Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T06:21:47.689Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Airspace design: a conflict avoidance model emphasising pilot communication and perceptual capabilities

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 July 2016

N. L. Fulton
N. L. Fulton*
Affiliation:
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Mathematical & Information Sciences, Canberra, Australia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Airspace is identified through well defined volumes of the Earth's atmosphere. Airspace control is defined to consist of rules and procedures by which aircraft conduct their flight and by which aircraft approach and cross volume boundaries. Airspace control should optimise the flow of traffic under the constraint that no collision occurs. To date, the design of airspace control has been largely heuristic. Two fundamentally opposed philosophies and designs have evolved over the last fifty years. There has been little, if any, formal comparison of the relative performance of these designs.

A new conceptual conflict-avoidance model is presented showing the need to maintain situational awareness for all conflicts. It reveals the essential requirement for communication channels in the conflict avoidance function. Human perceptual performance is related the required system response to conflict. These human factors can be mathematically related to physical parameters embodied in airspace rules and procedures. The impact of changes in airspace performance due to variations in physical parameters derived from models of the communication channels can now be measured. Use of the conflict-avoidance model presented in this paper identifies serious deficiencies in present designs and postulates that fundamental architectural changes are required to reduce safety hazards and produce designs of sufficient reliability, particularly for uncontrolled airspace. Designs based on stable and adequate communications are shown to be required and are now technologically feasible.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 103 , Issue 1020 , February 1999 , pp. 65 - 74
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Aeronautical Society 1999 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. ICAO Annex II, Amendment 35, Montreal, Canada, 10 November 1995.Google Scholar
2. RTCA, Report of the RTCA Board of Directors' Select Committee on Free Flight,” 16 December 1994.Google Scholar
3. Donohue, O. A visionary look at aviation surveillance systems, IEEE AES Systems Magazine, October 1995, pp 8–14.Google Scholar
4. Diefeenbach, O. APALS (Autonomous Precision Approach and Landing System), SPIE Proceedings, Air Traffic Control Technologies, Orlando, Florida, 18–19 April 1995.Google Scholar
5. Tomlin, C., Pappas, G.J. and Sastry, S. Conflict resolution for air traffic management: a case study in multi-agent hybrid systems, Engineering-Electrical Engineering and Computer Sciences, University of California at Berkeley, Proceedings 34th IEEE Conference in Decision and Control, Kobe, Japan, December 1996.Google Scholar
6. Alexander, B. Aircraft density and midair collision, Proceedings of the IEEE, 1970, 58, (3), pp 377–381.Google Scholar
7. May, G.T.E. A method for predicting the number of near mid-air collisions in a defined airspace, The Journal of The Institute of Navigation, 1971, 24, (2), pp 204–218.Google Scholar
8. Reich, P.G. Analysis of long-range air traffic systems — separation standards I, J of The Institute of Navigation, 1966, 19, (1), pp 88–98.Google Scholar
9. Reich, P.G. Analysis of long-range air traffic systems — separation standards II, J of The Institute of Navigation, 19, (1), pp 169–185, 1966.Google Scholar
10. Baker, C.B. and Morgan, S.L. An analysis of the civil airmiss situation in the united kingdom and its relation to collision risk, CAA paper 75001, DORA Report 7403, Directorate of Operational Research and Analysis, Civil Aviation Authority, London, 1975.Google Scholar
11. Schuch, H.P. Near Midair Collisions as an Indicator of General Aviation Collision Risk, Dissertation Series UCB-ITS-DS-90-2, Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California at Berkeley, 19 March 1990.Google Scholar
12. Yesley, J.M. A study of the relationships between near midair collisions (NMACs), midair collisions (MACs) and some potential causal factors, Federal Aviation Administration, DOT/FAA/ASV-91-1, October 1990.Google Scholar
13. Functional and Conceptual Overview, TAAM — Total Airspace & Airport Modeller, Release 2·9, The Preston Group, Melbourne, VIC, Australia, 1996.Google Scholar
14. Lyoeros, J. Hierarchical, Hybrid control of large scale systems, Engineering — Electrical Engineering and Computer Sciences, University of California at Berkeley, 1996.Google Scholar
15. Kosecka, J Tomlin, C., Pappas, G. and Sastry, S. Generation of conflict resolution manoeuvres for air traffic management, Engineering — Electrical Engineering and Computer Sciences, University of California at Berkeley, Submitted 10th IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, Grenoble, France Google Scholar
16. ICAO, Human Factors Digest No.7, Investigation of Human Factors in Accidents and Incidents, ICAO Circular 240-AN/144, Appendix 1, ICAO Montreal, Canada, 1993.Google Scholar
17. ICAO, Annex 2, Rules of the Air, Amendment 32, 2nd edition, Montreal, Canada, 19 February 1996.Google Scholar
18. ICAO, Human Factors in CNS/ATM Systems, Human Factors Digest, ICAO Circular 249-AN/I49, Chapter 4, pp 21–25, ICAO, Montreal, CanadaGoogle Scholar
19. Charlwood, D.E. Take-off to Touchdown — The Story of Air Traffic Control, Angus and Robertson, 1972.Google Scholar
20. Harris, J.L. Visual aspects of air-collision, Visual Search, National Academy of Sciences, Washington D.C., 1973.Google Scholar
21. Ballas, J.A. Heitmeyer, C.L. and Perez, M.A. Evaluating two aspects of direct manipulation in advanced cockpits, CHI ‘92, pp 127–134, 1992.Google Scholar
22. Cotton, W.B. Air safety: the view from the cockpit, IEEE Spectrum, August 1975, pp 71–74.Google Scholar
23. Endsley, M.R. Design and evaluation for situation awareness enhancement, Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 32nd Annual Meeting, 1988.Google Scholar
24. Perry, T.S. Improving the world's largest, most advanced system, IEEE Spectrum, February 1991, pp 22–36.Google Scholar
25. ICAO, Rules of the Air, Air Traffic Services and Search and Rescue Divisions, Report of the Meeting Montreal, ICAO Doc 7909, RAC/SAR, Montreal, Canada, 21 October-14 November 1958.Google Scholar
26. Hurst, R. Pilot Error — A professional study of contributory factors, Crosby Lockwood Stapels, London, 1976.Google Scholar
27. BASI, Limitations of the see-and-avoid principle, Bureau of Air Safety Investigation, Canberra, Australia, April 1991.Google Scholar
28. Wilson, T. Aircraft Human Performance & Limitations, Aristoc Offset, Melbourne, Australia, 1993.Google Scholar
29. Gibbs, P., Hughes, P.K., Meehan, J.W. and Clark, B.A.J. Preliminary study of field-of-view restriction effects on a simulated pursuit flying task, DSTO Air Operations Division, Aeronautical and Maritime Research Laboratory, Department of Defence, Australia, April 1996.Google Scholar
30. Rechtin, E. Systems Architecting — Creating & Building Complex Systems, Prentice Hall PTR, circa 1993.Google Scholar
31. ICAO Annex 2, Rules of the Air, Amendment 1, 2nd edition, Montreal, Canada, April 1952.Google Scholar
32. ICAO, Letter from W.R. Fromme, Director, Air Navigation Bureau, to Mr J. Weber, Representative of Australia on the ICAO Council re Fulton enquiry on cruising rule history, Montreal, Canada, 28 March 1995.Google Scholar
33. Mid-Air Collision Between Bearskin Airlines Fairchild Metro 23 C- GYYB and Air Sandy Inc. Registration PA-31 Navajo C-GYPZ - Sioux Lookout Ontario, 12 nm NW 01 May 1995, report number A95H00O8, Air Transportation Safety Board of Canada.Google Scholar
34. Flight Safety Foundation, Aviation Statistics: Near Midair Collision Update, Flight Safety Digest, December 1989, 8, (12).Google Scholar
35. BASI, The Operation of Regular Public Transport (RPT) Aircraft in Mandatory Traffic Advisory Frequency (MTAF) Airspace, Investigation Report RP/93/01, Bureau of Air Safety Investigation, PO Box 967, Civic Square, ACT, 2608 Australia, December 1993 Google Scholar
36. ICAO, Procedures for Air Navigation Services, Rules of the Air and Traffic Services, Second Edition (as amended to 12th Edition) - ICAO Doc 4444-RAC/501/12, ICAO, Montreal, Canada, 1982.Google Scholar
37. Holt, J.M. and Marner, G.R. Separation theory in air traffic control system design, Proceedings of the IEEE, 1970, 58, (3), pp 369–376.Google Scholar
38. Graham, W. and Orr, R.H. Separation of air traffic by visual means: an estimate of the effectiveness of the see-and avoid doctrine, Proceedings of the IEEE, 1970, 58, (3), pp 337–361.Google Scholar
39. Gibbs, P. Field-of-view requirements of pilots flying the Sikorsky S70-A-9 Black Hawk, DSTO Air Operations Division, Aeronautical and Maritime Research Laboratory, Department of Defence, Australia, April 1996.Google Scholar
40. ICAO, Pilot skills to make ‘look-out’ more effective in visual collision avoidance, ICAO Circular 213-AN/130, p7, Montreal, Canada, 1989.Google Scholar
41. Cartier, J. and Hsu, D.S. Human visual search — a two state process, SPIE Proceedings, Infrared Imaging Systems: Design, Analysis, Modelling, and Testing VI, Orlando Florida, 19–20 April 1995.Google Scholar
42. Cartier, J. and Hsu, D.S. Identification of the ideal clutter metric to predict time dependence of human visual search, SPIE Proceedings, Infrared Imaging Systems: Design, Analysis, Modelling, and Testing VI, Orlando Florida, 19–20 April 1995.Google Scholar
43. Andrews, J.W. Unalerted air to air visual acquisition, Report No. ATC-152, Lincoln Laboratory, MIT, Lexington MA, 26 November 1991.Google Scholar
44. Johnson, C.W. A probabilistic logic for the development of safety-critical interactive systems, Int J Man-Machine Studies, 1993, 38, Academic Press Limited, pp 333–351.Google Scholar
45. Saull, J.W. Objectives of maintenance — airworthiness, Aerospace, July/August 1987, 14, (7), pp 41–47.Google Scholar
46. IEC 1508, Functional Safety: safety related systems, 65A/179/CDV, Technical Committee No. 65: Industrial Process Management & Control, International Electrotechnical Commission, June 1995.Google Scholar
47. Fulton, N.L. Sensor based situational awareness as a hazard paradigm for optimisation of ATC systems design, SPIE Proceedings, Air Traffic Control Technologies, Orlando Florida, 18-19 April 1995.Google Scholar
48. Andrews, J.W. Air to Air Visual Acquisition Handbook, Report No. ATC-151, Lincoln Laboratory, MIT, Lexington MA, November 1991.Google Scholar
49. MIL-STD-882B, System Safety Program Requirements incorporating Notice 1, US Department of Defense, 1 July 1987.Google Scholar
50. Woodson, W.E., Tillman, B., and Tillman, P. Human Factors Design Handbook, Second edition, McGraw Hill, 1992.Google Scholar