SUMMARY REPORT
MEETING No. 96
AEROSPACE CONTROL AND GUIDANCE SYSTEMS COMMITTEE
Harbour Town Resorts
Hilton Head, South Carolina
19-21 OCTOBER 2005
Compiled by:
Dave Bodden
Vice Chairman
November 15, 2005
Table of Contents
4.0 GENERAL COMMITTEE TECHNICAL SESSION 5
4.1 Government Agencies Summary Reports 5
4.1.1 US Navy 5
4.1.1.1 NAWCAD S&T -- Marc Steinberg 5
4.1.2 US Air Force 5
4.1.2.1 Air Force Research Lab -- Brian Van Vliet 5
4.1.3 NASA 6
4.1.3.1 NASA Headquarters – Herm Rediess 6
4.1.4 FAA 7
4.1.4.1 FAA Technical Center - Stan Pszczolkowski 7
4.2 Research Institutions, Industry and University Reports 7
4.2.1 Universities 7
4.2.1.1 University of California - Karl Hedrick 7
4.2.1.2 University of California/Davis - Ron Hess 8
4.2.1.3 University of Florida – Rick Lind CANCELLED 8
4.2.1.4 University of Minnesota – Gary Balas 8
4.2.2 Research Institutes and Companies 8
4.2.2.1 Airbus – Pascal Traverse 8
4.2.2.2 Athena Tech., Inc. – Vlad Gavrilets 9
4.2.2.3 Barron Associates - Dave Ward 9
4.2.2.4 Calspan – Eric Ohmit 9
4.2.2.5 Hoh Aeronautics, Inc. - Dave Mitchell 11
4.2.2.6 Honeywell Tech Center – Sanjay Parthasarathy 11
4.2.2.7 Institute of Flight Research at DLR – Frank Thielecke 12
4.2.2.8 Saab - Staffon Bogg 12
4.2.2.9 Robert Heffley Engineering - Robert Heffley 12
4.2.2.10 Impact Technologies, LLC - Carl Byington 13
4.2.2.11 SAIC – Roger Burton 13
4.2.2.12 Scientific Systems - Raman Mehra 14
4.2.2.13 Systems Technology, Inc. - David Klyde 15
4.2.2.14 JHU/Applied Physics Lab - Neil Palumbo 15
4.2.2.15 Nascent Technology – Jim Paduano 15
5.0 SUBCOMMITTEE C – AVIONICS AND SYSTEM INTEGRATION 17
5.1 "Fault Identification and Reconfigurable Control" - Sanjay Parthasarathy and George Papageorgou, Honeywell 17
5.2 "The Implementation of Reduced Vertical Separation Minima in the Domestic United States Airspace" - Brian Colamosca, FAA 17
5.3 "Flight Test of Hybrid Surveillance" - Carl Jezierski, FAA
CANCELLED 17
5.4 “J-UCAS Multi-ship Coordinated Flight Testing at Edwards,” Kevin Wise, Boeing 18
6.0 Subcommittee D – Dynamics, Computation and analysis 18
6.1 “Development and Use of the University of Liverpool Moving Base Flight Simulator,” Dr. Mark White, University of Liverpool 18
6.2 “Overview of the Control Laws, Carefree Maneuvering Provisions, and Flight Test Status of the BA609 Commercial Tiltrotor,” David King and Bob Fortenbaugh, Bell Helicopter 19
6.3 "Emerging Trends in Air Transportation," Lance Sherry, George Mason University 19
6.4 “Flight Control System Updates to Minimize Pilot-Induced Oscillations ina Large Transport Aircraft,” Kamal Shweyk & Gary Weltz, Boeing. 20
7.0 SUBCOMMITTEE E – FLIGHT, PROPULSION AND AUTONOMOUS VEHCILE CONTROL SYSTEMS 20
7.1 “Autonomous Soaring,” Michael Allen, NASA 20
7.2 “Intelligent Autonomy for Multiple Naval Unmanned Vehicles,” Marc Steinberg, Naval Air Systems Command 21
7.3 “Scalable Approaches to Deploying Teams of Multiple Vehicles,” Vijay Kumar, University of Pennsylvania 22
7.4 “Techniques and Engineering Software for Prognostics and Health Management of Flight Control Actuators,” Carl Byington, Impact Technologies 22
8.0 SUBCOMMITTEE A – AERONAUTIC AND SURFACE VEHICLES 23
8.1 "Naval Aviation Mishap Investigations Using Engineering Simulations at the Naval Air Systems Command: Past, Present, and Future," Mike Bonner, Naval Air Systems Command 23
8.2 “T-45 Stability Augmented Steering System,” Christina Stack, Naval Air Systems Command 23
8.3 “AAW Flight Test – Control Design with CONDUIT,” Ryan Dibley, NASA DFRC 24
8.4 “Racing Car Dynamics,” Jeffrey Christos, STI 24
9.0 SUBCOMMITTEE B – MISSILES AND SPACE VEHICLES 25
9.1 “Guidance and Navigation for a Mars Airplane,” by Jeff Zinchuk, Draper Laboratory 25
9.2 “Micro-Spacecraft GN&C,” by Greg Mungas, JPL 25
9.3 “Airbus Fly-by-Wire: a Total Approach to Dependability”, by Pascal Traverse, Airbus 25
9.4 “Recent Advances in Precision Airdrop from High Altitude,” by Phil Hattis, Draper Laboratory. 25
4.0 GENERAL COMMITTEE TECHNICAL SESSION
4.1 Government Agencies Summary Reports
4.1.1 U.S. Navy
4.1.1.1 NAWCAD S&T - Marc Steinberg
Results were presented from the first flight of the retrofit reconfigurable control law on the F-18. Pilot handling qualities ratings/comments and flight-data time histories were shown for a set of evaluation maneuvers with a simulated aileron failure. The right aileron was disabled (locked) at a 15 degree offset from its trim position. This simulated failure was accomplished through use of special flight control research software that is hosted on the Fleet Support Flight Control Computer. The purpose of the experiment was to determine the potential benefits of implementing a retrofit reconfiguration strategy that modifies the pilot inputs to compensate for battle damage or actuator failures. Handling qualities improvements were observed for pitch-axis tasks and guns tracking maneuvers, and the delta-HQRs are comparable for smooth and aggressive maneuvers. The handling qualities ratings agree closely with those obtained in the hardware-in-the-loop simulations in the NAVAIR manned flight simulator facility. In addition, a summary was provided of operator in-the-loop and in-water demonstrations under the Intelligent Autonomy program and new starts in autonomous control for maritime operations and shipboard dynamic interface were briefly discussed.
4.1.2 US Air Force
4.1.2.1 Air Force Research Lab – Brian Van Vliet
The Air Force Research Laboratory, Air Vehicles Directorate, manages a Capability Area called Cooperative Aerospace Operations. This area focuses on control technologies to improve the operations of Unmanned Air Vehicles (UAVs). The area’s overarching goal is to achieve “same base; same time; same tempo” operations for UAVs as manned aircraft. The research areas include: mixed manned / unmanned teams; UAV in-situ decision making; transparent airspace operations; adaptive software V&V; and reliable unmanned operations.
The FARs require aircraft have a “see and avoid” capability to operation in the National Air Space (NAS). This is the last line of defense to avoid collision between two air vehicles. For manned aircraft, the pilot easily achieves this through constant vigilance outside the cockpit. For UAVs, this is a tremendous challenge. To accomplish this capability, AFRL initiated a “Sense and Avoid” (SAA) Program. The goal is to develop and flight demonstrate safe multi-UAV air operations in the NAS and AOR. The greatest challenge is how to achieve an “equivalent level of safety”. The program approach is to use three electric-optical sensors and passive ranging technology to identify potential collision threats to the UAV and, if necessary, accomplish a collision avoidance maneuver. The desired initial transition is the Global Hawk and Predator.
Present day air weapon systems are able to project/power around the world (deployment) quickly in part due aerial refueling. Additionally, long persistence in the AOR (employment) can be maintained again due in part to aerial refueling. AFRL has initiated the Automated Aerial Refueling (AAR) Program to develop this same capability for UCAVs. The AAR Program will provide the capability for UCAVs to precisely station-keep in the air refueling Contact Position; and to safely maneuver to / from the Contact Position. To date, two key flight tests have occurred. In Sep 04, the Open Loop Flight Test occurred evaluating the GPS satellite blockage due to being under the tanker (KC-135) in the contact position. In Sep 05, the TTNT Data Link evaluated DARPA’s new data link in a seven-aircraft operation attempting to maximize the data transfer on the link. The test was also the first look at the Precision GPS operation on the surrogate UCAV (Calspan Learjet). The desired initial transition is the J-UCAS Program.
AFRL’s Autonomous Opportune Landing Capability Program is developing two unique capabilities: Opportune Landing System (OLS) and the Autonomous Approach and Landing Capability (AALC). The OLS will allow the warfighter to identify a safe Landing Zone using overhead assets (satellite or aircraft) utilizing hyper-spectral sensors identifying surface type and hardness. The AALC program will provide tactical aircraft the ability to operate in zero ceiling-zero visibility weather conditions without dependence on any ground navigation equipment. The desired initial transition is the C-17.
4.1.3 NASA
4.1.3.1 Headquarters – Herm Rediess
NASA in transition – Many changes are taking place in NASA. Mike Griffin is the new Administrator and Shana Dale has been nominated for Deputy Administrator. Mike Griffin is in the process of replacing all the Associate Administrators (AA): Scott Horowitz is the new AA for Exploration Systems; William Gerstenmaier is the new AA for Space Operations; and Mary Cleave is the new AA for Science. He is in the process of selecting the AA for Aeronautics Research. Vic Lebacqz, previous AA for Aeronautics and long-time member of this Committee, is retiring from NASA and will be joining UC Santa Cruz. Lisa Porter, a Special Assistant to the Administrator for Aeronautics, is providing guidance for restructuring the Aeronautics program. General Roy Bridges (USAF Ret.) announced his retirement as the Director of Langley Research Center. Lesa Roe, the former Deputy, is the new Center Director. Julian Earls announced his retirement as Glenn Research Center Director. Woodrow Whitlow has been named as his replacement.
Space exploration is clearly the number one priority and the primary focus of Dr. Griffin’s attention. The new Exploration Architecture was announced in September (see www.nasa.gov). Returning the Space Shuttle to flight is critical for completing and servicing the International Space Station (ISS) in the near term. New heavy lift and crew launch vehicles will begin servicing the ISS in five years. The Science Mission remains about the same, to obtain scientific knowledge of the Earth-Sun system, the Solar system, and the universe. The Administrator plans to maintain, strengthen and rely heavily on NASA in-house expertise for all NASA Missions, including Aeronautics.
Aeronautics remains the lowest priority and funding. The FY06 request is $852.3M, down from $1,056.8M in FY04, $906.2M in FY05 and decreasing to about $717M by 2010. The program is being reshaped to focus on fundamental aeronautics research. A series of workshops are being held at the aeronautics research Centers for in-house technical experts to define detail multi-year
research roadmaps with specific milestones in each of 9 to 11 technical areas. The reshaped program will be vetted to industry and academia once fully developed, probably in November or December. The research projects will be proposed by key disciplinary experts at the Centers in the 9 to 11 areas. Any planned university research is to be included in the Center proposals. Research facilities, like wind tunnels, will be maintained as National assets. The Aeronautics Program will continue to support the Joint Planning and Development Office (JPDO).
4.1.4 FAA
4.1.4.1 FAA Tech Center - Stanley Pszczolkowski
Congress directed 7 departments and agencies to ensure that the Next Generation Air Transportation System (NGATS) meets safety, security, mobility, efficiency and capacity needs well into the future. Congress also directed the departments and agencies form a Senior Policy Committee to direct this effort. In response, this committee has established a Joint Program Development Office (JPDO). In December 2004, the JPDO published an “Integrated Plan for the Next Generation Air Transportation System” that contains 8 transformation strategies. One of these strategies is to “Establish an Agile Air Traffic System” that accommodates future requirements, technologies and improvements; is readily responsive to shifts in demand and supports the wide range and number of operations tailored to customer needs. To meet these goals, a number of major NGATS characteristics have been identified that require an accurate 4 dimensional model of aircraft trajectory. Independent of the JPDO, the FAA, NASA, Eurocontrol and the Civil Aviation Authority of France are working jointly to define a common methodology for the validation and improvement of trajectory prediction capabilities.
4.2 Research Institutions, Industry and University Reports
4.2.1 Universities
4.2.1.1 University of California/Berkeley – Karl Hedrick
We established the Center for Collaborative Control of Unmanned Vehicles at Berkeley in 2003. My colleague, Raja Sengupta and I are concentrating on multiple vehicle teaming and autonomy. We have established a fleet of 4 UAV’s that are equipped with PC 104’s and communication capabilities for air-to-ground and air-to-air communication. We have flight tested several multiple collaborating UAV scenarios. We are currently working on high level human-to-agent and agent –to-agent information exchange formats, we have named this format BLCC (Berkeley Language for
Collaborative Control). In addition we are working on incorporating vision in the navigation feedback loop for UAV’s.
4.2.1.2 University of California/Davis - Ron Hess
A brief summary of five research projects was presented. These projects included
(1) A simplified technique for modeling piloted rotorcraft operations near ships; Research sponsored as part of a Phase II SBIR with Robert Heffley Engineering – Pilot Behavioral Modeling for Flight Operations Near Ships; Naval Air Warfare Center, Patuxent River, MD.
(2) A simplified approach for modeling pilot pursuit control behavior in multi-loop flight tasks; Research sponsored as part of a Phase II SBIR with Robert Heffley Engineering – Pilot Behavioral Modeling for Flight Operations Near Ships; Naval Air Warfare Center, Patuxent River, MD.
(3) Certification and design issues for rudder control systems in transport aircraft; Research Sponsored by FAA Hughes Research Center – Certification Standards for Transport Aircraft.
(4) Nonlinear inversion control for a ducted fan UAV; Research Sponsored by Army Aeroflightdynamics Directorate, NASA Ames Research Center.
(5) Design, construction, and testing of a UAV for remote sensing; Research sponsored by University of California, California Space Institute (two-year grant).
4.2.1.3 University of Florida – Rick Lind
Not Presented
4.2.1.4 University of Minnesota – Gary Balas
The current research on going at the University of Minnesota in the controls area includes:
· “Control Reconfiguration and Fault Detection and Isolation Using Linear, Parameter Varying Techniques,” NASA Langley Research Center, NASA Aviation Safety Program, Dr. Christine Belcastro Technical Monitor
· “Stability and Control of Supercavitating Vehicles,” ONR, Dr. Kam Ng Program Manager. A special session planned for the 2006 American Control Conference entitled “Modeling and Control of High-Speed Underwater Vehicles”
· Local Arrangements Chair, 2006 American Control Conference, 14-16 June 2006, Minneapolis, MN
· “Control of Projectiles” sponsored by ATK precision guidance organization.
· “Development of Analysis Tools for Certification of Flight Control Laws,” joint work with Andy Packard at UC Berkeley and Pete Seiler at Honeywell. This research is being funded by AFOSR.