|
Items in cart [0] |
Questions? Call 888-624-8373 |
| [ Top of Page ] [ Home ] [ Contact Us ] [ Help ] [ The National Academies Home ] | ||
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page R1
-->
Aviation Safety And Pilot Control
Understanding and Preventing Unfavorable Pilot-Vehicle Interactions
Committee on the Effects of Aircraft-Pilot Coupling on Flight Safety
Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board
Commission on Engineering and Technical Systems
National Research Council
NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS
Washington, D.C.
1997
OCR for page R2
-->
NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the panel responsible for the report were chosen for their special competencies and with regard for appropriate balance.
This report has been reviewed by a group other than the authors according to procedures approved by a Report Review Committee consisting of members of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine.
The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Bruce M. Alberts is president of the National Academy of Sciences.
The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. William A. Wulf is interim president of the National Academy of Engineering.
The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Kenneth I. Shine is president of the Institute of Medicine.
The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy's purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Bruce M. Alberts and Dr. William A. Wulf are chairman and interim vice chairman, respectively, of the National Research Council.
This study was supported by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration under contract No. NASW-4938. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the view of the organizations or agencies that provided support for the project.
Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 97-65884
International Standard Book Number 0-309-05688-8
Additional copies are available for sale from:
National Academy Press
Box 285 2101 Constitution Ave., N.W. Washington, DC 20055
800-624-6242 202-334-3313 (in the Washington Metropolitan Area)
http://www.nap.edu
Copyright 1997 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Printed in the United States of America
OCR for page R3
-->
Committee on the Effects of Aircraft-Pilot Coupling on Flight Safety
DUANE T. McRUER (chair),
Systems Technology, Inc.
CARL S. DROSTE,
Lockheed Martin Tactical Aircraft Systems
R. JOHN HANSMAN, JR.,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
RONALD A. HESS,
University of California–Davis
DAVID P. LeMASTER,
Wright Laboratory
STUART MATTHEWS,
Flight Safety Foundation
JOHN D. McDONNELL,
McDonnell Douglas Aerospace
JAMES McWHA,
Boeing Commercial Airplane Group
WILLIAM W. MELVIN,
Air Line Pilots Association; Delta Air Lines
(retired)
RICHARD W. PEW,
BBN Corporation
Staff
ALAN ANGLEMAN, Study Director
JOANN CLAYTON-TOWNSEND, Director,
Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board
MARY MESZAROS, Senior Project Assistant
Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board Liaison
JOHN K. BUCKNER,
Lockheed Martin Tactical Aircraft Systems
(retired)
Technical Liaisons
RALPH A'HARRAH,
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
JIM ASHLEY,
Federal Aviation Administration
DAVID L. KEY,
U.S. Army
TOM LAWRENCE,
U.S. Navy
OCR for page R4
-->
Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board
JOHN D. WARNER (chair),
The Boeing Company, Seattle, Washington
STEVEN AFTERGOOD,
Federation of American Scientists, Washington, D.C.
GEORGE A. BEKEY,
University of Southern California, Los Angeles
GUION S. BLUFORD, JR.,
NYMA Incorporated, Brook Park, Ohio
RAYMOND S. COLLADAY,
Lockheed Martin, Denver, Colorado
BARBARA C. CORN, BC
Consulting Incorporated, Searcy, Arkansas
STEVEN D. DORFMAN,
Hughes Electronics Corp., Los Angeles, California
DONALD C. FRASER,
Boston University, Boston, Massachusetts
DANIEL HASTINGS,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge
FREDERICK HAUCK,
International Technology Underwriters, Bethesda, Maryland
WILLIAM H. HEISER,
United States Air Force Academy, Colorado Springs, Colorado
WILLIAM HOOVER,
U.S. Air Force
(retired),
Williamsburg, Virginia
BENJAMIN HUBERMAN,
Huberman Consulting Group, Washington, D.C.
FRANK E. MARBLE,
California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
C. JULIAN MAY,
Tech/Ops International Incorporated, Kennesaw, Georgia
GRACE M. ROBERTSON,
McDonnell Douglas, Long Beach, California
GEORGE SPRINGER,
Stanford University, Stanford, California
Staff
JOANN CLAYTON-TOWNSEND, Director
OCR for page R5
-->
Preface
Unfavorable aircraft-pilot coupling (APC) events include a broad set of undesirable—and sometimes hazardous—phenomena that are associated with less-than-ideal interactions between pilots and aircraft. As civil and military aircraft technologies advance, pilot-aircraft interactions are becoming more complex. Recently, there have been accidents and incidents attributed to adverse APC in military aircraft. In addition, APC has been implicated in some civilian incidents. In response to this situation, and at the request of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the National Research Council established the Committee on the Effects of Aircraft-Pilot Coupling on Flight Safety. This committee evaluated the current state of knowledge about adverse APC and processes that may be used to eliminate it from military and commercial aircraft.
The committee analyzed the information it collected and developed a set of findings and recommendations for consideration by the U.S. Air Force, Navy, and Army; National Aeronautics and Space Administration; and Federal Aviation Administration. In particular, the committee concluded that in the short term the risk posed by adverse APC could be reduced by increased awareness of APC possibilities and more disciplined application of existing tools and capabilities throughout the development, test, and certification process. However, new approaches are also needed to address the APC risk faced by many advanced aircraft designs. In order to develop new approaches, long-term efforts are needed in the area of APC assessment criteria, analysis tools, and simulation capabilities. (See Chapter 7 for a complete list of the committee's findings and recommendations.)
OCR for page R6
-->
The study committee met four times between September 1995 and June 1996. (See Appendix A for a list of committee members and their professional background.) To ensure that the committee's work included a broad range of perspectives, the second and third meetings included workshop presentations involving 38 outside individuals with experience in aircraft research, design, development, manufacture, test, and operations. The committee's outreach also extended internationally to France, Germany, Russia, Sweden, and the United Kingdom.
The committee wishes to thank all of its meeting participants, who are listed in Appendix B, for their contributions to the work of the committee. The committee also expresses special thanks for the assistance provided by each of its liaisons (see page iii).
DUANE T. McRUER
COMMITTEE CHAIR
OCR for page R7
-->
Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1
1
AIRCRAFT-PILOT COUPLING PROBLEMS: DEFINITIONS, DESCRIPTIONS, AND HISTORY
14
Introduction
14
Pilot-Vehicle Closed-Loop System
17
Necessary Conditions for Oscillatory Aircraft-Pilot Coupling Events
19
Historical Antecedents
22
Study Overview
26
2
VARIETIES OF AIRCRAFT-PILOT COUPLING EXPERIENCE
30
Introduction
30
Categories of Oscillatory Aircraft-Pilot Coupling Events
33
Nonlinear, Cliff-Like, Pilot-Involved Oscillations
37
Non-Oscillatory Aircraft-Pilot Coupling
47
Triggers
50
Case Studies of Recent Aircraft-Pilot Coupling Events in Fly-By-Wire Systems
55
3
AIRCRAFT-PILOT COUPLING AS A CURRENT PROBLEM IN AVIATION
81
Trends from a Review of Accidents and Incidents
82
Flight Data Recorders
84
Flight Operational Quality Assurance
85
Military Aircraft
86
Accident Investigations
87
OCR for page R8
-->
4
PRECLUDING ADVERSE AIRCRAFT-PILOT COUPLING EVENTS
88
Introduction
88
Lessons Learned
88
Recommended Processes for Identifying and Precluding Adverse Aircraft-Pilot Coupling Events
90
Technical Fixes
102
Summary of Future Considerations
103
5
SIMULATION AND ANALYSIS OF THE PILOT-VEHICLE SYSTEM
106
Ground and In-Flight Simulation
107
Simulation Types
108
Overview of Human Pilot Characteristics
118
Pilot Models and Pilot-Vehicle Analyses
120
6
CRITERIA FOR ASSESSING AIRCRAFT-PILOT COUPLING POTENTIAL
126
Prerequisites for Criteria
128
Prominent Assessment Criteria for Category I
129
Military Status and Trends
153
Criteria for Assessing Other Conditions
155
Conclusions
158
7
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
161
Chapter 1:Aircraft-Pilot Coupling Problems: Definitions, Descriptions, and History
161
Chapter 2:Varieties of Aircraft-Pilot Coupling Experience
162
Chapter 3:Aircraft-Pilot Coupling as a Current Problem in Aviation
163
Chapter 4:Precluding Adverse Aircraft-Pilot Coupling Events
164
Chapter 5:Simulation and Analysis of the Pilot-Vehicle System
165
Chapter 6:Criteria for Assessing Aircraft-Pilot Coupling Potential
167
APPENDICES
A BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCHES OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS
171
B PARTICIPANTS IN COMMITTEE MEETINGS
176
OCR for page R9
-->
C DETAILS OF AIRCRAFT-PILOT COUPLING EXAMPLES
181
D RESEARCH
192
ACRONYMS
197
GLOSSARY
199
REFERENCES
203
OCR for page R10
-->
Tables and Figures
TABLES
1-1a
Single Axis PIOs Associated with Extended Rigid Body Effective Aircraft Dynamics
23
1-1b
Single-Axis PIOs Associated with Extended Rigid Body Plus Mechanical Elaborations
23
1-1c
Single-Axis, Higher-Frequency PIOs
24
1-1d
Combined Three-Dimensional, Multi-Axis PIOs
24
1-2
Noteworthy APC Events Involving FBW Aircraft
26
2-1
Cross Section of Frequencies
35
4-1
Flying Qualities Requirements and Metrics
93
4-2
Suggested Tasks and Inputs for APC Evaluation
100
6-1
Idealized Rate-Command Controlled Element Characteristics
139
6-2
Prediction of PIO Susceptibility with Smith-Geddes Attitude-Dominant Type III Criterion for Operational and Test Aircraft
143
FIGURES
1-1
Flight recording of T-38 PIO
18
1-2
The pilot controlled-element system
20
1-3
Conditions associated with oscillatory APCs
21
1-4
Interacting constituents of oscillatory APCs
22
2-1
Taxonomy of APC phenomena
32
OCR for page R11
-->
2-2
Most common FCS locations of command gain shaping, rate limiters, and position limiters
40
2-3a
Surface actuator rate limiting effects for various input amplitudes in a closed-loop surface actuator system
41
2-3b
Surface actuator rate limiting effects for various input amplitudes showing linear system response times
43
2-3c
Surface actuator rate limiting effects for various input amplitudes showing near saturation response times
44
2-3d
Surface actuator rate limiting effects for various input amplitudes showing highly saturated response times
45
2-4
Example of command gain shaping for a nonlinear element
48
2-5
JAS 39 accident time history
50
2-6
JAS 39 accident cross plot of stick deflection in roll and pitch during a roll PIO and unintended pitch up maneuver
51
2-7
YF-22 accident time history
58
2-8
YF-22 pitch rate command stick gradients
59
2-9
Time history for 777 landing derotation, baseline control law
61
2-10
Normal mode elevator control law
62
2-11
Time history for 777 attitude tracking on runway, baseline control law
63
2-12
Time history for 777 attitude tracking on runway, secondary mode
64
2-13
Time history for 777 attitude tracking on runway, revised control law
66
2-14
Time history for 777 attitude tracking on runway, revised control law plus command filter
67
2-15
Bandwidth criteria applied to landing derotation, effect of 777 control law changes on pitch attitude/column position frequency response
68
2-16
Elevator/column gain and phase, effect of 777 control law changes on landing derotation
69
2-17
C-17 test aircraft lateral oscillations during approach to landing with hydraulic system #2 inoperative
72
2-18
C-17 test aircraft lateral oscillations during approach to landing with hydraulic system #2 inoperative, continued
73
2-19
A 320 incident time history
75
2-20
Response time analysis for the advanced digital optical control system demonstrator
77
2-21
Sample time history for a rotorcraft vertical landing task
77
2-22
Schematic drawing of a helicopter tracking a vehicle-mounted hover board
78
2-23
Helicopter lateral-position tracking task, velocity profile for the lateral vehicle displacement
78
2-24
Time history of the helicopter lateral-position tracking task with no added time delay
79
OCR for page R12
-->
2-25
Time history of the helicopter lateral-position tracking task with 100 msec of added time delay
79
2-26
Small-amplitude handling qualities criterion (target acquisition and tracking) from ADS-33D
80
4-1
Design process for avoiding adverse APC events
92
5-1
A comparison of NASA and U.S. Air Force simulators for principal piloting tasks, circa 1975
113
5-2
A PIO (APC) rating scale
114
5-3
A comparison of PIO ratings showing normal and offset landing tasks by the NASA Flight Simulator for Advanced Aircraft (FSAA) and the U.S. Air Force Total in-Flight Simulator (TIFS)
114
5-4
A comparison of PIO ratings for formation-flying by the NASA Flight Simulator for Advanced Aircraft (FSAA) and the U.S. Air Force Total In-Flight Simulator (TIFS)
115
5-5
A comparison of PIO ratings for demanding landing tasks by the NASA Vertical Motion Simulator (VMS) and the U.S. Air Force Total In-Flight Simulator (TIFS)
115
5-6
A feedback system involving the human pilot
119
5-7
A block diagram representation of the human pilot transfer function
122
5-8
A block diagram of an open-loop PVS
122
5-9
A block diagram of a closed-loop PVS
124
6-1
Definitions of aircraft pitch attitude bandwidth and phase delay
131
6-2
Aircraft-Bandwidth/Phase Delay/Dropback requirements for PIO resistance in terminal flight phases
134
6-3
Aircraft-Bandwidth/Phase Delay parameters as indicators of PIO susceptibility for sample operational and test aircraft
135
6-4
Bode and gain phase diagram presentations for Kc e-sτ/s
138
6-5
Gain/Phase Template, ω180/Average Phase Rate Boundaries
141
6-6
Correlation between Smith-Geddes criterion frequency and Have PIO flight data
146
6-7
Moscow Aviation Institute PIO boundaries
149
6-8
Neal-Smith trends with variation of effective delay for Kc e-sτ /s
150
6-9
Pitch rate overshoot and pitch attitude dropback
151
6-10
Tentative forbidden zones for Category II PIOs
158
C-1a
Bode and Nichols diagrams for a synchronous PVS of an aircraft with low susceptibility to oscillatory APC events
182
C-1b
Bode and Nichols diagrams for a synchronous PVS of an aircraft with high susceptibility to oscillatory APC events
183
C-2
Input amplitude-dependent stability boundaries as a function of command-path gain shaping ratio for a linear system gain margin δG M = 1.5
188
C-3
Time domain and transfer characteristics for fully developed rate limiting
190
