RU2128600C1 - Control panel; manual control system and method of manual control and stabilization of controllable variable of motion of flying vehicle "argesan" (versions) - Google Patents

Abstract

FIELD: aviation; manufacture of simulators. SUBSTANCE: signal furnished to manual control member is proportional to disturbing action magnitude and direction of action are judge from magnitude and direction of motion of manual control member, thus increasing speed of response, stability and accuracy of control. EFFECT: increased speed of response; enhanced stability and accuracy of control. 9 cl, 33 dwg, 7 tbl

Description

 Remote control and stabilization refers to the technical means of control and display of information, representing the operator an information model of a remotely controlled object.

 The intended area of use of the proposed manual control and stabilization panel is the system of combined control of the movement of aircraft, such as aircraft, as well as simulators of these systems.

 The manual control and stabilization system refers to the technical means of controlling ergatic systems.

 Manual control and stabilization methods relate to operator activity in an ergatic system.

 The intended area of use of the proposed manual control systems and methods is ergatic motion control systems for aircraft, such as aircraft, in combined control mode. Methods of control and stabilization, in addition, can be used in simulators of ergatic aircraft motion control systems.

 Prior art control panels.

 The control panel connects the operator with the control system. It transmits information in two directions: from the operator to the system about the control action of the operator and from the control system to the operator - about the adjustable size of the object. To transmit information from the operator to the system, control sensors are used: direct control wheel, remote control handle [1,2]. To transmit information from the system to the operator, adjustable variable pointers with direct or remote measurement are used [3,4]. At the current level of technological development, these are separate devices located in different places of the machine control post.

 The direct control wheel contains a control lever, a spring loader and a mechanical transmission to an actuator - a hydraulic drive of an object regulatory body.

The remote control handle (Fig. 1) contains: a handle 1, a spring loader 2, a position sensor for the control handle 3. In some handles, the spring loader is made in the form of separate devices: a spring and a damper with a reducer. At the input of the handle is the effort of the operator of the manual system F _p , at the output is the proportional force of the movement of the handle X _p relative to the neutral and the electrical signal of this movement is X _p .

 Direct measurement pointers are devices, for example, gyroscopic, gauge, in which the sensor and pointer are combined in a single device [3,4].

 Indices of remote measurement (Fig. 2) are tracking electromechanical systems that operate on the signals of adjustable sensors located separately from the pointer. The composition of the pointer tracking system includes: pointer arrow 1, angle sensor 2, generator 3, amplifier converter 4, engine 5, gear 6. At the input of the amplifier, signals of the angular position 7, angular velocity 8 of the arrow and the adjustable value of the object 9.

 Direct control steering wheels with mechanical transmission have a large weight, dimensions, complicated maintenance and are replaced by remote control handles on modern aircraft.

 Direct measurement pointers have coarse sensors that are not related to the automatic system, and are used as backup devices on modern aircraft. As the main ones, they are replaced by remote pointers that work on the signals of specialized measuring systems, for example, air signal systems, inertial systems, etc.

 The disadvantage of control panels, including remote control handles and indicators of remote measuring systems, is the irrational use of the operator's control capabilities to control the movement of the aircraft.

 Indices of remote measuring systems are designed for visual reception of information and upper levels of human control. However, in addition to controlling the movement of the aircraft, the operator simultaneously solves parallel tasks: it controls other systems or participates in their work, communicates with ground services, visually observes the off-cab situation, interacts with crew members. Under these conditions, one can only rely on a discrete visual reception of information involving the distribution and switching of attention. Discreteness in the perception of visual information, failures in the distribution and switching of attention when the operator is tired, worsen the quality of management, leading to incidents and disasters.

 At the same time, the human motor analyzer, its peripheral and central parts are irrationally used. It is used to control the control lever with a load that simulates the resistance of the regulatory body of the aircraft. The peripheral part of the motor analyzer in the form of proprioceptive and tendon sensitivity of the neuromuscular system is included directly in the control of the regulatory body of the aircraft, and the central part provides the adaptation of this control in case of changes in the dynamics of the regulatory body [5,6]. Only part of the information received by the motor analyzer, namely, on the regulatory effect on the aircraft, is used to control the aircraft together with visual information at the upper levels of the construction of human movements.

 A motor analyzer could fully take over the functions of controlling the object if, using the control panel, it could transmit information about the controlled size of the object and the disturbing effect in the form of the position of the handle and the disturbing force of the handle on the operator's hand.

 For this, an adjustable variable pointer is required, combined with a control action sensor in a single manual and stabilization control panel.

 The essence of the proposed remote control and stabilization.

 In order for the control action sensor to simultaneously perform the functions of a remote indicator and become a control panel (Fig. 3), it is necessary to execute the arrow of an adjustable variable pointer in the form of a handle, to construct a control panel according to the scheme of a closed indirect system (i.e. with power gain) adjusting the position of the handle.

 For this, it is necessary to replace the mechanical spring and damper of the handle loader with an “electric” spring and damper, using for their construction the sensor of the angular position of the handle 2, generator 3, amplifier-converter 4, engine 5, gearbox 6, similar to those used in the tracking system remote pointer. In the amplifier, in addition to input 7 for connecting the signals of the angle sensor and input 8 for connecting the generator, it is necessary to have an input 9 for connecting a signal of adjustable magnitude of the object and output 10 for connecting the input of the actuator circuit of the control object. The amplifier-converter of the control panel can be digital and include analog-to-digital, digital-to-analog converters and a digital computer.

 There are options for the design of communication between the generator and the engine and the angle sensor with the control handle. The role of the generator can be played by a second engine connected to the first through a gearbox. The need for this option may arise with restrictions on the dimensions of the engine - generator. The angular position sensor can be connected to the control handle through a step-up gear. The need for this option arises in the case of using multi-turn potentiometric angle sensors.

The proposed remote control and stabilization works as follows. The operator’s control effort on the control handle F _p causes the handle to shift relative to the neutral position X _p , which is measured by the angle sensor of the handle 2. The signal from the sensor is amplified by voltage and power by the converter 4 and is supplied to the motor 5, which creates a counteracting moment balancing the force the operator. A closed system of indirect control of the angular position of the handle works as a system for stabilizing the angular position of the handle in the neutral position, and the offset of the handle is a static error of this stabilization. At the same time, the handle shift signal after the amplifier is supplied to the actuator, which rotates the regulatory body, creates a regulatory effect on the object. The magnitude of the displacement of the handle X _p relative to the neutral under the action of the operator’s efforts can be made small by increasing the gain of the amplifier. The resulting deterioration in stability can be compensated by a signal from the generator 3. The signal of the change in the controlled variable of the object from the adjustable variable sensor is supplied to the other input 9 of the amplifier-converter with the sign opposite to the signal from the sensor of the angular position of the handle. In this case, a closed system of indirect control of the position of the handle acts as a tracking system, reproducing the adjustable size of the object in the form of a changing neutral position of the handle X _pa .

If the change in the adjustable size of the object is caused by the operator’s effort, then the tracking system turns the handle in the direction of the operator’s effort. With the beginning of the change in the neutral position of the handle, the operator creates an additional force F _pa proportional to the rate of change of the neutral position, which synchronizes the change in the neutral position of the handle with the change in the adjustable value of the object X _o .

If the change in the controlled variable is caused by a disturbance, the handle tends to turn in the direction of the disturbance. While holding the handle stationary, the operator will create a regulating effect on the object of compensating for disturbance and feel the force F _{at the} side of the handle on the hand, is proportional to the perturbation.

 Due to the operation of the closed system of indirect control of the position of the handle simultaneously in the stabilization and tracking mode with a negligible effect of stabilization on tracking, the control handle can transmit information about the controlled variable and the disturbing effect on the object to the human motor analyzer.

 The wording of the essence of the proposed remote.

 The manual control and stabilization panel solves the problem of creating a kinesthetic indicator of an adjustable amount of movement of the aircraft, combined with an operator control sensor.

 The technical result achieved using the manual control and stabilization panel consists in transmitting information to the engine analyzer about the adjustable amount of movement of the aircraft and the disturbing effect on it in the form of the angular position of the handle and the force of the handle on the operator’s hand while transmitting information about the operator’s control action to the executive manual control system and stabilization.

 This technical result is achieved by executing an arrow of an adjustable variable pointer in the form of a control handle for a sensor of operator control actions and combining an arrow with a handle, constructing a manual control and stabilization panel according to the scheme of a closed system for indirectly controlling the position of the control handle having an input and output for communication with the executive circuit of the manual system control and stabilization.

 Prior art control systems.

Manual control of the aircraft [1,2] is usually implemented in the form of two connected, but separately used systems: manual and semi-automatic (Fig. 4). Each of these systems has its own sensor of the control action, but the common executive device is the steering gear 7 of the manual system, which creates a regulatory effect on the control object F _o . The semi-automatic system has its own steering unit 6, but it is connected in series with the steering system of the manual system 7. Control sensor - control handle 9 with damper 10 has an angular position sensor 11, which creates a setpoint signal for a closed servo system, which includes, apart from the steering unit, the steering drive is also an amplifier-converter 5, an adjustable variable sensor 4 of the control object 8.

 In flight speed control systems, in contrast to angular position control systems, an electric drive is used as an actuator - an actuator of the traction machine.

 In the manual remote control system, the control sensor is a mini-handle 1 with a spring loader 2 and a handle angle sensor 3. The connection between the operator control sensor and the steering gear is electric. In manual systems with direct steering, this linkage is mechanical.

Both in manual and in semi-automatic systems, to control the adjustable value of X _out object 8, a remote pointer is used, including an amplifier-converter 12, an engine 13 connected through a reducer 14 to a generator 16 and an arrow 15. The generator is a speed feedback sensor and can be made as a whole with the engine as an engine generator. The sensor of the angular position of the arrow 17 can be connected with the arrow directly or through a gearbox.

 The advantage of a manual system is the ability to control an object in an open circuit and to obtain the desired steady-state movement without interference caused by the transient process of a closed loop. For this, it is required to create coding movements of the handle, which are associated with the desired change in the controlled variable by the dynamics of the object.

 A drawback of manual systems with both mechanical and electrical transmission of the control signal to the actuator is the heavy workload of the operator’s vision and attention by the stabilization functions, especially when multichannel control of neutral and unstable objects in the event of changing disturbances. This degrades the quality of control while simultaneously solving parallel tasks by the operator.

 The advantage of a semi-automatic system is the unloading of the operator’s vision and attention from performing stabilization functions through the use of an automatic stabilization circuit. The movement of the object is controlled by the movements of the handle, copying the desired movement of the object.

 The disadvantage of a semi-automatic system is that automatic stabilization occurs with a static error, the elimination of which occurs with the participation of the operator’s eyesight and attention. The operator must detect the offset of the aircraft from the set value and compensate for this offset by changing the set value by the amount of error. It is advisable to relieve the operator’s vision and attention by creating a disturbance meter designed to perceive disturbance and subconsciously respond to it with the operator’s hand.

 Another disadvantage of the semi-automatic system is the dynamic errors in tracking an object over the movements of the handle due to transients in a closed stabilization loop. Usually, this drawback is recommended to be eliminated by using an additional direct connection from the handle to the actuator through the inverse transfer function of the object, turning the semi-automatic tracking system into a combined system that is invariant in terms of the setting action [9]. The technical implementation of the inverse transfer function of an object is a difficult task for the designer.

 There is another way to combine signals in the control system. The additional direct signal at the input of the actuator is equivalent to the signal of the manual system and therefore can be replaced by it. In this case, it is necessary to simultaneously and coordinatedly control both manual and semi-automatic systems. If we consider the signal of the manual system as the main signal, then the signal of the semi-automatic system must be formed from the main signal of the manual system through the transfer function of the object, which is easier to implement. Therefore, the idea of a combined manual control system arose.

 In this system, the object is controlled by an open-loop manual system. The feedback of the object is opened by supplying a signal to the semi-automatic input of an equal and opposite in sign feedback signal. This opening is necessary so that feedback does not interfere with manual control. The stabilization of the object in this system is carried out by the feedback loop of the semi-automatic system. The input action in this case is the disturbing effect on the object.

 An attempt was made by helicopter to implement a combined manual system only by technical means in the form of a combined pitch angle control system (Fig. 5). It is a simple combination of manual and semi-automatic systems [10]. The simultaneous operation of the two systems is achieved by installing the sensor 3 of the angular position of the handle of the semi-automatic system, called compensation, on the handle 1. However, the signal of the compensation sensor before being fed to the input of the semi-automatic system is not converted by the link with the transfer function of the object, but is sent directly. As a result of complete compensation in the transient, a feedback signal does not occur with a compensation sensor signal, and a feedback loop consisting of an adjustable sensor 4, an amplifier 5, a steering unit 6, an object 8 interferes with manual control. At the same time, the nature of the control action changes from manual to semi-automatic, although the spring loader of the manual system control lever is retained. Thanks to the automatic stabilization provided by the feedback of the semi-automatic system and helping the pilot to control the helicopter when it is unstable, pilots often use this system. However, at the same time, the manual system control skills are forgotten, which in case of failure of the semi-automatic system makes management difficult.

 The essence of the proposed control and stabilization system.

 In connection with the indicated shortcomings of the combined control system, there is a need for such a combination of manual and semi-automatic systems that would preserve the nature of the control efforts, the systems would work simultaneously, there would be the necessary coordination between the control efforts and there would be the possibility of manual compensation of disturbance.

To do this, you must:
go to the manual remote control system,
replace the remote control handle with the proposed manual control and stabilization panel,
to connect the proposed remote control with the executive circuit of the manual system according to the scheme of a reversible servo control system, namely:
connect the output of the amplifier-converter of the remote control to the steering gear,
the output of the adjustable variable sensor is connected to the input of the remote control amplifier-converter.

 As a result of these changes, the proposed manual control and stabilization system, shown in FIG. 6.

 In this case, the need to switch to a remote-control system is dictated by the complexity of mechanical transmission on modern aircraft, the presence of non-rigidity, and backlashes, which makes it rough and unsuitable for the proposed system. The need to use the proposed remote control follows from the requirement to preserve the nature of the operator's control efforts and coordination between them.

The proposed system is equivalent to two systems: manual and semi-automatic, working simultaneously and coordinated. This follows from the equivalent circuit shown at the bottom of FIG. 7, - b. In this diagram, the manual control panel is presented in the form of separate sensors: a control action F _{p of a} manual system and a set action X _{pa of a} semi-automatic system. The proposed control system is represented by a closed actuating circuit with two inputs from the sensors of the control and setting actions. Sensor manipulated manually remote control system described at forestall (or lag) relative to handle X _p X _O controlled variable object. The setpoint sensor describes the control panel with proportional changes in the neutral position of the handle X _pa and the adjustable value of the object X _o .

The control action of the operator F _p on the handle of the control panel provides the same input signal X _p as in the manual system, due to the action of the "electric" spring. The difference between the control panel and the helm and the remote handle with mechanical spring loaders is that the offset value of the handle from the neutral is small due to the high stiffness of the "electric" spring, but this offset is enough to create a signal of the required value at the input of the actuator using the amplifier-converter devices. Due to this difference, when transferring information about the operator’s effort as a control action to the actuator, the handle practically stands still.

The control action F _{p of the} operator in the proposed system (subject to neglecting transients in the control panel and actuator) can be considered proportional to the control action F _out
F _out = K _f • F _p , (1)
where K _f is the coefficient of proportionality.

In order to maintain the desired nature of the effort of the manual system F _p when changing the neutral position of the handle, the operator must apply additional force to the handle F _PA , as in a semi-automatic system, to overcome the resistance of the "electric" damper. The necessary coordination between the control forces F _p and F _PA , providing the combined nature of the proposed manual system, creates the operator himself. Specified by a force F _pa neutral grip X _na perceived through the position sensor circuit as the executive arm reference variable semi-automatic system.

In the proposed system, there is a connection between the control action of the manual system F _p and the control action of the semi-automatic system X _pa through the transfer function of the object W _about . This follows from the equivalent circuit of the proposed system, depicted at the top of FIG. 7, - a. The control panel is represented by a control sensor F _p and an indicator of the adjustable size of the object X _o , which acts on the synchronizing force of the operator F _PA . The control system is represented by an open executive circuit with inputs for two control forces F _p and F _PA . When applying to the control panel input a signal of an adjustable value X _o with a simultaneous synchronizing effect F _{pa, the} neutral position of the handle X _pa changes in proportion to the controlled size of the object:
X _pa = K ₁ • X _out , (2)
where K ₁ is the coefficient of proportionality.

The relationship between the controlled variable and the regulatory action is determined by the transfer function of the object W ₀
X _O = W _{about O} • F. (3)
Substituting in equation (3) the values of X _o and F _o from equations (1) and (2) is the resulting relationship between the force of the operator F _p and the displacement of the neutral position of the handle X _PA . It is also determined by the transfer function of the object (with the proportionality coefficients indicated above)
X _pa = F _p • K _f • K ₁ • W _about . (4)
Equation (4) proves that in the proposed system, the control handle simulates the dynamics of the control object. This is a hallmark of the proposed system, changing the way of manual control.

Simultaneously with the modeling by the control handle of the dynamics of the aircraft, the task of creating a disturbance meter designed to transmit information about the disturbance to the operator’s hand will also be solved. The disturbing effect F _in (see Fig.6) is compensated by the regulatory action of the actuator of the control system. The compensation signal after the amplifier-converter is also supplied to the control panel engine, which creates a disturbing effect on the control handle. If the operator holds the handle in the same position, then the holding force F _y (after the end of transient processes in the executive circuit) will be proportional to the disturbing effect of F _in . The ability of the proposed system to transmit information to the operator about the disturbing effect on the control object is a hallmark of the proposed system, changing the manual stabilization method.

 The proposed manual control and stabilization system is a reversible servo control system with an adjustable amount of aircraft movement. A mathematical analysis of a reversible servo system for any control objects is given in [11] using an example of a reversible servo system obtained by functional generalization of the links of a symmetric reversible servo drive known in robots and manipulators. This analysis was carried out using the four-terminal mathematical apparatus known in electrical engineering.

During the analysis, the input forces and the moving speeds of the handle of the master circuit are decomposed into the components of idling and short circuit, and the reversible system itself was interpreted as a closed actuating circuit with two inputs, between which there is a relation that allows us to represent it as a tracking system that is invariant in terms of the short circuit component . The relationship between the input idling force F $\genfrac{}{}{0ex}{}{\text{xx}}{\text{in}}$ and the component of the speed of movement of the handle short circuit X $\genfrac{}{}{0ex}{}{\text{KZ}}{\text{in}}$ The conditions under which this relation models the dynamics of the control object are shown.

In this application, the analysis of a reversible servo system is used to describe manual, semi-automatic, combined and proposed systems and methods for controlling and stabilizing these systems. Input idle force F $\genfrac{}{}{0ex}{}{\text{xx}}{\text{in}}$ corresponds to the control force of the manual system F _p . Input Short Circuit Strength F $\genfrac{}{}{0ex}{}{\text{KZ}}{\text{in}}$ corresponds to the control force of the semi-automatic system F _PA . The idle speed component X $\genfrac{}{}{0ex}{}{\text{xx}}{\text{in}}$ corresponds to the deviation of the handle from the neutral position in the manual system X _p . Short-circuit handle speed component X $\genfrac{}{}{0ex}{}{\text{KZ}}{\text{in}}$ corresponds to the movement of the neutral position of the handle in a semi-automatic system X _pa .

 In [12], an analysis was made of the interaction of an operator with a reversible servo system during stabilization of an object. The stabilization process is represented by a combination of two components: manual and automatic. The conditions under which the manual component compensates for the automatic and ensures the invariance of the combined stabilization with respect to the disturbing effect are considered. The conditions found in the application were used to describe the stabilization method with compensation for disturbances without static errors.

 The proposed system works as follows.

When controlling (see Fig. 6), the force of the operator F _p causes a slight shift of the handle X _p (tenths of a degree), as measured by the angle sensor 2. After amplification, this signal is supplied to the actuator 12, which rotates the regulatory body, creating a regulatory effect on the object F _o . Given the neglect of transients in the handle circuit and actuator compared with transients in the object itself, we can consider the regulatory effect on the object F _o proportional to the operator effort F _p . The regulatory effect causes the movement of the object 13 and the change in the controlled variable X _o , measured by the sensor of the controlled variable 11. Further, the closed loop of the handle acts as a tracking system. In order for this system to reproduce an adjustable value without dynamic errors, it is necessary to apply an additional force F _pa to the handle, as in a semi-automatic system. Then the neutral position of the handle X _pa will synchronously repeat the change in the adjustable value. Advance of the angular position of the handle X _p relative to the changing neutral X _pa remains and continues to cause the desired change in the adjustable value.

When stabilizing while holding the handle in the same position by the operator F _{, the} handle circuit opens, only the object circuit works, which stabilizes as in a semi-automatic system with a static error of an adjustable value. To stabilize without a static error, the operator must create with the handle an advance X _to , which through the actuator of the object will cause a compensating effect and prevent the displacement of the object and the occurrence of a static error of an adjustable value.

 When stabilizing with the neutral shift of the handle and the subsequent return of the neutral to its original position, a force is created on the handle as in a manual system that can be closed through the operator, with the difference that the force is formed according to information about the position, rate of change of the neutral of the handle, and not the adjustable value itself.

 Formulation of the essence of the proposed system.

 The system of manual control and stabilization of the adjustable size of the aircraft solves the problem of combining manual and semi-automatic control and stabilization systems with the coordination of the control action of the manual system with the master action of the semi-automatic system through the transfer function of the control object.

The technical result achieved using the manual control and stabilization system consists of:
in subject modeling by the control handle of the dynamics of movement of an aircraft using a controlled aircraft
and reproducing on the handle a disturbing effect on the aircraft.

 This technical result is ensured by the connection of the manual control and stabilization panel with the executive circuit according to the scheme of a reversible servo system.

 The level of control and stabilization methods.

 The operator is the control part of the ergatic control system. It performs the functions of forming the control law and implements them in the form of operations of the control method.

The simplest control function of the operator system is the subject ergatic system (Fig. 8). Given the available data [5,6,7] about the human operator, this system can be represented as a combined control system. Combination is ensured by direct command communication of the neuromuscular system G _p and kinesthetic compensating connection according to the external force G _k . The first connection describes the adaptation of the operator to the load created by various objects in the operator’s hand G _n . The second connection describes the adaptation of the operator to external forces acting on the arm of the operator F _c . The transformation of nerve impulses into effort is interpreted by the link G _a . In addition, there is proprioceptive feedback on arm displacement G _p , describing the possibility of blind hand control, and direct communication through the central nervous system G _e , describing the operator’s adaptation to control objects in the outside world. There are visual inputs for the desired X _in and actual position of the X _out object in the outside world. The part of the circuit corresponding to the central nervous system and visual inputs is considered a single-channel regulator connected to different control channels in series through the central mechanisms of distribution and switching of attention. The part of the scheme corresponding to the neuromuscular system, due to the large number of degrees of freedom of the hand, is considered multichannel. The object of control G _n in this system is the subject - a simple tool located in the operator’s hand. The control law implemented by the operator depends on the dynamics of the item in the operator’s hand. The force F _p applied by the hand to the subject is associated with the movement of the subject together with the arm X _o through the transfer function of the subject G _n .

Among the objects that the operator is able to control are objects that create resistance proportional to the acceleration, speed and movement of objects, as well as combinations of these parameters, for example, oscillatory systems like a pendulum with a support at the top, unstable systems like a pendulum with a support at the bottom. The list of objects that the operator is able to control also includes mechanical systems of objects that have transfer functions similar to aircraft. By controlling the object as a tool of labor, the operator overcomes the resistance of the environment on which he acts. This resistance is perceived as a disturbing effect of F _in and is compensated by the neuromuscular system of the operator.

 The disadvantage of the objective method is the limited efforts, movements, the inability to control objects at a distance, the inability to control objects of a non-mechanical nature.

 The advantage of the objective control method is the high quality of managing objects, adaptability to objects with different and changing dynamics and to different and changing perturbations, as well as the ability to control through several channels simultaneously and in a coordinated manner, with parallel solving semantic tasks that occupy the operator’s vision and attention. The advantages of the objective control method contributed to the emergence of the idea of a quasi-subject (as if subject) control method.

 Abroad, this idea was expressed by James Duke [7,8]. He suggested that the control handle be designed so that the ratio between the force applied to the control handle and the shift of the handle is the same as the ratio between the force applied to the handle and the system output, determined by the dynamics of the object.

 The object model of the dynamics of James Herzog is implemented by the technical means of the handle as a sensor of the operator's control actions and does not include the control object itself. The model uses a single-acting and irreversible handle. It transfers information only from the operator to the object. There is no feedback in the handle on the adjustable value and the disturbing effect on the control object. Therefore, when the dynamics of the control object and the disturbing effect on the object change, the output of the handle will differ from the output of the object. This reduces the role of proprioceptive and tendon feedback in unloading the vision and attention of the operator, leading to a deterioration in the quality of management.

In the ergatic system "operator - remote manual control system" (Fig. 9), the control object W _{о is} connected in series with the operator. Between the operator and the object there were substitutes for the object (control handle G $\genfrac{}{}{0ex}{}{\text{p}}{\text{n}}$ and a pointer of adjustable magnitude), as well as converters of the operator’s control action into the regulatory effect on the object (steering gear) W _{rp of the} controlled variable into a signal for the pointer (pointer gauge) W _do .

 If we assume that the dynamics of the object and the control object are the same, neglecting transients in the transducers of the control action and the controlled variable, then the control law in the remote ergatic system remains the same as in the object system, but it is implemented by the same operator structures differently than in the subject system. Therefore, the remote control method is different from the subject.

When controlling a remote system, control of the controlled variable is only possible visually. Proprioceptive feedback G _p provides handle control. Direct command communication of the neuromuscular system G _p adapts to the dynamics of the handle. Adaptation to the dynamics of the object take on the upper levels of control of the central nervous system G _e . Since, thanks to spring loaders, the force of the hand F _{p is} proportional to the displacement of the handle relative to the neutral X _p , which is perceived by the system as a control action of the operator, the force of the operator in the remote system remains the same as in the subject, however, the movement of the handle X _p under the action of this force does not coincide with adjustable value X _o Therefore, in the remote control method, coding rather than copying movements of the handle are used. These are not natural, but special professional movements. Their creation requires special training. Management skills built on such movements are destroyed during long breaks in work, give failures when tired. In addition, information about the controlled variable is supplied through vision using central mechanisms for the distribution and switching of attention. While solving several parallel problems simultaneously, along with controlling the movement of the object, this leads to discreteness in the perception and processing of information, which affects the quality of control. In addition, the skills of distribution and switching of attention are special, professional skills that are prone to destruction during breaks in work, giving failures when tired.

In the ergatic system "operator-semi-automatic control system" (Fig. 10), a semi-automatic control system of the object is switched on sequentially with the operator. The stabilization functions have been removed from the operator, the control law is implemented by the W _reg regulator, the operator sets the setpoint X _pa , the stabilization system fulfills it. The development can no longer be controlled. Visual feedback on the adjustable value, which was needed in the manual system, is not needed in the semi-automatic. The operator must reproduce the desired movement of the object in the form of changes in the setpoints of the controlled variable X _pa by means of a handle with an angular positioner K _s . The law of handle control - as in the subject system. The guided item is the setting handle G $\genfrac{}{}{0ex}{}{\text{pa}}{\text{n}}$ having resistance proportional to its speed. Therefore, the way to control this handle involves creating a force F _PA proportional to the desired speed of the object. The nature of the control movements is natural, replicating, special training is not necessary. The stabilization system counteracts disturbances, provides stability in addition to the operator.

 However, the stabilization system fulfills the setpoint with a dynamic error and counteracts disturbances with dynamic and static errors. The magnitude of these errors depends on the dynamics of the closed loop stabilization and the operator cannot change their magnitude. The object poorly "walks" behind the handle.

In the ergatic system "operator - the existing system of combined control" (Fig. 11), a simple combination of manual and semi-automatic systems is included in sequence with the operator. The combination is simple because the connection between manual and semi-automatic inputs is proportional. This communication is carried out using a compensation sensor K _{d the} signal from which is fed to the input of the autopilot W _ap . Moving the helm using a mechanical transmission is fed to the manual input of the combined steering gear W _RP controlling the control object W _about .

Before combining these systems, various signals were received at their inputs and their control handles had different loading devices. At the input of the manual system, a handle shift signal X _p relative to the neutral position was received, the loader was spring loaded. The input of the semi-automatic system received a signal of changes in the neutral position of the handle X _pa . The loader was damping. When combining the systems, the handle and loader remained from the manual system G _n . However, the movements of the handle for control are needed the same as in the semi-automatic system X _pa , i.e. copying, not coding, since the combination of these systems by the principle of action remains a tracking system, although with an additional direct connection. In this regard, when controlling the combined control system to create a given handle movement, it is necessary to apply a force F _s different from the forces in both the manual system F _p and the semi-automatic F _pa .

Adaptation to the new loading device of the combined control system as compared to the loading device of the semi-automatic system is provided inside the operator by direct command communication with the neuromuscular system G _p . The operator does not have difficulties with this device. However, at the same time, a new management skill is formed, and with its frequent use, the previous skills of manual and semi-automatic control are forgotten and care must be taken to maintain them. In addition, the combined control system itself does not have coordination between manual and semi-automatic inputs through the transfer function of the control object, and therefore dynamic errors remain when the object follows the control handle. The advantages of the semi-automatic system in the combined control system are preserved, i.e. the automatic stabilization circuit still provides system stability and resistance to disturbances other than the operator, albeit with a static error.

 The essence of the proposed methods of control and stabilization.

You can avoid dynamic playback errors of a given value by simultaneously controlling the manual and semi-automatic systems with two handles and coordinating the handle force in the manual system F _p with moving the handle in the semi-automatic system X _pa through the model of the transfer function of the object W _MD . The implementation of this model by the operator using two handles greatly complicates the control method. Implementation by technical means requires changing the parameters of the model when changing the parameters of the object itself. In addition, a static stabilization error remains. Therefore, there was a need to combine the handles and build a subject model of the transfer function of the object using the object itself.

 This problem is solved by the proposed system of manual control and stabilization, in which both handles are combined into one handle, simulating the dynamics of the object using the object itself.

 In this case, the control and stabilization method is simplified. The instructions to the operator prescribe: to set the desired value of the controlled variable and stabilize it at this value by setting the position of the handle and holding it at the set value by the control and stabilizing forces generated by the skills of direct (objective) control and stabilization of the handle as a mechanical analogue of the control and stabilization object .

In the ergatic system "operator - the proposed system of manual control and stabilization" (Fig. 12) when controlling the object, the operator through direct command communication with the neuromuscular system G _p , which implements the inverse transfer function of the object, converts the desired movement of the object X _I to the control force control handle F _p , the same in nature as in the manual control system. Under the influence of this force, the handle W ₁ moves relative to the neutral, as in a manual system. The magnitude of this offset X _p , its speed X _p measured by the angular position sensors W ₂ and the generator W ₃ . The bias signal after amplification by the amplifier W ₄ is supplied to the motor W ₅ , which creates resistance to the operator’s effort and stops this bias. The magnitude of the shift of the handle X _p , due to the large gain of the amplifier-converter, is negligible. The operator does not notice this displacement, perceives the handle as motionless and feels only its resistance, equal to its force. The signal of this bias after amplification is converted by the actuator and the regulator of the object W _RP into the regulating effect on the object F _o and causes its movement X _o . An adjustable value sensor W _do measures this movement and sends a signal to the input of the control panel, which works as a tracking system, reproducing in the form of changes in the neutral position of the handle X _{pa the} adjustable value of the object X _o . The operator creates an additional force F _pa proportional to the speed of the handle, as in a semi-automatic system. This force synchronizes the changes in the neutral position of the handle and the adjustable value of the object X _pa . Changing the neutral position of the handle X _PA under the action of a force similar to the force in the manual system F _p , objectively simulates the dynamics of the object. Moreover, when modeling, a real object W _{о is used} . If its dynamics changes, then the dynamics of the subject model also changes. Due to the synchronizing force, similar to the force in a semi-automatic system, the change in the adjustable value is compensated by the change in the neutral position and the feedback loop for the adjustable value is opened and does not interfere with manual control.

Due to the fact that along with the main force causing the desired movement of the object, the operator applies an additional synchronizing force F _pa proportional to the speed of the object, the handle as a mechanical analogue of the object is equivalent to the damped object.

 With manual stabilization of the object, variants of the stabilization method are possible depending on the stabilization principle implemented by the operator: perturbation and deviation.

With manual stabilization by disturbance (Fig. 13), the object circuit together with the handle motor G $\genfrac{}{}{0ex}{}{\text{and}}{\text{21}}$ used as a disturbance meter. In response to the hand force exerted on the hand, the operator, using compensating kinesthetic coupling, creates a force F _σ , oppositely directed and greater than the disturbing effect of the handle F _y on the operator’s hand, by the amount of compensation force F _k . This effort is proposed by the manual control system that simulates the handle dynamics of the object W _MD , is converted into a compensating movement of the handle X _k . Next, the compensating shift of the handle is converted by the executive circuit of the object G $\genfrac{}{}{0ex}{}{\text{and}}{\text{12}}$ into a change in the controlled variable of the object, equal in magnitude and opposite in sign to the change in the controlled variable from the disturbing effect created by the executive circuit of the object G $\genfrac{}{}{0ex}{}{\text{and}}{\text{eleven}}$ . As a result, the total change in the controlled variable is zero. With respect to the force F _σ created by the kinesthetic connection G _k , the compensating shift of the handle X _k is a shift relative to the neutral. It is not accompanied by a shift in the neutral of the handle itself. Due to the lack of shift in the neutral position of the handle, the proprioceptive sensitivity G _{p of the} operator does not work.

With manual stabilization by deviation (Fig. 14), the operator allows the neutral position of the handle X to be shifted $\genfrac{}{}{0ex}{}{\text{pa}}{\text{y}}$ in the direction of perturbation, applying a counteracting force F _OS proportional to this displacement and the displacement velocity. This effort is created by the operator’s neuromuscular system based on signals of proprioceptive sensitivity, which responds to a shift in the neutral position of the arm along with the handle. Due to this force, the shift of the neutral position of the handle is stopped. This also results in a shift of the handle relative to the neutral X $\genfrac{}{}{0ex}{}{\text{p}}{\text{y}}$ , similar to compensating movement X _to . Therefore, the total result of the transformation of the disturbance F _in and the shift of the handle relative to the neutral X $\genfrac{}{}{0ex}{}{\text{p}}{\text{y}}$ executive circuit of the object with transfer functions G $\genfrac{}{}{0ex}{}{\text{and}}{\text{12}}$ , G $\genfrac{}{}{0ex}{}{\text{and}}{\text{eleven}}$ the output is zero. In contrast to stabilization by disturbance, stabilization by deviation at the output of the object causes a change in the controlled variable X _o as a result of conversion by the executive circuit with the transfer function G $\genfrac{}{}{0ex}{}{\text{and}}{\text{12}}$ Handle Neutral Offsets X $\genfrac{}{}{0ex}{}{\text{pa}}{\text{y}}$ . The amount of displacement of the neutral position of the handle under the action of a disturbance depends on the stiffness, damping, and initial position of the arm posture, which are regulated by the operator.

A special case of manual stabilization by deviation is possible when the shift of the neutral position of the handle X _pa under the action of a disturbance is equal in magnitude and opposite in sign to the shift of the handle from the neutral X $\genfrac{}{}{0ex}{}{\text{p}}{\text{y}}$ from the efforts of the operator. In this case, the handle contour is opened by this force, and the object is stabilized only by the object contour G $\genfrac{}{}{0ex}{}{\text{and}}{\text{eleven}}$ as in a semi-automatic system with a constant setting. This stabilization is carried out with a static error, the value of which is small due to the high stiffness of the "electric" handle spring.

 The wording of the essence of the proposed method.

 A method of controlling and stabilizing an adjustable amount of aircraft movement solves the problem of unloading the operator’s vision and attention to solve parallel problems by including the operator’s kinesthesia in the process of controlling and stabilizing an adjustable amount of aircraft motion.

 The technical result achieved in the ergatic system "operator - manual control and stabilization system", which implements the control and stabilization method, consists in increasing the accuracy, speed, stability of the process of controlling the adjustable magnitude of the aircraft motion while solving parallel problems.

 This technical result is ensured by using a manual control and stabilization system by applying skills to control and stabilize an adjustable amount of aircraft movement, direct (subject) control of a handle having a dynamics similar to that of an aircraft.

Manual control and stabilization system:
perceive the control and stabilizing efforts of the operator on the control handle and create a regulatory effect on the aircraft,
display in the dynamics of the control knob an adjustable value, regulating and disturbing effects on the aircraft.

 By controlling and stabilizing efforts of the operator, they set the desired value of the adjustable amount of movement of the aircraft and stabilize it at this value by setting the position of the handle proportional to the desired value and holding the handle in a predetermined position.

 The list of drawings.

 FIG. 1. The structural diagram of the remote control handle.

 FIG. 2. The structural diagram of the remote pointer.

 FIG. 3. The structural diagram of the remote control and stabilization.

 FIG. 4. The block diagram of the connection of manual and semi-automatic control systems.

 FIG. 5. The structural diagram of the existing system of combined control of the helicopter.

 FIG. 6. The structural diagram of the proposed system of manual control and stabilization of the aircraft.

 FIG. 7. Equivalent structural diagrams of the proposed system of manual control and stabilization of the aircraft.

 FIG. 8. Hypothetical structural diagram of the subject ergatic system.

 FIG. 9. The structural diagram of the ergatic system "operator - remote manual control system."

 FIG. 10. The structural diagram of the ergatic system "operator - semi-automatic control system."

 FIG. 11. The structural diagram of the ergatic system "operator-existing system of combined control" under control.

 FIG. 12. The structural diagram of the ergatic system "operator - the proposed system of manual control and stabilization" under control.

 FIG. 13. The structural diagram of the ergatic system "operator - the proposed system of manual control and stabilization" with stabilization with error compensation.

 FIG. 14. The structural diagram of the ergatic system "operator - the proposed system of manual control and stabilization" during stabilization with adjustable error.

 FIG. 15. The transition process of the remote control and stabilization.

 FIG. 16. The Lissajous figure of the proposed pitch control and helicopter stabilization system.

 FIG. 17. The Lissajous figure of the proposed system for manual control and stabilization of the helicopter by yaw.

 FIG. 18. Lissajous figure of the existing system of combined helicopter pitch control.

 FIG. 19. Lissajous figure of the existing system for manual control of the helicopter by yaw.

 FIG. 20. Phase trajectory of the aircraft turning along the pitch angle with stabilization of the flight speed by the existing manual control systems of the first operator.

 FIG. 21. Phase trajectory of the aircraft turning along the pitch angle with stabilization of the flight speed by the existing manual control systems of the second operator.

 FIG. 22. Phase trajectory of the aircraft turning along the pitch angle with stabilization of flight speed by the proposed manual control and stabilization systems by the first operator.

 FIG. 23. Phase trajectory of the aircraft turning along the pitch angle with stabilization of flight speed by the proposed manual control and stabilization systems by the second operator.

 FIG. 24. The phase path of stabilization of the helicopter to roll and yaw by existing manual systems by the first operator.

 FIG. 25. The phase trajectory of the stabilization of the helicopter by roll and yaw by the existing manual systems by the second operator.

 FIG. 26. The phase path of stabilization of the helicopter in roll and yaw by the proposed manual control and stabilization systems by the first operator.

 FIG. 27. Phase trajectory of stabilization of the helicopter by roll and yaw by the proposed manual control and stabilization systems by the second operator.

 FIG. 28. Phase trajectory of the helicopter turning along the roll and yaw by the existing manual systems by the first operator.

 FIG. 29. The phase trajectory of the helicopter turning along the roll and yaw by the proposed manual control and stabilization systems by the first operator.

 FIG. 30. The process of program control of a helicopter by yawing the existing manual system by a third operator.

 FIG. 31. The process of programmed control of the helicopter by yaw of the proposed manual control and stabilization system by a third operator.

 FIG. 32. The process of programmed helicopter pitch control by the existing system of combined control of the fourth operator.

 FIG. 33. The process of programmed helicopter pitch control by the proposed manual control and stabilization system by the fourth operator.

 Information confirming the possibility of implementing the proposed remote control, systems, control and stabilization methods.

 Of the known technical devices built according to the scheme of a closed system of indirect control of the angular position of the object, including the output shaft, the sensor of the angular position of the output shaft, the engine is a generator with a reducer, characteristics close to the desired characteristics of the control panel have electric autopilot servos. They are servo systems operating under loads on the output shaft of the same order as the control action of the operator and have the same order range of angular displacements and angular velocities as the control object. Compared to the remote control, the servo drive has a lower transmission coefficient of the amplifier and there is no control handle on the output shaft.

 For the specific performance of the proposed control panel, a steering machine and a magnetic amplifier-converter of power of the autopilot AP-28L1 of the AN-24 aircraft were used. As a general summing amplifier of the handle and object circuits, a direct current amplifier-converter of an analog computer МН-10 m was used.

 The proposed manual control and stabilization system was reproduced by the semi-natural simulation method. The two control panels described above were created in kind. Actuators, a control object, and adjustable-size sensors were modeled on an MN-10 m analog computer. In one experiment, the longitudinal movement of the TU-154 aircraft was modeled, in the other, the longitudinal and lateral movement of the MI-6 helicopter. Simultaneously with the object, actuators of manual and semi-automatic control systems, sensors of adjustable size of the semi-automatic system and remote indicators of these aircraft were modeled. In aircraft longitudinal motion control systems, one remote control was used to control the pitch angle, another remote control to control the flight speed. In helicopter lateral motion control systems, one remote control was used to control the angle of heel, the other to control the yaw angle. The helicopter longitudinal motion control systems used one pitch angle control panel. Control panels by changing the gain of the amplifier, disabling feedback on the adjustable size of the object (angular position or flight speed), as well as the angular position of the handle were transferred to the simulation mode of the control sensors for manual, combined control systems.

 The effectiveness of the proposed manual control and stabilization panel was assessed by the accuracy and speed of the control handle reproducing the value of the controlled variable when changing the control action of the operator on the control handle. The accuracy criteria were chosen the magnitude of the static error of reproduction at the maximum control action of the operator and the magnitude of the overshoot of the transient process when removing the control action. The performance criterion was selected regulation time, determined by the moment of transition in the tolerance tube 10%.

The proposed manual control and stabilization panel as a closed system of indirect control of the position of the control handle was tested by removing the transient process of the angular position of the handle when removing the jump control action of the operator. The shift of the angular position of the handle relative to the neutral X _{p was} measured under the action of the operator's control effort (as a static error), the overshoot value σ and the regulation time t _reg . The transient view of the control panel and the measurement results of the above parameters are presented in FIG. 15. These results show that the transition process in the control panel ends in 0.4 s, the overshoot is 15%, the static error is 0.3 ^o at a moment jump of 8.8 nm. For control times, measured in several seconds, and a range of changes in the neutral position of the handle, measured in tens of degrees, these data give reason to neglect transients of the control panel (control time and static error) when considering processes in the operator-control system.

The magnitude of the shift handle of the manual system with the same operator effort of 5 kg on the shoulder of 0.16 m was 26 ^o . The same moment of resistance of the handle of a semi-automatic system occurred at a speed of its movement up to 90 ^o / s.

The effectiveness of control systems was evaluated by the accuracy of reproduction with an adjustable value of the values specified by the handle. The criterion of accuracy was the phase shift ΔΦ between changes in a given δ _p and an adjustable X _output value. When testing the system with the control handle, sinusoidal oscillations of the angular position of the helicopter were set and the phase shift between the oscillations of the handle and the helicopter was determined using the Lissajous figures. For this purpose, the oscillations ψ, ϑ of the helicopter are recorded on the ordinate axis along the ordinate axis, and the fluctuations δ _{p of the} handle along the abscissa axis. These figures are shown in FIG. 16, FIG. 17 for the proposed manual control system, FIG. 18 for the existing combined control system, FIG. 19 for the existing manual control system. The closed curve of the Lissajous figure was approximated by an ellipse. The phase shift for the proposed and combined control systems was estimated by the formula
ΔΦ = arcsin A ₀ / A _max ,
where A _max - the value of the amplitude of the signal of an adjustable value;
A ₀ - the current value of the signal of adjustable value at the moment of zero value of the signal of the handle.

The phase shift for the existing system was estimated by the formula
ΔΦ = 180 ^o -arcsin A ₀ / A _max .
The proposed system in a helicopter version was tested by the semi-natural simulation method by comparing it with the existing combined pitch control system and the existing manual yaw system. Comparison with the existing manual yaw system was carried out in anticipation of future three-axis helicopter control levers for pitch, roll, yaw (slip). The results of the accuracy assessment for the phase shift are shown in table 1.

 From the data given in table 1, it follows that the accuracy of reproducing the angular position of the helicopter in the angular position of the handle in the existing combined control system is 11 times higher than in the existing manual control system and higher in the proposed manual control and stabilization system than in the existing combined control system management, 2.5 times.

 The proposed and existing methods of manual control and stabilization were tested by a semi-natural simulation method with the participation of an operator, and two interpretations of the proposed system were used to compare systems.

 According to the first interpretation, the proposed system is equivalent to two systems: manual and semi-automatic, working simultaneously and coordinated by the operator. There is no simultaneous operation of both systems on the plane. This mode, called combined, is only available in a helicopter. Moreover, the combination of manual and automatic systems is carried out by technical means. To assess the effectiveness of the distribution options for the coordination functions of manual and semi-automatic systems between the operator and the machine, it is advisable to compare the control method of the proposed manual control and stabilization system with the control method of the existing combined control system. Such a comparison is possible and carried out only for a helicopter.

 According to the second interpretation, the proposed manual control system is equivalent to a manual control system with a new adjustable indicator. To assess the effectiveness of control methods for manual systems with different pointers, it is advisable to compare the control method of the proposed manual control system with the control methods of existing manual control systems. This is possible and carried out both for aircraft and for helicopters.

 A TU-134 professional pilot, a professional airplane control system engineer, two helicopter control system professional engineers, an airplane and helicopter control system professional engineer and a lay graduate were selected as operators for testing control and stabilization methods; schools. Participation in the testing of professionals in aircraft and helicopter control systems reduced the learning process, reduced the number of control training samples to four. The fifth control test was valid. Non-professional participation was necessary to identify the possibilities of managing the proposed system based on the skills of direct (substantive) control of the handle.

 Before the control trials, the operators were trained in the ranges of control efforts, handle movements, the connection of the directions of efforts, the movements of the handles with the direction and rate of change of the controlled variable. All operators were informed of the approximate control law, which they had to implement in the control method. It corresponded to the management of the slow transient components of linear models of aircraft and helicopters. The approximate law was corrected when carrying out training tests of control by the operator himself.

 When controlling the longitudinal movement of the aircraft, the operator was given the task in the channel to control the pitch angle to transfer the plane from the initial angular position to the specified one, in the channel for controlling the flight speed — to keep the flight speed unchanged. When stabilizing the lateral movement of the helicopter, the operator was tasked with keeping the helicopter in an unchanged position along the angle of heel and yaw when exposed to a disturbing moment around the longitudinal axis. When controlling the lateral movement of the helicopter, the operator was tasked with transferring the helicopter from its initial angular position to a predetermined position along two channels: roll and yaw with a disturbing moment around the longitudinal axis.

 Yaw and pitch helicopter control systems were tested in the program control problem. A given program for changing the pitch or yaw angle was made up of two half-sine waves of the same period and different amplitudes, joined together. There was no outrage.

 The wording of the control laws for the proposed method differed from the wording for the manual method in that instead of deflecting the handle, the force on the handle was indicated, instead of the movements and speeds of the object, the movements and speeds of the neutral position of the handle were indicated.

The effectiveness of control and stabilization methods was evaluated by the accuracy of ergatic systems. The criterion for the accuracy of the transfer of the aircraft from the initial angular position to the specified one was the maximum value of the object’s reverse motion during the translation Δϑ _max and the deviation from the set value at the end of the translation Δϑ _k . The criterion for the accuracy of stabilization of the flight speed was the maximum deviation of the speed from the set value Δv _max and the deviation from the set value at the end of the translation Δv _k .
As an example, records of typical control processes (ϑ, v) of two operators in the form of phase trajectories in FIG. 20, FIG. 21 for the existing manual method and in FIG. 22, FIG. 23 for the proposed manual method. The results of the evaluation of these processes according to the specified criteria are shown in table 2.

 From the data of table 2 it follows that the proposed manual method allows you to more accurately transfer the aircraft from its initial angular position to a predetermined one and more accurately keep the flight speed at a given value than the existing manual method by about 2 times.

 The criterion for the accuracy of stabilization of the helicopter at the same time according to the angle of heel and yaw was chosen the maximum deviation of the angular position along the angle of heel and yaw. For example, the phase trajectories of the processes are taken: in FIG. 24, FIG. 25 for the existing manual method, FIG. 26, FIG. 27 for the proposed manual method. The results of the assessment of management processes by the specified criteria for both methods are shown in table 3.

 From the data of table 3 it follows that the stabilization of the angular position in the side channel by the proposed manual method is an order of magnitude more accurate than the existing manual method, while manual stabilization without errors is possible.

The accuracy criteria for helicopter turns at given angles (roll and yaw at the same time) were the deviations from the set value of the angular position at the end of the turn (Δγ _k , Δψ _k ) and the maximum values of the return movement during the turn (Δγ _max , Δψ _max ). As an example, the phase trajectories of the control processes of the same operator in FIG. 28 in the existing manual manner, in FIG. 29 of the proposed manual method. The results of the evaluation of these processes according to the specified criteria are presented in table 4.

 From the data of table 4 it follows that the accuracy of the output of the helicopter to a given angular position by the proposed manual method can be several times higher than the existing manual control method. In addition, during a U-turn by the proposed manual method, no return movements are created.

 The accuracy criterion for programmed control of the helicopter by pitch and yaw angles was the deviation of the amplitudes and half-periods of large and small oscillations from the values specified by the program for the values of Ab, Am, Tb / 2, and Tm / 2. As an example, records of program control processes along the yaw angle ψ in FIG. 30 existing manual and in FIG. 31 by the manual methods proposed by the third operator, as well as by pitch angle ϑ in FIG. 32 existing combined, in FIG. 33 of the proposed manual methods for controlling the fourth operator. The results of the evaluation of program control processes by the yaw angle ψ are given in table 5, and by the pitch angle ϑ in table 6.

 From the data given in tables 5, 6, it follows that program control of the proposed manual method is 2-3 times more accurate than the existing manual or existing combined methods.

 The summary table 7 systematizes the results of evaluating the accuracy of control of the aircraft and helicopter. From the data given in table 7, it follows that the proposed manual control system allows you to increase several times the accuracy of the output of the aircraft at a given angular position (both during the withdrawal and at the end of it), as well as the accuracy of stabilization in the initial position. This will allow the aircraft operator to solve tasks of a higher class in less time with less control costs: equipment resource, fuel consumption, and his health.

List of references
1. G.V. Anisimov. The theory of semi-automatic aircraft control. Riga. RCIIGA, 1977, pp. 40-55.

 2. G.V. Anisimov. Automatic control systems of foreign aircraft. Riga. RCIIGA, 1990 p. 76.

 3. O. I. Mikhailov, I. M. Kozlov, F.S. Gergel. Aviation devices. M. Engineering. 1977 p. 92.97,401.

 4. N.P. Annenkov. Instrumentation equipment of the TU-154 B-2 aircraft and its flight operation. M. "Air transport". 1984 p. 12.31.94.

 5. Naslen P., Raul E., Continuous and impulse model of a human operator as a link in a control system. Report at the 2nd IFAK Congress. September 4, 63, the city of Basel.

 6. Mac Ruer D.T., Krendel E.S. The concept of a man-machine system. Proceedings of the Institute of Radio Engineers. 1962 N 5.

 7.T.B. Sheridan, U.R. Ferrell. Human machine systems. Models of information processing, management and decision-making by the human operator. Translation from English / ed. K.V. Frolova. M. Engineering, 1980 p. 258.

 8. Herzog. J.H., 1968. Manual Control Using the Matched Manipulator Control Technique. IEEE Trans. Man-Machine Systems, MMS-9, No. 3: 56-60.

 9. V.A. Bessekersky, E.P. Popov. Theory of automatic control systems. M. Publishing House "Science". The main edition of the physical and mathematical literature, 1975 p. 252.

 10. A.A. Krasovsky. Automatic flight control systems for manned aircraft. M. Edition of the VVIA them. N.E. Zhukovsky, 1971 p. 405.

 11. V.I. Kashmatov. Invariance in the component of the driving action in a reversible servo system. In the collection of scientific works "Ergonomic safety issues." Kiev. KIIGA, 1987.p. 79.

 12. V.I. Kashmatov. Invariance in disturbance in the system “operator-reversible tracking control system” in the collection of scientific papers “ergonomic evaluation of ergatic systems“ crew-plane ”and“ crew-simulator. ”Kiev. KIIGA, 1990, p. 66.

Claims (9)

 1. The remote control and stabilization of the adjustable amount of movement of an aircraft, such as an aircraft, including an arrow and a control handle, characterized in that the arrow is made in the form of a handle and combined with it, the remote control and stabilization console is built according to the scheme of a closed system of indirect position control the control handle, which (the system) has an input and an output for communication with the executive circuit of a manual control and stabilization system.  2. The remote control according to claim 1, characterized in that in a closed system of indirect control of the position of the control handle to the control handle through the gearbox, an engine, a generator and a position sensor of the control handle are connected, the outputs of the position sensor of the handle and generator are connected to the inputs, and the motor control winding is connected with the output of the amplifier-converter of signals of the control panel, the amplifier-converter of signals of the control panel has an additional input and output for communication with the executive circuit of the manual system equalization and stabilization.  3. The system of manual control and stabilization of the adjustable amount of movement of the aircraft, including the Executive circuit, consisting of a serial connection of the actuator, the aircraft as an object to control its movement, and a sensor of adjustable magnitude of the movement of the aircraft, characterized in that the control and stabilization panel is made according to claim 1 and connected to the Executive circuit according to the scheme of a reversible servo control system and stabilization of the adjustable amount of movement of the flyer Foot machine.  4. The system according to claim 3, characterized in that in the reversible servo control system and stabilization of the adjustable amount of movement of the aircraft, the control and stabilization panel is made according to claim 2, the output of the sensor of the adjustable amount of movement of the aircraft is connected to an additional input of the remote control signal amplifier-converter and the additional output of the amplifier-converter of signals from the console is connected to the input of the actuator of the manual control and stabilization system.  5. The method of manual control and stabilization of the controlled movement of the aircraft, including discrete visual control of the controlled movement of the aircraft in the device or the environment, characterized in that using the manual control and stabilization system according to claim 3, the operator controls and stabilizes the control handle and create a regulatory effect on the aircraft, display in the dynamics of the control handle an adjustable value, a regulating and disturbing influencing the aircraft, set the desired value of the controlled movement of the aircraft and stabilize it at this value by setting the position of the control handle and holding it in the position by the control and stabilizing efforts of the operator on the control handle, and the control and stabilizing efforts of the operator on the control handle create using the skills of direct control and stabilization of the control handle of the manual system.  6. The method according to claim 5, characterized in that, using the manual control and stabilization system according to claim 4, the adjustable amount of movement of the aircraft is displayed in the form of a neutral position of the handle, the regulatory effect is in the form of a counteracting engine effort, the regulating effect on the aircraft and the counteracting force of the engine on the handle is created depending on the change in the adjustable value, the neutral position of the handle and the shift of the handle relative to the neutral position, the shift of the handle relatively neutral position create the main control effort of the operator on the handle, an additional control force on the handle synchronize the change in the neutral position of the handle with a change in the adjustable value, the main and additional control efforts on the handle create a change in the neutral position of the handle proportional to the desired change in the adjustable value, and the main and additional control operator's efforts on the handle create with the help of direct control skill Handles manual system.  7. The method according to claim 5, characterized in that using the manual control and stabilization system according to claim 4, the setpoint of the adjustable value is displayed in the form of a predetermined neutral position of the handle, the disturbing effect on the aircraft is in the form of a disturbing force of the engine on the handle, regulating the effect on the aircraft and the disturbing effect of the engine on the handle are created depending on the adjustable size, the neutral position of the handle and the offset of the handle relative to the neutral position, offset e of an adjustable value relative to a predetermined value is created by a perturbing effect on the aircraft, a shift of the handle relative to a predetermined neutral position is created by the stabilizing force of the operator on the control handle, the adjustable value is stabilized at a predetermined value by a perturbing effect on the aircraft, counteracting the stabilizing force on the handle by changing the predetermined neutral position of the handle from the disturbing force of the engine to the handle, and the stabilizing force to Handles create using skills immediate stabilization control lever manual system.  8. The method according to claim 7, characterized in that the adjustable value is stabilized at a predetermined value without dynamic and static errors, while keeping the stabilizing force of the operator on the handle, the neutral position of the handle without offset relative to the specified position, the stabilizing force of the operator on the handle is created using the skill of astatic stabilization handles in response to the disturbing force of the engine, keeping the predetermined neutral position of the handle unchanged.  9. The method according to claim 7, characterized in that the adjustable value is stabilized at a predetermined value with dynamic and static errors, while holding the stabilizing force of the operator on the handle, the neutral position of the handle with the shift of the neutral position of the handle relative to the specified position, the stabilizing force of the operator is created using the skill of static stabilization of the handle in response to a shift in the neutral position of the handle from a given position, the magnitude and nature of this shift is controlled by a change in stiffness , Damping and the initial position of the hand posture.

Images