Methodology for Generating Conflict Scenarios by Time Shifting Recorded Traffic Data

Paglione, Mike; Oaks, Robert D.; Bilimoria, Karl D.

doi:10.2514/6.2003-6724

Cited by 25 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The percentage of small angle (0 to 30 degrees) conflicts is less than all other angle brackets. However, the actual count of low angle conflicts observed is 163 per 1000 flight hours as compared to 14 small angle conflicts per 1000 flight hours observed in the extracted scenarios reported in the study above mentioned 17 . The Memphis ARTCC study, which did not involve random routing, indicates that almost 30% (approximately 60 conflicts) of all conflicts angles are between 0 and 30 degrees, which are considered the most challenging class of conflicts, and less than 10% are between 120 and 150 degrees.…”

Section: Table 2: Summary Of Simulation Runsmentioning

confidence: 77%

Safety Performance of Airborne Separation: Preliminary Baseline Testing

Consiglio

Hoadley²,

Wing³

et al. 2007

7th AIAA ATIO Conf, 2nd CEIAT Int'l Conf on Innov and Integr in Aero Sciences,17th LTA Systems Tech Conf; Followed by 2nd TEOS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Safety Performance of Airborne Separation (SPAS) study is a suite of Monte Carlo simulation experiments designed to analyze and quantify safety behavior of airborne separation. This paper presents results of preliminary baseline testing. The preliminary baseline scenario is designed to be very challenging, consisting of randomized routes in generic high-density airspace in which all aircraft are constrained to the same flight level. Sustained traffic density is varied from approximately 3 to 15 aircraft per 10,000 square miles, approximating up to about 5 times today's traffic density in a typical sector. Research at high traffic densities and at multiple flight levels are planned within the next two years. Basic safety metrics for aircraft separation are collected and analyzed. During the progression of experiments, various errors, uncertainties, delays, and other variables potentially impacting system safety will be incrementally introduced to analyze the effect on safety of the individual factors as well as their interaction and collective effect. In this paper we report the results of the first experiment that addresses the preliminary baseline condition tested over a range of traffic densities. Early results at five times the typical traffic density in today's NAS indicate that, under the assumptions of this study, airborne separation can be safely performed. In addition, we report on initial observations from an exploration of four additional factors tested at a single traffic density: broadcast surveillance signal interference, extent of intent sharing, pilot delay, and wind prediction error. Nomenclature

show abstract

Section: Table 2: Summary Of Simulation Runsmentioning

confidence: 77%

Safety Performance of Airborne Separation: Preliminary Baseline Testing

Consiglio

Hoadley²,

Wing³

et al. 2007

7th AIAA ATIO Conf, 2nd CEIAT Int'l Conf on Innov and Integr in Aero Sciences,17th LTA Systems Tech Conf; Followed by 2nd TEOS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Two hours of traffic data was extracted and time-shifted to generate a scenario with a total of 211 aircraft-to-aircraft conflicts. The method used to generate this timeshifted traffic sample of conflicts is documented in [7] and [8]. The experiment used the same traffic scenario throughout and only altered the weather forecast files.…”

Section: Design Of Experimentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Aircraft conflict probe sensitivity to weather forecasts errors

Paglione

Ryan

2007

2007 IEEE/AIAA 26th Digital Avionics Systems Conference

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study investigated the User Request Evaluation Tool's (URET) prediction sensitivity to weather forecast error. A quantitative experiment was designed and performed by the Federal Aviation Administration's Conflict Probe Assessment Team (CPAT) to evaluate the impact of weather forecast errors on URET trajectory and conflict predictions. The experiment used approximately two hours of traffic data recorded at the Indianapolis en route center in May 1999. The flights were time shifted to generate a sufficient number of test conflicts using a genetic algorithm technique developed by CPAT. The resulting scenario was input into the URET Prototype System. To induce weather forecast error, the weather input file (Rapid Update Cycle, RUC) was altered by adding 20 or 60 knots to the wind magnitude, 45 or 90 degrees to the wind direction, and 5 or 15 degrees Kelvin to the air temperature. This produced seven URET runs for the experiment -the unaltered control run and six treatment runs. The analysis compared the control run against the treatment runs. A methodology was developed to compare the trajectory and conflict prediction accuracy of these runs. A statistical analysis provided evidence that the forecast errors in wind magnitude and direction had significant effect on the longitudinal trajectory error and a modest impact on retracted false alerts, which caused at most an increase in the false alert probability by six percent. It also showed that the air temperature runs did not have a significant effect. Based on this experiment, a controller suspecting errors in the input wind forecast should expect only a modest impact on URET predictions. The impact would mainly be a moderate increase in the number of retractions of its conflict predictions (defined in this study as a retracted false alert).

show abstract

“…time shifting) for each individual flight by a constant, to create known conflict situations. 7 Since the recorded operational data had been impacted by air traffic control precisely to maintain aircraft separation, using the unaltered operational data to validate the performance of the CPT would have been difficult. Using the time shifting process to generate conflicts enabled the validation team to evaluate the performance of the CPT under controlled conditions.…”

Section: Case Study: Eram Tp Validationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Definition and Demonstration of a Methodology for Validating Aircraft Trajectory Predictors

Vivona

Paglione

Cate

et al. 2010

AIAA Guidance, Navigation, and Control Conference

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper presents a new methodology for validating an aircraft trajectory predictor, inspired by the lessons learned from a number of field trials, flight tests and simulation experiments for the development of trajectory-predictor-based automation. The methodology introduces new techniques and a new multi-staged approach to reduce the effort in identifying and resolving validation failures, avoiding the potentially large costs associated with failures during a single-stage, pass/fail approach. As a case study, the validation effort performed by the Federal Aviation Administration for its En Route Automation Modernization (ERAM) system is analyzed to illustrate the real-world applicability of this methodology. During this validation effort, ERAM initially failed to achieve six of its eight requirements associated with trajectory prediction and conflict probe. The ERAM validation issues have since been addressed, but to illustrate how the methodology could have benefited the FAA effort, additional techniques are presented that could have been used to resolve some of these issues. Using data from the ERAM validation effort, it is demonstrated that these new techniques could have identified trajectory prediction error sources that contributed to several of the unmet ERAM requirements.

show abstract

Methodology for Generating Conflict Scenarios by Time Shifting Recorded Traffic Data

Cited by 25 publications

References 10 publications

Safety Performance of Airborne Separation: Preliminary Baseline Testing

Safety Performance of Airborne Separation: Preliminary Baseline Testing

Aircraft conflict probe sensitivity to weather forecasts errors

Definition and Demonstration of a Methodology for Validating Aircraft Trajectory Predictors

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About