It seems the time has come to combine existing technologies into a system that will enable a single-pilot aircraft to recover itself to the nearest suitable aerodrome in the event of pilot incapacitation. Or at least it is time to try to persuade the certification authorities that such systems should be able to win approval.
Flight International first revealed in its report from this month’s EBACE business aircraft convention in Geneva that Eclipse Aviation’s chief executive Vern Raburn is looking to develop very light jet self-recovery systems. Now his Diamond Aircraft counterpart Christian Dries has said at the ILA air show in Berlin that he is working on deriving such a system from technology being applied to the development of an unmanned air vehicle version of a Diamond light aircraft. Diamond already plans to offer a whole-aircraft recovery parachute as an option in its D-Jet VLJ, but Dries wants to go further.
The issue, however, is more complex than it first appears, and the certification issues – not the ability to create a simple “get-me-home” system – are going to be the problem. Such a system – in its most primitive form – could have been cobbled together at any time since civil aircraft began to make widespread use of satellite navigation systems like GPS. But certification would be unlikely.
It is worth weighing the reasons for having such a system against the issues the regulators have to consider in certificating it. At present, non-commercial flights in small aircraft – whether they are on business or leisure trips – are allowed to be flown by one pilot. If these flights had to be crewed by two professional pilots many of the trips would not take place because it would be too expensive. In the case of air taxi operations, however, under the present rules in most countries, jets would need two pilots. This is where the big prize for operators would be if regulatory agencies would accept that the fitment of an aircraft recovery system would enable them to dispense with the second pilot.
The risk of pilot incapacitation has always been present but, because it is rare, the passengers and the regulators were – and are – prepared to accept it in the case of non-commercial flights in small aircraft. In the absence of an aircraft self-recovery system, the alternatives for passenger survival are to deploy an aircraft parachute, or for one of the passengers to attempt to fly the aircraft. The parachute system has worked many times, most recently this year where it saved the life of the pilot, the aircraft’s only occupant (Flight International, 31 January–6 February). So there is a system for saving lives, but it could let the aircraft and its occupants down in a location which might be hostile (weather, terrain or water) and from which recovery of the aircraft and those on board could be difficult.
The minimum components for an automatic recovery system would be the same as those in some simple UAVs, except that – as currently envisaged – the system would be autonomous rather than remotely piloted. So its essential components are an autopilot/autothrottle system and a navigation/guidance system, plus a terrain awareness and warning system with an integral terrain database. It is almost certain that an additional regulatory requirement for the system would be automatic selection of the on-board transponder to either the standard emergency code or a new one specific to an activated self-recovery system. All these types of equipment or systems exist, but they are normally monitored by human beings.
The regulators will not be intrinsically hostile to the concept of an automatic recovery system, because the only situation in which it would be used would be one in which the lives of the passengers and the incapacitated pilot are at severe risk. It would be unreasonable for certificators to demur over the air traffic control issues because the activation of such a system would be rare, and provided controllers could identify the aircraft and its predicament they could keep other traffic clear of it. So the only issues would be these: how reliable and accurate would this automatic recovery system be? Would it reduce the risk to the passengers significantly compared with alternative systems – including the alternative of a second pilot – without unreasonably risking the lives of people at the airport to which the automatic recovery system would guide the aircraft and land it? And what would such a system cost to buy and maintain?
The answers are in the hands of aircraft and avionics companies. They should go for it.
Source: Flight International
