Generalized Automatic and Augmented

Manual Flight Control

Berlin Technical University Colloquium May 19, 2006

Anthony A. Lambregts
FAA Chief Scientist Flight Guidance and Control
[email protected]
Tel 425-917-6581
 Overview

• Automatic Flight Controls - State of the Art

• automation issues
• incident and accidents
• requirements
• traditional design process
• man-machine interfaces
• FAA Safety Role
• Regulations & Certification; FAR updates - high lights
• Generalized MIMO Control
• Total Energy Control System (TECS)
• Total Heading Control System (THCS)
• Condor Application
• Fly By Wire Augmented Manual Control
 State of the Art
Flight Guidance & Control

stick display

throttle

δe
clutch
Autopilot servo Actuator
Airplane
sensors clutch
Autothrottle servo FADEC Engine
ΔT
 Automation Safety
Accidents & Incidents
• China Airlines B747 spiral dive after engine failure
• China Airlines A300 crash at Nagoya, Japan
• Air Inter A320 crash near Strasbourg, France
• American Airlines B757 crash neat Cali, Columbia
• Tarom A310 crash near Bucharest, Rumania
• Air France A320 crash near Habsheim France
• Britannia Airways B757 speed loss during FLCH
• British Airways B747 speed loss during FLCH
• Airbus A330 crash near Toulouse, France
 Accident and Incidents
Scenarios
• Pilot fails to monitor autopilot operation (Mexicana DC10)
Autopilot stalls airplane
• A/P roll control saturation, engine out (China Airlines B747)
• unexpected high altitude automatic disengage, out-of-trim,
pilot over controls (MD11)
• imperceptible airplane slow roll response, due to A/P
sensor failure without proper alert (Evergreen 747)
• A/P reaches roll authority limit in icing, / disconnects
without timely warning, stall (Embrair Comair, Detroit)
• Pilot tries to take manual control, A/P remains engaged,
overrides pilot (China Airlines A300, Nagoya)
• Pilot overcontrols rudder, after mild Wake Vortex
encounter. Vertical Stabilizer fails (AA A300, New York)
 Typical Transport Airplane
Flight Guidance & Control System
as many as 8 LRUs

FMS Dual
• highly complex designs • Mission Planning
• historically evolved subsystems • Navigation
• extensive functional overlap • Performance
• operational inconsistencies • Altitude
• Thrust • Heading
• incomplete envelope Rating
• V-Path
protection
• Speed • H-Path
• SISO control
• Vert. Spd
• little or no • Thrust Limiting • Autoland
• Envelope
standardization Single • Flare Retard Protect.

Autothrottle Autopilot
Triple
Yaw Damper
Dual
 Automation Safety Issues

• role and expectations of pilot in automated aircraft

• automation - should not induce false sense of security
• pilot expects basic operational safety
• crew difficulty of keeping abreast of automatic operations
• operational complexities: current designs not pilot-like
• situation awareness :
• mode annunciation /caution and warnings
• recognizing / managing abnormal conditions
• predictability: when, how, why things happen
• mixing manual & automatic can defeat basic safety features
• design
• SISO control modes: can result in loss of control
• poor man-machine interfaces
• correct level of automation: keeping pilot “in the loop”
• adequacy of initial and recurrent training
 Operational Complexity

• Who is in control? The pilot, FMS, autopilot, autothrottle?

• too many overlapping systems, modes , sub modes
• what is the system doing, what will it do next?
• crew confusion!
• inconsistent operations and performance:
• different modes, different results: automation surprises!
• complex mode logic, e.g. Flight Level Change, VNAV
• unsuitable man-machine interfaces,
• e.g. attention/ procedure intensive CDU keyboard
• inadequate mode annunciation /caution and warnings
• when should pilot intervene, or take over
• pilots putting too much trust in low integrity single
channel designs, not aware their limitations
 Design Complexity

• historic systems evolution has led to

• new functions added-ons with each generation
• e.g. GLS on 737 NG: 11 LRUs involved!
• old problems “solved” by new modes / submodes
• e.g. Flight Level Change, VNAV, Thrust modes
• automation fragmentation into subsystems
• autopilot, autothrottle, FMS, SAS, FBW
• each subsystem handled by different organization
• design of each function approached as new problem
• SISO control : integration difficulties
• modes / sub modes cobbled together by intractable
mode logic
• mix of old and new technologies
• digital hardware with analog architectures!
• no overall design & integration strategy!
Design Requirements “Creep”
on a Recent AFCS Program

Successive Spec Revisions…..

B-777 Avionics Architecture
 Flight Guidance and Control
Design Process

• 100 year evolution of systems & subsystems

• more capabilities with each generation
• most functions “Non-Flight Critical”
• only Autoland and manual control
considered “Flight Critical”
• new technologies/ old control strategies
• analog to digital / mechanical to FBW
• introduction of Augmented Manual Control
• Single Input / Single Output retained
• no certified Multi-Variable designs
• Major Issues:
• outdated Requirements and Design Approaches
 Single-Axis SISO Control

• Single axis SISO automatic control modes have

been the standard since earliest days of automation
• It works…. most of the time, however….
• stability and performance cannot be guaranteed:
• loss of control possible, e.g. vert path modes
• full time pilot monitoring required!
•SISO control is root-cause of most automation complaints
• single controller input not only changes intended variable, but also
causes unintended responses of other variables:
• need other controller inputs to suppress unintended control
coupling errors
• poor damping, high control activity
• mode proliferation & complexities, operational inconsistencies and
pilot confusion
 BASIC AIRPLANE CHARACTERISTICS:
THRUST AND DRAG AS FUNCTION OF SPEED

Thrust Trim Drag

Unstable Speed
Trim Point
Trust, Stable T P
Drag

Power
Setting
Back Front
Side Side

Stall Point of Speed

Speed Neutral Stability
 FUTURE SYSTEMS REQUIREMENTS

• Generalized all-encompassing MIMO control strategy for

all automatic and augmented manual modes
• up-front integration of functions
• pitch/thrust control
• roll/yaw control (including rudder) - inherent
• yaw damping /turn coordination
• thrust asymmetry compensation
• improved failure detection, identification and isolation
• envelope protection
• airspeed, normal load factor, angle of attack, roll angle
 FUTURE FG&C SYSTEMS DESIGN OBJECTIVES

• large cost reductions, achievable through

• reduced system complexity, less maintenance
• faster system development cycle
• design reusability- lower risk
• reduced customization
• standard off-the-shelf hardware
• less lab/flight testing
• reduction in pilot training need
• automation safety improvements
 Future FG&C System Architecture

FMC
Flight planning Strategic
• Navigation Airline Operations
• Path Definition
Oriented Functions
CDU • Performance Predict.

MCP
T-NAV V-NAV GS LOC L-NAV Control Targets
VAR
340 .712 24500
00 VARIABLE 0.0 137 135
VMAX
ALT GA
ALT

FG&C
IAS MACH FPA TRACK HEAD
HOLD

Tactical Automatic &

ACQ

VMIN

• Airspeed/ Mach
FBW augmented manual
THRUST MANUAL P-R-Y MANUAL

• Altitude/Vertical Spd
• Rational Function • Heading/Track Control Modes and
Partitioning • Loc / GS, V-Nav / L-Nav Safety Functions
• Envelope Protection
• No Function Overlap • FBW Manual Mode
• Common Control Strategy
• Simplified Reusable Design
 FAA Role

• Safety and oversight of Aviation Safety though

• Federal Aviation Airworthiness Regulations (FARs)
• high level generic design requirements
• some specific detailed “Special Conditions”
• Aircraft Design Certification & Production oversight
• Aircraft Operations and Maintenance oversight
• Pilot training/licensing
• cooperative safety initiatives with Industry and
Research Establishments:
• FAA/NASA Aviation Safety Program (ASP)
• Commercial Aviation Safety Team (CAST)
all have raised awareness of need for better regulations & design :
• Updated FAR and AC 25.1329
 Updated FAR and AC 25.1329

• Coverage: Autopilot, Autothrust and Flight Director (not FMS)

• Key new requirements:
• Vertical Modes preferred operational characteristics
• engage/disengage/ mode switching transients
• warning/alert for autopilot and autothrottle disengage
• manual override must not create unsafe condition
• significant override force should disconnect autopilot
• speed envelope protection (as a minimum crew alert)
• logical man-machine interfaces to minimize crew error
and confusion
• automatic trimming in opposition to pilot input prohibited
• prevent “jack knifing” elevator/stabilizer
• trim on elevator position, not stick force
 Generalized Functionally Integrated
Multi-Axes Control

• Automatic FG&C has contributed in a major way to flight safety

• Future FG&C systems can further enhance flight safety, operational

effectiveness and reduce system costs through
• Generalized Multi-Input / Multi-Output (MIMO) control strategy
• pilot-like control, used for all control modes
• automatic
• augmented manual
• envelope protection
• reduced mode complexity
• fewer Up-Front integrated modes
• simpler more intuitive man-machine interfaces
• Mode Control Panel (MCP)
• advanced displays ( e.g. SVS Terrain, HITS, FPA symbology
 Generalized Control Concept

Airplane independent design Airplane tailored design

Targets

Guidance Innerloop
Control
Error Force and Airplane
Commands
Normalization Moment
Coordination
(Any Mode) Control

IRU
Feedback Signal Air
Synthesis Data
Designed to provide: Nav/
• Decoupled Control
Guid
• Standard Trajectory Dynamics
 TECS/THCS Research Project

„ Need for safer/more effectively integrated FG&C system was recognized

in late seventies during NASA TCV program
„ Identified Root Cause of most FG&C System Deficiencies

„ Peace meal mode-by-mode systems evolution

„ SIS0 design
„ NASA /Boeing Research Program, initiated in 1979, resulted in
„ Total Energy Control System (TECS)

„ Generalized energy based MIMO Flight Path & Speed Control

„ Detailed system development & extensive Pilot-In-The-Loop

simulator evaluations (1980-1985)

„ Validated by Flight Test & In-flight demonstrations (1985)

„ Generalized integrated lateral directional control concept was developed

under DARPA/Boeing Condor program (1985-1990), resulting in
„ Total Heading Control System (THCS)
 Energy based Longitudinal Control

• Responses to elevator and throttle

Thrust are coupled in speed and altitude
Altitude
Control
• Pilots have learned through training to
decouple flight path and speed control

• Current automatic control modes fail

Trim Speed to account for this control coupling:
Point its operation is like giving
Elevator - throttle to one pilot to control speed
Control - elevator to other pilot to control flight path

• Elevator and thrust control are ~orthogonal

γ +v/g
}
This Energy Strategy used to
• Throttle controls Total Energy Rate: achieve “pilot-like quality”
• Elevator controls Energy Distribution: γ −v/g in automatic control
 Flight Dynamics - Energy Control
Relationships

v
• Thrust REQ = W ( + sin γ ) + Drag
g
• current autothrottles neglect largest term: Wsinγ
• trim thrust in level flight is equal to Drag
1 W 2
• Et = W ⋅ h + ⋅ ⋅ V
2 g
v E t
• thrust changes produce W ( + sin γ ) =
g V
v
• elevator produces energy redistribution W ( − sin γ )
g
• conclusion: energy is the right control integration strategy
 Total Energy Control System
(TECS)
• concept
• thrust controls Total Energy requirement
• elevator controls distribution of energy
• result: generalized multi-input / multi-output control strategy
•speed /flight path mode errors are normalized into
energy quantity, fed forward to throttle and elevator:
• provides decoupled command responses
• consistent/energy efficient operation in all modes
• control priority when thrust limits:
• generally speed control has priority
• exception: glide slope / flare mode
• Vmin/Vmax envelope always protected
• Vcmd limited to Vmin/Vmax
• control authority allocation: handles complex maneuvers
 Generalized Integrated Automatic
and Manual FBW Control

.
COLUMN
MODE CONTROL THROTTLE

PANEL

CDU INTEGRATED FLIGHT GUIDANCE FEED FORWARD

& CONTROL COMPUTER COMMANDS
PROCESSING

FMC PATH MODES

γ C
E
THRUST
FEEDBACK SCALING E ENGINE
C
NORMALIZATION
COMMANDS
IRU v C
COORDINATION
SPEED MODES g PITCH ELEVATOR
FEEDBACK INNER ACTUATOR
ADC NORMALIZATION LOOP
 TECS Functional Architecture
and Mode Hierarchy
energy control energy rate control
Altitude V V
Manual FBW
D
Glide Slope D D
D
Kh .. D D
D
Rate
Limit D D D γc
D D
Vert. Path
D D
T
c
Flight path Generalized
Angle Go Around Thrust and
Vmax Elevator
Flare
Commands
Kv 1/g Coordination
IAS
D D D δe
D D D
Mach Kv 1/g
Rate
D D D v c
D Limit
D _c
Time Nav V
g
Vmin Kv 1/g
 TECS Core Algorithm
Energy Rate Control

Airplane independent design Airplane tailored design

KTI
γc +_ +
+
+
+
Engine
Engine T
S Control

(E T )S ε N
KTP Weight

γ Specific Net Thrust

+
_
2-K Command
v_ K +
_
g
(TLIM). (SPEED PR) Pitch Attitude Command
(E D )S KEP (typically)
ε N

v_ c KEI Pitch

δe
_ _
+

+ + Innerloop Actuator
+

g S Control
(TLIM). (PATH PRIORTY)
 Control Authority Allocation
Example
.
• Maneuver Authority = V ( g— + γ )
.
• During climb at Tmax , Vc /g limited to
.
(
.5 — )
V + γ , allowing speed cmd execution by
g
reducing climb gradient temporarily by half

• During descent at Tmin , V/g is limited to

.
(
1.0 — )
V + γ , allowing speed reduction
g
by temporary level off
 Envelope Protection Functions

• Airspeed: keep between Vmin and Vmax, preferably at IAScmd

• Solution can get very complex in traditional systems
• requires mode switching & crew alerting
• Normal Load Factor (nz):
• automatic modes: |nz| < .1 for passenger comfort
• FBW manual mode:
• 0 < nz < (nz)structural limit
• low speed: nz < (nz) α-limit ; (nz) α-limit = (Ve/Vestall-1g)2
• Angle of Attack (α) limit: implicit if nz and Airspeed protected
• Bank Angle: bank limit depends on mode & flight condition
• Sideslip (β) limiting: possible in some FBW manual designs
TECS/THCS Mode Control Panel Concept
with Integrated ATC data link Functions
Advanced Displays
 TECS Digital FCC / Throttle /FADEC
Interface Concept

throttles

s s A to D Engine T
FADEC

servo

Tcmd
No of
Weight oper
engines IO Engine T
Engine
FADEC
failure
FCC logic
 Total Heading
Lateral-Directional Control Strategy
Design approach analogous to TECS:
• aileron control sum of heading and sideslip errors
• rudder controls difference between heading and sideslip errors

Resulting Total Heading Control System (THCS) algorithm provides

• full-time coordinated innerloop roll/yaw control (THCS Core)
• yaw damping
• turn coordination
• engine-out thrust asymmetry compensation / δr & δa trim
• envelope protection (bank angle & sideslip)
• all outerloop modes
• automatic modes (Heading/Track angle, LOC, LNAV)
• augmented manual mode
• decrab / flat turn capability
• consistent performance - all modes / all flight conditions
 THCS Functional Architecture
and Mode Hierarchy

Track Angle
L-Nav
Command
D D Drift
Angle
D ψ
D D
D
Ky .. Corr
D Dc Kψ +
Roll Attitude

+
D

+
_ _ + Command
Heading
Command
D Generalized
Loc V ψ .
ψ D Roll Attitude
and Yaw
Track Angle . Rate
Command β β D Commands
Coordination
Cross Track D
Velocity Cmd
Sideslip
_ _ _ Yaw Rate
Kβ

+
Cross Track
+

+
Command Command
Deviation βc
 THCS Core Algorithm

Airplane independent design Airplane tailored design

ψ ψ φ p

_ _ _ _
g VTrue KRI
ψ + Kψ + Kφ Kp -1 Actuator
δa

+
+

+
c VTrue + g S
D
ψ col D φc f(q )c

f(q )c
βc D ψc
il
D
g +
δr
KYI
βc Kβ + Kψ -1 Actuator
+
+

_
_ VTrue _ S _

β β ψ
TECS and THCS Application on Condor
The Condor Team
 Fly-By-Wire Design

• Definition: Airplane control concept whereby surfaces commanded

through electrical wires
• Sought benefits:
– Weight reduction – elimonation of mechanical systems
– Drag reduction - Optimized aerodynamic performance by Relaxed
Static Stability
– Standardized / improved handling qualities through SAS and CAS
– Cost reductions
• Improved fuel economy
• Reduced pilot training (common type rating)
• Design commonality/design cycle time reduction
• Reduced maintenance
 FBW Functional Architecture

stick throttle
display

ΔT
FLIGHT Inter
feel system engine
CONTROL face
trim Airplane
up COMPUTER δe
actuator
down
actuator δS
 FBW Design Opportunities

• simplify operations concept

• simplify hardware architecture and design
• shedding historically accumulated “baggage”,
e.g. design features typically belonging to
previous generations of technologies:
• complex feel systems
• column, wheel back-drive systems
• stick shaker, stick pusher
• individual actuator loop closure - Force Fight
• Instead of designing Band-Aids to make it possible for the
pilot to live with the vagaries in the system, the FBW system
should eliminate these vagaries (and Band-Aids)
 Major FBW Design Issues

• Controllers - Column & Wheel versus Sidestick

• Feel system - Passive (e.g. spring) or Active (expensive !)
• Control augmentation - Algorithm response type
• simple or none - little or no HQ advantages
• stability/command – substantial benefits possible
• more complex/costly – many issues
• Handling Qualities: what HQ, how best achieved
• envelope protection - major safety benefit !
• Good design enhances pilot control authority
• mode changes takeoff/landing
• Actuators: loop closure, e.g. central or remote loop closure
• Redundancy architecture & component reliability
 Handling Qualities

Definition: The conglomerate of characteristics and features

that facilitate the execution of a specific flight
control task; includes display and feel characteristics
• good HQ requires design attributes appropriate to control
task (e.g. pitch attitude, FPA, or altitude control)
• each task has a finite time allotment or expectation for
its completion (bandwidth requirement)
• direct control of “slow variables” requires special design
attributes (e.g.FPA response augmentation & display)
• control harmony is achieved when the pilot can execute
the task without undue stress and conscious effort
 FBW Control
Response Attributes for Good HQ

Desired Attributes:
Response K • “K/S”- like response
Theta, FPA S • low response lag τ
• correct sensitivity K
Lag τ • good damping
Sensitivity (slope) • no overshoot
• control harmony with
other variables (θ, γ, nz)
Input δcol • consistency between
flight conditions

Time
NOTE: signal K δcol can serve as the cmd reference
S
 FBW Control Algorithm Types

• Pitch:
• pitch attitude rate command (+ pitch attitude hold)
• nz-command
• proportional angle of attack (AOA) command
• C*= nz command / Vertical Speed hold
• FPA rate command / FPA hold
• Roll: roll rate command / roll attitude hold
+ heading or track hold for bank angle < Xo

• Yaw: sideslip command proportional to pedal

Given sufficient know-how, all of these concepts can be

made to perform well : the devil is in the details!
 Basic FBW System Example
Embraer RJ-170 / DO-728 concept

stick
Actuator
Pos sensor
Electronics
Actuator δe
Passive Feel
default
Autopilot
Default
servo Gains
clutch
Airspeed Gain Sched
AOA limiting
Air Data
Modular
Avionics
IRU Units Autopilot cmds
 Raytheon Low Cost GA FBW Concept
Bonanza Flight Demo System
display
stick throttle

sensor
clutch

Vcmd FCC ΔT
servo engine
Trim Decoupled
sensor
Control Airpl
Up FPAcmd
Algorithm servo
δe
Down

clutch

• Stick commands proportional FPA; Throttle commands speed

 Rationale For Low End GA FBW

• Eliminate most low pilot skill related accidents

• stall, spin
• Loss of Control due to spatial disorientation
• Lack of IMC flight skills (inadvertent weather)
• Accept new FBW system related accidents, but lower overall rate

Approach:
• embedded envelope protection functions
• low cost FBW design strategy:
• simple control algorithm
• simple high reliability components
• dual sensor set, computer and data bus
• basic redundancy and FDIR strategies, e.g.
• single servo on split surfaces
 C* Design Concept

stick throttle

ΔT
KS FF engine
shaping
C*cmd Airplane
δe
+ KI
act.
_ comp ACE
S
C*
Vc o q
++ g
nz pilot
FCC
 C* Morphed into FPA rate cmd/hold

throttle
stick
Prefilter KFF ΔT
engine
Airplane
KI
γ cmd
δe
+_ +_ Kθ ++_ Kq actu
S
q
Kγ θ
γ

• responses identical to original C*, if gains are equivalent

• fewer, simpler sensors
• no pilot-out-of-the-loop control reference drift
• still need extensive flight condition tuning
• missing: integral control of γ-error
 Augmented Manual Control Algorithm
Design Objectives

• produce a generalized reusable design with

• generic innerloop, shared with automatic modes
• integral feedback control, to prevent response droop
• final dynamics = classical airplane with ideal constant speed HQ:
θ K stick (τ nS + 1) K (τ n1S + 1)(τ n2S + 1)
= = stick
δstick S {(1/ωSP )S + (2ζ SP /ωSP )S + 1}
2 2
S {(1/ωSP )S + (2ζ SP / ωSP )S + 1}(τ dS + 1)
2 2

γ K stick (K FFPS2 + K FFIS + 1)

=
δstick S {(1/K q K θ K I )S3 + (1/K θ K I )S2 + (1/K I )S + 1}(τ θ2 S + 1)
• no undesirable response variability with flight condition
• responses decoupled from airspeed - by autothrust
• tracking of Control Reference when pilot out of the loop, e.g.
• pitch/roll attitude
• flight path angle (preferred – minimizes workload)
 Proposed Design Methodology for
FBW Control Algorithms
Desired:
• systematic/reliable process, producing desired results:
• generalized/reusable design – minimal application & Flt Condition
adaptation
Approach:
Step 1: Stability Augmentation using Static Inversion
ƒ eliminates flight condition dependencies, gain schedules
ƒ defines basic SP innerloop characteristics: ω, ζ
Step 2: Add Integral Feedback loop
ƒ “retrims” airplane - eliminates SS command response droop
Step 3: Add Command Augmentation Feed Forward Paths
ƒ shapes response to pilot control inputs, as desired
ƒ provides “Hold” function for pilot established command
 TECS FPA Control Algorithm
Implementation
Feed Forward
stick
γ Augmentation
Control
1
K
. S γc
Stick

γc

Airplane
FPA
Feedback Invariant
Static
δe Short θ 1
Control Short Period Period
Augment. design
Inversion
Dyn. τθ2 S + 1

γ Pitch rate
Pitch attitude
FPA
 Pilot Induced Oscillation
Avoidance

• pilot in the loop control requirements

• bandwidth - appropriate to the task
• response predictability
• linearity highly desirable
• suitable controller forces & displacements
• display(s) – appropriate to pilot task
• overall system design harmony - need
• adequate control algorithm bandwidth
• adequate actuator bandwidth and rate limits
• correct controller sensitivity & authority
• matching of front-end and back-end design
• display dynamics appropriate for pilot loop closure
Questions??