• 专利附录
  • 专利说明
  • 权利要求
  • 类似技术
  • 同族专利
  • 引用文献
  • 法律状态
  • 优先权
    • 专利摘要:
    There is described a method for managing the revision of an aircraft flight plan implemented by at least two systems, one being avionic type (qualified, certified) and the other not. From a flight plan, flight plan revisions are determined or evaluated and then one or more selections and / or combinations of these revisions are made. Subsequently, these combinations are processed by the avionics system and the corresponding avionics parameters are calculated. By comparing the different results of avionics quality, the impact of each revision can be quantified and returned to the pilot to help him in his decision-making, especially in the negotiation of revisions with air traffic control. Combinatorial optimization and learning steps are described, as well as system and software aspects.
    公开号:FR3055958A1
    申请号:FR1601342
    申请日:2016-09-13
    公开日:2018-03-16
    发明作者:Dorian MARTINEZ；Emilie BIES
    申请人:Thales SA；
    IPC主号:
    专利说明:

    (57) μ es t describes a process for managing the revision of an aircraft flight plan implemented by at least two systems, one being of the avionics type (qualified, certified) and the other not. From a flight plan, flight plan revisions are determined or even evaluated, then one or more selections and / or combinations of these revisions are made. These combinations are subsequently processed by the avionics system and the corresponding avionics parameters are calculated. By comparing the different avionics quality results, the impact of each revision can be quantified and then returned to the pilot to help him in his decision-making, especially in terms of negotiating revisions with air traffic control. Combinatorial optimization and learning steps are described, as well as system and software aspects.

    DECISION ASSISTANCE FOR THE REVISION OF A FLIGHT PLAN
    Field of the invention
    The invention relates to the technical field of on-board avionics systems, and more particularly to methods and systems for managing the flight of an aircraft.
    State of the art
    Airlines generally seek to reduce their operating costs while ensuring a high quality of service, without compromising safety rules.
    To do this, companies define a "company policy" as being the weighting of many criteria including in particular the operational cost of the flight, flight time, reliability, safety, the environment, customer satisfaction, personal availability, maintenance or the life of the aircraft.
    An airline and the pilot can negotiate with the air traffic control authorities "revisions" of the flight plan (before or during the flight) to optimize the flight plan (in particular) with regard to this airline policy . The pilot or the company must then be able to identify the revisions to be proposed and must also be able to determine the optimal revision for the flight.
    The patent document FR2939917 discloses a method for optimizing the flight of an aircraft comprising the calculation of cost indices, speed setpoints. The process notably determines fuel consumption as well as different consumption differences. However, this document does not address the issue of aircraft flight plan reviews.
    Existing flight plan revision management solutions have their limitations.
    Summary of the invention
    The invention improves the situation by proposing a method for managing the revision of an aircraft flight plan implemented by at least two systems, one being of the avionics type (qualified, certified) and the other non-avionics type. From a flight plan, flight plan revisions are determined or even evaluated, then one or more selections and / or combinations of these revisions are made. These combinations are subsequently processed by the avionics system and the corresponding avionics parameters are calculated. By comparing the different avionics quality results, the impact of each revision can be quantified and then returned to the pilot to help him in his decision-making, particularly in terms of negotiating revisions with air traffic control. Combinatorial optimization and learning steps are described, as well as system and software aspects.
    Advantageously, the invention optimizes the use of critical resources, in particular the flight management system (or function) certified F.M.S. (“Flight Management System”) which is a system called “avionics” or “critical” or “qualified” or “certified”.
    Advantageously, the invention allows the reuse of the existing capacities of a system or function F.M.S. for the benefit of a client application, which is not of an avionics nature (not certified, not critical). This client application can request and then manipulate trajectory calculations performed by the flight management system (or F.M.S. function), obtain prediction calculations or various other operations (e.g. NAVDB function for creating OMD, flight planning, etc.).
    Advantageously, the advantageous reuse of certified avionics calculations makes it possible to manipulate flight plans and flight plan revisions which are compatible - by construction - with the F.M.S. certified. In particular, the revisions proposed by the methods and systems according to the invention may be applied by the F.M.S. Thus, the risk of rejection of a flight plan revision is minimized. The flight plan evaluations presented by the methods and systems according to the invention may be the same as those calculated by the flight management system F.M.S., after application of the revision in this F.M.S.
    Advantageously, the invention can be implemented on one or more non-critical systems (in particular arranged in parallel, redundantly or else concurrently). The large number of calculations required to determine the gain (positive or negative) of each revision (or combination of revisions) can limit the impact on the performance of the on-board system. Using non-critical systems according to the invention makes it possible to advantageously use critical resources.
    Advantageously, the invention can also optimize the development costs which would otherwise be prohibitive in existing critical avionics systems. Critical avionics systems have high software development costs linked to certification requirements. The higher the criticality level of the system, in terms of dependability according to international standards RTCA DO178C (USA) and EUROCAE ED-12C (Europe), the higher the development cost. A decision support function, currently integrated into one of the existing critical computers (FMS or PA), would generate a development cost ten to one hundred times higher than what it costs in a low criticality environment, like the invention.
    Advantageously, the decoupling into a plurality of systems and preserving the critical avionics system that is the flight management system F.M.S. makes maintenance easier. The different interacting systems can evolve more independently.
    Advantageously, the invention has a fast learning curve. In addition to development costs, the insertion of new functions into an existing critical architecture generally leads to complex solutions between systems, which generate a training load for crews and for maintenance teams, and also increases the risk of equipment handling error to achieve the function considered. In addition, software and mathematical optimization techniques for obtaining rapid results can hardly be certified (e.g. fuzzy logic).
    The invention also enables reliable and realistic comparisons between comparable flight plans. In fact, in one embodiment, each revision is noted according to several criteria (cost, punctuality, ...) according to the initial flight plan. According to the invention, the compared flight plans are created from the same postulates or algorithms, which makes it possible to obtain reliable rankings (in contrast to comparisons between flight plans constructed by the FMS and by third party systems outside the FMS would be difficult to consider). Flight plans offered by systems outside F.M.S. may indeed be different after insertion into the F.M.S. (e.g. trajectories, predictions, respect for constraints in the broad sense, etc.).
    Advantageously, the earnings determined according to the invention can be ensured after revision, which is not necessarily the case if the revisions are calculated outside the flight management system F.M.S. For example, a flight plan offered outside F.M.S. cannot be negotiated using systems dedicated to F.M.S. flight plan negotiations, such as the datalink communication link with ATC air traffic control.
    In one embodiment, the proposed method classifies the revised flight plans by giving a score or a score to each flight plan, possibly depending on the company policy (ie the list can include a plurality of criteria, of heterogeneous nature, by allowing, for example, weights between these criteria).
    Advantageously, one or more gains (or benefits or scores) associated with one or more flight plan revisions can be determined. The invention can calculate the gain (or benefit) of a so-called elementary revision compared to one or more predefined criteria (only one, part or all of the criteria). Revisions can be classified, in particular according to a predefined company policy (for example by application of rules or thresholds). A flight presented by the F.M.S. is not necessarily effectively stolen. Where applicable, the actual gains are those which were expected (by construction).
    Advantageously, the revisions determined according to the invention can be compatible with the F.M.S. and non-avionics information, such as airspace mapping, ATC regulations, airspace density, weather conditions, road or airport or runway closed, T.S.A. for "Temporary segregated area", T.R.E for Temporary reserved area, field constraints, personnel or maintenance constraints, etc.
    The invention also optimizes compliance with the management rules of the airline policy (aircraft operator) and / or takes into account one or more external (environment) and internal (aircraft condition) constraints.
    Furthermore, according to the invention, once the negotiation has been accepted by air traffic control, the revision can be applied to the flight plan without overwork.
    Advantageously, the invention can use information outside of avionics (or non-avionics). The evaluations carried out on the modified flight plans can therefore be rich or complex. These assessments can take into account a large number of factors, which can be diverse. Weights of criteria or evaluation factors in particular allow a flexible overall evaluation. Any new "exogenous" criterion is generally easily integrated, through non-avionic type evaluation factors.
    The method according to the invention also makes it possible to better negotiate with air traffic control. To optimize the flight plan, it may be advantageous to combine elementary revisions. According to one aspect of the invention, the pilot is informed of the basic revisions, which are also classified or ordered, according to different orders. The pilot can then best negotiate the revisions to fly with air traffic control.
    Description of the figures
    Other characteristics and advantages of the invention will become apparent with the aid of the description which follows and from the figures of the appended drawings in which:
    Figure 1 illustrates the overall technical environment of the invention;
    FIG. 2 schematically illustrates the structure and the functions of a flight management system of the type F.M.S. known;
    FIG. 3 illustrates examples of steps of the method according to an embodiment of the invention.
    FIG. 4 details an embodiment for evaluating the impact of a constraint k in a flight plan which contains N constraints;
    FIG. 5 details an embodiment for evaluating a constraint k in a flight plan which contains N constraints.
    Detailed description of the invention
    A "calculator" designates a computer of conventional architecture of the Von Neumann type, that is to say comprising in particular calculation means (i.e. at least one processor). Alternatively, the term "server" can be used (from a material definition perspective).
    According to certain embodiments, a method is proposed for managing the revision of an flight plan of an aircraft implemented by at least two systems, the first system being an avionics flight management system of the type F.M.S. and the second system interacting with the first avionics system being of non-avionics type, the method comprising the steps consisting in: - receiving a flight plan; - in the second non-avionics system, determining a plurality of revisions of the flight plan received; - in the first avionics system, determining the avionics parameters corresponding to the revised flight plans associated with combinations of the revisions having been determined; - in the second non-avionics system, compare the avionics parameters thus determined and assess the impact of at least one revision of the flight plan.
    The flight plan can be received in the first and / or the second system.
    The avionics system can be a “qualified” or “critical” flight management system and the non-avionics system is a “non-qualified” or “non-critical” system.
    In one embodiment, the two systems are both on board the aircraft. Alternatively, they can both be located on the ground. In a particular embodiment, a system may be on board while another system may be on the ground. In other embodiments, the perimeters of these two systems can be more complex (a large number of hardware entities cooperating and implementing software services) and can in particular be distributed in space.
    In one embodiment, in the second non-avionic system:
    - a plurality of revisions to the flight plan are determined or received.
    - It is then determined in the second non-avionic system a plurality of combinations of revisions thus determined;
    - one or more of the combinations of revisions are evaluated in the second non-avionic system according to predetermined criteria;
    - one or more of the combinations of revisions that have been evaluated are selected.
    In the first avionics system, the parameters of the flight plans (corresponding to the insertions of the combinations of flight plan revisions having been evaluated then selected) can finally be determined.
    The flight plan parameters determined by the first avionics system or qualified or certified can finally be communicated to the second non-certified or non-critical or non-avionics system, which can then carry out various comparisons (arithmetic, statistics, etc.) on these avionics results, for example to isolate the impact or influence or cost of one or more specific revisions.
    In another embodiment:
    - in the second non-avionics system, at least one revision of the flight plan received is determined.
    - in the first avionics system, the avionics parameters corresponding to the revised flight plan associated with at least one determined revision are determined;
    - in the second non-avionics system, the determined avionics parameters are compared and the impact of at least one revision of the flight plan is evaluated.
    In yet another embodiment, a plurality of revisions can be manipulated. In particular, a combinatorial of revisions is handled. According to this embodiment:
    - in the second non-avionic system, a plurality of combinations of revisions of the received flight plan is determined;
    - in the first avionics system, the avionics parameters corresponding to the revised flight plans associated with the different combinations of revisions are determined;
    - in the second non-avionics system, the determined avionics parameters are compared (for example two by two) and the impact of each revision of the flight plan is evaluated.
    For example, four revisions A, B, C and D may be determined. A selection of these revisions may lead to considering revisions B, C and D only. Different combinations of these revisions can be determined, for example B-D, C-D and B-C-D. In some cases, the order of revisions must be taken into account: flight plans revised according to B-D and according to D-B may not be identical. The number of arrangement of k elements selected among n will then be A (n, k) = n! / (N-k)! In some cases, the order of revisions is indifferent and the number of combinations will then be A (n, k) / k!
    The interaction between the first and the second system can be bilateral: the supplier FMS provides avionics services on request from the client server.
    The avionics parameters of the flight plans calculated by the FMS may notably include predictions of fuel consumption and times of passage to predefined flight plan points.
    The FMS calculations can be compared in different ways (e.g. subtraction and / or statistical type arithmetic, mean analysis, variance or deviation type analysis, PCA analysis, distribution analysis etc.). By comparing these results, it can be quantified or evaluated the impact or consequence of one or more (or each) of the revisions.
    In a development, the combination of revisions can be determined according to predefined criteria.
    These criteria can include numerical conditions (e.g. values, thresholds, etc.) and / or predefined logical rules. The revisions considered by the method according to the invention respect the criteria of default or hypothetical volatility. The combinations of these revisions can be advantageously tested before manipulation by the process. Conditions can be numerical (values, facts) and / or logical rules operating on these values. Logic rules can in particular, for example, be taken from a non-avionics type database, and are for example representative of an airline policy. Conversely, flight plans that do not meet strict predefined constraints can be deleted or ignored. Various data sources, avionics or nonavionics, can be taken into account.
    In a development, the combination of revisions minimizes the duration of negotiation with the ATC air traffic control authority, the duration being estimated from durations measured in the past or estimated for the future.
    For example, the cumulation of individual durations can be determined. It is possible to minimize the total negotiation times for multiple revisions.
    More generally, the combination of revisions can optimize compliance with one or more predefined criteria including, in particular, fuel cost, flight time, flight punctuality, flight punctuality, operational flight cost, availability of aircrew, availability of aircraft and maintenance equipment, environmental criteria, compliance with AOC company rules and ATC regulations, ease of implementation in terms of AOC and / or ATC negotiation or cognitive load for the pilot, these latter values having been quantified and historicized, the reduction of meteorological risks, the reliability of one or more revisions over time, or the airspaces to be avoided.
    In a development, the method further comprises the step of quantifying and displaying the impact of a revision of the flight plan.
    Revisions considered in isolation can be quantified (or evaluated or estimated).
    In a development, the method further comprises the step of receiving the selection of a revised flight plan from among several, the revised flight plan comprising a particular combination of revisions.
    Optionally, the application calculator can save the selection made by the pilot in order to enrich a knowledge base intended for machine learning.
    Selection can be made by man and / or machine.
    In a development, the method may further comprise the step of communicating to ATC air traffic control a request for authorization to fly a flight plan associated with a particular combination of revisions.
    One of the steps in the process is a feedback loop integrated with air traffic control. In practice a datalink communication can be used.
    In a development, the method further comprises a step consisting in inserting the selected and / or authorized flight plan into the avionics flight management system.
    In a development, a flight plan can be associated with N constraints, the method further comprising Γ step consisting in determining in the first avionics system the avionics parameters associated with different combinations of the flight plans with Nk constraints, k varying from 1 to N-1.
    A flight plan (revised or not) can indeed be considered as an object or set of N constraints (e.g. lateral, vertical, performance and flight envelope).
    The relationship between "review" and "constraint" is described below. Revisions generally designate piloting operations (e.g. inputs) and constraints are physical parameters used for trajectory or flight plan calculations. Entering a revision (e.g. by the pilot) can lead to one or more constraints. The same constraint can be associated with one or more revisions. The pilot enters flight plan "revisions", the avionics system F.M.S. manipulates and determines flight constraints, i.e. physical parameters. It is possible to translate or associate given flight constraints with revisions and vice-versa. There are therefore (deterministic) relationships between revisions and constraints.
    In a development, the number of constraints of the flight plans can be gradually decremented, the nature of a subtracted constraint being indifferent.
    In a development, the number of constraints of the flight plans is gradually decremented, according to a predefined order as to the nature of the constraints.
    In a development, the method further comprises the step of evaluating the impact of a previously selected constraint.
    In a development, the revisions or the combination of revisions to the flight plan depend on the flight context and / or is determined by learning.
    The use of the flight context makes it possible to reduce the combinatorial, to reduce the space of possibilities at the stages consisting in generating, combining, filtering, evaluating, classifying, selecting the revisions (or the combinations of revisions) and / or the operations carried out on the results of avionics calculations. Learning can be supervised or unsupervised. In the computer field, unsupervised learning (sometimes called “clustering”) is a method of automatic learning.
    A computer program product is disclosed, said computer program comprising code instructions making it possible to carry out one or more of the steps of the method, when said program is executed on a computer.
    Disclosed is a system for implementing one or more of the steps of the method, the system comprising a flight management system of avionics type F.M.S. In a development, the system comprises a non-avionic system of the electronic flight bag or E.F.B. type. or a digital tablet (or AOC / ATC equipment)
    Figure 1 illustrates the overall technical environment of the invention. AOC / ATC 100 computers (for example a control tower linked to air traffic control systems) are in communication with an aircraft 110. An aircraft is a means of transport capable of evolving within the Earth's atmosphere. For example, an aircraft can be an airplane or a helicopter (or even a drone). The aircraft comprises a cockpit or a cockpit 120. Within the cockpit are piloting equipment 121 (called avionic equipment), comprising for example one or more on-board computers (means of calculation, storage and storage of data), including an FMS, means for displaying or viewing and entering data, means of communication, as well as (possibly) means of haptic feedback. A tablet or E.F.B. 122 ("Electronic Flight Bag" for electronic school bag) can be carried on board, portable or integrated in the cockpit. An E.F.B. is sometimes called or described as “open (world)” type equipment (ie non-avionics or non-qualified or non-certified) as opposed to “avionics” type equipment (certified by the regulator). An E.F.B. can interact (bilateral communication 123, or one-sided) with avionics equipment 121. The E.F.B. can also be in communication 124 with external IT resources, accessible by the network (for example cloud computing or Cloud computing 125. In particular, the calculations can be performed locally on the EFB or partially or totally in the means On-board equipment 121 is generally certified and regulated while
    ΙΈ.F.B. 122 and the connected IT resources 125 are generally not (or to a lesser extent). This architecture allows flexibility to be injected on the side of the E.F.B. 122 by ensuring controlled safety on the side of the on-board avionics 121.
    FIG. 2 schematically illustrates the structure and the avionic functions of a flight management system of the type F.M.S. known.
    The F.M.S. is generally connected to numerous other computers (one hundred), which can also implement one or more steps of the method according to the invention (for example, the management of conditional access to granular avionics services can advantageously consolidate avionics resources scattered). Figure 2 shows an F.M.S. notably having avionic functions, in particular LOCNAV 170 navigation, FPLN 110 flight plan, NAVDB 130 navigation database, PRF DB 150 performance database, TRAJ 120 lateral trajectory, PRED 140 predictions, GUID 200 guidance and DATALINK 180 digital data link to communicate with control centers and other aircraft (the feedback loops integrated with the process steps according to the invention can use this communication channel). The F.M.S. includes or can be associated with human-machine interfaces 220 (e.g. computer screens, augmented reality, virtual reality, haptic feedback, projectors, etc.).
    One or more non-avionics type systems can access the avionics FMS for example via the HMI 220 and / or by computers (210, 100) of the AOC (airline) and / or ATC (air traffic control) type.
    FIG. 3 illustrates examples of steps of the method according to an embodiment of the invention.
    In one embodiment, the system according to the invention comprises at least two computers 301 and 302.
    The 302 computer (or a set of third-party computers or computers
    F.M.S. 301) determines combinations of revisions, selects and / or evaluates some of them and can finally classify the different revised and / or selected and / or evaluated flight plans (with revisions or revision combinations). The second mission management computer 302 is connected to the first computer. The second computer 302 executes one or more avionics applications. Optionally, the second calculator includes or is associated with one or more databases (e.g. base of ratings and a base of strict constraints). In one embodiment, the computer 302 is an E.F.B.
    In one embodiment, the computer 301 can be of the F.M.S. type, i.e. allowing trajectory or flight plan calculations according to certified methods (accepted or validated by the regulator). In avionics, the F.M.S. are certified by the F.A.A. ("Federal Aviation Administration"). The F.M.S. can calculate the complete parameters of the revised flight plans. These revised flight plans are applicable to all the F.M.S. (NAVDB, PerfDB, Magvar ...) and are calculated from aircraft data (masses, altitude, position, wind, ...)
    This computer 301 (possibly made up of subsystems which are not shown) produces flight plan revisions which are reliable and / or valid, in the sense that these revisions respect the different aeronautical standards "natively". The resources of an F.M.S. "Qualified" or "certified" are precious in the sense that the calculations which are carried out by this system have official value. The computer 301 allows trajectory or flight plan calculations according to “certified” or “qualified” methods (ie accepted or validated by the regulator).
    This avionics computer 302 is generally of "high criticality" (the level of software development DO178C is between the level known as "major", that is to say level C, with a maximum error over 100,000 flight hours up to the level known as "Hazardous ", Or level B, with a maximum critical error for ten million flight hours. In order to obtain such criticality, this type of calculator can use hardened material, of high reliability, with long exposure. In practice, this type of calculator can be of older generation, ie with processor (CPU) and memory (RAM / ROM) resources significantly lower than a general purpose calculator but requiring lower software development. the addition of consumer software functions to avionics systems is supervised, in order to guarantee as much as possible a deterministic and a priori demonstration of the qualities required of the software. Additions of advanced functionality and / or various algorithmic optimizations can be non-deterministic in terms of response time and are therefore very delicate and expensive to integrate into avionic systems.
    In one embodiment, the computer 301 can provide a plurality of generic open services. An F.M.S. flight management can indeed provide avionics "services" (for example according to an open client-service architecture). In one embodiment, an F.M.S. can provide one or more avionics applications calling one or more unit services. An F.M.S. system or F.M.S. "Open" is an F.M.S. or F.M.S. offering services (ie acting as "server" for "clients") in a "client - server" architecture, characterized in that it offers access to its services to an a priori indeterminate number of anonymous or known clients . It generally includes the following elements: a facade of services offered, returning responses to the client, quality of service offered by service and by client type (response time, CPU, accuracy / reliability), memory allocated to store the calls and the results of requests from different customers, filtering of access determined according to the type and number of customers to guarantee the maintenance of its intrinsic performance.
    In one embodiment, the “heart” or calculator F.M.S. is of the open type. For example, its methods and / or constraints are published or public. Private service interfaces are accessible. Technically translated, this open architecture can in particular be exposed through programming interfaces (for example APIs) allowing access (e.g. according to variable terms) to the avionics services of the certified and regulated flight management system.
    In a specific embodiment, the open architecture of the F.M.S. is technically characterized in that it comprises four interacting parts (not shown in the figures): a) a functional avionics core, that is to say a subset of the system which implements the functional services and the avionics services of the system flight management, b) an interaction model (and its variations) as well as protocols allowing a user or pilot to request this functional core, c) an information system making it possible to manage data or connections and d ) one or more hardware execution platforms for the different avionics services. In other words, an open flight management system 301 decouples the flight management heart of the customers from this heart, the decoupling interface being done for example by managing an intermediate layer between the F.M.S. and the client, authorizing or prohibiting calls to IT resources.
    An avionics system according to the invention (avionics, qualified, certified) is generally real-time and architectured and developed to meet performance requirements (failure rate and quality of service in particular) within a defined employment framework. Designating a "system of systems", an avionics system is "qualified", that is to say has a demonstrated level of performance, for a given environment (the final performances of this one will conform to the expected performances and this in the framework of employment defined a priori). The demonstrated performance of a qualified / certified system includes response times (perceived by the outside of the system, peripheral systems or by humans). A flight management system generally includes steps for scheduling the real-time tasks of a given resource, in order to meet these response time requirements with a required probability threshold.
    An F.M.S. open is generally characterized by a list of accessible (access) interfaces, available CPU cycles allocated to different customers and various mechanisms in terms of quality of service or QoS (eg precision of calculations, available memory, compromise precision / reliability, etc). Regarding calculations, an avionics flight management system may include a dynamic priority task management mechanism, using in particular the measured average free time (ie average “IDLE” time, residual time available for a system whose intrinsic performance are not measurable a priori). The quality of service implemented in an F.M.S. can in particular take into account the size of the integration step, the number of iterations for iterative computations, the number of computed elements, the temporal depth of computation, the mantissa of the float, the order of development for the functions not -linear, interpolation level, complexity of the models used (WGS84 versus local Mercator), trajectory calculation classes (eg with or without turns).
    In one embodiment, the method according to the invention comprises one or more of the steps described below.
    In a first step, not shown, a non-optimal flight plan (or a trajectory, for example 3D) is received or determined.
    In step 310, a flight plan is determined or received. This flight plan can be a current flight plan but not necessarily (it can be a revised flight plan). In one embodiment, a second computer 302 (of low criticality or non-avionics) receives or retrieves a flight plan to be optimized, from one or more data sources. A data source can be a high criticality system 301 such as for example a flight management system F.M.S.
    The reception operation can be triggered automatically and / or manually (eg by push and / or pull send, at regular intervals or on request, from a machine and / or the pilot, on request from air traffic control, etc.).
    From this flight plan, a plurality of flight plan revisions are determined or calculated or generated or estimated. These revisions can be predefined (e.g. known from a database, received from a third-party module, directly or indirectly determined by the pilot, etc.) or determined dynamically, for example depending on the flight context. The plurality of revisions is generally generated in a combinatorial manner (either “blindly” or by integrating upstream data which is essential so as not to generate non-flightable flight plans downstream).
    In other words, the server 302 can determine and / or receive elementary revisions (also called "opportunities" in the sense that such revisions may require the agreement of air traffic control to be effectively implemented) and then determines combinations of revisions or d 'basic opportunities. Incidentally, it should be noted that optionally control (i.e. feedback) loops can be integrated into one or more of the steps of the method according to the invention. ATC air traffic control, represented by a human controller and / or business rules, can indeed interact at various stages of the process (from the combinative generation of revisions in order to supervise the latter, up to selection, filtering, grading or even ranking of revisions). In some embodiments there is no default integration with ATC systems; in others, on the contrary, interactions can be finely integrated (i.e. intensification and automation of aircraft-control exchanges).
    After generation, the different combinations of revisions are selected in different ways. Different selection methods can be used (including learning or machine learning methods, whether supervised or not, etc.). The selection may in particular favor the opportunities which are most often chosen by the pilot or the crew. Among the selection methods, “strategies” 331 can be used, comprising data and / or logical rules. These strategies are representative of "company policy". They generally include data (ie factual data, thresholds, numerical values, heuristics, tables, databases, criteria or categories of data etc.) and / or logical rules (eg fuzzy logic, rules in Boolean logic, regular expressions, equations, artificial intelligence etc). The data and / or rules can be predefined and / or dynamically defined.
    Representative 331 company policy strategies that establish that a given review is a better choice than another review can be particularly complex. The choice of revisions and their weighting are representative of the company's policy, in the broad sense. The airline may choose to prioritize certain criteria over others. In one embodiment, the criteria are predefined and include one or more criteria selected from: fuel costs, flight time and punctuality, operational flight cost, availability of personnel, availability of aircraft and equipment maintenance, environmental criteria, compliance with company (AOC) and regulatory (ATC) rules, ease of implementation (AOC and / or ATC negotiation, pilot load), reduction of meteorological risks, reliability of the overhaul over time, the airspaces to avoid. This list is not exhaustive.
    In one embodiment, a selection of the revisions can be automatic and / or manual. The pilot can choose particular combinations of revisions). For example, 4D constraints (lateral, vertical, temporal, speed) can be deleted and / or inserted and / or modified at one or more points of the flight plan. The flight plan data in general can be modified (for example designation of an alternative airport, entry of an arrival or departure procedure, offset overfly, etc.).
    The selection can also take into account a history or statistical information (optionally improved by continuous learning) relating in particular to negotiations with the air traffic control authorities (including for example information as to successes, failures, reliability of accepted revisions over time, etc.).
    In some embodiments, the selection of revisions and their combinations can be evaluated or pre-filtered. For example, “non-negotiable” flight plans can be deleted. Flight plans can be rejected or ignored because they do not meet - or will not meet - mandatory or imperative criteria to be able to authorize the modification of the flight plan. For example, some candidate flight plans may not satisfy conditions emanating from non-avionics or bors-avionics databases (e.g. crossing of enclosed airspace, arrival time too late, staff not available ...).
    Optionally, indications relating to the ease of negotiation of elementary revisions and their combinations can be provided to the pilot. For example, combinations of basic revisions can be predetermined (also adjusted through historical analyzes or feedback from all or part of the flights previously carried out).
    In one embodiment, the method can comprise one or more steps consisting notably in calculating the gain (or benefit) of a so-called elementary revision compared to one or more predefined criteria (a single, a part or all of the criteria). The gain can be assessed by applying a weighted combination of criteria. The assessment can be local and / or global. For example, the evaluation can determine, for each elementary revision, which flight plan points are specifically impacted (for a given criterion or for a combination of such criteria). This determination can use different thresholds (one or more predefined thresholds or threshold ranges, static or dynamic). The use of local comparisons, possibly thresholded, improves the processing of data (e.g. navigation) as well as their display or visualization. Data processing and visualization stages allow the pilot to better understand the distribution along his flight plan of the different local impacts of a given criterion or a weighted combination of specific criteria. These impact calculations can take place upstream (during the selection of revisions) or downstream (after effective avionics calculation, possibly after classification of the flightable revisions).
    Optionally, the application calculator can evaluate the relevance of the flight plans by associating one or more periods of validity with them or else deleting all or part of the flight plans according to one or more events in progress in the FMS calculator, eg as a function of a sequencing of a waypoint ie of a change in active flight plan segment for example, of the sequencing of a characteristic flight phase, of an evolution of the state of the aircraft systems (e.g. engine failure, icing, pressurization problems, lightning ...)
    One or more flight plans corresponding to different combinations of revisions having finally been determined and / or selected, the gateway to the avionics world will be able to be used.
    For a flight plan given to N constraints 330 (there may be M flight plans handled), an avionics calculation 340 is carried out (“qualified”, “certified”, “official”). In other words, one or more of these flight plans (candidates) are calculated or manipulated by the flight management system F.M.S. 301, which determines the qualified avionics parameters (“parameters” below).
    In one embodiment, the application server 302 communicates a request to the computer F.M.S. 301, for example in order to apply the selected strategies (combinations of elementary opportunities) selected to the active or current flight plan of the aircraft. In a later step, the F.M.S. 301 determines all the data associated with the flight plan thus communicated (therefore using its internal algorithms qualified or certified by the dispatcher). The data includes, for example, predictions of fuel consumption or lap time, etc.
    More generally, the qualified avionics parameters can for example include predicted data of altitude, speed, fuel (fuel), time of passage, predicted meteorology, but also geographical zones (latitude / longitude), waypoints or of the lateral trajectory which connects these points, points characteristic of the flight of the aircraft (eg end of climb / start of cruise "Top of Climb", end of cruise / start of descent "top of Descent ”, points of the flight corresponding to certain characteristic passage altitudes (such as the speed limit altitude for noise reduction“ Speed Limit Altitude ”, the take-off acceleration altitude (ACCEL ALT), the landing altitude before landing (“Final Capture Altitude”). These parameters can also include data representing the state of the aircraft (eg predicted finesse, economical speed mics according to flight phases, aircraft and cargo masses, flight optimization criteria e.g. "Cost Index", information on engine condition (e.g. wear, breakdowns, state of the aerodynamic structure e.g. drag coefficient due to friction).
    Avionic calculations can produce a certain number of results, which can be variously analyzed and processed downstream (by non-avionic systems i.e. unqualified).
    In one embodiment, the computer 302 receives or retrieves the calculations made by the computer F.M.S. The calculations are analyzed, and possibly filtered. Flight plans which do not comply with the so-called “strict” constraints can for example be deleted (or ignored). The computer 302 compares the different flight plans, as calculated by the critical system F.M.S. 301.
    The results of the avionics calculations can in a particular case be sorted and / or ordered and / or classified and / or evaluated according to various methods, in particular with regard to predefined rating criteria.
    In one embodiment, for a flight plan characterized by N constraints, then the impact of each constraint can be evaluated (step 340). In one embodiment, step 340 may indeed be iterative and / or allow exploration of the combinatorics (revisions upstream of the avionics calculations, constraints downstream of the avionics calculations), see FIGS. 4 and 5.
    Optionally, in certain embodiments, the flight plans having been characterized by avionics (e.g. by the computer 301) can be filtered and / or classified in step 360.
    In one embodiment, a global gain and / or one or more local gains can be determined. For example, process steps can allow the pilot to classify the different zones of the flight plan, by estimating to what extent each zone participates (positively or negatively) in the respect of a criterion, of several weighted criteria or of all the criteria. weighted. The pilot with the preprocessed information could for example choose to negotiate in priority the revisions in said zone. Filtering and / or classification can be global (e.g. concerning a flight plan as a whole) or local (e.g. according to one or more of the properties of these flight plans). For example, certain possible flight plans can be eliminated overall (e.g. according to imperative criteria and / or flight events and / or validity intervals in time and / or space, etc.). In another example, a flight plan can be noted (in absolute terms) or classified (in relation to other candidates), for example in relation to the company policy defined upstream (eg by weighted combination of predefined criteria) . In a development, each revised flight plan is associated with one or more scores (or notes or amounts). A score can be local or individualized (e.g. by criteria). An overall score can be determined (for example in relation to the overall policy of the airline).
    In one embodiment, the rating or classification or filtering criteria can be configurable. For example, the pilot can weight the absolute and / or relative scoring criteria, according to his preferences. Classification criteria can also be predefined by the airline. The criteria or the weighting of these criteria can be configured by the man (i.e. the pilot or the airline) and / or the machine (e.g. a third party system evaluating these criteria). The criteria can be static (e.g. invariant over time or during a flight) or else dynamic (e.g. evolving during the flight, for example depending on the flight context). Part of the criteria can be configurable and / or dynamic (while another part will be non-configurable and static). For example, in one embodiment, a weighting for short-haul 'shuttle' type flights between airports (favoring punctuality for reasons of maximizing the number of rotations) will be different from a long-haul weighting favoring consumption fuel and avoidance of weather hazards for passenger comfort.
    Optionally, in certain embodiments, in step 370, a revised flight plan among these flight plans classified according to different criteria can be displayed graphically and / or selected (by the man and / or the machine)
    For example, the compared and classified flight plans can be displayed for the pilot, according to different restitution methods (visual and / or auditory and / or haptic) using one or more devices (e.g. screens, projectors, tablets, etc.). The pilot can then select a particular revised flight plan, being thus assisted in his decision making by data processing carried out upstream. Alternatively, algorithms run by third-party systems can also be used to automatically select the best solution. In an alternative, the selection can be joint man-machine.
    In certain embodiments, the method can include steps consisting in determining and then graphically displaying the different impacts of the different constraints (e.g. intended for the pilot). For example, in the case where a flight plan with N constraints has led to the evaluation of all the flight plans of N-1 constraints, it is possible to represent the participation of each constraint in the global rating of the flight plan . In particular, it can be highlighted constraints or revisions which could probably be refused by air traffic control or on the contrary innovative or significant gain revisions (e.g. as to the reliability of meteorological information).
    Subsequently, after selection, a final flight plan (qualified from the avionics point of view, optimizing compliance with company policy, etc.) can be implemented in step 380, this flight plan alternately generated, filtered, evaluated, calculated, classified and then selected as an active, temporary or secondary (work, inactive) flight plan. For example, the pilot can optionally ask the computer 302 to "insert" or "inject" the flight plan selected in the F.M.S. 301. The term “insert” means to validate the modification of the flight plan in the F.M.S. qualified. At this point, the selected revised flight plan has not yet replaced the target flight plan of the F.M.S. (can be the so-called current or active flight plan, the temporary flight plan or a (secondary) work flight plan).
    These steps 370 and / or 380 can optionally allow an improvement of the knowledge base by learning.
    Optionally, the application calculator can save the selection made by the pilot in order to enrich a knowledge base intended for machine learning. A feedback loop can also in turn improve the stages of selection of revision strategies (combinations of revisions), for example by analyzing the history of revisions that have been successfully negotiated (i.e. validated).
    In one or more stages (not shown), the pilot or crew can "negotiate" the revised flight plan with the air traffic control authorities. Once validated by the pilot, the latter generally talks orally by radio and / or by digital communication channel (by so-called datalink channel) of the possibility of making the proposed revision genuinely effective. Air traffic control can accept or refuse the revision. Today human negotiation, carried out punctually over time and relating to a revision each time could tomorrow be partially automated, intensified in terms of frequency of negotiation and relating to multiple sub-objects (finer granularity).
    Advantageously according to the invention, the pilot is helped or assisted in his negotiation with air traffic control. For example, the pilot will be able to choose a revision (or combination of revisions) with which to start, by analyzing the best compromise between the added value (for the aircraft, the passengers, the airline) and the "difficulty" of negotiation. The negotiation can be carried out in different ways including voice for example or more generally by means of the systems offered to operators (e.g. uplink / downlink datalink with ATC).
    Once the final flight plan has been accepted by air traffic control, the pilot can issue a command or request in order to effectively fly the revised flight plan.
    Advantageously according to the invention, if applicable, the flight plan (alternately determined, selected, negotiated, validated and activated) inherits the properties or attributes of a native F.M.S. flight plan, by its construction.
    FIG. 4 details an embodiment of the invention for evaluating the impact of a constraint k in a flight plan which contains N constraints.
    A flight plan can indeed be considered as an object or set of N constraints (e.g. lateral, vertical, performance and flight envelope). This object with N constraints is received and / or determined in step 330.
    The initial object can be manipulated by the avionics computer in its entirety (ie with its N constraints) but the critical and qualified resources of the latter can be used or used to manipulate modified or derived objects from this object initial to N constraints. Objects derived from this flight plan are created and manipulated in step 340.
    The step 340 of avionic manipulation of the derived flight plans can comprise different substeps, depending on the embodiments.
    Step 340 may in particular include a step 499 for evaluating a constraint k in a flight plan which contains N (k varying from 1 to N). This step 499 can be repeated.
    After determining the derived objects, the computer 301 calculates all the data or parameters associated with the different flight plans (with certified internal algorithms). Data are for example fuel predictions, transit times, etc.
    All of the data (e.g. evaluated constraints) can be stored in a 430 database.
    These evaluated constraints can be selected or modified by application of different events 452 or time constraints 453 (for example, flight plans which do not comply with strict constraints would be eliminated). In other words, optionally, the computer 302 can manage the relevance of the flight plan proposed by associating it, for example, with a period of validity, or by deleting flight plans for an F.M.S. or not (the plane has sequenced a point for example). The method of generating or selecting revisions can be improved in return.
    The impact of each constraint can be individualized or quantified or estimated or quantified or highlighted in step 350. The computer 302 can indeed assess the impact on the flight plan of each constraint. If the rating model is a cost model, the calculator can for example evaluate the unit cost of each constraint, unit cost which once integrated into the entire flight plan can give the total cost of the flight.
    In subsequent stages not shown, the pilot assisted by the upstream evaluations can view the most favorable and / or least favorable zones of his flight plan (sets of flight points). The pilot can then knowingly negotiate with ATC air traffic control to optimize the flight of the aircraft. A plan with constraints i being validated by the air traffic control authorities, the pilot can then insert the revision in the current flight plan of the aircraft and effectively fly this revised flight plan.
    FIG. 5 details an embodiment for evaluating a constraint k in a flight plan which contains N constraints.
    In one embodiment, derived flight plans can in particular result from the subtraction of one or more constraints, which allows afterwards (after qualified avionics calculation) to evaluate the cost or the impact of one or more constraints having been subtracted. This creation of derived objects can be carried out in practice by the server 301, but it can also be taken care of by the computer 302 (or a combination)
    In step 510, in one embodiment, the number of constraints is gradually decremented (i.e. it is gradually removed from a constraint). For example, the computer 302 can request the F.M.S. to calculate N flight plans, each flight plan being the initial flight plan from which a constraint is removed. In other words, the parameters associated with a flight plan with N constraints are successively calculated, then N-1 constraints. In one embodiment, the constraints are removed successively (the parameters associated with a flight plan with N constraints are determined first, then with N-1 constraints, then with N-2 constraints, and so on until a flight plan with a single constraint). The combinatorics can therefore be important since it is possible for each iteration k to remove one of k-1 constraints.
    In an alternative embodiment, the stresses are removed so as to cover all the possibilities (all the combinations). Such a brute force approach is possible, a fortiori with a reduced number of constraints, but combinatorial exploration can be optimized or guided in certain cases (large number of constraints).
    In an alternative embodiment, the constraints are removed by packet of N coherent or similar constraints (or category). For example, in one embodiment, the constraints of altitude, or speed, or time may be removed as a priority and / or first. In another embodiment, specific constraints will be removed on a given phase of the flight (e.g. climb, cruise, descent). In some embodiments, airspace constraints may be removed or ignored. In still other embodiments, all or part of the operational cost constraints may be set aside. Sets of constraints can be grouped and ignored in a combinatorial way. Scoring or scoring methods can be implemented to explore and / or reduce the combinatorics and make the calculations converge.
    In step 520, a derived flight object or plan, for example G, is created by removing a constraint k from the flight plan F. The two flight plans F and G are transmitted and manipulated by the avionics computer (if l evaluation of F already exists, this step can be skipped).
    In step 530, the difference between the results determines the evaluation of the impact of the constraint k.
    Other embodiments are described below.
    In one embodiment of the invention, the revisions or combinations of revisions are determined or updated according to the flight context. Similarly, the steps of generating, combining, filtering, evaluating, classifying, selecting the revisions (or the combinations of revisions) and / or the operations carried out on the results of the avionic calculations can be carried out taking into account this context of flight.
    An “flight context” of the aircraft corresponds in particular to one of the takeoff, climb, cruise, approach, descent, etc. phases. Advantageously, taking the flight context into account to determine the selection of revisions and / or combinations of revisions makes it possible to optimize the use of accesses to the critical avionics core. The method according to the invention may include logical methods or steps making it possible to determine the flight context or current flight context of the aircraft. The flight context at a given time includes all of the actions taken by the pilots (and in particular the effective flight instructions) and the influence of the external environment on the aircraft. A flight context includes for example a situation among predefined or pre-categorized situations associated with data such as the position, the flight phase, the waypoints, the procedure in progress (and others). Furthermore, the current flight context can be associated with a multitude of attributes or descriptive parameters (current meteorological state, traffic state, pilot status comprising for example a stress level as measured by sensors, etc.). A flight context can therefore also include data, for example filtered by priority and / or based on flight phase data, meteorological problems, avionics parameters, ATC negotiations, flight status anomalies, problems related to traffic and / or relief. Examples of flight context include, for example, contexts such as cruising / no turbulence / nominal pilot stress or else landing phase / turbulence / intense pilot stress. There may be specific rules in certain contexts, notably emergencies or critical situations. Context categories can be static or dynamic (e.g. configurable). The method can be implemented in a system comprising means for determining a flight context of the aircraft, said determination means comprising in particular logic rules, which manipulate values as measured by physical measurement means. In other words, the means of determining the flight context ”include system or hardware or physical / tangible means and / or logical means (eg predefined logical rules, for example). For example, physical means include avionics instrumentation in the literal sense (radars, probes, etc.) which make it possible to establish factual measurements characterizing the flight. Logical rules represent all of the information processing used to interpret (e.g. contextualize) factual measures. Certain values can correspond to several contexts and by correlation and / or calculation and / or simulation, it is possible to decide on candidate contexts, by means of these logical rules. A variety of technologies makes it possible to implement these logical rules (formal logic, fuzzy logic, intuitionist logic, etc.)
    The boundaries of perimeters in this document (e.g. "first calculator", "second calculator") should not be interpreted in a restrictive manner, at least in space. A computer system can be distributed in physical space. The terminology used refers to logical distinctions. Thus, an F.M.S. may correspond to a server in a rack while the application calculator may correspond to a multitude of electronic circuits distributed in space (e.g. rack, also E.F.B.-type tablet, computer resources accessed remotely, etc.).
    The invention can be implemented using hardware and / or software elements. It may be available as a computer program product on computer-readable media. The support can be electronic, magnetic, optical or electromagnetic. The device implementing one or more of the process steps can use one or more dedicated electronic circuits or a general-purpose circuit. The technique of the invention can be carried out on a reprogrammable calculation machine (a processor or a microcontroller for example) executing a program comprising a sequence of instructions, or on a dedicated calculation machine (for example a set of logic gates like an FPGA or ASIC, or any other hardware module). A dedicated circuit can notably speed up performance in terms of access and execution of avionics services. As an example of a hardware architecture adapted to implementing the invention, a device may include a communication bus to which a central processing unit or microprocessor (CPU, acronym for "Central Processing Unit" in English) is connected, which processor can be multi-core or many-core ·, a read only memory (ROM, acronym for "Read Only Memory" in English) which may include the programs necessary for the implementation of the invention; a random access memory or cache memory (RAM, acronym for "Random Access Memory" in English) comprising registers suitable for recording variables and parameters created and modified during the execution of the aforementioned programs; and a communication or I / O interface (I / O acronym for "Input / output" in English) adapted to transmit and receive data. In the case where the invention is implemented on a reprogrammable computing machine, the corresponding program (that is to say the sequence of instructions) can be stored in or on a removable storage medium (for example a flash memory , an SD card), a mass storage means such as a hard disk (eg an SSD) or non-removable, volatile or nonvolatile, this storage medium being partially or totally readable by a computer or a processor. The telecommunications network can be 2G, 3G, 4G, Wifi, BLE, fiber optic, proprietary type or according to a combination of these networks. The reference to a computer program which, when executed, performs any of the functions described above, is not limited to an application program running on a single host computer. On the contrary, the terms computer program and software are used here in a general sense to refer to any type of computer code (for example application software, firmware, microcode, or any other form of instruction which can be used to program one or more processors to implement aspects of the techniques described here. IT resources or resources can be centralized and / or distributed (Cloud computing), possibly with or according to peer-to-peer and / or virtualization and / or redundancy technologies. The software code can be executed on any suitable processor (for example, a microprocessor) or processor core or a set of processors, whether provided in a single computing device or distributed among several computing devices.
    权利要求:
    Claims (15)
    [1" id="c-fr-0001]
    Claims
    1. Method for managing the revision of an aircraft flight plan implemented by at least two systems, the first system being an avionics flight management system of type F.M.S. and the second system interacting with the first avionic system being of non-avionic type, the method comprising the steps consisting in:
    - receive a flight plan;
    - in the second non-avionics system, determining a plurality of revisions of the flight plan received;
    - in the first avionics system, determining the avionics parameters corresponding to the revised flight plans associated with combinations of the revisions having been determined;
    - in the second non-avionics system, compare the avionics parameters thus determined and assess the impact of at least one revision of the flight plan.
    [2" id="c-fr-0002]
    2. Method according to claim 1, the combination of revisions being determined according to predefined criteria.
    [3" id="c-fr-0003]
    3. Method according to any one of the preceding claims, the combination of revisions minimizing the duration of negotiation with the ATC air traffic control authority, said duration being estimated from durations measured in the past or being estimated for the future.
    [4" id="c-fr-0004]
    4. Method according to any one of the preceding claims, further comprising the step of quantifying and displaying the impact of a revision of the flight plan.
    [5" id="c-fr-0005]
    5. Method according to any one of the preceding claims, further comprising the step of receiving the selection of a revised flight plan from among several, the revised flight plan comprising a particular combination of revisions.
    [6" id="c-fr-0006]
    6. Method according to any one of the preceding claims, further comprising the step of communicating to ATC air traffic control a request for authorization to fly a flight plan associated with a particular combination of revisions.
    [7" id="c-fr-0007]
    7. Method according to any one of the preceding claims, further comprising the step of inserting the selected and / or authorized flight plan into the avionics flight management system.
    [8" id="c-fr-0008]
    8. Method according to any one of the preceding claims, a flight plan being associated with N constraints, the method further comprising Γ step consisting in determining in the first avionics system the avionics parameters associated with different combinations of the flight plans at Nk constraints, k varying from 1 to N-1.
    [9" id="c-fr-0009]
    9. The method of claim 8, the number of constraints of the flight plans being gradually decremented, the nature of a subtracted constraint being indifferent.
    [10" id="c-fr-0010]
    10 The method of claim 8, the number of constraints of the flight plans being gradually decremented, in a predefined order as to the nature of the constraints.
    [11" id="c-fr-0011]
    11. Method according to any one of claims 8 to 9, further comprising the step of evaluating the impact of a previously selected constraint.
    [12" id="c-fr-0012]
    12. Method according to any one of the preceding claims, the revisions or the combination of revisions of the flight plan being a function of the flight context and / or being determined by learning.
    [13" id="c-fr-0013]
    13. A computer program product, said computer program comprising code instructions making it possible to carry out the steps of the method according to any one of claims 1 to 12, when said program is executed on a computer.
    [14" id="c-fr-0014]
    14. System for implementing the steps of the method according to any one of claims 1 to 12, comprising a flight management system of avionics type F.M.S.
    [15" id="c-fr-0015]
    15. The system as claimed in claim 14, comprising a non-avionic system of the electronic flight bag or E.F.B. type. or a digital tablet or AOC / ATC equipment.
    1/5
    类似技术:
    公开号 | 公开日 | 专利标题
    FR3055958A1|2018-03-16|DECISION AID FOR THE REVISION OF A FLIGHT PLAN
    US20210049916A1|2021-02-18|Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Authorization And Geofence Envelope Determination
    EP2945062A1|2015-11-18|Method for performing services in real time, in particular flight management and real-time system implementing such a method
    FR3046225B1|2019-06-28|DISPLAY OF WEATHER DATA IN AN AIRCRAFT
    FR3067802A1|2018-12-21|ALTERNATIVE ROAD MANAGEMENT FOR AN AIRCRAFT
    EP3007153A2|2016-04-13|Flight object communications system
    EP2991274B1|2017-02-01|Method for performing services in adaptive real time, in particular flight management and real-time system implementing such a method
    FR3046273A1|2017-06-30|OPEN ARCHITECTURE FOR FLIGHT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
    EP3340208A1|2018-06-27|Management of messages to flight crews
    FR3023912A1|2016-01-22|PERFORMANCE CALCULATION FOR AIRCRAFT
    FR3040801A1|2017-03-10|OPTIMIZING THE TRACK OF AN AIRCRAFT
    FR3030805A1|2016-06-24|QUALITY OF SERVICE OF A FLIGHT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
    FR3067803A1|2018-12-21|SYNCHRONIZATION OF A DUAL AVIONIC AND NON-AVIONIC SYSTEM
    US11164465B2|2021-11-02|Real-time identification and provision of preferred flight parameters
    FR3082829A1|2019-12-27|AIRCRAFT MANAGEMENT
    US10283001B2|2019-05-07|Optimizing real-time and planned air-traffic
    FR3038751A1|2017-01-13|METHOD FOR INTEGRATING A CONSTRAINED ROAD OPTIMIZATION APPLICATION IN AN OPEN ARCHITECTURE AIRCRAFT SYSTEM OF CLIENT-TYPE SERVER
    EP3537367A1|2019-09-11|Facilitating capturing aircraft flight segment
    FR3067805A1|2018-12-21|DECISION AID FOR THE CONTROL OF AN AIRCRAFT
    FR3113437A1|2022-02-18|AIRCRAFT PILOT ASSISTANCE SYSTEM AND METHOD
    JP7005347B2|2022-01-21|Risk assessment framework
    FR3107775A1|2021-09-03|MANIPULATION OF DATABASES BY DISTRIBUTED REGISTERS
    FR3105545A1|2021-06-25|DEVICE AND PROCEDURE FOR AUTOMATIC PROPOSAL FOR RESOLUTION OF AIR CONFLICTS
    同族专利:
    公开号 | 公开日
    CN107818396A|2018-03-20|
    US11017677B2|2021-05-25|
    US20180075758A1|2018-03-15|
    FR3055958B1|2020-04-24|
    引用文献:
    公开号 | 申请日 | 公开日 | 申请人 | 专利标题
    EP2267683A2|2009-06-25|2010-12-29|Honeywell International Inc.|Automated decision aid tool for prompting a pilot to request a flight level change|
    US20130080043A1|2011-09-28|2013-03-28|U.S.A As Represented By The Administrator Of The National Aeronautics And Space Administration|Method and Apparatus for Generating Flight-Optimizing Trajectories|
    EP2975361A1|2014-07-18|2016-01-20|Thales|Flight plan data management|
    US20160019795A1|2014-07-18|2016-01-21|Quaero Ltd.|Flight trajectory optimisation and visualisation tool|
    US20160093217A1|2014-09-30|2016-03-31|The Boeing Company|Automatic real-time flight plan updates|
    US7612716B2|1999-03-05|2009-11-03|Era Systems Corporation|Correlation of flight track data with other data sources|
    US6134500A|1999-06-03|2000-10-17|United Air Lines, Inc.|System and method for generating optimal flight plans for airline operations control|
    FR2854948B1|2003-05-16|2005-07-29|Thales Sa|FLIGHT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM|
    US7877197B2|2007-05-15|2011-01-25|The Boeing Company|Systems and methods for real-time conflict-checked, operationally preferred flight trajectory revision recommendations|
    FR2939505B1|2008-12-09|2011-02-11|Thales Sa|FLIGHT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM WITH LATERAL FLIGHT PLAN OPTIMIZATION|
    FR2939917B1|2008-12-12|2012-09-21|Thales Sa|METHOD AND DEVICE FOR OPTIMIZING THE FLIGHT OF AN AIRCRAFT|
    US8463535B2|2011-01-21|2013-06-11|Lockheed Martin Corporation|Method and apparatus for encoding and using user preferences in air traffic management operations|
    FR2983594B1|2011-12-02|2014-09-26|Thales Sa|METHOD FOR MANAGING A VERTICAL FLIGHT PLAN|
    US9494937B2|2014-06-20|2016-11-15|Verizon Telematics Inc.|Method and system for drone deliveries to vehicles in route|
    FR3025920B1|2014-09-15|2016-11-04|Thales Sa|METHOD FOR REAL-TIME CALCULATION OF A PLANNED TRACK, IN PARTICULAR A FLIGHT PLAN, COMBINING A MISSION, AND A SYSTEM FOR MANAGING SUCH A TRAJECTORY|
    FR3029652B1|2014-12-03|2019-12-27|Thales|METHOD FOR CALCULATING AN AIRPLANE TRAJECTORY SUBJECT TO LATERAL AND VERTICAL CONSTRAINTS|
    FR3029619B1|2014-12-05|2017-10-06|Airbus Operations Sas|MANAGEMENT SYSTEM, ESPECIALLY FLIGHT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM, FOR AN AIRCRAFT.|
    EP3109724B1|2015-06-26|2022-02-09|The Boeing Company|Method and system of controlling a flight of an aircraft subjected to a required time of arrival constraint|
    US9542851B1|2015-11-03|2017-01-10|The Boeing Company|Avionics flight management recommender system|
    US10417614B2|2016-05-06|2019-09-17|General Electric Company|Controlling aircraft operations and aircraft engine components assignment|US10616241B2|2017-06-05|2020-04-07|Honeywell International Inc.|Systems and methods for performing external data validation for aircraft onboard systems|
    FR3067803B1|2017-06-16|2020-05-22|Thales|SYNCHRONIZATION OF A DUAL AVIONIC AND NON-AVIONIC SYSTEM|
    CN108734406B|2018-05-25|2021-09-21|国网山东省电力公司烟台供电公司|Automatic power cut and transmission plan balancing method based on weight algorithm|
    FR3083897A1|2018-07-11|2020-01-17|Dassault Aviation|SYSTEM FOR MANAGING THE TASKS OF AN AIRCRAFT CREW DURING A MISSION AND ASSOCIATED METHOD|
    FR3084199B1|2018-07-20|2021-04-16|Thales Sa|FLIGHT CONTROL FROM A NON-AVIONIC DEVICE|
    EP3637386A1|2018-10-12|2020-04-15|Thales|Machine learning on big data in avionics|
    CN109830126B|2019-02-15|2020-07-14|广州煜煊信息科技有限公司|Aircraft grading passing method|
    US11270593B2|2019-09-20|2022-03-08|Honeywell International Inc.|Advisory method and system for flight trajectory optimization|
    CN110728857B|2019-10-21|2020-12-25|飞牛智能科技（南京）有限公司|Low-altitude isolation airspace traffic management method based on vertically-taking-off and landing unmanned aerial vehicle|
    WO2021091874A1|2019-11-08|2021-05-14|Smartsky Networks, Llc|Apparatus, method and system for providing evaluation and/or optimization of trajectory management for ground and air services|
    CN111081073A|2019-12-27|2020-04-28|中国航空工业集团公司西安飞机设计研究所|Method for bidirectional sorting of waypoints of flight management system|
    法律状态:
    2017-08-29| PLFP| Fee payment|Year of fee payment: 2 |
    2018-03-16| PLSC| Search report ready|Effective date: 20180316 |
    2018-08-28| PLFP| Fee payment|Year of fee payment: 3 |
    2019-08-29| PLFP| Fee payment|Year of fee payment: 4 |
    2020-08-26| PLFP| Fee payment|Year of fee payment: 5 |
    2021-08-26| PLFP| Fee payment|Year of fee payment: 6 |
    优先权:
    申请号 | 申请日 | 专利标题
    FR1601342|2016-09-13|
    FR1601342A|FR3055958B1|2016-09-13|2016-09-13|DECISION ASSISTANCE FOR THE REVISION OF A FLIGHT PLAN|FR1601342A| FR3055958B1|2016-09-13|2016-09-13|DECISION ASSISTANCE FOR THE REVISION OF A FLIGHT PLAN|
    US15/700,156| US11017677B2|2016-09-13|2017-09-10|Decision-making aid for revising a flight plan|
    CN201710820832.1A| CN107818396A|2016-09-13|2017-09-13|For changing the decision assistant of flight plan|
    [返回顶部]