NASA

Contractor

Report

4683

Pilot-Induced Human

Oscillations Behavior

and

Dynamic

Duane

T. McRuer

July

1995

NASA Contractor

Report

4683

Pilot-Induced Human

Oscillations Behavior

and

Dynamic

Duane T. McRuer Systems Technology, Inc. Hawthorne, California

Prepared under Subcontract TSD-93-STI-2806 to PRC Inc.

National Aeronautics Space Administration Office of Management and Technical Program

and

Scientific Information 1995

TABLE

OF CONTENTS

Pa e
LIST OF FIGURES LIST OF TABLES ABSTRACT ....................................................... ........................................................ v vii 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 8 11 11 12 14 19 27 29 32 35 35 37 53 60 62 64 68 70 70 71 77 ........... 79 79 80 83 86 89 95

............................................................

INTRODUCTION ........................................................ A. THE ANATOMY OF PILOT-INDUCED OSCILLATIONS ..................... B. CLASSIC AND POTENTIAL FUTURE PIOS ............................... C. PREDICTIVE MEANS AND CRITERIA .................................. D. WHAT IS TO COME ................................................ HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE ............................................... A. ESSENTIALLY SINGLE AXIS, EXTENDED RIGID BODY EFFECTIVE VEHICLE DYNAMICS ...................................................... B. ESSENTIALLY SINGLE AXIS, EXTENDED RIGID BODY WITH SIGNIFICANT MANIPULATOR MECHANICAL CONTROL ELEMENTS .................... C. MULTIPLE AXIS PIOS EXTENDED RIGID BODY ........................ D. PIOS INVOLVING HIGHER FREQUENCY MODES ........................ PILOT BEHAVIORAL PATTERNS .......................................... A. HUMAN PILOT DYNAMICS -- COMPENSATORY BEHAVIOR ............... B. HUMAN PILOT DYNAMICS -- PURSUIT BEHAVIOR ...................... C. HUMAN PILOT DYNAMICS -- PRECOGNITIVE BEHAVIOR ................. D. PILOT ABERRANT BEHAVIOR CHARACTERISTICS ...................... AIRCRAFT DYNAMIC FEATURES THAT CAN CONTRIBUTE TO PIO ............... A. EXCESSIVE LAGS IN EFFECTIVE VEHICLE (Aircraft Plus Stability Augmentation) 1. Pilot Dynamic Characteristics in Severe PIOs ............................ 2. Governing Principle for Good Flying Qualities - Tolerance to Pilot Compensation Variations ..................................................... 3. The Space Shuttle Orbiter Approach and Landing Tests ...................... 4. F-8 Digital Fly-by-Wire Experiments -- The "Definitive" Lag Data ............. B. MISMATCHED PILOT-AIRCRAFT INTERFACE CHARACTERISTICS ........... C. CONTROLLER RATE LIMITING ...................................... D. VEHICLE DYNAMICS TRANSITIONS ................................. 1. The YF- 12 PIO ................................................. 2. 1"-38 PIO ..................................................... TRIGGERS AS CENTRAL FEATURES IN SEVERE PIOS .......................... FOR PIO

SUGGESTED PILOT-BEHAVIOR-THEORY-BASED CATEGORIES A. PROPOSED CATEGORIES .......................................... B. COMMENTARY .................................................. INTERIM PRESCRIPTIONS REMARKS TO AVOID PIO ...................................

CONCLUDING REFERENCES BIBLIOGRAPHY

................................................

......................................................... .......................................................

111

LIST OF FIGURES

Pa e
1. Conditions 2. Associated with PlO ............................................ 4 15 17 .................... ............. .............. 18 20 21 24 25 and Pursuit) (Adapted ............. 28 29 33 36 38 39

Human Dynamic

Behavioral

Features ........................................ Features ....................................

3. Additional 4. 5.

Human Pilot Dynamic

High Frequency Simple

PIO - Roll Ratchet

(Adapted from Refs. 38, 59)

Compensatory

System and Time Responses

(Adapted from Ref. 48)

6. Crossover

Model for Compensatory for Crossover Model

Systems (Adapted from Refs. 48, 60) ........................................ Model .................................... (Compensatory Conditions

7a. Bode Diagrams 7b. Gain-Phase

Diagram for Crossover Pilot-Vehicle

8. Closed-Loop 9. Comparative

System Possibilities

Data for Pursuit and Compensatory Oscillations Oscillations

from Ref. 51) ....... ...........

10. Sources 11. Sources

of Pilot-Induced of Pilot-Induced

(Pilot Aberrant-Behavior

Characteristics)

(Aircraft Dynamic Characteristics)

...............

12a. PIO Rating Scale and Flowchart 12b. 13a. Cooper-Harper Pilot Rating Scale

........................................... ..........................................

Baseline Configuration: 2-1 Pilot Ratings: 2/2/3 ; PIOR: 1/1/1 ; Zp = 0.054 sec Incremental Gain Range = 15.96 dB (6.28) .................................... Configuration: 2-5 {2-1 * 1/(1)} Pilot Ratings: 10/7/10 ; PIOR: 4/4/5 ; ,p = 0.235 sec Incremental Gain Range = 9.40 dB (2.95) .................................... Configuration: 2-8 {2-1 1/[.7,9]} Pilot Ratings: 8/10/8 ; PIOR: 4/4/4 Incremental Gain Range -- 6.60 dB (2.14) ....................................
; _p =

41

13b.

42

13c.

0.19 sec 43

13d.

Baseline Configuration: 3-1 Pilot Ratings: 5/3/4 ; PIOR: 3/2/2 ; "Cp 0.059 sec = Incremental Gain Range = 16.37 dB (6.58) .................................... Configuration: 3-12 {3-1 * 1/[.7,2]} Pilot Ratings: 7/9 ; PIOR: 4/5 ; xp = 0.32 sec Incremental Gain Range = 5.32 dB (1.84) .................................... Configuration: 3-13 {3-1 * 1/[.7,3]} Pilot Ratings: 10/10 ; PIOR: 4/5 ; "Cp 0.28 = Incremental Gain Range = 5.48 dB (1.88) .................................... Baseline Configuration: 5-1 ; Pilot Ratings: Incremental Gain Range = 18.71 dB (8.62) 2/5 ; PIOR: 1/1 ; ....................................
_p =

44

13e.

45

13f.

46

13g.

0.053 SeC 47

iv

LIST OF FIGURES

(concluded)

Pa e
13h. Configuration: 5-9 {5-1 * 1/[.7,6]} Pilot Ratings: 7/7 ; PIOR: 4/4 ; Xp = 0.26 sec Incremental Gain Range = 7.09 dB (2.26) .................................... Configuration: 5-10 {5-1 * 1/[.7,4]} Incremental Gain Range: 4.76 dB (1.73) of Flight-Based Pilot Ratings: 10/10 ; PIOR: 5/5 ; Xp = 0.36 sec ...................................... with Neutral Stability of 0/Fs .............

48

13i.

49 51

14. Comparison 15. Comparison Frequencies

PIO Frequencies

of Flight-Based PIO Frequencies .........................................................

with Compensatory

System Resonant 52 System Neutral Stability 53 56 57 61

16. Comparison of Flight-Based PIO Frequencies with Compensatory Frequency Based on the Crossover Model ..................................... 17. Bode and Gain Phase/Nichols 18. Bode and Gain Phase/Nichols 19. Shuttle 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. Effective Orbiter PIO (Ref. 18) Plots for LAHOS Plots for LAHOS Case 2-C Case 2-10

......................... .........................

............................................. (Ref. 77) ..................... Flight Research Facility) .......

Time Delay Data from Flight and Simulators of F-8 DFBW PIO (NASA Element Associated

62 63 65 .......... 67 69 71 Functions 72 73 75 76 78 84

Flight Recording Pilot Ratings Real World Simplified

Ames/Dryden

vs. Controlled Complications

Gain (Ref. 46) .............................. with PIO Understanding ..................................... (Ref. 15) ............................. and 0/_p Describing and Assessments

Surface

Servoactuator YF-12

System

Large-Amplitude

PIO Time History

Bode Diagram of YF-12 Longitudinal Control System (Adapted from Ref. 15) ................................................. Flight Recording T-38 Primary of T-38 PIO (Adapted

27. 28. 29. 30. 31.

from Refs. 10, 29, 30) ...................... (Ref. 10) 10) Shiffers ...........................

Control

System Block Diagram on Pitch Response (Ref. Mode

Effect of Bobweight Precursors/Triggers Interim Prescriptions

............................... ............................. .............................

Mechanisms/Pilot for Reduction

of PIO Potential

LIST OF TABLES

ease
I. 2. 3. Famous Crossover PIOs ......................................................... for Idealized Controlled Elements ................... 9 27

Model Characteristics

Closed-Loop Characteristics for Synchronous Pilot and Idealized Rate-Command Controlled Elements .................................................... Bjorkman Configurations Severe PlO Frequencies with Severe PIO's Developed ................................... Data (Ref. 72) with Corresponding Values

31 40

4. 5.

From Bjorkman

of cou0 and oa ....................................................... R 6. 7. Severe PIO Subset with Crossover Measures Model ..................................... Domain Characteristics .....................

50 52 59

Some Summary

of Frequency

vi

ABSTRACT
This is an in-depth survey and study of Pilot-Induced it includes Oscillations (PIOs) theory as interactions of PIOs. between

human pilot and vehicle perspective provides

dynamics;

a broad and comprehensive

A historical frequencies.

examples

of the diversity

of PIOs in terms of control axes and oscillation including effective events, aircraft dynamics, as the

The constituents behavior interacting patterns, the human patterns,

involved

in PIO phenomena, precursor

human pilot dynamic structural elements

and triggering severe

are examined The great aircraft

in detail diversity

to produce excessive

pilot-induced inappropriate dynamics

oscillations.

of human

pilot response in either

lags and/or aircraft

gain in effective

dynamics, implicated

and transitions as factors

or effective

are among the key sources

in severe PIOs. drawn proposed from as a

The great variety famous PIOs.

of interactions

which may result in severe PIOs is illustrated under a pilot-behavior-theory-based Finally,

by examples

These are generalized scheme pertinent

set of categories

classification is provided.

to a theory of PIOs.

a series of interim prescriptions

to avoid PIO

SECTION

INTRODUCTION

A pilot-induced of an abnormal and complex unambiguous

oscillation

(PIO) is an inadvertent, between the aircraft

sustained aircraft oscillation and the pilot.

which is the consequence

joint enterprise pilot-vehicle

In one form or another these fascinating Brothers. problems. They thus have an For, as one kind and

interactions

have been around

since the Wright

status as THE senior flying qualities problem (almost invariably surreptitiously),

or, more precisely,

of PIO appears generally be avoided

it stirs actions which

are more or less corrective difficulty

useful for the future in that the major sources believed to cause the particular in later aircraft (not always, of course, because the "word"

tend to

never seems to spread to all that

should hear[). Then, with different circumstances, itself is the constant in this progression; outlined

another kind of PIO repeats the cycle. The fact of oscillation employed. attempts

the details shift with the flight control system technology with only very occasional

The state of affairs at general advances. encountered in flight.

above has existed for several decades,

These were often spasmodic Recently, however,

and ad hoc, tending to be associated

with specific problems accidents

there has been a confluence

of some highly visible

in both military C- 17 pilot-vehicle research

and civil craft (e.g., the YF-22, JAS 39, and MD-11 PIOs), and incidents oscillations), and scientists. activities which has captured attention of policy-makers,

(e.g., V-22 and and applied another

decision-makers, the specific

engineers

Besides ad hoc efforts aimed at correcting

problems,

round of general breadth.

is now underway.

These have three foci, which have different by current "legislative means,"

time scales and i.e., by setting

The first is narrowly

confined to reduce PIO potential

forth criteria, e.g., Refs. I, 2, 3, and 4, based on existing predictive concepts The second focus emphasizes the paramount corrective approaches, quantitative

such as Refs. 5, 6, 7, and 8.

e.g., Ref. 9. The third is more general in that it recognizes analytical understanding of PIOs, embodied in a theory

need for an enhanced

or theories of those pilot-vehicle and codifies concepts understanding

interactions

which underlie PIOs. An adequate existing

PIO theory which improves of existing

can be useful in "explaining"

PIOs and in the validation data;

and criteria

which are consistent

11

with actual PIO and related criteria, and superior

they can also lead to the design. This is the subject

development addressed

of new concepts, appropriate in this report. oscillatory phenomena low-amplitude

flying qualities

Pilot-vehicle temporary,

comprise bobble

a complete

spectrum.

The oscillation

may be a very the feel of

easily-corrected,

often encountered experience.

by pilots when getting This can happen

and used to a new configuration

-- basically

a learning

on every airplane,

*This report is a much extended version of the Twenty-Second Minta Martin Lecture, "Human Dynamics and Pilot-lnduced Oscillations," given by the author on 2 December 1992 while at the Massachusettslnstitute of Technology as the Jerome Clarke Hunsaker Professor of Aeronautical Engineering.

andhasundoubtedly experienced everypilot atonetimeor another.Ontheotherhand,a fullybeen by developed, amplitude scillation ithnear ractual large o w o catastrophic consequenceschillingandterrifying isa eventeopardizinghesafety theaircraftandcrew. The only good thing about severe PIOs is that they j t of
are very rare. Yet severe PIOs persist and, in fact, grow in variety and complexity The large amplitude, diverse potentially catastrophic, severe PIO can appear as aircraft systems otherwise advance. in many guises and can involve many

factors which tend to complicate

and confuse.

The nature of these factors and how they interact

to produce this need.

severe PIOs needs to be understood; The approach

the goal of this report is to define a current status in satisfying describe, and examine the constituents of severe PIOs

taken here is to identify,

and how they may interact to create PIO phenomena. understanding A. of severe PIOs which elucidates OF PILOT-INDUCED between

Ideally this would result in a comprehensive and interactive mechanisms.

quantitative

their individual OSCILLATIONS

THE ANATOMY PIO is a collaboration

the pilot and the airplane in that the oscillations

can occur only when

the pilot attempts to impose his will on the aircraft. Because the pilot's actions depend

Indeed the aircraft left to its own devices may be stable. in response to pilot commands,

in part on the motions of the airplane feedback control system. can therefore

the aircraft and pilot dynamics closed-loop" of a feedback The general for oscillation all situations

form a closed-loop

The pilot is said to be "operating as closed-loop instabilities

or to be "in the loop." control system. structure

The oscillations

be identified

physical

of the pilot-vehicle 1 for single-loop

system and the necessary and sufficient situations. Generally, "single-loop"

conditions may include (which

are summarized where the pilot's

in Figure

output is expressed

by a single manipulation

of a control

inceptor

may effect several vehicle by a lateral stick deflection). pilot's

control effectors, Similarly,

as with coordinated includes

motions of aileron

and rudder originated situations. The

"single-loop"

many multi-variable-input motion

input can be: a simple visual cue, such as pitch attitude; location; or a composite

cue, such as normal

acceleration

at the pilot's situations

signal, such as a flight-director character

error display. control

Thus the "single-loop" output, c, in Figure 1.

defined

here really refers to the solitary conditions can only be satisfied

of the pilot's

The sufficient loop gains. to achieve

when the pilot-vehicle

system is operating

with high

Figure 1 lists some flight control tasks in which a high open-loop desired closed-loop system performance.

system gain may be required

Most of these high pilot gain tasks are well-defined

flight operations. events.

These nominal high gain tasks are normal and ordinary, whereas severe PIOs are extraordinary appear as the result of over-aggressive and/or the effective Transitions," vehicle actions, they can This

Thus, while some PIOs may occasionally with abnormal chan_es

usually be associated

in the pilot's

dynamics.

is where the last item listed, in Figure

1, "Demanding/Unexpected

comes in. These include

ELEMENTARY

PILOT-VEH]CLE

FEEDBACK

SYSTEM

System Input

System

I PILOT

Pilot

System Output AIRCRAFTc I

Outp_
C

Yp
(_ Errr _l

1 mCONDITION of Pilot FOR INSTABILITY + Effective

NECESSARY

AND

SUFFICIENT -- Transfer Aircraft,

Full Attention

Characterics Yp Yc = - 1 ONSET -Often WITH

USUAL

CONDITIONS Gain/Task TRACKING Refueling Flying Tracking Approaches Folling

OF Urgency

High TYPICAL Aerial

with a Precursor HIGH PILOT

Trigger GAIN/URGENCY

TASKS

Formation Precision Precision Terrain

and Spot Landings

(e.g.,

carrier

approach)

Demanding/Unexpected

Transitions

Figure

1.

Conditions

Associated

with

PIO

conditions

inducing

or requiring:

1) major and sudden overall shifts in goals, etc.; aircraft dynamics-

pilot-vehicle

system configuration

changes,

e.g., wave offs, target maneuvering, e.g., sudden changes light-off, dynamics dynamics in effective

2) effective

vehicle configuration cargo extractions,

modifications afterburner vehicle

such as low-altitude storesrelease,

engine unstart, stability augmenter changes

failure, asymmetric

or amplitude-sensitive

driven by pilot output-amplitude

shifts from small to large, or 3) changes e.g., shifting of attention or dominant

in the pilot's cues, etc. unusual of

and/or the pilot-defined and unusual

system architecture,

The unexpected precursor

aspect of most severe PIOs implies the likely presence or internal origins.

of another

or tri_.gjgg_event, arising from either external

These may be conditions

major upset, which can stem from gusts, turbulence, enter from the external effective embody vehicle's triggering environment. Triggers

unexpected

events (e.g., runway incursions), changes

etc. which or

may also derive from transitional

in the pilot's

characteristics,

i.e., transitions

in the system or system elements themselves

may actually

events as well as dynamic elements

changes. of PIOs are examined, patterns and possible along with key interactions, transitions between these

These anatomical in three oa_erns; attributes sections effective

involved in the generation pilot dynamic features; behavior

of this report: aircraft

dynamic

and tri_lzerinlz

possibilities. system elements,

The PIO-sensitive and as interactive and possible although

dynamic partners nature -not the

of the first two are developed As the interacting ingredients.

both as individual

within the system. the omnipresent specifics

entities they are key to PIO understanding These are sufficient The triggering to discover

essential

what is possible,

of exposure

and potential.

possibilities,

on the other hand, are almost impossible so one can then attempt new situations.

to encompass to project B.

in general;

we can only provide

examples

of past PIO precursors, triggers for specific

from these experiences AND POTENTIAL

some of the conceivable FUTURE PIOS

CLASSIC

Many classic severe PIOs can be understood PIOs often start with fairly low amplitudes, theory, severe PIOs will, by definition,

in the context ofquasilinear

system considerations.

While linear

which can adequately

be treated with small perturbation

become very large.

In the fully-developed

state these can still be features

treated on a quasi-linear as actuator

basis, including the impact on closed-loop position harder limiting, hysteresis, etc.

piloted control of such nonlinear When these combine, in its details.

rate and surface becomes

a severe PIO, when of the

it is encountered,

to unravel

and to understand

In fact, the majority

severe PIO time history records available show surface rate limiting (and sometimes limiting as well) in the fully developed rate limiting, surface oscillation. Particularly

stick or surface position lead to combinations of pilot commands,

insidious nonlinearities stick shaping

of actuator

and/or

SAS position

limits, nonlinear

various fader combinations, effective vehicle dynamics.

etc. which interact to create a confounding

variety of input-amplitude-sensitive

Unfortunately, apply active control

future advanced principles

systems

promise to be even more arcane. (e.g., combinations

Advanced of canards,

aircraft

which

to multiple

control effectors

flaps, elevons, a large number While

thrust vectoring, etc.) complicate

the flying qualities

and potential

PIO pictures by creating

of effective vehicle dynamic possibilities enhancing nominal dynamic performance,

which can be recruited at will or, sometimes, such systems may also introduce

inadvertently.

new PIO possibilities

associated

with transitions in effective input amplitude. performance quite large. C. PREDICTIVE MEANS

vehicle dynamics as functions

of the flight control system state or of the pilot's introduced to improve overall system possible, a number that is already

Thus, increases

in flight control system complexity

are accompanied

by an increase in the number of transitions

AND CRITERIA

No one ever designs an airplane pernicious

to be PIO-prone,

and their presence

is never welcome!

They can be have

because of their unpredictability.

Manned simulations,

either ground- or inflight-based,

been historically unable to guarantee their likely presence or absence. are similarly emphasize insufficient in many respects.

Further, existing and proposed criteria

Considered in their most general sense, most existing criteria lags as major factors in PIO. These can indeed be major with the ability to exert precise, high gain,

the importance

of net high-frequency

contributors to poor flying qualities, and they are inconsistent closed-loop control. But detailed investigations

of the causes of specific severe PIOs reveal that additional especially for the severe PIOs of most interest here. or proposed criteria they can be

factors are often needed to explain the phenomena, As none of these incomplete Although factors are specifically

contained

in the existing

at best, and non-selective the assessment

at worst. using existing predictive criteria, simulations motivation for

of aircraft for PIO tendencies to cover

and testing procedures improvement.

is not yet sufficient the unappreciated understanding understanding

all cases, this status factors

is a powerful

In particular,

and ill-defined

associated

with PIO possibilities, the paramount analyses, need for

and the current incomplete an enhanced quantitative PlO suitable

of PIO mechanisms,

further underscore experiments,

of PlOs -- comprehensive

and theories of concepts which

to cover both classic and future situations.

In the normal course,

theoretical

improve and codify understanding of criteria be wished, to fit new systems, so a major thrust

will support the development flying qualities is to advance

of new concepts,

appropriate

adjustments devoutly theory to of

and superior of this report

design.

This is a consummation of a comprehensive

the development

severe pilot-induced flight simulations existing aircraft procedures

oscillations

which can be used in company aircraft

with existing criteria

and ground and inPlO problems with

to address future advanced as they appear.

and/or to assess and help alleviate

It is not, however,

the purpose to explore existing criteria or PIO testing

in depth, or to add to the list in either area.

D.

WHAT

IS TO COME

The next section provides as significant extensively primarily events measured by gradually in aviation

a historical

perspective

based on "Famous

PIOs,"

notorious

but celebrated

history which had to be surmounted.

A very few of these PIOs have been Others are represented part of the lore,

and analyzed

and have details which are well-appreciated.

fading movie or video recordings; They are or were all important

while still others are becoming in the sense of providing

even mythology, and behavior

of flight.

lessons to be learned

to be explained. pilot behavioral patterns. In some respects, the appellation Because "Pilot-Induced the phrase tends some

The third section describes Oscillations" to raise is pejorative hackles

because the pilot acting alone is seldom the problem. or, more importantly, to shift blame

emotional

from the machine

to the pilot,

investigators

prefer to speak of"Aircraff-Pilot that the pilot is a participant,

Coupling"

or"Pilot-Augmented

Oscillations,"etc.

Regardless,

the fact remains the severe

and pilot behavior feedback control

is the source-factor

which distinguishes reside in

PIO problem from most aircraft human properties

design problems. characteristics First, different

The differences

those uniquely

related to the enormously flight control These

adaptive system.

of the human pilot for pilot behavior behavior patterns and lowpilot

which there are no parallels are associated frequency dynamics with different

in an automatic types of PIO.

patterns

include:

compensatory

neuromuscular

dynamics

with PIOs in the 0.3 to 0.8 Hz (2-5 rad/sec)

range; synchronous

with PIOs in the I-2 Hz (6-12 rad/sec) range and with flexible mode interactions,

more complete

limb/neuromuscular/manipulator exhibit peculiar can involve transitions the

dynamics with PIOs in the 1-3 Hz (6-20 rad/sec) range, etc. Second, pilots in the organizational compensation structure (e.g., when of the pilot-vehicle a pilot adapted system. to high-gain These transitions compensatory architecture of

both

pilot's

tracking/regulation the pilot's control

suddenly strategy

shifts to a "synchronous" (i.e., as manifested aspects

pure gain mode) and the effective

by which variables

the pilot senses and processes). in the "Pilot Behavioral

All of Patterns"

these and other PIO-significant section.

of pilot dynamics are covered

The fourth section turns to the other partner -- aircraft These are very extensive, and examples aircrafVs role. in the anatomy and the section

dynamic

features which can contribute by far. Both experimental

to a PIO. studies

is the longest in the report

from the "Famous

PIOs" series are examined

for what they can tell us about the effective

The third constituent difficult to generalize,

of PIOs are triggers

or precursors.

These are idiosyncratic

and

so they are covered

in the fifth section mainly by listing examples. to a proposed classification remarks. scheme for PIOs, a short

The remaining section

sections

of the report are devoted

giving some interim prescriptions

to avoid PIO, and concluding

! SECTION HISTORICAL H

PERSPECTIVE

A study of aeronautical later propose a different features:

history reveals

a remarkably

diverse set of severe PIOs.

Although

we will

classification the number

scheme for PIOs, it is useful here to group the varieties of aircraft control axes which are fundamentally which can range from about groups.

by focusing and the These by wellThese

on two primary frequency

involved; 1/2 to 3 Hz.

of the closed-loop features

aircraft-pilot

couplings,

distinguishing

serve to divide PIOs into four different couplings,

Each group is exemplified and some catastrophic.

known incidents are summarized of Some Known

of aircraft-pilot

all notable or even celebrated,

in Table l -- "FAMOUS

PIOs."

(The reader is also referred Appropriate

to Table l -- "Classification references, when available, other than movies may still be in refer

PIO Cases" of Ref. 10, for really old PIOs!). l, although

are given in Table or personal some obscure

for many of the PIOs there is little or no data available However,

recollections archive

from witnesses.

for some of these flight test records searches. VI). The "Category

which has escaped the author's scheme proposed

I, II or III" notations

to the PIO classification A. ESSENTIALLY Most of the

later (Section

SINGLE AXIS, EXTENDED RIGID BODY EFFECTIVE PIO research to date has been focused on effective properties. digital system time examples variety

VEHICLE DYNAMICS aircraft Higher dynamics frequency which are

characteristic representing incorporated, approximations effective

of rigid body longitudinal the control actuators, usually

or lateral-directional

dynamics

effects of SAS dynamics, as

time delays, etc. have been For many PIOs such

approximated

parts of an effective Specific rigid-body"

delay.

are both appropriate dynamics

and adequate.

of severe PIOs where the key include the Table PIOs -- Extended 1 entries for:

vehicle

are of this "extended

"Longitudinal

PIOs -- Extended Rigid-Body,"

and "Lateral-Directional

Rigid-Body."

Perhaps best known and surely the most widely viewed lateral PIO in this category was the remarkable unintended longitudinal F-4 record "first flight" of the YF-16. A description of the participating events is given in Ref. I I. The

variety have several dramatic run. (Videos

entries -- including the Shuttle Orbiter ALT-5 and the tragic others exist and are recommended viewing for serious

of these and several

students of PIO phenomena.)

TABLE

1. FAMOUS

PIOS

Longitudinal XS-1

PIOs-

Extended

Rigid-Body and landing, 24 Oct 1947; NACA pilot

PIO during gliding approach Herbert Hoover (Ref. 12) PIO during PIO during PIO during Aft CG

XF-89A F-86D F-100 F-101 X-15

level off from dive recovery, formation flying when pulling

early G's

1949; pilot Fred Bretcher

tight maneuvering

Gliding flight approach and landing, (Ref.s. 13, 14; PIO Analysis in Ref.

8 June 1959; pilot Scott Crossfield; 10); Category II PIO

XF2Y- 1 (Sea Dart) YF-12 MRCA Shuttle Post-takeoff Mid-frequency Short Take-off, destructive PIO 15, 16); Category 1976 both III PIO

severe PIO (Refs. 1975; Heavy

Landing,

ALT-5 during landing approach glide, 26 Oct 1977; pilot Fred Haise; attitude and path modes involved; (Refs. 17, 18); Category I1 PIO F-8 PIO during touch Category III PIO and goes, 18 April 1978; pilot John Manke (Ref.

DFBW

19);

YF-22

PIO after touchdown Thomas Morgenfeld PIOs China PIOsduring Eastern approach,

and wave off in afterburner, (Ref. 20); Category III PIO 1990; 1993; Category

25 April

1992; pilot

JAS 39 MD-11 Lateral-Directional KC-135A B-52 F-101B X-15 Parasev

II -- III PIOs slat deployment (Ref. 21)

Airlines

FLT 583, 6 April

1993; Inadvertent

Extended

Rigid-Body PIO associated with o_/Od, effects, late 1950's (Ref. 22)

Mild Lateral-directional Roll PIO while Lateral Lateral refueling

PIO at high q subsonic PIO, to_/to d, Research

(Ref. 23) Study, 1961 (Ref. 24) rocking PIO during ground tow, 1962;

Paraglider Research Vehicle lateral pilot Bruce Peterson (Ref. 12)

TABLE

I. FAMOUS

PIOS (concluded)

B-58 M2-F2

Lateral-directional

control-associated

crash, Sept 14, 1962; pilot Ray Tenhoff

Lifting Body Lateral-directional PlO, first on 10 May 1967; pilot Bruce Peterson (Refs. 25, 26); Category II PlOs "First Flight," pilot Phil Oestricher (Refs. 11, 26); Category Elaborations III PlO

YF-16 Longitudinal A4D-2

PIOs -- Extended

Rigid

Body Plus Mechanical

High speed PlO, during routine flight testing, 19 January 1957 (Refs. 27, 28); Bobweight and Primary control system involved; Category III PIO High Speed PIO, 26 Jan 1960; (Refs. 10, 16, 29, 30, 31, 32); distributed Primary control system involved; Category III PIO Low altitude record run second pass, Feldman; destructive PIO PIOs -- Extended Lateral effective Rigid Body bobweight 18 May 1961; pilot Cmdr Jack Bobweight and

T-38

F-4

Lateral-Directional A-6 PIOs Associated YF-12 CH-53E

Plus Mechanical effects; Category

Elaborations I PIO

with Higher-Frequency High-frequency

Non-Rigid mode

Body Modes involvement (Refs. 15, 16); Category I PIO

flexible

Airplane-Pilot Coupling with Flexible Modes, several major instances in precision hover and with heavy sling loads, including heavy landings, dropped loads, etc., 1978 - 1985 (Refs. 33-35); Extreme Category I to Category II PIOs Pilot Lateral Control coupling cycle oscillation (Ref. 36) Pilot Coupling with Symmetric with sustained underwing heavy store limit

F-I 11

Voyager V-22

Wing Bending,

1986 (Ref. 36)

Pilot involvement with: a) 1.4 Hz lateral oscillation on the landing gear; b) 3.4 Hz antisymmetric mode destabilized by pilot aileron control; c) 4.2 Hz symmetric mode destabilized by pilot collective control (Ref. 37) PIOs 31 March 1952, pilot Joe Walker (Ref. 12) PIO described in Refs. 18,

3-D, Multi-Axis X-5 Shuttle

ALT-5 Lateral PlO, just prior to longitudinal I 1; Oct. 1967, pilot Fred Haise High ct, with some Win_ [3; pilot Don Evans

F-14 AD-I

Oblique

l0

B. ESSENTIALLY SINGLE AXIS, EXTENDED RIGID BODY WITH SIGNIFICANT MECHANICAL CONTROL ELEMENTS

MANIPULATOR

PIOs in this group are similar to those described control system plays a major role. The aircraft

above, with the addition that the primary are of more traditional artificial design, etc.

mechanical and typically Some older

included

incorporate

such elements aircraft surface

as single or dual bobweights, with simpler primary actuators, etc. controls

various

feel devices, controls,

aircraft or modem than fully powered

have tab or servo-tab and hysteresis dynamics

power boost rather

System

friction

effects

can be very important, to smallrigid

since they tend to create two different amplitude and large-amplitude

sets of effective

airplane

(e.g., corresponding dynamics

pilot inputs).

In these systems the aircraft

are still extended

body, but the dynamics situations, the effective

of the primary airplane

control and artificial differ primarily

feel system also contribute. as a function of the pilot's inability

In the simplest output amplitude to adapt to large In some cases the limb

dynamics

(e.g., the T-38 PIO of Ref. 10 or the YF-12 changes from pre- to post-transition effective

PIO of Ref. 15), and the pilot's airplane dynamics

is central to the PIO. factors, either

limb-neuromuscular-manipulator bobweight,

system dynamics dynamic

are major entity.

as a simple effective in this category

or as a much more elaborate "Longitudinal

Severe PIO examples

listed in

Table 1 include Directional C.

PIOs - Extended

Rigid Body Plus Mechanical Elaborations."

Elaborations"

and "Lateral-

PIOs - Extended AXIS PIOS

Rigid Body Plus Mechanical EXTENDED RIGID

MULTIPLE

BODY

Of all the essentially understood. X-5 airplane

rigid body PIOs these are by far the most interesting, can be gained

dramatic, and least well flight with the

Some appreciation (Ref. 12):

by a Joe Walker test report on an exciting

"As the airplane pitches, it yaws to the right and causes the airplane to roll to the right. At this stage aileron reversal occurs, the stick jerks to the right and kicks back and forth from neutral to full right deflection if not restrained. It seems that the airplane goes longitudinally, directionally, and laterally unstable in that order." As noted by Einar Enevoldson, are present example which in many aircraft under a noted retired NASA Dryden asymmetric conditions. test pilot, "3-D PIOs are extreme, the oblique wing AD-1, and

Besides

another

was a 3-D PIO in an F-14 at high angle of attack and large sideslip, was very difficult to recover." Thrust-vectoring aircraft, asymmetries. controls, damaged

which resulted aircraft,

in a departure with

and aircraft

asymmetrically-hung at all well understood. axes, the multi-axis

stores, are also subject to unusual For aircraft PIO phenomenon

Unfortunately,

this PIO type is not between

with elevon or ailevator can be further

which can create conflicts

complicated

by position

as well as rate limiting.

11

D.

PIOS INVOLVING A downside

HIGHER

FREQUENCY

MODES aircraft, modes and especially aircraft that are flown range of stability are not

of the trend for more highly

integrated

unstable,

is the insurgence and pilot

of the lower frequency control.

flexible

into the frequency rigid flexible body

augmentation sufficient

For these vehicles

the extended

characteristics

or, sometimes, dynamics

even relevant. play key roles.

Instead, the lower frequency

modes enter and the pilot's

neuromuscular Cases common

in which

the limb-neuromuscular

dynamics

are central to pilot-vehicle

oscillations

are fairly

even with extended is a notable

rigid body or extended

rigid body plus mechanical

controls.

The roll ratchet frequency is set

phenomenon primarily

example

(e.g., Refs 38, 39, and 40). combination, phenomenon tending

Here the characteristic

by the limb-manipulator

to range from 2 - 3 Hz. referred

To the extent that this Oscillation

type of PIO is a limb-bobweight (PAO). PAO is probably performance.

it is sometimes

to as Pilot-Augmented it can severely

not catastrophic

in the safety sense, although

limit the airplane's

maneuvering

Roll ratchet cases are not included in Table the characteristic. flexible modes can be extremely

1, although some of the aircraft

listed there have exhibited

Pilot interaction with lower frequency

severe.

As reported

in Ref. 36

they have been observed on the F-111 at the edges of its flight envelope and with the Rutan Voyager. Of the documented

when loaded with heavy stores, mode coupling observed on

cases to date, the flexible

the YF-12 (Ref. 15) was relatively mild while the CH-53 was quite the opposite. interactions as flexible concern encountered with the CH-53E significant helicopter are extremely

In fact, the pilot-vehicle of things to come future

important harbingers coupling.

modes become in connection

elements flexible

in aircraft-pilot aircraR such

They are of particular Aerospace

with large,

as the National

Plane (NASP)

(Refs. 41, 42), and may be prominent In connection the lower flexible tasks. with the CH-53E, mode frequencies.

in the High Speed Civil Transport (Ref. 43). oscillations that occurred were associated with the aircraft in precision with hover

the severe pilot-aircraR

These were first encountered

They were particularly

severe when large sling loads were present. of these oscillations, collective needed

The extra dynamics due to the higher sensitivity Several to cyclic dramatic events in

sling load were not an important feature controls incidents associated which with the increased

but the much

to support

the load was.

occurred over a period was avoided

of years (1978

- 85), including

some high-visibility vehicle),

which catastrophe

only by dropping in the US Navy.

the load (in one case a light armored The very comprehensive analysis,

created

a great deal of high level attention test program conducted

flight, and ground (Refs. 33-35)

to define and measure all the dynamics well-documented case study.

and conditions

involved

make this an unusually

12

As further tiltrotor aircraft

noted in Table 1, the CH-53E experienced three incidents

is not alone among

rotorcraft

for PIO or PAO.

The V-22

of this nature in flight test operations

(Ref. 37). The first was mode destabilized through by pilot

a 1.4 Hz lateral oscillation pilot/lateral collective control control

on the landing gear, the second a 3.4 Hz antisymmetric and the third was a 4.2 Hz symmetric

stick coupling, inputs.

mode destabilized

13

SECTION PILOT BEHAVIORAL

m PATTERNS

A significant organizations

attribute of a human pilot is the ability to establish a wide variety 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49). engaged In essence, human adaptive

of pilot-vehicle attributes

system permit system the is

(Refs.

and learning

the pilot to be simultaneously itself and as an operating pilot's dynamic behavior

as the on-going

architect

and modifier

of the pilot-aircraft

entity within that system. is adjusted as appropriate

As the pilot "changes" for the overall controller system. operating those

the system organization, This repertory of behavior

so extensive endogenous unmanned

that the pilot, sensing control

as a learning

and adaptive

with an extensive of the most

array of

mechanisms,

has capabilities

which

far exceed

sophisticated

system. standpoint this variety is, at first, disconcerting. character -- evolutionary operating For many forces flight control to

From the system analysis situations, however,

the complexities

exhibit an orderly

have worked

the analyst's successful performance successful trained

great advantage!

In controlling limited.

any complex

system

at or near

its margins,

behavior

is very narrowly

The very nature of the requirements characteristics

for "good" system constrain the

and the restrictions human pilot to operate

imposed

by the dynamic

of the aircraft "behavioral laws."

in accordance

with well-established imposed on pilot-vehicle

When wellare severe, terms -(Ref. 48).

and motivated,

and when the restrictions

system performance and quantitative systems

the performance

of the pilot and the system can be predicted system is amenable to mathematical

in both qualitative analysis

in short the pilot-vehicle Operationally,

like inanimate

each of the pilot-organized which corresponds

system structures to a "control law." systems.

can be depicted Feedback

as an effective

pilot-vehicle principles

system block diagram can be extended described characterize

control behavior

system analysis of human

to treat these pilot-vehicle by "describing

The dynamic which

pilots can be used to

and quantified

functions,"

are akin to the transfer noise or "remnant." task-oriented,

functions

the airplane dynamics,

and an additive

pilot-induced

The overall which

result of all this versatility

is a variably-configured,

pilot-vehicle

system

in any of its manifestations and precision. appear

is ordinarily

admirably suited to accomplish aberrations

flight control

goals with

great efficiency or dynamic

On occasion, which

however,

in either the pilot's

system organization example. pilot-

behavior

induce far from ideal system behavior. or patterns in Figure which can conceivably 2. The "Control

PIOs are a notable

There are several induced oscillations.

behavioral

modes

enter into or influence Patterns"

These are cataloged

Architectural

are names

for particular showing the

types of pilot-vehicle essential behavior properties control

system structure; pathways which primarily

each can be represented embody that structural

as a specific form. For

block diagram example, in 1.

"Compensatory" The dynamic

the pilot responds

to errors in the pilot-vehicle patterns will be described

system, as in Figure later. In principle

for some of these behavioral 14

these

FULL-ATTENTION Compensatory Pursuit

CONTROL -- Pilot Response

ARCHITECTURAL Conditioned on Errors

PATI'ERNS on Errors

-- Response Inputs

Conditioned and Outputs -- Preview Essentially

+ System

Pursuit

with Preview -- Skilled,

of Input

Added

Precognitive

Open-Loop Mode Control

Precognitive/Compensatory BEHAVIOR Successive Shift SOP TRANSITIONS Organization in pilot-organized progressive compensatory pursuit

-- Dual

of Perception control

(SOP) system architecture

transitions

precognitive/compensatory precognitive SOP regressive transitions Transitions retention re-adaptation

Controlled-Element-Induced Post-transition Post-transition

Figure 2.

Human

Dynamic

Behavioral Features

15

modes

can exist for a variety in flight control. major heading occur

of pilot

percepts,

although

visual

and acceleration

cues are certainly

dominant

The second which

in Figure (Refs.

2 lists the types of transitions

among

the behavioral Transitions" 45, 46, 48).

patterns form a

can sometimes

45, 46, 50, 51, 52). Organization

The "SOP Progressive (SOP) theory (Refs.

sequence,

based on the Successive established

of Perception

As the

system structure Specifically:

by the pilot changes progressively,

overall pilot-vehicle

performance

improves.

closed-loop

system effective response is reduced. Transitions"

bandwidth

increases;

system dynamic pilot workload

is faster, with less error;

The "SOP Regressive Also in Figure effective vehicle

proceed in the opposite

direction. of sudden or step-like changes phase During (Ref. 48) covers in the

2 are the consequences dynamics. The change

on the pilot dynamics Retention"

"Post Transition in vehicle dynamics

a time period

immediately remain followed those

after a sudden adapted

characteristics. which

this interval

the pilot dynamics This phase is

to the vehicle

were present

before

the change.

by adaptation

to the post-transition

aircraft

dynamics. to the fundamental tasks. human Figure pilot dynamic the

The basic behavioral forms for conditions

modes called out in Figure 2 pertain

when the pilot is devoting

full attention to control

3 completes

dynamic features

summary list. The first item, divided attention phenomena, pertinent attention, to PIOs because they are invariably of the attentional

is important

for many flying state.

tasks, but is seldom (Reduction in divided

full-attention

in the developed

as in the narrowing and increased

field, with a consequent and initiating

increased facet for can

focus on a dominant a PIO.)

control variable

pilot gain, can be a precursor

On the other hand, the neuromuscular factors in pilot-aircraft oscillation 4. which oscillations sometimes

system dynamics

and the acceleration An example maneuvers

feedthroughs

be important

(Refs. 38, 39, 53-58). occurs during

of a high-frequency ("roll ratchet") neuromuscular is

(2-3 Hz) rolling shown actuation in Figure system's

rapid rolling

Refs. 38, 39 indicate peak.

that this can be associated

with the pilot's

resonant

The final entry instance, acceleration

in Figure

3, "Acceleration-Induced may be associated acceleration

Phenomena,"

can appear

in several

guises.

For

feedbacks

with the neuromuscular and vibration feedthroughs

system

limb-manipulator

"bobweight" essentially

effect or with whole-body independent

(Ref. 57); these are both tension. pathways

of human pilot central processes other than deliberate the human's perceptual processes

changes of muscular

Accelerations which

can also act through

to set up major feedback can conceivably

are on a par with visual pathways.

In this form, accelerations 16

serve in parallel

DIVIDED

AT/'ENTION System Error

PHENOMENA Bandwidth in Closed-Loop ACTUATION "Actuation" by intrinsic (crossover Aspects SYSTEM Dynamics coupling with manipulators (beyond PHENOMENA frequency)

Reduced Increased

NEUROMUSCULAR High-Frequency Affected

Impacts closed-loop high-frequency crossover characteristics Potential Source of Inadvertent Feedbacks

of Local

Accelerations Limb manipulator "bobweight" PHENOMENA Feedthrough Cue

ACCELERATION-INDUCED Acceleration Acceleration and Vibration as a Feedback

Figure

3. Additional

Human

Pilot Dynamic

Features

17

24 Stick Force
Fas Fas MAX

16 8 0 -8 360 300 -

(Ib)

Roll Angle

240 -

,_
(deg)

18o120 600 150

Rolling Velocity P (cleg/sec)

100 50 0 -50

Side Acceleration ay

(g)

-0.2

.2 l
I 0 I I 2 I I 4 Time (sec) I I 6 I I 8

Figure 4. High Frequency

PIO - Roll Ratchet (Adapted from Refs. 38, 59)

18

feedback

pathways

or as one stage in transition

processes

in which visual and acceleration

cues compete

for dominance. A. HUMAN PILOT DYNAMICS -- COMPENSATORY BEHAVIOR

Compensatory random-appearing outputs. Under

behavior

will characteristically

be present when the commands

and disturbances

are

and when the only information full-attention system errors conditions

acted on by the pilot consists of system errors or aircraft closed-loop control on the aircraft so

the pilot exerts continuous of commands

as to minimize

in the presence

and disturbances. control. The system is a roll-control aileron output after a firstthe system this the

The time traces of Figure 5 illustrate the nature of compensatory tracking task in which the rolling velocity becomes proportional

to the pilot's

order lag given by the roll-subsidence forcing function command an anticipatory

time constant,

T. Notice that the system output follows system quite closely.

to the closed-loop

pilot-vehicle

To accomplish

pilot develops lag 1/(Ts + 1).

lead (TLS + 1) which approximately using the Figure

cancels the airplane's

roll-subsidence the system roll

This can be demonstrated

5 time traces by comparing

error with the pilot's history suggests frequency is shifted

output lagged by the roll-subsidence

lag time constant are very much

(Ts + 1). When the latter time alike. This correspondence higher is roll

by a time increment

x h, the two traces

not only that the pilot has generated lags can be approximated characteristics

a lead to cancel the vehicle

lag, but that the pilot's

at the lower frequencies are represented function,

by the time delay, function,

x h. The implication

that, when the pilot's angle to aileron control

by a describing Ye, the open-loop

YPe' and the aircraft function

dynamics

by the transfer

describing

for the roll

task of Figure

5 would be,

YPe Y /= Kpe-_hs

Ke

Pilot

Aircral_

_c e

-"

for Isl

near coc

(I)

where

coc = Kp Kc. As explained further referred

below, this equation model or law.

has become

ubiquitous

in manual

control,

and is commonly

to as the "crossover"

Just how well the "crossover frequency is apparent response

model" works can be subjected pilot-vehicle system.

to a more refined is shown

examination in Figure pilot-aircraft

using the 6. There dynamics 1). it

of the open-loop

An example

that the crossover

law is an excellent

approximation

to the open-loop

in the frequency

range around the crossover frequency,

coc (where the open-loop

amplitude

ratio equals

19

Movin.cj Line

o,n,
Reference
Point or

Error

_ _

J._ e(t) Stationary

Line

COMPENSATORY

DISPLAY

System Forcing

Error Display

Visua I

Pilot Output

Aircraft

Pilot

System Output m(t)

Function_++i(t) k_

Kc s(Ts + I )

System Forcing Function i -"1 System Output m I--- I sec

System E rror (Operator Stimulus) e

C

(s+l/T)

v'"

-"

V_'vvv

"_ V _"

V v

Operator Output c
A.4 4^_ AA a _a.flA_A A A .-4_^AA., t-_ ^ n

v Vvv

,,,- v Vw"VvVv

" v" V v-

....

V"'

Figure

5. Simple Compensatory

System and Time Responses 2O

(Adapted from Rcf. 48)

Goin in

-8o

;;-

._ >._

-160

Phase Margin

.i' _ .180

>-_" 200 -

I,

I]_

'
-2
.I Pilot

11 t Ill -1.0 _(rad/sec) I0.0

_-L
Yp Yc = ; near Uc

T
Vehicle

Figure 6.

Crossover

Model for Compensatory

Systems

(Adapted from Refs. 48, 60)

21

Over the past three decades element

a great many

experiments

conducted

with many

different

controlled "behavioral

forms have shown that this type of behavior can be generalized compensatory operations (see, e.g., Refs. 48, 61). characteristic model."

into an approximate In general,

law" for full-attention situation-specific dynamics

the pilot adopts a system

dynamic transfer

form which makes the open-loop to this general

pilot-vehicle

emulate the "crossover

(The primary exceptions

rule are extremely

diffficult-to-control time delay.)

marginal cases such as divergences

with time constants approaching the pilot's effective

With this generalization,

the crossover model states:

1) that the human pilot's transfer characteristics will be different for each set of aircraft dynamics, but that 2) the form of the composite total open-loop system dynamics will be substantially invariant, with the effective time delay, Xe, and crossover frequency, coc, being situation-specific. To make the generalization in the effective following dynamics. time delay. cover many controlled element characteristics does require an adjustment characteristics given by the

Consider, for instance, a set of high frequency

group of leads and lags, which may stern from both the aircraft and the pilot's higher frequency

e Yhigh =

-_1 s

n i:

n
!

(Tis

+ 1) i: q

P X j=l (Tj S + 1)

7t j=l

mE/122 i l l
n -S

+ _

s + 1

Oi

Oi

(2)

o)j

The phase angle associated

with this combination

will be,

n _high = - _l _ E
i=l

p _-lTir_ E
j=l

m _n-! Tjr_ + E
i=l tan -1

2_i tan-l 1 -

(3)

E j=l

22

Whenall the I/Ti , I/Tj, 03i,andoj arelargecompared thecrossover to frequency, thisphase anglecan be approximated the crossover region by replacing the arc tangents with their arguments, and in
recognizing that the (03/03i): and (co/oj): terms are small compared to one, i.e.,

_high

- 1:103 = !

Tj +
j = I

2_j
(Oj
V

_
i= 1

Ti _
i-! Oi

03

= - (Z I + 1:2)03 , -- - Xe03 , (4)

Thus, the effective high-frequency

time delay, 1:e, is a low-frequency

approximation

to the combination are: 1) the effective sum of the aircraft's of the human

of all manner

of

pure delays, lags and leads.

Its two major components effects) --the

composite time lags minus leads operator. The

delay of the controlled at frequencies composite crossover

element (including manipulator

well above crossover;

and 2) the high frequency

dynamics

is approximated region.

by a pure delay which ratio and phase

has an equivalent for crossover

phase shift at frequencies models with several

within the

The amplitude

values of xe are of't e. In the gainis arbitrarily set

illustrated on the Bode plots of Figure 7a. Note that the amplitude phase diagram of Figure 7b the frequency parameter

ratio is independent frequency

is xeco, and the crossover a convention

to occur when the phase is -1 10 . This anticipates The crossover frequency,

which will be used later. interpretation as the metric that to open(up to

coc, has the usual feedback

system physical

divides the world of the pilot-aircraft loop amplitude approximately approximately readily apparent ratios greater than

control system into two frequency regimes, corresponding or less than 1. Over the entire low frequency region

co.), the benefits of feedback are present,

e.g., the closed-loop

system output/input That this is indeed

will be

1; the output follows the input, the error is reduced, etc.

the case is Above pilot of

from the time traces of Figure 5 in which the output nearly duplicates the system becomes essentially open loop, consisting Thus,

the input.

the crossover dynamics

frequency

of the high-frequency above o c the benefits

in series

with the high-frequency

aircraft characteristics.

feedback are not present. The degree of system stability (zero dB) between the crossover is indicated by how closely the open-loop frequency, to c and the neutral stability amplitude ratio approaches 1

frequency,

tOu, where the open-

loop phase angle is -1 80 . This is measured ratio." The system would become neutrally

by the gain and phase "margins", stable if: the pilot's

and the "peak magnification

gain were increased so as to make the

23

40 ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! : : : ! ::: : : : : : :Icc

! iii i! iil ii:i i

u 20 B 0

-zo

i i ii::i

:: i iill

ii

_i:,!

'

i i l-ii;

1_ -2

10 -1

1G 0

10 1

10 _-

uluc

-60

i iiiii

i i::i::i

:: ::i ::::::

i i:::cL_:

A
C

......... i.... !....!_..LL!.I.I ........... ! !....!..!2_!.!.! .... ........... ! L..L.!..!_!.!.I .... ........... !.... !....!...i_L!.i.!.
i i _ i i iii
--_._'L "w''_"_

i
.....

i i i i iil
:"":"":'"_";';: ..........

i
: ....

i i i iii
..........

i
: "

i i i iii
:

:"":"'S'-S'":';;

":"":"":'"':'":':

YPe Yc

........!...._.-.-_-.-.----._._ __"_ : _-,,---:"-_i._. : .... :: .......... i.... _"

........................... :':': .......... : .... :'" "':-'. ":",_" :"

!"'Q-::"!'::'i'

.....

"........i ...._i-_-h__
i "'" !'""'i""i'"'i'"i" i !

!'""'i "'"i'-F"i" i" i ..........

!........ ...................

! : :

...:...:._: ..:.:.! ........

.._,...:.,t...:....t

: .'

.-. .

. .

!.[ ..........

!. : ....

:;

:;

:;

:;

:;;: : :

_..._ ........

. -':.:,:

:..,,:.,,.:.-.-.:.:.:.

........ :"":---:-:':': : .... .......... :"":-'-'-.'--'i'!""_'i "_5'-'-i-_'-5: .... " ' "!'5 .......... 5""!-"5---F-5"5!" i ....

- ........ ...._-.-.!....i.-.:-..:-:. _'-.-P-_-i,'-'-?.,:: i :.,......... -zzo i :, i:,:,;i; _ .... _:, _iiI

10 -Z 1G -1 1_ e

_-........ : .... :-...,-..=--=-:.:.ll ....... :__

_,....... ....:-:-:--:--:-:_: . : i_..; _;i :.:,:J :,_ ; i iiiiii

1_ 1 10 Z

". ie :s---iii_

e 2 .... i .... i....i-.-i..---.:-i,i-

U Frequency (rad/sec)

Figure

7a. Bode Diagrams for Crossover

Model

24

M
_t

g
I1

i t u d

-2

-1Z

re la = _

(1.57)

-72.

(2.o0)

--32

-22.0

-180

-1'10

-100 P}ms_

-60

Figure 7b. Gain Phase Diagrams for Crossover crossover frequency or the airplane's region equal the frequency

Model = 0);

at which the open-loop system phase is -I 80 (gain margin to reduce the phase margin to zero. of the open-loop

net high frequency

lags were increased

It is in this system in the

of close proximity

to the -1 neutral

stability point that the portraits

form of Bode plots and the gain phase plot emphasize different, but complementary, The data presented representations are, of course, identical, and one can translate from

aspects of the system. other of the

one to the

with ease.

Both the gain-phase and conventional

Bode diagrams clearly show phase and The gain-phase representation point. This tangency

gain margins, the points at the crossover and neutrally adds a major third point -- the "closest approach" of the gain-phase

stable frequencies.

to the minus one neutral stability

plot with the "M circles" of the Nichols Chart defines the maximum of the closed-loop resonance, system and the resonant stability fiequencies frequency, coalesce,

"peak magnification

ratio," Mp, or resonance stable case the crossover, ratio becomes A version pilot-vehicle infinite.

COp. For the neutrally

and neutral

and the peak magnification

of the gain-phase

plot of the crossover

model which is more representative

of a normal

system is given by the dashed line of Figure 7b. 61) range typical of fidl-attention

Here the phase margin of 30 lies within system operations. The neutral and the

the 20 to 40 (Ref. stability resonant frequency frequency

pilot-vehicle

remains is
Zecop =

at _eCOu _/2, but the crossover = 1.34. The peak magnification

frequency

becomes

ZeCOc= _/3,

ratio is 8.250 (113or 2.585

in linear units.

25

The phase margin

for the crossover

model will be,

Cm = /_ -

[-"
-_ + l_eQ) c

"e0)c

(5)

__

When the phase margin

is zero the unstable

frequency
/t

becomes

(6)

2_ e

PIOs can be manifestations compensatory frequency, dynamics behavior

of this last point.

For Eq. 6 to be a good underlying

estimate of PIO frequency

for a

case requires

the considerations

Eqs. 4 and 6 to extend to the unstable slightly by adding the actual

co,. When this is not the case the crossover which have breakpoints between

model can be adjusted

coc and cou, and adjusting

the Xe values accordingly. near instability Phase Rate" is is the slope of

A useful the gain-phase

indication

of pilot-vehicle

system sensitivity As defined

to gain changes

curve in that region.

in Ref. 7, an "Average

_P(O u

_2tau

Average

Phase

Rate,

0'o.
(l) u

(7)

For the crossover

model this is simply _e rad/(rad/sec). 0'co. = =

Expressed

in other units,

57.3_e /(rad/sec) 360t e /Hz a minimum

(8)
of 0.1 sec for the neuromuscular of lead generation required model of the form.

The pilot's system human

contribution

to effective increment

delay will include depends

and an additional

which

on the amount in order

to offset the controlled

element

deficiencies

to make good the crossover

Estimates models

of pilot dynamics for a specific set of aircraft dynamics given in Refs. 48 and 61. To give some appreciation

can be made using the detailed for quantitative values,

data and

Table 2 presents

crossover model estimates for rate-command with high-frequency

(Yc = KJs) and acceleration-command dynamics effective approximated

(Yc = Kc/s2) aircraft,

actuation and computation with idealized

by a net delay of 0.05 sec. the effective lags not only of

As illustrated by this example govern the potential

aircraft dynamics,

PIO frequency, dynamics

but also the sensitivity

to pilot adjustments vehicle

near the region

instability.

The idealized

cover a fair range of effective PIO frequencies

dynamics;

they therefore

provide an indication of linear-system compensatory system, pilot behavior.

which can be explained on the basis of high-gain,

26

TABLE 2 CROSSOVER MODEL CHARACTERISTICS FOR IDEALIZED CONTROLLED ELEMENTS

Idealized Aircraft Yc

Pilot, Xh (see)

Effective (sec)

ze

O] u

Crossover Characteristics (/rad/sec) (/Hz) (% (rad/sec) _b m (deg)

(rad/sec)

Rate Command

0.25

0.30

5.25

17.2

108

4.1

20

KJs
Acceleration Command Kc/s 2 Note: 0.40 0.45 3.50 25.8 162 2.3 30

x h and c0c/_0u are based on Ref. 61. PILOT DYNAMICS -- PURSUIT BEHAVIOR

B. HUMAN

When the command

inputs can be distinguished

from the system outputs by virtue of the display (e.g., as separate entities relative to a reference) or preview

the system input and output are shown or detectable (e.g., as in following a curved roadway

that can be seen far ahead) apursuit permits an open-loop

block can be added as shown control in conjunction with

in Figure 8. The introduction the compensatory be reduced compared closed-loop

of this new signal pathway error correcting operations action.

With the pursuit system organization the open-loop function describing

the error can function large of

by the human's

in two ways: by making a pursuit path describing

with 1; and by generating element (Ref. 48).

which tends to be the inverse of frequencies.

the controlled

This can, of course,

only be done over a limited range

The quality of the overall control compensatory operations variant

in the pursuit ease can, in principle, A typical comparison between

be much superior to that where only a pursuit plus preview system system and crossover

are possible. is given

its compensatory frequency

in Figure

9, where

the improvement

in effective

is greater

than a factor of three (Ref. 51). cues to permit a pursuit system organization. flying in clear weather the superior are typical Approach examples. with

In many flight phases the pilot has sufficient and landing Displays pursuit with good runway provide

visual cues and formation

which

good preview structures.

can also serve to support

performance

available

organizational

As contrasted compensatory apply

with performance, component.

the stability

of pursuit

systems

is basically

the same as that of its behavior

closed-loop

Thus, the considerations

given above for compensatory

as well to the pursuit case. 27

Disturbances

I I System
Input i + e I

SystemI
Compensatory YPe Neuromuscular Actuation

_V Manipulator I Output =1 Ain

h System

I I

-[.

TRANSFER

CHARACTERISTICS

COMPENSATORY

PURSUIT

Open-Loop (YPi + YPe )Yc Output/Error, m/e = YO

YpeYc

1 - YPiYc

Closed-Loop

YpeYc
Output/Input, m/i 1 + Ype Yc

(YPi + YPe )Yc

1 + YPeYc 1- YPiYc

Error/Input, e/I

1 +YpeYc

1 + YPeYC

Figure 8. Closed-Loop Pilot-Vehicle System Possibilities (Compensatory and Pursuit)

28

6O

_.

2o

I
0.1

I
1.0 U (rad/sec)

I
10

Figure

9. Comparative

Data for Pursuit and Compensatory (Adapted from Ref. 5 l)

Conditions

When essential cues are lost (e.g., as with reduced "effective preview), appropriate change division of attention and/or situational awareness breaks down),

or are unattended the pilot-vehicle

(e.g., when system can

from a pursuit to a compensatory PlO triggering PILOT

organization.

Depending

on the precise details,

such transitions

can introduce C. HUMAN

inputs as well as greatly reduced closed-loop -- PRECOGNITIVE BEHAVIOR

system performance.

DYNAMICS

An even higher dynamics conditions, sequenced commands and control 50, 62).

level of control is possible.

When complete

familiarity

with the controlled

element certain and

and the entire perceptual generate neuromuscular

field is achieved, commands

the highly-skilled

human pilot can, under properly timed,

which

are deft, discrete,

scaled

so as to result in machine outputs which are almost exactly as desired. amount to conditioned responses which may be triggered dependent behavior

These neuromuscular

by the situation and the command (Refs. 44, 45, 48, Most highlyfall

quantities,

but they are not continuously programmed-control-like

on these quantities

This pure open-loop

is called precognitive.

skilled movements under this category.

which have been so thoroughly

locked-in

as to be automatic ("without thought")

Like the pursuit pathway, it o_en appears in company with compensatory 29

follow-up

or simultaneous is initially needed

operations.

This forms a dual-mode

form of control in which the human's

manual output when

dominated

by the precognitive error-reduction

action, which does most of the job, and is then completed actions. is Synchronous (Precognitive) through Behavior.

by compensatory

A special inputs appear Initially operates pursuit

case of precognitive in pilot-vehicle character

behavior

When sinusoidal to the input. and

systems the pilot progresses is not recognized, behavior). recognizes

several phases

adapting

the periodic

and the pilot treats After intermediate

the input as unpredictable

off errors only (compensatory behavior), the pilot ultimately the sinusoid

adaptation

phases (which can include and, up to frequencies characteristic of

that the input is a sinusoid If a transfer

about 3 Hz, can duplicate to this mode sinusoid

with no phase lag (Ref. 48). Kp. This would represent

is assigned the the

the pilot dynamics,

Yp -

the pilot's "transfer" response

ability to "follow" Instead,

with no phase lag, although the output sinusoid

this is not a totally legitimate internally; indeed, the pilot's

characteristic. can continue In the presence

pilot is generating

even if visual of sustained

inputs are cut off, although oscillation, Synchronous rectangular however,

there is a drift in frequency output does become

as time goes on.

the pilot's

phase-locked,

so the pure gain model is appropriate. or even will

operations periodic

can also occur in which the pilot's

outputs are much closer to trapezoidal pilot describing

waves than to sinusoids.

In all these cases the effective

function

still be a gain. As will become "synchronous" PIOs. apparent in connection with the case studies of PIO which appear type of pilot action in the next section, severe

behavior

is, perhaps,

the most important condition

for large amplitude

In these instances,

the oscillatory

of Eq. 1 becomes,

&Yc

= - 180

(9)

Here the unstable frequency pilot's contribution

can be considerably

higher than that for compensatory Some appreciation class (ideally, aircraft

control because

the

to the effective vehicle

time delay is not present. of the rate control

for this can be gained

by considering time delay,

effective

dynamics

Yc = Kc/S). When a composite lags, the controlled element has

Xc, is added to account

for high-frequency

effective model.

the same form as examined dynamics are approximated transfer

previously by a pure

with the crossover gain, while Table

The difference

is that here the pilot's dynamics are idealized

the rest

of the open-loop

attitude/pilot-output effective time delays.

characteristics.

3 considers attitude

this basic form for a series of vehicle bandwidth," o_BW0, which for these cases is

This table includes

the "aircraft

is the frequency defined as

at which the effective

aircraft

phase angle is -135 , and the "phase delay," Xp, which

A_ Yc(2COl80) Zp = 30 2o) 180

+ (10)

where directly

A_ Yc is in radians. with the "Average

For the example

cases at hand xp will be just xe/2.

It is also connected

Phase Rate" (Eq. 7) by

'up

{_'(0 u

114.6 ,
I_'0) u

when

' is /rad/sec _b% (11)

= _ 720

'

when dp' is /Hz _u

TABLE CLOSED-LOOP CHARACTERISTICS IDEALIZED RATE-COMMAND

3 FOR SYNCHRONOUS PILOT CONTROLLED ELEMENTS AND

Yc = me
s

Ke -._es

Effective

Time Delay
'ue

)BW0

"Up

(dl)U

{_t(.oU

(sec) 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25

(rad/sec) 7.85 5.24 3.93 3.14

(sec)
0.05 0.075 0.10 0.125

(rad/sec) 15.7 10.5 7.85 6.28

(/rad/sec) 5.73 8.60 I 1.46 14.32

(/Hz)
36 54 72 90

; PIO Potential 0.30 0.35 0.40 2.62 2.24 1.96 0.15 0.175 0.20 5.23 4.49 3.92 17.19 20.06 22.92 108 126 144

Although the emphasis

here is on the basics of pilot-vehicle connections

interaction

phenomena The presence

associated of severe

with PIOs

PIOs, there are both direct and implicit is the antithesis relevant of good flying qualities,

with flying qualities.

and some factors associated

with poor flying qualities

can offer to bring "phase

clues in the quest for PIO understanding. flying

Table 3 offers the first of several opportunities items, specifically which the "airplane are important bandwidth," measures

to bear some of these conventional delay," flying in Refs. and "average qualities

qualities

phase rate" measures. have recently

These quantities,

for various Thus, with

purposes,

been used to develop

some guidelines

for PIO potential. associated

1 and 7 an average

phase rate of less than 100*/Hz is considered that an aireratt "will be susceptible

as a boundary

PIO potential,

while Ref. 8 suggests

to PIOs if phase delay Xp > 0.14

sec up- and -away, 0.15 sec in landing."

The 100 /Hz corresponds 31

to a 'up of 0.14 sec, so the statements

are compatible.
effective vehicle

In terms of the Table 3 cases these criteria would suggest characteristics with an effective

that idealized

rate-command flight

time delay greater than 0.25 sec for up-and-away control basis.

or 0.30 sec for landing are likely to be PIO prone on a synchronous Another "vibration oscillatory type of pilot controller feedthrough." motions. action which exhibits responses

akin to "synchronous"

behavior

is

This is a direct feedthrough the source is vibratory

by the pilot into the manipulator or flexible mode acceleration. up to frequencies

of lightly damped As determined in

Typically

Refs. 57 and 63 the amount This action D. PILOT can appear

of the feedthrough

can be substantial

as high as l0 Hz. inputs.

as a pure gain or slightly time-delayed BEHAVIOR CHARACTERISTICS

pure gain to acceleration

ABERRANT

The above abnormal

description

of pilot behavioral behavior

patterns

and characteristics A summary

suggests

that many

possible 10. The

forms of pilot dynamic are common

can contribute to PIO.

is given in Figure To the extent disappear

first three sources associated

in early flight operations with a particular aircraft

with a new aircraft.

that they are as the pilot

with pilot inexperience

situation they ordinarily characteristics. for unusual

adopts a more appropriate described familiar

system organization

and/or

transfer

As some of the examples in an otherwise very

next will make clear, they remain aircraft. "ratchet" has already

PIO possibilities

situations

The high-frequency system resonance structures,

been exemplified

in Figure 4.

The pilot's

neuromuscular

at 2-3 Hz may very well couple with higher frequency control system dynamics, associated pilot-command research. organization are probably etc. input Desirable filtering

airplane

modes due to flexible inceptor such (manipulator) are

mechanical and

stick and rudder which minimize

characteristics underappreciated Transitions

possibilities

areas for fruitful in pilot behavioral

major sources of pilot-induced a switch from pursuit system bandwidth, with

upsets which

can serve as PIO triggers. operation expansion suddenly fixation relative can significantly

As examination reduce the

of Figure

9 reveals,

to compensatory a concomitant bridge when

available

closed-loop

of system error, etc. As an illustrative presented point (which with an on-coming permits needed truck.

example, consider If the driver

driving across a narrow a stare mode

abandons

with a far-ahead and heading of truck/car increase occurs in in

the separate

perception

of roadway/bridge

and car position perception

to the surround the driver error.

for pursuit operation)

and changes to a closer-in behavior,

clearance, potential

will be shifting

to compensatory

with a correspondingly performance reduction

Much the same kind of system bandwidth

and dynamic

carder approach

if the pilot starts to track or "spot" the deck.

32

INAPPROPIATE INAPPROPRIATE ESTABLISHED EXCESSIVE

BEHAVIORAL PILOT

ORGANIZATION WITHIN AN

ADAPTATION

BEHAVIORAL PILOT GAIN

ORGANIZATION

Conventional Synchronous High Frequency

Compensatory

System

Crossover

PIO (2-5

rad/sec)

Pilot PIO (0.5-3Hz) "Ratchet" (2-3 Hz) ORGANIZATION

TRANSITIONS Switching

IN PILOT of Key

BEHAVIORAL Variable (e.g. pitch

Control

Acceleration-induced normal acceleration)

attitude

to

Task-moding-change Pursuit to Compensatory to Compensatory RETENTION

induced

Precognitive POST TRANSITION

Figure 10. Sources of Pilot-Induced Oscillations (Pilot Aberrant-Behavior Characteristics) The most common pilot behavior shifts involved with PlOs appear to be transitions from full-attention pursuit or compensatory This leads to significant because the pilot's characteristics unfortunately, dropping invariably A very controlled operations in high-gain, simplifications approximate high urgency tasks to a synchronous mode of behavior. synchronous element PIOs

for the analytic

treatment of fully-developed controlled

dynamics

a pure gain and only the effective situation. The transient nature

dynamic itself is,

enter

into the closed-loop

of the transition

not well understood. fuedforward,

Major upsets or triggers, changing attentional

originating

from either the pilot (e.g., in changes are almost

a pursuit involved.

focus, etc.) or other system

important element

pilot-centered change

characteristic

is "post-transition

retention."

If, for example,

the

dynamics

while the pilot is in a full-attention as prescribed by the crossover

compensatory model.

task, the pilot's

characteristics

will ultimately

be modified

But, the modification

33

process

has

several

sequential

steps.

Initially,

with

the

pre-transition the crossover adapted

dynamics, model.

Yct, the

pilot's

characteristics element vehicle

will be Ypl, and the composite

will approximate

When the controlledeffective

transition dynamics.

occurs, the pilot retains the same characteristics Then, at least momentarily, dynamics,

to the pre-transition

the system describing the closed-loop

function

is YplYc2 . If these are can suffer. The retention dynamics (e.g.,

inappropriate

to the "new" vehicle

system stability

phase can last from as short a time as one or two reaction transition may be a consequence of an internal

times to many seconds.

The vehicle

shift, such as a change in the vehicle

configuration

power or flap), stability augmenter amplitudes,

system, etc. It can also stem from nonlinearities limiting. by a post-transition pilot characteristics, closed-loop example, control, presume retention

sensitive to pilot input

such as rate and position PIO's

To understand requires

which are initiated of the pre-transition high-gain

of pre-transition

pilot dynamics situations where using aircraft to

an appreciation

Ypl" In pre-transition the pilot dynamics

the pilot is exerting the procedures dynamics require

full-attention,

can be estimated effective closely

of Ref. 61.

As a simple

that the pre-transition Kcl/S (a rate control) model.

in the region no compensating operations

of pilot-vehicle

crossover

approximate

enough

pilot lead in order to satisfy the crossover with a modern stability augmentation pilot transfer

This will typically amplitude

be the case ratio will

for normal

system. Then the pilot's

be a pure gain, and the pre-transition effective see. time delay can be estimated

characteristic

will be Kpl e "xhs. The value of the pilot's this will be about 0.25 of the

from Table 3 of Ref. 61. For this example, is combined with the effective

When this form of the pilot's stability frequency

dynamics

aircraft, the calculation

neutral

for the pre-transition

case is straightforward.

Then, to determine

the pilot gain, that

Kpl, the crossover

frequency

must be estimated.

For the case with no pilot lead, Ref. 61 indicates

the ratio of the crossover to the neutral frequency transition example, emerges retention directly, providing

stability frequency,

COc/0_ will be 0.78, from which the crossover u, of Kpl. The stability of the post[in this

the basis for determination by combining

phase can then be examined

the pre-transition Yc2"

pilot dynamics

Kpl e "_s with the post-transition

effective

aircraft dynamics,

A pilot behavioral transition from attitude to normal the presence pilot switches demands generally

which has been proposed as the primary

as a source of PIO is an attentional

switching is that, in

acceleration

control variable (Ref. 16). The hypothesis attitude

of a nearly resonant his primary control

pilot-vehicle to normal

closed-loop acceleration.

system, plus a trigger of some sort, the has the undoubted This could merit that it the

This theory

the presence

of good

acceleration

cues if a PlO is to appear. simulations. Analyses

help "explain"

poor ability to predict in showing

PIO from fixed-base

using the hypothesis

have also

been fruitful

PIO susceptibility.

34

SECTION AIRCRAFT DYNAMIC FEATURES

IV CONTRIBUTE TO PIO

THAT CAN

The airplane characteristics consist, artificial airplane The in general, of aircraft

which

constitute

the controlled

element

with which

the pilot interacts (inceptors) and

plus stability augmentation of dynamic

system (SAS),

plus stick/pedals referred

fee] system. dynamics;" aircraft

This composite

elements

is sometimes

to as the "effective

here they are included other partner

in the word "aircraft." Figure 11 summarizes the types of aircraft-centered

is the

in PIO.

deficiencies

which have or might contribute Conventional Aircraft

to PIOs. Dynamics," such as lightly damped short-period modes

"Unfavorable (Refs.

64, 65, 66), or unfavorable problems

roll attitude control/dutch in the past. With

roll mode quadratic flight control

dipoles (Refs. 24, 67, 68, systems these should not

69, 70, 71) were major

modem

reappear on high-performance The category should operating examples not

aircraft

except as artifacts however, envelope

of peculiar SAS failures or engineering because novel aircraft dynamics always from

naivete. unusual

be abandoned,

configurations Specific A.

close to performance treated

limits will probably are given below:

be with us.

under the other three entries VEHICLE

EXCESSIVE The profound

LAGS influence

IN EFFECTIVE of excessive

(Aircraft

Plus Stability

Augmentation) and stability equipped has been

lags on pilot-vehicle modes. dynamics, important

system performance For modem aircraft

introduced augmentation lags from "explained"

in the discussions which corrects assorted sources

of pilot behavioral unfavorable aircraft

with stability

the low-frequency causal factor

effect of higher-frequency PIOs which can be

is by far the most theory.

in those

by quasilinear

The assorted sources and feel system,

of excessive structural,

lag include actuators, etc. characteristics.

filters, digital

system time delays, mechanical here refers to the frequency c%, whereas "higher-frequency" treatment

control

"Low frequency" frequency,

region

from pilot-vehicle

system crossover,

0_c, to an instability

means those above c%. begins with more details on pilot-behavioral of idealized and some extreme principle modes pertinent particular to linear PIO are

The following analyses. addressed flight-based examples. importance

Then the linear PIO tendencies from the perspective examples These

configurations

of a central governing

for closed-loop

flying qualities.

Several PIO

are examined Space

in the course of these developments, Shuttle Orbiter ALT-5 PIO, which

concluding emphasized

with two famous the

are the

overwhelming F-8 experiments

of excessive definitive

time delay as a PIO factor, and the Dryden results on allowable effective time delay.

Digital Fly-by-Wire

which provided

35

UNFAVORABLE Lightly-

CONVENTIONAL Damped Modes

AIRCRAFT Region

DYNAMICS

in Crossover Dipoles VEHICLE

Unfavorable UNDESIRABLE Excessive Low

Quadratic EFFECTIVE Lags frequency

(AIRCRAFT

+ SAS)

effect

of actuator, structural,

filter, mechanical etc. characteristics

controls Mismatched

and feel system, Pilot-Aircraft

Interface

Characteristics gain

Inappropriate Inceptor CONTROLLER VEHICLE Stick Vehicle Moding Triggering

controlled-element

properties RATE AND/OR POSITION LIMITING

DYNAMICS Fixed/Stick Dynamics Transients

TRANSITIONS Free Form Changes

Disturbances

Figure

11. Sources of Pilot-lnduced Oscillations (Aircraft Dynamic Characteristics)

36

1. Pilot Dynamic

Characteristics

in Severe

PIOs

As already function the basic

described,

experiments

on pilot dynamics acceleration

with systems variety indicate dynamics

in which

oscillatory

forcing to are

signals of either the visual or applied oscillatory frequency. When

that the pilot will lock-in at the PIO frequency

this happens

the pilot's

approximated interpretations is often

by a pure gain, and the pilot is said to be "synchronous." of some famous

Analyses

have assumed,

and data behavior

PIOs (e.g., Refs. 10, 15, 31) have suggested, severe PIO. Although analytical

that synchronous

present

in a fully-developed

results

using the synchronous demonstrate

assumption

have been consistent behavior

with experiment, present

actual time response data which definitively

that synchronous

is actually

are lacking. and compensatory These pilot models used the tasks.

The best experimental in the context USAF/Calspan of severe variable

flight test data base to examine the synchronous fully-developed stability NT-33 PIOs aircraft, is provided by Ref. 72.

experiments

with three test pilot subjects, point: one straight

in landing in;

approach

Each pilot flew three approaches

to a desired

touchdown

the other two with left flying qualities and damping and PIO ratios (all with

and right side lateral offsets followed tendencies selected fourteen which were evaluated to be MIL-F-8785C different met Level using

by a correction

to eenterline. natural

Longitudinal frequency

four pairs of short period 1 for landing approach,

Level

Category

C conditions),

combined

flight control system configurations. 1 requirements, were held constant.

The phugoid

and lateral-directional

characteristics, Handling

PIO (Ref.

73) and Cooper-Harper

Qualities recordings

(Ref. 74) ratings, were obtained. number

using the scales of Figures

12a and 12b, pilot comments,

and strip chart

A large particular

of PIOs of various

levels

of severity

were obtained

in the test series.

Those

of

interest

here were a number

of repeatable

fully-developed

severe PIOs. degree

These were the worst confidence and

of the series, consistency

all with PIO ratings (PIORs)

of 4 or 5, with a high

of pilot

about the ratings. configurations; comprise

There were six configurations the remaining the baseline

in this subset.

The three - 1 entries of Table dynamics for the "Severe

4 are the baseline PIO Subset,"

entries are the effective plus the additional of Figures dynamics

vehicle

which

dynamics

lags listed.

The characteristics

of all are depicted In passing are not always 3-13, short

in the Bode and Gain/Phase

diagrams vehicle

13a-i. for several of the Severe PIO Subset higher-frequency lags. For 3-12 and

it should be noted that the effective simply the "good" baseline airplane

plus excessive

the added second-order period undamped short period, lag natural

lags have undamped natural frequencies frequency. In these cases

which are less than the nominal a new, lower-

the added lags then create

frequency, first-order

and the nominal

short period takes the role of the added lag.

For 2-5 the added This is a long

also occurs

before COsp,and is fairly close to the numerator

lead at l/T02.

37

DESCRIPTION

NUMERICAL RATING

No tendency

for pilot induce undersirable

motions

Undorsirable motions tend to occur when pilot initiates abrupt maneuvers attempts tight con_ol. These morons can be prevented or eliminated by pilot technique

or

Undesirable motions easily induosd when pilot initiates abrupt maneuvers or attempts _ght contol. These morons can be preventad or elimated but only at sacdfaos to task performance or _lrough considerable pilot anentJon and effort Oscllla_ons tend to develop when pilot inil_tos abrupt maneuvers light control. Pilot must reduce gain or abandon task or recover or anempts

Divergent

oscillations tond to develop

when pilot inil_ates abrupt maneuvecs

or

attempts tight oonlol.

Pilot must open loop by releuing

or freeTing lhe stick

Dis_Jrbanco or normal pilot control may cause divergent oscilia_on. open control loop by releasing or freezing the slick

Pilot must

No

No

Yes Morons Tend to "__ Yes

NO

O
Abrupt Maneuvers Pilot Initiated m Tight Conbol [

Yes

Pilot Attempts to EnIDr Conlrol Loop

Figure

12a. PIO Rating Scale and Flowchart 38

ADEQUACY

FOR SELECTED OPERA'nON*

TASK OR

AIRCRAFT CHARACTERISTICS

DEMANDS IN SELECTED

ON THE P1LOT OPERATION"

PILOT" RATING

REQUIRED

TASK OR REQUIRED

|1_ It controllable?

Major deficiencies

DEFINITIONS
COMPENSATION The and measure a_tenlion of additional required to plot effort a

FROM

TND-5153
PERFORMANCE

The

precision

of control thai

with a pito( a

respect is able (piol-

to to

maintain

aircra_ achieve vehicle

movement

given level of deficient

of performarce in the lace vehicle characleristic_

in pedorming performance is of

task

measure

of or

HANDLING Those aircrd qualitie_ thai

ou_mEs ot cheraclerialics the eme and Isablelopec=upportof of an pred-

handling performance, ance is a me_Bure efficiency principal with which

pilot performthe manner moves the

a pilol

controls

in performing

a task

govern

sion with

whichapllo( requiredin

lrorm Ihelmks an alrcrafl role

ROLE funlk_ opurpose th_ de41nes the primaryuse of an aircraft

MISSION

"n_ composite of pilol-vehiclefunctions thal musl be pedonne_ to fulfillopemtionaJ requirements may flight, be 8pocifted phase or fo(r a role coml:dete flight performed Nntative

TASK actual wo_ assignedto a pilot to be

in completion of a designaled of (x as relxeflighl segment

_ht

_ubp_

WORKLOAD
inlegraled physical and menlaJ effort required

to pedorm a spei_edpik_ting task

Figure 12b.

Cooper-Harper 39

Pilot Rating

Scale

TABLE BJORKMAN CONFIGURATIONS

4 WITH SEVERE PIO'S

Ref. 72
Attitude Ratmss CH PIOR Bandwidth
tO BW

Phase Delay
"_p

Average Rate deg/rad/sec

Phase

Configuration

Transfer

Function

deg/Hz

2-1

2.46E7(.0845)(.699) [. 15.. 17] [.63,2.41 ]1.6,261 [.7,751

2/2/3

1/1/1

3.03

0.055

6.27

39.38

2-5

1.98E7

(.0845)(.699)

1 (I)

10/7/10

4/4/5

1.38

0.235

26.91

169.08

I. 15,. 17][.63,2.411[.6,26][.7,751

2-8

1.72E9

(.0845)(.699)

1 [.7,9]

8/10/8

4/4/4

2.14

0.192

22.02

138.36

I. 15,. 17][.63,2.411[.6,26][.7,75]

3-1

1.17E8

(.0847)(.6987)

5/3/4

3/2/2

5.60

0.059

6.80

42.74

[. 17,. 1611.97,4.221[.6,2611.7,75]

3-12

2.35E8

(.0847)(.6987)

1 [.7.21

7/9

4/5

1.16

0.317

36.37

22849

I. 17,. 16][.97,4.221[.6,26][.7,75]

3-13

6.07E8

(.0847)(.6987)

1 1.7,31

10/10

4/5

1.25

0.279

31.98

200.97

!. 17,. 16]I.97,4.221[.6,26]1.7,751

5-1

1.18E7

(.0845)(.6989)

2/5

1/1

2.11

0.053

6.05

38.00

[. 16,. 1511.68,1.711.6,26][.7,751

5-9

3.45E8

(.0845)(.69897

1 [.7,61

7/7

4/4

1.51

0.260

29.77

187.02

I.16,. 151[.68,1.711.6,2611.7,751
5-10 1.43E8 (.0845)(.6989)

1 [.7,4]

10/10

5/5

1.07

0.359

41.11

258.28

1.16,.151[.68,1.711.6,2611.7,75]

40

11
a

4O

P h
a S

g
II

i I:
U

: ZO

! :!!!!

d
e

i :

i ; :ii : : : ::

"

: ,,:

'_(3.0_rls) .....

........ ; .... :: ::"ii'i ......... ! .... !...!....!._.!.!.::

d B
: : : : :

.............

Ir)cmme_ G_n Rm_e

: : : : : :

! ::

: i

!i!!! i {::i::

! !

_Ju6 (6.17rls) : 2_U e

.i

!!

.......
10 O

(1234 r/s)
101 Frcquenc_

2.4SE7(.0845) (.S99) [.15, .17][.63, 2.41][.6, 2S][.7, 75]

M g
irl

i 1:
u

d
e

d B

Figure

13a.

Baseline

Configuration: Incremental

2-1 Pilot Ratings: 2/2/3 ; PIOR: Gain Range = 15.96 dB (6.28) 41

1/1/1

; q:p =

0.054

sec

11
,a

40 ! .........
........

: : !!!

i
'

:.

: i i :::

! : :::

:
:. ::

:
:. !

:Ice
[:.;,:-

P b
a Is

g
n

i t
II

! .... :....L..L._:. !. i.! ........ : : : : : !i!

........ ) ! i i :;:.i! J+! .... !....L...;_!. i. !.Z........................................................... Ii ! ! ! ! !}! . '. Z ! i Z!!

!! -90

ZO ......... .........

d
e

! ! ! ! ! !!! +.... +:-r-:ii+,] : .... :": "':'x'

._'_-_.__! ....... i'_:7:-ii:. : "i"i'-i

!!!

! ,IBWe _ ........ ;(1.38rls) .... _'-'i' _.!..._! 'i"'i

! !!! : .: i : : i1_ -

! :

! ! !!! : i : i i-

.': ....... ................

ii'i

d B

PC-- 0.235

sec...!....!.:..:.L - 180

.........:.. :...::.!..i::i-+-. _iI_

-ZO

.......... -[_:,,,,+ mo].i...-i.i 17

-Z?O

......... -40 10 -Z

; .... i'" "'i""!'"'i" i" !'! .......... i i i i i i ii le1

! .... i"+ "!""!'-'i" i" :'i"

: '!'" ": ... .

_'_........ ,i

:" ':......... i'", :"

......... i _+i_i-:,',:....
_ i ii 10 O i

<
i i i i ilii

i ....,;
10 1 Frequency

: :. : :_
i i i i _ii -360 1G Z (radl-_ec)

1.98E7(.0845)(.699) [.15, .17][.63, 2.41][.6, 26][.7, 75]

1 (1)

11
,i+11

13 ...... ""',. " x M=I.01 .-" . .....

g
n

_"

__.---"

,T

--.....N

-.I/,+! ', ] - /

....

/"

. ..... ...--"

. ......

i "t
U --2

,.,i,,.'.i.,,(.79 / '_>
......"-... \.__,,.,._" __...d'jl .--_.:---:-'..-.:',_-_.-.-,-.---___-, ,m_._-_.,S::: _-_--.:--_ :.::--,-:: .............. :,._:-.. i':_--__:7:. .... -........
-lZ .___.._.. .......

.....-...... _ ..-...........

d
C

_:_++_..:;:_ _;;At_--:ss+-_::::-:-.-:: ............... . .................

.....-: .... . ................... ........................ . ............ .-, . ..........

..,- ..... ;..;:_:.::.:.-:.:...,.".__.---- ......--

:...._.:-- :..:::::_,,> .......... :7;: ............... . ........ ......... ___._..___-_ ____.-: ::::: ........................... ............................ ............:::::_ :7 u_ ::...................................... .

....... ) ..............................................................
-ZZ --

Average
Phase Rate (169"/Hz)

.......

_ .......

...........

.......

-- ...............

".......................

---"

--32

-Z2G

-180

-140

-lOG Phase

-60

Figure

13b.

Configuration:

2-5 {2-1 * 1/(1)} Pilot Ratings: 10/7/10 ; PIOR: 4/4/5 ; Xp = 0.235 sec Incremental Gain Range = 9.40 dB (2.95)

42

I1 g
n

4O

P h
Q S C

i 1:
U

20

d
e

d B

1.72E9(.0845)

(.699)

[.15, .17][.63, 2.41][.6, 26][.7, 75]

(.7, 9)

H
a

g
n

,----

-f

...... ..

,,.-

_ I

/ M 1.o...
..,J-"

._.,
..........

i t:
U

f" ..---___
-Z

"-.,

_,,....

_,.;,,r,,,_ ..--_..---

..-.. ... ".,...._..._...J..._ .... .;:,4,-_.,,

d
e

___.
..............

.:_-_:-.__..... ::.'7_ :_'-:-:-:::-:::::::_

--..7_-_7..-_::.-Uuo
-lZ ::'_.:::

__-

(z_ .__:................. ............................. r/_)_.-.:-_....... - " .......... -'"

::...-__:_-..-7_-:----- _.__ ..................... .......................
r/s) .:.- ...................... _..... _.........................

-. : ............. ;/:.-:: . --:: ................

. .............

d B

................................ .-;- ;L.....................................

(3.54 ...............................................
..... _ ....................... - ........ - ..... - .............. " ........... "........ " ....

:---

Average

PhaseRate (_38"_z)

-32 -Z20

, - 180

I - 148

m - 100

, -60 P}_se

Figure

13c.

Configuration:

2-8 {2-1 * 1/[.7,9]} Pilot Ratings: 811018 ; PIOR: 4/4/4 ; %p = 0.19 sec Incremental Gain Range = 6.60 dB (2.14) 43

I1
Q

! !
:

: :::!! : ::!!
. : : :

g
n

..... t.!

i t
U : : : : : : :

d Z
: : : : : : :

TPe = 0.059

sec

d B
: ' : : :

: :

: -

: '

: :

: ; :

- 180

: : : : : : : : : : : : : : :

-[02_

u-4" 180 ] "

:: i i::ii::
!
.......

:
i

: ::::

_ i ::
i

Oue

.......
,i"
"t: ......

-z?e

! ! ! i!!

i ::::::i.! ......... .......! ,

: !(10.19r_)
L,-: ...........

: ! ! !!!
:

:: !

: i i: !

ii

_ !

: !

i i i!.! .......... ! ! !!i 10 0

i . !

i. !

!...i....! ! ! ! !!:

(20.38rls) :

,!...! .... "

" -360

! ! !!! 10-1

le I Fs-_qucncg (rod/scc)

I0 Z

1.17E8(.0847)(.6987) [.17, .16][.97, 4_.2][.6, 26][.7, 75]

-...... .

. ............ -I" /'1" _ _. ____. ( f ( .... ..... _ i -'_'_ _ _ ....._ .....

---,. .. ,. i /

", , / / /

', , i M

_" 1.0/

/" s-'"_

_,lcc

.....

(3.83r/s)" _ .=__._ ...... _..*

.... ".... __.

-... .. "_-..__"--.._.__T____j...C.../ .... ............-..-:,,*-"17.-............ .._......: ..... ....-;.r:.y._:.-.._;......

- ..... .--"_ ,.;" .......... .':---_=.-.=._-_-_:.,.,;._,,,,,,,,,_._-.= -"_':"':'_'_ ....... .__

a_:::b.':.':_.:-=swe
d B -1Z :- .....................

.... .............

==L_

L_-=_='_..==._._.*I":: _ .... ......... _--.Z___;,----L'_'_'-_.F _*-"

.........

_.o ..... *........._..___I----. ........

--___-_._--" _ "* _ .......

....

.........

--"-: .......................

.._. ............

.. . ....................... .

-: :.-: : _-_--:__:_. !

_ .__._ ::: ................. _ ................

110.19 r/_) ....................

"
-ZZ -

Average
Phase Rate

143 "/Hz)

-3_

= --140

, --'I0_

, --60

-ZZg

-18_

PI_se

Figure

13d.

Baseline

Configuration: Incremental

3-1 Pilot Ratings: 5/3/4 ; PIOR: 3/2/2 ; Zp = 0.059 see Gain Range = 16.37 dB (6.58)

44

H
tk

4O : ! : !!!!!

g
n

i 1:
U

: : :

20

!!!!!

: : :

0
: : : : : : : :

H Incremental

:
...... Z .... :

!
: ;

!:!!!
: : ::

...... : :

C-rain ange R
[ !! : : : : : : : : : : : ; : : : : . ::

10-1

2.35E8(.0847) (.6987) [.17, .1e][.97, 4.22][.6, 26][3, 75] (.7, 2)

!I
L

:............... . ...........

' ......... . ->-. " '

.." I-'"

--_-_
.....

g
n

i t: u d
e

i
-Z

_
_

__-_
C ('f-- i

_
-"_'h "_ )

_j ; ..-'_,.o,;_-- ..... ..--....... " .

,'//..'.-/. ..... /-:--_-.--"" ........ "

_._,_:::-_.-::.
;_."--.-__--:_:=.-_ ::-_==_:.:-..:: - ;_.--

_-

..... .............

............................

...........................

...................

d B -12 :---Average

:
...................................................

........... ................. .......... ......

:..:
-Z_.

Pate (_..8"/1_)

-32 -220

_ -180

I -140

i -100

, -60 Phase

Figure

13e.

Configuration:

3-12 {3-1 Incremental

* 1/[.7,2]} Gain Range 45

Pilot Ratings: 7/9 ; PIOR: 4/5 ; Xp = 0.32 sec = 5.32 dB (1.84)

ff
il

P h
a s e

g
n

i t
U

-9o

d
e

d B

- 180

-ZTO

-36O Z

6.07E8(.0847) [.17, .16][.97, 4.22][.e,

(.6987) 26][.7, 75] (.7, 3)

M
a

g
n

:.-....

. ........

r.......

-.

.-

"
I

/
f

__-------__
ff "-'_k k

_
i

',_
. _ I !

;
_

i
.--.--"

.... /" "

J--'"
.... "

......

i t
U

::: .... --_. \.__,-__'__<K....i./ . "-. _:.::::; ..... --__ _-._....._

..__-:-"-uowe ......

d
e

"::__a_-_,.-._:-----'_-'_" :';:: '"- _-".:'_.':"_ _: _i__'-: __-_'_,_:__:"'":-.-=.-=.-'_.gZ._=::-" . _._.-_'-..,.--'-_..__....____.--.:.:._-_-: ...... . ::. _-.::.:.,_.___-::...o..--.-__:::.__:-_u: - leue :::-.:-:::-Z:----::_ -12

- _.--- . ....... .......... ....... (I,_5 r/s) .................. ....... . .................... . .... _.....-_ .............................. . ........... -: ........................ _ ............... ".'.':_':.

..........

d B

(201 "/Hz)
.... _ ................ - ....... . ............. ---........... - .........

-ZZ

-32 -220

-180

-140

-1100 Phase

-ir_

Figure

13f.

Configuration:

3-13

{3-1

* 1/[.7,3]} Gain Range

Pilot = 5.48

Ratings: dB (1.88)

10110

; PIOR:

4/5

; tp

= 0.28

Incremental

46

P h
a s

- 180

-ZTO

1.18E7(.0845)(.6989)
[.16, .15][.68, 1.7][.6, 26][.7, 75]

M
a

g i t
U

d
C

d B

Average Phase Rate (38/Hz)

(Jue (5.05 r/s) ....................................................................

Figure

13g.

Baseline Configuration: Incremental

5-1 ; Pilot Ratings: 2/5 ; PIOR: 1/1 ; Zp = 0.053 sec Gain Range = 18.71 dB (8.62) 47

I1 a g
n

4O
: : : : ; ; : ql : : : ; : ; : : , : : : : ; : ; , : , : ; ; ;

0 ......... I" "T'"7-1 _.... "i']'7' i" .... "7""7"'i T l ......... ;""T'"7::':': .... "'i i " "i'i i.... ........... :................... ......... i,.,!,,,,L_! ..... .... ,...LZ._!, ........... : ,,!....L,.: !.... , .!.I.! . _...! ! !, i.i !.... .. ,:.!,! ........... ;.,.L,,Z.,.: !.... , .!.!," : : " : : :: t,! : " : : : : .... : : ..........

i 1;
U

ZO

: . :

! ! : : .......

: : : ::

'_ .

: : :

: : :

::::: :-:-?_.: ' : :: "._ -_,'.

[ _l_te"

i ii:i i ....

; iii:

-90

(1.51r/$}

: ! :.:: ."i"i ;'"

:: i ii :"": :.:-

- 180

::!... !""!"!""! C_llnl_menW: _ __! .........i .....:_ ..... :.:i::.......... !:, :. :_i i::ii! ......... _i !!!:

!....!, .,!....!.:.i.! ..........

.:.:..

" .. :,.. :---:--.:-:.:.: ..... :-:.l:, ..."_..:...:...:it'?..! !!IF[ -[_ 2_u +" 180 ", ].ii-::: .,! _ ! :::!!! ! _-- _ii

.,.....

...... r_4")...... !.I.L

-ZTO

-_-"........!i....!i .........!i..} . !i ... .!i. . i.!i.!i.!i.iI ............ !.... __,i.i:- _ !!!.......... il .i4-.i.li ii.... li+ :..:_ !...._....::-.._-_._._._. .......... _...:..-_-.._._.:._ .I.........: ____ _ ....
i : Ii ..... {....i....::.. . _...U_'__:_: ......... :: .... i...!......i.:: i.-3160 Z

-4e .........,....,,,,.,, :
10 -Z te-t

, _:,,i:,i
10 0

__iii\\
10 1 Frequ_ncg

:_ i i:,:,:,:,i
10 (rad/scc)

3.45ES(.0845)(.6989) [.16, .15][.68, 1.7][.6, 26][.7, 75]

1 (.7, 6)

-.. .....

.......... 4........

-.. "'..

".,

M = 1.0

.-[

.--'"

>:- -.. -...->__idJ" ......

.... --.._.-._:._--..___._+_.+.++..,= , _ -12. ------.__. ..... _.'. ........

.. ..... ->-._-.-_.-_.... . ..... . ......

_W_ _........... ._--__

.,_:.:_-:_-_,..,. _..___,____-.---.._..-._'_,-"-I_.._
,,_,_._,_==.__i'_---

.....

.__.-.-

...........

..............

=.-._-_- -_-._-==-= _,. ....

______- ....

Z.."Z........
___ .......

:_.............. .

_ ........

-zz

Avemoo . Phase.Rate -- (187/Hz)

--3Z --7"70

, --'18_

I --11e

l -- "I0_

i --6_ Phasa

Figure

13h.

Configuration:

5-9 {5-1 Incremental

* 1/[.7,6]} Pilot Ratings: 7/7 ; PIOR: 4/4 ; Gain Range = 7.09 dB (2.26) 48

+tp =

0.26 sec

M g
n

40

P h
a S C

i 1;
U

ZO

d
e

d B

-180

-Z?O

10 -1

10 0

1.43E8(.0845)(.6989) [.16, .15][.68, 1.7][.6, 26][.7, 75]

1 (.7, 4)

M
a

B :-".... . ............................ """'.. \M = 13 / .... " ,Y ,-"'"

g
n

i t u d

"

/ I_
_

,'-

_:_ -f_-_-"-{ I

,,

",, I

\ 1
.....

.i ..

_)/, ],,' ,tv. _=;_.,__..-" .::_,_,/,g..... ;, ;

, ,/ .," _.../._.11_.._" .-_ _" .v .._-

_.---"

.._-"

..I.
_o............

-Z

_-:... -... \.._.."--_'__-J<-K./. . -_'::_:-__--_------__'-_.--- -'_" ...... --.;:-.;_..___.._,,._ ..... _ ..... :=:--._-_:-__ _"
_..'-_-_..-.. _... "------..._ _.I---_ _

__--_-_

...-" ._ .-

...=:__"
::_...-_!_"'-_'_!-"'"

_w ......... .... ( 1.07 r/s) ................................... ......... :.. :::::-:-.................... . .................

d B

:...2--.........

:---__.. :::-

ue

:: ........

:,-.7........................ _ .... .............

_ .....

:::_-_:::-._.................................
Phase Ra_e (258 "/Hzl -ZZ -

........... . .......... :: ....................... :_..:::::::::::.:-. .......

-3Z

f
I I I

-ZZO

-180

-140

-100 Phase

-60

Figure 13i.

Configuration:

5-10 {5-1 * 1/[.7,4]} Pilot Ratings: 10/10 ; PIOR: 5/5 ; zp = 0.36 sec Incremental Gain Range: 4.76 dB (1.73)

49

way from a conventional K/s-like characteristic

longitudinal

airplane; if anything, short period

it is closer to a mid-frequency

(near 1 rad/sec)

with the nominal

acting as the added lag.

These details are of little in the subset apply control). Examination characteristics

consequence (although

for the current

focus on severe PIO examples, where all the configurations below in the discussion

they will come into play immediately

of compensatory

Table 5 summarizes

the key PIO data for the six members

of the Severe PIO Subset. or other nonlinear

of the strip chart recordings in the actual PIOs. and accelerations

in Ref. 72 shows no evidence of rate-limiting

The PIO amplitudes

were similar for all cases, with maximum

pitch rates of 4 /see

of :t:0.5 g at the e.g. and about +0.2 g at the pilot location. of the PIO frequencies 14, connects with possibly appropriate stability quantities frequency. will now be made. The linear The

Three correlations first, shown in Figure

topl O with the neutral

regression

between

the PIO frequencies

and the neutral

stability frequency,

t%0 ' is

O_p1 = 0.13 + 1.11 tOuo o

; r = 0.97

(12)

TABLE SEVERE PIO FREQUENCIES DEVELOPED

5 FROM BJORKMAN OF O_Uo AND Neutral Stability DATA

CO R

(REF. 72)

WITH CORRESPONDING

VALUES

PIO Frequency
o)pl O

Resonant

Frequency
o R

Configuration

PIOR
rad/sc

for 0/F s (ou0 rad/sec 2.34 3.53 2.23 2.89 2.48 2.10

tad/see

2-5 2-8 3-12 3-13 5-9 5-10

4/4/5 4/4/4 4/5 4/5 4/4 5/5

2.66 3.77 2.21 3.23 3.48 2.70

2.75 3.83 2.63 3.21 2.91 2.46

Thus, with an offset of 0.13 rad/sec, the PIO frequency which would be predicted for a synchronous

is nominally

about 11% higher than the frequency attitude dynamics. of a high-gain,

pilot interacting

with the airplane's

The Severe conventional

PIO Subset data presented control system.

above can also be considered

in the context

compensatory

This can be done with some precision herself estimated a resonant

using such elaborate frequency, o R, using

pilot models as those given in Refs. 5 or 61. Bjorkman the recommendations of Ref. 5. This was presumably

done before the flight tests were run, so these are

50

10

z3

Ue ,

r = 0.97 I

I 5 _ue (rm::l/sec)

I 10

Figure

14. Comparison 5.

of Flight-Based

PIO Frequencies

with Neutral

Stability

of 0/Fs attitude control

cited here in Table resonant frequency

A plot showing

PIO frequency

as a function

of the estimated is,

is shown in Figure

15. For these data a linear regression

COpi = 0.02+1.01co o

;r

= 0.97

(13)

This is, of course, an excellent Finally, the crossover

correlation!

It is essentially

fight on for this restricted

data set.

model can be used directly to provide a very simple, albeit most approximate, effective lags are lumped into a composite effective

set of estimates. delay,

To do this, the higher-frequency

Xhi, added to an appropriate frequency

pilot delay, x h, to estimate a composite for the closed-loop in Table pilot-vehicle

open-loop

system time delay, using Eq. 6. 16. A linear

x e. The neutrally-stable The consequent gives, data

system is then computed graphically in Figure

are summarized

6, and depicted

regression

t.Opi0

0.33 + 0.97 COuc m

; r = 0.94

(14)

Here the offset (0.33)

is greater

but the proportionality,

0.97, is closer to 1.0 than for the interpretations that, although the treatment is at the

based on the synchronous

pilot assumption.

This result indicates 51

_'F
3

G,

R,r

o
0 0

Q
5

g'I
10

WR (rad/sec)
Figure 15. Comparison of Flight-Based Resonant PIO Frequencies Frequencies 6 CROSSOVER MODEL with Compensatory System

TABLE SEVERE PIO SUBSET WITH

Neutral Estimate Configuration 2_/o BASIS 2-5 "Chi t0UcM = 7t/2't e 0.78 2.01
Opl 0

of

Thi

Stability

PIO Frequency

2to.64)
2.41

0.53

2.66

2-8

2(0.7) 9 2(0.97) 4.22

0.156

0.406

3.87

3.77

3-12

0.46

0.71

2.21

2.21

3-13 4.22 5-9 2(0.7) 6 2(0.7) 4

0.46

0.71

2.21

3.23

0.233

0.48

3.29

3.48

5-10

0.35

0.60

2.62

2.7

52

o
5

o" i1

_PlO = 0.33 + O.97WUCM, r = 0.941 =E

0 0
W U CM

I 5 (radlsec)

I 10

Figure

16. Comparison

of Flight-Based PIO Frequencies with Compensatory Stability Frequency Based on the Crossover Model the elementary crossover

System Neutral

level of very first-order fundamentals The to provide

approximations, a reasonable

model appears to capture enough of the

estimate for the PIO frequency. indicate that the crossover and more precise pilot models for

above discussions control

and analysis

compensatory frequency effective

and the synchronous data.

pilot model can all give relatively pilot assumption

good estimates for the PIO in that only estimate

for these particular aircraft dynamics More precise

The synchronous

has a major advantage

need to be considered;

albeit with the proviso

that the PIO frequency

will be high. model.

estimates for these data seem to require

the assumption

of a compensatory impact of the added

A major

reason that these results are so close together the PIO tendencies. For other PIO sources assumptions.

is the overwhelming there can be major

lags underlying conducted

differences

in analyses

using compensatory Principle

and synchronous

2. Governing

for Good Flying the qualitative

Qualities

- Tolerance

to Pilot Compensation

Variations lags they must

To better appreciate be considered whether

and quantitative

aspects of PIOs due to excessive interactions in general.

in the larger context of closed-loop or unfavorable,

pilot-aircraft

These interactions, which exhibits

favorable

are part of the domain

of "Flying Qualities."

An aircraft

a high degree

of PIO susceptibility

clearly has very poor flying qualities. 53

Starting

at the other extreme,

themostfundamental
tasks. In the explicit

attribute of effective

airplane

dynamics

which possess excellent high-urgency,

flying qualities closed-loop

is

tolerance to adjustments

in pilot dynamic characteristics

in demanding, rating

flying

statements of the Cooper-Harper

scale describing Level

1 flying qualities,

"Pilot Compensation Pilot Compensation Although

is not a factor for desired performance" (PR's of 1 and 2), and "Minimal Required for Desired Performance" (PR of 3). system factors involved in pilot rating (e.g., Ref. 75), importance that it can (e.g., PIOs)

there are a variety of detailed pilot-vehicle to Pilot Compensation Variations"

the "Tolerance

is of such central and overriding both favorable

be taken as the governing pilot-vehicle a. Idealized interactions.

and guiding principle To elaborate

in considering

and unfavorable

on this theme Vehicle

several examples

will be treated below:

Good and Bad Effective

Characteristics

For closed-loop form requires

full-attention

operations

the ideal controlled-element for compensatory operations

dynamics

is Yc = Kc/s"

This

no pilot lead or lag equalization which approximate

(the crossover a range

model is "made of pilot gains

good" with pilot dynamics

Yp = Kpe'Xhs). Further,

it supports

from zero to an octave or so below cou with only minor changes loop system. limited The attainable closed-loop effective system bandwidth

in the basic dynamic

form of the closedis, in fact, properties

and time response

performance

only by the pilot's

lag, x h. In terms of the pilot-vehicle gains the dominant closed-loop

system output/input

(Fig. 1) for low and moderate

open-loop

mode will be approximately,

M(s) l(s) For this ideal controlled the closed-loop changing system element response

._

1 , (s/coc + 1)

coc = KpK c

(15)

the pilot has maximum and accuracy as needed

latitude to vary gain, Kp (and thus _0c), to adjust to meet varied demands As the pilot attention frequency, constant, of closed-loop c%, will while not materially or

the form of the closed-loop calls and for gain the

system dynamics. the crossover system

level, task urgency, increase wax

aggressiveness proportionally, corresponding available

modification, closed-loop

or decrease and wane properties in

dominant Thus, there

time

1/0_c, will system

fashion.

is a very

wide range

response

which are effected

in direct proportion

to pilot effort. aireraR dynamics characteristics in the region of pilotprecise adjustment

Consider as the other extreme a set of effective vehicle system crossover equalization that requires

a great deal of pilot lead as well as exquisitely the crossover

of the pilot's manner.

and gain to approximate

law and to close the loop in a stable but the dynamic quality and even

The pilot may be able to exert adequate

closed-loop

control,

the closed-loop the controlled

system stability require that the pilot's describing element deficiencies in the crossover region. 54

function,

Yp, be precisely

tuned to offset Scale,

In the language

of the Cooper-Harper

the pilot's be attained issue.

compensation

in this case can range from "extensive" (PR = 8) or "intense"

(PR = 6) if adequate of control

performance

can

at all, to "considerable"

(PR = 9) if retention

itself is the only

PIO potential aircraft

fits very nicely

in this framework.

Clearly

the ideal Kc/s vehicle

dynamics

(with the

gain, K c, set at an optimum value) is very forgiving

and has very low PIO potential, whereas the tasks.

other example b.

will have a high PIO potential in urgent, high-gain Examples and quantitative appreciation

Two Specific

A more concrete two examples characteristics markedly synchronous Figures responses. are identical. command

of these same considerations

can be illustrated using low-frequency modes but with to

from the LAHOS (classical

data (Ref. 76). These have been selected modes) and high frequency region (around

to have identical (e.g., actuation)

short period aircraft

different

properties

in the mid-frequency

a phase angle of-180

) pertinent

pilot (pure gain) PIOs. 17 and 18 present both Bode and gain-phase forms of the effective aircraft frequency

The short period The differences

properties are:

and the very highest frequency Case 2-C includes a lead-lag,

modes at [0.6, 26] and [0.7, 75] whereas Case 2-10 has a

(5)/00);

filter lag, 1/[0.7, 4]. The lead-lag extends the region ratio for 2-C, while (pilot-induced the command noise) filter

which approximates lag serves to reduce plots readily

a "K/s-like" pilot show

character

of the amplitude commands differences

high frequency such obvious

and remnant as:

for 2-I0.

The Bode

Configuration

2-C: range of roughly "K/s-like" These features lead to a much

The lead-lag equalization extends the amplitude ratio frequency character, permitting an increased maximum crossover frequency. larger available range for pilot gain adjustment. The "attitude bandwidth," which reflects the closed-loop significant pilot equalization, is quite large. pilot-vehicle

properties attainable

without

The phase shift slope around the -180 point is shallower than that for the other configuration, indicating less dramatic change in phase lag with frequency in this region. Configuration 2-10:

The command filter significantly reduces the frequency range over which the amplitude ratio approximates a "K/s-like" character, and creates a major addition to the phase lag in this and higher-frequency regions. These features lead to a lower maximum crossover frequency and reduced range for pilot gain adjustment.

55

0 Fs (0)[0.57,

4.41E+7(0.7) 2.3][0.6, 26][0.7, 75]

(5._..) (10)

Baseline ShoM-Pedod + High-Frequency

Lead-Lag

0
a

g
n

i t
U

0 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !i! sec :: -180

d
e

d B

lrpe = 0.053 .....

"[_2 Uu "_" 180"]-

IS4")
: : : : :

_-_O

......
: : : : : ;

(17 r/s)

:: '_ -360 Z

10 e

R
a

8
.......... ?_ " ,;

g
n

:J,,' / 2:48
0 M= 0.9 (2.89 -8 J aw e 13.45 r/s) r/s)

...."

i t
U

.......................

d e

Average Phase (38"/Hz)

Rate

Utao"(8.48 r/s)

J
2uleo(16.96 r/s) I -40 -300
I i ] i I i I

-260

-ZZO

- 180

-140

- 100

Figure

17. Bode and Gain Phase/Nichols 56

Plots for LAHOS

Case 2-C

8
Fs (0)[0.57,

2.72E+8(0.7)
2.3][0.6, 26][0.7, 75] '

1
[0.7, 4] Command Filter o P h
t S C

Baseline

Short-Period

+ High-Frequency I1
,lB.

zo _i ......... i .... i/ii:lncrementaJ ......... i .... i;iii I .... : i : : i::

g
n

i t
U

-9o

d B

il il ililli_:iiiiillliiill ii':i?:i':il i_:iiii:,iiii': iiii_;iiilll_i i'i i

-ZO ........ i ; i i ,IBW e i i _, i . ! ! ..... ::.... nR.'11_ ! !11 ! ; ! (_'"n':'")i .......... ! '_'_j_! : i ..... _|-[@2Ou !

iiiii211_: ......... i::iJ iii..iii.:: ;.i..;....':i:....i!ii.i;.;_

; i i i ! ; ;I ! +180"] ! i ! :. i i i ; i ! ! ! :. ! -180 ! ! :. !

.......... i......... i ....i...!....i....i....i.!.1 '=u' ".-_--.._:.., ........

i i i i i i i (2.St/s) _:, i,,_

.1!01.'.) ;....!....i...!....i....!.!. ...........

i : :: : : i :: -Z70

-360 10-1 lee le 1 Frequency (rad/_ec) 10 Z

(a)

M=2.01 \, '"...... ,.

y"
s

//" OBW e

/ Up (2.34 r/s)
12.53

1.43rls ./

.........................
.....

Average

Phase Rate

(2S4"/Hz)
2gla o- (5.06 r/s)

Figure

18. Bode

and Gain Phase/Nichols 57

Plots for LAHOS Case 2-10

Thecommand filter

characteristics have a great impact on the "attitude bandwidth," forcing it to be determined here on the basis of a 6 dB gain margin rather than the more usual phase margin of 45 . This shift in bandwidth measurement criteria reflects the magnitude of usable closed-loop system bandwidth achievable without major pilot equalization. To satisfy the crossover model here, the pilot would have to generate a lag near 1/T0 followed by a higher frequency lead; but the very large lag introduced by the filter is such as t_2make such pilot-generated equalization of very limited if any value. The phase curve in the region of -180 is very steep, reflecting frequency time lags introduced by the command filter. The gain-phase representation on the Nichols Chart provides the impact of the major mid-

another

useful perspective.

To place the

two plots on a common

gain basis, the gain phase plots are adjusted so that zero dB occurs when the this would correspond to a phase margin of 70 . As already elsewhere (e.g., Ref. 1). Even with properties revealed by the

phase is - 110% For a pure gain loop closure noted, this normalization is arbitrary,

but follows

a practice suggested

this large phase margin, the peak magnification M circles exhibit large differences difference

ratios of the closed-loop

(2.23 or 7 dB for 2-10 versus 0.92 or -0.75 dB for 2-C), which, in turn, in potential closed-loop the closed-loop system resonant bandwidth. frequency whenever the task the

indicates a significant demands frequencies again reflect configuration require

the pilot

to maximize

In this same

connection,

corresponding

to the peak magnification

ratio, at 2.34 rad/sec for 2-10 and 2.9 rad/sec for 2-C, system performance potentially available for

the much poorer closed-loop 2-10. Chart representation for synchronous

pilot-vehicle

The Nichols PIO frequencies

is particularly revealing for assessment

of conditions

near potential

pilot activity. and 2-C steep.

Around the -180 phase region the two plots exhibit quite For 2-C, a small change in pilot gain will create far less The "phase rate" is a

different shapes: 2-10 shallow, change in closed-loop useful measure phase

system peak magnification in Ref. 7 to quantify

than the same change for 2-10. this property. between

proposed

It will be recalled that, when taken as an the phase at o180 and that at twice this

"average frequency,

rate" based on the phase difference

divided by o180, the phase rate in degrees/Hertz observations can be quantified in Table 7.

and the phase delay, _p, are related by Eq. 11. using such measures as those called out on

Some of these qualitative the graphical representations

and summarized

58

TABLE7 SOMESUMMARYMEASURES OFFREQUENCY DOMAINCHARACTERISTICS Property MaximumAttainable Crossover,u o (NeutralStability) Incremental GainAdjustment Range (From 1/Te2 tOsp Shelf) Attitude Bandwidth, Xp Ratio, Mp oBW Case 2-C 8.5 rad/sec Case 2-10 2.5 rad/sec

18 dB (7.94) 3.45 rad/sec 0.053 sec -0.75 dB (0.917)

2dB (1.25) 0.63 rad/sec 0.353 sec 6.96 dB (2.23) 2.34 rad/sec 254 /Hz

Phase Delay,

Peak Magnification

Closed-loop Average

Resonance

(Frequency

for Mp)

2.89 rad/sec 38.2/Hz

Phase Rate

Taken altogether, frequency measures bandwidth, regime serve

these

measures

portray

the characteristics crossover system

of the pitch

attitude

features

in the Some attitude pilot

ranging

from the nominal closed-loop

high-gain pilot-vehicle

region to the potential performance

PIO region. (e.g.,

to quantify

attainable

closed-loop

resonance

characteristics

- frequency

and peak magnification gain adjustment reflect

ratio) without

compensation. the sensitivity region

These and other parameters, to pilot gain adjustments PIO potential relating

such as the incremental

range, also bear on in the particular

and variations. (e.g., instability

Some measures frequency,

features

of synchronous

phase rate, nominal require

Mp, etc.). levels. For the are

Quantitative example arbitrary. of-110 starting

measures

to permissible

pilot gain variations

reference

configurations The adjustment

considered

here there are no convenient plot normalizing

absolutes,

so the references

chosen

on the gain-phase elsewhere

the 0 dB point to coincide

with a phase shift gain range the two for

is based on practice

(e.g., Ref. 1). The measurement was selected cachet as appropriate

of the incremental

from the l/T02 to tOsp shelf asymptote at hand, and has no particular

only for comparing

configurations the Bjorkman is not needed, Although presentations flying

for generalization.

(This same measure stable an arbitrary provides similar

is given

data on Figures 13a--i.) In systems which are conditionally and a "Total Available the measures tabulated Gain Range" provide a can be defined convenient which

normalization information. the graphical from the

quantitative

summary,

themselves

provide

a better basis for gaining potential or other

an appreciation issues

of the total picture ranging They are, of course,

qualities

in general

to PIO

in particular.

underlying

basis for the summary

measures

tabulated

above as well as for other measures 59

that have or may

be proposed specificpredictiveor for

specific issues, such as the potential representations. of performance which of the graphical for improvement quantitative Returning characteristics attitude-control

assessment

criteria.

The development are a matter

of insights

pertinent

to

impact of pilot gain variations,

of clearcut interpretation design modifications focus on specific

They also serve as useful tools to assess possible or alleviation of PIO potential, etc. clearly or to provide

particular

characteristics now to the

may define PIO potential, principle and

general

its ramifications,

Configuration 2-10.

2-C

has

which in all respects flying qualities properties

are greatly superior to those of Configuration much better.

The high-urgency the high-

in general are obviously of 2-C are generally

And, more particularly,

gain, task urgency

inimicable

to the development

of PIO, while those of that the in-flightof 1 and 4,

2-10 can only be considered based pilot ratings respectively. prescriptions in Refs.

to be PIO-prone.

It should therefore

come as no surprise

for 2-C were 2.5, while 2-10 was a 10! and indeed the examples

The PIO ratings

were PIOR

These arguments, for PIO prevention

chosen to illustrate

them, give credence to the the criteria proposed

given in Ref. 7. They can also be used to support

l, 5, 6, and 8. Shuttle Orbiter Approach and Landing Tests of the effects of excessive lags on PIO pilot

3. The Space

This section phenomena

has thus far been devoted

to the examination

which can be treated

and understood using linearized effective

vehicle and quasi-linear experiments

dynamic characteristics. PIOs were expected

The flight data presented have all derived from controlled The motivation

in which in

or even sought.

for such studies stems from flight operations

which PIOs were not expected,

and were definitely not sought! 26, 1977, when the shuttle Enterprise

One of the most influential PIOs in history occurred on October performed "Approach the very first approach and Landing and landing to a normal There

runway as part of a test series entitled at Edwards, including such to the

Tests" or ALT.

was a very large crowd television coverage

dignitaries as the Prince of Wales, and extensive PIO sequence which occurred. extensive

gave a great deal of visibility

So, as might be expected,

this abnormal approach and landing motivated

studies of the phenomenon. PIO modes (an attitude mode at 3.5 rad/sec and

As shown in Figure 19 there were two longitudinal a path mode at 1.9 rad/sec).

The fact that both were present was a central factor in the analysis (Ref. 18). path control was critical on this first shuttle

Although the details of the orbiter PIO are quite complicated, landing on a conventional loop. In the event, runway.

Very tight attitude control was required at or very near their

to enable a similarly tight path limits. Thus, while the

both loops were closed

stability

interactions between path and attitude, task urgency, and some rate limiting were all involved,

the primary

6O

,2i
8 RHC Pitch Deflection (deg) 4 0 -4 -8 -12

Elevotor (deg)

Attitude

Mode

PIO

4 3 Pitch Rote .2 I

i -i--_ n

s-_ /

deg /

0
-I -2

wV
Poth 3.3 sec 3.3 sec
H

32

Mode

PIO

Uh " 1,9 rod/sec

24 Altitude (ft) 16

0
22 I 24 I 26 I 28 Time I 30 ($ec) I .32 1 34

Figure

19.

Shuttle Orbiter

PIO (Ref. 18)

61

culprit

in this PIO event was the aircraft aircraft

effective

time lag. This is a composite dynamics

of a variety

of time lags

due to filters, higher-frequency contributed nonlinear 4. an incremental

modes, actuator

and digital system delays which, in sum in the PIO because of the

time delay of about 0.27 sec. effects.

It was even greater

time lags due to rate limiting Fly-by-Wire

F-8 Digital

Experiments

-- The "Definitive"

Lag Data understanding of those PIO phenomena of all sorts, fixed

In sporadic experimental associated

work attempting to elicit quantitative

with time delay, a fairly large data base has been gathered using simulators and airborne using variable stability aircraft. benign airborne

and moving ground-based, for simulators

As shown in Figure 20, pilot ratings time

and even for relatively

tasks are only moderately sensitive to effective demands and focused purpose,

delay (Ref. 77).

But, for crux moves with high attentional importance. Indeed, "excessive"

the time delay

can be of paramount somewhere.

values can guarantee that a PIO will occur sometime, the shuttle ALT-5 PIO, an experimental (DFBW) aircraft (Ref. 19).

Motivated

at least partly by a desire to better understand with the NASA Dryden Digital Fly-by-Wire

series was conducted 10 9 8 7

eoe

s 5
4 3 2 1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 Effective Time Delay, T1 (sac)

Figure 20. The aircraft

Effective

Time Delay Data from Flight and Simulators to investigate

(Ref. 77)

was configured

for experiments Approach

the effects of flight control system (FCS) a high

time delays on flying qualities. degree of pilot involvement flight test sequence

and touch and go landing tasks were used to emphasize

and intensity in the task.

As shown by the flight recording (Figure 21) of a success.

conducted on Apr. 18, 1978, the tests were a remarkable 62

Figure 21.

Flight Recording

of F-8 DFBW PIO (NASA

Ames/Dryden

Flight

Research

Facility)

63

At touchdown switch removed gradient

the effective a normal

vehicle

dynamics feedback

were automatically a forward

changed.

The weight-on-wheels and the stick force

acceleration values.

(including

loop integrator)

also shifted to higher

The experimental

test point was at 200 knots which was too fast nose high, so nose high, in fact, that the aircraft disengaged, so the effective aircraft

for nose wheel touchdown, suffered dynamics a tail strike. were those

so the pilot held the airplane

At that point the SAS was automatically of the airplane

alone except for the 100 millisecond

delay associated

with the time out

lag experiment.

The PIO then became well-developed. the normal a number establish the pilot SAS, enabling of unplanned the impact declined

On the second oscillation a routine recovery. this experiment time delays runs!

the pilot punched

the delay and re-engaged Although configured demonstrated milliseconds the Level it contained to definitively this point,

elements of effective

was, in the event, on piloted control.

ideally Having 100 to

to provide

repeat

Thus

the value

of about

as a maximum-allowable 1 boundary

net incremental

delay was born! lines.

This value of T! corresponds

for the steepest of the Figure 20 regression PILOT-AIRCRAFT INTERFACE

B. MISMATCHED

CHARACTERISTICS

It has been well-known tracking-like particular attention, essentially is reflected for effective transfer

for many years that the pilot gain required factor underlying the pilot's

to accomplish

precision high-gain of a

tasks is a predominant aircraft high-gain configuration

assessment element

of the flying qualities gain is varied system

(e.g., Ref. 46). frequency

If the controlled of the open-loop of the pilot's

in such fullis maintained

tasks, the crossover

pilot-aircraft

constant by a countering in the pilot rating. vehicle dynamics

self-adjustment

gain.

The "cost" of such an adjustment nature of this relationship Since the approximate

Figure 22, from Ref. 46, illustrates which approximate

the general form.

an ideal rate control aspects

characteristic

is Yc = Kc/s, other vehicle-dynamics

are irrelevant. First, there is an optimum factors to coalesce the data

Several general observations controlled element

can be made about the trends of Figure 22.

gain for each case. These optima are used as normalizing Second, the optima lie in rather broad regions

from the several sources.

in which a change of plus or This

minus 50 percent in controlled implies that, once the effective are easily accommodated optimum region, there

element gain, K c, incurs a penalty of no more than one rating point. vehicle sensitivity is properly adjusted, minor controlled

element changes

by the pilot, and are not major factors in pilot rating. are major decrements in pilot rating associated

Third, outside the broad (K c too

with either too-sluggish

small, pilot gain, Kp, too large) or too-sensitive can be connected with a PIO tendency.

(K c too large, pilot gain, Kp, too small).

Either extreme

64

IO 5
o= =go oo oo eoo,

_f

Kopt

2
f

f11

Variable

Stability Airplane

I.O

.....

Fixed Base Simulator Fixed Base Simulator

0.5

_lo.=

0.2

<'x

0.1[ 0 I I I I I I [ I 2 3 4 5 6 7 Roting Decrement, ARK 8

Figure 22. Pilot Ratings The determination to assure tendencies. answers. "inceptor" cockpit a favorable of the optimum pilot-aircraft

vs. Controlled element

Element Gain (Ref. 46) gain is clearly a matter of supreme interactions, importance of PIO

controlled

interface,

effective

pilot-vehicle

and an absence provide systems

With conventional With the introduction has permitted

center sticks, pedals, and yokes decades of past practice of full-authority stability augmentation and fly-by-wire from

traditional the stick center

the introduction versus

of many other options. degrees of motion, and nonlinear

These range etc.

side versus

locations,

force-alone

various

Also, the inceptors shaping

have became Further,

"subsystems"

by incorporating of within-

sensors and frequency and between-axis

amplitude

circuits.

the harmonization

characteristics

of cockpit

inceptors

which share functions, Consequently,

such as the conventional the proper aircraft extensive gains. ratchets,

stick as a lateral and longitudinal element gain has be_me

controller, a nontrivial

has new dimensions. development interface.

setting of controlled introduces

aspect on every new In the absence of an

which

a new inceptor

at the pilot-control-system

background

of data for these there is no basis other than experiment to ultimate success has oitcn had many byways,

to determine

the optimum bobbles, and

The pathway

with minor wiggles,

as well as occasional

severe PIOs. for a new inceptor are many and varied. in precision Major questions maneuvering, techniques

The detailed

issues which must be examined

with a side stick, for instance, roll (or pitch)

include control sensitivity in otherwise

and PIO susceptibility sensitivity

ratchet or jerkiness

steady maneuvers,

to pilot gripping

65

and arm/hand support filters, biodynamic In the course simulations experience predictions appropriate

characteristics,

effective

time delay and amplitude and frequency etc. and, sometimes, in flight tests.

shaping

of stick

interactions, of preparing

minimum and total motions/forces, for the flight

of new aircraft, fixed-

moving-

base

are used to determine

initial gains, which are then refined and even in-flight simulations, gains.

Unfortunately, reliable to set

has shown that fixed-base, of the best controlled sensitivities

have not been generally inceptors, attempts

element

Even with conventional are seldom fruitful.

in fixed-base

simulators

As noted

in Ref.

78, "Pilots motion and simulator

(particularly fighter pilots) always want a very responsive airplane; however, when real-world visual cues are experienced values are too large. their opinion frequently is revised..." Typically, the fixed-base

For newer inceptors such as side sticks, the simulations For instance, considering found

are also usually inadequate

to address all the major questions listed above. any biodynamic considerations, amplitude

pitch axis control alone without or even desirable in the

nonlinearities

acceptable

simulations

are often not appropriate in flight,

sometimes becoming

a factor in PIOs.

Further, cross-axis results. Thus,

harmonization

demands a flight venue even to achieve, much less to validate, satisfactory

in the modem era where a wide variety of novel controller are being considered, design feature. generally flight-based developments

inceptors and multiple aircraft control effectors

are an essential aspect of what previously was a detailed The adjustments required have

And, these may not always be simple and straightforward. complex ad hoc empirical modifications For example, Ref.

involved

which must be acceptable some aspects of the

to a reasonable F-16 side stick

cross-section controller/roll

of pilots.

79 summarizes

prefilter development

which included a 155 flight, 34 pilot program in the YF and F-16A aircraR.

evaluating

19 different

side stick and prefilter configurations to stick displacement,

Of the 155 flights, 74 were devoted while 81 considered various

force gradient, and input axis orientation considerations,

roll pre-filter configurations. The determination etc. are not the only of optimum effective features that aircraft gains, pilot controller to evolve reliably gain and frequency in ground-based shapings, simulators. aircraft

are difficult

Comprehensive

simulation

studies to gain understanding representative Even variable

and detailed examinations environment

of specific

have, as yet, been insufficiently predictors relationships of PIO tendencies. between acceleration

of the flight

to be reliable

quantitative because the

stability aircraR results can be ambiguous

at the pilot's station and attitude are configuration-

and speed-specific.

A proper match may require that the variable stability aircraR have high authority, high bandwidth force as well as moment producers. Only the USAF Total In-Flight Simulator (TIFS) aircraR is currently in

this class for relatively world complications

low speeds, and there is nothing available for high speed flight. associated with the understanding and assessment of severe

Some of the real PIO potential are

summarized

in Figure 23.

66

EXTRAORDINARY KEY FACTORS

RANGE

OF POSSIBLE

VEHICLE/PILOT

PIO'S

ARE

VERY

RARE

EVENTS recorded data even rarer

Systematic, Difficult MANY PIO'S Correlation state variables SllVIULATION Fixed

comprehensive to duplicate INVOLVE of flight exact

circumstances ACCELERATIONS with other aircraft specific

FLIGHT acceleration

is configuration

DIFFICULTIES useful as a predictor (may be ok of

base seldom measures)

after the fact for diagnoses corrective Details actuation are often Because simulators which Even have variable

and assessments

of the critical dynamics, poorly

higher-frequency and of the inceptor

SAS and characteristics,

simulated requirements, useless most moving base

of washout are nearly

for prediction component simulators

of PIO's

an acceleration stability when

aircraft

can be

poor predictors unless changes characteristics

accelerations

are involved

in the acceleration/attitude can be made

Figure 23. Real World

Complications

Associated

with PIO Understanding

and Assessments

67

The general inability to predict severe PIO tendencies deserves a great deal of attention to rectify. There

in manned simulations There

is an encumbrance

which that

is some hope.

is increased recognition

higher-frequency simulation

linear and nonlinear dynamics, aircraft. Pilot-centered

appropriate inceptors, etc. are essential to an adequate investigative techniques, such as the increased use of offer some scene. the be

of the effective

large amplitude, potential. Experimental best thing duplicated C.

pilot-inserted technology

deliberate abusive inputs in attempts to elicit PIO tendencies is continually improving to better approximate the

Display scenarios

visual

which enhance

pilot urgency,

gain, etc. are receiving

more attention. in flight,

Perhaps can otten

that can be said is that most famous to some extent. RATE

PIOs, once they are discovered earlier?

So, why not discovered LIMITING

CONTROLLER Almost

all severe PIOs for which detailed (see, e.g., Figures system. 19 and 21). The major

time traces are available the source

exhibit rate limiting of the rate limiting

of one form was in the shown in

or another surface Figure which

In most examples

actuation 24.

effect

can be illustrated

using the simplified

model

In this elementary

first order system the linear system effective and the inverse of the bandwidth.

time delay is simply to the analogy

1/t,Oa, which

is also the time constant,

More pertinent

will be drawn here, it is the system rise time -- i.e., the time that would be taken to reach the final value at the maximum of bandwidth to here. velocity developed in the step response. Although there are no unequivocal definitions

or effective

time delay for a nonlinear

system, an equivalence system,

based on rise time is appealed xa, will be

On this basis, the effective

time delay for the rate-limited 1 < CO a xa < V L of excessive 8max

(16)

In this simplified

view, the previous discussions Qualitatively, the effect

lag as a major factor in severe PIOs time

acquire an added dimension.

of rate limiting is to increase the effective

delay as a function of the pilot's amplitude. and limit the amplitude For more accurate realistic frequency precise

In general, this will reduce

the neutral stability frequency

of any sustained oscillation. estimates of the impact of surface Sinusoidal-input be developed actuator rate limiting describing functions a more elaborate appropriate and

describing

function

is required.

for more or of

actuator system dynamics response measurements

can readily

with the aid of computer

simulations

on the actual hardware.

A middle ground is also available

using the is used

sinusoidal-input

describing function

derived in the Appendix of Ref. 10. This describing function

in Ref. 10 to study the effects of the rate-limited on the X-15 airplane (Ref. a major role in the PIO, 13). In that example

actuator as a participant in the famous PIO encountered the surface rate limit, which was only 15/sec, played

in which the absence of an active pitch damper also was a factor. 68

Surface Command 6c ..j

.

1 e
eL

Surface Deflection 6

a) Block Diagram

1/ua llUa llUa

t

TI

1/a

2/Ua t--"

3/ua

11

6(t)

LINEAR RESPONSE,

11 < e L Maximum Velocity Rise Time, Bandwidth Effective Time Delay

NONLINEAR

RESPONSE,

11 > e L

Vm = r/ua llua
_8

s VL

VL 11N L V L/11 11N L I Equivalent Based on Rise Time

llua

b) Responses to Step Inputs, 5c

= r_u(t)

Figure 24.

Simplified

Surface Servoactuator System 69

The subsequent the imposition D. VEHICLE

fixes to the system included of a launch DYNAMICS rule requiring

an increase of the control

surface

rate limit to 25/sec

and

that the pitch damper

be operational.

TRANSITIONS to understand in their details are associated has been described "Vehicle Dynamics by changes with transitions

The PIO scenarios in the pilot behavior

which are most difficult or in the vehicle by reference vehicle

dynamics.

The former here.

at some length above, Transitions" in general control to the dynamic switch the

the latter will be illustrated refer to changes

to two examples dynamics

in the effective

which

are induced the application

in the flight

system configuration, effective transitions removed aircraft.

or by dynamic

shifts accompanying

of large pilot commands

The DFBW F-8 aircraft time traces of Figure 21 provide an example of vehicle the flight control system configuration acceleration augmentation feedback system. and forward was changed. The weight-on-wheels

in which the normal

loop integrator

and the tail strike disengaged vehicle

rest of the stability presented associated

So, in a short period forms. Two examples

of time the effective

dynamics those

to the pilot took on two different with nonlinearities in the effective

of the other form of transitions,

aircraft dynamics as they are affected by different

amplitudes

of pilot command, 1. The YF-12

will be summarized

below.

PIO

Ref.

15 describes

a study to understand airplane.

and determine

the causes

of some

large amplitude

PIOs

encountered switch which before airplane

on the YF-12 resulted

Figure 25 is a time history of a + 2g PIO triggered in longitudinal trim as the airplane and took abrupt the PIO.

by a faulty trim a tanker just to keep the

in an overshoot

was approaching corrective action

hookup.

The pilot reacted

to the trim overrun entering

from reaching

its g limit, in the process dynamics

The effective block diagram trailing

longitudinal

of the YF-12 were made up of the elements was a limited authority

incorporated

in the

of Figure 26a.

The stability augmenter

(2.5 trailing

edge up, 6.5 loop,

edge down)

pitch damper, functions

with a rate limit of 12.6/sec.

The SAS appears in a feedback

with the describing functions involved

N ! and N 2 representing

the rate and position limits respectively. control input amplitude

Describing of those

for the effective in the PIOs;

aircraft were developed

for a sinusoidal

typical

these are shown in Figure 26b. denoted

Notice that, at the PIO frequency scales for the amplitude is the major factor issue -- increasing that the observed

of approximately and phase data, the at this frequency. the amplitude ratio and

0.5 Hz (3.14 rad/sec) position Notice while

by the tick on the frequency implying

limit differences

are minor,

that the rate limiting

also that the nonlinearities creating an additional

put the worst face on the stability lag. Ref. 15 demonstrates operating The study 70

phase

PIO

frequency

amplitude dynamics

is consistent defined by

with a synchronous the describing

pilot

in conjunction also demonstrated

with the

effective

vehicle stability

functions.

that a neutral

Nose up 12 8 e, deg 4 0 Nose up Z0 e, deglsec 0 -20 Nose up 3 2 ] an. g 0 -! -2 0

I
I

I
2 t, sec

I
)

I
4

Figure frequency nonlinearity Reduced short-period obtained with

25.

Large-Amplitude

YF-12

PIO Time History was

(Ref. 15) so that the rate limiting

the system to duplicate

in its linear the observed

range PIO.

far too high,

was essential

to its simplest terms, the YF-12 PIO is a straightforward damping ratio of the effective aircraft dynamics

transition

involving

a change

in the

as a function of the pilot's input amplitude.

The change in dynamics by more than 50 percent. 2. T-38 PIO

due to the nonlinearities

is such as reduce the pilot gain needed to sustain a PIO

One of the most interesting played a prominent a landmark role occurred

and instructive on January

PIO examples

in which transitions

in the vehicle

dynamics This was studied shown oscillation is zero in

26, 1960 with an early version of the T-38 trainer. was well instrumented 16, 32). and the PIO was extensively time traces

in PIO history because the aircraft

at the time (Refs. Figure 27 indicate

10, 29, 30, 31) and since (Refs. that the aircraft initially suffered

The flight recorder

from a low-amplitude augmentation system

high-frequency

involving during

only the pitch axis airplane plus stability this pre-PIO phase). The pilot disengaged

(the pilot stick force

the pitch augmenter and began an attempt

to control

71

Pilot Dynamics

Force Gradient Actuator Aerodynamics

6esAs

Lag Lead

a) Block Diagram

10 __-_,

_ --------

Linear Position

= 2..5

Positionlimitlimit / Nonlinear = 6.5

_-"_..
1.o

/e I
P cl .1

!
:
m

-80

o!
_ WPIO
w

-120 ,-rp,deg -160 --200 -240

.01 .I

1 I IIIIII l.O u. radlsec

-280

I I11111 1.0

II I 1111

u, radlsec

Amp/#ude Ratio

Phase

Figure

26.

Bode

Diagram

of YF-12

Longitudinal Control System (Adapted from Ref. 15)

and O/Sep Describing

Functions

72

< m,
o

73

the resulting upset. a peak-to-peak

A 7.4 rad/sec PIO then developed of 10g, increasing and moving gradually

very rapidly, to + 8g!

and in just a cycle or so had achieved

amplitude

After a great deal of analysis in both vehicle dynamics of effective

base simulations,

this PIO was associated between

with transitions aircraft cases

and pilot dynamics.

The first transition

is, of course,

the effective

augmenter-on dynamics.

and augmenter-off. The airplane's intended

Even augmenter-off

the aircraft

presented

two limiting

primary to improve There are

flight control system incorporated the stick force/g several unbalanced properties. masses

an artificial

feel system with the

and an effective linked tandem

bobweight cockpit

The T-38 is a trainer, distributed throughout

controls.

mechanical

control system, including

one small lumped bobweight.

Consequently,

the effective

bobweight

is the composite control sticks.

of all these sources which, incidently, The bobweight effect not only changed

varies with the trim position of the interconnected the steady-state The actual aircraft stick force/g, dynamics but also created a

mechanical at a particular contributors,

feedback

loop within the control system. depended

presented flexibilities,

to the pilot bobweight

pilot amplitude accelerations in Figure

on the distributed contributor

control system frictions, locations,

at the bobweight 28 this created Figure

as well as the pilot stick force levels. a bobweight-in, bobweight-out pair of function pertinent

So, illustrated effective

as limiting

conditions,

aircraft

dynamics.

29 illustrates

the pitch attitude

to stick force describing represents a condition

characteristics

for the two limiting conditions.

The bobweight-in condition

condition

to large pilot amplitudes, the system friction

while the bobweight-out

is a limiting

case as the amplitude reduces

approaches

level seen by the pilot.

There it is seen that the bobweight

the low-frequency in the short

gain of the airplane, just what it was installed to do. But the effect of the bobweight period frequency causing range is to increase the effective

feedback

short period frequency and to reduce the damping ratio, in phase lag with frequency. closed-loop This effect for

the major resonant

peak and the much steeper change pilot gains corresponding effective vehicles

is so profound the bobweight-in of highly

that the maximum and bobweight-out adaptation

to neutral

system instability

differ by a factor of 4! Thus an enormous with the high gains

amount to

nonlinear

is required of the pilot when acting

appropriate

regain control

after an upset. at all initially, he was adapted to the SAS-on the effective aircraft vehicle

To the extent that the pilot was involved dynamics. dynamics Then, after disengaging appear as the no-bobweight

the SAS, and beginning case, transitioning to overcome

to take over control,

shortly thereai_er

to the bobweight-in

dynamics.

The high gain the pilot adopts condition is reached,

initially

the upset is far too large when the bobweight-in PIO the pilot's precognitive control transfer characteristics The

and the PlO develops.

In the fully-developed

approximated

a pure gain, indicating that a degree of synchronous

behavior was present. over the situation.

PlO was gradually reduced as the pilot lowered gain and regained

74

i_ Horizon Pilot

Controlled Feel

Element Servo _'f Airframe Pitch

F,

,
/ I

Syslem

-_'H 0

_"

--'P" Angle

Pitch Angle

Bobweight .-_ -- _ Bobweigh!

Loop - -Airframe

nz
open ot low n;. _
Pilot

I
Loop

Figure That this scenario analyses, artificial

28.

T-38 Primary

Control

System

Block Diagram

(Ref. 10) not only by detailed and

is a reasonable

description

of what happened

is made credible

but also by extensive feel system)

simulations

and flight testing with major reduced

control system (bobweight between (Ref.

modifications dynamics.

which substantially Also, moving

the differences studies

the two limiting direct

sets of effective evidence

aircraft

base simulator behavior recovery

31) produced PIO.

that the pilot very likely did adopt synchronous can also give some insight into "proper" the stick.

in the fully-developed procedures.

This example could

In principle, motions

the pilot would

either let go of the stick, or "clamp" damp out. dynamics But the effective

In either event the airplane's

gradually airplane

damping

ratio is quite different. in, corresponding be about 0.1.

For the first ease, the effective to "stick-free" characteristic. condition procedure For

would be those with the bobweight short-period damping ratio would

these the effective fixed") the damping be preferred.

For the clamped

("stickwould

ratio is about 0.4.

So, for this type of system at least, the clamping

75

0--I'01 AMPL. RATIO

1.0 1 11

I0 I I I I I

;;;;I

oJ I

I00 I I I II

max

stoble

goin

max with

stable

gain

-20-

-0.1

no

bobweight

bobweighl

ra.__d Ib dB -40-.01

low frequency gain reduces _,_y bobweight dE -6

__

_'_.t.

//

12 dB= 400%

-...
linear -60---.001 No bobweight; ----

I \!

-KB=O With bobweight; KB=2.0

\
PHASE I00
m

140

180

I IIII 1.0

I III

I
sec

I I IIII IUO

_ ra__dd

Figure 29.

Effect of Bobweight

on Pitch Response

(Re

10)

76

SECTIONV TRIGGERSAS CENTRALFEATURES SEVEREPIOS IN

An awkward attribute which is a central and complicating upset, or trigger generalization which starts the sequence. or impossible. The awkwardness feature of severe PIOs is an initiating stems from their great diversity, l are: event, making

difficult

A few typical disconnect creating

examples for PIOs cited in Table created a major

T-38 -- Failed

stability augmenter; augmenter,

sequence

upset (see Ref. 10); and, simultaneously,

B-58 -- Failed stability unfavorable

sideslip and subsequent

rolling

0)_/o d roll-control

dynamics; (see Refs. 15, 16); with limiting effects (see Ref. 11); nosed

YF- 12 -- Faulty trim switch, trim overshoot YF-16 -- Several undesired inputs coupled

Shuttle -- ALT-5, 30 mph over-speed on very first runway approach; speed brake actuated, down to make desired impact point; pilot plus transient upset basic approach; DFBW F-8 -- Major unexpected change in effective controlled element dynamics; interacted to create a

YF-22 -- Afterburner start, pilot input, plus mode transition major upset; MD-l 1 -- Inadvertent Another interesting slat deployment (see Ref. 21).

circuitry

example of an unforeseen trigger mechanism a pitch PIO followed the recovery,

is cited in Ref. 80. This occurred increasing in magnitude,

during

spin-recovery

testing where verified

then subsiding.

The explanation, feel dynamic allowed

by ground-based which,

simulation,

was that there was a lag term built into the pitch with the rapidly changing flight condition,

pressure

scheduling

when combined

inadvertent

high pilot gain in pitch control for a period in the previous discussion of pilot behavioral These include

during the recovery. modes, triggering upsets can also arise

As emphasized

from shifts in the pilot's and neuromuscular A major includes changes source

organization which

of behavior. into higher

changes in the pilot's goals, attention, offsets, or control The reversals.

tension of upsets

reflect

pilot gains, controller

is the surrounding

external and internal

environment.

latter category It also includes

gusts, wind shears, which

etc. as well as control system shifts acting

on the airplane. evasive

enter the pilot-vehicle

system via the pilot, such as drastic multiple redundant fly-by-wire aircraft

maneuvers. transition from

Great efforts are taken in modem one set of aircraft systems characteristics

to seamlessly

to another.

Unfortunately,

with even the most modem

and elaborate within

(e.g., YF-22)

some upsetting

condition within the FCS itself or pilot behavior The lure of software "solutions"

transitions

the pilot-vehicle

system seem to creep through.

to all sorts of imagined

77

problems

become

easier

to espouse; but unimagined a "catalog" state!

events can remain

submerged

only to surface

in an

untimely way. in a rudimentary

Unfortunately, beginning

of such possibilities

(see, e.g., Figure 30) at present exists only

TASK

CHANGES

WHICH

INDUCE

CHANGES

IN PILOT

BEHAVIOR e.g., from APPROACHING PROXIMITY, FLIGHT Attitude to Load Factor Control G-LIMIT, GROUND ETC.)

LIMITS FLIGHT

(STALL, PATH

CONSTRAINTS, SHIFTS Dynamics

CONTROL

SYSTEM

Stick-Fixed Rate/Position Transitions SHIFT

to Stick-Free Limiting Between

Task-Tailored DYNAMICS

FCS Modes

IN AIRCRAZr Sudden Rapid

Gain Changes Onset of Significant Aircraft Nonlinearities SAS

Saturation UNEXPECTED Clear

of a Limited AIRCRAFT

Authority

DISTURBANCES

Air Turbulence

Jet Upsets Vortex Encounters

Microbursts

Figure

30.

Precursors/Triggers

Mechanisms/Pilot

Mode Shitters

78

SECTION SUGGESTED

VI CATEGORIES FOR PIO

PILOT-BEHAVIOR-THEORY-BASED

Because

of the diverse schemes

considerations could

entering

into oscillatory PIOs

aircraft-pilot

couplings

several

kinds

of classification Perspective" the PIO. PIOs," analysis Then, changes

be proposed

to group

with similar control

aspects.

In the "Historical of

section

some "Famous analytical

PIOs" were classified

by primary

axis and the frequency

The detailed

studies, e.g., Refs. 10, 11, 15, 16, 18, 26, etc., of some of the "Famous of this report, relied on pilot behavioral models and closed-loop

as well as previous procedures

sections

to elicit understanding

and rationalization models

of the phenomena

and their associations. and assessing

in some cases, pilot-vehicle to the effective vehicle

behavioral to alleviate procedures

were used as a basis for designing

the PIO potential. used in attempts to understand, instead, "explain," and predict, were The

The pilot models and analysis not specific categories

to any one of the Table l groups; in the classification scheme

they had some application from the successes

across the groups.

suggested

here follow

of this past experience. of existing pilot

The world of potentially behavior A. models

severe PIOs is divided techniques.

into three categories proposed

based on utilization are described below.

and analysis

The categories

PROPOSED

CATEGORIES

Category I -- Essentially Linear Pilot-Vehicle System Oscillations: The effective controlled element characteristics are essentially linear, and the pilot behavior is also quasilinear and time-stationary. The oscillations are associated with high open-loop system gain. The pilot dynamic behavior mode may be pursuit, compensatory, precognitive, or synchronous. In this category controlled element no significant dynamics frequency-variant nonlinearities (see, e.g., Ref. 81) are involved Yc/Kc) and no behavioral in the

(hence there is just one effective There may be changes stick sensitivity or pilot oscillations

mode shitis occur element gain,

in the pilot (so Yp/Kp is fixed). so such consistent things as nonlinear

in either the pilot or the controlled attention shiits may be admissible

as features

with Category

I. The pilot-vehicle

in this category

may be casual, easily repeatable, non-threatening. On the other

readily eliminated

by loosening

control (lowering input the oscillations

pilot gain), and generally

hand, with a major triggering simple nonlinearities As illustrated analyses presumed pilot-vehicle

may be quite severe especially

when gain-dependent

are involved. in the examination I oscillation of the Bjorkman possibilities sustained PIOs for a given frequencies pilot cue structure, with a

of Category

can reveal

the oscillatory

consistent nominal etc.

type of pilot behavior system bandwidths,

(e.g., compensatory various sensitivities

or synchronous), to effective

pilot gain levels, vehicle characteristics,

high-gain

79

Category II -- Quasi-Linear Pilot-Vehicle System Oscillations with Surface Rate or Position Limiting: These are severe PIOs, with oscillation amplitudes well into the range where actuator rate and/or position limiting in series with the pilot are present as primary nonlinearities. The rate-limited actuator modifies the Category I situation by adding an amplitude-dependent lag and by setting the limit cycle magnitude. Other simple nonlinearities (e.g., stick command shaping, some aerodynamic characteristics) may also be present. These are the most common true limit-cycle severe PIOs. Category II PIOs are very similar to those of Category I except for the dominance of key series

nonlinearities. levels.

They are invariably

severe PIOs, whereas Category

I covers both low and large amplitude

The oscillatory

conditions

remain

those of Eq. 1, although YpYc = -l/N

it is usually modified

to the form, (17)

where the left hand side represents hand side is a composite

the linear parts of the open-loop function

pilot-vehicle

dynamics and the right function N

describing

of the series nonlinearities. and the input amplitude. describing function

The describing

typically be found given

depends on the nature of the nonlinearity in Ref. 81, and a rate-limited actuator

Many examples of "N" may illustrative analysis is

plus a typical

in Ref. 10 for the X-15 PlO. Category III --Essentially Non-Linear Pilot-Vehicle System Oscillations with Transitions: These PIOs fundamentally depend on nonlinear transitions in either the effective controlled element dynamics, or in the pilot's behavioral dynamics. The shills in controlled element dynamics may be associated with the size of the pilot's output, or may be due to internal changes in either control system or aerodynamic/propulsion configurations, mode changes, etc. Pilot transitions may be shills in dynamic behavioral properties (e.g., from compensatory to synchronous), from modifications in cues (e.g., from attitude to load factor), or from behavioral adjustments to accommodate task modifications.

The Category intrinsically

III PIOs

can be much

more complicated

to analyze controlled

than the other two in that they element dynamics. Thus there

involve transitions

in either the pilot or the effective pilot-vehicle

are a minimum

of two sets of effective greatly,

characteristics

involved:

pre- and post-transition.

When these differ B. COMMENTARY

as in the T-38, YF-12,

and YF-22

circumstances,

very severe PIOs can occur.

The categories

suggested

above do not differentiate

as to PIO severity -- large-amplitude to say about the emotional was a Category

severe PIOs

can occur in all categories. PIO. analyst, techniques The pilot involved on the other with which

They also have little if anything cares not at all whether such details

aspects of a severe For the

his encounter to permit

I, II, or III! tools

hand,

are essential

the use of available corrective

and analysis

to develop

understanding

of the event and determine

action.

80

Muchof the
PIO potential covered

flying qualities

and PIO generic rigid-body

data base that can be associated effective aircraft modes

with the reduction

of

associated

with extended

has dealt with the situations in tight tracking by appropriate provisions a format, the of with

by Category

I. Consequently, by simply available

the occasional

presence

of mild PIO tendencies as can be defined those concrete

tasks can be minimized selection of the entries

providing

"good" flying

qualities for

in MIL-STD-1797A, tracking values tasks. to be

instance,

M/L-F-8785C actual phrases

related to high-gain and quantitative

(The M/L-STD selected for

itself is fundamentally specific authority.) cases from

associated appropriate with

MIL-STD-1797A criteria emphasis to avoid

Handbook Category

and Users Guide I PIOs are generally

by the specifying tantamount in high-gain

In this sense, 1 flying tasks.

to those closed-loop

for Level piloting

qualities,

on those criteria several

of most importance modem aircraft PIOs.

Unfortunately, control

(e.g., YF-22,

C-17, and JAS-39)

with advanced

fly-by-wire

FBW) systems have exhibited

The juxtaposition

of PIO presence

with new FBW systems high-level attention.

has raised the visibility Thus, although refinements

in much the same way as the ALT-5

shuttle earlier gained

they probably

do not meet the kinds of requirements emphasize

alluded to above, some recommended of PIO have recently been

to MIL-STD-

1797A which specifically

the possibility

put forth (Refs. 2, 3). of desirable pilot-vehicle

As would be expected, system crossover

these are connected

with excessive

lag within the context to incorporate

characteristics.

The initial steps taken propose

into the MIL-STD phase rate," handling "aircraft Ref. g. domain effective

the "Smith-Geddes"

PIO criteria

based on Refs. 5, 6, and 16, as well as the "average A version Aircraft of the latter already Other criteria, appears in the the in

of Eq. 11 as suggested specification bandwidth,"

in Refs. 7 and 82. Fighter

qualities attitude

for the European

(Ref. I).

involving

tOBW0, and phase-delay control

measures

of Eq. 10, have

been recommended to specify frequency

When reduced characteristics aircraft

to attitude over which

considerations,

all of these are attempts high-gain, control

the pilot

can exert precise, (approximating

-- e.g., well-behaved In of

amplitude

ratio characteristics

K/s) in which

lags are not excessive. When control

very many cases, the differences other variables,

which exist in applications

of these criteria

are minor.

such as load factor, pilot-transition non-rigid-body major

is an issue, Refs. 5, 6 consider case of category III).

pilot transition

from attitude

to load

factor cues (a particular with higher-frequency Until recently, be treated technology redundant, Great efforts effective

Those Category by the proposed

I PIOs which are associated criteria. to factors which can

modes are not covered

PIO issues on a new airplane I and II.

have usually been confined

in Categories

This may well be changing. high performance

The full application aireratt invariably

of active results

control

in flight control multi-mode,

systems for modem fly-by-wire

in multiplemarvels!

task-tailored,

(or light) systems.

These are technological transition

are taken in design to put limits in the right places, characteristics and elaborate

to searnlessly

from one set of with even

aircraft

to another, to foresee all possible contingencies. systems (e.g., YF-22) 81 some upsetting condition

Unfortunately,

the most modem

within the FCS itself or

pilot behavior

transitions

within the pilot-vehicle when appropriate

system seem to creep through. triggers also arise. applications. Avoidance

In this event, a Category of Category III PIOs is

III PIO is a likely consequence one of the great challenges Past history post-transition indicates effective

of active control that the Category

technology

III PIOs are highly unusual are almost always unforeseen, in the best modem to have excellent

but also very severe events. as are the triggering

The

vehicle dynamics

possibilities.

This type of PIO is particularly (normal) effective aircraft

insidious because, are designed

fly-by-wire

designs the pre-transition Most of the system to counter anticipated has way. of

dynamics

flying qualities. introduced

nonlinearities problems.

(e.g., limiters,

faders, mode-switches,

etc.) are deliberately "solutions"

In all these systems

the lure of software

to all sorts of imagined

problems

become easy to espouse; Indeed,

but unimagined

events can remain submerged fixes act in peculiar, vehicle dynamics

only to surface in an untimely

it is only when the known-problem

unanticipated, are created.

ways in the presence Yet modem systems

large pilot inputs that the "bad" post-transition complex and elaborate change. that more rather

are so

than fewer Category

III PIOs are likely to occur

in the future

unless matters

82

SECTIONVII INTERIM PRESCRIPTIONS TO

It should oscillatory detailed be apparent from the above discussions that, AVOID PIO

while

the general

nature

of the aircraft's supplemented to create by such

behavior quantitative results

can readily

be appreciated

from the visual evidence responses difficult

and sometimes which combine

data, the underlying are remarkably diverse

pilot and aircraft and may be very dynamic

devastating essentially indicted, carefully

to "understand." listed in Figures against them

Nonetheless, l 0 and I 1 can be all for now, and

all of the possible pilot and aircraft if not yet convicted as guilty!

"contributors"

Consequently

we must guard

assess their possible joint actions for future aircraft. useful warnings, Control

Some guiding formulae, criterion is unlikely

such as those listed to cover all cases. The first dynamics and that

in Figure 3 l, may provide The first three and second "Attitude

but a single definitive Inimical

Features

to PIO" listed in Figure

31 are related. rigid-body by the pilot,

prescriptions

are two different implying

ways to define "good" effective

aircraft

for compensatory the net pilot-vehicle maximum available

systems-

that no lead equalization lags be small.

need be provided together,

system high frequency crossover frequency

Taken

these would

assure that a

in a compensatory

system of about 5 tad/see would still be stable. effective vehicle with 0.1 sec frequency insights

[For no pilot lead (pilot time delay about 0.2 see) and an ideal K/s-like effective delay, the total system time delay is about 0.3 sec. -- 5.24 rad/sec.] The criteria of Refs. The neutrally

stable closed-loop

is then 1.57/0.3 and assessments.

l, 7, 8 and Refs. 5, 6 can provide

useful

The third attitude synchronous behavior.

control

feature

guards

against

a fully-developed

PIO in which

the pilot develops Actual PIOs

It should be applied

well into the flexible

mode frequency

range.

as high as 8 rad/sec

have been encountered defined

in which this type of behavior on the 0/5 e Bode

is implicated. diagram between the pitch difficulties

The "PIO Syndrome," attitude

by a long flat stretch short-period

lead at l/T02 and the effective situations.

frequency

tOsp, can (hypothetically)raise for the pilot-vehicle the attitude

in high workload be established major

The crossover

model properties

system will nominally lead. In the event of a low-frequency

by pilot-generation

of a low-frequency response,

lag to cancel

upset demanding

a high urgency

the pilot may drop the smooth,

trim-like

lag and transition The "Attitude system in attitude

to a proportional

high gain control

action, with PIO as a result. assumes as a starter that the pilot-vehicle closed-loop to normal properties. acceleration Then, (at the

Control and Load-Factor

Control" prescription

control has a gain sufficient

to exhibit highly resonant control

as developed pilot's

in detail

in Ref. 16, the pilot may switch primary given in Figure 31 follows

location).

The prescription

from this point.

83

ATTITUDE

CONTROL

FEATURES

INIMICAL

TO PIO

Ability to control 0/8 F with Yp ffi Kpe "'2s over a very "wide" range of pilot gains Airplane high frequency dynamic which exhibit less than 0.1 second delay Extremely wide range of stable pilot-aircraft system closures with the "synchronous" pilot model, Yp - Kp Absence between transfer ATTITUDE of a "PI0 syndrome" (very long "shelf' characteristics effective time

1/T02 and _0sp) in the pitch attitude function CONTROL AND LOAD-FACTOR CONTROL

Ability to exert stable control of load factor with Yp ffi Kp e''Z_s at the resonant frequency of the closed-loop pilot-attitude control system LLMITING CONTROL AND LOAD-FACTOR CONTROL

"Be not stingy with rate limits[" Seamless mode-switching and control-law shifts

Special pilot training situations

for non-seamless

transition

Figure 31.

Interim Prescriptions

for Reduction

of PIO Potential

84

The surface

third

set of prescriptions

are reminders.

The need to avoid limiting, cited. Although

especially

in control is only very effect is for a

rates, follows directly the dominant the effective

from almost all the PIO examples it is almost invariably present

rate limiting

occasionally to increase

culprit,

and contributing. actuator

The primary

time delay as a function

of the surface the pilot's

input amplitude.

Indeed,

given rate limit it is a fairly simple matter oscillation of the pilot-vehicle system.

to estimate margins

output amplitude

which can lead to an "savings"

Clearly,

in this regard should be high; miserly

are likely to be regretted. The last recipes listed in Figure 31 are becoming all sorts of imagined effective problems become easier more difficult to achieve as software loops "solutions" to

to accomplish.

Switching

in and out, changing

system gains, etc. can be justified list before design

on several grounds are made. which

-- but the spectre of PIO should be added environment control; and task demands a number already

to the assessment present a number

decisions

The external

of PIO precursors/triggers introducing additional

are beyond the designer's

quite sufficient

without

ones as part of the design process!

85

SECTIONVIH CONCLUDINGREMARKS
The dramatic of attention events recounted here, and other less-well comprising publicized PIOs, have received stability and control, a great deal and flight

from the community The attention

test pilots and flying qualities,

control engineers. with specific

has, unfortunately, PIOs

tended to be quite spasmodic, and the epitome

and is usually connected interdisciplinary talents. They might

PIO episodes.

are rare, idiosyncratic, them demands

of highly

interactions,

and the search to understand

a combination

of unusual technical

are also a very great embarrassment, be present predictions, Matters can make an engineer

to the point that even the mere suggestion extremely unpopular. Also, unlike

that a PIO tendency pre-flight

many

engineering testing. answer

the best estimates

of PIO potential

are often the result of analysis rather than elaborate simulation managers does not provide an unequivocal

are made more complicated

because manned So technical

even when specially specification of our present

guided by analysis. provides unrealistic. sometime at a great

often retreat behind

a veil that meeting and, in the state aircraft are leading to yet will require an

requirements knowledge,

security against PIO. Experience

Such attitudes

are short-sighted

has shown that almost all high performance or early operational experience,

likely to have PIO episodes another effective difficult ad hoc "solution" broadly-based

in their development price.

To put this evil genie back experimental and flight

in the bottle

program

of analytical,

research

that has proved

to be

to mount and to sustain. of this report has been to summarize what is known about the key interactions engineering has been which to

The thrust underlie achieve diversity

pilot-in-the-loop favorable

oscillations.

These are major

players

in a systems The emphasis

treatment placed

human-machine

integration

and interfaces. means to avoid of the understanding PIO potential

on the

and understanding

of PIO phenomena; as extensions

PIO and criteria to assess PIO potential achieved or logic presented. or counter as many Carried of the

have been considered to an extreme, identified

primarily

the simplest

way to minimize

is to remove

causes as possible.

But the story is not yet complete and their possible

in that some of the candidates to cause PIO are sometimes an extended research. and

in Figures obscure.

10 and 11 are still highly qualitative, So, while much is known and

interactions

understood

for specific

examples,

comprehensive must

appreciation

of PIOs continues

to be a major challenge be estimated aircraft. and alleviated

in flying qualities and the human

The challenge

be met if PIOs are to reliably with highly automated aviation's history

pilot is to interact for such phenomena

more safely permeate

advanced

This is of no small importance,

and remain

with us today.

86

To complete

the systems

engineering

toolbox

needed to design favorable

pilot-aircraft

systems

and

to avoid unfavorable

pilot-in-the-loop

oscillations

several issues should be addressed.

They include:

Applications --

of Existing

Knowledge PIOs which have occurred

Continued efforts to understand the more complex severe recently (e.g. C-17, YF-22, JAS-39, MD-11, and others). Immediate assessment of new advanced aircraft

using all the proposed

assessment

criteria

(e.g. Refs. 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8). As no existing aircraft have to meet these criteria contractually, these assessments should be undertaken as a safety of flight consideration to guide flight testing, operations, and training. -Further development, modifications or elaborations in existing assessmentcriteria to cope with (include) new Category I PIO data and experience. Procedures for Estimation as needed

Simulation

Continued development of procedures for fixed-base, moving-base, and in-flight simulations to assess and predict PIO potential with a well-defined degree of confidence. Verisimilitude requirements for FCS equipment and inceptors, aggressive/aircraft-abusive piloting procedures, protocols to induce urgency, triggering possibilities, etc. should be considered. Attempts to duplicate existing in-flight PIO data should be used to verify conclusions and progress. -Evolution of a variety of simulation-based pilot training protocols and programs pilot situation-identification and responses in operational scenarios. Understanding of Category II and III PIO Situations and predictive criteria and analysis procedures for to improve

Improved --

Development of interim assessment Category II and III PIO potential.

Ad hoc examinations of existing and proposed designs of advanced multi-mode, fly-bywire, active flight control systems in a search for system states, transition conditions, and possible triggers which could be candidates for Category II or III PIOs. -Formulation examinations. Refinement and execution of ad hoc experiments as follow-ons to the above ad hoc

--

of the interim criteria and procedures

in the context of the ad hoe examinations

and experiments. Preparation of an advanced catalog of possible Category II and III PIO situations (based on projected as well as existing and proposed FCS modes and mechanizations) to serve as a foundation for simulation and flight experiments. For this to have maximum validity initial versions of the catalog should be extended by, and critically examined by, appropriate cross-sections of the aircraft stability and control and flight control community.

87

Formulation and execution of appropriate experimental programs, using fixed-base through in-flight simulations, to explore the character and degree of pilot very-short-term adaptability available to contain Category II and Ill PIO situations. Further refinement of the interim assessment criteria to properly account understanding provided by the empirical programs. for the improved

88

REFERENCES
.

Buchacker, E., H. Galleithner, R. Kohler, and M. Marchand, "Development of MIL-8785C Into a Handling Qualities Specification for a New European Fighter Aircraft," in Flying Qualities, AGARD CP-508, Quebec City, Canada, 15-18 Oct. 1990. Davenport, Otha, Aircraft Oct. 1992. Digital Flight Control Technical Review Final Briefing, AFMC/EN, 26

2.

3.

Draft MIL-STD-1797A Update, Division, Wright-Patterson

ASC/ENFT, Flight Technology Air Force Base, Ohio, 4 Nov.

Branch, Flight Systems 1993.

Engineering

Moorhouse, David J., "Experience with the R. Smith PIO Criterion on the F-15 STOL and Maneuver Technology Demonstrator," AIAA-94-3671-CP, Proceedings of the AIAA Guidance and Control Conference, Scottsdale, AZ, 1-3 Aug. 1994. Smith, Ralph H., and Norman D. Geddes, Handling Quality Design Criteria for Fighter Airplanes, AFFDL-TR-78-154, Smith, R. H., "The Smith-Geddes Systems Committee meeting, Requirements for Advanced Aug. 1979. Control Aircraft

5.

6.

Criteria," presented at the SAE Aerospace Reno NV, 11 Mar. 1993.

and Guidance

7.

Gibson, J.C., "The Prevention of PIO by Design," in Active Control Lessons Learned, AGARD, Turin, Italy, 9-12 May 1994.

Technology:

Applications

and

Mitchell, David G., Roger H. Hoh, Bimal L. Aponso, and David H. Klyde, "The Measurement and Prediction of Pilot-in-the-Loop Oscillations," AIAA-94-3670, Proceedings oftheAIAA Guidance and Control Conference, Scottsdale, AZ, 1-3 Aug. 1994. A'Harrah, Ralph C., "An Alternate Control Scheme for Alleviating Aircratt-Pilot Coupling," Proceedings of the AIAA Guidance and Control Conference, Scottsdale, AZ, 1-3 Aug. 1994. Oscillations: Their Causes and Analysis,

9.

I0. Ashkenas I.L., H.R. Jex, and D.T. McRuer, Pilot-Induced Northrop-Norair Rept., NOR 64-143, June 1964. 11.

Smith, John W., Analysis of a Lateral Pilot-Induced Oscillation the YF-16 Aircraft, NASA TM 72867, Sept. 1979. Pearcy, Arthur, "Flying the Frontiers -- NACA Press, Annapolis, Maryland, 1993. and NASA

Experienced

on the First Flight of

12.

Experimental

Aircratt,"

Naval Institute

13.

Finch, Thomas W., and Gene J. Matranga, Launch, Low-Speed, and Landing Determined from the First Flight of the North American X-15 Research Airplane, 195, Sept. 1959. Matranga, Gene J., Analysis of X- 15 Landing the First 30 Flights, NASA TN D-1057, Approach and Flare Characteristics July 1961. Pilot-Induced

Characteristics NASA TM X-

14.

Determined

from

15.

Smith, John W., and Donald T. Berry, Analysis of Longitudinal of YF-12 Aircraft, NASA TN D-7900, Feb. 1975. Smith, R.H. A Theory for Longitudinal June 1977. Short-Period

Oscillation

Tendencies

16.

Pilot-Induced

Oscillations,

AFFDL-TR-77-57,

89

REFERENCES 17.

(continued) Tendencies,"

Powers, Bruce G., "An Adaptive Stick-Gain to Reduce Pilot-Induced Oscillation J. Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, Vol. 5, Mar.-Apr. 1982, pp. 138-142.

18.

Ashkenas, I.L., R.H. Hoh, and G.L. Teper, "Analysis of Shuttle Orbiter Approach and Landing," J. Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, Vol. 6, No. 6, Nov.-Dec. 1983, pp. 448-455. Berry, Donald T., Bruce G. Powers, Kenneth J. Szalai, and R.J. Wilson, "In-Flight Evaluation of Control System Pure Time Delays," Journal of Aircraft, Vol 19, No 4, Apr. 1982, pp 318-323. Dornheim, Michael A., "Report Pinpoints Factors Leading to YF-22 Crash," Aviation Technology, 9 Nov. 1992, pp. 53-54. Aircraft Accident Washington, Report PB 93-910408, DC, 27 Oct. 1993. National Transportation Safety Week andSpace

19.

20.

21.

Board, NTSB/AAR-93/07;

22.

Crawford C. Charles, and Jones P. Seigler, KC-135A Center TR 58-13, May 1958.

Stability and Control Test, Air Force Flight Test

23.

Simmons, Carl D., and Donald M. Sorlie, F-101B Air Force Stability Force Flight Test Center, TR 58-11, May 1958. Taylor, Lawrence W., Jr., Analysis of a Pilot-Airplane Airplane, NASA TN D-1059, Nov. 1961. Lateral Instability

and Control

Evaluation,

Air

24.

Experienced

with the X-15

25.

Kempel, Robert W., Analysis of a Coupled Roll-Spiral Mode. Pilot-Induced with the Af2-F2 Lifting Body, NASA TN D-6496, Sept. 1971. Smith, Ralph H., Notes Mar. 1982. on Lateral-Directional Pilot-Induced Oscillations,

Oscillation

Experienced

26.

AFWAL

TR-81-3090,

27.

Abzug, M.J. and H.B. Dietrick, Interim Report on Elimination of Pilot-lnduced Oscillations from the Douglas Model A4D-2 Airplane, Report ES26613, Douglas Aircraft Company, 20 Mar. 1957. Terrill, W.H., L.R. Springer, and J.G. Wong, Investigation of Pilot-Induced Longitudinal Oscillation in the Douglas Model A4D-2 Airplane, Douglas Aircraft Company, Inc., Report LB-25452, 15 May 1957. Jex, H.R., Summary ofT-38A PIOAnalysis, Systems Teehnology, Inc., TR-239-1, Jan. 1963. of Pilot

28.

29. 30.

Levi, O.A. and W.E. Nelson, "An Analytical and Flight Test Approach to the Reduction Induced Oscillation Susceptibility,"./. of Aircraft, July-Aug. 1964, pp. 178-184. Hirsch, D. and R. McCormick, "Experimental Investigation Oscillation Situation," ,/.. of Aircraft, Nov.-Dee. 1966. Chalk, C.R., Another Study of the T-38A PIO Incident, 534, 31 Aug. 1978. Calspan of Pilot Dynamics

31.

in a Pilot-Induced

32.

Advanced

Technology

Center,

FRM

33.

Johnson, Donald E. and Raymond E. Magdaleno, Independent Assessment of C/MH-53E Evaluation Program (TEP), Systems Technology, Inc. TR- 1251-1 R, Sept. 1990.

Technical

90

REFERENCES

(continued) "Helicopter American

34.

Kaplita, Thaddeus T., Joseph T. Driscoll, Myron A. Diftler, and Steven W. Hong, Simulation Development by Correlation with Frequency Sweep Flight Data," Helicopter Society 45th National Forum Proceedings, Boston, MA, May 1989.

35.

Aponso, Bimal L., Donald E. Johnston, Walter A. Johnson, Raymond E. Magdaleno, "Identification of Higher-Order Helicopter Dynamics Using Linear Modeling Methods," Systems Technology, Inc. P-464A, American Helicopter Society, 47th Annual Forum Proceedings, May 1991, pp 137153. Norton, William J., Captain, USAF, "Aeroelastic Pilot-in-the-Loop Workshop following Active Control Technology: Applications Turin, Italy, May 1994. Oscillations," presented at PIO and Lessons Learned, AGARD,

36.

37.

Parham, Tom, Jr., David Popelka, David G. Miller, and Arnold T. Froebel, "V-22 Pilot-in the-Loop Aeroelastic Stability Analysis," American Helicopter Society, 47th Annual Forum Proceedings, May 1991 Johnston, D.E., and D.T. McRuer, Investigation of Interactions Between Limb-Manipulator and Effective Vehicle Roll Control Characteristics, NASA CR-3983, May 1986. Johnston, D.E., and B.L. Aponso, Characteristics in Roll Tracking, Design Considerations of Manipulator NASA CR-4111, Feb. 1988. of Lateral Stick June 1992. and Dynamics

38. 39. 40. 41.

Feel

System

Mitchell, D.G., B.L. Aponso, D.H. Klyde, Effects Qualities and Pilot Dynamics, NASA CR-4443,

Characteristics

on Handling

Myers, Thomas T., D.H. Klyde, R.E. Magdaleno, Samuel Y. Chan, Peter Y. Cheng, Dale M. Pitt, Aeroservoelastic Stabilization Techniques for Hypersonic Flight Vehicles, NASA CR- 187614, Sept. 1991. Myers, Thomas T., D.H. Klyde, R.E. Magdaleno, Duane T. McRuer, Samuel Y. Chan, Cheng, Advanced Aeroservoelastic Stabilization Techniques for Hypersonic Flight NASA CR- 189702, Nov. 1992. Peter Y. Vehicles,

42.

43.

Ashkenas, I.L., R.E. Magdaleno, and D.T. McRuer, Flight Control and Analysis Methods for Studying Flying and Ride Qualities of Flexible Transport Aircrafi, NASA CR-172201, Aug. 1983. (A shorter summary appears as "Flexible Aircraft Flying and Ride Qualities," in NASA Aircraft Controls Research 1983, NASA Conference Publication 2296, October 25-27, 1983, Gary P. Beasley, Compiler) McRuer, Duane and Ezra Krendel, Dynamic Response of Human Operators, WADC-TR-56-524, Oct. 1957. (Also, "The Human Operator as a Servo System Element," J. Franklin Inst., Vol. 267, No. 5, May 1959, pp. 381-403 and No. 6, June 1959, pp. 511-536)

44.

45.

Krendel, Ezra S., and Duane T. MeRuer, "A Servomechanisms Franklin Inst., Vol. 269, No. 1, Jan. 1960, pp. 24-42.

Approach

to Skill Development,"

J.

46. McRuer, D.T., and H.R. Jex, "A Review of Quasi-Linear Pilot Models," in Electronics., Vol. HFE-8, No. 3, Sept. 1967, pp. 231-249.

IEEE. Trans. Human Factors

91

REFERENCES 47. Young, L.R., "Human Control Bioastronautics Data Book,

(continued) 2nd Edition,

Capabilities," J.F. Parker and V.R. West (eds.), Chapter 16, NASA SP-3006, 1973, pp. 751-806. Mathematical Models of Human Pilot Behavior,

48. McRuer, D.T., and E.S. Krendel, No. 188, Jan. 1974. 49. McRuer, D.T., "Human Dynamics pp. 237-253.

AGARDograph

in Man-Machine

Systems,"Automatica,

Vol. 16, No. 3, May 1980,

50.

Krendel, E.S., and D.T. McRuer, "Psychological and Physiological Skill Development -- A Control Engineering Model," in A. S. Iberall and J. B. Reswick, (eds.), Technical and Biological Problems of Control -- A Cybernetic View; Proc. of IFAC Conference, Instrument Society of America, Pittsburgh, PA, 1970, pp. 657-665; also in Proc. of Fourth Annual NASA-University Conference on Manual Control, NASA SP-192, Mar. 1968, pp. 275-288. Allen, R. Wade, and Duane McRuer, "The Man/Machine Automatica, Vol. 15, No. 6, Nov. 1979, pp. 683-686. Control Interface -- Pursuit Control,"

51.

52.

Jagacinski, Richard J. and Sehchang Hah, "Progression-Regression Effects in Tracking Repeated Patterns," J. Experimental Psychology." Human Perception and Performance, Vol. 14, No. 1, 1988, pp. 77-88. Magdaleno, R.E., and D.T. MeRuer, Effects of Manipulator Performance, AFFDL-TR-66-72, Dec. 1966. McRuer, D.T., and AFFDL-TR-66-138, R.E. Magdaleno, Dec. 1966. Human Pilot Dynamics Restraints on Human Operator

53.

54.

with

Various

Manipulators,

55.

Graham, Dunstan, Research 9, July 1967. Magdaleno, System

on the Effect of Nonlinearities

on Tracking Performance,

AMRL-TR-67-

56.

R.E., D.T. McRuer, and G.P. Moore, SmallPerturbation in Tracking Tasks, NASA CR-1212, Dec. 1968.

Dynamics

of the Neuromuscular

57.

Jex, H.R., and R.E. Magdaleno, "Biomechanieal Models for Vibration Feedthrough to Hands and Head for a Semisupine Pilot," Aviation, Space and Environ. Med., Vol. 49, No. 1, Jan. 1978, pp. 304-316. Hess, Ronald A., "A Model-Based Investigation of Manipulator Characteristics Performance," 3:. Guidance and Control, Vol. 6, No. 5, Oct. 1983. Advances in Flying Qualities, AGARD Lecture Series No. 157, AGARD-LS-157, and Pilot/Vehicle

58.

59. 60.

1988.

McRuer, Duane, Dunstan Graham, Ezra Krendel, and William Reisner, Jr., Human Pilot Dynamics in Compensatory Systems: Theory, Models, and Experiments with Controlled Element and Forcing Function Variations, AFFDL-TR-65-15, July 1965.

92

REFERENCES (continued) 61. McRuer, uane Warren Clement, D T., F. Peter ThompsonndRaymond Magdaleno, M. a E. Minimum
Flying Qualities. Volume 11."Pilot Modeling 3125, Vol. II, Jan. 1990. 62. for Flying Qualities Applications, WRDC-TR-89-

Ellson, J.I. and F. Gray, Frequency Responses of Human USAF AMC Memo Rept MCREXD-694-2N, 1948.

Operators

Following

a Sine Wave Input,

63.

Allen, R.W., H.R. Jex, and R.E. Magdaleno, Manual Control Performance During Sinusoidal Vibration, AMRL-TR-73-78, Oct. 1973. Decker, James L., "The Human Pilot and the High-Speed Aug. 1956, pp. 765-770. Airplane,"

and Dynamic

Response

64.

J. Aero Sciences,

Vol. 25, No. 8,

65.

Phillips, William H., B. Porter Brown, and James T. Mathews, Review and Investigation of Unsatisfactory Control Characteristics lnvolving Instability of Pilot-Airframe Combination and Methods for Predicting These Difficulties from Ground Test, NACA TN 4064, Aug. 1957. Analysis View of Longitudinal

66. McRuer, Duane T., Irving L. Ashkenas, and C.L. Guerre, A Systems Flying Qualities, WADD TR-60-43, Jan. 1960. 67.

Ashkenas, I.L., and D.T. McRuer, The Determination of Lateral Handling Quality Requirements Airframe-Human Pilot System Studies, WADD-TR-59-135, June 1959. Harper, Robert P., Jr., In-Flight Simulation of the Lateral-Directional Vehicles, WADD TR-61-147, Feb. 1961. Handling Qualities

from

68.

of Entry

69.

Ashkenas, I.L., and D.T. McRuer, "A Theory of Handling Qualities Derived from Pilot-Vehicle System Considerations," Aerospace Engineer, Vol. 21, No. 2, Feb. 1962, pp. 60-102. Caporali, R.L., Instabilities, J.P. Lamers, and J.R. Totten, A Study Princeton Univ., Aeronautical Engineering of Pilot-Induced Lateral-Directional Dept Report 604, May 1962. Roll Tracking Tasks: Theory and

70.

71.

Durand, T.S., and H.R. Jex, Handling Qualities in Single-Loop Simulator Experiments, ASD TDR-62-507, Nov. 1962. Bjorkman, Eileen A., Captain, USAF, Flight Test Evaluation Pilot lnduced Oscillations, Thesis AFIT/GAE/AA/86J-1, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, Dec. 1986. of Longitudinal June 1967.

72.

of Techniques to Predict Longitudinal Air Force Institute of Technology,

73. DiFranco, Dante A., Flight Investigation PIO Tendencies, AFFDL-TR-66-163,

Short Period Frequency

Requirements

and

74. Cooper, George E. and Robert P. Harper, Jr., The Use of Pilot Rating in the Evaluation Handling Qualities, NASA TN D-5153, Apr. 1969. 75. McRuer Duane, "Estimation of Pilot Rating via Pilot Modeling," 15-18 Oct. 1990, Quebec City, Canada. 76. Smith, Rogers E., Effects of Control System Dynamics on Longitudinal Flying Qualities (Volume 1), AFFDL-TR-122, Flying Qualities, AGARD

of Aircraft

CP-508,

Fighter Approach Mar. 1978.

and

Landing

93

REFERENCES

(concluded)

77.

Klyde, David H., David G. Mitchell, and Irving L. Ashkenas, "Proposed Time Delay Limits for DFBW Transports in Precision Landing," Appendix K in Certification/Safety Assessment Criteria and Considerations for Advanced Digital Fly-By-Wire (DFBW) Transport Aircraft, Systems Technology, Inc., TR-1284-1, May 1993. Kempel, Robert W., Weneth D. Painter, and Milton O. Thompson, Developing and Flight Testing the HL-IO Lifting Body." A Precursor to the Space Shuttle, NASA Reference publication 1332, Apr. 1994. Garland, Michael P., Michael K. Nelson, and Richard C. Patterson, External Stores, AFFTC-TR-80-29, Feb. 1981. Barnes, A.G., "The Role of Simulation in Flying Development," in Advances in Flying Qualities, F-16 Flying Qualities with

78.

79.
80.

Qualities and Flight Control AGARD-LS-157, 1988. Control Systems,

System

Related

81.

Graham, Dunstan and Duane McRuer, Analysis of Nonlinear Inc., New York, 1961. (Also Dover, 1971)

John Wiley and Sons,

82.

Gibson, John C., "Piloted Handling Qualities Design Criteria for High Order Flight Control Systems," Criteria for Handling Qualities of Military Aircraft, AGARD CP-333, Apr. 1982.

94

BIBLIOGRAPHY

A'Harrah, Ralph C., "Low-Altitude, 1964, pp. 32-40. A'Harrah, A'Harrah,

High-Speed

Handling

and Riding Qualities," J. of Aircraft,

Vol.

1,

Ralph C., "Reply by Author R.C., and R.F. Siewert,

to I.L. Ashkenas,",].

of Aircraft, AGARD

July-Aug.

1964, pp. 223-224.

Pilot-Inducedlnstability, Stability

CP-17,

Part II, 1966. Flight Testing, AGARD

Abzug, Malcolm J., High-Speed AG-120, May 1957.

and Control Problems

as They Affect

Ashkenas, I.L., "Comment on Low-Altitude, July-Aug. 1964, pp. 222-223. Ashkenas, I.L., "Further Aircraft, Nov.-Dec.

High-Speed

Handling and Riding Qualities,"

d. of Aircraft,

Comment on Low-Altitude, 1964, p. 377.

High-Speed

Handling and Riding Qualities,"

3:. of

Hess, R.A., "Pursuit Tracking and Higher Levels of Skill Development in the Human Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Vol. 11, 1981, pp. 262-273.

Pilot,"

IEEE

Hess, Ronald A., "Analysis of AircraR Attitude Control Systems Prone to Pilot-Induced d. Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, Vol. 7, No. 1, Jan-Feb. 1984, pp. 106-112. Jex, H.R., and C.H. Cromwell, II/, Theoretical and Experimental Investigation Handling Qualities Parameters, ASD TDR-61-26, June 1962.

Oscillations,"

of Some New Longitudinal

Magdaleno, R.E., H.R. Jex, and W.A. Johnson, "Tracking Quasi-Predictable Displays: Subjective Predictability Gradations, Pilot Models for Periodic and Narrowband Inputs," 5th Annual NASAUniversity Conference on Manual Control, NASA SP-215, 1970, pp. 391-428. Magdaleno, R.E., and D.T. McRuer, Experimental Validation and Analytical Elaboration for Models the Pilot's Neuromuscular Subsystem in Tracking Tasks, NASA CR-1757, Apr. 1971. Seekel, Edward, lan A.M. Hall, Duane T. McRuer, and David H. Weir, Human Pilot Dynamic in Flight and Simulator, WADC-TR-57-520, Aug. 1958. Sheridan, R.B., and W.R. Ferrll, Man-Machine Systems: Human Performance, IV[IT Press Cambridge, 1974. Smith, R.H., Aircraft Handling Qualities Oscillations: A Failure of Leadership, June 1992. Information, Control, and Decision of

Response

Models

of

Technology Assessment with Emphasis I-IPE-92-01, High Plains Engineering,

on Pilot-Induced Tehachapi, CA,

95

REPORT

DOCUMENTATION

PAGE

Form Approved OMB No. 0704-0188

Pubic r_omng buraen tot _s oolbect_ of informatmn is Ntnmamcl tOavorago 1 hour 1oermLoonle, including the time tor rovwmng mmructnons, mrch_g masting ,_,,- sourcm. gamenng and maintaining me data needed, and combing atl ,ovNw_ng tt_ ollectmn of intocmation. Send comments mga_mg thi= burOat e_mate o any o_er a_oect of th==(:ok lectmn of inlormllgon, includ_ suggeltmnl tot mduc.,ng t_ts burden, to Washington Hu(Xlulrten; Senncml, Dimclorllle for Inlormllbon OI)wlltBons and Relxxts. 1215 Jefferson Dams H_g_way, SuJto 1204, Anington, VA 22202..4302, and to me Office of Management and 6uaget, I:loerwork Fl_ckctmn Prolect (07040188), Washington. DC 20503. 1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave blank) 2. REPORT DATE

July 1995
4. TITLEAND SUBTITLE

3.REPORT AND TYPE DATES OVERED C Contractor Report 5.FUNDINGUMBERS N Behavior WU 505-64-30 TSD-93-STI-2806

Pilot-Induced

Oscillations

and Human

Dynamic

6. AUTHOR(S)

Duane T. McRuer
7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER

Systems Technology, Inc. 13766 South Hawthorne Blvd. Hawthorne, CA 90250

9. SPONSORING/MONOTOFIINGAGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(B)
10.

TR-2494-1

SPONSORiNG/MONITORING AGENCY REPORT NUMBER

PRC Inc. Dryden Flight Research Center Edwards, CA 93523-0273

11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

H-2042 NASA CR-4683

The NASA Technical Monitor at Dryden Flight Research published as NASA CR-186032.
1211. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

Center was Dwain Deets. This report was previously

12b.

DISTRIBUTION

CODE

UnclassifiedmUrdimited Subject Category 08

13. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 words)

This is an in-depth survey and study of Pilot-Induced Oscillations (PIOs) as interactions between human pilot and vehicle dynamics; it includes a broad and comprehensive theory of PIOs. A historical perspective provides examples of the diversity of PIOs in terms of control axes and oscillation frequencies. The constituents involved in PIO phenomena, including effective aircraft dynamics, human pilot dynamic behavior patterns, and triggering precursor events, are examined in detail as the structural elements interacting to produce severe pilot-induced oscillations. The great diversity of human pilot response patterns, excessive lags and/or inappropriate gain in effective aircraft dynamics, and transitions in either the human or effective aircraft dynamics are among the key sources implicated as factors in severe PIOs. The great variety of interactions which may result in severe PIOs is illustrated by examples drawn from famous PIOs. These are generalized under a pilot-behavior-theory-based set of categories proposed as a classification scheme pertinent to a theory of PIOs. Finally, a series of interim prescriptions to avoid PIO is provided.

14.

SUBJECT

TERMS

15.

NUMBER

OF

PAGES

Active control technology; Aircraft dynamics; Aircraft-pilot coupling; Flight control; Flying qualities; Manual control; Pilot dynamics; Pilot-Induced Oscillations
17. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 18. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 19. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION

102
16. PRICE CODE

AO6
20. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACT

OF REPORT

OF THIS PAGE

OF ABSTRACT

Unclassified
NSN 7540-01-280-5500 AvailaDle Ijntllex_m

Unclassified
from the NASA Heigrtrs. MD Center for AeroSpace Information, 21090:(301)621-0390

Unclassified
800 EIk.'lOge Lan_ng RoaO.

Unlimited
Slandarcl _l=aWk_s_s_ 21m.102 Form 298 (Roy. 2-89) Z_-le