05WAC-62
Fundamentals of Fly-By-Wire Augmented Manual
Control
FAA Chief Scientist Flight Guidance and Control
ABSTRACT
This paper examines various Fly-By-Wire
(FBW) augmented manual control design
options and criteria for achieving desired
handling qualities. Design concepts with
different response types will be reviewed. The
author will re-interpret some of the classical
Handling Qualities criteria in light of desired
response characteristics in the time domain,
which can then be evaluated through simulation
time histories. A design methodology is
discussed that can provide the same aircraft
responses to pilot control inputs for different
response types, e.g. Pitch Rate Command/
Attitude Hold and Flight Path Angle (FPA) Rate
Command / FPA Hold designs. The role of
various feedback and feed forward signal paths
and ways to minimize the need for gain
scheduling, is discussed.
INTRODUCTION
The motivations for incorporating Fly-by-Wire
flight control system design in transport and top
end General Aviation aircraft are manifold. At
the top of the list is perhaps the aircraft
manufactures need to offer a distinct product
that is very competitive to potential customers in
terms economics, safety and passenger appeal.
At the design level this can be interpreted as a
need for
optimization of aerodynamic performance,
by operating with the airplane center of
gravity moved aft, to reduce trim drag;
reduction in structural weight, by replacing
mechanical system elements with lighter
electric/ electronic components;
reduction of aircraft maintenance and spare
parts inventory associated with mechanical
flight control systems (e.g. rigging,
lubrication, etc.);
reduction in flight crew training
requirements, by providing standardized
Anthony A. Lambregts
flight decks, airplane handling qualities and
common type ratings among different
models of a family of airplanes;
enhancing flight safety, by providing
protection against exceeding safety limits in
airspeed, load factor, bank angle, side slip,
etc., thereby reducing the risk of loss of
control and providing the capability to safely
achieve maximum airplane performance,
when needed;
reducing development and production costs.
FBW design holds out the promise of
simplifying and standardizing the flight control
system design, while shortening the traditionally
complex, laborious and lengthy flight control
system design development process and reducing
associated costs and risks.
Change embodies risk in itself, but failure to
change, over time, ensures loosing out to the
competition. Airplane manufactures must
therefore make many difficult FBW design
decisions. They must decide
how to evolve the flight guidance and
control system, relative to the last
production airplane model (training
implications);
overall functional architecture and
integration of manual and automatic flight
guidance and control functions;
overall system hardware architecture and
redundancy management concepts
o use of mechanical or electronic analog
back up control modes;
specific FBW flight control system details
o control algorithm response type;
o control inceptor type (traditional or
sidestick);
o feel system type (active or passive);
o control inceptor back drive during
automatic flight control;
o envelope protection functions and
methods (hard or soft limiting);
1
 o control surface actuation type and position
loop closure method.
At the simplest FBW system level, the
mechanical signaling of the flight control surface
actuators is replaced by electric/electronic
signaling, with little or no control augmentation
that would require additional inertial and air
data sensors, computers, software and data bus
interfaces. For high-end FBW designs everything
may be included. The Federal Airworthiness
Requirements are silent on many of the specific
design choices.
The relative merits of various control algorithms
response types have been debated extensively.
The handling qualities of classical un-
augmented airplanes, sometimes referred to as
an alpha-command response type, should not be
idealized, because modern FBW technologies
can greatly improve airplane handling qualities
and safety, relative to the best classical un-
augmented airplane designs. In fact, handling
qualities depend more on the detailed design
features than on the response type. For example,
airplane response characteristics at constant
speed can be made to look identical for a pitch
rate command, an alpha command, an nz-
command and a flight path angle rate command
control concept, as will be shown in this paper. It
requires sufficient knowledge to select the key
design features and sufficient experience to put
the design together correctly. The designer must
also understand the importance of suitable visual
display and tactile cueing information the pilot
uses to close the control loop while executing a
specific task. Therefore, controls and displays
must be suitable for the task and well integrated.
For example, satisfactory handling qualities for
direct flight path angle control concept cannot be
achieved without suitably quickened flight path
angle display information and even then such a
concept may not be suitable for the landing task.
The more sophisticated the FBW system
functional design is, the more it is necessary to
re-examine the entire Flight Guidance and
Control system architecture with all its
dependencies, as well as the entire design
integration process. To take full advantage of
very capable modern hardware and software
technologies, consideration must be given to re-
integrate all automatic and augmented manual
control functions and hosting them with the
fewest possible hardware components. A commands for airplane control in the vertical and
sophisticated FBW control algorithm is in
essence an automatic control system with a
specialized input device (the pilots control
inceptor). So it is reasonable to expect continuity
in design philosophy for augmented manual and
fully automatic control and sharing control
functions. Thus, the introduction of FBW design
forces the manufactures to make a value/cost
judgment on what system elements can be
shared, what new and unique elements are
needed, and which legacy elements from a
previous era can be dispensed with, to simplify
the design and reduce costs. In general, simpler
is better. Simplicity often enhances safety,
based on the premise that what isnt there, isnt
needed, cant fail and cause a safety liability.
These principles can be used to formulate the
following high-level FBW flight control system
design objectives. In this paper, transport
category or high-end general aviation airplanes
are assumed, which already include powered
actuators on the control surfaces.
DISCUSSION
High-Level FBW Control System Design
Objectives
Augmented manual and automatic control
modes should be functionally integrated,
based on a common design philosophy.
FBW technology can and should be used to
simplify the pilot's airplane control task and
improve flight safety.
The augmented manual mode must provide
suitable handling qualities for all required
control tasks throughout the flight envelope.
Flight envelope protection features must be
implemented in the simplest way, serving
both the augmented manual and the
automatic modes. Envelope protection
modes must not unnecessarily compromise
airplane performance.
The first objective implies the use of a
generalized multi-input/multi-output (MIMO)
control concept that accommodates all automatic
and augmented manual control modes by
selectively concatenating needed building
blocks. Decoupled control responses should be
provided by simultaneously coordinated
pitch/thrust control and roll/ yaw control
horizontal plane. Pitch and roll inner loops
2
should be shared between the augmented manual
and all automatic control modes. Pilot manual
control augmentation should be provided by a
separate module that further shapes the
augmented airplane responses to achieve the
desired handling qualities.
Earlier Control Function Integration
Research
The industry has long felt a need for simpler,
more generalized and better integrated flight
control systems. Recently, the NASA/FAA
Aviation Safety Program has again identified the
need for safer / simpler automatic Flight
Guidance and Control (FG&C) systems. In the
early eighties NASA sponsored research to this
end, resulting in a design called Total Energy
Control System (TECS). This design integrates
all vertical flight path and speed control modes,
including an augmented manual control mode
[1]. TECS uses a generalized energy based flight
path angle and longitudinal acceleration control
strategy to overcome the long-standing design,
operations and safety deficiencies identified in
existing production FG&C systems. It eliminates
unnecessary mode overlap and associated
complexity and provides all desired envelope
protection safety features. For augmented
manual control TECS uses a Flight Path Angle
Rate Command /Flight Path Angle Hold
(FPARC/FPAH) concept, which was first
developed and flight tested as a control wheel
steering mode on the NASA TCV program in the
late seventies [2]. The complete TECS system
with all its modes was extensively evaluated in
pilot-in-the-loop simulations and validated in
flight test on the NASA B737 technology
demonstration airplane in the early eighties.
TECS was very successfully applied on the
Condor UAV project. Its counterpart generalized
lateral-directional control system, called Total
Heading Control System (THCS), was also
developed on the Condor project. Condor was a
very large (200 ft wingspan) all-composite High
Altitude Long Endurance autonomous UAV.
TECS and THCS helped to substantially reduce
hardware /software complexity, by eliminating
the traditionally separate Autothrottle, Yaw
Damper, Turn Coordination and Trust
Asymmetry Compensation functions. These
functions are generically and integrally provided
as part of the multi-axes control algorithms. All
Condor Flight Guidance and Control (FG&C),
FDIR and mission management functions were
implemented in a dual channel fail operative
digital Mission Computer system with 384K
bytes of memory. Condor used all electric
actuation with Mil-Spec-1553 data bus
communications. The Condor program
convincingly demonstrated the advantages of
generic functionally integrated FG&C: it made a
fully automatic take off and landing on first
flight, flew to 68,000 ft altitude and successfully
handled a considerable number of very
challenging failure conditions, without human
intervention or the need for significant design
improvements. A further discussion on control
function integration as it relates to safety is
found in [3].
The TECS FPARC/FPAH manual control
concept was again used in the 7J7 technology
development program and flown on a B757. It
was considered for implementation on the B777
airplane, but in the end a C*U algorithm was
developed and implemented to provide control
response characteristics that are very similar to
traditional un-augmented airplane control
responses.
The FPARC/FPAH control concept has still not
found its way onto modern FBW airplanes
because it is seen as a complex higher order
design that embodies considerable handling
qualities and design certification risks. This
paper argues that this impression is false and that
a FPARC/FPAH augmented manual control
concept can provide superb handling qualities for
a variety of tasks with relative ease and
simplicity, compared to other concepts.
FBW Augmented Manual Control
Handling qualities requirements. The military
handling qualities requirements and discussions
may be found in [4, 5]. Additional Handling
qualities requirements are found in [6]. Most of
these requirements were developed for various
categories of un-augmented military airplanes.
With the advent of augmented control system the
need arose to reinterpret the basic handling
qualities requirement so it is possible to apply
them on highly augmented or High Order
manual control systems. These efforts have met
with mixed success. As a result various designers
and companies have developed their own set of
design criteria. Regardless of the manual control
augmentation system complexity considered, the
important handling qualities requirements can be
expressed by the following airplane response
3
characteristics for step pilot control input, see
figure 1. :
a smooth buildup of the rate of change of the
task related control variable (pitch attitude,
flight path angle or vertical speed), in direct
proportion to the pilot's input, converging
quickly on a pure integrator-like (K/S)
response for a sustained control input,
without undue initial response delay, or
undo pitch rate overshoots at maneuver
initiation;
a minimal steady state response lag of the
task related control variable, relative to K/S
(adequate bandwidth, gain and phase
margins), consistent with the overall
airplane physical limitations and satisfactory
ride qualities at all passenger locations;
satisfactory response sensitivity;
satisfactory response damping, minimal
target overshoot and short settling time at
maneuver termination.
In addition:
the pilot must be given display information
appropriate to the task, to initiate the
maneuver, gauge his progress toward the
target and allow him to properly anticipate
the termination of the maneuver;
the tactile and motion cues must be in
harmony with the pilot's control input and
expectation and not cause the pilot to react
inappropriately.

No overshoot,
K Short settling time
Response cmd
, S

Low SS response lag

Cmd
Correct stick sensitivity

stick Smooth start-up

Time
Figure 1. Desired Response Characteristics

If the augmented manual control system is well
designed, an active side stick cannot provide the
pilot with much additional airplane information
to further improve the handling qualities. In that
case it may increase the design risk due to extra
complexity, failure modes and the creation of
possible disharmonious control force cues. The
use of an active side stick would certainly
increase design cost.
Good "handling qualities" imply that the pilot
can do everything that the task demands, without
having to compensate mentally or physically for
bad or annoying design characteristics and other
shortcomings. In that case the pilot perceives
only airplane responses in precise harmony with
his control inputs and expectations. Achieving
all this is not an easy task. It requires a good
understanding of airplane dynamics, a lot of
design experience and attention to every design
detail.
Control algorithm options. There are many
FBW control algorithm options. Each can be
described by a set of three basic design elements,
which may not all be employed :
Stability Augmentation function;
Pilot Command Augmentation function;
Command Reference Hold function for
unattended, pilot out of the loop operation.
Distinctive concepts, in increasing order of
complexity, include:
simple electrical signaling of the control
surfaces with little or no stability and
command augmentation (Embaer 170);

4
 pitch rate stability plus command response
augmentation (Gripen and Eurofighter);
Pitch Rate Command /Pitch Attitude Hold
concept (Space Shuttle);
Flight Path Angle Rate Command/ Flight
Path Angle Hold concept (Dassault Falcon
7X)
C* concept (Dassault Mirage fighters,
Airbus A320 - A380 models);
C*U concept (Boeing 777);
Control concepts are often characterized by their
response type, but this is not very meaningful,
because the response characteristics within one
algorithm type can vary dramatically, depending
on the specific system elements employed and
the tuning of the algorithm, as will be
demonstrated later on in this paper. Some experts
like to include an angle of attack command
system as a distinct algorithm possibility.
However, the use of an angle of attack sensor in
a basic control algorithm is a difficult
proposition. Furthermore, assuming control
responses at constant airspeed, incremental angle
of attack is equivalent to incremental normal
load factor and equivalent to flight path angle
rate.
C* and C*U will be discussed first because these
algorithms are used in the first generation of
FBW transport airplanes. Next, the more
fundamental Pitch Rate Command / Pitch
Attitude Hold (PRC/PAH) algorithm will be
discussed, because some fundamental stability
and command augmentation issues are easier to
discuss and understand with respect a PRC/PAH
system. This will help introduce the discussion
related to the FPARC/FPAH algorithm
development.
C* Control Algorithm. The first FBW
commercial transport airplane, the Airbus A320,
uses a C* algorithm. The C* algorithm derives
its name from a handling qualities criterion
called C*, proposed in the mid sixties [7]. This
criterion postulates that an airplane has good
handling qualities, if the time history of the
quantity dubbed C*, obtained from the airplane
responses to a pitch control input, falls within a
certain envelope. The C*quantity is defined as
the sum of the incremental normal load factor
(nz) and normalized pitch rate ( & *Vco /g). gain scheduling with flight condition for
The normalization factor is the crossover
airspeed (Vco ) divided by the gravity constant
(g). The crossover speed is defined as the speed
at which nz = & * Vco /g. This C* handling
qualities criterion has long been shown to be
seriously flawed [8]. A popular explanation of
this criterion is that during maneuvering the pilot
responds predominately to pitch rate cues at low
speed and predominately to incremental normal
load factor cues at high speed. Thus, the load
factor cue and the pitch rate cues are said to be
equally compelling at the crossover speed.
This explanation is also flawed, because these
cues are perceived by different human sensory
channels and there is no objective way to
establish equivalence between these cues.
Furthermore, the incremental load factor the pilot
generates during normal transport airplane
maneuvering is not speed dependant, so there is
no reason to believe pilots use load factor at one
end of the speed range, but not at the other end.
For passenger comfort pilots simply maneuver
the airplane with approximately the same
relatively low g-levels for all flight conditions.
The natural airplane dynamics dictate the
inherent relationship between the steady state
incremental load factor (nz)ss and the steady
state pitch rate ( & )ss : (nz )ss = ( & )ss *Vtrue/g.
The pilot has no way to influence this
relationship.
The C* algorithm, presented in figure 2, uses
feedback loops of & * Vco /g and nz signals fed
through an integral signal path, in addition to a
proportional pitch rate signal path. nz is derived
from body mounted accelerometer sensitive
along the airplane Z-axis, compensated for the
signal bias due to pitch and roll attitude. The
integral control signal path of & * Vco /g and
nz signals is a very peculiar arrangement,
because integration makes the design sensitive to
sensor bias errors, so high precision signals are
needed, otherwise the control algorithm will
diverge, unless the pilot provides corrective
inputs. The pilots control inceptor signal is fed
forward through the same integral signal path
with a certain gain, as well as through a
proportional signal path, which may include a
response-shaping filter. The pilots input signal
path to the feedback control integrator is said to
command a value of the C* quantity and thus is
called the C* command. The algorithm is
complex, higher order, and requires extensive
achieving the desired tuned response for each
flight condition.
5
 Figure 2. C* /C*U algorithm
The higher order aspects relate to the use of an
accelerometer signal, the integral control signal
path and the response shaping filter(s), making
the airplane response transfer functions of higher
order than those of an un-augmented airplane, or
those of an airplane with only classical stability
augmentation.
In effect, integration of the vertical
accelerometer and pitch rate gyro signals results
in pseudo attitude and vertical speed feedbacks.
The dominant effects of pitch attitude feedback
are an increase in Short Period frequency and
Phugoid damping. Vertical speed feedback also
adds to the Phugoid damping. The net result is a
non-classical, heavily damped nz - response to
pilot control inputs, with pseudo vertical speed
hold characteristic when the pilot leaves the
control loop. It is not a true vertical speed hold,
because the integrator continues to integrate its
sensor inputs which are affected by external
airplane disturbances, airplane configuration
changes and thrust changes. As a result, over
time the actual vertical speed tends to drift away
and the pilot must periodically reenter the control
loop to keep the airplane on a desired earth
referenced flight path. A change in vertical
speed also causes a corresponding longitudinal
acceleration, unless compensated by a thrust
change. Therefore the pseudo vertical speed
hold characteristic destroys airplane speed
stability and the concept of a trim speed. As a
result, the C* algorithm does not meet the
Federal Airworthiness requirement for stick
force/speed stability. Stick force / speed stability
requires that a pull force is needed to achieve and
maintain a steady state speed decrease and vice
versa, and that the speed returns to trim speed
when the control is released. An Equivalent
Safety solution to meet the intent of the speed
stability certification requirement is to provide
speed envelope protection. In practice, the
tendency for the speed to diverge if thrust is not
controlled carefully, causes the pilot to resort to
the use of the autothrottle to hold speed.
Speed stability without simultaneous thrust
control tends to undue the pilots flight path
control input. In a comparison study between
control augmentation algorithms with and
without speed stability, Mooij [9] found a small
advantage in flight path control handling
qualities during final approach for a PRC/PAH
control algorithm that has no speed stability
(albeit at the expense of speed deviation). This
may be explained by the fact that the nz response
is sustained longer without being washed out and
reversed due to the speed deviation feedback, as
is the case for a speed stable airplane. This
clearly indicates that handling qualities cannot be
fully assessed based on constant speed Short
Period criteria alone. The final assessment needs
to be based on complete high fidelity airplane
dynamics, taking into account the effects of
6
thrust/speed control dynamics and the effect of
non-minimum phase flight path response due to
tail lift.
Another characteristic of the C* algorithm is its
response to normal load factor change when the
airplane enters a banked turn. The feedback of
integrated nz appears like a spurious increase in
vertical speed to which the controller responds
with a nose down control command, in effect
increasing the maneuver stability. This
characteristic may require additional
compensation in order to achieve satisfactory
handling qualities. Classical airplane maneuver
stability provides the pilot with a stick force cue
due to nz when the airplane enters into banked
turn, which is a useful characteristic for hand
flying, especially in Instrument Meteorological
Conditions. When a passive feel system is used
there is no stick force change due to nz to alert
the pilot. Excessive maneuver stability at low
bank angles or neutral maneuver and spiral
stability at high bank angles result in
deterioration of handling qualities ratings. With
enough attention to design details and correct
tuning of the algorithm for the flight condition
and task, the C*control algorithm can provide
excellent handling qualities with low pilot
workload.
C*U control algorithm. The C*U algorithm is
the same as the C* algorithm, except it features
an additional airspeed feedback loop and a speed
command (trim) input operated by the pilot, see
figure 2. Since airspeed (error) is the highest
order state variable fed back to the integrator, the
C*U algorithm drives the speed back to the
commanded trim speed when the pilot leaves the
control loop, thereby re-establishing in principle
conventional lowly damped Phugoid behavior.
But since low Phugoid damping is not
particularly desirable and return to trim speed is
the objective, an additional longitudinal
acceleration feedback may be added to achieve a
better-damped speed and flight path responses.
However, too high a Phugoid frequency and
damping interferes with flight path control and
adversely affects the flight path control handling
characteristics. Therefore the speed error
feedback gain must be kept low, otherwise the
flight path change is undone by the control
algorithm, when the pilot leaves the control loop.
The resulting responses look more or less
classical depending on the Phugoid damping
provided, allowing the C*U algorithm to be
certified under the basic Federal Airworthiness
Requirements, without the Special Condition
issued for the C* algorithm. The pilot can
change the trim speed through the use of
conventional trim switches on the column,
activation of which commands a rate of change
of trim speed. On the B777, the so developed
trim speed command is not synchronized with
the autothrottle speed command selected on the
FG&C mode panel. This can lead to thrust and
flight path divergence if the two speed
commands differ when the pilot leaves the
control loop, because the autothrottle and the
C*U control algorithm each pursue their own
speed command. In that case the C*U algorithm
wins and the throttles end up either at the
forward or the aft limit, because the C*U has far
greater authority controlling the elevator than the
autothrottle controlling thrust. If this happens the
pilot must recognize the situation and take
corrective action. In future designs there should
only be one speed command and the elevator and
throttle should not both control speed.
Handling Qualities characteristics similar to the
C* and C*U algorithms can be achieved in a
simpler, more classical way using fewer sensors,
by replacing the integral signal path of nz and
& with proportional feedback paths of vertical
speed and pitch attitude, using equivalent gains,
and putting the pilots input signal integrator
outside the feedback loop. This in effect changes
the algorithm into an nz-command /vertical speed
hold concept, depicted in figure 3. This
approach eliminates the need for pitch and roll
attitude compensation for nz and eliminates the
vertical speed drift tendency because the vertical
speed command, developed purely by
integration of the pilots input, is no longer
affected by feedback signals.
If the designer wants to preserve classical speed
stability and use FBW design mainly for other
reasons than to improve handling qualities, then
a much simpler system may be used. For
example, on the EMB 170-190 airplanes the only
control augmentation provided is pilot inceptor
sensitivity scheduling.
7
 Stick
PFD
Throttle

T
Command engine
sensor
Augmentation
Airplane
Kstick + e
S +_ actuator

Kq q
+
+
+ K
K h& h&

Figure 3. C*, evolved into an nz- command/Vertical Speed Hold algorithm

Pitch Rate Command / Pitch Attitude Hold
Algorithm. In this type of algorithm, pitch
attitude feedback is an essential element of the
system, but the pitch attitude feedback loop may
not need to be closed during pilot maneuvering.
The pilots control input may simply command
pitch rate or elevator position, with or without
explicit pitch rate feedback to augment the short
period stability. Command response shaping may
be accomplished by control inceptor sensitivity
scheduling and possible command augmentation
(response shaping filter(s)) in the pilots forward
loop signal path, as presented in figure 4. Many
variations are possible. To create the pitch
attitude hold function requires a pitch attitude
command generation function and a pitch
attitude feedback. The pitch attitude command
generation can be a simple pitch attitude
track/hold function that memorizes the achieved
pitch attitude while the pilot is in the control
loop, and holds its last value when the pilot
leaves the control loop.

Stick PFD
Throttle

T
sensor Command engine
Augmentation
Airplane
e
Gain
+
++ +_ actuator

error Stability q
Track augmentation
&

Hold
Figure 4. Pitch Rate Command /Pitch Attitude Hold Concept.

8
The pitch attitude error is only fed back to the
elevator control when the pilot leaves the control
loop (column or stick centered). Issues with such
a design include the difficulty in achieving
smooth maneuver initiation and termination
without excessive pitch attitude drop back and
long term droop. An alternate approach is to
close the pitch rate and pitch attitude feedback
loops full time and develop the pitch attitude
command by integration of the pilots control
input signal, outside the feedback loop. In that
case, the integrator in the pilots forward loop
signal path forms an ideal K/S response model,
against which to shape the pitch attitude
response. With all these design approaches the
problem is how to shape the response in a
simple reliable way to a desired ideal response
(e.g. Figure 1), which may be different for
different flight conditions and for different tasks.
When reading many papers on FBW control
system development, one cannot escape the
impression that there is no well-established low
risk systematic design process. This may perhaps
explain the many difficulties encountered in
development of satisfactory designs. It is often
difficult to discern in a specific algorithm what
the function of a specific design feature is. The
end product often appears to be the result of
empirical trial and error methods. Some design
methods have resulted in higher order systems,
which cannot be analyzed directly using classical
Handling Qualities evaluation criteria. Lower
Order Equivalent System representations must
be developed for such systems. Even with
reasonably good Lower Order Equivalent
System representations, success with analytical
assessment and prediction of handling qualities
has been limited. As a result, final system
development still relies heavily on costly high
fidelity pilot in the loop simulations and flight
testing. Thus simpler, more transparent design
processes are needed, that produce reliable and
analyzable algorithms.
In this paper a systematic analytic approach,
based on simple physics principles is proposed.
The design problem is broken down into three
functional elements:
stability augmentation,
pilot command augmentation
development of command reference and
control tracking or Hold function, for
operation with the control inceptor at
neutral.
Stability augmentation. First the Short Period
frequency and damping are augmented to some
ideal middle of the road values, taken from
the Mil Specs Level I boundary box, e.g. sp = 2
rad/sec and sp = 1.0. A damping coeffient sp
= 1.0 is selected because it results in a lower
phase rate around the critical bandwidth
frequency. It may be necessary to choose sp on
the low side to safely accommodate the
automatic control modes with the same inner
loop design, without having to fear problems
associated with too high inner loop gains, which
can cause adverse coupling with airplane
structural modes and interaction with control
surface actuator dynamics. As will be shown, the
augmented Short Period frequency, resulting
from closing only the pitch rate and pitch attitude
loops, will not appreciably affect the final
attitude response, after the second and third
design steps have been completed. So, selection
of a relatively low augmented short period
frequency will not compromise the final designs
handling qualities. Selection of sp = 2 rad/sec
and sp = 1.0, requires normalized loop gains
for both pitch rate and angle of attack of 4,
neglecting the effects of actuator dynamics. The
effect of additional actuator dynamics will be
discussed later. In this context the normalized
angle of attack (AOA) loop gain is the sum of
the internal AOA feedback due to Cm and the
external pitch attitude feedback. Likewise, the
normalized loop gain of pitch rate is the sum
of the airplanes internal pitch rate feedback due
to Cm and the external pitch rate feedback. In
q
a simplified analysis based on constant speed
Short Period airplane dynamics, pitch attitude
feedback fulfills the same role as AOA feedback.
In this process of determining normalized loop
gains moments of inertia, control surface
effectiveness and the effect of dynamic pressure
and normalization constants involved (e.g. Wing
area and mean aerodynamic cord) must be
properly accounted for.
Static Airplane Model Inversion. It is easier to
work with normalized loop gains, because
normalized feedback gains can be directly
related to the airplanes dynamic mode
characteristics. One simple approach which
makes this possible is to use a book keeping
trick, by first canceling the airplanes internal
feedbacks of state variables that have important
stability derivatives associated with them, and
then building up the desired airplane dynamics
9
 New SP SP model inversion
Dynamics
design q
cm
K q q
ec
+- +-
1 1
Cmd
- - cm
Iyy
K _ _ cm
qSc
Figure 5. Static Model Inversion based Augmented SP Design
by new external feedbacks, as shown in figure 5.
Cancellation of the internal airplane feedbacks is
achieved by externally feeding back these state
variables to the control surface with the same
gain and opposite sign of the internal feedbacks.
This reduces the airplane dynamics to a series of
concatenated integrators. This author prefers to
call this cancellation process, static airplane
model inversion. Again, the inversion process
must properly account for all elements in the
control loops (moments of inertia, control
surface effectiveness, dynamic pressure, etc.)
Use of angle of attack (AOA) feedback in this
static inversion process may not be a satisfactory
approach, but this issue will be dealt with later.
The control algorithm design process can then
proceed without consideration of the actual
airplane, control surface and actuator dynamics
details, producing a normalized control
algorithm design that is airplane independent.
In the end, the airplane inversion can be undone
by reversed bookkeeping, if desired, to create
the traditional single feedback path control
augmentation design, but this results in complex
flight condition dependant feedback gain
schedules. Keeping the inversion feedbacks and
using the separate normalized stability
augmentation feedback system has the advantage
of eliminating gain schedules in the core control
algorithm. Accurate modeling and inversion of
the actual airplane dynamics then become the
responsibility of the airplane dynamic modeling
department! This process does not introduce new
risks, because as before, the same simplifying
assumptions can be made as to which small
Unaugmented Aircraft SP model
q
cm q
1
e
Act cm e +++ S S
1
cm Sc
S +1
I YY
_ 2
_
q -+
effects can be neglected. There is no reason why
the normalized control algorithm, once checked
out, would not work properly when coupled to
the actual airplane, except in case the airplane
model used in the design does not properly
represent the actual airplane dynamics. In that
case the right thing to do is to fix the model and
its static inversion, and leave normalized control
algorithm alone! In fact, this approach holds out
hope to reduce overall risk and design
development and flight testing time, because the
process is very straight forward and suitable for
automation.
The desired new airplane dynamics are built up
by closing pitch rate and pitch attitude feedback
loops around the successive integrators that
produce the airplane states, as shown in figure 6.
The first one integrates pitch acceleration and
produces pitch rate, the second one integrates
pitch rate and produces pitch attitude. Now, for
such a system of concatenated loop closures
around successive integrators, it can be shown
that all the resulting system poles will line up on
the negative real axis, if the normalized gains
associated with the control loop for each state
variable is at least a factor 4 smaller than the
gain for the adjacent inner loop. Following this
rule produces an extremely conservative/robust
control system. So, for the above selected sp = 2
rad/sec and sp = 1.0 , it follows that the new
normalized pitch rate gain Kq = 4 and that the
new normalized pitch attitude feedback gain K
= 1 (concatenated form), resulting in both short
period poles located on the real axis at S = -2.
10
 Figure 6. Normalized Pitch Rate Command / Pitch Attitude Hold Algorithm

Here, pitch attitude feedback fulfills the role of
AOA for SP dynamics augmentation and
provides the basis for pitch attitude control. Now
integral control feedback is added to the
algorithm, to prevent large pitch attitude droop
due to airplane trim change when the algorithm
is used on a real airplane. Following the above
principles a gain KI =.25 may be selected for the
new feedback integrator signal. The resulting
transfer function is

KIKKq 1 1
(1) = = =
cmd S + K qS + K K qS + K I K K q
3 2
S + 4S + 4S + 1 (S + 2.618)(S + 1)(S + 0.382)
3 2

Pilot Command Augmentation. Now, in order
to make it possible to turn the above /cmd
transfer function into classical looking /stick
transfer function into a 3rd order denominator
that includes one free integrator and a first order
numerator, the cmd /stick relationship must have
a free integrator in the denominator and have a
second order polynomial in S in the numerator.
(One numerator zero will be placed to cancel one
denominator pole). Therefore the following form
is selected for this relationship:

cmd K stick 1
(2) = (K FFPS2 + K FFIS + 1) = K stick (K FFPS + K FFI + )
stick S S
The resulting normalized /stick transfer function becomes

K stick (K FFPS2 + K FFIS + 1)

(3) =
stick S {(1/K I K K q )S3 + (1/K I K )S2 + (1/K I )S + 1}

This transfer function represents the entire
normalized pitch attitude control algorithm
shown in figure 6. The feed forward gains KFFI
and KFFP provide the command response shaping
tools. By selecting the feed forward gains KFFI
and KFFP such that one of the poles is cancelled
by one of the zeros, the transfer function is
reduced to the precise classical third order form
of the /stick transfer function of an un-
augmented airplane. Expressed in control
handling qualities terms:
The gain Kstick represents the stick
sensitivity - steady state pitch rate per stick :
qsteady state /stick ;
The gains KI and KFFI control the steady
state pitch attitude response lag relative to
the command response model stickKS/S,
produced at the output of the stick command
integrator;
KFFP is a direct feed through gain from the
stick to the final control effector command
(pitch acceleration in this algorithm model).
Thus, KFFP controls the initial pitch
acceleration to a stick input. With complete
airplane dynamics, the gain KFFP determines
the value of Control Anticipation Parameter
&&
(CAP), defined as t =0 .
n zSteady State
When the feed forward command response
shaping gains KFFI and KFFP are set to zero, the
steady state pitch attitude response lag to a step
stick command is =1/KI = 4 seconds for KI
=.25 , relative to the output of the stick command
integrator, which represents the pitch attitude

11
command. For the general case with non-zero words: minimize pole zero mismatch. For
KFFI and KFFP , is determined by the difference a selected greater than the response lag of
between the coefficient of the S1 of the the transfer function (3) with KFFI and KFFP
denominator and the coefficient of S1 of the set to zero, there should be no pitch rate
numerator of the normalized transfer function: overshoot. For a selected smaller than the
= 1/KI -KFFI. Thus, to achieve = 0 with KI response lag with KFFI and KFFP set to zero,
=.25 requires a gain KFFI = 4. There are several there should be no more than one significant
ways to determine KFFP : overshoot, to minimize residual wobble due
1. Dictate that the denominator pole with the to pole-zero residues. At least one overshoot
slowest dynamics will be cancelled by one is unavoidable in this case.
of the numerator zeros. Then the remaining 3. Selection of equal to a time constant
numerator zero must be selected to provide corresponding to one of the denominator
the desired steady state response lag of poles results in a special case for which the
pitch attitude relative to KIstick /S. For numerator zeros will cancel the other two
example, using the above gain selection denominator poles. The response then
KI =.25, K = 1, Kq = 4, canceling the root at reduces to pure first order. For example, a
S = -.382 and demanding a final = 0, pure first order response with = .382,
requires KFFI = 4.0 and KFFP = 4 - .382 = relative to the cmd developed at the output of
3.618. Cancellation of the pole with the the forward path integrator, is achieved by
slowest dynamics is a good strategy, selection of KFFI = 3.618 and KFFP = 2.618.
because the pole with the slowest dynamics This possibility may be especially attractive
tends to produce the largest pole zero if one of the denominator poles can be
mismatch residue, which manifests itself in placed to correspond to the final desired .
a residual response wobble at the initiation Either one of these procedures assures that the
and termination of a maneuver. pitch attitude response is smooth and meets the
2. Directly compute KFFI for the selected , response objectives. In all practical cases the
then experimentally determine KFFP such feed forward response augmentation gains will
that the pitch attitude response converges as be used to reduce the pitch attitude response lag
fast as possible to KIstick /S , with minimal of the transfer function (3) with KFFI and KFFP
pitch rate/pitch attitude wobble, in other set to zero.

Pitch Rate Cmd /Pich Att Hold Agorithm responses

Kq = 4, Ktheta = 1, Ki = .25, Kffi = 3.5, Kffp = 2.309
Pitch Rate, Pich Attitude, Theta Cmd ~deg.sec, deg

Tautheta = .5 sec, no actuator dynamics

6
Pitch Rate
Pitch Attitude
5
Pich Att Cmd

0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Time ~sec

Figure 7. Responses for Step Stick Command of PRC/PAH Algorithm, = .5 second

12
In fact, for the landing approach flight path might be more suitable for the landing approach
control task, it is advantageous to select a task. In a real application, selection of should
negative final , as is generally the case for an
un-augmented airplane. Figure 7 and 8 show the take value of 2 into consideration. 2
responses for =.5 which may be close to ideal represents the time constant of the first order lag
for a pitch pointing task, and for = -1.0 which response of flight path angle relative to pitch
attitude.

Pitch Rate Cmd / Pitch Att Hold Algorithm responses

Kq = 4, Ktheta = 1, Ki = .25, Kffi = 5, Kffp = 6.236
Pitch Rate, Pitch Attitude, Pich Att Cmd ~deg/sec, deg

Tautheta = -1, no actuator dynamics

6
Pitch Rate
5 Pitch Attitude
Pitch Att Cmd
4

-1
0 5 10 15 20 25
Time ~sec

Figure 8. Responses for Step Stick Command of PRC/PAH Algorithm, = -1 second

Pitch Attitude control system responses to step cmd = 1

system 1: Kq = 4, Ktheta = 1, Ki = .25, Kffi = 0, Kffp = 0
system 2: Kq = 3, Ktheta = 1, Ki = .33, Kffi = 0, Kffp = 0
1
0.9
Pich Att Cmd, Pitch Attitude ~deg

0.8
0.7

0.6

0.5
0.4

0.3

0.2 Pitch Att Cmd

0.1 Pitch Attitude system 1
Pich Attitude System 2
0
-5 0 5 10 15 20
Time ~sec

Figure 9. Pitch Attitude Responses to step Pitch Attitude Command for two sets of system feedback gains.

13
Another consideration for the selection of is be seen by comparing the responses of the
that too much pitch attitude lead (negative ) complete system with gains Kq = 3, K = 1, KI =
relative to KIstick /S causes an unacceptably ratio .333, KFFI = 2.5 and KFFP = 1.73, presented in
of peak pitch rate to steady state pitch rate and figure 10, to the responses shown in Figure 7. In
too much of a pitch attitude drop back after the both cases the design was tuned to achieve =.5
pilot centers the controller (Gibson Pitch Rate with fast response convergence and negligible
and Drop Back HQ criteria [10]. wobble.

The selected feedback gains for the responses in High feedback integrator gain, consistent with
figure 7 and 8 are very conservative and result in maintaining the desired system damping (here
a rather slow response of the basic pitch attitude 1), is desirable for good disturbance rejection
response with feed forward gains augmentation and preventing response droop due to trim
KFFI and KFFP set to zero. It is possible to select effects on a real airplane. It is clear that the basic
considerably faster basic pitch attitude dynamics, stability augmentation feedback gains can be
while maintaining all real negative poles and not selected within a wide range, while still being
exceed a pitch rate loop gain of 4. For example, able to achieve nearly the same overall pitch
the response for a system with triple poles at S = attitude response by proper selection of the feed
-1, requires gains Kq =3, K = 1, KI = .333. forward gains. This capability has great merit
Figure 9 shows that this system responds when integrating the augmented manual control
considerably faster to a step command than the and fully automatic control modes. In effect the
system with gains Kq = 4, K = 1, KI = .25. One feedback gains can be designed to serve first and
would expect that for the full stability and foremost the automatic modes and then the feed
control augmentation system the pitch attitude forward gains can be designed to provide the
dynamics could be made to converge faster to desired pitch responses for the augmented
the final K/S for a system with a faster basic manual mode. These principles were used in the
feedback system response. However, this effect TECS design to simplify automatic and manual
is hardly noticeable, except perhaps when the mode integration.
system is tuned for large negative .This may

Pitch Rate Cmd / Pitch Att Hold Control Algorithm

Kq = 3, Ktheta = 1, Ki = .333, Kffi = 2.5, Kffp = 1.73
Pitch Rate, Pich Attitude, Pitch Att cmd ~ded/sec, deg

Tautheta = .5, No actuator dynamics

6
Pitch Rate
5 Pich Attitude
Pich Att cmd
4

-1
0 5 10 15 20 25
Time ~sec

Figure 10. Response for PRC/PAH system with =.5 second

14
In the process discussed above, actuator
dynamics have been neglected. This is justified
on the premise that the actuator loop gains will
again be at least a factor 4 higher than the pitch
rate loop gain, in order to assure that the actuator
dynamics will not couple with the pitch rate
control loop (and therefore not produce under-
Pitch Rate Cmd / Pitch Att Hold control Algorithm responses
Pitch Rate, Pitch Attitude, Pitch Att Cmd ~deg/sec, deg
6
5 Pich Attitude
4
3
2
-1
0 5
Figure 11. PRC/PAH responses for system of figure 10, including actuator dynamics
Finally, the described wide range of pitch
attitude response tuning capability may be used
to tune the algorithm to achieve the desired
handling qualities for the flight path angle
control task, e.g. for the landing approach. For
that case the may be selected to achieve a
desired flight path angle response lag . For
example, if the basic flight path angle to pitch
2 with decreasing . For the configuration with
attitude response lag
desired =1 second, then this requires = -1
second, which is the response shown in Figure 8.
It is interesting to note in the application of an
earlier PRC/PAH concept on the Space Shuttle,
which has an inherently large
the need to reduce to achieve good flight path
control handling qualities was not fully
understood, or perhaps the algorithm did not
have the inherent capability to achieve lower .
As a consequence, the Space Shuttle is
notoriously difficult to land with a closed loop
pilot control strategy. Therefore astronauts are
damped poles in the system). In that case the
overall system robustness is maintained and the
effect of the added actuator dynamics will be
minimal. Compare responses of Figure 11 for
system including actuator dynamics to responses
of figure 10 for system without actuator
dynamics.
Kq = 3, Ktheta = 1, Ki = .333, Kffi = 2.5, Kffp = 1.73
Tautheta = .5 sec,
Pitch rate
Pitch Att Cmd
Actuator dynamics:
2
576/(S +60S+576)
10 15 20 25
Time ~sec
trained to use a pre-cognitive open loop control
strategy instead. For the same reasons this
approach was also used for landing the
Concorde.
The frequency responses /stick for unity (full)
stick input, for selections of = 1, 0 and 1 are
shown in figure 12. The bandwidth increases
= 2 seconds, and the
= 0, 1800 phase lag is reached at ~ 7 rad/sec,
yielding a gain margin of ~6 db (factor ~2).
range. Here Kstick = 5 deg/sec/full stick. Thus,
linear system stability will be assured as long as
the pilot uses a gain KP < 2 units of stick
command / degree of pitch attitude error. This
2 large linear gain margin provides enough system
3 seconds,
robustness to be able to incur a considerable loss
of gain margin due to non-linearities in a real
airplane application. The stick sensitivity Kstick
used here is typical for an approach
configuration. For higher speeds Kstick must be
reduced, to assure suitable nz /stick. As should
be expected, the configuration with = 0 has an
15
 Bode Diagram
Pitch Rate Cms / Attitude Hold Algorithm
Kq = 4, Ktheta = 1, Ki = .25, Kstick = 5 deg/s ec/full stic k
Frequenc y Response Theta/stick~deg/full stic k
100

50
Tautheta =-1

Magnit ude ( dB)

0
Tautheta = 1
-50

-100 Actuator:
2 Tautheta = 0
-150 1024/(S +64S+1024)

-200
0

-90 Tautheta = -1
Phase (deg )

-180 Tautheta = 1

-270 Tautheta = 0

-360
-2 -1 0 1 2 3
10 10 10 10 10 10
Frequency (rad/sec)

Figure 12. Frequency responses for Pitch Rate Command/ Pitch Attitude hold Algorithm

amplitude response that is K/S-like over the considerably to the reduction in pilot workload,
widest frequency range. because in that case the system will
automatically compensate for the effects of
Flight Path Angle Rate Command / Flight winds, turbulence and airplane configuration
Path Angle Hold algorithm. For most flight changes. The concept requires the addition of
conditions the pilots manual control objective is flight path angle information on the Primary
to control the airplanes flight path angle, or path Flight Display. Furthermore, a FPARC/FPAH
in space, e.g. capture and maintain an altitude or algorithm greatly simplifies continuous descent
the glide slope. If the pilot has only pitch attitude maneuvers involving altitude crossings at
to control and observe on his display, then he specified navigation waypoints, because, when
must change pitch attitude iteratively to arrive at the airplane reliably maintains the pilot
a desired flight path angle. To control a path in established flight path angle, it is easy to reliably
space also involves iterating the flight path angle predict the altitude crossing point and display it
(or vertical speed) to capture and track the on the navigation display. The FPARC / FPAH
desired path in space. Thus the pilot uses pitch algorithm is an ideal control mode for use with
attitude control as an inner loop control to Head Up Display, which also uses flight path
achieve his outer loop control objective. angle.
Attitude inner loop control is essentially a
process of executing a series of educated Flight path angle relates directly to normal load
guesses, because the final pitch attitude is not factor (nz) and Angle of attack, so it is easy to
known and the control sensitivity gain - how implement normal load factor and stall
much pitch attitude change to use in each protection. Thus the FPARC/FPAH algorithm
iteration - varies with the flight condition. can functionally integrate many desirable design
Therefore the pilot could be helped a lot by and operations features, in a relatively simple
providing him with the capability to directly way, compared to many other design approaches.
control the flight path angle, without having to
use the pitch attitude as an inner loop control, The industry has been reluctant to move to flight
and by providing a design feature to maintain the path angle based control, because of feared
pilot established flight path angle when the pilot difficulties in achieving good handling qualities,
gets out of the control loop. A true flight path gaining pilot acceptance and being able to
angle hold feature will also contribute certify an airplane that uses FPA as the basic

16
control mode. The step toward introduction of based augmented manual control and pitch inner
flight path angle based automatic and augmented loop design.
manual control algorithms on commercial
transport is in fact a relatively small one, with The relationship between flight path angle and
few risks and very substantial rewards. pitch attitude is described by the transfer
function
The initial research to develop and evaluate the 1
merits of a FPARC/FPAH algorithm dates back
(4) = wherein
to the NASA TCV program in late seventies. S + 1
This author was involved in sorting out many of 2
the design implementation choices and ironing C .V
out most bugs of the early system. This work
(5) = L True
resulted in a stand-alone design [2]. Then, in the 2 g.CL
early eighties a functionally integrated flight
control systems was developed that uses a
generalized energy based control strategy to The basic structure of the FPARC/FPAH
provide all automatic and augmented manual algorithm shown in Figure 13 and described
modes for airplane control in the vertical plane. here, is very similar to the PRC/PAH algorithm
This concept called Total Energy Control (Figure 6.), described above. Instead of the
System (TECS) features a core controller, integral control feedback loop being closed on
based on energy related variables of flight path pitch attitude, it is closed on flight path angle,
angle and longitudinal, that serves all its and an additional proportional flight path angle
automatic and augmented manual control modes feedback path is introduced (switches in the
[1]. The FPARC/FPAH naturally fits in the System 1 position). The same pitch rate, pitch
TECS architecture and requires only a front-end attitude and feedback integrator gain KI are
pilot control input processing module to realize maintained as in the PRC/PAH algorithm. Now
this augmented manual control mode. This the output of the pilots inceptor command
research laid the groundwork for a more integrator in the forward signal path may be
complete understanding of the relationship considered a FPA-command (cmd).
between pitch attitude and flight path angle

Figure 13. FPARC/FPAH control Algorithm

The transfer function /stick becomes

K stick (K FFPS2 + K FFIS + 1)K q K K I
(6) =
stick S S(S2 + K qS + K q K )( 2 S + 1) + K q K K K IS + K q K K I
The denominator of this transfer function is a isolated by reworking the transfer function as
follows:
function of 2 , but this dependency can be

17
 K stick (K FFPS2 + K FFIS + 1)K q K K I
(7) =
stick S S(S2 + K qS + K q K )( 2 S + 1) + K q K K I (K S + 1)
Now by making K = 2 and normalizing the transfer function we obtain

K stick (K FFPS2 + K FFIS + 1)

(8) =
stick S ( 2 S + 1){(1/K q K K I )S3 + (1/K K I )S2 + (1/K I )S + 1}

Notice that this /stick transfer function (8) for 2

the FPARC/FPAH algorithm differs from the
/stick transfer function (3) by the exact airplane
transfer function = 1 /( S + 1) . This
2
means that the for the same 2 , feed
forward gains KFFP and KFFI and feedback
gains, both algorithms produce identical pitch
attitude and FPA responses, keeping in mind that
for the FPARC/FPAH algorithm relates to the
of the PRC/PAH algorithm via the
relationship = - 2 . KFFP and KFFI can
be selected to satisfy two conditions. KFFI is
determined by selecting a desired or . Then
KFFP can be selected to cancel one of the poles.
For a condition with = 2, selecting = 1
and canceling the same pole at S = -.382 as in the
PRC/PAH algorithm (figure 8) requires KFFI = 5
and KFFP = 6.236 and results in, = -1.
It is possible to select the feed forward gains
such that one of the numerator zeros cancels the
pole associated with 2 . Then the remaining
zero can be selected to yield the desired steady
state . As an example, for a condition with
2 = 2 and keeping the other feedback gains
the same as in the first example of the ARC/AH
algorithm (Kq = 4, K =1, KI = .25), the result is

K stick (K FFPS2 + K FFIS + 1)

(9) =
stick S (2S + 1)(S + 1)(2.618S + 1)(.382S + 1)

In the simple model of figure 13 with the
switches in the down position (system 1),
calculations for KFFI and KFFP are shown based
on selected values of the parameters 2 ,
and KI, resulting in cancellation of the pole
associated with 2 . For demonstration
purposes, 2 has been made independently
selectable. To achieve a = 1 (and therefore a
= -1) requires KFFI =2+1+2.618+.382-1= 5 and
KFFP = 6. The resulting /cmd and /cmd time
histories are shown in figure 14. Notice that the
pitch attitude response in figure 14 is very
similar, but not identical , to the attitude response
in figure 8, obtained for the PRC/PAH system
with identical = -1. The slight difference is
attributable to the different order of the /stick
transfer function for the two cases. The flight
path angle response in figure 14 exhibits a small
overshoot, which is attributable to the KFFP gain
determination method used for this case. This
small FPA overshoot at maneuver termination
can be minimized, if desired, by a increasing
KFFP to ~ 6.7, but a barely observable FPA
response wobble at the start and finish of the
maneuver remains. This is the result of the
imperfect poles/zeros cancellation.
It is possible to entirely eliminate the
2 effect in the /stick transfer function.
This is accomplished by using a proportional
feedback of the flight path angle error, instead of
a proportional feedback of the flight path angle
2
signal and again selecting K = . This
algorithm configuration is shown in figure 13
with the switches in the up position (System 2).
In that case the /stick transfer function reduces
to

18
 FPA RAte Cmd /FPA Hold algorithm responses
Kq = 4, Ktheta = 1, Ki = .25, Kffi = 5, Kffp = 6, Kstick = 5 deg/sec/full stick
6

FPA Cmd, FPA, Pich Attitude ~deg

5

1 Pich Attitude
FPA
FPA cmd
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Time ~sec

Figure 14. FPARC/FPAH algorithm (system 1) responses to step 10 % of full stick for 5 seconds

K stick (K FFPS2 + K FFIS + 1)

(10) =
stick S (1/K q K K I )S3 + (1/K K I )S2 + (1/K I )S + 1

Note that this transfer function is the same as the =4, K = 1, KI = .25, and KFFP = 1. This case
/stick transfer function, equation (3). To achieve results in a first order FPA response, shown in
= 1 for this FPARC/FPAH algorithm, with Kq figure15.

FPA Rate Cmd / FPA Hold algorithm responses (System 2)

FPA Cms, FPA, Pitch Attitude ~deg, Pitch Rate ~deg/sec

Kq = 4, Ktheta = 1, Ki = .25, Kffi = 3, Kffp = 1, Kstick = 5 deg/sec/full stick

6

3 Pitch Attitude
FPA
FPA cmd
2 Pitch Rate

-1
0 5 10 15 20 25
Timw ~sec

Figure 15. FPARC/FPAH algorithm (System 2) responses using proportional FPA error feedback instead
of proportional FPA feedback

19
For the general case of an arbitrary the rules
presented above may be used to determine KFFP
for an optimized response. The advantage of the
algorithm configuration of System 2 is that the
feed forward gains KFFI and KFFP are now only a
function of the desired and KI . KI is selected
at the initial design and will be fixed thereafter.
Thus for the System 2 configuration, the gains
KFFI and KFFP can remain constant throughout the
flight envelope, if a constant is desired. Only
K needs to be adjusted in proportion to 2 .
It should be noted that with the system 2
configuration (switches in figure 13 in the up
position), there is a new sneak proportional
signal path from the stick to the control surface
(here pitch acceleration command), through KFFI
and the proportional FPA-error signal path with
gain K. When the gains of both proportional
stick signal paths are combined a total gain KFFP
2 require a large (lead of pitch attitude relative
= 7 is found (for =2), close to the
optimum KFFP = 6.7 found for the FPARC/FPAH
system 1. This sneak proportional signal path
provides the inherent adjustment of the gain of
the overall proportional feed forward stick
command signal for different 2 values.
The CAP Handling Quality Parameter re-
examined. As already noted above the
FPARC/FPAH (system 1) and the PRC/PAH
algorithms can be tuned to produce identical
FPA and Pitch Attitude responses. In that case
the transfer function /stick will be the same for
both systems and therefore CAP will be the
same for both systems. From equation (3) for the
PRC/PAH system, it follows that
&&
t =0 = stick KS K FFP and for a constant stick
input the final incremental load factor is
V V V approach,
n z = & = & = stick KS , therefore
t = g g g
gK FFP
CAP = . Thus, for an approach
V closing his control loop using a pure FPA
condition with 2 = 2 and a selected = 1, it qualities for direct flight path angle control, it is
follows that the required value KFFP = 6.236,
resulting in CAP = .836. This is well within the
CAP range between .28 to 3.6 allowed in MIL-
STD-1757A for level 1 handling qualities.
However, KFFP is a critical design parameter that
cannot be varied much from the calculated value
in the above analysis and still achieve acceptable
responses. Furthermore, to achieve harmony
between the initial pitch acceleration and the
final nz response (figure 1), KFFI (here
controlling the steady state nz lag relative to K/S)
must be selected within a narrow range, to
achieve the desired value of . For high speed
2
conditions will be smaller and with the
same this results in lower KFFP and lower CAP
values. So in its present form the CAP criterion
does not provide meaningful design guidance,
because the allowed range is too large and
because this range should be a function of
2 . This may be explained as follows. In [2,
10] it was found that a constant 1 provides
satisfactory FPA control for a transport aircraft at
all flight conditions. So, to achieve = 1 at high
2
speed where is relatively small, does not
to stickKS/S). Therefore a lower initial pitch
acceleration will suffice for the build up this lead
(if any is needed) within a certain time limit, to
establish a desired steady state .nz . What is
missing is a criterion for the allowed time it
takes to establish a steady state nz for a step
stick input. This then drives the requirement for
KFFP (and possibly , if = 1 was found to be
unsatisfactory.)This in turn would drive new
criteria for KFFI and the normalized stability
augmentation feedback gains Kq , K and KI.
Flight Path Angle display. A very important
aspect of the application of a FPARC/FPAH
algorithm is the need to provide proper FPA
display information on the PFD or HUD and
proper pilot training. The flight path angle lags
the pitch attitude response by 2 seconds. On
2 may be as large as 2.5 seconds
for a transport airplane. This is too large a lag to
produce acceptable handling qualities when the
pilot attempts direct flight path control by
display. To achieve satisfactory handling
necessary to use a quickened FPA-symbol, as
was found during the original FPA based
augmented control algorithm development in the
late seventies [2, 11], and also in NASA HUD
studies [12]. The FPA command, developed at
the output of the stick command integrator, can
serve as
20

the quickened FPA signal, because it has perfect
K/S characteristics and because, for the
algorithms presented above, will be constant
throughout the flight envelope. This results in
two display quickening possibilities: display
FPAcmd and FPA full time, or blend FPAcmd with
the actual FPA using a first order washout filter
on FPAcmd. For the latter approach only one
symbol, defined as
S structural mode pickup. An extensive research
(10) FPA Quickened = FPA Cmd + FPA
S + 1
is used on the PFD or HUD. FPAquickened
responds like FPAcmd when the pilot maneuvers,
and returns to true FPA when the pilot centers
the stick and leaves the control loop. With this
quickened FPA display the pilot can directly
control the airplane to his desired FPA target,
without the need to iterate through pitch attitude.
Another advantage of using FPAcmd display,
either as a full time or blended display, is that
when the pilot closes his control loop on
FPAQuickened, he cannot induce a PIO condition,
because the phase lag relative to his input does
not exceed 90 0.
During the original research, it was found that
display of a pure K/S response is not ideal,
because of the pilots neuro-muscular and
cognitive delays. Experiments showed that pilots
were able to hit the desired FPA target better if
the displayed symbol responded with a small
additional first order lag (e.g. display = ~.2
seconds), rather then as a pure K/S. However,
this re-introduces an additional time lag in the
control loop that can affect PIO susceptibility.
Inner loop Feedback Signal Synthesis
The above discussions considered only basic
feedback control augmentation and pilot
command response shaping to achieve good
handling qualities. In a final design also control
tracking and control activity under external
disturbances must be considered, especially if the
basic stability augmentation is used to serve as
the inner loop for the automatic control modes. It
is a well known fact that a pitch rate/pitch
attitude inner loop makes the airplane stiff in
attitude, which is desirable for a pitch attitude
hold function, but not so good for an automatic
mode requiring tight flight path tracking, such as
in the case of glide slope, or landing flare control
in turbulence and windshear. An inner loop using
pitch rate and normal acceleration can provide
more pitch agility by sensing and counteracting
external disturbances, thereby providing
considerably better flight path tracking
performance. However, the price for this
improved path tracking is pitch bobbing, and
high elevator and pitch activity in turbulence.
Also, for such an inner loop it is difficult to
achieve satisfactory damping and robustness,
because of sensitivity to non-minimum phase
normal acceleration response caused by tail lift,
sensitivity to accelerometer location and
program was conducted in the late seventies
under the NASA TCV program to develop high
performance automatic landing flare algorithms
[13]. In this research frequency responses of
path deviation due to horizontal and vertical
gusts were studied for two equivalent high gain
flare algorithms, one based on a pitch
rate/normal acceleration inner loop and the other
derived from the same flare algorithm by
replacing the vertical acceleration feedback by
its state variable constituents. It was found that
the algorithm using a pitch rate/normal
acceleration inner loop has vastly superior
altitude tracking performance for frequencies up
to ~ the short period frequency, relative to the
algorithm using a conventional pitch rate/pitch
attitude inner loop. Above this frequency the
pitch rate/pitch attitude based algorithm has
superior performance, both in flight path tracking
and in elevator activity. Therefore, in order to
achieve the best overall flight path tracking and
touchdown dispersion, a new flare algorithm was
synthesized by using the pitch rate/normal
acceleration based algorithm for control in the
low frequency range and the pitch rate/pitch
attitude based algorithm for control in the high
frequency range. The coupling was achieved by
using either a first or second order
complementary filter, with the crossover
frequency equal to the above turbulence response
crossover frequency.
Here, a similar approach is proposed to achieve
good overall performance, considering all
important design requirements. In the static
inversion process sketched above, a pure angle
of attack feedback signal, corrected for position
error, could be used. Un-modeled sensor effects,
turbulence noise and inadequate sensor reliability
can make this approach unacceptable for a real
system design. A simple derived inertial angle of
attack substitute: der = - inertial works better.
Another approach is to use the following
complementary filtered angle of attack signal,
using a position corrected sensor signal s for the
21
low frequency range and inertial angle of attack
rate signal & I for the high frequency range:
K1S& I + (K2S + 1)S
(11) F = 2 , where
K1S + K2S + 1
a z + g.cos.cos a +g
(12) & I = +q z +q
VI VI
In (11) again der may be substituted for s. In
(12) az is the output of an z-axes body mounted
accelerometer. The filter time constants must
then be optimized for best performance in
turbulence /windshear and for accelerometer bias
rejection.
Algorithm Performance with Full Airplane
Dynamics. The above algorithm analyses and
time responses used constant speed short period
airplane dynamics approximations. The
performance of the above algorithms (C* , C*U,
nzC/HdotH, PRC/PAH, FPARC/FPAH), was
evaluated by Matlab Simulink simulations using
full airplane and actuator dynamics including
rate and position limits, with and without an
automatic thrust control to maintain airspeed.
The performance of these algorithms, with the
full airplane dynamics and speed automatically
maintained to within a knot or two, differed little
from the analysis using simplified constant speed
airplane dynamics without an actuator. The
FPARC/FPAH algorithm was also evaluated as
an integral part of the TECS design, with a static
inversion based inner loop. The difference in
performance was small, except in the case where
a substantial thrust pitching moment was
simulated, but not compensated for in the
airplane static inversion. For this case the trim
change due to thrust requires an adjustment of
KFFP. Alternatively, after including thrust
pitching moment compensation in the static
inversion, the performance using full airplane
dynamic model was again nearly identical to the
performance with the simplified constant speed
airplane model and no adjustment to KFFP was
required. With the inclusion of a realistic
actuator model, including rate and position
limits, the effects of variation of 2 and
dynamic pressure for different flight conditions
becomes very noticeable in the control surface
response. For high dynamic pressure and small
2 conditions, the augmentation effects on
the responses are small. In that case the overall
stick to elevator transfer function approaches a
straight gain and the elevator time histories
resemble the pilot controller time history. At low
speed and large 2 , the augmentation effect
is very noticeable and the elevator must work in
overdrive, to maintain the same FPA response
as at high speed. When the FPARC/FPAH and
PRCPAH algorithms are tuned to yield the same
pitch attitude and FPA responses, the elevator
responses are identical, as expected. The
overdrive effect is less pronounced for the
PRC/PAH algorithm, if the algorithm is tuned
for K/S-like pitch attitude response.
Control Responses at Constant Thrust.
Control responses at constant thrust differ
considerably between the different algorithms.
For such conditions speed change has a
dominant effect on the control response after the
pilot leaves the control loop and to a lesser
extend during short duration with the pilot in the
loop. Short term responses to a constant stick
input appear similar to conditions with automatic
speed control, but show an apparent washout
over time of the maneuver rate (droop). When
the pilot leaves the control loop after establishing
a new flight path angle (vertical speed ), the C*U
algorithm returns to trim speed and this causes a
relatively fast washout of the flight path angle
change achieved during the time with the stick
deflected, as well as a temporary nz reversal. The
C* has a slower flight path angle washout and nz
reversal , while energy is being transferred from
airspeed to flight path to partially make up for
the thrust deficiency. Speed continues to bleed
down or build up and this is the reason why a
speed envelope protection function is needed.
For the above PRC/AH algorithm the pitch
attitude starts to droop after stick release, but
there is a tendency to establish a new pitch
attitude and airspeed equilibrium. The
FPARC/FPAH algorithm exhibits a flight path
angle washout after stick release similar to C*.
Augmented Manual Roll Control
The generalized design approach used above for
the PRC/PAH algorithm development can serve
as a carbon copy for the development of a
generalized Roll Rate Command/Roll Attitude
Hold (RRC/RAH) control algorithm. Only the
stick (or wheel) sensitivity changes to ~25-30
degrees/ sec roll rate command for a full lateral
stick input. Here the roll mode time constant
is typically selected to be in the range of .5 to 1
second. The same rules apply for determining the
22
feed forward gains as used in the pitch axis
control algorithms described above. This
RRC/RAH algorithm was implemented and
evaluated as an integral part of THCS, using the
full lateral-directional airplane dynamics and the
static inversion process to design the roll and
yaw innerloops. The roll responses and turn
coordination performance were very good.
PIO Assessment
A complete PIO assessment of the above
augmented manual control algorithms is beyond
the scope of this paper. It requires a high fidelity
model of all the control algorithm details,
including actuator dynamics with rate and
position limits, a complete airplane dynamics
model and representation of the low frequency
flexible airplane modes. A limited assessment
was conducted, using the rigid airplane model.
Some general comments can be made to help
avoid unnecessary PIO susceptibility:
Feedback integrators need to be protected
from open loop wind-up due to actuator rate
and/or position limiting, which causes
additional phase lag in the feedback loop. In
a final design this can be remedied by
placing the feedback integrator at the end of
the control algorithm processing chain. This
requires differentiation of the proportional
signal paths, so these proportional signals
can be fed through the integrator. This
differentiation and integration processing
should be designed to avoid noise
amplification. The output of this integrator
then represents the final control surface
command which needs to be limited to the
actuator authority limit. The input to this
integrator, should be amplitude limited to
the actuator rate limit, so that the actuator
can keep up with its command.
The control inceptor authority needs to be
scheduled in such a way that a full
deflection control inceptor never commands
more than the available control surface
authority. This is necessary to assure that the
pilot will never experience a dead zone at
the end of the control inceptor defection
range for any flight condition. Since the
basic airplane control surface authority is
sized to handle all foreseeable maneuver
conditions, proper scheduling of the control
inceptor authority should not in any way
restrict the maneuver capability. This
objective can be achieved by scheduling
control inceptor sensitivity as a function of
deflection and flight condition, while also
providing the correct sensitivity around
neutral. At high speed a full control inceptor
deflection should command the nz-limit,
while at low speed a full pull-up deflection
should command the available safe nz
command authority, consistent with a pre-
selected angle of attack limit.
The response shaping design should not use
differentiation of the control inceptor
command signal, which will cause a gain
increase and phase advance at high control
inceptor input frequencies and increase the
risk of actuator rate limiting and PIO.
It is not possible to maintain constant stick
force/g sensitivity over the flight envelope,
using a passive feel system and a fixed
control inceptor deflection range. A ~
constant stick force/g can be achieved by
using an active/programmable feel system or
by a using a constant force gradient control
inceptor with an actively varying deflection
hard stop. A constant stick force /g may not
be needed, as long as the control inceptor
maneuver command sensitivity around
neutral and the full deflection authority are
appropriate. Increasing maneuver command
sensitivity with control inceptor deflection
can cause pilot over control and increases
PIO susceptibility.
The control algorithm should provide
continuously and smoothly varying control
surface commands as a function of the
control inceptor deflection. There should not
be any abrupt gain, or control response
behavior changes. Any needed control
algorithm adaptation to the flight condition
should be programmed as a function of
slowly changing variables, e.g. weight,
dynamic pressure, speed and altitude.
Unnecessary processing delays due to digital
data bus signal input/output transmission,
sensor and control algorithm processing
should avoid. This requires an efficient IO
handling and an efficient Real Time
Executive scheduler.
Conclusions
Methodologies used in developing augmented
manual control algorithms vary widely and the
resulting designs are often very complex and
difficult to analyze. Important characteristics of
different existing algorithm types were
reviewed. This paper describes a simple,
transparent design process for pitch /roll attitude
and flight path angle type of control algorithms,
consisting of three distinct elements:
23
augmentation of the basic airplane stability, pilot
command augmentation and design of special
provisions (e.g. to track the established control
reference). It was demonstrated that
Application of static airplane model
inversion is an effective and practical
approach to synthesizing the basic airplane
stability augmentation part of the design:
o It simplifies the implementation of basic
design objectives, such Short Period
natural frequency and damping and
provides transparency to the meaning
of parameters used;
o It provides inherent compensation for
variation in basic airplane dynamics,
separated from the control algorithm;
o It provides the basis for generalizing the
control algorithm design, making it
usable in a variety of airplanes, with
little or no adaptation for the specific
airplane and flight condition, while
providing uniform performance
throughout the flight envelope;
o The process should not decrease design
robustness, as long as the same
conservative design considerations are
applied as used in more classical design
approaches;
The final airplane responses to pilot control
can be shaped largely independently from
the basic stability augmentation part of the
design, by using appropriate feed forward
signal paths;
Different control algorithms, specifically
PRC/PAH and FPARC/FPAH types, can be
designed to produce identical maneuver
control responses;
The use of feedback integral control need
not lead to lower airplane control
bandwidth. Algorithms can be designed such
that the final order of the response transfer
function is the same as, or lower than for the
basic un-augmented airplane;
Important algorithm distinctive features
include: airplane response characteristics
when the pilot leaves the control loop and;
the effect of thrust/speed control on the
target control response.
References:
1. Lambregts, A.A., (1983), Vertical Flight
Path and Speed Control Autopilot Design
Using Total Energy Principles, AIAA Paper
83-2239CP.
2. Lambregts, AA., (1979), Development of a
Control Wheel Steering Mode and Suitable
Displays that Reduce Pilot Workload and
Improve Efficiency and Safety of Operation
in the Terminal Area and in Windshear,
AIAA Paper 89-1887.
3. Lambregts, A.A.,(1997), Automatic Flight
Controls Concepts And Methods,
Netherlands Society of Aeronautical
Engineers Annual Report 1996.
4. Anon, 1980, Flying Qualities of Piloted
Airplanes, Military Specification, Mil-F-
8785C.
5. Anon, 1995, Flying Qualities of Piloted
Airplanes, Military Specification, Mil-STD-
1797A.
6. Mooij, H.A., (1984), Criteria for Low Speed
Longitudinal Handling Qualities of
Airplanes with Closed Loop Flight Control
Systems, NLR Report TN 83037 U.
7. Tobie, H.N., Elliott, E.M., Malcolm, L.M.,
(1966). A New Longitudinal Handling
Qualities Criterion.
8. Neal, T.P., Smith, Rogers E., (1970), An In-
Flight Investigation to Develop Control
System Design Criteria for Fighter
Airplanes, AFFDL-TR-70-74.
9. Mooij, H.A., van Gool, M.F.C., (1977). The
Need of Stick force Stability for Attitude-
Stabilized Aircraft. NLR Report TR 77027
U.
10. Gibson, J.C., (1999), Development of a
Methodology for Excellence in Handling
Qualities Design for Fly By Wire Airplanes
Delft University Press, ISBN 90-407-1841-
5.
11. Lambregts, A.A., (1991). US Patent
5,016,177 Aircraft Flight Path Angle
Display System.
12. Brae, R.S., Scott, B.C., (1981), Head-Up
Display Format for Application to Aircraft
Aorcraft Approach and Landing, NASA
TM-81199; NASA HUD Report 11.
13. Lambregts, A.A., Creedon, J.F.,(1980).
Development and Flight Evaluation of
Automatic Flare Laws with Improved
Touchdown Dispersion, AIAA paper 80-
1757.
24