Real Cockpit Proposal for Flight Simulation with Airbus A32x Models:

An Overview Description

Jos

e Carvalho

1 a

, Andr

e C. Mendes

1 b

, Thadeu Brito

1,2 c

and Jos

e Lima

1,3 d

Research Centre in Digitalization and Intelligent Robotics (CeDRI), Instituto Polit

ecnico de Braganc¸a,

Campus de Santa Apol

onia, 5300-253 Braganc¸a, Portugal

Faculty of Engineering of University of Porto, Porto, Portugal

INESC TEC - INESC Technology and Science, Porto, Portugal

Keywords:

Flight Simulator, XPlane, Software-in-the-Loop, Hardware-in-the-Loop, Cockpit.

Abstract:

This paper describes the several steps to build an elaborate ﬂight simulator cockpit, where the hardware is de-

signed based on Mechatronic principles and the proposed software was developed using agile methodologies

to create a Cyber-Physical System (CPS). Furthermore, this research attempts to simulate the real environment

from an aircraft as close as possible with a real scale developed cockpit. Based on this, the presented paper

contributions include: (1) The implementation of a complex dynamic system such as a CPS, where the Mecha-

tronic system is part of it; (2) The deployment of a scale model of an Airbus A32x aircraft (one of the most

used), integrating into a mathematical model adapted to the operation of an aircraft ﬂight simulation system,

regarding the physical forces involved. This project is also used to captivate the students’ motivation to the

areas of technology such as electronics and programming and permits its development as a student project and

thesis. Results allow validating the proposed cockpit.

1 INTRODUCTION

Hardware-in-the-Loop (HIL) simulation is a tech-

nique used to develop, test, and validate embedded

systems, by adding the complexity of the plant under

control through a mathematical representation of all

dynamic systems related to the test platform. These

mathematical representations are called “plant simu-

lation” (Gomez, 2001) that communicates with the in-

tegrated system to be tested. This technique reduces

the development cost, time, and risk. These advan-

tages have promoted HIL simulation to become a de-

velopment standard in high-stress industries such as

aeronautics and aerospace. (Ellis, 2012).

On the other hand, Software-in-the-Loop (SIL) is

a tool that allows accurate model validation before

ﬁeld testing. It is described by the low-cost computer

simulators combined with the reliability of hardware

emulators. Furthermore, it is a solution where model

accuracy and simulation speed do not compete, un-

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6074-8112

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6390-1250

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5962-0517

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7902-1207

like traditional numerical simulators (Demers et al.,

2007).

Nowadays, HIL and SIL simulations are com-

monly used to evaluate controls and algorithms, be-

cause they easily allow dynamic changes in the

model, besides allowing a fast development and in-

creasing safety (Zhang and Mi, 2011; Chudy and

Rzucidlo, 2012). After all, in such specialized in-

dustries (as aeronautics and aerospace), because the

necessity for real test ﬂights is minimized, also re-

ducing the number of peripherals involved and con-

sequently decreasing the project’s ﬁnal cost (Sampaio

et al., 2013). In the development of a HIL simulator,

ﬁrst one must implement the real-time “plant simu-

lation”, which is a mathematical representation of all

the dynamics embedded in the plant system. Mod-

ern ﬂight simulation techniques and implementations

often result in many sophisticated and complex cal-

culations that require a high level of computational

power (Gomez, 2001; Gholkar et al., 2004), then the

development of this virtual environment is a difﬁcult

task. The employed simulators in several areas, in-

cluding aeronautics and aerospace, have improved by

the technology development such as powerful proces-

sors, GPU, and I/O interface, among others. Thus,

256

Carvalho, J., Mendes, A., Brito, T. and Lima, J.

Real Cockpit Proposal for Flight Simulation with Airbus A32x Models: An Overview Description.

DOI: 10.5220/0010526002560263

In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Simulation and Modeling Methodologies, Technologies and Applications (SIMULTECH 2021), pages 256-263

ISBN: 978-989-758-528-9

the idea is to use a realistic commercial ﬂight simu-

lator (COTS-FS) running on a standard PC, compos-

ing a low-cost HIL platform with enough computa-

tional power and storage resources. As a result, the

simulators facilitate training on complex maneuvers

and procedures that cannot be performed safely with

the real aircraft, such as the failure of any of the mo-

tors or other also critical. The simulator increases the

number of practical training hours, accelerates pilots’

training, and notably decreases training costs (Cas-

ner SM, 2013).

There are some add-ons to the ﬂight simulators,

such as TrackIR from NaturalPoint manufacturer that

allows to show the cockpit panels presented on the

monitor depending on the pilot head position, but it

also lacks realism. In this context, the main objec-

tive of this work is to build an elaborate ﬂight simu-

lator system, where the hardware is created based on

Mechatronic policies, that is, focusing on the com-

munication system and the mechanical parts. Indeed,

the purposed software aims to be developed using ag-

ile methodologies to create a Cyber-Physical System

(CPS). In this way, this project attempts to simulate

the real environment from an aircraft as close as pos-

sible. Based on this, the project’s contributions in-

clude: (1) The implementation of a complex dynamic

system such as a CPS, where the Mechatronic system

is part of it; (2) The deployment of a real scale model

of an Airbus A32x aircraft, integrating into a mathe-

matical model adapted to the operation of an aircraft

ﬂight simulation system, regarding the physical forces

involved. Further it can be used by pilots to simulate

the ﬂights. The proposed cockpit is a modular ap-

proach since it is used by students to develop projects

and thesis. This cockpit is able to be used by stu-

dents from mechanic, electronics, computer science

and programming courses. It is also an important way

to motivate students to the areas of technology.

2 RELATED WORK

Some look at simulators as training platforms (Merk

and Roessingh, 2016; Boril et al., 2015; Louali et al.,

2011) either to improve pilots’ skills or maintain their

tactical training, if they were military. Real-time

ﬂight simulators (Louali et al., 2011) were also pro-

posed for the pilot-military regime to complement

their physical training, which allows immersion in a

virtual environment, thus contributing to the develop-

ment of decision-making skills. Also, if it can even

be a free ﬂight test center (Cen et al., 2015), with em-

phasis on the design, development, and veriﬁcation

of the simulation platform. To improve ﬂight simu-

lator analysis and evaluation, Project Magenta came

about 20 years ago to become a very recognizable

name in Flight Simulation and Pilot Training used in

conjunction with a plethora of commercial software

ﬂight simulators well as stand-alone solutions.

A modular ﬂight control strategy to display the

improved command tracking performance with fault

tolerance and reconﬁguration capability was pre-

sented in (Khan et al., 2014). Manifold experiments

were analyzed using the Microsoft Flight Simulator,

FlightGear, and X-plane related to the CERTI Infras-

tructure run-time, demonstrating that High-Level Ar-

chitecture (HLA) has been ﬁt to perform the exact

simulations in real-time (Gervais et al., 2012; Chau-

dron et al., 2014).

An automatic ﬂight control system (AFCS) auto-

matically controls the aircraft with high precision dur-

ing surveillance, reconnaissance, and measurement

ﬂights. To test AFCS created for the utility aircraft

STEMME S15, a high-performance motor glider, a

ground test facility in the form of a HIL simulator

was built and validated (Kaden et al., 2013). The role

of pilot training in assessing performance in identify-

ing and managing hazards, especially in the air and

under changing conditions through an automated col-

laborative system for aviation safety, was explained in

(Lofaro and Smith, 2012). The evaluation and charac-

terization of ﬂight training simulator using Microsoft

Flight Simulator 2004 for integration with HIL Archi-

tecture to develop, test, and validate embedded sys-

tems was performed in (Lorains et al., 2011).

In (Adiprawita et al., 2008), HIL simulation was

chosen as a solution for minimizing the effect of

control system failure in ﬁeld trial step in UAV de-

velopment. A ﬂight simulator Evaluation Course at

QANTAS Airways was developed in (Scamps and

Gibbens, 2005). A meta-analysis on ﬂight simula-

tion to distinguish the important characteristics asso-

ciated with effectiveness in traditional training was

performed in (Hays et al., 1992). A great review of

the literature was classiﬁed, of which 26 experiments

have been identiﬁed with sufﬁcient information for

the statistical meta-analysis.

Based on the previous authors’ concepts, this arti-

cle addresses a step forward in ﬂight simulation. The

project uses complex dynamic systems to create the

CPS through mechatronics parts that approach the

Airbus A32x aircraft model; the literature does not

point to work with this aircraft model. The simulation

covered in this work demonstrates all the real mod-

ule’s indicators, from the sensors to the mechatronic

control systems. In the next sections, each component

of this work will be described.

Real Cockpit Proposal for Flight Simulation with Airbus A32x Models: An Overview Description

257

3 MAIN SYSTEM

ARCHITECTURE

The V-Model allows the design and development

of complex mechatronic systems with an interdisci-

plinary method, where the VDI guideline 2206 can be

applied to obtain systems that are more ﬂexible and

adaptable to the needs of users. The overall devel-

opment process follows the V-Model that is shown in

Figure 1 (Shuping and Ling, 2008; Fodor et al., 2019).

Figure 1: V-model approach used in structured systems de-

sign (Fodor et al., 2019), (Bruyninckx, 2008).

Initially all functional and non-functional require-

ments for the automatic ﬂight control system are

deﬁned in the top-level speciﬁcation (the developed

cockpit performs the interface to the system whereas

the autopilot control is provided by Toliss). They are

gradually reﬁned top-down from aircraft level via sys-

tem and assembly level to the hardware and software

requirements on component level. After encoding and

production, the gradual integration and veriﬁcation

(bottom-up) follows. Each process step ends with ver-

iﬁcation tests. The ﬁnal step includes validation tests

with the modules mirroring the data presented in the

game. In order to create a system that simulates the

cockpit of the Airbus A32x model on a real scale, the

system architecture shown in Figure 2 was developed.

The hardware and software used in this work were de-

veloped to always communicate with each other, so

the project takes the pilot in the training phase a real-

istic immersion during the simulation.

As is well known, there are many techniques and

procedures that a fresh pilot must study to complete

his/her ﬂight license. Many of these techniques can

be extensively inserted and trained in this proposed

ﬂight simulation. The entire process can be summa-

rized through Figure 2, as well as the description of

each topic below:

• Fresh Pilot: In this initial phase of training

with the simulated cockpit, the pilot must already

have in mind what type of ﬂight license course,

Figure 2: System Architecture.

which classiﬁcations he/she wishes to acquire,

and which ﬂights he/she intends to train.

• Training Protocols: The pilot must already have

a training plan at this stage because the license

has already been chosen, classiﬁcation, and ﬂights

to be trained in the simulator. So, the pilot must

adapt to the norms and standards required for the

chosen plan. For example, a pilot of Asian origin

could perform a ﬂight simulation under conditions

and standards from Europe and without having to

go training in European territory.

• Flight Simulator: This part is when the ﬂight

simulation happens, that is, when the fresh pilot

trains his/her skills in the simulated cockpit. The

aspiring pilot will ﬁnd all the modules similar to

those found in the real aircraft, from the seats, but-

tons, indicators, and other elements present in an

Airbus A32x cockpit. Licensed pilots can still

maintain their degree of experience by training

situations they have already experienced in real

ﬂight.

• Procedures Trainer: This tool is vital during pi-

lots’ training since the simulator is a copy almost

identical to that found in the aircraft. Therefore,

the pilot, together with his/her instructor, will

practice possible real ﬂight situations. Thus, the

instructor will assist his/her student in a system

called Flight and Navigation Procedures Trainer

(FNPT), that is, to carry out training that includes

necessary procedures for navigation, classiﬁca-

tion and reading of instruments, and malfunctions

procedures.

• Approach Training: This training can be imple-

mented for pilots who wish to approach different

runway types but in a simulated environment. In

this way, the pilot can choose from a list of op-

tions which airport he/she wants to perform the

Approach Training. In this simulator, the visual

SIMULTECH 2021 - 11th International Conference on Simulation and Modeling Methodologies, Technologies and Applications

258

system implemented makes a reproduction of the

runway markings, runway lights, approach lights,

and also the Runway Aiming Points (primary and

secondary).

• Communications: In addition to navigation

skills, the postulant pilot must also undertake

communication training. This Communication

training simulates the cooperation between the

crew or simulates the pilot’s communication with

the Radio Station Control. Thus, it avoids pos-

sible problems with interactions between people

with different types of pronunciation.

• Safety Procedures: The instructor can also add

safety procedures to the novice pilot’s plan, such

as emergency escape, ﬁre alarm, and emergency

stops.

• Pilot and Real Situations: After exhaustively

conducting numerous simulations, the instructor

will evaluate his/her student to start the tests in

real ﬂight situations. Thus, the beginner pilot will

be able to perform better in testing his/her ﬂight

license.

4 HARDWARE AND SOFTWARE

DEVELOPMENTS

As stated before, this work aims to develop a ﬂight

simulation platform as close as possible to the real

models. In this sense, the developed cockpit imple-

ments all system interfaces that can be found in the

real cockpit of an A32x. This includes all overhead

panel, main panel, Glare-shield, Pedestal and side

bases systems.

Six displays are implemented in the main panel:

two independent Primary Flight (PFD), one for Cap-

tain and other for First Ofﬁcer; two independent Nav-

igation Displays (ND) for Captain and First Ofﬁcer;

and two ECAM displays the Engine / Warning Dis-

play (EWD) and and System Display (SD). The dis-

plays show the information sent by the XHSI (eXter-

nal High-resolution Simulator Instruments) applica-

tion and are controlled by the hardware implemented

in the cockpit.

On the captain side, there is the PFD (Primary

Flight Display) with ﬂight parameters, such as the

horizon, speed, altitude, and some extra information

regarding the ﬂight. Then there is the Navigation Dis-

play (ND) that presents a fundamental information to

the navigation, such as the ﬂight plan, way-points,

Navaids, and airports. It can also include the weather

information gathered from the radar and terrain info.

Moreover, the screens info conﬁguration can be ad-

justed by the Electronic Flight Instrument System

(EFIS) placed above the glare shield (to reduce the

effects of glare) near the autopilot commands. It al-

lows selecting several modes, such as LS, VOR, NAV,

ARC, and PLAN.

At the central panel, there is some information

provided by the monitors that can be extracted by

the FCOM (Flight Crew Operating Manual), among

the others: Primary engine indications, fuel quantity,

ﬂap and slat position; Warning and caution alerts, or

memos; Synoptic diagrams of aircraft systems, and

status messages; Permanent ﬂight data.

This structure was followed faithfully, as can be

seen in the results section.

4.1 Cyber-Physical Systems

New challenges have emerged due to the development

of recent technologies, among them is the CPS. This

concept refers to integrating numerous techniques,

such as computing, data network, and data acquisition

system through sensing. Therefore, this integration

process can provide a distributed and autonomous

systems. In other words, the CPS performs a friendly

coupling between the cybernetic and physical com-

ponents (software and hardware); the sensor systems

usually do this coupling. For a CPS system to be suc-

cessful, it is necessary to model each stage of inte-

gration correctly. The modeling will be a link, or a

translator, between the physical and cybernetic envi-

ronments.

As indicated by (Rajkumar et al., 2010), applica-

tions using CPS will have a signiﬁcant impact in a

wide variety of areas. The aeronautics sector would

not be left out. One of the possible applications of

CPS in the aeronautics sector can be seen in ﬂight

simulation situations, where the devices in the real

cockpit could be modeled to show information in the

simulated environment. For example, the use of ped-

als in a cockpit could be synchronized with the pedal

in the simulated cockpit. Thus, when the pilot is train-

ing his/her ﬂight skills and activates the pedal in the

training cockpit, consequently the pedal in the graphic

simulator will also be activated at the same intensity.

This process could happen for all types of devices

and settings that exist in the Airbus A32x cockpit,

from buttons, indicators, sensors, mechanical parts,

among others. For this to happen, it is necessary to do

each one’s modeling since (as previously mentioned).

However, this work’s focus is not to describe these

components’ modeling due to the degree of complex-

ity and detail required to perform the CPS of this

cockpit.

Real Cockpit Proposal for Flight Simulation with Airbus A32x Models: An Overview Description

259

Figure 3: Main system architecture.

4.2 Software and Hardware

Components

The proposed system is mainly composed of the

X − Plane Simulator setting (Meyer, 2011). Al-

though several simulators like Microsoft’s Flight Sim-

ulator and FlightGear, the X −Plane was chosen since

it provides exceptionally accurate aerodynamic and

ﬂight models and allows for real-time data to be sent

into and out of the program as well as the airfoil de-

sign. Different from the Microsoft Flight Simulator,

the X − Plane allows input from and output to exter-

nal sources. While FlightGear (Berndt, 2020) has I/O

capabilities similar to X − Plane, it is not relatively

stable and does not provide the same level of support.

For all these reasons, the X − Plane was chosen to be

used in the HIL simulator. The operation principle of

X − Plane is based on reading the geometric shape of

any aircraft and then predicting how that aircraft will

ﬂy. The aircraft is divided into small elements, and

then the forces on each element are calculated on an

engineering process named “blade element theory”.

Based on the aircraft’s mass and center of gravity, the

forces are converted into accelerations, which are in-

tegrated to generate velocities and positions. All these

variables are managed by a dynamics engine embed-

ded in the game. X − Plane is certiﬁed by the U.S.

Agency of Aviation (FAA - Federal Aviation Admin-

istration) to train pilots. Its method ensures a reli-

able system since it is much more detailed, ﬂexible,

and advanced than the ﬂight model based on stability

derivatives used by most other ﬂight simulators. The

controllers developed and tested in X − Plane plat-

forms have been successful when embedded in real

aircraft (Garcia and Barnes, 2009) adding more cred-

ibility to the results obtained in this work. An impor-

tant feature of X − Plane is the capability to commu-

nicate ﬂight data via UDP (User Datagram Protocol)

connection using the IEEE754 format, as well as the

ability to exchange information with the external en-

vironment.

The developed cockpit uses a plugin to communi-

cate with clients and servers based on callback func-

tions.

The chosen airplane model for this work is an

A32x, a member of the Airbus A320 family of short-

to medium-range, narrow-body, commercial passen-

ger twin-engine jet airliners manufactured by Airbus.

The simulation environment is being executed on

a desktop PC with a core I9-9900K Processor, 32Gb

DDR4 memory, a Nvidia

T M

GeForce

T M

RTX 2080

Ti graphics card and a solid-state drive. This system

is powered by a 1 kW power supply. All the con-

nections to the cockpit instruments are based on Eth-

ernet, as it can be presented by ﬁgure 3. There are

two main connections established that uses UDP and

TCP to send and receive information to the developed

modules. Moreover, it will further be able to receive

faults injection by a mobile device.

The main panel displays (PFD’s, ND’s, EWD,

SD and MCDU’s pedestal displays) are connected

by the UDP protocol using XHSI. The XHSI mod-

SIMULTECH 2021 - 11th International Conference on Simulation and Modeling Methodologies, Technologies and Applications

260

ule, that is an add-on for the X-Plane ﬂight simu-

lator and displays the PFD, ND, ECAM (Electronic

Centralized Aircraft Monitor), Flaps and Gear indi-

cator, Clock/Chronometer, etc... sends data to the

displays each one connected to a rapsberry pi. The

raspberry pi accesses to the mainpanel monitor with a

HDMI, VGA, DVI, and LCD Control board work for

10.4inch G104X1 L04 1024x768 LCD panel.

On the other side, the TCP connection will handle

the communication to the panels instruments, such as

buttons, lights, actuators among others.

The CAN/ETH gateway connects most cockpit

buttons and commands and the information is sent be-

tween cockpit and simulator PC or simulator cockpit

via TCP/IP, i.e. messages are conﬁrmed by the pro-

tocol. In the case of PFD, ND, ECAM and MCDU

displays on the pedestal the information is not con-

ﬁrmed and sent by UDP (multicast). This has every-

thing to do with performance. It is not necessary to

conﬁrm the message because in case of error the next

message refreshes the displays with correct info.

For that purpose, it was developed a plugin

(IPB XCockpit, detailed on Figure 4) that sends and

receives TCP packets from/to the Gateway. This gate-

way allows to connect the CAN0 and CAN1 buses

where all the modules are connected.

Figure 4: IPB XCockpit plugin detailed.

This developed IPB XCockpit plugin owns a

main loop callback that writes and reads the simula-

tor and aircraft data in order to feed the aircraft sta-

tus monitor and receives commands from the cock-

pit commands manager. This information is stored

into the data refs and command refs respectively. By

this way, it is possible that the cockpit instruments can

read the airplane variables and also control it.

5 RESULTS

The developed system is composed by software, hard-

ware and mechanical components. The mechanical

design of instruments and actuators is not the focus

of this paper. The software is executed on a computer

and communicates with a intelligent sensors network

using a gateway (Ethernet and CAN bused converter).

The intelligent sensor network is spread by all over

the cockpit as a modular approach. Some modules of

hardware and mechanical components are presented

in Figures 5 and 6. The ﬁrst one shows the ﬂight

screen on a wall television, the front panel composed

by the FCU (Flight Control Unit) where the Autopi-

lot controls are placed. The Barometer system are

installed on the Electronic Flight Instrument System

where warnings and master caution indicators are pre-

sented also. On the other hand, the radio controls and

communication system are presented on Figure 6.

Figure 5: Under development of frontal cockpit at IPB.

Figure 6: Under development of pedestal panel cockpit at

IPB.

All these developed modules are communicating

and the ﬂight simulator assumes the variables intro-

duced by the user on the cockpit modules. It can

be validated by Figure 7 where it is possible to ob-

serve the EFIS and the FCU Flight Control Unit in

which autopilots can be activated either in direct or

managed mode. The BARO was conﬁgured, as exam-

ple on 29.92 in Hg. On EFIS, inside the PFD control

part, it is possible to choose between Hg and hPa and

using the encoder to enter the value of the baromet-

ric pressure or standard reference STD. The autopilot

was conﬁgured with a speed of 207 knots, a heading

of 23 degrees and an altitude of 19700 feet. As it

can be observed, the instruments of the ﬂight (on the

wall television) assumed this parameters. As previ-

Real Cockpit Proposal for Flight Simulation with Airbus A32x Models: An Overview Description

261

Figure 7: BARO and Autopilot control panel assuming the

programmed values at the developed cockpit validating the

communication between modules.

ously addressed, the monitors presented on the frontal

panel, will display information as the real cockpit.

Each monitor uses a Raspberry pi 4 and some exam-

ples are presented on Figure 8. Table 1 details each

screen information.

Table 1: Main panel Monitors description.

Monitor Description

(a) Door information (DOOR)

(b) Engine/Warning Display (E/WD)

(d) Primary Flight Display (PFD)

(e) Navigation Display (ND)

These monitors can be conﬁgured to show differ-

ent information and can be selected by the Electronic

Centralized Aircraft Monitor (ECAM) Control Panel.

It will be possible to use the wall television to show

the landscape and environment as the windows on

the real cockpit. As result, it was proposed a cock-

pit owning several instruments, monitors and controls

to make the ﬂight simulation more realistic. All the

instruments were communicating with the simulator

allowing the pilot to have a ﬂight experience more re-

lated with a real components instead of a television

emulated instruments.

6 CONCLUSIONS & FUTURE

WORK

The presented paper described the development of

a cockpit to be used for ﬂight simulations of Air-

bus A32x. It presented the proposed mechanical

and hardware components as well as its communi-

cation based on Ethernet and CAN buses. The real

scale main panel of a cockpit was developed and

can be used to test pilots on ﬂight task. The instru-

ments presented on panels, such as control buttons,

lights and displays were tested in several simulated

ﬂights that validate the proposed approach. As imple-

mented examples are the FCU (Flight Control Unit),

the EFIS (Electronic Flight Instrument System), and

the ECAM (Electronic Centralized Aircraft Monitor)

control panel to select system pages on System Dis-

play. This modular approach had supported more than

ﬁfty students working on this project. As it can be

noted, this paper presented a continuous working-in-

progress development of a real cockpit to be used in

simulation and there are several modules that can be

included. As future work direction, it can be pointed

out a projection based on three projectors using an im-

mersive methodology and other instruments that will

ﬁt on the designed and planned, such as the develop-

ment of the Throttle control system with motorized

trim wheel, as well as the implementation of all over-

head panels such as Ligh, Elec, HYD/Fuel, Fire, FLT

CTL, ADIRS, Ofﬁce and GPWS among the others.

(a) (b)

(e)

Figure 8: Monitors of the front cockpit panel. Monitors

can be selected by the Electronic Centralized Aircraft Mon-

itor (ECAM) Control Panel a) Door information (DOOR),

b) Engine/Warning Display (E/WD), c) Engines (ENG), d)

Primary Flight Display (PFD) where horizon, speed and al-

titude information is presented, e) Navigation Display (ND)

with waypoints, navaids and airports localization.

SIMULTECH 2021 - 11th International Conference on Simulation and Modeling Methodologies, Technologies and Applications

262

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This work has been supported by FCT - Fundac¸

para a Ci

encia e Tecnologia within the Project Scope:

UIDB/05757/2020.

REFERENCES

Adiprawita, W., Ahmad, A., and Sembiring, J. (2008).

Hardware in the loop simulator in uav rapid develop-

ment life cycle. arXiv.

Berndt, J. (2020). Flightgear: an open-source ﬂight simula-

tor.

Boril, J., Leuchter, J., Smrz, V., and Blasch, E. (2015). Avi-

ation simulation training in the czech air force. In

2015 IEEE/AIAA 34th Digital Avionics Systems Con-

ference (DASC), pages 9A2–1. IEEE.

Bruyninckx, H. (2008). V model from structured systems

design theory.

Casner SM, Geven RW, W. K. (2013). The Effectiveness of

Airline Pilot Training for Abnormal Events. Human

Factors.

Cen, F., Li, Q., Fan, L., Liu, Z., and Sun, H. (2015). De-

velopment of a pilot-in-loop real-time simulation plat-

form for wind tunnel free-ﬂight test. In 2015 IEEE In-

ternational Conference on Information and Automa-

tion, pages 2433–2438. IEEE.

Chaudron, J.-B., Saussi

e, D., Siron, P., and Adelantado, M.

(2014). Real-time distributed simulations in an hla

framework: Application to aircraft simulation. Simu-

lation, 90(6):627–643.

Chudy, P. and Rzucidlo, P. (2012). Hil simulation of a light

aircraft ﬂight control system. In 31th IEEE Digital

Avionics Systems Conference, pages 6D111–6D112.

IEEE.

Demers, S., Gopalakrishnan, P., and Kant, L. (2007). A

generic solution to software-in-the-loop. Military

Communications Conference 2007. MILCOM 2007.

Ellis, G. (2012). Chapter 13 - model development and

veriﬁcation. In Ellis, G., editor, Control System

Design Guide (Fourth Edition), pages 261 – 282.

Butterworth-Heinemann, Boston, fourth edition edi-

tion.

Fodor, A., J

o, R., and Fizes

an, R. T. (2019). Charac-

terization of the v-model approach in thermal design

process. In 2019 IEEE 25th International Symposium

for Design and Technology in Electronic Packaging

(SIITME), pages 367–370.

Garcia, R. and Barnes, L. (2009). Multi-uav simulator uti-

lizing x-plane. In Selected papers from the 2nd In-

ternational Symposium on UAVs, Reno, Nevada, USA

June 8–10, 2009, pages 393–406. Springer.

Gervais, C., Chaudron, J.-B., Siron, P., Leconte, R., and

Saussi

e, D. (2012). Real-time distributed aircraft sim-

ulation through hla. In 2012 IEEE/ACM 16th Interna-

tional Symposium on Distributed Simulation and Real

Time Applications, pages 251–254. IEEE.

Gholkar, A., Isaacs, A., and Arya, H. (2004). Hardware-in-

loop simulator for mini aerial vehicle. Department of

Aerospace Engineering on IIT at Bombay, 2(2).

Gomez, M. (2001). Hardware-in-the-loop simulation. Em-

bedded System Design.

Hays, R. T., Jacobs, J. W., Prince, C., and Salas, E.

(1992). Flight simulator training effectiveness: A

meta-analysis. Military psychology, 4(2):63–74.

Kaden, A., Boche, B., and Luckner, R. (2013). Hardware-

in-the-loop ﬂight simulator – an essential part in the

development process for the automatic ﬂight control

system of a utility aircraft. In AIAA Modeling and

Simulation Technologies Conference and Exhibit.

Khan, A. H., Khan, Z. H., and Khan, S. H. (2014).

Optimized reconﬁgurable autopilot design for an

aerospace cps. In Computational intelligence for de-

cision support in cyber-physical systems, pages 381–

420. Springer.

Lofaro, R. J. and Smith, K. M. (2012). The aviation op-

erational environment: Integrating a decision-making

paradigm, ﬂight simulator training and an automated

cockpit display for aviation safety. In Technology

Engineering and Management in Aviation: Advance-

ments and Discoveries, pages 241–282. IGI Global.

Lorains, M., MacMahon, C., Ball, K., and Mahoney, J.

(2011). Above real time training for team invasion

sport skills. International Journal of Sports Science

& Coaching, 6(4):537–544.

Louali, R., Belloula, A., Djouadi, M. S., and Bouaziz, S.

(2011). Real-time characterization of ms ﬂight sim-

ulator 2004 for integration into hardware in the loop

architecture. In 19th Mediterranean Conf. on Control

& Automation (MED), pages 1241–1246. IEEE.

Merk, R. and Roessingh, J. (2016). Assessing behaviour of

cognitive agents in a ﬂight simulator with ﬁghter pi-

lots. In 2016 IEEE International Conference on Sys-

tems, Man, and Cybernetics (SMC), pages 004842–

004847. IEEE.

Meyer, A. (2011). X-plane operation manual.

Rajkumar, R., Lee, I., Sha, L., and Stankovic, J. (2010).

Cyber-physical systems: the next computing revolu-

tion. In Design automation conference, pages 731–

736. IEEE.

Sampaio, R. C. B., Becker, M., Freschi, L. W., and Mon-

tanher, M. P. (2013). Novel sil evaluation of an op-

timal h1 controller on the stability of a mav in ﬂight

simulator. In Aerospace Conference, pages 186D11–

186D12. IEEE.

Scamps, A. and Gibbens, P. (2005). Development of a ﬂight

simulator evaluation course at qantas. In AIAA Model-

ing and Simulation Technologies Conference and Ex-

hibit, page 6114.

Shuping, L. and Ling, P. (2008). The research of v model

in testing embedded software. In 2008 International

Conference on Computer Science and Information

Technology, pages 463–466.

Zhang, X. and Mi, C. (2011). Hardware-in-the-loop and

software-in-the-loop testing for vehicle power man-

agement. In In proceedings of Vehicle Power Man-

agement, Power Systems. Springer.

Real Cockpit Proposal for Flight Simulation with Airbus A32x Models: An Overview Description

263