I.
Introduction
Optimal Aircraft
Go-Around and Flare
Maneuvers
GLENN BUELL
Rockwell International
Anaheim, Calif. 92803
C,T. LEONDES, Fellow, IEEE
University of California
Los Angeles, Calif.
Abstract
This paper analyzes in detail two of the critical aircraft maneuvers
associated with approach and landing: the go-around maneuver and
the flare maneuver. Optimal solutions that include state and control
variable constraints are obtained for both problems. Two algorithms
are given for computation of the minimum and maximum altitude
loss associated with the pilot-controlled go-around maneuver. A
matrix operator is obtained that can be used for in-flight
computation of the altitude loss on a small general-purpose digital predicting
computer.
The flare optimization presented is for a cost functional that
includes both the longitudinal touchdown dispersion and the normal
acceleration. A closed-loop mechanization is given that
approximates the optimal trajectory. A second matrix operator
which can be used for prediction of the longitudinal touchdown
point is obtained. Uncertainties are also obtained for the purpose of altitude loss for optimal and suboptimal control policies.
establishing a prediction confidence level.
It is proposed that these prediction techniques should be
incorporated into a decision making performance monitor. This
monitor could provide the pilot with a continuous assessment of the
approach and could generate a preflare decision on whether or not
to commit the aircraft to the flare maneuver.
Manuscript received May 8, 1972; revised June 28, 1972
This work was supported, in part, by Air Force Office of Scientific
Research Grant 699-67.
280 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AEROSPACE AND ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS
Currently, a large amount of effort is being devoted to
the development of commercial aircraft avionic systems,
and, in particular, to solving the all-weather landing
problem. A few systems exist today that have demonstrated
a fully automatic landing capability, and others have shown
a similar capability through laboratory simulation; yet, they
have received only limited acceptance from airline pilots
and from the Federal Aviation Agency. It also appears that
the more sophisticated and redundant systems presently
under development may receive the same lack of
acceptance.
One approach to instilling faith in a fully automatic
landing system is to monitor the total vehicle performance
during the approach and landing phase and to furnish the
pilot with a decision making display advising him of the
current status of the approach. This represents a significant
departure from present day failure monitoring, which is
limited to examining a particular system or subsystem for
failures only. Although failure monitoring is necessary, it is
not sufficient. A hostile environment (wind shears, bent
ILS beams, etc.) can be just as detrimental to a successful
landing as a system failure and, conversely, some system
failures may not imply an aborted approach.
Basic to the development of a vehicle performance
monitor is the need to continuously compute the height
above the terrain at which the landing is committed. A
second requirement is the capability of continuously
the aircraft longitudinal impact point under the
influence of known closed-loop guidance laws. Presented
here are solutions to these two requirements that are
amenable to a small general- purpose digital computer.
By converting the classical aircraft longitudinal
perturbation equations of motion into state space notation,
and assuming a time polynomial forcing function, the
convolution integral is used to obtain the go-around
The optimal control policy is obtained using the maximum
principle with state and control variable constraints, while
the suboptimal policy is representative of pilot control
actions in a noncritical environment. These solutions are
then approximated by a Taylor series expansion, and the
resulting elements are averaged to form a matrix operator
that can be used for computing the expected altitude loss.
Because the flare maneuver is a closed-loop control
function, it is first necessary to define a specific system
before the desired matrix operator can be obtained.
Although system optimization is somewhat arbitrary in that
a variety of choices exist for the cost functional, it still
presents a valid rationale for selecting a system. The cost
functional chosen here is the weighted sum of the 'miss-
distance' from a desired touchdown point and the squared
normal acceleration during the maneuver. The maximum
principle is used to demonstrate optimality, and the
Newton-Raphson method is used to secure convergence. It
is shown that the resulting optimal trajectories are closely
approximated by a linear system that employs an
exponential flare control law summed with the normal
VOL. AES 9, NO.2 MARCH 1973

Fig. 1. Longitudinal velocity profile.
acceleration. This system is then used to obtain the flare
matrix operator in a manner similar to that used for the
go-around.
11. Equations of motion
Because the go-around and flare maneuvers take place
after acquisition of the instrument landing system (ILS)
glide slope and localizer, only equations of motion
referenced to a nominal (or trim) condition and expressed
as perturbations from this nominal are considered. The
nominal will be defined as an aircraft trimmed about a
2.75-degree glide slope. This leads to the classical airplane
perturbation equations of motion [1], [2]. These
linearized equations are expressed as two uncoupled sets of
three equations each, known as the pitch plane and lateral
plane equations. The pitch plane equations may be
expressed in state space notation [3] as
X = AX + BU (1)
where
X= 4 X 1 state vector
U 2 X 1 control vector
=
A = 4 X 4 system description matrix
B = 4 X 2 control distribution matrix.
Specifically, the elements of X and U are
X1 perturbed velocity
= coefficients. Equations of this type have a solution in the
perturbed angle of attack
X2 =
perturbed pitch angle
X3 =
pitch rate (trim value is zero) -X3
X4 =
perturbed thrust
Ul =
U2 = perturbed elevator deflection angle
and are nondimensional variables. The relationships be- where
tween these perturbed variables and the total variables are
Vx = K1(1 +x1)
VY = k2 + klxl
Now,
VT = (V 2 + v 2)1/2 (2) time, and if ¢(t) can be computed, then the state at any
OtT = k3 +x2 arbitrary time X(t) can be computed in closed form, that is,
OT = k4 +X3 without resort to any type of numerical integration.
with the constants ki derived from the trim conditions. Of the three methods for computing p(t) (exponential
These may be visualized by examining Fig. 1. expansion,
Note that the state vector does not include the vehicle
altitude. From Fig. 1, it is seen that the altitude rate is
given by
dh
- = h = VT sin YT = VT sin (OT-aT) (3)
BUELL ET AL.: AIRCRAFT GO-AROUND & FLARE MANEUVERS
By using equation set (2), expanding and retaining only
first-order terms in the perturbed variables, (3) can be
reduced to
h(t) = ao + a1x1 (t) + a2X2(t) + a3x3(t) (4)
with the coefficients ai obtained from trim conditions.
Thus, if time solutions for X(t) can be obtained in closed
form, then h(t) follows immediately and h(t) is obtained
through a straightforward analytical integration of h(t).
Now consider the first element of the control vector. In
the case of a go-around maneuver, it is valid to assume that
the throttle action of the pilot will be similar to a step
input to maximum allowable thrust. Because of the delay
due to engine dynamics, this may be modeled as
ut (t) =u
max
+ [fu1(to) -1 max &e-t/T (5)
where
X = engine effective time constant = 1/,
UI max = maximum allowable thrust minus trim thrust
u1 (t0) = perturbed thrust at the start of the maneuver.
For the flare maneuver, it is assumed that a throttle retard
schedule is used to achieve near idle thrust at touchdown. If
the retard rate is kt, then the flare thrust law may be
modeled as
ul (t) = ul (to) + k.t(l- et/T). (6)
Equations (5) and (6) will be used as the thrust control laws
for the two maneuvers.
III. Solution of the State Equations
The basic equations of state have been developed as a set
of linear first-order differential equations with constant
time domain of the form
rt
X(t) = 0(t - to)X(to) + | (t - r)BU() dT (7)
3to
4(t), called the state transition matrix, is given by
(t) =exp lAth. (8)
if U is composed of known analytical functions of
Laplace transform, similarity transform), the
similarity transform is used here. In general, this method is
not always possible because of the requirement that the
inverse transformation matrix must exist. However, for
aircraft characterized by (1), the determinant of the
transformation matrix is always nonzero. Consider the
vector Y obtained from X by the transformation matrix T:
281
 X= TY = Y= T-1X (9) is a matrix of transformed eigenvectors with no complex
elements. Thus the equation of state in the X space becomes
where T -1 is the inverse of T and is assumed to exist.
By defining
rt
X(t) = W'Pz(t - to)Z(tO) + W ( '(t -T)W' BU(T) dr
T-hAT= A Jto (16)
T-1B= C, (1
i
U)
with Oz(t) given by
(9) becomes Gt cosbt et sinbt | 0 0
Y=AY+CU. (11) elat sinbt elt cosbt! 0 0
Now, if T is chosen as the matrix of eigenvectors associated
with the eigenvalues of A, then the matrix A will be oz (t) -~ r- - - - - -- -- --- -.

diagonal [31 and 0(t) is simply 0 0 eCtcos dt -Ct sindt

_ 0 0 ect sin dt eCt cos dt
e-Alf o (17)
¢(t)= L° e-k(12) Equation (16) appears formidable in that matrix operations
of the order [4 X 4] [4 X 4] [4 X 4] [4 X 2] [2 X 1J are
required for time solutions.
Although (1) yields distinct, nonzero eigenvalues, which airplanes, allows considerableOz(t),
Fortunately, the form of which is typical for all
simplification. Examining
guarantees the existence of T-1, they are complex-valued
scalars associated with the short period and phugoid /z(t) (17),
it is seen that
longitudinal modes. This will cause T and ' to have
complex elements, which is an undesirable feature for 'Pu -2P1 0 0
subsequent analysis and digital computations. To eliminate 021 'il 0 0
all complex numbers, consider a second transformation
'z (t) 'P33 ] (18) -

Y=LZ LZ=F-Y Z= (13) 0 0 03 3 -04 3

where _0 0 1 '43 '333

I-i o OO Now, by defining the constant matrixes G, P, and Q as

G= W'B
_O Oi I 1i with elements gi and

1 1 0 0
g11 -g21
g21 gll I
10
1~~ 0
0 °
1 -i i 0O P= [W] ----- .
L-1 =-
21 31 -941
0 0 :1

0 0 1 1 0 0 1 g41 g31
o o I -i i
1l2 -922 1 ° °
i=-f.
g22 g12 1 0 0
Then, by combining (11) and (13), the equation of sta[te in Q=-[W]
the Z space is
0 g32 -g42
Z= [L-1 ALI Z + [L-1 T1] BU. (14) ° |0° g42 g321
If the eigenvalues of A are X=a ± ib, c ± id, then
and introducing the state transition vector
a -b j0
b a I O ol 1 (t)
L-1AL = ['4
;-_
02 1(t)
O O c -d t)
0° ° d c 03 3(t)
which is a block diagonal matrix of real num bers. 0( 3[
4 J
Furthermore, the matrix W,
W=TL# ZW L=K' T-, (15) (16) reduces to (for to = 0)
282 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AEROSPACE AND ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS MARCH 1973
 ~~~- 8eMAX
X(t) = R.p(t) + P $(t - r)u (T) dt bOo+ SeMINt 0Ot Lt,
Jo 8(t)=
co

I '
I tM1N , tj4t 6tf

+Q At
0t- ) U2(r) dr (19)
Iof
-- 8eMIN
Fig. 2. Optimal go-around elevator control policy, no state
where ul and u2 are scalars and Ro is the initial value variable constraints.
matrix given by
Zl -1-Z2 I
I
0 0

Z2 Z1 I 0 0 the resultant optimum control law u2 (t) is a rate-limited

[WI ramp to the position limit, as shown in Fig. 2.
Ro= Having established the optimum control law would be
0 0 1 Z3 -Z4 sufficient if the only constraints were on the control vector.
_0 0 1 Z4 Z3 However, the vehicle angle of attack, x2 (t), is constrained
by
with Zi the elements of Z(to). Note that the matrix aT< "max X2(t)<amax -k3 =

operations required for time solutions in the X space have (23)

been reduced to the order of [2] [4 X 41 [4 X 11 [scalar]. 0 when X2 (t) =am ax -k3
Once the scalar time function u2(t) is defined, (19) is used x2(t) =
to obtain X(t). Thus, a control law must be developed that does not
violate (23). Consider the time polynomial
U2 (t) =
U2 0 +J1t + t2 + jFt3 (24)
IV. Computation of the Go-Around Altitude Loss
where the coefficient.Jlis selected as the limit elevator rate
Because the purpose of a go-around maneuver is to abort and the coefficients Sand Vare selected such that
the approach in the most efficient manner, it is appropriate
that the elevator control law be selected such that the
altitude loss is minimized. Thus, the go-around cost
X2(tf)= ammax
-k3, X2(tf) = O. (25)

functional is Then, if tf is selected as the smallest value of t for which

(24) does not violate the constraints of (22), it is proposed
t that this represents an optimum control law. It must be
igla = min-mi -| h-(T) dT ~~~~~~~(20)
(0 remembered that an optimum solution is sought that could
be flown by a pilot, and thus a control law more complex
g
than (24) would be unrealistic. Once on the state variable
where h(r) is given by (4). By augmenting the state vector boundary, the control law is selected such that the
to include this cost functional, i.e., trajectory remains on the boundary until the vehicle sink
rate (-h) passes through zero. In the event that the sink rate
rt h,* dr = . passes through zero prior to achieving (25), the control law
Xn+1(t) I(T) xn =1(t) =-t), remains valid, but the solution is obtained when h(t) = 0.
The method for obtaining the unknown control
coefficients may be seen by examining (19) with the
and employing the maximum principle due to Pontryagin control laws of (5) and (24) included:
[4], [5] it can be shown [31 that the optimum control law, t
u2t, is a simple "bang-bang" controller. Further, a reverse X(t) = ROb(t) + P | (t - r)
time numerical integration of the adjoint system,
n+1 a ,

[Ul max + (u1 0 u-1 max)e #T] dr

i~
X=1i i=1,2, - -,n + L (21)
rt
+Q f(t -r)[u2 +JT+,T2 +.3] di. (26)
shows [3] that the optimal switching function is always of
the same sign. By including the elevator and elevator rate First note that the integrands may be expressed as simple
constraints, time functions by using the state transition vector and
carrying out the integrations. Next observe that, for a given
6emin <u2(t)<bemax set of initial conditions, X(t) is a function of only the three
(22) control coefficients and the desired time t. Further, for a
6emin < 2(t)S emax9 given time t1,
BUELL ET AL.: AIRCRAFT GO-AROUND & FLARE MANEUVERS 283
 LEGEND:
12 ----O FUGHT TEST DATA
-----OPT SOLUTION
10 - TANGENT METHOD _

X(tl ) = [K] x (27) S OPT

6 TANGENT

_
2
where Kis a 4 X 4 matrix of constants obtained by evaluating
the time functions of Equation (26) at ti. Now, if final
values of any three functions of X(tj) are desired,' then
the necessary control coefficients may be computed. As an U
16
a
example, let the elements of K be k1,,i, I = 1,2,3,4, and let
the desired final value functions be xi(t, ) = xi1, i = 1,2,3.
Then

I
604
INITIATE
xi0 -kl,1
1.

kl,3 kl,4 -1 N
"PI
GO-AROUND

Et, 50 *
lo 2,1 N
k2,3 k2,4 x -k N

I
(28)
rA 40

k3,3 k34 x3 -k2,1 Ez

N1 OPT
0 ¢-

30 _
0--
and the remaining value of x4(t,) is computed from (27). TANGENT
Because h(t) given in (4) is a linear function of X(t), it 20 t I a~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~-

-3 -2 -1 0 1
may also be expressed as a combination of simple time TIME - SEC
2 3

functions and the control coefficients. This, in turn, allows Fig. 3. Correlation with flight test data.
h(t) to be easily integrated, yielding h(t) and, for any
desired time t1,
time until the constraint relationships of (22) are satisfied
[hz(tsij [ j (29)
over the closed interval 10,
is then
tt
. The resulting altitude loss
hIFi
Ah = h(tf) -h(to) (31)
where L is a 2 X 4 matrix of constants similar to K. with h(tf) computed from (30).
Combining (27) and (29) gives Obtaining an optimum solution is valid only if the pilot
can be expected to perform in an optimum manner every
Xi (t1) time. Unfortunately, such is not the case, and some type of
upper bound on the expected altitude loss is required.
x2 (t,) Consider, as a second algorithm, using the same polynomial
X3(t1) = M , (30) elevator control law, but selecting the control coefficients
X4(ti) such that
X2 (tf) = mx - k3
h(tl)
h(t,) L X2 (tf) = 0 (32)
where h(tf) = O.
K This algorithm, herein called the tangent method, places the
[M]=EH
L
trajectory tangent to the state variable boundary
simultaneous with achieving h = 0. This method was
selected primarily because it is similar to the way a pilot
Now that the method for computing the desired control performs a go-around maneuver if the situation is not
coefficients has been developed, it only remains to select critical. He desires to keep the maneuver as smooth as
the proper value for tl. This is accomplished by an iteration possible while arresting the sink rate. Obviously, some
procedure that starts with a small value for t, and steps initial conditions do not require aT(tf) = amax for a
solution. This may be easily accommodated by eliminating
1 This is the more general case. If one control coefficient is
the first relationship from (32), setting Vm 0, and solving
known, then only two functions of X(t, ) are required to yield the for a/ and X. The solutions are called degenerate tangent.
two unknown coefficients. Fig. 3 presents a comparison of the two algorithms with
284 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AEROSPACE AND ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS MARCH 1973
one set of DC-9 flight test data. This same agreement was
obtained on all DC-9 flight test data evaluated, provided
pilot pitch and thrust commands were simultaneous.
The two algorithms presented require the use of a large
general-purpose digital computer to obtain solutions.
Obviously, this is unacceptable for airborne use, and a X(t f) .
simplified means of accurately approximating the desired ,ft, -f

prediction is needed. Because a unique maneuver is being ACTA TOUCHDOWN

ACTUAL TOUCHDOWN DESIRED TOUCHDOWN POINT
evaluated, consider expressing the altitude loss as a function POINT I ed
only of the initial conditions (both steady-state and I laI
perturbed variables). Fig. 4. Longitudinal flare profile. The underbars correspond to
Thus, boldface symbols in the text.
Ah = ftk1, X(to)) i = 0, 1, 2, 3. (33)
By performing a second-order Taylor series expansion on f problem may be solved. Fig. 4 presents the longitudinal
about the steady-state conditions, (33) can be expressed as profile of a typical flare maneuver. For military aircraft,
Ah = YTY (34) and especially for naval operations, the important criterion
for a successful landing is the longitudinal (and, of course,
where lateral) touchdown point. The only real concern for
yT = [xI (to), X2(t0) X3(to)? X4(tO) I11 maneuver accelerations and impact sink rate is the vehicle
and structural and aerodynamic limitations. However, for
commercial aircraft (and military transports), the dynamics
of the maneuver are as important as the touchdown point.
a2f\ a2f a2f a2f Thus, the following cost functional and terminal constraints
2 \axi2J ax1,X2 axl,x3 axl,x4 are developed:
O 1 (a a2f a2f af
2 \822 aX2,X3 aX2,X4 ax3 f a dJl+ v| (r)
aTJJU2dT
Jo
a2f af
0 ° 2a ax3,X4 ax4 I h(tf) = 0, h(t) = - 2 ft/sec (36)
where la a and I are given in Fig. 4. Because 1 is the
d~~~~~~~~~~
integrated horizontal velocity, it may be expresseed as

O O O
0
2 4

°
aX4|
f
la= °
If
VT(t, cos TOrt dt -VX [I + xi (t)] dt. O
If
(37)
with all elements of N evaluated at XO = 0. The algorithms Also, the vehicle normal acceleration may be approximated
are used to generate two values for each element of N. By by
averaging these values, the matrix N is developed that
predicts the best estimate for Ah, rather than a minimum or an (t) -i2 (t) X4 (t)- (38)
a maximum. To investigate the accuracy of the Taylor
series expansion, 300 computer runs were made with
As before, define an xn+l member of the state vector as
uniformly distributed random initial conditions. In all
cases, the second-order series expansion had less than a 5
percent error with a near zero mean. As a comparison, a
n =f =

a d' J an()] t
(39)
first-order series expansion was also considered. The errors
and define

I
encountered in this case were as large as 50 percent, and
thus unacceptable. Vx
It is therefore concluded that by precomputing the 01 = - [1 +x1(t)] dt- 1
elements of N as described, (34) presents an acceptable
sgn
J-d
solution to the on-board estimation of the go-around
altitude loss for any arbitrary value of X(to). V 2
92 =P
(40)
32.2
V. Computation of the Longitudinal Touchdown Point
Then xn becomes
As previously stated, it is necessary to define a specific
closed-loop flare mechanization before the flare prediction xn+ 1 (t)= 31(t)[1l+XI(t)J +02 [X2 (t)-X4 (t)] 2. (41)
BUELL ET AL.: AIRCRAFT GO-AROUND & FLARE MANEUVERS
285
 DESIRED XTD = 9001

2
u s 5
, v = 100

200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 '

HORIZONTAL DISTANCE FROM FLARE INITIATION FEET h MEASURED ALTITUDE k CONVERSION FACTOR
an MEASURED NORMAL ACCELERATION T; SYSTEM TIME CONSTANTS
an BAND LIMITED NORMAL ACCELERATION k iJ ADJUSTMENT GAIN

Fig. 5. Op timal flare plots of altitude versus ground distance. Fig. 6. Closed-loop flare mechanization.

By applying the maximum principle, the optimal flare 40

control law u2 (t) is obtained as 35

4 30
25 <AOPTIMAL v
U2 (t) - s(t) 25

2)
202b2 2 2
b222
i=1
E (a2ixi(t)) C 20 - CLOSED LOOP SYSTEM
E 15

10
.X4(t) + ktb2l t(l e-ot) + uI 0 b2l
N
(42)
5 _ <

with a2i and b2i the elements of the description matrixes A 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

and B, and s(t) given by HORIZONTAL DISTANCE FROM FLARE INITIATION FEET
Fig. 7. Comparison of optimal and closed-loop trajectories.
4
s(t) = b2iPi(t) (43)
i=1
with pi(t) the elements of the adjoint vector p(t). h(t) + 4.5 h(t) + 9.0 = 0. (45)
Because the optimum control law is a combination of
the function s(t), the state vector, and time, an iterative
A closed-loop system could be developed that uses (45) as
numerical integration of the optimality equations is the elevator command, but this would not be sufficient to
required. A digital program was written to solve thisapproximate an optimal trajectory for a given Consider a v.

problem using the Newton-Raphson method described in second feed-forward loop that uses normal acceleration. If
[6]. Fig. 5 presents the resulting optimal flare trajectories
the loop gain is adjusted to correspond to the desired value
for various values of v. of 1v, then the sum of the two loops provides the control
However, such an optimal solution has a limited value
law for approximating the desired optimal trajectory. Fig. 6
unless it can be easily applied to a physical system.presents a block diagram for such a system. The altitude
On-board implementation of this optimization process for a
rate h, is obtained from complimentary filtering of the
commercial aircraft would require a large, high-speed digital
altitude and the measured normal acceleration, while the
computer, and thus be cost prohibitive. By examining the
normal acceleration loop uses the measured normal
trajectories of Fig. 5, it is seen that they are of an
acceleration fed through a bandpass filter. The integrator in
exponential form, that is the forward loop is used to eliminate steady-state errors,
and k converts from feet to degrees elevator command 6e .
h(t) + ah(t) + b = 0. (44)
Fig. 7 presents a comparison between the closed-loop
However, with boundary conditions of system and the optimal trajectory for v = 3.5. As may be
seen, the closed-loop mechanization presents a good
h(to) = 36 ft, h(to) = -10 ft/s approximation to the desired trajectory.
Because the system input variables are members of a
= o, A(rt) = -2 ft/s,
h(tf) state vector controlled by an explicit guidance scheme (and
assuming no random disturbances), it is proposed that the
the coefficients a and b may be solved for, and (44) air distance traveled during the flare maneuver is a function
becomes of only the initial conditions X(to). Further, the flare
286 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AEROSPACE AND ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS MARCH 1973
 3
Xl
\+sK 2
-DEG -

REGION I 1 REGION II
l 1. 36
xi-DEG -2 -1 1 2 3
-1 AY-DEG
/ 3.0 \\ REGION SWITCHING
-2 FUNCTION
\ LINEAR
2.5
-3 L V\
APPROXIMATION

2.0 Fig. 9. Flare switching function.

1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
- 0.5

-1. 0
.-1.5
-2.0
-2.5
-3.0

Fig. 8 is a summary plot of (47) where x1 (to) and Ay(to)

Fig. 8. Flare summary plot.
mode is always engaged at a specific altitude and, thus,
h(to) is not a prediction variable. In addition, steady-state
winds are measurable using average sink rate and
were varied between the limits of ± 3 degrees.
If the function XTD could be represented by a Taylor
series expansion, then the flare prediction could be given as
a matrix operator similar to the go-around prediction.
However, XTD, as shown in Fig. 8, is a difficult function to
describe, even if a fourth-order series is used. Consider
separating XTD into two regions by the "float line", as
shown. Then each region could easily be represented by a
second-order expansion of two variables. Region I is
expanded about xl = 0, Ay = - 2 degrees and region II
about xi = 0, Ay = 1.5 degrees, giving the touchdown
predictor equation
XTD = YiTNiYi (48)
where
XI
= Lty +
x1
2

subtracting indicated velocity. This wind velocity can then

be used to correct the air distance, and thus provide a
longitudinal touchdown point. Xl
A digital simulation of the flare control system was
performed for various initial conditions. It was soon Y2 = AY - 1.5
discovered that by adding a simple pitch stabilization loop,
the initial pitch rate x4(to) does not significantly influence
the touchdown point, and the prediction problem is
reduced to a function of three variables. Further, it was The associated region switching function is shown in Fig. 9.
noticed that the effect of a positive x2 (to) was almost the It is now necessary to establish the accuracy of this flare
same as an equivalent negativex3 (to). By defining a new prediction technique. Because one element of the state
variable, called the perturbation flight path angle A'y, as vector was eliminated and two others replaced by an
approximation, certain inaccuracies are anticipated.
A'Y = X3(to) -X2(to), (46) Further, because of the float characteristics of a landing
aircraft, small errors in the measurement of the state
the prediction function becomes variables can lead to a large error in the predicted
touchdown point. It is therefore proposed to associate two
XTD = f(x 1 (to), A'y(to)) (47) longitudinal uncertainties with the prediction. These would
BUELL ET AL.: AIRCRAFT GO-AROUND & FLARE MANEUVERS 287
 xi-DEG 3r
.3 AY
. DEG-
2
A
. * 2 .. * I --100
I.
/I. . .

I1 -150
200'
/ ..
4C
.~~~~~~~~~~ -.
. . I. .
I.1 -3 -2 -1
a _-- I
1
I
2
r
L
3
-200: *.. 1 200
.

-400 . 400
i Xi-DEG
I :
1
I*I-_ - I
/ PREDICTION ERROR
- FEET -
I
XSHORT/1 . 2- \/V XLONG I -2 L
l____
I ___

-2 ; : .I
.3
XLONG
3
AY
Ay-DrEG -DEG-
I 3_ -_100'1 .__ -__
.1 jI 2 - -150'.------
- -200t__-_-
_

illl r--250'- - -
-3 *-I
-2 '. l L -InfI.
illi t?-,O V0--1 i
II 1 2
350' 3 3
t _ , I . ..I 1-I -I
x -DEG
~~ ~ ~ ~ ~
-400 / -200 * : .- 200 400
I'1 L _J
<- . . - . PREDICTION ERROR lII I L--J
.. III2
1

- FEET-
.
.

N- 11-
11-
.
-2 . . . X ____
..
IL _________
L_3
XSHORT N *
_3
- .. ; 'I--XLONG XSHORT

Fig. 10. Summary of flare prediction errors; xi Fig. 11. Flare uncertainty profiles;
variation, A'y variation. Xl ;Xshort variation.

represent long and short tolerances; that is, the prediction VI. Summary and Conclusions
XTD could be longer by as much as Xiong or shorter by This paper has presented a detailed analysis of two
xshort critical aircraft maneuvers. Cost functionals have been
To generate this touchdown "window," 300 flare defined and the associated optimal trajectories obtained.
trajectories were generated using random inputs as initial For the go-around maneuver, the optimal solution is shown
conditions. As in the case of the go-around maneuver, the to involve bounded control and state variables. A
IBM random number generator was used with X(tO) limited polynomial forcing function is proposed that satisfies all
to ± 3 degrees. Fig. 10 presents a summary of these data. constraints. Computational algorithmo are presented for
The dashed lines represent uncertainty limits as a function solving both optimal and suboptimal trajectories. These
of xl(to) or A'y(to). These uncertainties may then be solutions are approximated by a series expansion, and
plotted as shown in Fig. 11. Because the uncertainty formulated as a matrix operator for on-board prediction of
profiles are composed of straight lines, they are easily the go-around altitude loss.
programmed. Thus, the total flare prediction technique is as The optimal flare maneuver is shown to be free of
follows: bounded constraints. The nature of the optimal trajectories
1) Compute the constant matrixes N, and N2. leads to a closed-loop mechanization that uses an
2) Select the region from the switching function. exponential flare law and the normal acceleration. This
3) Compute XTD from (48). closed-loop system is the basis for a flare matrix operator
4) Compute the uncertainties Xiong and Xshort which can be used to obtain on-board predictions of the
aircraft longitudinal touchdown point. Associated
This is the proposed flare prediction technique suggested uncertainties for these predictions are presented.
for on-board implementation. Note that step 1 would be It is concluded that a digital logic network using the
precomputed and stored, as would the switching and go-around altitude loss, the predicted touchdown point, the
uncertainty functions of steps 2 and 4. touchdown uncertainties, and other relevant performance
288 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AEROSPACE AND ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS MARCH 1973
criteria can provide the pilot with a valuable preflare
assessment before he commits the aircraft to the flare
maneuver.
References
[11 J.H. Blackelock, Automatic Control of Aircraft and Missiles.
New York: Wiley, 1965.
[21 C.D. Perkins and R.E. Hage, Airplane Performance, Stability,
and Control. New York: Wiley, 1949.
[3] G.D. Buell, Jr., "On the prediction and optimality of aircraft
maneuvers associated with approach and landing," Ph.D.
dissertation, University of California at Los Angeles, 1969.
[4] L.S. Pontryagin, "Some mathematical problems arising in
connection with the theory of optimal systems of automatic
control," Proc. Acad Sci. (USSR), October 1956.
[5] L.I. Rozoneor, "L.S. Pontryagin's maximum principles in the
theory of optimal systems," Automat. Remote Control (USSR),
vol. 22, October, November, and December 1959.
[6] E. Volganau, "Applications of variational methods to missile
and space vehicle guidance," University of California at Los
Angeles, Rept. 66-11, March 1966.

Glenn D. Buell, Jr. received the B.S. degree from Texas A & M University in 1956, the
M.S. degree from the University of Southern California in 1965, and the Ph.D. degree
from the University of California at Los Angeles in 1969.
He spent many years in the commercial avionics field with Douglas Aircraft Company,
Long Beach, Calif. He is currently the Program Development Engineer for Ship Dynamics
and Control at the Autonetics Division of Rockwell International, Anaheim, Calif. He is
also a former U.S. Air Force pilot with almost 2000 hours in a variety of single- and
multi-engine prop and jet aircraft. He has presented several technical papers.

Cornelius T. Leondes (S'48-M'52-SM57-F'69) was born on July 21, 1927. He received

the B.S.E.E., M.S.E.E., and Ph.D. degrees from the University of Pennsylvania,
Philadelphia, in 1949, 1951, and 1954, respectively.
He is now a Professor with the Department of Engineering Systems, School of
Engineering and Applied Science, University of California, Los Angeles, and serves as
consultant or member of numerous national technical and scientific advisory boards. He
is editor and co-author of several textbooks on systems techniques.
Dr. Leondes is a member of the NATO-AGARD Guidance and Control Technical
Panel. During 1962-1963 he was a Guggenheim Fellow and Fulbright Research Scholar.
In 1970 he was the recipient of the IEEE Baker Prize Award.

BUELL ET AL.: AIRCRAFT GO-AROUND & FLARE MANEUVERS 289