Autonomous flight method

• US 8,078,350 B2
• Filed: 02/08/2007
• Issued: 12/13/2011
• Est. Priority Date: 02/10/2006
• Status: Active Grant

• Current Assignee: Thales SA
• Original Assignee: Thales SA
• Inventors: Coulmeau, François
• Primary Examiner(s): Tran, Khoi
• Assistant Examiner(s): Oh, Harry
• Application Number:
  US12/160,796
• Publication Number:
  US 20110196564A1
• Time in Patent Office: 1,769 Days
• Field of Search: 701 3- 12, 701 14- 18, 701 24- 26, 244/75.1, 244/76.R, 244 76 A- 76 C, 244/76.J, 244 79- 82, 244174-191
• US Class Current: 701/26
• CPC Class Codes: G08G 5/0039 Modification of a flight plan

Abstract

The method relates to autonomous flights performed by aircraft without the assistance of an aircrew and without said flights having been scheduled during mission preparation. It comprises negotiation with an air traffic control authority, of the modifications made to the flight plan so as to integrate these autonomous flights into the existing air traffic with minimum disturbance.

Claims

1. An autonomous flight method for aircraft characterized, for an onboard automation having taken command of the flight controls with a view to a rerouting, comprising the steps of:

formulating a proposal for flight plan modifications to be performed autonomously for the rerouting, from a diversion waypoint marking a position reached in the flight plan currently in progress after an arbitrary period reserved for negotiation with an air traffic control authority in the region overflown,

automatically negotiating by telecommunication the proposal for flight plan modifications with the control authority,

when the flight plan modifications are not returned by the control authority in the negotiation period, implementing autonomously the proposal for flight plan modifications,

when the flight plan modifications are returned by the control authority

if the flight plan modifications returned are identical to the proposal for flight plan modifications, implementing them autonomously,

if the flight plan modifications returned differ from the proposal for flight plan modifications, analyzing their consistency as regards the rules defining an onboard strategy,

if the flight plan modifications returned are consistent with the rules defining the onboard strategy, implementing them autonomously in place of the proposal for flight plan modifications,

if the flight plan modifications returned exhibit inconsistencies with respect to the rules defining the onboard strategy, making a new proposal for flight plan modifications which take into account the elements of the flight plan modifications returned which satisfy the rules defining the onboard strategy, and undertaking a new negotiation,

as soon as the negotiation period has elapsed, implementing autonomously the latest, proposal made onboard for flight plan modifications.

2. The method as claimed in claim 1, furthermore comprising an intermediate step including, when the flight plan modifications are not returned by a control authority or disagreement persists after the period of negotiation with the control authority, placing the aircraft on a standby airfield and in seeking, during an arbitrary period to make oneself reliant on a guardian, aircraft or ground station approved for this kind of guardianship.

3. The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein, when the flight plan modifications are aimed at a landing on a rerouting airport, the proposal for flight plan modifications made by the automaton includes, after having determined the rerouting airport and the approach procedure to be followed so as to land on one of its landing runways, in supplementing the series of waypoints associated with flight constraints of the approach procedure with one or more joining segments starting from the diversion waypoint crossed under the local conditions of the flight plan in force so as to reach the first waypoint of the approach procedure while complying with the locally imposed flight constraints.

4. The method as claimed in claim 3, wherein, when the control authority proposes a rerouting airport and the approach procedure for reaching it, the automaton adopts them as the airport to be reached and the approach procedure to be followed.

5. The method as claimed in claim 3, wherein, when the control authority proposes several rerouting airports and approach procedures, the automaton selects an airport and an approach procedure from among the rerouting airports and approach procedures proposed by the control authority based on its own criteria relating to the aircraft, to the airports and to the flight conditions.

6. The method as claimed in claim 3, wherein, when the control authority does not propose any rerouting airports, the automaton selects an airport and an approach procedure from among rerouting airports and approach procedures catalogued in a database on the basis of its own criteria relating to the aircraft, to the airports and to the flight conditions and which, in respect of the airports, rely on information stored in the database.

7. The method as claimed in claim 3, wherein the joining segment or segments are composed of an ARINC 424 segment of XF type making it possible to reach the access point while complying with optional local heading or route constraints, supplemented with an ARINC 424 segment of HM type, for airfield, with the number of laps necessary in order to dissipate the energy while cutting the altitude.

8. The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the negotiation with the control authority involves an authentication procedure guaranteeing that the flight plan modifications returned originate from an air traffic control center.

9. The method as claimed in claim 3, wherein, figuring among the rules defining the onboard strategy is the necessity for the flight plan modifications returned during negotiation, by a control authority to satisfy:

the possibility for the automaton to follow the corresponding route while complying with imposed maneuverability limitations of the aircraft,

the selection of a non-prohibited landing runway and of a valid approach procedure,

compliance with the safety altitudes throughout the journey to be traveled,

compliance with a minimum length compatible with the necessary adjustment of the kinetic and potential energies at the access point of a landing field approach procedure,

compliance with a maximum length compatible with the fuel consumption and the travel time, and

the selection of all the landing aid means available on the chosen landing runway.

10. The method as claimed in claim 9, wherein, among the limitations imposed on the maneuverability of the aircraft figuring

in the rules defining the onboard strategy, some relate to vertical and lateral accelerations below the detectability threshold of human beings.