The present invention relates to an aircraft terrain avoidance and alarm method and device, in particular for a transport plane.
It is known that such a device, for example of TAWS type (“Terrain Avoidance and Warning System”) or of GPWS type (“Ground Proximity Warning System”) is aimed at detecting any risk of collision of the aircraft with the surrounding terrain and at warning the crew when such a risk is detected, so that the latter can then implement a terrain avoidance maneuver. Such a device generally comprises:
Generally, said second means determines the avoidance trajectory (which is taken into account by the third means so as to detect a risk of collision with the terrain), by using a slope exhibiting a fixed and invariable value, in general 6° for a transport plane, regardless of the type of aircraft and regardless of its actual performance.
Of course, such a mode of calculation exhibits the risk of underestimating or overestimating the actual performance of the aircraft, this possibly causing overly late detections of risks of collision or false alarms. This mode of calculation is therefore not completely reliable.
Document EP-0 750 238 discloses a terrain avoidance device of the aforesaid type. This known device makes provision to determine two trajectories which are subsequently compared with the profile of the terrain overflown, one of said trajectories representing the predicted effective trajectory of the aircraft and the other trajectory possibly corresponding in particular to a predicted climb trajectory. This prior document makes provision to take account of maneuvering capabilities of the aircraft to predict these trajectories, without however indicating the way in which these trajectories are actually calculated or predicted.
The present invention relates to a aircraft terrain avoidance and alarm method, which makes it possible to remedy the aforesaid drawbacks.
For this purpose, according to the invention, said method is noteworthy in that:
Thus, by virtue of the invention, instead of using as stated above a fixed and invariant slope value, the avoidance trajectory is determined by taking account of the actual performance of the aircraft, by virtue of the characteristics of said database and by virtue of the measurements of said effective values. Consequently, the detection of a risk of collision with the terrain takes account of the effective capabilities of the aircraft, thereby making it possible in particular to avoid false alarms and to obtain particularly reliable monitoring. It will be noted that document EP-0 750 238 mentioned above does not make provision to determine and to use a slope (for an avoidance trajectory) which depends on the effective values of particular flight parameters.
Advantageously, to form said database, a plurality of values is determined for said slope, which are representative on each occasion of different values as regards said flight parameters. Preferably, said flight parameters comprise at least some of the following parameters of the aircraft:
Furthermore, advantageously, for at least one flight parameter, a predetermined fixed value is used to form said database, thereby making it possible to reduce the size of the database. In this case, preferably, use is made, as predetermined fixed value for a flight parameter, of the value of this flight parameter which exhibits the most unfavorable effect on the slope of the aircraft. By way of example, the centering of the aircraft can be fixed at the front limit value which is the most penalizing.
In a preferred embodiment, use is made, for the speed, of a stabilized minimum speed that is known and that the aircraft normally flies at during a standard terrain avoidance procedure following an alarm of risk of collision, that is to say a fixed value corresponding to a speed-wise protection value for flight controls of the aircraft.
In a variant applied to the monitoring of a low-altitude flight of an aircraft, use is advantageously made, for the speed, of a predetermined value corresponding to a speed of best slope, and not to a minimum speed as in the previous example.
Additionally, to form said database, in case of failure of an engine, the slope of the aircraft is deduced from a minimum slope representative of normal operation (failure-free) of all the engines of the aircraft and to which is applied a deduction dependent on said nominal failure. Preferably, said deduction is calculated by means of a polynomial function modeling said nominal slope (slope of the aircraft with all engines operational).
The present invention also relates to an aircraft terrain avoidance and alarm device, in particular for a transport plane, said device being of the type comprising:
It is known that generally said second means determines the avoidance trajectory, by calculating an avoidance slope at the current speed of the aircraft, which is greater than a minimum speed that the aircraft normally flies at during a standard terrain avoidance procedure following an alarm. Consequently, this avoidance slope is different from the slope which will actually be flown during the maneuver. Such a mode of calculation can be the cause of erroneous alarms, by initially underestimating the actual performance of the aircraft.
In particular to remedy these drawbacks, said device of the aforesaid type is noteworthy, according to the invention, in that it moreover comprises at least one database of performance of the aircraft, relating to an avoidance maneuver slope flyable by the aircraft, as a function of particular flight parameters, and a fifth means for determining in the course of a flight of the aircraft the effective values of said particular parameters, and in that said second means is formed in such a way as to determine said avoidance trajectory, as a function of cues received respectively from said database and from said fifth means.
The design of said database therefore takes account of a predictive capability as regards the climb performance of the aircraft so as to avoid the terrain. Moreover, the speed of the avoidance phase being predetermined (at a minimum speed, as specified hereinbelow) so as to subsequently provide the associated slope, one thus dispenses with the current speed of the aircraft (which is necessarily greater than said minimum speed), thereby making it possible to stabilize the avoidance slope calculated by the device in accordance with the invention and thus to avoid false alarms.
In a particular embodiment, the device in accordance with the invention comprises a plurality of such databases relating respectively to various categories of aircraft and a means of selection for selecting, from among these databases, the one which relates to the aircraft on which said device is mounted, said second means using cues from the database thus selected to determine said avoidance trajectory.
Each of said categories comprises:
The figures of the appended drawing will elucidate the manner in which the invention may be embodied. In these figures, identical references designate similar elements.
The device 1 in accordance with the invention and represented diagrammatically in
Such a device 1, for example of TAWS type (“terrain avoidance and warning system”) or of GPWS type “ground proximity warning system”), which is carried onboard the aircraft, comprises in standard fashion:
According to the invention:
Moreover, according to the invention, said database Bi, B1, B2, Bn is formed on the ground during a preliminary step, before a flight of the aircraft, in the manner specified hereinbelow.
In particular, to form said database Bi, B1, B2, Bn, a plurality of values of said slope is determined, representative respectively of a plurality of different values as regards said flight parameters. These flight parameters comprise parameters relating to flight characteristics (speed, mass, etc.) of the aircraft, parameters relating to systems (air conditioning, anti-icing, etc.) of the aircraft, and parameters relating to the environment (temperature), outside the aircraft. Preferably, said flight parameters comprise at least some of the following parameters relating to the aircraft:
In a particular embodiment, said slope is calculated in standard fashion, as a function of said flight parameters, on the basis of standard documentation for the performance of the aircraft (for example the flight manual), which arises out of models rejigged through flight trials.
Furthermore, for at least one of the aforesaid flight parameters, a predetermined fixed value is used to form said database Bi, B1, B2, Bn, thereby making it possible to reduce the size of the database Bi, B1, B2, Bn. In this case, preferably, use is made, as predetermined fixed value for a flight parameter, of the value of this flight parameter which exhibits the most unfavorable effect on the slope of the aircraft. By way of example, the centering of the aircraft can be fixed at the front limit value which is the most penalizing, and the air-bleed configurations (anti-icing and air conditioning) may be fixed in such a way as to remain conservative vis-à-vis the performance of the aircraft.
In a preferred embodiment, use is made, for the speed, of a fixed value corresponding to a speed-wise protection value for flight controls of the aircraft, that is to say a minimum speed that the aircraft normally flies at during a standard terrain avoidance maneuver following an alarm, for example a speed Vαmax (speed at maximum angle of incidence) or a speed VSW (of the “stall warning” type). More precisely, it is known that for aircraft, whose flight envelope is protected from stalling by standard computers, a standard avoidance maneuver leads to the aircraft being brought onto a climb slope corresponding to a minimum speed which is maintained by these computers so that the aircraft will not be able to go beyond the angle of incidence corresponding to this minimum speed. It is therefore this climb slope (stabilized) which has been determined initially for all possible conditions defined by the configurations of the aforesaid flight parameters (other than the speed) and has subsequently been modeled in such a way as to be integrated into the database Bi, B1, B2, Bn.
Thus, by virtue of the invention:
It will be noted moreover that a complementary solution of the present invention aims at modeling the maximum slopes flyable with engine failure(s), on the basis of the slope with all engines operational, and the addition of a (negative) slope deduction Δp which is modeled by a polynomial function. This modeling makes it possible to significantly reduce the size of the memory intended to receive the database Bi, B1, B2, Bn (memory size reduced by a coefficient 2 or 3 in principle). This slope deduction Δp can be expressed in the form:
Δp=K1·PO+K2
in which:
An extrapolated application of the invention described hereinabove may also be envisaged for a function of monitoring a low-altitude flight of an aircraft. The major difference as compared with the previous description is to do with the fact that the slopes modeled are no longer modeled for minimum speeds, but for slopes at a particular speed that is indicated hereinafter (with the condition: a failed engine). This time the aim of the modeling is to make the flight of the aircraft safe (during low-altitude flight) vis-à-vis an engine failure. Unlike the aforesaid terrain collision avoidance procedure, the procedure applicable in the case of an engine failure (during low-altitude flight) is aimed at bringing the aircraft to a speed of best slope. The expression a speed of best slope is understood to mean the speed which makes it possible to attain a maximum of altitude for a minimum distance, doing so without departing from the speed flight domain. On the other hand, the aforesaid principles remain the same, since the speed of best slope is a speed which is predetermined, as a function of at least some of the aforesaid flight parameters (mass, altitude, etc.).
It will be noted that the performance database Bi, B1, B2, Bn makes it possible to calculate in real time the aircraft's capabilities of avoiding, by going above it, any obstacle which lies ahead of it and/or along the flight plan followed. Thus, the device 1 in accordance with the invention determines the avoidance trajectory by taking account of the effective performance of the aircraft, by virtue of the characteristics of said database Bi, B1, B2, Bn and by virtue of the measurements of said effective values. Consequently, the detection of a risk of collision with the terrain takes account of the effective capabilities of the aircraft, thereby making it possible in particular to avoid false alarms and to obtain particularly reliable monitoring.
In a particular embodiment represented in
Each of said categories of aircraft comprises either a single type of aircraft (a category then corresponds to a type), or a set of types of aircraft exhibiting for example substantially equivalent performance and grouped together into one and the same category (each category then comprises several types).
Preferably, the selection of the database representative of the aircraft, which is implemented by the means of selection 13, is carried out by a pin programming (that is to say with terminals of a connector between the aircraft and the device 1, corresponding to 0 or 1 logic levels depending on the category of aircraft). This makes it possible to have a single type of equipment (device 1) for all the aircraft of different categories (or types) considered, this equipment thus determining by itself the category of aircraft on which it is installed. This programming may alternatively be carried out in a software manner: the means of selection 13 receives for example through a data link a digital value which depends on the category of aircraft and it makes the selection as a function of this digital value received.
Number | Date | Country | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
04 12067 | Nov 2004 | FR | national |
Filing Document | Filing Date | Country | Kind | 371c Date |
---|---|---|---|---|
PCT/FR2005/002803 | 11/10/2005 | WO | 00 | 5/11/2007 |
Publishing Document | Publishing Date | Country | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
WO2006/051220 | 5/18/2006 | WO | A |
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
3752967 | Vietor | Aug 1973 | A |
4675823 | Noland | Jun 1987 | A |
4924401 | Bice et al. | May 1990 | A |
5608392 | Faivre et al. | Mar 1997 | A |
5839080 | Muller et al. | Nov 1998 | A |
5892416 | Unami et al. | Apr 1999 | A |
5892462 | Tran | Apr 1999 | A |
6038498 | Briffe et al. | Mar 2000 | A |
6057786 | Briffe et al. | May 2000 | A |
6088654 | Lepere et al. | Jul 2000 | A |
6122570 | Muller et al. | Sep 2000 | A |
6138060 | Conner et al. | Oct 2000 | A |
6163744 | Onken et al. | Dec 2000 | A |
6219592 | Muller et al. | Apr 2001 | B1 |
6292721 | Conner et al. | Sep 2001 | B1 |
6347263 | Johnson et al. | Feb 2002 | B1 |
6606034 | Muller et al. | Aug 2003 | B1 |
6691004 | Johnson et al. | Feb 2004 | B2 |
6710723 | Muller et al. | Mar 2004 | B2 |
6983206 | Conner et al. | Jan 2006 | B2 |
7064680 | Reynolds et al. | Jun 2006 | B2 |
7079951 | Conner et al. | Jul 2006 | B2 |
7089090 | Artini et al. | Aug 2006 | B2 |
7206698 | Conner et al. | Apr 2007 | B2 |
7363145 | Conner et al. | Apr 2008 | B2 |
7493197 | Bitar et al. | Feb 2009 | B2 |
7570177 | Reynolds et al. | Aug 2009 | B2 |
7587278 | Poe et al. | Sep 2009 | B2 |
7702461 | Conner et al. | Apr 2010 | B2 |
7772994 | He | Aug 2010 | B2 |
20040030465 | Conner et al. | Feb 2004 | A1 |
20050273221 | Artini et al. | Dec 2005 | A1 |
20060097895 | Reynolds et al. | May 2006 | A1 |
20060290531 | Reynolds et al. | Dec 2006 | A1 |
20080169941 | He | Jul 2008 | A1 |
20100042273 | Meunier et al. | Feb 2010 | A1 |
20100125381 | Botargues et al. | May 2010 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
0750238 | Dec 1996 | EP |
0928952 | Jul 1999 | EP |
1318492 | Jun 2003 | EP |
1859428 | Jan 2010 | EP |
1783572 | Apr 2010 | EP |
1944580 | Jul 2010 | EP |
2905756 | Mar 2008 | FR |
2938683 | May 2010 | FR |
WO 2006097592 | Sep 2006 | WO |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20090076728 A1 | Mar 2009 | US |