CN112562421A - Flight conflict evaluation method based on index system - Google Patents

Flight conflict evaluation method based on index system Download PDF

Info

Publication number
CN112562421A
CN112562421A CN202011355532.9A CN202011355532A CN112562421A CN 112562421 A CN112562421 A CN 112562421A CN 202011355532 A CN202011355532 A CN 202011355532A CN 112562421 A CN112562421 A CN 112562421A
Authority
CN
China
Prior art keywords
aircraft
conflict
flight
airspace
calculate
Prior art date
Legal status (The legal status is an assumption and is not a legal conclusion. Google has not performed a legal analysis and makes no representation as to the accuracy of the status listed.)
Granted
Application number
CN202011355532.9A
Other languages
Chinese (zh)
Other versions
CN112562421B (en
Inventor
裴京涛
霍达
丛玮
朱睿
刘磊
吴义梅
谢道仪
Current Assignee (The listed assignees may be inaccurate. Google has not performed a legal analysis and makes no representation or warranty as to the accuracy of the list.)
Dalandong Nanjing Technology Co ltd
Original Assignee
Dalandong Nanjing Technology Co ltd
Priority date (The priority date is an assumption and is not a legal conclusion. Google has not performed a legal analysis and makes no representation as to the accuracy of the date listed.)
Filing date
Publication date
Application filed by Dalandong Nanjing Technology Co ltd filed Critical Dalandong Nanjing Technology Co ltd
Priority to CN202011355532.9A priority Critical patent/CN112562421B/en
Publication of CN112562421A publication Critical patent/CN112562421A/en
Application granted granted Critical
Publication of CN112562421B publication Critical patent/CN112562421B/en
Active legal-status Critical Current
Anticipated expiration legal-status Critical

Links

Images

Classifications

    • G—PHYSICS
    • G08—SIGNALLING
    • G08G—TRAFFIC CONTROL SYSTEMS
    • G08G5/00—Traffic control systems for aircraft
    • G08G5/50—Navigation or guidance aids
    • G08G5/56—Navigation or guidance aids for two or more aircraft
    • G—PHYSICS
    • G06—COMPUTING; CALCULATING OR COUNTING
    • G06Q—INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY [ICT] SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL OR SUPERVISORY PURPOSES; SYSTEMS OR METHODS SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL OR SUPERVISORY PURPOSES, NOT OTHERWISE PROVIDED FOR
    • G06Q10/00—Administration; Management
    • G06Q10/06—Resources, workflows, human or project management; Enterprise or organisation planning; Enterprise or organisation modelling
    • G06Q10/063—Operations research, analysis or management
    • G06Q10/0639—Performance analysis of employees; Performance analysis of enterprise or organisation operations
    • G06Q10/06393—Score-carding, benchmarking or key performance indicator [KPI] analysis

Landscapes

  • Business, Economics & Management (AREA)
  • Human Resources & Organizations (AREA)
  • Engineering & Computer Science (AREA)
  • Economics (AREA)
  • General Physics & Mathematics (AREA)
  • Physics & Mathematics (AREA)
  • Development Economics (AREA)
  • Educational Administration (AREA)
  • Strategic Management (AREA)
  • Entrepreneurship & Innovation (AREA)
  • Game Theory and Decision Science (AREA)
  • Aviation & Aerospace Engineering (AREA)
  • Marketing (AREA)
  • Operations Research (AREA)
  • Quality & Reliability (AREA)
  • Tourism & Hospitality (AREA)
  • General Business, Economics & Management (AREA)
  • Theoretical Computer Science (AREA)
  • Traffic Control Systems (AREA)

Abstract

本发明提供一种基于指标体系的飞行冲突评价方法，该方法包括：a1：明确飞行冲突评估的影响因素，每个因素对应多个指标；a2：基于航空器航行诸元数据，计算飞行冲突发生时段内各时间片的冲突航空器相对位置与运动趋势指标；a3：基于冲突发生的过程信息，计算冲突可控性指标；a4：基于冲突发生时的空域运行数据，计算空域运行环境指标；a5：依据公式将每个因素下的指标结果进行处理，通过熵权法计算每个影响因素的权重；a6：对时间片的飞行冲突评分求均值，得到该事件的最终评估得分。本方法全面地考虑了影响飞行冲突的各类因素，明确了各因素的影响程度，减少了定性判断的偏差，基于航空大数据的评估方法，提供更充分的客观数据，评价方法简便，展现结果直观；能够利用分数的分布对不同冲突事件量化对比，找到同类事件的共性，提出改进措施。

Figure 202011355532

The present invention provides a flight conflict evaluation method based on an index system, the method comprising: a1: clarifying the influencing factors of flight conflict evaluation, each factor corresponding to multiple indicators; a2: calculating the flight conflict occurrence time period based on aircraft navigation metadata Relative position and motion trend index of conflicting aircraft in each time slice; a3: Calculate the conflict controllability index based on the process information of the conflict; a4: Calculate the airspace operating environment index based on the airspace operation data at the time of the conflict; a5: Basis The formula processes the index results under each factor, and calculates the weight of each influencing factor through the entropy weight method; a6: Average the flight conflict scores of the time slice to obtain the final evaluation score of the event. This method comprehensively considers various factors affecting flight conflicts, clarifies the degree of influence of each factor, reduces the deviation of qualitative judgment, and provides more sufficient objective data based on the evaluation method of aviation big data. The evaluation method is simple and shows the results. Intuitive; can use the distribution of scores to quantify and compare different conflict events, find the commonality of similar events, and propose improvement measures.

Figure 202011355532

Description

Flight conflict evaluation method based on index system
Technical Field
The invention relates to the technical field of air transportation, in particular to a flight conflict evaluation method based on an index system.
Background
Safety is one of the most important concerns in the field of air transport. A flight conflict generally means that two civilian aircraft are actually operating less than a specified separation criterion. Although the flight conflict can be qualitatively identified according to relevant regulations of civil aviation bureau, an intuitive and quantitative evaluation method for the severity of the flight conflict is lacked. At present, a Reich model, an Event model and the like are mainly applied in domestic and foreign researches, aircrafts are assumed to be collision boxes, and collision probabilities of two aircrafts are evaluated by combining theoretical methods such as probability theory and the like.
An effective solution to the problems in the related art has not been proposed yet.
Disclosure of Invention
The invention aims to provide a flight conflict evaluation method based on an index system, so as to solve the problems in the background technology.
In order to achieve the purpose, the invention provides the following technical scheme:
a flight conflict evaluation method based on an index system comprises the following steps:
a 1: determining influence factors of flight conflict assessment, wherein each factor corresponds to a plurality of indexes;
a 2: calculating the conflict aircraft relative position and motion trend index of each time slice in the flight conflict occurrence period based on the aircraft navigation data;
a 3: calculating a conflict controllability index based on the process information of the conflict occurrence;
a 4: calculating an airspace operation environment index based on the airspace operation data when the conflict occurs;
a 5: processing the index result under each factor according to a formula, and calculating the weight of each influence factor by an entropy weight method;
a 6: and averaging the flight conflict scores of the time slices to obtain a final evaluation score of the event.
Further, in the flight conflict assessment method, the influencing factors in the step (a1) are conflicting aircraft relative position and motion trend factors, conflicting controllability factors and airspace operation environment factors, and a plurality of factor assessment indexes are set under each factor;
the factors of the conflict aircraft relative position and the motion trend comprise three indexes: s1 vertical interval and vertical approach speed of aircraft, S2 horizontal interval and horizontal approach speed of aircraft, and S3 track included angle, corresponding factor score R1The calculation method comprises the following steps:
Figure BDA0002802484070000021
the conflict controllability factor comprises an index of conflict resolution time S4 and a corresponding factor score R2The calculation method comprises the following steps:
R2＝S4
the spatial domain operation environment factors comprise two indexes of S5 spatial domain busy degree and S6 spatial domain complexity, and corresponding scores R3The calculation method comprises the following steps:
Figure BDA0002802484070000022
based on the three factors, the method for calculating the risk score of the aircraft flight conflict is shown as the following formula:
S＝100*(w1*R1+R2*w2+w3*R3)
wherein, w1-w3The weights corresponding to the three factors are calculated by an entropy weight method, Si，i∈[1,6]I.e. the index set under the above-mentioned corresponding factors, each SiThe data will also correspond to a plurality of sub-indices, SiThe value is obtained by averaging the values of the next sub-index.
Further, in the above flight conflict assessment method, the index in the step (a1) includes: the method comprises the following steps of S1 aircraft vertical interval and vertical approaching speed, S2 aircraft horizontal interval and horizontal approaching speed, S3 track included angle, S4 conflict resolution time, S5 airspace busy degree and S6 airspace complexity, wherein each index belongs to a plurality of sub-indexes.
Further, in the flight conflict evaluation method, the method for calculating the conflict aircraft relative position and movement trend index result per minute is as follows:
b 1: starting time T of flight conflictstartAnd end time TendSelecting [ T ]start,Tend]Setting the time granularity of conflict analysis as 1 second as the time range of flight conflict evaluation, and dividing the time range of the flight conflict evaluation into m time slices;
b 2: calculating the conflict aircraft relative position and motion trend index results of m time slices;
b 3: calculating conflict controllability results of the m time slices;
b 4: and calculating the airspace operation environment index results of the m time slices.
Further, in the above flight conflict assessment method, in the step (b2), based on the longitude, latitude and altitude of two aircraft at that time, the included angles between the vertical interval and the approach speed of the two aircraft S1, between the horizontal interval and the approach speed of the two aircraft S2 and between the horizontal interval and the approach speed of the two aircraft S3 are calculated, the three indexes are multiplied by the calculation result, and the cubic square root is taken to obtain the score of the factor, and the specific score comparison table is as follows:
c 1: calculating S1 aircraft vertical interval and approaching speed results of m time slices, calculating and accumulating according to the aircraft vertical interval and vertical approaching speed to obtain an average value:
TABLE 1 conflicting aircraft score vertical separation
Figure BDA0002802484070000031
The vertical interval is calculated by acquiring the height information of the conflict flights through secondary radar/ADSB data, and VS in the table represents the vertical interval (unit: meter) between the conflict aircraft pairs. The minimum vertical separation of the VSM aircraft will vary from altitude layer to altitude layer. The VSM of an aircraft is 300 meters when flying at an altitude layer below 8400 meters (inclusive) and 600 meters when flying above 12500 meters (exclusive). It is noted that the VSM is 300 meters when the aircraft is flying in RVSM airspace of (6000 meters, 8400 meters ] and (8400 meters, 12500 meters), but the scoring rules are applied according to the FL >12500m table if the VSM is still 600 meters when the aircraft is not RVSM capable.
TABLE 2 conflicting aircraft vs. vertical proximity
Figure BDA0002802484070000032
The vertical approach rate, i.e., the approach velocity of the impacting aircraft pair over the vertical range, VS in the table above represents the vertical approach rate of the aircraft pair in meters per minute.
c 2: calculating S2 aircraft horizontal interval and approaching speed results of m time slices, calculating and accumulating according to the horizontal interval and the horizontal approaching speed of the aircraft to obtain an average value:
TABLE 3 conflicting aircraft score for horizontal separation
Figure BDA0002802484070000041
The horizontal interval is that longitude and latitude information of the conflict flights is obtained through secondary radar/ADSB data to be calculated, HS in the table represents the horizontal interval (unit: meter) between the conflict aircraft pairs, the content of the radar control HSM 6000 meters is 6 kilometers below, and the content of the radar control HSM 6000 meters is 10 kilometers above.
Table 4 conflicting aircraft to horizontal proximity rates
Figure BDA0002802484070000042
The horizontal approach rate, i.e., the approach speed of the conflict aircraft pair in the horizontal range, and CR in the above table represents the horizontal approach rate of the aircraft pair in km/h. The horizontal approach rate is calculated by adopting a cosine theorem, namely, the displayed ground speed vector difference value of the conflicting aircraft is calculated.
c3, judging the score of the index of the S3 track included angle according to the interval of the track included angle theta:
when theta is more than or equal to 135 degrees, the score is 100; when theta is more than or equal to 45 degrees and less than 135 degrees, the score is 50; when theta is less than 45 degrees, the score is 25;
likewise, a higher score indicates a greater risk;
further, in the flight conflict assessment method, the conflict controllability is calculated by the conflict resolution time of S4, and the corresponding score is as follows:
TABLE 5 Conflict resolution time
Figure BDA0002802484070000043
Figure BDA0002802484070000051
Further, in the flight conflict evaluation method, the airspace operating environment in the airspace at the aircraft flight conflict occurrence period includes two levels of S5 airspace busy degree and S6 airspace complexity, the calculation results of the two indexes are accumulated and multiplied, and then the calculation results are derived to obtain the scores of the corresponding factors, and the specific corresponding scores are as follows:
d1, calculating S5 space domain busy degree results of m time slices, calculating and accumulating according to the flow capacity ratio and the call saturation to obtain a score average, wherein the corresponding scores are as follows:
TABLE 6 collision occurrence airspace flow capacity ratio
Figure BDA0002802484070000052
The flow capacity ratio is the ratio of the flow of the airspace unit to the published capacity when the conflict occurs, the busy degree of the airspace unit is reflected from the angle of the flight number required to be commanded, and the FCR in the upper table is the flow capacity ratio of the airspace unit.
TABLE 7 Conflict occurrence channel Call saturation
Figure BDA0002802484070000053
The saturation of the call, i.e., the congestion of the vhf channel used when a conflict occurs, reflects, on the other hand, how busy the controller is handling the conflict, and how untimely the conflict is released due to a possible set call (e.g., a flight around the sky). When the airspace condition is severe, sometimes, although the airspace flow capacity ratio is not high, the aircraft does not fly according to the route due to a large number of aircraft flying around applications, and the controlled airspace is busy and increases steeply. Thus, the call saturation introduced by the present system will complement the shorthand in the flow capacity ratio that is characterized for the busy level of the airspace. R in the above table is the animation saturation of the channel.
d2, calculating S6 space domain complexity results of m time slices, calculating scores according to the number of potential conflict aircrafts, and correspondingly calculating the scores as follows:
TABLE 8 number of potentially conflicting aircraft
Figure BDA0002802484070000054
Figure BDA0002802484070000061
The flight control system has the advantages that altitude layer resources and horizontal range occupation beyond a plan are generated when the aircraft with conflicts performs maneuvering flight, new conflicts can be generated when the airspace resources are occupied by other flights, so that the original configuration of the airspace resources is forced to be changed by controllers to avoid additional risks, and the system defines the flights which need to be concerned by the controllers as the number of potential conflict aircrafts. The statistical method of the potential conflict shelf is to screen flights in the empty domain from the aspects of space range and approach trend. Firstly, taking the collision flying aircraft as a center, respectively taking the upper and lower parts of the aircraft as 300 meters, and dividing a potential collision attention area of a cylinder by taking a minimum head crossing interval (for example, 6000 meters including 30 kilometers below and 6000 meters above 50 kilometers) as a radius. Then, the aircraft with the vertical or horizontal approaching trend between the aircraft in the potential conflict concern area and the conflict resolution aircraft is taken into the index statistics of the number of potential conflict aircraft. N in the table represents the number of potentially conflicting aircraft.
Further, in the flight conflict evaluation method, the information entropy of the conflict aircraft relative position and motion trend factor, the conflict controllability factor and the airspace operation environment factor is calculated based on the information entropy, and the weight calculation method includes:
e 1: constructing an initial judgment matrix according to the m time slices and the n indexes
A＝(aij)m×n
aijA metric value representing a jth index in the ith scheme;
e 2: standardizing the initial evaluation matrix to obtain a matrix:
B＝(bij)m×n
Figure BDA0002802484070000062
e 3: calculating the information entropy of the jth index
Figure BDA0002802484070000063
e 4: calculating the coefficient of difference
dj＝1-ej
e 5: calculating the weight of each index
Figure BDA0002802484070000071
Obtained wjI.e. the weight of the jth evaluation index, the weight set of all indexes is W ═ W1,w2,…wn}。
According to the invention, through multidimensional indexes, subjective and objective influence factors of flight conflicts are considered: the method comprises the following steps that the relative position and the motion trend of a conflict aircraft (S1 aircraft vertical interval and vertical approaching speed, S2 aircraft horizontal interval and horizontal approaching speed, and S3 track included angle), conflict controllability (S4 conflict resolution time), an airspace operation environment (S5 airspace busy degree and airspace S6 domain complexity) and the like are adopted, so that the method has the two-aircraft approaching trend directly related to flight conflict and the operation environment where the flight conflict is located, more comprehensive influence factors are considered, and the key characteristic of the flight conflict is reflected; when the index calculation model is redesigned, the indexes are disassembled according to the correlation degree between the indexes, and the indexes with larger correlation, such as the vertical approach trend, the horizontal approach trend and the track included angle, are combined in a group, so that the cumulative influence effect of the similar indexes is ensured; confirming the weight of each factor through the objective rule of the data by an entropy weight method, and determining the influence degree of different factors; the score of each flight conflict is evaluated based on historical data, the air traffic management personnel are helped to realize the comparison of the severity of different events, the repeated analysis is better carried out, the key factors influencing the flight conflicts are found, and effective improvement measures are provided.
Compared with the prior art, the invention has the following beneficial effects: 1. compared with the traditional collision risk assessment method, the flight conflict assessment method can more comprehensively consider various factors influencing flight conflicts, wherein the factors of conflict aircrafts comprise intervals, approach trends and the like, the factors of airspace situation environment concern the busy degree and the complexity of an airspace when an event occurs, the aspects of flow capacity ratio, call saturation, potential conflict flight number and the like are covered, and the factors considered for conflict assessment are more comprehensive; 2. the evaluation method determines the weight of each factor through an entropy weight method, determines the influence degree of each factor, and reduces the deviation of qualitative judgment; 3. the invention is an objective evaluation method based on civil aviation big data, the rule of mining historical data by a mathematical model is established, and the calculation method is more scientific and efficient; 4. the invention utilizes the distribution of the scores, is convenient for carrying out quantitative comparison on different conflict events, finds the commonness of similar events and is convenient for proposing improvement measures.
Drawings
In order to more clearly illustrate the embodiments of the present invention or the technical solutions in the prior art, the drawings needed in the embodiments will be briefly described below, and it is obvious that the drawings in the following description are only some embodiments of the present invention, and it is obvious for those skilled in the art to obtain other drawings without creative efforts.
FIG. 1 is a schematic flow chart of a flight conflict evaluation method based on an index system.
Detailed Description
The invention will be further described based on the case of flight conflict actually occurring in a certain high-altitude area control area in China, with reference to the accompanying drawings and specific implementation manners:
as shown in fig. 1, a flight conflict evaluation method based on an index system includes:
a 1: determining influence factors of flight conflict assessment, wherein each factor corresponds to a plurality of indexes;
a 2: calculating the conflict aircraft relative position and motion trend index of each time slice in the flight conflict occurrence period based on the aircraft navigation data;
a 3: calculating a conflict controllability index based on the process information of the conflict occurrence;
a 4: calculating an airspace operation environment index based on the airspace operation data when the conflict occurs;
a 5: processing the index result under each factor according to a formula, and calculating the weight of each influence factor by an entropy weight method;
a 6: and averaging the flight conflict scores of the time slices to obtain a final evaluation score of the event.
According to the above, the influencing factors in the step a1 are conflicting relative position and movement tendency of the aircraft, conflicting controllability and airspace operation environment factors, respectively.
According to the above, the step a1 of indexing includes: s1 aircraft vertical spacing and approach speed, S2 aircraft horizontal spacing and approach speed, S3 track included angle, S4 conflict controllability, S5 airspace busy degree, S6 airspace complexity and the like are 6 indexes, and the embodiment totally uses six indexes to describe dangerous conditions when the aircraft conflicts.
The factors of the relative position and the motion trend of the conflict aircraft comprise S1 aircraft vertical interval and approach speed (vertical interval and vertical approach rate), S2 aircraft horizontal interval and approach speed (horizontal interval and horizontal approach rate) and S3 flight path angle.
The conflict controllability factor refers to the conflict resolution time of S4.
The spatial domain operation environment factors are characterized by S5 spatial domain busy degree (spatial flow capacity ratio, saturation degree of a communication wave channel) and S6 spatial domain complexity (potential conflict flight number) in the conflict occurrence process.
The flight conflict assessment method introduced in the embodiment can consider various factors influencing flight conflicts more comprehensively, the factors of conflict aircrafts comprise intervals, approach trends (relative speed, included angle) and the like, the factors of airspace situation environment concern the busy degree of an airspace when an event occurs, the aspects of flow capacity ratio, call saturation, potentially conflicting flight number and the like are covered, and compared with the traditional collision risk assessment method, the factors considered for conflict assessment are more comprehensive. The evaluation method determines the weight of each factor by an entropy weight method, determines the influence degree of each factor and reduces the deviation of subjective qualitative judgment. Based on civil aviation big data, the data mode is objectively identified, the calculation method is scientific and simple, and the displayed result is more visual; meanwhile, different conflict events can be quantitatively compared by utilizing the distribution of the scores, the commonness of similar events can be found, and improvement measures can be provided conveniently.
According to the above, the method for calculating the flight conflict indicator result per minute is as follows (since the event is not yet determined, in order to avoid the possible influence on the actual flight conflict evaluation, the date of the event occurrence is hidden here):
b 1: the starting time of the flight conflict is 8 hours, 45 minutes and 36 seconds on a certain day of a certain month in a certain year, and the ending time of the flight conflict is 8 hours, 46 minutes and 10 seconds on the same day, so that a certain day of a certain month in a certain year [8 hours, 45 minutes and 36 seconds, 8 hours, 46 minutes and 10 seconds ] is selected as the time range of flight conflict assessment, the time granularity of conflict analysis is set to be 1 second, and the conflict event has 35 time slices in total;
b 2: calculating the conflict aircraft relative position and motion trend index results of 35 time slices;
b 3: calculating conflict controllability index results of 35 time slices;
b 4: and calculating the airspace operation environment index result of 35 time slices.
Further, a flight conflict evaluation method based on an index system is characterized in that in the step (b2), according to the longitude, the latitude and the altitude of two aircrafts at the moment, included angles between the vertical interval and the approaching speed of the S1 aircraft, between the horizontal interval and the approaching speed of the S2 aircraft and the flight path of the S3 are calculated, the three indexes are multiplied after calculation results, and the cubic square root is taken to obtain the score of the factor, and the specific process is as follows:
c 1: and S1 calculating vertical interval and approaching speed results of the aircraft in 35 time slices, calculating and accumulating according to the vertical interval and the vertical approaching speed of the aircraft to obtain an average value:
TABLE 9 vertical spacing and closing velocity results and scores
Figure BDA0002802484070000091
Figure BDA0002802484070000101
In table 9, the vertical interval column and the vertical proximity rate column are numerical values calculated by the index, and the corresponding vertical interval score column and the vertical proximity rate score column are risk influence scores obtained by the above calculation method. For example, since the vertical interval between the 10 th time slot aircraft is 300, the vertical interval score is 63 minutes according to table 1, the vertical approach rate of the time slot during flight is 0, the vertical approach rate is 27 minutes according to table 2, and the vertical interval and the approach speed index score of the time slot S1 are (63+ 27)/2-45 minutes.
c 2: calculating S2 aircraft horizontal interval and approaching speed results of 35 time slices, calculating and accumulating according to the horizontal interval and the horizontal approaching speed of the aircraft to obtain an average value:
TABLE 10 horizontal Interval and closing Rate results and scores
Figure BDA0002802484070000111
In table 10, the horizontal interval column and the horizontal proximity ratio column are numerical values calculated by the index, and the corresponding horizontal interval score column and horizontal proximity ratio score column are risk influence scores obtained by the above calculation method. For example, since the horizontal interval between the 10 th time slot aircraft is 6.52, the vertical interval score is 54 minutes and the horizontal approach rate during the flight of the time slot is 1021 from table 3, the vertical approach rate is 80 minutes and the score between the horizontal interval and the approach speed index of the aircraft for the time slot S2 is (54+ 80)/2-67 minutes from table 4.
c3, judging the score of the index of the S3 track included angle according to the interval of the track included angle theta:
TABLE 11 track Angle result and score
Figure BDA0002802484070000121
The track included angle column and the track included angle score column in table 11 respectively list the actual track included angle change condition during the collision of the aircraft and the score obtained according to the above corresponding rule. For example, the track angle of the 10 th time slice colliding aircraft pair is 179.93 °, so the vector velocity difference score is 100.
c4 multiplying the scores of three indexes by the third power
TABLE 12 conflict aircraft relative position and movement trend scores
Figure BDA0002802484070000131
Figure BDA0002802484070000141
In table 12, the scores of the three indexes in the collision process of the aircraft are listed in the columns of the scores of the vertical interval and the approaching speed of the aircraft, the scores of the horizontal interval and the approaching speed of the aircraft, and the scores of the three indexes in the track included angle are calculated by three evolution after multiplication. For example, the 10 th time slice conflicts the aircraft vertical interval and approaching speed score 45, the aircraft horizontal interval and approaching speed score 67 and the track angle score 100 of the aircraft pair, so the conflict aircraft relative position and motion trend factor is always divided into (45 x 67 x 100) 1/3-67.05.
Further, the flight conflict evaluation method based on the index system is characterized in that the conflict controllability is calculated through S4 conflict resolution time, the conflict resolution time obtained according to the flight conflict report is 35S, and therefore the corresponding conflict controllability is divided into 80.
Further, the flight conflict evaluation method based on the index system is characterized in that the airspace operating environment in the airspace of the aircraft at the time of occurrence of flight conflict comprises two levels of S5 airspace busy degree and S6 airspace complexity, the calculation results of the two indexes are accumulated and then are multiplied to obtain scores of corresponding factors, and the scores are specifically as follows:
d1, calculating S5 space domain busy degree results of 35 time slices, calculating and accumulating according to the flow capacity ratio and the call saturation to obtain a score average, wherein the corresponding scores are as follows:
TABLE 13 airspace busyness score
Figure BDA0002802484070000142
Figure BDA0002802484070000151
In table 13, the flow capacity ratio score and the call saturation score list respectively lists the scores of the two indexes in the process of collision of the aircraft, and finally, the scores are added and averaged to obtain the airspace busy degree score. For example, since the 10 th slot has a flow capacity ratio score of 35 and a call saturation score of 65, the spatial domain is busy (35+65)/2, which is 50 points.
d2 calculating S6 airspace complexity results of 35 time slices, calculating scores according to the number of potential conflict aircrafts, and correspondingly calculating the scores as follows:
TABLE 14 spatial complexity score
Figure BDA0002802484070000152
Figure BDA0002802484070000161
d3, multiplying the two index scores by the following evolution:
TABLE 15 airspace operating environment scores
Figure BDA0002802484070000162
Figure BDA0002802484070000171
In table 15, the score of the busy level of the airspace and the score of the complexity of the airspace of S5 and S6 respectively list the scores of the two indexes in the process of collision of the aircraft, and finally the influence score of the factor is obtained by calculation through multiplication and evolution. For example, the 10 th time slice space domain busy degree score is 50, and the space domain complexity score is 55, so that the space domain operation environment factors are always (50 × 55) ^ 1/2-52.44.
According to the above, the method for calculating the weight is as follows:
c 1: constructing an initial judgment matrix according to the 35 time slices and the 3 indexes
A＝(aij)35×7
aijA metric value representing a jth index in the ith scheme;
the initial evaluation matrix a of 35 × 3 is as follows:
Figure BDA0002802484070000172
Figure BDA0002802484070000181
c 2: standardizing the initial evaluation matrix to obtain a matrix:
B＝(bij)m×n
Figure BDA0002802484070000182
the normalized matrix B of 35 x 3 is shown below:
Figure BDA0002802484070000183
Figure BDA0002802484070000191
c3: calculating the information entropy of the jth index
Figure BDA0002802484070000192
The entropy matrix E of information 35 × 3 after transmission processing is as follows:
Figure BDA0002802484070000193
Figure BDA0002802484070000201
c4: calculating the coefficient of difference
dj＝1-ej
D＝{d1,d2,d3}＝{0.410346164，0.294826918，0.294826918}
c 5: calculating the weight of each index
Figure BDA0002802484070000202
Obtained wjI.e. the weight of the jth evaluation index, the weight set of all indexes is W ═ 0.41, 0.295, 0.295}
According to the evaluation results of the flight conflict events in each time slice in the relative position of the conflict aircraft and 3 factors such as the motion trend, the conflict controllability and the airspace operation environment, a 35 x 3 evaluation matrix is established, and index weight is obtained by using an entropy weight method, so that the calculation result of the flight conflict events in each time slice is calculated:
TABLE 16 conflict Risk weighted score
Figure BDA0002802484070000203
Figure BDA0002802484070000211
And averaging all the calculation results of 35 time slices of the flight conflict event to obtain the final score S of the flight conflict event, which is 60.28 points.
Finally, it should be noted that: although the present invention has been described in detail with reference to the foregoing embodiments, those skilled in the art will understand that various changes, modifications and substitutions can be made without departing from the spirit and scope of the invention as defined by the appended claims. Any modification, equivalent replacement, or improvement made within the spirit and principle of the present invention should be included in the protection scope of the present invention.

Claims (8)

1.一种基于指标体系的飞行冲突评价方法，其特征在于，该方法包括：1. a flight conflict evaluation method based on index system, is characterized in that, this method comprises: a1：明确飞行冲突评估的影响因素，每个因素对应多个指标；a1: Identify the influencing factors of flight conflict assessment, each factor corresponds to multiple indicators; a2：基于航空器航行诸元数据，计算飞行冲突发生时段内各时间片的冲突航空器相对位置与运动趋势指标；a2: Calculate the relative position and motion trend indicators of conflicting aircraft in each time slice during the flight conflict occurrence period based on the metadata of aircraft navigation; a3：基于冲突发生的过程信息，计算冲突可控性指标；a3: Calculate the conflict controllability index based on the process information of conflict occurrence; a4：基于冲突发生时的空域运行数据，计算空域运行环境指标；a4: Calculate the airspace operating environment indicators based on the airspace operating data at the time of the conflict; a5：依据公式将每个因素下的指标结果进行处理，通过熵权法计算每个影响因素的权重；a5: Process the index results under each factor according to the formula, and calculate the weight of each influencing factor through the entropy weight method; a6：对时间片的飞行冲突评分求均值，得到该事件的最终评估得分。a6: Average the flight conflict scores of the time slice to obtain the final evaluation score of the event. 2.根据权利要求1所述的一种基于指标体系的飞行冲突评价方法，其特征在于，所述步骤(a1)中影响因素分别是冲突航空器相对位置与运动趋势因素、冲突可控性因素以及空域运行环境因素，每个因素下设多个因素评价指标；2. a kind of flight conflict evaluation method based on index system according to claim 1, is characterized in that, in described step (a1), the influencing factors are respectively conflict aircraft relative position and motion trend factor, conflict controllability factor and Airspace operating environment factors, each factor has multiple factor evaluation indicators; 其中，冲突航空器相对位置与运动趋势因素包含三个指标：S1航空器垂直间隔与垂直接近速度、S2航空器水平间隔与水平接近速度、S3航迹夹角，对应因素得分R1的计算方法为：Among them, the relative position and motion trend factors of conflicting aircraft include three indicators: S1 aircraft vertical separation and vertical approach speed, S2 aircraft horizontal separation and horizontal approach speed, and S3 track angle. The calculation method of the corresponding factor score R 1 is:
Figure FDA0002802484060000011
Figure FDA0002802484060000011
 冲突可控性因素包含S4冲突解脱时间一个指标，对应因素得分R2的计算方法为：The conflict controllability factor includes an indicator of S4 conflict resolution time, and the calculation method of the corresponding factor score R 2 is: R2＝S4 R 2 =S 4 空域运行环境因素包含S5空域繁忙程度、S6空域复杂性两个指标，对应得分R3的计算方法为：The airspace operating environment factors include two indicators: the busyness of S5 airspace and the complexity of S6 airspace. The calculation method of the corresponding score R 3 is as follows:
Figure FDA0002802484060000012
Figure FDA0002802484060000012
 基于上述三个因素，航空器飞行冲突危险性打分计算方法如下式所示：Based on the above three factors, the calculation method of aircraft flight conflict risk score is as follows: S＝100*(w1*R1+R2*w2+w3*R3)S=100*(w 1 *R 1 +R 2 *w 2 +w 3 *R 3 ) 其中，w1-w3为三个因素对应的权重，由熵权法进行计算，Si，i∈[1，6]，即上述对应因素下设的指标，每个Si下还将对应多个子指标，Si数值大小将由其下子指标值取均值后得到。Among them, w 1 -w 3 are the weights corresponding to the three factors, which are calculated by the entropy weight method . For multiple sub-indicators, the value of S i will be obtained by taking the average of the sub-indicator values. 3.根据权利要求1所述的一种基于指标体系的飞行冲突评价方法，其特征在于，所述步骤(a1)中指标包括：S1航空器垂直间隔与垂直接近速度、S2航空器水平间隔与水平接近速度、S3航迹夹角、S4冲突解脱时间、S5空域繁忙程度、S6空域复杂性，每个指标下属多个子指标。3. a kind of flight conflict evaluation method based on index system according to claim 1, is characterized in that, in described step (a1), index comprises: S1 aircraft vertical interval and vertical approach speed, S2 aircraft horizontal interval and horizontal approach Speed, S3 track angle, S4 conflict resolution time, S5 airspace busyness, S6 airspace complexity, each indicator has multiple sub-indicators. 4.根据权利要求1所述的一种基于指标体系的飞行冲突评价方法，其特征在于，每分钟的冲突航空器相对位置与运动趋势指标结果计算方法如下：4. a kind of flight conflict evaluation method based on index system according to claim 1, is characterized in that, the conflict aircraft relative position of every minute and motion trend index result calculation method are as follows: b1：飞行冲突的开始时刻Tstart和结束时Tend，选择[Tstart,Tend]作为飞行冲突评估的时间范围，将冲突分析的时间粒度设置为1秒，将该飞行冲突评测的时间范围分为m个时间片；b1: Start time T start and end time T end of flight conflict, select [T start ,T end ] as the time range of flight conflict evaluation, set the time granularity of conflict analysis to 1 second, and set the time range of flight conflict evaluation Divided into m time slices; b2：计算m个时间片的冲突航空器相对位置与运动趋势指标结果；b2: Calculate the relative position and motion trend index results of the conflicting aircraft for m time slices; b3：计算m个时间片的冲突可控性结果；b3: Calculate the conflict controllability results of m time slices; b4：计算m个时间片的空域运行环境指标结果。b4: Calculate the airspace operating environment index results for m time slices. 5.根据权利要求4所述的一种基于指标体系的飞行冲突评价方法，其特征在于，所述步骤(b2)是根据两架航空器在该时刻的经度、纬度和高度，计算两架航空器S1航空器垂直间隔与接近速度、S2航空器水平间隔与接近速度、S3航迹夹角，三个指标计算结果后相乘并取三次平方根后得到该因素的得分，具体得分对照表如下所示：5. a kind of flight conflict evaluation method based on index system according to claim 4 is characterized in that, described step (b2) is to calculate two aircraft S1 according to the longitude, latitude and altitude of two aircraft at this moment Aircraft vertical separation and approach speed, S2 aircraft horizontal separation and approach speed, and S3 track angle, the calculation results of the three indicators are multiplied and the third square root is taken to obtain the score of this factor. The specific score comparison table is as follows: c1：计算m个时间片的S1航空器垂直间隔与接近速度结果，根据航空器的垂直间隔与垂直接近速度计算并累加取得分均值；c1: Calculate the vertical separation and approach speed results of the S1 aircraft for m time slices, and calculate and accumulate the average score according to the vertical separation and vertical approach speed of the aircraft; 其中，航空器垂直间隔对应得分标准如下：Among them, the corresponding scoring standards for aircraft vertical separation are as follows:
Figure FDA0002802484060000021
Figure FDA0002802484060000021
Figure FDA0002802484060000031
Figure FDA0002802484060000031
 垂直间隔通过二次雷达/ADSB数据获取冲突航班的高度信息进行计算，上表中VS代表冲突航空器对之间的垂直间隔(单位:米)，VSm为航空器的最小垂直间隔，根据高度层的不同将产生变化，航空器在在8400米(含)以下的高度层飞行时VSm为300米，12500米(不含)以上时为600米，当航空器处于(6000米，8400米]以及(8400米,12500米]的RVSM空域飞行时VSm为300米，但是若有航空器不具备RVSM能力此时的VSm仍然为600米，打分规则按照FL>12500m的表格套用；The vertical separation is calculated by obtaining the altitude information of the conflicting flight through the secondary radar/ADSB data. In the above table, VS represents the vertical separation between the conflicting aircraft pairs (unit: meters), and VSm is the minimum vertical separation of the aircraft, according to the different altitudes. Changes will occur, the VSm is 300 meters when the aircraft is flying at an altitude below 8400 meters (inclusive), 600 meters when the aircraft is above 12500 meters (exclusive), when the aircraft is at (6000 meters, 8400 meters) and (8400 meters, The VSm is 300 meters when flying in the RVSM airspace of 12500 meters], but if there is an aircraft without RVSM capability, the VSm at this time is still 600 meters, and the scoring rules are applied according to the table of FL>12500m; 航空器垂直接近速度对应得分标准如下：The corresponding scoring standards for the vertical approach speed of the aircraft are as follows:
Figure FDA0002802484060000032
Figure FDA0002802484060000032
 上表中VS表示航空器对的垂直接近速度，单位为米/分钟；In the above table, VS represents the vertical approach speed of the aircraft pair, in m/min; c2：计算m个时间片的S2航空器水平间隔与接近速度结果，根据航空器的水平间隔与水平接近速度计算并累加取得分均值；c2: Calculate the horizontal separation and approach speed results of the S2 aircraft for m time slices, and calculate and accumulate the average score according to the horizontal separation and horizontal approach speed of the aircraft; 其中，航空器水平间隔对应得分标准如下：Among them, the corresponding scoring standards for aircraft horizontal separation are as follows:
Figure FDA0002802484060000033
Figure FDA0002802484060000033
 水平间隔通过二次雷达/ADSB数据获取冲突航班的经纬度信息进行计算，上表中HS代表冲突航空器对之间的水平间隔，单位为米，雷达管制HSM 6000米含以下为6公里，6000米以上为10公里；The horizontal separation is calculated by obtaining the latitude and longitude information of the conflicting flight from the secondary radar/ADSB data. In the above table, HS represents the horizontal separation between the conflicting aircraft pairs, in meters. The radar control HSM is 6 kilometers below 6000 meters and above 6000 meters. is 10 kilometers; 航空器水平接近速度对应得分标准如下：The corresponding scoring standards for aircraft horizontal approach speed are as follows:
Figure FDA0002802484060000041
Figure FDA0002802484060000041
 上表中CR表示航空器对的水平接近速度，单位为公里/小时，水平接近速度采用余弦定理计算，即计算冲突航空器的显示地速矢量差值；In the above table, CR represents the horizontal approach speed of the aircraft pair, in km/h. The horizontal approach speed is calculated by the cosine law, that is, the displayed ground speed vector difference of the conflicting aircraft is calculated; c3:根据航迹夹角θ所在区间，判断该S3航迹夹角指标的得分；c3: According to the interval of the included track angle θ, determine the score of the S3 track included angle index; 具体评分标准如下；The specific scoring criteria are as follows; 当θ≥135°，计100分；When θ≥135°, 100 points are counted; 当45°≤θ＜135°，计50分；When 45°≤θ<135°, 50 points are counted; 当θ＜45°，计25分；When θ<45°, 25 points are counted; 得分越高，表明越危险。The higher the score, the more dangerous it is. 6.根据权利要求4所述的一种基于指标体系的飞行冲突评价方法，其特征在于，所述冲突可控性通过S4冲突解脱时间进行计算，对应评分标准如下：6. a kind of flight conflict evaluation method based on index system according to claim 4, is characterized in that, described conflict controllability is calculated by S4 conflict resolution time, and corresponding scoring standard is as follows:
Figure FDA0002802484060000042
Figure FDA0002802484060000042
 7.根据权利要求4所述的一种基于指标体系的飞行冲突评价方法，其特征在于，所述航空器飞行冲突发生时段空域内的空域运行环境包含S5空域繁忙程度和S6空域复杂性两个层面，两个指标的计算结果累乘后开方得到相应因素的得分，具体评分标准如下：7. A kind of flight conflict evaluation method based on index system according to claim 4, it is characterized in that, the airspace operating environment in the airspace during the time period when the aircraft flight conflict occurs includes two levels of S5 airspace busyness and S6 airspace complexity , the calculation results of the two indicators are multiplied and squared to obtain the scores of the corresponding factors. The specific scoring standards are as follows: d1:计算m个时间片的S5空域繁忙程度结果，根据流容比和通话饱和度计算并累加取得分均值，对应的评分标准如下：d1: Calculate the S5 airspace busyness result of m time slices, calculate and accumulate the average score according to the flow capacity ratio and call saturation, and the corresponding scoring standards are as follows:
Figure FDA0002802484060000043
Figure FDA0002802484060000043
Figure FDA0002802484060000051
Figure FDA0002802484060000051
 上表中FCR即空域单元流容比；In the above table, FCR is the airspace unit flow-to-capacity ratio; 冲突发生波道通话饱和度对应的评分标准如下：The scoring criteria corresponding to the saturation of the channel in which the conflict occurs are as follows:
Figure FDA0002802484060000052
Figure FDA0002802484060000052
 上表中R即波道的通话饱和度；R in the above table is the call saturation of the channel; d2：计算m个时间片的S6空域复杂性结果，根据潜在冲突航空器数计算得分，对应的评分标准如下：d2: Calculate the S6 airspace complexity results for m time slices, and calculate the score according to the number of potential conflicting aircraft. The corresponding scoring criteria are as follows: 其中潜在冲突航空器数对应的评分标准为：The scoring criteria corresponding to the number of potentially conflicting aircraft are:
Figure FDA0002802484060000053
Figure FDA0002802484060000053
 上表中的N，即代表了潜在冲突航空器数。N in the above table represents the number of potentially conflicting aircraft. 8.根据权利要求1所述的一种基于指标体系的飞行冲突评价方法，基于信息熵计算冲突航空器相对位置与运动趋势因素、冲突可控性因素以及空域运行环境因素的权重，其特征在于，所述权重的计算方法是：8. a kind of flight conflict evaluation method based on index system according to claim 1, calculates the weight of conflict aircraft relative position and motion trend factor, conflict controllability factor and airspace operating environment factor based on information entropy, it is characterized in that, The calculation method of the weight is: e1：根据m个时间片、n个指标，构造初始评判矩阵e1: Construct an initial evaluation matrix according to m time slices and n indicators A＝(aij)m×n A=(a ij ) m×n aij表示第i个方案里第j个指标的度量值；a ij represents the metric value of the j-th indicator in the i-th scheme; e2：将初始评判矩阵标准化后得出矩阵：e2: The matrix is obtained after normalizing the initial judgment matrix: B＝(bij)m×n B=(b ij ) m×n
Figure FDA0002802484060000054
Figure FDA0002802484060000054
 e3：计算第j个指标的信息熵e3: Calculate the information entropy of the jth indicator
Figure FDA0002802484060000055
Figure FDA0002802484060000055
 e4：计算差异性系数e4: Calculate the coefficient of variance dj＝1-ej d j =1-e j e5：计算各指标权值e5: Calculate the weight of each indicator
Figure FDA0002802484060000061
Figure FDA0002802484060000061
 所得wj即为第j个评价指标的权重，所有指标的权重集为W＝{w1，w2，…wn}。The obtained w j is the weight of the j-th evaluation index, and the weight set of all the indexes is W={w 1 , w 2 , ···w n }.
CN202011355532.9A 2020-11-27 2020-11-27 Flight conflict evaluation method based on index system Active CN112562421B (en)

Priority Applications (1)

Application Number Priority Date Filing Date Title
CN202011355532.9A CN112562421B (en) 2020-11-27 2020-11-27 Flight conflict evaluation method based on index system

Applications Claiming Priority (1)

Application Number Priority Date Filing Date Title
CN202011355532.9A CN112562421B (en) 2020-11-27 2020-11-27 Flight conflict evaluation method based on index system

Publications (2)

Publication Number Publication Date
CN112562421A true CN112562421A (en) 2021-03-26
CN112562421B CN112562421B (en) 2022-04-12

Family

ID=75046176

Family Applications (1)

Application Number Title Priority Date Filing Date
CN202011355532.9A Active CN112562421B (en) 2020-11-27 2020-11-27 Flight conflict evaluation method based on index system

Country Status (1)

Country Link
CN (1) CN112562421B (en)

Cited By (2)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Publication number Priority date Publication date Assignee Title
CN113284369A (en) * 2021-05-14 2021-08-20 中国民航大学 Prediction method for actual measurement airway data based on ADS-B
CN118587941A (en) * 2024-08-05 2024-09-03 飞友科技有限公司 A flight conflict resolution method and system

Citations (16)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Publication number Priority date Publication date Assignee Title
US20110270473A1 (en) * 2010-04-29 2011-11-03 Reynolds Zachary R Systems and methods for providing a vertical profile for an in-trail procedure
CN102509476A (en) * 2011-11-01 2012-06-20 四川川大智胜软件股份有限公司 Short-period flight conflict relieving method
US20120215433A1 (en) * 2011-02-22 2012-08-23 Lockheed Martin Corporation Methods and systems for managing air traffic
CN102903263A (en) * 2012-09-28 2013-01-30 北京航空航天大学 Method and device used for removing flight conflicts and based on packet mode
CN105489069A (en) * 2016-01-15 2016-04-13 中国民航管理干部学院 SVM-based low-altitude airspace navigation airplane conflict detection method
CN106097233A (en) * 2016-05-31 2016-11-09 中国民航大学 A kind of Route reform conflict Resolution method of case-based reasioning
CN106373435A (en) * 2016-10-14 2017-02-01 中国民用航空飞行学院 Non-centralized safety interval autonomous keeping system for pilot
CN106875755A (en) * 2017-02-28 2017-06-20 中国人民解放军空军装备研究院雷达与电子对抗研究所 A kind of air traffic conflict management method and device based on complexity
US9990854B1 (en) * 2016-03-15 2018-06-05 Rockwell Collins, Inc. Unmanned aerial system mission flight representation conversion techniques and traffic management scheme
CN109191923A (en) * 2018-09-25 2019-01-11 中国人民解放军国防科技大学 Unmanned aerial vehicle flight conflict resolution method and system
CN109830127A (en) * 2018-12-26 2019-05-31 南京航空航天大学 It is marched into the arena 4D path planning method based on an aircraft for fusion program
CN109887341A (en) * 2019-03-01 2019-06-14 中国民航大学 A Fast Detection Method of Flight Conflict Based on Adjacent Grid
CN110659797A (en) * 2019-08-09 2020-01-07 中国船舶重工集团公司第七0九研究所 Method and system for evaluating flight conflict resolution control instruction
EP3716248A1 (en) * 2019-03-29 2020-09-30 Honeywell International Inc. Systems and methods for dynamically detecting moving object trajectory conflict using estimated times of arrival
CN111739347A (en) * 2020-06-05 2020-10-02 南京航空航天大学 A method and device for autonomous trajectory planning and conflict resolution applied to free-routing airspace
CN111862685A (en) * 2020-06-18 2020-10-30 大蓝洞(南京)科技有限公司 An Evaluation Method of Flight Conflict Based on Multidimensional Indicators

Patent Citations (16)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Publication number Priority date Publication date Assignee Title
US20110270473A1 (en) * 2010-04-29 2011-11-03 Reynolds Zachary R Systems and methods for providing a vertical profile for an in-trail procedure
US20120215433A1 (en) * 2011-02-22 2012-08-23 Lockheed Martin Corporation Methods and systems for managing air traffic
CN102509476A (en) * 2011-11-01 2012-06-20 四川川大智胜软件股份有限公司 Short-period flight conflict relieving method
CN102903263A (en) * 2012-09-28 2013-01-30 北京航空航天大学 Method and device used for removing flight conflicts and based on packet mode
CN105489069A (en) * 2016-01-15 2016-04-13 中国民航管理干部学院 SVM-based low-altitude airspace navigation airplane conflict detection method
US9990854B1 (en) * 2016-03-15 2018-06-05 Rockwell Collins, Inc. Unmanned aerial system mission flight representation conversion techniques and traffic management scheme
CN106097233A (en) * 2016-05-31 2016-11-09 中国民航大学 A kind of Route reform conflict Resolution method of case-based reasioning
CN106373435A (en) * 2016-10-14 2017-02-01 中国民用航空飞行学院 Non-centralized safety interval autonomous keeping system for pilot
CN106875755A (en) * 2017-02-28 2017-06-20 中国人民解放军空军装备研究院雷达与电子对抗研究所 A kind of air traffic conflict management method and device based on complexity
CN109191923A (en) * 2018-09-25 2019-01-11 中国人民解放军国防科技大学 Unmanned aerial vehicle flight conflict resolution method and system
CN109830127A (en) * 2018-12-26 2019-05-31 南京航空航天大学 It is marched into the arena 4D path planning method based on an aircraft for fusion program
CN109887341A (en) * 2019-03-01 2019-06-14 中国民航大学 A Fast Detection Method of Flight Conflict Based on Adjacent Grid
EP3716248A1 (en) * 2019-03-29 2020-09-30 Honeywell International Inc. Systems and methods for dynamically detecting moving object trajectory conflict using estimated times of arrival
CN110659797A (en) * 2019-08-09 2020-01-07 中国船舶重工集团公司第七0九研究所 Method and system for evaluating flight conflict resolution control instruction
CN111739347A (en) * 2020-06-05 2020-10-02 南京航空航天大学 A method and device for autonomous trajectory planning and conflict resolution applied to free-routing airspace
CN111862685A (en) * 2020-06-18 2020-10-30 大蓝洞(南京)科技有限公司 An Evaluation Method of Flight Conflict Based on Multidimensional Indicators

Non-Patent Citations (3)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Title
丛玮: "空中交通多尺度行为模式识别方法研究", 《中国博士学位论文全文数据库（电子期刊）》 *
焦卫东等: "基于ADS-B的通用航空飞行冲突解脱算法", 《信号处理》 *
王涛波等: "基于扩展摩尔邻域的自由飞行冲突风险研究", 《交通运输系统工程与信息》 *

Cited By (4)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Publication number Priority date Publication date Assignee Title
CN113284369A (en) * 2021-05-14 2021-08-20 中国民航大学 Prediction method for actual measurement airway data based on ADS-B
CN113284369B (en) * 2021-05-14 2022-07-01 中国民航大学 Prediction method for actually measured airway data based on ADS-B
CN118587941A (en) * 2024-08-05 2024-09-03 飞友科技有限公司 A flight conflict resolution method and system
CN118587941B (en) * 2024-08-05 2024-10-25 飞友科技有限公司 A flight conflict resolution method and system

Also Published As

Publication number Publication date
CN112562421B (en) 2022-04-12

Similar Documents

Publication Publication Date Title
US12165528B2 (en) Flight management method and system using same
CN108710623B (en) Airport departure delay time prediction method based on time series similarity measurement
CN111508279B (en) A method of setting up a weather shelter
CN112562421A (en) Flight conflict evaluation method based on index system
Dai et al. Modeling go-around occurrence using principal component logistic regression
US10607496B2 (en) System and method to assist pilots in determining aircraft phase transition time based on monitored clearance information
CN105550473A (en) Heavy landing prediction method based on support vector machine classification
CN111862685B (en) Flight conflict evaluation method based on multi-dimensional indexes
Sherry et al. Big data analysis of irregular operations: Aborted approaches and their underlying factors
Wang et al. The effect of psychological risk elements on pilot flight operational performance
He et al. Trends and characteristics of incidents in China civil aviation: 1994–2020
CN115879800A (en) Flight management delay post-incident analysis method based on data intelligence
Standfuss et al. Applicability of Current Complexity Metrics in ATM Performance Benchmarking and Potential Benefits of Considering Weather Conditions
CN116052481B (en) Aviation convection avoidance zone identification processing method, system and storage medium
Haynie An investigation of capacity and safety in near-terminal airspace for guiding information technology adoption
Janakiraman et al. Using ADOPT algorithm and operational data to discover precursors to aviation adverse events
Dy et al. Airspace Saturation and Midair Collision Risk: A Case Study at a Class D Airport
CN111695694B (en) Strategic flight schedule evaluation method based on machine learning prediction
Oh et al. An analysis of runway accident precursors based on latent class model
Gariel et al. On the statistics and predictability of go-arounds
Nakahara et al. Estimating current & future system-wide benefits of airport surface congestion management
AU2021286779A1 (en) System and method for fast and reliable detection of the complexity of air sectors
Vishnyakova et al. A solution to the problem of assessing aviation safety by simulation modeling
Anderson et al. Analysis of flight delays in aviation system using different classification algorithms and feature selection methods
Majumdar et al. A trend analysis of air traffic occurrences in the UK airspace

Legal Events

Date Code Title Description
PB01 Publication
PB01 Publication
SE01 Entry into force of request for substantive examination
SE01 Entry into force of request for substantive examination
GR01 Patent grant
GR01 Patent grant