback on Flight Envelope Protection

Baelen

Ellerbroek

Paassen

et al. 2020

AIAA Scitech 2020 Forum

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In [15], online learning neural networks are used to approximate selected aircraft dynamics which are then inverted to estimate command margins for limit avoidance. The goal of the approach in [16,17] is to provide the pilot aural, visual, and tactile cues focused on maintaining the pilot's control action within predicted loss-of-control boundaries. This predictive architecture combines quantitative loss-of-control boundaries, an adaptive prediction method to estimate in real-time Markov model parameters and associated stability margins, and a real-time data-based predictive control margins estimation algorithm.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Design and Piloted Simulator Evaluation of Adaptive Safe Flight Envelope Protection Algorithm

Lombaerts

Looye²,

Ellerbroek³

et al. 2017

Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper discusses the design and evaluation of an efficient safe flight envelope protection method, for keeping an augmented aircraft with manual flight control laws within the safe envelope bounds. This flight envelope is estimated adaptively, so that configuration changes and possible failures can be taken into account. The updated information of the safe envelope is used in the flight control laws to prevent loss of control in flight. It has been found that a control architecture involving separate pilot command filtering is particularly well suited to incorporate these adaptive protections. Moreover, haptic feedback to the pilot controls can be included as well, based on the same adaptive bounds. This has the potential to further increase the flight crew awareness about the risk of losing control in flight. These algorithms have been evaluated in the Simona Research Simulator at Delft University of Technology, to investigate the impact on the awareness of the crew. Commercial airline crews flew multiple challenging approach and landing scenarios in a relevant simulated environment. Results show that the algorithms support the flight crew significantly. They contribute to 'care-free' flying and to avoiding loss of control in flight.

show abstract

“…The latter gave the best tracking performance increase as compared to the baseline condition [11]. A second example is the work by Stepanyan et al that showed the limit on the available control space both visually and haptically [12]. For the haptics, they changed the input neutral point and the maximum deflection, which was used by the pilots to operate the aircraft at the limits.…”

Section: Design Of a Haptic Feedback System For Flight Envelope Protementioning

confidence: 99%

“…The literature shows different ways of changing the haptic profile: in the automotive field, there is a strong focus on using a forcing function that can be used as both a warning signal [29,30] or as a guidance force [20,21]. Aerospace applications show examples that add a soft stop (a local step in the amount of force required), a hardstop (a change in maximum deflection) [5], forcing functions [31], changes in the stick neutral position [12], and changes in nominal stick stiffness [32,33]. An example of haptic feedback in the current Airbus A320 flight deck is the detent present on the thrust levers: the controls "click" in the important thrust positions (such as maximum thrust, or the take-off/go-around setting) and require a threshold force to move away from this position.…”

Section: A Haptic Feedback Definitionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Design of a Haptic Feedback System for Flight Envelope Protection

Baelen

Ellerbroek

Paassen

2020

Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Several modern aircraft use a passive control manipulator: a spring-damper system that generates command signals to the flight control computers in combination with a flight envelope protection system that limits pilot inputs when approaching the aircraft limits. This research project aims to increase pilot awareness of this protection system through the use of force feedback on the control device, that is, haptics. This paper describes in detail how the haptic feedback works and when it triggers; another paper will discuss the results of an experimental evaluation. With the current haptic design, pilots can get five cues: first, a discrete force cue when approaching the limits; second, an increased spring coefficient for control deflections that bring the aircraft closer to its limits; third, a stick shaker for low velocities; fourth, if a low-velocity condition requires an input, the stick is moved forward to the desired control input; and finally, the stick follows the automatic Airbus "pitch-up" command during an overspeed condition. This novel system is expected to help pilots correctly assess the situation and decide upon the right control action. It will be evaluated in two scenarios close to the flight envelope limits: a windshear and an icing event. Nomenclature a = acceleration, m∕s 2 C L = lift coefficient D = drag, N F = force, N g = gravitational acceleration, m∕s 2 K = gain k = spring, N∕rad L = lift, N m = mass, kg n = load factor, g q = pitch rate, rad∕s S = surface, m 2 T = thrust, N t = time, s V = velocity, m∕s W = weight, N α = angle of attack, rad β = sideslip angle, rad γ = flight path angle, rad δ = control device deflection, rad θ = pitch angle, rad ρ = density, kg∕m 3 φ = roll angle, rad Subscripts br = breakout max = maximum value min = minimum value nom = nominal value np = neutral point prot = protected region value

show abstract

Loss-of-Control Mitigation via Predictive Cuing

Cited by 21 publications

References 32 publications

Using Asymmetric Vibrations for Feedback on Flight Envelope Protection

Using Asymmetric Vibrations for Feedback on Flight Envelope Protection

Design and Piloted Simulator Evaluation of Adaptive Safe Flight Envelope Protection Algorithm

Design of a Haptic Feedback System for Flight Envelope Protection

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About