Teleoperator Control Mode Realization in the Approach Phase and Landing for the Demonstrators of Prospective Aircraft

Aeronautical and Space-Rocket Engineering


Аuthors

Tyaglik M. S.*, Voronka T. V.

Moscow Aviation Institute (National Research University), 4, Volokolamskoe shosse, Moscow, А-80, GSP-3, 125993, Russia

*e-mail: pvl@mai.ru.

Abstract

The state-of-the-art civil aircraft is a high-tech costly technological complex. Creation of the unmanned demonstrators of flying technologies is regarded practical while new-generation aircraft design. Solving a problem of landing is the most sophisticated task for such demonstrators, since it requires high accuracy of tracking the program trajectory, which leads to the significant loading of the operator, accomplishing control from the ground-based point.
Precise control of linear coordinates is in itself a very complicated task due to the high-order astatism. An extra factor that complicates the piloting process is the presence of lag associated with control signal transmission from the ground-base station to the aircraft, and receiving signals from the ground-based control point measuring instruments and video signal from the aircraft.
The performed studies revealed that the presence of lag in the control loop leads to a drastic decrease in the probability of the pilot’s decision making to landing performing. The article demonstrates that in the presence of atmospheric disturbances, a lag of no more than 0.2 seconds can be considered as acceptable.
As a means for suppressing negative phenomena associated with a lag in the control loop, the authors propose a ground control station display with a modified law of the velocity vector indicator movement across the screen, as well as additional indicators predicting the unmanned aerial vehicle set trajectory changes during the flight.
To compensate for the lag characteristic for the teleoperator control mode, an algorithm based on the additional signals calculation by the computer at the ground control station and adding these signals to the law of the velocity vector indicator forming shown on the display is proposed.
To assess the effect of the lag on the probability of the landing task completion, as well as the effectiveness of applying the proposed lag compensation algorithm, two series of experimental studies were conducted. As the result, it was demonstrated that delay compensation algorithm application allows improving piloting accuracy by 3–5 times compared to the case when the lag compensation algorithm is not employed.

Keywords:

control path lag compensation, teleoperator control mode, approach and landing

References

  1. Kofman VD, Poltavets VA, Mulkidzhanov IK. Some lessons of aviation accidents. Aerospace MAI Journal. 2005;12(2):62-71. (In Russ.).
  2.  IATA Annual Safety Report, https://www.iata.org/en/publications/safety-report/interactive-safety-report/
  3.  CAP 1036. Global Fatal Accident Review 2002–2011. Civil Aviation Authority; 2013. 134 p.
  4.  Civil aviation flight safety in the member states to the Agreement on Civil Aviation and on the Use of Airspace in the first half of 2024, Interstate Aviation Committee, Moscow, 2024. (In Russ.).
  5.  Sypalo KI, Medvedskiy AL, Babichev OV, et al. Engineering of Aircraft Demonstrator. Trudy MAI. 2017(95). (In Russ.). URL: https://trudymai.ru/eng/published.php?ID=84545
  6.  Bashkirov IG, Chernyshev SL, Kazhan AV, et al. Goals, tasks and technic concept of Russian flight civil supersonic jet technology demonstrator. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering. 2022;1226: 012098. DOI 10.1088/1757-899X/1226/1/012098
  7.  Efremov A.V., Tiaglik M.S. The development of perspective displays for highly precise tracking task. In: Holzapfel F, Theil S. (eds) Advances in Aerospace Guidance, Navigation and Control. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg; 2011. p. 163-174. 
  8.  Efremov AV, Efremov EV. Modification of the pilot behavior structural model and its application to the task of selecting the characteristics and type of inceptors. Aerospace MAI Journal. 2023;30(1):167-179. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.34759/vst-2023-1-167-179
  9.  Efremov AV, Koshelenko AV, Tyaglik MS. Structure and algorithms development for control systems using additional controls to achieve necessary efficiency and flight safety. Aerospace MAI Journal. 2009;16(4):14-21. (In Russ.).
  10.  Efremov A, Irgaleev I, Tiaglik M. Pilot Behavior Model in Pursuit and Preview Tracking Tasks. AIAA Science and Technology Forum and Exposition (11–15 & 19–21 January 2021; virtual event). DOI: 10.2514/6.2021-1135
  11.  Efremov AV, Shcherbakov AI, Korzun FA, et al. Prospective means for the aircraft pilot induced oscillation suppression. Aerospace MAI Journal. 2022;29(1):201-210. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.34759/vst-2022-1-201-210
  12.  Ponomarenko VA, Lapa VV, Lemeshchenko NA. The human factor and landing safety. Moscow: Voennoe izdatel'stvo; 1993. 112 p. (In Russ.).
  13.  MIL-STD-1797A. Flying qualities of piloted aircraft. Dayton. Ohio: Wright Paterson Air Force Base; 2004. 723 p.
  14.  Guskov YuP, Zagainov GI. Aircraft flight control. 2nd ed. Moscow: Mashinostroenie; 1991. 272 p. (In Russ.).
  15.  Annex 6 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation. Aircraft operation. Part I. International commercial air transport. Airplanes. 12 ed. Moscow: ICAO; 2022. 254 p. (In Russ.).
  16.  AC 120-28D. Criteria for Approval of Category III Weather Minima for Takeoff, Landing, and Rollout. Federal Aviation Administration; 1999. 103 p.
  17.  Hoh RH, Arencibia AJ, Hislop GM. Development and Flight-Test of a Commercial Head-Up Display. 21 p.
  18.  Voronka TV, Efremov AV, Tyaglik MS. Software for modeling the “Double_PVL” two-channel pilot aircraft system. Certificate of state registration of a computer program RU2023661422, 30.05.2023. (In Russ.).
  19.  Hess RA. Structural model of the adaptive human pilot. Journal of Guidance and Control. 1980;3(5):416-423. DOI: 10.2514/3.56015
  20.  McRuer DT, Krendel ES. Mathematical models of human pilot behavior. Advisory Group for Aerospace Research and Developm. AGD-188. Paris, France, 1974. 72 p.
  21.  McRuer DT, Krendel ES. Dynamic response of human operators. WADC. TR-56-524. 1957, 262 p.
  22.  Sachs G, Sperl R, Sturhan I. Сurved and steep approach flight tests of a low-сost 3D-display for general aviation aircraft. 25th International congress of the aeronautical sciences (3-8 September 2006; Hamburg, Germany).
  23.  Sachs G. Perspective Predictor/Flight-Path Display with Minimum Pilot Compensation. Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics. 2000;23(3):420-429. DOI: 10.2514/2.4576

mai.ru — informational site of MAI

Copyright © 1994-2025 by MAI