Patent Grant
10705110
The present disclosure is generally related to flight warning system for aircrafts, more specifically, to systems for providing a warning for aircraft nonlinear instability and a warning for potential loss of control.
Despite the 100 year aviation history, evidence indicates that when faced with uncontrolled roll, pitch, or yaw, pilots sometimes have difficulties in quickly responding to the situation which needs rapid action to correct in order to avoid crash. Trainings for avoiding uncontrolled roll, pitch, or yaw is either not effective enough or not correct at all. The reason for such awkward situation in the industry is that the mechanism of the uncontrolled roll, pitch, or yaw has not been understood. The relationship between the current flight simulator fidelities and real aircrafts is susceptible when the roll, pitch, and yaw motions become large enough since the current flight dynamics are based on the linearization of roll, pitch, and yaw motions, meaning that the aircraft motions have to be small enough to be accurate. In real world, however, aircraft could roll 360° in the sky, like what happened to TWA Flight 841 in 1979. Many mysterious aircraft crashes were due to loss of control caused by the nonlinear instability, a new scientific discovery made by the inventor in the book “Nonlinear Instability and Inertial Coupling Effect—The Root Causes Leading to Aircraft Crashes, Land Vehicle Rollovers, and Ship Capsizes” (ISBN 9781732632301, to be published in November 2018). To name a few, the following incidents and accidents were caused by the nonlinear instability and analyzed in the book.
The incident of TWA Flight 841 Boeing 727-31 in 1979,
the crash of Japan Airlines Flight 123 Boeing 747-100SR in 1985,
the crash of Northwest Flight 255 MD DC-9-82 in 1987,
the crash of Delta Airlines Flight 1141 Boeing 727-232 in 1988,
the crash of United Airlines Flight 585 Boeing 737-200 in 1991,
the crash of USAir Flight 405 Fokker F-28 in 1992,
the crash of B-52H strategic bomber in 1994,
the crash of USAir Flight 427 Boeing 737-300 in 1994,
the incident of Boeing 737-236 Advanced G-BGJI in 1995,
the crash of SilkAir Flight 185 Boeing 737-300 in 1997,
the crash of EgyptAir Flight 990 Boeing 767-366ER in 1999,
the crash of American Airlines Flight 587 Airbus A300-605R in 2001,
the crash of PT. Mandala Airlines Flight 091 Boeing 737-200 in 2005,
the crash of Spanair Flight 5022 MD DC-9-82 in 2008,
the crash of Air France Flight 447 Airbus A330 in 2009,
the crash of Colgan Air Flight 3407 Bombardier DHC-8-400 in 2009,
the crash of Air Algeria Flight 5017 MD-83 in 2014,
the crash of FlyDubai Flight 981 Boeing 737-800 in 2016.
A fundamental mistake has been made in dealing with the aircraft dynamics in the current academic and industry practices. For an aircraft, the governing equations for its rotational motions (roll, pitch, and yaw) are given by Math. 1 in the vector form. They were obtained based on Newton's second law of motions in the body-fixed reference frame,
d{right arrow over (H)}/dt=−{right arrow over (ω)}×{right arrow over (H)}+{right arrow over (M)}, Math. 1
wherein {right arrow over (ω)}=(p,q,r)=({dot over (φ)}, {dot over (θ)}, {dot over (ψ)}): the angular velocities of the vehicle; φ, θ, ψ: the roll, pitch, and yaw angle about the principal axes of inertias X, Y, Z, respectively; {right arrow over (H)}=(Ixp, Iyq, Izr): the angular momentum of the vehicle; Ix, Iy, Iz: the moment of inertias about the principal axes of inertias X, Y, Z, respectively (These parameters are constants in this frame); {right arrow over (M)}=(Mx, My, Mz): the external moments acting on the aircraft about the principal axes of inertia. In both the aviation academy and industry, the current practice to deal with Math. 1 is to make a linearization approximation first and then solve the equations because the nonlinear term −{right arrow over (ω)}×{right arrow over (H)} is too difficult to deal with. The linearization approximation makes the nonlinear term −{right arrow over (ω)}×{right arrow over (H)} disappear, and the equations become
d{right arrow over (H)}/dt={right arrow over (M)}. Math. 2
However, the equations are still considered in the body-fixed reference frame which is a non-inertial frame. The reason for this is that the external moments (Mx, My, Mz) acting on vehicles and the moments of inertia Ix, Iy, Iz are needed to be considered in the body-fixed reference frame.
The fundamental mistake is that the nonlinear term −{right arrow over (ω)}×{right arrow over (H)} cannot be neglected because they are the inertial moments tied to the non-inertial reference frame which is the body-fixed reference frame in this case. This mistake is similarly like we neglect the Coriolis force which equals −2{right arrow over (Ω)}×{right arrow over (V)}, where {right arrow over (Ω)} is the angular velocity vector of the earth and {right arrow over (V)} is the velocity vector of a moving body on earth. Then we try to explain the swirling water draining phenomenon in a bathtub. In this case, we are considering the water moving in the body-fixed and non-inertial reference frame which is the earth. The Coriolis force is an inertial force generated by the rotating earth on the moving objects which are the water particles in this case. Without the Coriolis force, we cannot explain the motions of the swirling water. Similarly in the aircraft dynamics, the aircraft is rotating, and we consider the rotational motions of the aircraft in the body-fixed and non-inertial reference frame which is the aircraft itself. The difference between the two cases is that in the former the object (water particle) has translational motions ({right arrow over (V)}) while in the latter the object (aircraft itself) has rotational motions ({right arrow over (ω)}) but they both have the important inertial effects which cannot be neglected because both the objects are considered in the non-inertial reference frames. In the former the inertial effect is the Coriolis force −2{right arrow over (Ω)}×{right arrow over (V)} while in the latter the inertial effect is the inertial moment −{right arrow over (ω)}×{right arrow over (H)} which are not forces but moments since we are dealing with rational motions instead of translational one. Without the inertial moment, we cannot explain many phenomena which happened to aircrafts, like uncommanded motions of roll, pitch, and yaw; and Pilot-Induced-Oscillation (PIO) .
In the inventor's book, the equations Math. 1 have been solved analytically without the linearization approximation and it was found that the pitch motion, without loss of generality assuming the pitch moment of inertia to be the intermediate between the roll and yaw inertias, is conditionally stable and becomes unstable in certain circumstances. A brief summary of the findings is given below. The governing equations of rotational motions of an aircraft under a periodic external pitch moment can be written in scalar form as
Ix{umlaut over (φ)}+b1{dot over (φ)}+k1φ=(Iy−Iz){dot over (θ)}{dot over (ψ)}, Math. 3
Iy{umlaut over (θ)}+b2{dot over (θ)}+k2θ=(Iz−Ix){dot over (φ)}{dot over (ψ)}+M21 cos(ω21t+α21), Math. 4
Iz{umlaut over (ψ)}+b3{dot over (ψ)}+k3ψ=(Ix−Iy){dot over (φ)}{dot over (θ)}, Math. 5
wherein b1, b2, b3 are the damping coefficients for roll, pitch, and yaw, respectively; k1, k2, k3 are the restoring coefficients for roll, pitch, and yaw, respectively; M21 is the external pitch moment amplitude; ω21 and α21 are the frequency and phase of the external pitch moment, respectively. These equations represent a dynamic system governing the rotational dynamics of an aircraft when taking off or approaching to landing. According to the current practice in the industries under the linearization approximation, these equations become
Ix{umlaut over (φ)}+b1{dot over (φ)}+k1φ=0, Math. 6
Iy{umlaut over (θ)}+b2{dot over (θ)}+k2θ=M21 cos(ω21+α21), Math. 7
Iz{umlaut over (ψ)}+b3{dot over (ψ)}+k3ω=0. Math. 8
Therefore the current practice says that the aircraft will only have pitch motion, no roll and yaw motions because there are no moments acting on roll and yaw directions. In reality, however, there exist moments acting in roll and yaw directions as indicated by the nonlinear terms in the right hand sides of Math. 3 and Math. 5, respectively. These moments are the components of the inertial moment vector −{right arrow over (ω)}×{right arrow over (H)} along roll and yaw directions, respectively, and they are real and must not be neglected. The linearization theory assumes that these nonlinear terms are small so that they can be neglected. The fact is that this assumption is not always valid. The reason is explained below. The roll and yaw dynamic systems of an aircraft are harmonic oscillation systems as shown in Math. 3 and Math. 5. As we know for a harmonic system, a resonance phenomenon can be excited by a driving mechanism no matter how small it is as long as its frequency matches the natural frequency of the system. It was found in the inventor's book mentioned above that under certain circumstances the nonlinear terms, (Iy−Iz){dot over (θ)}{dot over (ψ)} and (Ix−Iy){dot over (φ)}{dot over (θ)} can simultaneously excite roll and yaw resonances, respectively. In these cases, the pitch motion becomes unstable and the roll and yaw motions grow exponentially at the same time under the following two conditions, Math. 9 and Math. 10. Such nonlinear instability is a phenomenon of double resonances, i.e. roll resonance in addition to yaw resonance.
wherein AP is the pitch response amplitude under the external pitch moment M21 cos(ω21t+α21); ω10=√{square root over (k1/Ix)} and ω30=√{square root over (k3/Iz)} are the roll and yaw natural frequencies, respectively. The nonlinear dynamics says that the pitch motion is stable until the pitch motion reaches the threshold values AP-TH given in Math. 9 or Math. 10. These threshold values show that the vehicle has two dangerous exciting frequencies in pitch. These two frequencies are either the addition of the roll natural frequency ω10 and the yaw natural frequency ω30 or the subtraction of them. At each frequency, the pitch amplitude threshold for pitch to become unstable is inversely proportional to the pitch exciting frequency, proportional to the square root of the product of the roll and yaw damping coefficients, and inversely proportional to the square root of the product of the difference between the yaw and pitch moments of inertia and the difference between the pitch and roll moments of inertia. In summary, there are three factors having effects on the pitch threshold and they are a) the roll and yaw damping, b) the pitch exciting frequency, and c) the distribution of moments of inertia. The most dominant one among these three factors is the damping effect since the damping coefficients could go to zero in certain circumstances, for example, aircraft yaw damper malfunction which makes the yaw damping become zero, or aircraft in stall condition which makes the roll damping become zero. When either the roll damping or the yaw damping is approaching to zero, the pitch threshold is approaching to zero as well and the pitch motion, even it is small but as long as larger than the threshold value, will become unstable and transfer energy to excite roll and yaw resonances. That is the root mechanism behind all these mysterious tragedies mentioned above. In the inventor's book detailed scientific proofs based on analytical, numerical, and experimental results have been given. The inventor's another patent application U.S. Ser. No. 16/153,883 is related to an apparatus used as a demonstrator in the book to demonstrate the phenomenon of nonlinear pitch instability. The inventor also filed another patent application U.S. Ser. No. 16/153,925 for a simulator to simulate the nonlinear dynamics of aircrafts.
The nonlinear instability is always tied with the rotational direction where the moment of inertia is the intermediate between the other two inertias. Depending on the mass distribution of an aircraft, it could have roll, pitch, or yaw nonlinear instability if the roll, pitch, or yaw moment of inertia is the intermediate one, respectively. For example, generally commercial jet aircrafts, like Boeing 737, 747, and A330 etc. will have nonlinear pitch instability problem and military transport aircrafts, like B-52 will have nonlinear roll instability problem.
As shown in Math. 9 and Math. 10, the nonlinear pitch instability thresholds are dependent only on aircraft flight state parameters, for example for pitch instability, like roll and yaw damping coefficients, roll and yaw natural frequencies, and the moments of inertia. Therefore it would be desirable to have a system and method that can calculate actual nonlinear instability threshold and to provide warning signal to pilots based on the real time measured flight parameters.
This invention is to provide the flight crew with situational awareness of the flight nonlinear instability status. It shows the crew what are the nonlinear coupling frequencies and periods, and gives warning signals to flight crew if the nonlinear instability threshold is approached or has been exceeded.
In one embodiment, a method is presented for identifying nonlinear pitch instability using current flight parameters. The current flight parameters are then used and compared with a pre-determined flight parameters stored on board to identify flight coefficients to determine the inertial coupling frequencies and periods. The nonlinear pitch instability threshold is calculated and compared with the current pitch response to determine whether a warning signal is generated or not.
In another embodiment, a method is presented for identifying nonlinear roll instability using current flight parameters. The current flight parameters are then used and compared with a pre-determined flight parameters stored on board to identify flight coefficients to determine the inertial coupling frequencies and periods. The nonlinear roll instability threshold is calculated and compared with the current roll response to determine whether a warning signal is generated or not.
In yet another embodiment, a method is presented for identifying nonlinear yaw instability using current flight parameters. The current flight parameters are then used and compared with a pre-determined flight parameters stored on board to identify flight coefficients to determine the inertial coupling frequencies and periods. The nonlinear yaw instability threshold is calculated and compared with the current yaw response to determine whether a warning signal is generated or not.
The features, functions, and advantages discussed above can be achieved independently in various embodiments or may be combined in yet other embodiments. Further details can be seen with reference to the following description and drawings.
The following text and figures set forth a detailed description of specific examples of the invention to teach those skilled in the art how to make and utilize the best mode of the invention.
Referring to
Referring to
The current flight state information is then passed to the module 102 which communicates with the flight state parameter module 103 as shown in
k1=Ixω102, k2=Iyω202, k3=Izω302. Math. 11
Next for the same preset flight state with the same pitch trimmed AOA, αT and the same preset flight path γ0 as above, pilot applies control inputs to modify the flight path angle to a new value γ and the angle of attack to a new value α. In general, γ is different with γ0 and α is different with αT. The new γ and α represent a flight state deviating from the preset state. In this condition, free decay tests are to be performed again. The time histories of the aircraft responses to a sharp and recognizable roll, pitch, and yaw inputs are to be recorded and analyzed to determine roll damping coefficient b1, pitch damping coefficient b2, and yaw damping coefficient b3, respectively. In summary, the restoring coefficients k1, k2, k3 are related to 103-1, 103-2, 103-3, 103-4, 103-5, 103-6, 103-7, 103-8, 103-9, 103-10, 103-11, and 103-12 as shown in
The relation of the preset flight path and the pitch trimmed angle of attack for a pitch up flight mode is illustrated in
The above damping coefficients and restoring coefficients may be provided as a function of flight parameters under a tabulated form, under empirical formulas, or some other appropriate forms which can be stored in a standalone computer or the flight management computer and can be accessed and used by the standalone computer or the flight management computer. If a current flight parameter falls in between two parameters in the pre-determined values, an interpolation may be used.
By comparing moments of inertia, the module 104 determines the nonlinear unstable axis which has the intermediate moment of inertia. Then the associated frequencies for that unstable axis are calculated using the restoring coefficients and the moments of inertia about the other two axes, respectively. For example, if the pitch moment of inertia is the intermediate then the nonlinear unstable axis is the pitch axis and the associated frequencies for unstable pitch axis are the roll and yaw natural frequencies which are calculated as ω10=√{square root over (k1/Ix)} and ω30=√{square root over (k3/Iz)}, respectively. In general, commercial passenger aircrafts have a pitch nonlinear unstable mode, such as Boeing 737, Airbus 300, and etc. For some military transportation aircrafts such as B-52, the nonlinear unstable axis is roll axis because the intermediate moment of inertia of these aircrafts is roll axis instead of pitch axis. In this case, the associated frequencies are pitch and yaw natural frequencies which are calculated as ω20=√{square root over (k2/Iy)} and ω30=√{square root over (k3/Iz)}, respectively. It is also possible to design an aircraft which has intermediate moment of inertia about yaw axis. Then for such case the associated frequencies become roll and pitch natural frequencies which are calculated in a similar way as above as shown in
The module 105 calculates the first and second inertial coupling frequencies and the corresponding periods. For example, for pitch nonlinear unstable mode, the first inertia coupling frequency and period are calculated as ω1st=ω10+ω30 and T1st=2π/ω1st, respectively and the second inertial coupling frequency and period are calculated as ω2nd=|ω10−ω3051 and T2nd=2π/ω2nd, respectively. For roll and yaw unstable cases, the corresponding frequencies and periods are calculated in a similar way as shown in
The module 106 calculates the nonlinear instability threshold as shown in
where βm is a pre-determined small positive number, for example, 0.0175 radian (1°) or other small number depending on aircraft size and type. This minimum threshold βm is chosen to prevent the threshold from going to zero. This minimum threshold is a safety margin which needs to be determined during flight tests of every aircraft for light turbulence which is assumed to occur on every flight and causes slight, erratic changes in attitude of roll, pitch, and yaw. For roll and yaw unstable cases, the minimum thresholds may be different from the above case of pitch instability and depending on aircraft size and type, but the fundamental mechanisms are same, i.e. it is needed to account for light turbulence in roll or yaw directions, respectively. The minimum thresholds for roll and yaw are also to be determined during flight tests.
During a flight, a flight state may deviate from a preset flight state and oscillate around the preset flight state. The motion response amplitude along the nonlinear unstable axis is calculated as shown in
It should be understood that the above descriptions may be implemented to many types of aircrafts, for example, such as a commercial aircraft, a military aircraft, an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV), or some other appropriate type of aircraft. It should also be understood that the detailed descriptions and specific examples, while indicating the preferred embodiment, are intended for purposes of illustration only and it should be understood that it may be embodied in a large variety of forms different from the one specifically shown and described without departing from the scope and spirit of the invention. It should be also understood that the invention is not limited to the specific features shown, but that the means and construction herein disclosed comprise a preferred form of putting the invention into effect, and the invention therefore claimed in any of its forms of modifications within the legitimate and valid scope of the appended claims.
| Number | Name | Date | Kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| 20030056588 | Fell | Mar 2003 | A1 |
| 20100318336 | Falangas | Dec 2010 | A1 |
| 20150203215 | Falangas | Jul 2015 | A1 |
| Entry |
|---|
| Schmidt et al, aircraft rock by interial coupling, atmospheric flight mechanics conference 1991 (Year: 1991). |
| Ananthkrishnan et al, Prevention of jump in intertia-coupled roll maneuvers of aircraft, 1993 (Year: 1993). |
| Nguyen, Nhan, Intertial force coupling to nonlinear aeroelasticity of flexible wing aircraft, 2016 (Year: 2016). |
| Number | Date | Country | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 20200116751 A1 | Apr 2020 | US |
