AE4321 Air Traffic Management

Session A: Conflcit Detection & Resolution

Jacco Hoekstra

1|
 Sessions
A. Conflict Detection & Resolution (Fri 16 Feb, lect room A)

B. Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) (Fri 23 Feb, lect room A)

C. Trajectory Optimization (Fri 2 Mar, lect room B)

D. Trajectory prediction (machine learning) (Thu 8 Mar, CT room C,

hour 3+4)

E. Approach (& Descent) (Fri 16 Mar, lect room A)

F. Flow Management & PBN (Perf. Based Navigation) (Fri 23 Mar, LR A)

Wrap-up Tuesday March 27th LR lect room D 3rd & 4th hour:
Exam example questions
2|
Logistics of the next mini-conferences
• Intro and/or summary:
• Exam material you need to know for exam
• Context information

• 4 presentations per session.

• No break

• But drinks & cookies in or close to the lecture room

• Hand in essay and powerpoint files on Monday before your session: mail
them to Joost Ellerboek (j.ellerbroek@tudelft.nl) and Jacco Hoekstra
(j.m.hoekstra@tudelft.nl) Feedback mail will be sent with required
corrections/tips

• Critical thinking required: challenge speakers and authors on

conclusions!
3|
 Categories of studies/papers
1. Descriptive (system, concept, simulation, framework)

2. Mathematical analysis (sometimes with a validation of a type

below)

3. Data analysis using existing, often operational, data

4. Fast-time simulations/desktop simulations (effect of inter-action)

5. Human-in-the-loop simulations (air, ground, air+ground)

6. Flight tests (testing real systems in controlled scenario)

7. Meta studies (comparison, overview of different studies)

4|
References you will often see
• SESAR/SESAR 2020: European ATM Research program

• NextGen/NAS : US ATM research program

• BADA: Eurocontrol's aircraft performance data (point mass models)

• TBO: Trajectory based Operations (typically 4D TBO)

• Capacity-Safety: trade-off

• Specific Operations (parallel approaches, ground delay)

• E-OCVM: European Operational Concept Validation Methodology

• TRL: Technology Readiness Level

5|
3 leading conferences in ATM
• FAA/Eurocontrol Air Traffic Management Seminar
(ATM Seminar) every two years, so every odd year,
alternates US/Europe

• International Conference of Research in Air Transportation

(ICRAT),
every two years, every even years, alternates US/Europe

• SESAR Innovation Days (SIDs) (yearly)

Differences:
• ATM seminar aimed at ATM professionals
• ICRAT aimed at ATM academics
• SIDs: aimed at European ATM research

6|
7|
TRL
Technology Readiness Levels

8|
Air Traffic Control over the years
• Watching the scope and talking to traffic

• Same principle applies

9|
Innovation in ATM is hard
• ATM is a global system
• Revolutionary, global vs. evolutionary, local change

• Interdependencies, distributed costs & benefits:

• Airports
• Airlines (Manufacturers of avionics /aircraft)
• ANSPs
• Geographically

• Politics/Stakeholders:
• role change
• unions

10 |
Politics, money, interests play a role

• ‘Stakeholders”:
• Airlines
• Airports
• Air Traffic Service providers
• Authorities

• TCAS introduction

• ASAS means:
• Airborne Separation Assurance System 1993-2005
• Airborne Separation Assistance System 2003-2015
• Aircraft Surveillance Application System 2014- now?
• Future: …….?

11 |
TUDelft
CNS/ATM Chair Research themes

1. ATM Foundation: Provide better understanding of ATM

2. ADS-B: Surveillance, big dat and apllications

3. General Aviation CNS/ATM Technology

4. UAV CNS/ATM Technology

5. Schiphol Mainport and NL related actual issues

12 |
 Capacity &
Environment Safety GOALS
Efficiency

Humans Systems MEANS

13 |
ATM solutions: Concept, technology
• Three axes:
• Task allocation and integration of air and ground
• Task allocation human vs. system
• Task timing (lookahead time): strategic vs tactical

Flight phase dependent?

• Taxiing
air • Take-off
• Climb
• Cruise
• Descent
ground • Approach
• Final Approach
• Landing
human strategic • Taxiing
automation
tactical

14 |
Definitions used in CD&R
• Strategic prevention by airspace & procedures (intrinsic)

• Strategic CD&R: plan the 4D trajectory beforehand

• Tactical CD&R: reactive conflict detection & resolution

• Intent based CD&R: Use flight plan information for prediction,

plan a new, modified flight plan or waypoint(s)

• State-based CD&R: Use current position & velocity for conflict

detection & resolution

• Conflict: predicited loss of separation

• Intrusion: Loss of seperation
• Collision: Most catastrophic result of loss of separation

15 |
Why airborne?
Distributed vs. central
Conflict
rate
1000

900

pc g = 12 N ( N − 1) p2
800

700

600
Pc/P2

Air
500
Ground
400

300

200
pca = ( N − 1) p2
100

0
0 10 20 30 40
Number of aircraft in sector

• Affects workload, safety and technological requirements

16 |
Coordination: Implicit/explicit

• Explicit coordination: hand-shaking, sending messages with

preferred resolution or priority

• Possible drawbacks: time-outs, multi-aircraft conflicts

• Implicit coordination: rules of the air, using geometry, …

• Possible drawbacks: rule complexity, also multi-aircraft conflicts!

17 |
Coordination: Priority/No priority
Priority rules:
• Halves the workload,
• Lower risk of unstable situations due to less maneuvering
• Easy to communicate to pilots/controllers
• One actor solves conflict completely

No priority:
• Introduces fail-safe resolutions into system
• Better at solving congested airspaces due to conflict propagation

Or use combination:
• First priority (lookahead times 3-7 minutes), then co-operative
(lookahead times within 5 minutes)

18 |
Coordination: multi-aircraft conflicts?
When experiencing a conflict with more than one aircraft at the
same time, this is called a multi-aircraft conflict. Intruder might not
be aware and have a single aircraft conflict.

• Summing: Calculate resolution vectors and sum them

Works well when in different dimensions
takes into account urgency when solved in same dimension

• Sequential:
Focus on first conflict, let other aircraft take care of second
conflict until then

• Search total solution: e.g. in solution space diagram, and if not

possible revert to above tactics?

19 |
 State vs. intent

Using intent information enhances prediction:

• Fewer missed alerts
Δh
• Fewer false alerts
Δh

Problems with intent:

• Ambiguity in path definition (legs/turns/change in AP mode)
• False or inaccurate intent information
• Risk of very short-term conflicts
• Not always available

20 |
Separation Standards ICAO Doc
4444
• Radar separation: 5 nm - 1000 ft 0.1 nm - 100 ft
• En-route: mostly 5 nautical miles
(sometimes 10 nm)
• TMA: 3 nm

• When aircraft within distance less than 5 nautical miles and less
than 1000 ft altitude difference, this is called a loss-of-
separation

• Conflict is a predicted loss of separation, uses protected aircraft

zone (PAZ)

• Near miss/Near Mid-Air Collision (NMAC) (US) /Airprox (UK CAA

reports)

21 |
Buffer and conflict severity
• En-route radar separation minima: R=5 nm and H=1000 ft

• What does this mean?

H
H
R R

H H

22 |
Buffer and conflict severity
• En-route radar separation minima: R=5 nm and H=1000 ft

• What does this mean?

H
H
R R

H H

23 |
 Buffer and conflict severity
• En-route radar separation minima: R=5 nm and H=1000 ft

• What does this mean?

dx

H X dh
H
R R

H H

= max ( min ( H − dh(t ), R − dx (t ) ) )

Severity

24 |
Session A Conflict Detection & Resolution
A1: Salomon Voorhoeve A2: Matthijs Baurichter
& Jan Siblesz & Michiel Aarts

A3: Robin Vervaat & A4: Ruben Wink &

Ralph van Sunten Sam Hofman

25 |