Automated
Takeoff and Landing
Scott
E. Leishman
ASCI
638- Human Factors in Unmanned Aero Sys
Assignment
6.6
Embry-Riddle
Aeronautical University-Worldwide
January
3, 2017
Automated System
Automation is a technology that most of us
have waited on, because it allows more time to focus on other intensive
objectives. This technology is continuously evolving and is predominant in most
unmanned aircraft systems. One area that appears to be significant in regards
to automation is the realm of automated takeoff and landing, which requires
very little if any human intervention. This discussion will review two types of
aircraft, one for the manned realm (Airbus A-320) and one for the unmanned
realm (the K-MAX unmanned aircraft system (UAS)).
Airbus
A-320
The
Airbus A-320 has the capability to be fully automated in its landing, to
include the ability to steer the aircraft on the ground, as well as the ability
to bring the aircraft to a halt, via an automated brake system (SKYbrary, 2016).
This aircraft comes equipped with dual autopilots and satisfies Category II
requirements (Decision Height (DH) of 100 feet or greater), as well as Category
III requirements (DH of less than 100 feet). In order to engage the auto-land
feature of the Airbus, the pilot is required to perform a sequence of steps
whilst in autopilot. This begins firstly by engaging the Instrument Landing
system (ILS), followed by selecting the Approach, subsequently the aircraft
will then acquire the localizer and glideslope automatically, thus guiding the
aircraft in for landing. While this part of the auto landing feature guides the
aircraft, not every step is automated, such as lowering the gear, as well as
setting flaps and ensuring the autopilot is in engaged if the DH is less than
100 feet (Avia Solutions Group, n.d.)
If
the aircraft were to suffer some type of catastrophic failure, the aircraft can
still be recovered safely by the pilot, whom has the ability to override any
automation system within the aircraft (Avia Solutions Group, n.d.) If the event
were to be fail passive, where there is significant deviation, the pilot would
assume control aircraft. The fail passive portion of the Airbus is displayed on
the Pilot’s Flight display (PFD), which in the event of a failure would be
displayed on the Category III single display; alternatively if the failure was
on operational event, the Category III would be a dual display and the
automated system would finish out the remaining portions of the landing, a
built in redundancy if you will (Airlinepilots.com, 1998)
K-MAX
This unique UAS is
capable of being configured for several different mission load outs, which
include both civil and military operations. For purposes of this review, this
author opted to review the automated portion of the optionally piloted
configuration that the K-Max Offers, primarily used in Afghanistan by the
United States Marine Corps (Weinberger, 2012). What makes this UAS different is that it can
be manned or unmanned, where the pilot’s controls are maintained for conversion
back to a manned system (Kaman Aerospace & Lockheed Martin, 2010).
In order to operate the K-MAX unmanned, the aircraft
utilizes a satellite downlink in order to communicate between the avionics
systems and the Mission Management Computer (MMC). The MMC is equipped on the
aircraft in order to be pre-programmed with whatever the mission plan may be
for that day, allowing the aircraft’s on-board control systems to be operated
via the Flight Control Computer (FCC), a component that operates in conjunction
with the MMC (Kaman Aerospace & Lockheed Martin, 2010). The FCC is what
enables the K-MAX to have automated takeoff and landing capabilities.
Alternatively, if the operators decide it is necessary to take control, the MMC
can be instructed to relinquish control to someone on the ground at either the
departure, destination, or any combination of the mission, in order to gain
remote control of any portion of a mission (Kaman Aerospace & Lockheed
Martin, 2010).
New mission profiles can easily be changed by uploading
new directives into the MMC from any GCS linked up with that particular UAS
when the aircraft is operating from line-of-sight. The line-of-sight operations
are conducted from the operator’s laptop, which is a portable ground control
station. This UAS becomes reliable due to the redundancies built into the MMC,
ensuring there is reliability and safeguards against any type of equipment
failure (Kaman Aerospace & Lockheed Martin, 2010).
Summary
Areas that could be looked at in regards to the A-320
would be improvements in automation, such as allowing the flight computer to
make adjustments to the landing gear, and setting the flaps. One area that
needs to be retained and is a key feature, is the ability to quickly override a
system and operate the aircraft manually, this is paramount. Further training would need to be done when
using an automated landing system, which includes learning the ins and outs of
auto- throttle, as well as the auto-brake systems. Pilot’s need to understand
the instrumentation and any abnormalities that could occur, and manufacturers
and safety experts need to develop safety protocols for each of those issues (Airlinepilots.com,
1998). Important areas to understand, and how they could affect performance,
would be inclement weather and reports of any braking action less than good, or
essentially anytime there are braking action advisories in effect.
The K-MAX has the advantage of already having a
well-established platform and was easily adapted to be automated because that
was all that was left to be built on that system. Automation control and the
interfaces those would appear on were all the manufacturers needed to focus
on. Again, an important training aspect
would be weather and anomalies that could affect the performance of any
automation. In 2013 a K-MAX crashed and was attributable to pilot error, a key
component of this crash was that the pilot lost awareness due to weather
constraints (Lamothe, 2014).
In either circumstance, manned or unmanned, safety has
got to be the primary focus in design. We cannot overly rely on automation and
thus still need to know how to operate the aircraft without a dependence on
automation. Training also needs to occur, and be sufficient enough for the Pilot’s/Operator’s
to recognize an abnormality and correct it, or redundancies need to be built
in, in order to negate any potential risk. Automation can certainly help an
aircraft perform under much stricter conditions, but only if the design process
is thoroughly thought out, and training is not compromised.
References
Airlinepilots.com,. (1998). Flight Operations Support &
Line Assistance: GETTING TO GRIPS WITH CATEGORY II AND III OPERATIONS (3rd ed.). 31707 Blagnac Cedex France:
Airbus. Retrieved from
http://www.theairlinepilots.com/forumarchive/quickref/cat2.pdf
Avia Solutions Group,. Airbus A320: Auto Landing Tutorial
- Video - Media center - Avia Solutions Group. Aviasg.com. Retrieved 4 January
2017, from
http://www.aviasg.com/en/video/airbus-a320-auto-landing-tutorial.html
Kaman Aerospace, & Lockheed
Martin,. (2010). K-MAX®
Unmanned Aircraft System Optionally Piloted Cargo Lift Helicopter for the
Warfighter (1st ed.).
Bloomfield, CT: KAMAN AEROSPACE. Retrieved from
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/content/dam/lockheed/data/ms2/documents/K-MAX-brochure.pdf
Lamothe, D. (2014). Why pilots couldn’t stop a Marine
Corps drone helicopter from crashing. Washington
Post. Retrieved 4 January 2017, from
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2014/08/07/exclusive-why-pilots-couldnt-stop-a-marine-corps-drone-helicopter-from-crashing/?utm_term=.ccb525f79434
SKYbrary,. (2016). Autoland - SKYbrary Aviation Safety. Skybrary.aero. Retrieved 4
January 2017, from http://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/Autoland
Weinberger, S. (2012). K-MAX, the Military's New Delivery
Drone. Popular Mechanics.
Retrieved 4 January 2017, from
http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a7573/k-max-the-militarys-new-unmanned-delivery-drone-7675091/
No comments:
Post a Comment