Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-08T04:52:13.515Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Automatic Conflict Detection Logic for Future Air Traffic Control

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 October 2009

S. Ratcliffe
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Air traffic control (ATC) makes extensive use of computer technology in subordinate roles for processing flight-plan and radar data and for message switching. It is usual to stress that such computers are aids to human controllers who take the decisions. It can, however, be argued that computers are, in fact, already encroaching on the decision-taking processes. The SSR plot extractor, for example, produces a censored summary which amounts to only a few per cent of the torrent of radar data from which it is derived. This summary is then subjected to code conversion and coordinate transformation before it reaches the controllers who cannot refer back to the data sources. Once computer-processing has been introduced, the issue is no longer whether a computer may take some of the decisions involved in ATC, but merely the extent of the authority it can exercise.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Navigation , Volume 42 , Issue 1 , January 1989 , pp. 92 - 106
Copyright
Copyright © The Royal Institute of Navigation 1989

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

REFERENCES

1Goldmunz, L., et al. (1980). Outline for AERA Concept Document. FAA Office of Systems Engineering Management.Google Scholar
2Hunt, V. R. and Zellweger, A. (1987). Strategies for future ATC systems. Computer, Feb.Google Scholar
3Avizienis, A. and Ball, D. E. (1987). On the achievement of a highly fault-tolerant ATC System. Computer, Feb.Google Scholar
4Printemps, A. (1977). Conception FranÇais de la prévision des conflits: le filet de sauvegarde. International Conference on Electronic Systems and Navigation Aids, Paris.Google Scholar
5Stevens, M. C. (1981). Multipath and interference effects in SSR systems. IEE Proc, 12, 43.Google Scholar
6Ratcliffe, S. (1988). Can computers take over conflict detection from controllers? Controller, 27, 6.Google Scholar
7Helms, J. L. and Poritzky, S. B. (1980). The national airspace system plan. Astronautics and Aeronautics, 6.Google Scholar
8Ford, R. L. (1986). The protected volume of airspace generated by an airborne collision avoidance system. This Journal, 39, 139 (errata, 39, 426).Google Scholar
9Corporation, Mitre (1983). System Safety Study of Minimum TCAS2. MTR-83 W241, DOT/ FAA/TM-83/36.Google Scholar
10Ratcliffe, S. (1983). Secondary radar for airborne collision avoidance. This Journal, 35, 220.Google Scholar
11Anon (1988). A Mathematical Version of the Draft SARPS for ACAS II. ICAO SICASP/ WG2 WP2.Google Scholar
12Fryer, M. J. and Greenman, J. V. (1987). Optimisation Theory. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
13Jaycox, R. L., et al. (1968). Group of papers on the ATA collision avoidance system. Trans. IEEE (AES), 4, 234/314.Google Scholar
14 14 U.S. Dept of Transportation (1980). US national aviation standard for the active BCAS system. US Federal Register (45 FR 71156).Google Scholar
15Yavin, Y. and Pachter, M. (1987). Pursuit—evasion differential games. Int. J. Computers and Mathematics, 13 Nos 1—3.Google Scholar