IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ortrsc/v34y2000i4p321-336.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

National Airspace Sector Occupancy and Conflict Analysis Models for Evaluating Scenarios under the Free-Flight Paradigm

Author

Listed:
  • Hanif D. Sherali

    (Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering (0118), Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia 24061)

  • J. Cole Smith

    (Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering (0118), Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia 24061)

  • Antonio A. Trani

    (Charles Edward Via, Jr. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering (0105), Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia 24061)

  • Srinivas Sale

    (Charles Edward Via, Jr. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering (0105), Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia 24061)

Abstract

Free-Flight is a paradigm of aircraft operations that permits the selection of more cost-effective routes for flights rather than simple traversals between designated way-points, from various origins to different destinations. In this paper, we consider the effect of this paradigm on sector workloads and potential conflicts or collision risks, based on current and projected levels of commercial air traffic. To accomplish this task, we first develop an Airspace Sector Occupancy Model (AOM) that identifies the occupancies of flights within three-dimensional (possibly nonconvex) regions of space called sectors, by utilizing an iterative procedure to trace each flight's progress through sector modules, that constitute the sectors. Next, we develop an Aircraft Encounter Model (AEM), which uses the information obtained from AOM to efficiently estimate the number and nature of blind-conflicts (i.e., conflicts under no avoidance or resolution maneuvers) resulting from a selected mix of flight plans. Besides identifying the existence of a conflict, AEM also provides useful information on the severity of the conflict and its geometry, such as the faces across which an intruder enters and exits the protective shell or envelope of another aircraft, the duration of intrusion, its relative heading, and the point of closest approach. For purposes of evaluation and assessment, we also develop a metric that provides a summary of the conflicts in terms of severities and difficulty of resolution. Finally, we apply these models to real data provided by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for evaluating several Free-Flight scenarios under wind-optimized conditions. This study constitutes the first phase of a project undertaken by a joint FAA/Eurocontrol Collision Risk Modeling Group to develop tasks for investigating air traffic control strategies and related workload and collision risk consequences under various scenarios. Follow-on work will incorporate pilot blunders, random deviations, and air traffic control man-in-the-loop maneuvers within the context of the Free-Flight paradigm, using the basic tools developed in the present study.

Suggested Citation

  • Hanif D. Sherali & J. Cole Smith & Antonio A. Trani & Srinivas Sale, 2000. "National Airspace Sector Occupancy and Conflict Analysis Models for Evaluating Scenarios under the Free-Flight Paradigm," Transportation Science, INFORMS, vol. 34(4), pages 321-336, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:inm:ortrsc:v:34:y:2000:i:4:p:321-336
    DOI: 10.1287/trsc.34.4.321.12326
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/trsc.34.4.321.12326
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/trsc.34.4.321.12326?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Robert E. Machol, 1995. "Thirty Years of Modeling Midair Collisions," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 25(5), pages 151-172, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Hanif D. Sherali & Raymond W. Staats & Antonio A. Trani, 2003. "An Airspace Planning and Collaborative Decision-Making Model: Part I—Probabilistic Conflicts, Workload, and Equity Considerations," Transportation Science, INFORMS, vol. 37(4), pages 434-456, November.
    2. Hanif D. Sherali & J. Cole Smith & Antonio A. Trani, 2002. "An Airspace Planning Model for Selecting Flight-plans Under Workload, Safety, and Equity Considerations," Transportation Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(4), pages 378-397, November.
    3. Hanif Sherali & Justin Hill, 2013. "Configuration of airspace sectors for balancing air traffic controller workload," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 203(1), pages 3-31, March.
    4. Thomas R. Willemain, 2003. "Factors Influencing Blind Conflict Risk in En Route Sectors Under Free-Flight Conditions," Transportation Science, INFORMS, vol. 37(4), pages 457-470, November.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Arnold Barnett, 1999. "A "Parallel Approach" Path to Estimating Collision Risk During Simultaneous Landings," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 45(3), pages 382-394, March.
    2. Arnold Barnett, 2000. "Free-Flight and en Route Air Safety: A First-Order Analysis," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 48(6), pages 833-845, December.
    3. Anders la Cour‐Harbo & Henrik Schiøler, 2019. "Probability of Low‐Altitude Midair Collision Between General Aviation and Unmanned Aircraft," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(11), pages 2499-2513, November.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:inm:ortrsc:v:34:y:2000:i:4:p:321-336. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.