Aerospace Control and Guidance Systems Committee

Announcements

You must first log in to access prior meeting presentations, register for a meeting, or nominate some for the Ward Award.

If you do not have a login account, or cannot remember the email address associated with your account, please click on the Application Form link below.

Login

Site Search

Search our site:

Upcoming Events

Photos

Meeting Highlights New!

Subcommittee S

Prior Meetings

Abstracts may be viewed by anyone. Presentations are only available to active members who have logged in.

Meeting 132
(coming soon)

Home

Ward Memorial Award

Planning Advisory Board

Downloads

Constitution and By-Laws

About

History

Contact Us

← Return to agenda

Meeting	ACGS Committee Meeting 115 - Portland, OR - March 2015
Agenda Location	5 SUBCOMMITTEE D – DYNAMICS, COMPUTATIONS, AND ANALYSIS 5.4 Exposing Pilot Behavior from Flight Test
Title	Exposing Pilot Behavior from Flight Test
Presenter	Dave Klyde
Affiliation	STI
Available Downloads*	presentation
	Downloads are available to members who are logged in and either Active* or attended this meeting.
Abstract	Systems Technology, Inc. ACGSC Meeting #115, Portland, OR, March 4-6, 2015 David Klyde dklyde@systemstech.com Exposing Unique Pilot Behaviors from Flight Test Data A recent flight test program was undertaken to evaluate the Smart Adaptive Flight Effective Cue (SAFE-Cue) pilot-vehicle system loss of control mitigation concept. Three experienced test pilots participated in the flight test evaluations that were conducted using the Calspan Learjet In-Flight Simulator. While the focus of the program was to assess the SAFE-Cue system performance in the presence of failure/damage scenarios, the pilots were also exposed to the baseline aircraft configuration several times during their evaluations. The baseline configuration was designed to have Level 1 handling qualities for the sum-of-sines tracking and bank angle capture and hold tasks that were evaluated as part of the “blind” configurations presented to each pilot. Because of a mechanical issue, only two of the three pilots conducted the roll axis evaluations. From analysis of the test data it was clearly evident that the pilots employed disparate control strategies with one using an unexpected “bang-bang” technique that resulted in a sustained pilot-induced oscillation (PIO). Based on the resulting pilot comments and ratings, the “bang-bang” pilot did not recognize that he was in a sustained PIO. In contrast, the other pilot was able to achieve desired performance with no tendency for PIO. Using a variety of analysis approaches, the two baseline configuration runs were explored in detail to assess the observed differences. Analysis results revealed that both pilots provided lead compensation, however, there were significant differences in pilot input power and effective time delay. Over the course of one baseline configuration evaluation run, the “bang-bang” pilot fixated his input power at a single frequency with a significantly higher gain and an additional 100 msec of effective delay. A new time-varying PIO metric introduced herein clearly illustrates the observed differences in pilot behavior.