Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T10:16:24.907Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Airspace design: towards a rigorous specification of conflict complexity based on computational geometry

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 July 2016

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

Abstract

The degree of complexity and randomness of aircraft tracking which can be safely managed is a fundamental question for a given airspace design. To answer this question and to provide optimum conflict resolution strategies, the nature of conflict needs to be thoroughly understood. This paper reviews traditional conflict models showing how these models may be integrated into a more unified model based on computational geometry. This mathematical approach is being investigated for the specification and management of future airspace, achieving a more solid architectural basis for airspace design. This approach has the potential to significantly reduce the subjectivity when attempting to model controller and pilot workload, an important requirement in future designs.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 103 , Issue 1020 , February 1999 , pp. 75 - 84
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. RTCA. Final Report of RTCA Task Force 3 Free Flight Implementation, Washington, DC, October 26, 1995.Google Scholar
2. EUROCONTROL. ATM Strategy for 2000+, EATCHIP Doc: FCO.ETI.ST07.DEL01, Proposed Issue 1.0, 1 October 1997.Google Scholar
3. EATMS. European Air Traffic Management System Operational Concept Document, EATCHIP Doc: FCO.ET1.ST07.DEL01, Issue 1.0 (proposed edition), 1 March 1997.Google Scholar
4. Donohue, G. A visionary look at aviation surveillance systems, IEEE AES Systems Magazine, October 1995, pp 8–14.Google Scholar
5. ICAO Annex 11, Air Traffic Services, Amendment 36, Montreal, Canada, July 1994.Google Scholar
6. Shuch, H.P. Near midair collisions as an indicator of general aviation collision risk, Dissertation Series, UCB-ITS-DS-90-2, University of California at Berkeley, March 1990.Google Scholar
7. Pawlak, W., Briton, C.R., Crouch, K. and Lancaster, K.M. A framework for the evaluation of air traffic control complexity, AIAA Guidance Navigation and Control Conference, San Diego, CA, July 29–31 1996.Google Scholar
8. Rechtin, E. Systems Architecting — Creating & Building Complex Systems, Prentice Hall PTR, circa 1993.Google Scholar
9. Aurenhammer, F. Voronoi Diagrams — A survey of fundamental geometric data structure, ACM Computing Surveys, September 1991, 23, (3).Google Scholar
10. Duong, V.N. Dynamic Models for Airborne ATM Capability — State of the Art Analysis, European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation, EEC Task R. 11, September 1996.Google Scholar
11. ICAO. Manual on Required Navigation Performance, Doc 9613-AN/937, First Edition, 1994.Google Scholar
12. Alexander, B. Aircraft density and midair collision, Proceedings of the IEEE, March 1970, 58, (3), pp 377–381.Google Scholar
13. May, G.T.E. A method for predicting the number of near mid-air collisions in a defined airspace, J Inst of Nav, 1971, 24, (2), pp 204–218.Google Scholar
14. Yu, J.C. Transportation Engineering — Introduction to Planning, Design, and Operations, Elsevier North Holland Inc, 1982.Google Scholar
15. RTCA. Minimum Operational Performance Standards for Traffic alert and Collision Avoidance System (TCAS) Airborne Equipment, Volume 1, Consolidated Edition, RTCA/DO-185, Washington DC, 6 September 1990.Google Scholar
16. Dunlay, W.J. Analytical models of perceived air traffic control conflicts, Trans Sci, 1975, 9, 149–164.Google Scholar
17. Duong, V.N. and Zeghal, K. Conflict resolution advisory for autonomous airborne separation in low density airspace, IEEE CDC ’97 Conference, San Diego, California, USA, December 10-12, 1997.Google Scholar
18. Blanchard, B.S. System Engineering Management, John Wiley & Sons, 1991.Google Scholar
19. IEC. Functional Safety: safety-related systems. Draft International Standard IEC 1508, June 1995.Google Scholar
20. ICAO. Special Committee on Future Air Navigation Systems — Third Meeting, Doc 9503, FANS/3, Montreal, Canada, 3–21 November 1986.Google Scholar
21. ICAO. Annex 2 Rules of the Air, Amendment I, 2nd edition, Montreal, Canada, April 1952.Google Scholar
22. 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
23. ICAO. Rules of the Air and Air Traffic Services/Operations, Divisional Meeting, Montreal, ICAO Doc 8346, RAC/OPS, Montreal, Canada, 14 May 1963.Google Scholar
24. ICAO. Correspondence from William R. Fromme, Director, Air Navigation Bureau, to Mr J. Weber, Representative of Australia on the Council of ICAO re Fulton enquiry on cruising rule history, Canada, 28 March 1995.Google Scholar
25. Cain, K. Quadrant altitudes and free flight — a comparison, Proceedings of the 40th Annual ATC Conference, 30 September-3 October, 1995.Google Scholar
26. Britt, C.L. and Schrader, J. A Statistical evaluation of aircraft collision- hazard warning system techniques in the terminal area, IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems, January 1970, Vol AES-6, Nol.pp 10–21.Google Scholar
27. Holt, J.M. and Anderson, R.M. Analysis of warning times for collision avoidance systems, IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems, March 1968, Vol AES-4, No 2.Google Scholar
28. Geisinger, K.E. Airspace conflict equations, Transportation Science, May 1985, 19, (2), pp 139–153.Google Scholar
29. Watson, D.F. Contouring — A Guide To The Analysis And Display Of Spatial Data, Pergamon Press, 1992.Google Scholar
30. Coxeter, H.S.M. Introduction to Geometry — Second Edition, Wiley Classics Library, John Wiley & Sons Inc, 1989.Google Scholar
31. Merz, A.W. Optimal evasive maneuvers in maritime collision avoidance, Navigation, 20, (2). Summer 1973.Google Scholar
32. Krozel, J. Free flight conflict detection and resolution analysis, AIAA Guidance, Navigation, and Control Conference, AIAA-96-3763, San Diego, California, 1996.Google Scholar
33. Frost, B.J. and Sun, H., Chapter 5 — Visual Motion processing for figure/ground segregation, collision avoidance, and optic flow analysis in the pigeon, From Living Eyes to Seeing Machines, Srinivasan, M.V. and Venkatesh, S. (Ed), Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1997.Google Scholar