Patent Application
20100211312
1. Field of Art
The present invention relates to flight planning for aircraft, and more specifically, to determining optimal flight paths for an aircraft voyage based on conditions such as headwinds/tailwinds.
2. Description of the Related Art
Flight planning has been important to air travel since before the advent of fixed-wing aircraft. Determining the bearings and altitudes to be used based on parameters such as headwinds or tailwinds can be critical for efficient air travel. Other factors, such as air traffic or, in military applications, potential threats, may figure into planning as well.
Various approaches have been proposed in the past for determining flight plans based on parameters such as those mentioned above. Some military flight planning techniques permit mid-flight path changes to be made as threats (e.g., enemy positions) over the flight path become known. In this circumstance, a previously optimal flight path, based on considerations such as fuel usage and time constraints, may need to be changed due to “pop-up” threats that occur along the route. Traditional approaches involve diverting to avoid the threat and then rejoining the original path. One such approach uses dynamic programming techniques, specifically constructing a grid having a length oriented along a first axis connecting first and second positions of the aircraft, and a width corresponding to a predetermined width along a second axis perpendicular to the first. The costs of flying between adjacent cells formed by this grid are computed, as well as corresponding minimum and maximum heading limits, are used to determine the optimal flight path.
Another dynamic programming approach to flight planning determines a minimum cost airline flight path by transforming a set of predefined fix points for a flight from the Cartesian plane to a new coordinate system based on the great circle route between the origin and destination. A minimum cost flight path is determined from the origin to the destination through the fix points taking into account weather, payload and performance data.
Another known coordinate transformation uses “hazard polygons” that are moved during an aircraft's flight.
Still another approach addresses a simplified manner for addressing wind-related course changes using a neighboring optimal control approach. A transformation disclosed takes spherical coordinates and rotates them so that a nominal path great circle route is considered to lie on the equator, with the destination set as having a longitude angle of 0. A backward sweep method is then employed to obtain neighboring optimal control solution for a given wind condition.
Other approaches use probabilistic techniques to address deviation from planned flight paths due, for instance, to performance or weather conditions, and adjusting path fix points based on the statistics, for instance to reduce alerts regarding proximity of two aircraft.
Still other known approaches use heuristics to determine how best to expand nodes in a search for a path from an origin to a destination. In one known approach estimates of cost from a node to the destination are done optimistically so as to avoid discarding paths that may turn out to be optimal, even if their initial nodes are not favorable. For example, deviating course laterally and intentionally bucking a headwind for the first segment of a journey may in fact be optimal if it brings the aircraft to a location that provides strong tailwinds for the remainder of the journey. Consider a journey that is heading due north. An optimistic heuristic might use the strongest tailwind that exists anywhere on the planet.
Specifically, an algorithm known as A* that finds the lowest cost path from one point to another can be applied to flight planning problems. This algorithm uses a heuristic that is the sum of a path cost function (which may or may not be a heuristic itself) and an admissible heuristic relating to some estimate of “cost” to the destination, i.e., some measure of how far it is to the destination but not necessarily physical distance (e.g., cost could relate to some other related measure such as the length of time or the quantity of fuel needed to get to the destination, rather than being strictly limited to the physical distance to the destination). In accordance with A* routing, all potential routes from an origin to a destination are searched until the optimal path is found. The search begins with routes that appear most promising. A* routing is notable in that as potential routes are traversed, consideration is given both to the actual shortest distance from the origin to a waypoint under consideration, and to the heuristic-based estimate of distance from that waypoint to the destination. As noted above, certain routes may look like poor candidates at the outset, but be highly favorable toward the end of the journey, so optimistic (or “admissible”) heuristics are used in order to only discard paths that surely cannot be better than those that remain under consideration. Further information on A* routing may be found in the known literature, for example collected at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A*_algorithm.
One problem with such use of optimistic heuristics, however, is that in some instances they result in computational complexity that slows down flight planning. Because the heuristics used tend to be extremely optimistic, very few possible routes are discarded and the flight planner must evaluate a prohibitive number of alternatives to search for the best route. This can make such an approach to flight planning impractical.
In spite of the long-understood need to consider parameters such as ever-changing wind conditions in flight planning, there remains a need for a computationally effective approach to help in determining and updating a preferred flight path.
As disclosed herein, an optimization system is used that simplifies flight planning by including an optimistic heuristic that falsely assumes that the best available tailwind component for an strip roughly orthogonal to the nominal path is available to transit that strip.
In one embodiment, a simplifying assumption uses proportional scaling to account for strips that are not fully traversed.
In some embodiments, coordinate systems are rotated to as to define a set of coordinates in which the nominal flight path is along one of the coordinate axes.
In still other embodiments, a plurality of coordinate systems are predetermined, one of which is selected as a coordinate system applicable to a nominal flight path based on it having an axis most closely aligned with the nominal flight path.
The features and advantages described in the specification are not all inclusive and, in particular, many additional features and advantages will be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of the drawings, specification, and claims. Moreover, it should be noted that the language used in the specification has been principally selected for readability and instructional purposes, and may not have been selected to delineate or circumscribe the inventive subject matter.
The disclosed embodiments have other advantages and features which will be more readily apparent from the following detailed description, when taken in conjunction with the accompanying drawings, in which:
The figures and the following description relate to preferred embodiments by way of illustration only. It should be noted that from the following discussion, alternative embodiments of the structures and methods disclosed herein will be readily recognized as viable alternatives that may be employed without departing from the principles of the claimed invention.
In a typical embodiment, processor 202 is any general or specific purpose processor such as an INTEL Pentium compatible central processing unit (CPU), as applicable for the processing power required for any particular application. Storage device 208 is any device capable of holding large amounts of data, for instance a hard drive, compact disc read-only memory (CD-ROM), digital versatile disc (DVD), or combinations of such devices. Memory 206 holds instructions and data used by the processor 202. The pointing device, such as a mouse, track ball, light pen, touch-sensitive display, is used in combination with the keyboard to input data into the computer system 200. The graphics adapter displays images and other information on the display. The network connection 210 couples the computer system 200 to the user's network environment, such as a local or wide area network (not shown).
A program for flight planning according to one embodiment of the present invention is preferably stored on the storage device 208, loaded from memory 206, and executed on the processor 202. Alternatively, hardware or software modules are stored elsewhere within the computer system 200 for performing actions as described herein, or are accessed remotely via network connection 210.
The results of the program's operation are output to the display, and, as desired, to additional output devices and output formats (not shown), including, for example, printers, fax devices, and image or printer files. Additionally, if desired they are passed as input to other software processes, such as those for handling autopilots and other aspects of flight management.
For performance purposes, rather than being a general purpose computer, computer system 200 is implemented in some embodiments as a special-purpose computing device that is configured to accept as input wind data, for instance via network connection 210, and to determine optimal routing in near real time, for instance via on-board processors on an aircraft. In one embodiment, such on-board computer system 200 is linked to the aircraft's avionics system (not shown) so as to automatically make routing changes for the aircraft mid-flight in situations allowing such autonomous routing. In another embodiment, separate special-purpose computing devices are used to (i) accept, process and store wind data; and (ii) determine optimal routing.
Referring now to
Safety considerations sometimes present other constraints. For example, some aircraft are not rated for certain over-water operations and must remain within a specified maximum distance from locations suitable for emergency landings (e.g., according to conventional ETOPS rules).
As used herein, the term “great circle path” refers to whatever path would be optimal if conditions such as headwinds/tailwinds were not an issue. For purposes of illustration, consider route 312 to be one that would be considered optimal under certain conditions. In the situation illustrated in
At the outset, a great circle path from the aircraft's origin to destination is considered, and a coordinate system is constructed 105 that has the great circle path as one axis. Referring now also to
In other embodiments, new coordinate systems are selected in the manner described below when considering each intermediate waypoint with respect to the destination. Thus, analysis of an overall route in such an embodiment involves use of many individual coordinate systems.
Once an appropriate coordinate system is constructed 105, the next step is to define 110 appropriate strips roughly orthogonal to the great circle path from one location to another. Again for simplicity, as shown in
Next, longitudinal limits are defined 115 for the journey. For instance, in one embodiment a lateral deviation of 2500 nautical miles from the great circle path may be considered acceptable for a long-haul journey. In other embodiments, computational simplicity is facilitated by allowing a certain amount of deviation (e.g., a limit on total distance flown) from the great circle path. This deviation is not intended to necessarily reflect a truly expected deviation of the aircraft from the nominal path, but instead is simply used to help derive optimistic yet somewhat constrained heuristics that are relevant to determining an optimal route for the flight. In computer science, it is well known that searches can either miss optimal solutions or take longer to find them if they abandon paths that initially do not look promising. Thus, optimistic or “admissible” heuristics, which by definition never over-estimate the cost to reach a desired end point, are often used in searching. In application to aircraft routing, such techniques would, for instance, assume that the greatest tailwinds that exist anywhere on the planet might be present for a route under consideration. While such heuristics are surely optimistic, they are so optimistic that they significantly slow down search processing.
Continuing with an exemplary due north course, rather than taking the most favorable tailwind at any longitude for a given strip of latitude, a more reasonable yet still optimistic heuristic considers only nearby longitudes, i.e., those that might actually relate to a possible routing for the aircraft. Referring again specifically to
Whatever limits are placed on the longitudes to be considered, the next step is to create 120 a matrix of local wind vectors from the grid defined by the strips and longitudinal limits, such as the locations (e.g., 11) shown in
At that point, optimistic (or “admissible”) heuristics are applied 125 in a conventional manner. In one embodiment, the best “course made good” tailwind speed in any of the locations for a given strip of latitude is used to determine, for example, a minimum fuel required to transit the entire route. Referring again to
Depending on the particular application desired and the goals in routing (such as minimum fuel cost), certain additional simplifying assumptions are made. In one situation, sets of coordinate systems are defined in advance and the one that is closest for an origin/destination pair is used. This permits wind information to be cached in an a priori manner and avoids real-time processing requirements once a new flight is defined. Similarly, in one embodiment a conventional “snap to grid” approach is used in defining start and end points for a voyage. In a related aspect, proportional scaling is used to account for start and end points not matching up with the predefined coordinate's grid. Using limited optimistic heuristics as described herein requires far less processing overhead than using true “best case” heuristics.
Referring now to
One of skill in the art will realize that the invention is not limited to route planning for aircraft, but could equally well be applied to any other effort that requires costly or limited resources, such as the course of a cargo ship based on both winds and currents.
As used herein any reference to “one embodiment” or “an embodiment” means that a particular element, feature, structure, or characteristic described in connection with the embodiment is included in at least one embodiment. The appearances of the phrase “in one embodiment” in various places in the specification are not necessarily all referring to the same embodiment.
As used herein, the terms “comprises,” “comprising,” “includes,” “including,” “has,” “having” or any other variation thereof, are intended to cover a non-exclusive inclusion. For example, a process, method, article, or apparatus that comprises a list of elements is not necessarily limited to only those elements but may include other elements not expressly listed or inherent to such process, method, article, or apparatus. Further, unless expressly stated to the contrary, “or” refers to an inclusive or and not to an exclusive or. For example, a condition A or B is satisfied by any one of the following: A is true (or present) and B is false (or not present), A is false (or not present) and B is true (or present), and both A and B are true (or present).
In addition, the words “a” or “an” are employed to describe elements and components of the invention. This is done merely for convenience and to give a general sense of the invention. This description should be read to include one or at least one and the singular also includes the plural unless it is obvious that it is meant otherwise.
Upon reading this disclosure, those of skill in the art will appreciate still additional alternative structural and functional designs for a system and a method for flight planning and, more generally, other efforts that require costly or limited resources in a similar manner. Thus, while particular embodiments and applications have been illustrated and described, it is to be understood that the present invention is not limited to the precise construction and components disclosed herein and that various modifications, changes and variations which will be apparent to those skilled in the art may be made in the arrangement, operation and details of the method and apparatus of the present invention disclosed herein without departing from the spirit and scope of the invention as defined in the appended claims.
